Definition

Definition Introduction One of my pet peeves is that people don't seem especially interested in the meaning of things. Ask anyone for a definition of the word love, and what you are most likely to get is: “love is like . . .” or “it's that feeling you get when . . .”.

Obviously, love is an issue central to most, but few will offer up an intelligible definition, if indeed, they know how to define, rather than explain. In an attempt to derive a more personal definition of the word, some years back, I went to the dictionary with an off-the-wall plan.

The plan involved a simple determination on my part, namely: to decide what seemed to be the key word within the definition. The subsequent steps were as follow: look up the definition of the key word, and then determine the key word of that definition. Many would have found the whole affair tedious and boring, but I persevered.

In the end, I completed a quite lengthy circuit that ended with the key word: 'love'. That is not to say that I ever achieved that personal definition I sought, but I did come away with a broader sense of the word. Ask another for that, or ask yourself. Would you be like the preacher faced with an unresponsive audience?

The preacher says 'love' – no 'amen' in return, only silence. Obviously, he had not made the word clear; he had not gotten across. So he takes a deep breath, and squeezes the word above the heads of his crowd like a trail of toothpaste: “LoooOoOvvVVeee!!!” The word comes out twisted and forced, as if that might somehow define the concept he wants to put forth. Silence. Blank faces. Now the preacher must pull out all the stops.

The word booms forth like a canon shot, complete with echo, and poignant silence.

“LOVE!!!” (love, love, love) (shhhh) “Can I get an Amen?!” This you get, but no definition. Over the years, I have felt an increasing need for definition as a starting point of communication, and understanding. What if you and I were having a discussion that hinged on the definition of the word 'love'? Would we even be on the same page? I might have worked out that love is actually something more concrete than a warm fuzzy feeling, but you might still subscribe to the warm and fuzzy.

I might say: “stoic” or “austere” and you might only hear: “warm” or “fuzzy”. Now, I am not so much attempting to harp on that one word, or to assume a superior stance by comparison, but I do maintain the need for definition. That is the shape of things, after all, without the which we are left with nothing more than flab and fluff.

I have attempted, in my writings, to be more concise, and to strive toward an actual

definition of the concepts I put forth. This writing finds me, once more, struggling with the issues of definition and effective communication. I used the word love as a lead in, as an example, but I have done no more than touch lightly upon it. Perhaps, I may come back to it. But, I wish to touch first on the broader implications.

We employ so many common expressions in our conversations, so many concepts that, at least to me, we seem to accept in an all too cavalier manner, as if none of it really matters. I see the possibility that it really does matter, and I hope there is someone somewhere who feels the same way. Let us strike up a conversation, and determine definitions together. Let us gather all our lambs into the pen and see which are mottled, ringstraked, or white.

One While I began this writing with the word love, as an example, what actually prompted this was a curiosity for a Biblical expression used by Jesus, and that is what I would like to begin with in earnest. This is the expression: “straight and narrow”.

What is “straight and narrow”? Let's examine the full quote. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” That is found in Matthew 7:13-14.

An inspection of the variant spelling is called for. We normally compare the spelling of 'straight', which is used elsewhere in scripture, and the spelling of 'strait', as used in this particular passage, only to conclude that it is just more of that unintelligible King James stuff. Our response to such things is to immediately move on. Yet, there is something about the spelling of strait that should cause us to do a double-take.

I went to Wikipedia for clarification, as I often do. What I discovered surprised me. A strait is a narrow channel of water that connects two larger bodies of water, and that separates two bodies of earth. Another word for strait is 'passage'. I came away with three concomitant concepts: 'water', 'connection', and 'passage'.

It may be that the gate we are urged to enter has much to do with water. At this point, it may be an easy step to include the washing rituals of the early temple as well as the baptism ritual of Christianity. Water may thus be easily seen as the connection that joins two larger bodies. Here, we must think of the water of life connecting life to life.

Another point of interest, here, is the alternate application of the word 'passage'. It is possible that the gate through which we may enter is, in actuality, a Biblical passage, perhaps one concerning ritual washing, or baptism.

Such matters require due inspection. Again – permit me to return later to this topic in particular. I think the direction of this writing demands a broader scope, one that includes the many expressions and concepts of scripture we normally move past without much thought. Words, terms, and expressions, that cry out for definition, must be gathered, sorted, and approached topically.

But then, how would one ultimately derive a definition? Should common usage of a word or expression be settled upon, one must surely agree that 'common usage' is a fleeting sprite. It changes from age to age. Indeed, within my own lifetime, I have seen 'common usage' vary. The word 'gay' used to mean 'happy' – but sub-cultural connotations have altered that. Likewise, the word 'ain't' – formerly resisted tooth and nail – has been included into the lexicon of common use.

Should Biblical definition hold sway, modern definition might suffer loss. Our Bible puts forth the concept that we should not allow a witch to live. That was a standard that continued into the American colonies, where, in Salem Massachusetts, witches were tortured and killed. We do no define witches as worthy of death in our modern day – application of law has altered the meaning in this case.

On the other hand, modern definition would negate much of what we hold dear as spiritual truth. Modern tendencies hold more with physical facts and figures that may be measured – more with affections and affectations that would villainize spiritual standards as harsh and cruel. Modern definition alone would be destructive by way of its non-confrontational, live-and-let-live attitudes.

As to the thoughts of our hearts, we must let reason have its way. Reason is a spiritual function that is not limited to 'modern' or 'Biblical' or 'common use'. Reason rises above them all, and includes what is good and right from each. We are simply not accustomed to such a synthesis, but whoever approaches an accurate definition must remain respectfully open-minded to each source and application.

We're looking for meaning. Read correctly, the Bible offers just that. The parables of Christ are two-fold: on the one hand they are like a key that gets us through a door we want to open; on the other hand they are like the door that bars entrance to all but those who have the key.

Growing together

Isn't it cool how talking about something common and ordinary can either enlighten some people as to meaning, or else from others keep it hidden? Christ explained meaning through the common place. “So is the kingdom of God.” Christ could take a dumb farmer, and with him explain the mysteries of the universe. Let us take the clue: a farmer represents the man who is working toward a goal, meaning-oflife-wise, a seeker of truth – someone with a plan.

Like the farmer, any of us may be “a man (who) casts his seed into the ground.” We may “sleep and rise night and day,” maintaining our quest with all diligence. Yet, to spite all of our most heroic efforts, what we are after is a thing that pretty much takes care of itself: “the seed should spring and grow,” and we are left to confess our ignorance: “he knoweth not how.”

Even in our modern age of information, there are farmers who are no experts in the botanical sciences. Some of them are as dumb as they come, but they can plant a field and reap the harvest. Their labors, even in their ignorance, will lead them to the purpose and meaning of their profession.

One of the complaints lodged against the faithful is that they do not have the science, or the facts and figures, on their side. I say, that is precisely the hopeful message found in the parables of Christ. One need not be an expert seeker of truth to find truth. I was fluent in no particular language when I began to speak. As we know through faith, the thousand mile journey of a farmer begins and ends with a single step. To find meaning, to achieve purpose, we need only be the farmer.

“The earth brings forth fruit of herself, first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.” We need only take it a step at a time. When everything falls into place, we reach out and seize truth, meaning, purpose – “because the harvest is come.”

Judgment

In this next parable, Christ presents 'a creditor with two debtors'. It is found in Luke 7:41-43. In this parable, Christ touches upon our responsibility as children of God. To be like God, which is to be like the son of God, one must employ the same mind set, the same nature, the same predilection of character.

Is this a parable about forgiveness? In a way, yes it is – but that is really too simple for such a parable. Everyone already practiced a form of forgiveness: it was a matter of Jewish law. Even when it was shallow and meaningless, it was still a matter of legal implementation.

Had this parable been about forgiveness, one debtor would have sufficed to tell the story.

The forgiveness, as we see plainly in the text, was a given: “frankly forgave them both”.

We see in the choice of wording (frankly, which means honestly or candidly) that this particular act was the genuine article rather than mere practice.

Both debtors received an equal forgiveness, even though their debts, 500 as opposed to 50 pence, was anything but equal. In consideration of the amounts, we note two facts: pence was not that big of a deal to the creditor, that was the basic unit, and the word from which we get our modern 'penny'. At the same time, if one could not pay 50 cents and the other could not pay 5 dollars, admittedly, they were poorer than dirt.

Simon was asked to determine one and only one salient point: of the two forgiven debtors, “which will love him (the forgiving creditor) most”? This is the same point that all of us must also determine. It is a simple test, and one with an obvious answer. Simon got the point. Will you?

An earlier iteration was that Christ touches upon our responsibility as children of God, for to be like God, or to be like Christ, we must employ the same mind set, the same nature, the same predilection of character. We are called upon to employ judgment, a thing we do daily in a multitude of cases. We judge: that is how we know, how we navigate. Sadly, many of our judgments are baseless opinions –and that touches upon the meaning of this parable.

We are called upon to achieve a measure of spiritual correctness, or righteousness. If we can manage that, then we may be sure we are on the same page with Simon when Christ affirms “Thou hast rightly judged”.

Are you a Samaritan?

“How do you read what is in the law?” That is my own paraphrase. Indeed, how do we read what we read? Not everyone gets the same thing out of reading the same thing –

even though the words are all there before us in black and white. They are the same for us as they are for others – exactly the same. So why don't we get the same thing?

This parable comes to us from Luke 10:26-37. Some of us read from strength; some of us read from weakness. Some of us read from freedom while others read through bars and chains. We get different things, not because the law, or the words are different, but because we are different.

So, we sit in conversation, and compare our different takes on what we think we know.

Sometimes a consensus affords a greater understanding to all involved. At other times, one knows more, and teaches the rest of us. Christ was the teacher in this parable. He taught the lawyer what we may only suppose the lawyer should have already known.

The lawyer merely recites the law as it was given. No lawyer was required for that, as any one who attended the Sabbath readings was bound to remember the words. Like so many of us in our age, the lawyer presumed the meaning automatically came with the words. He said, “Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Most of us have little inclination to struggle past the face value, whereas meaning is actually hard won. It is earned through work. But, who really works at definition? We don't ever trouble ourselves with that, because it is in a dictionary somewhere. The sad thing is, we go on using our words as 'meaning-included', yet, we haven't ever consulted the dictionary.

So Jesus tells him, “This do, and thou shalt live.” Exactly here is where one of two things must occur. Either there must be an exchange leading to a consensus, or one must teach while the others learn. It is at this point where the work of definition and meaning

must commence.

The original question was “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” So Jesus answered, 'do the law and you will live.' But here's the ticker – the lawyer wasn't asking for information he, or any other, had missed in the Sabbath readings, he was trying to be clever. He was tempting Jesus.

The lawyer recited words as 'meaning-included', but it was Christ who offered definition. This story is recorded for the ages. It remains before us in black and white, but it is only a door that may be opened by those willing to work for it. This is the point where we are given such a privilege.

This yoke is easy, and this burden is light, for we only have to look up the meaning that Christ gave us. We find it in John 17:3, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

We have the meaning of life before us in black and white. The lawyer, continuing his ruse, dismissed the opportunity we just availed ourselves of. He was not truly interested in meaning. He asked, “Who is my neighbor?”

So Christ begins the parable of the good Samaritan. As we know, a parable will achieve two simultaneous results. It will offer meaning and definition to those willing to work for it, and it will deny meaning and definition to those who dismiss the opportunity.

The elements of the parable are these: A man robbed, wounded, and left for dead.

A man ignored and shunned by the privileged. A man helped by a commoner, a working man, a man held in low esteem – a Samaritan.

At the end of the parable, Christ asked the lawyer, 'Who was the neighbor?' Now the lawyer was only there to trip Jesus in a flurry of legalisms, but his word games backfired. It was the lawyer who got tripped. He answered, 'The one that showed mercy.'

Lesson learned. Here is the spiritual approach to truth, definition, and meaning. While we are concerned with who our neighbor is, Christ teaches us to 'go and be the neighbor.'

Prayer fine-tuned In Luke 11:5-13, Christ begins a short parable with a question to his disciples. He had just taught them how to pray. In other words, he had taught them how to approach God with a personal request. Using their own experience, he presented a scenario, and asked them how it would most likely play out.

These are the elements of the query: approach a friend and ask for help at an inconvenient hour, the friend has settled his household for the night, his children are asleep in bed.

The scenario is easy to visualize. I see a man clutching his night clothes answering in whispers from an upstairs window: “Shoo! Go away,” he says, “You'll wake the children.” At that point, the friendship matters less than his family obligations.

From my own experience, I can say, the whole day is filled with more convenient times.

When I get home from work, and I am resting – enjoying and making the most of the few hours left to my day, I am less likely to accept a visitor, or even a phone call.

Likewise, my wife settles into her evening hours after a day spent in cleaning, ordering her house, working in the yard, and other activities – all of which tax her reserves of energy and patience. In the evening, she likes to watch her soaps. She is hard pressed to take a call even from a brother or sister.

The householder in the parable is reluctant to be disturbed. Yet, he sees that the most effective return to his ordered peace is to give his friend whatever he wants, and send him quickly on his way. Christ points out to his disciples that even though the householder is not motivated by the friendship, he is moved by the importunity.

It is a life lesson many of us already understand. But, there is more. The parable falls between two important points. The first was the prayer Christ had just explained to his disciples. The second was his affirmations on asking, seeking, and knocking.

He continued by asking his disciples a series of questions with obvious answers. This he did to show natural consequence. The obvious answers were things that occurred commonly – rather like the cause and effect of family ties. The point was, if they could

give what was asked for, being sinners, then surely a righteous God could.

The entire exchange relayed through these verses targets prayer, or making a request of God. It is put forth that God is not subject to importunity, as the householder of the parable was. The relationship between God, our heavenly Father, and man is also put forth. Moreover, it is not only the asking of prayer that is considered, but seeking and knocking as well.

The topics of seeking and knocking may be dealt with separately – suffice it to say that the iterated 'asking' is shown to be something not broad and general, but rather, a thing fine-tuned and specific. The point that Christ comes to is specific, and relates to the initial prayer that he taught his disciples. The point is precisely this: one thing is asked for in prayer, that being the Holy Spirit (the mind of God.) Do the Math Next parable, Luke 12:16-20. 'A man with a large harvest thought to pull down his old barns and build new'. It's that point many of us know and want. The upgrade; the one-up.

In a sense, exchanging several old inadequate barns for one large state-of-the-art storage facility is comparable to the merchant who sold his little pearls in order to buy the pearl of great price.

'I have no room where to bestow my fruits'. It was a simple matter of logistics. The fact that he had a large harvest – what does that tell you? It tells me that he was not scratching out a simple existence. More likely, he sold his goods. The fact of several smaller barns speaks of expansion. The new storage facility speaks of a level of success that permitted the business to take the next logical step.

These elements are not the story, merely the backdrop. The story is the man's attitude of pride, his selfish driven quest for more, and of course, the blind spot in his reasoning.

With greater storage filled to the max, he got cocky and proud. He thought he could live off his plenty for years, but he didn't know he was soon to die and leave everything to others.

'I will say to my soul' is a statement comparable to the pat on the back one gives oneself upon reaching a personal milestone. Such markers are reached in due time, and through no small measure of hardship. Doubtless, the man in this parable was an older man who had worked hard for many years to get where he was. He looked forward to many more years, years of ease, living off the fruit of his labors, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that – except the math.

People die. They died sooner back then. Everyone of us faces such a point in our lives: namely the end of our lives. Many of us are hard workers, and frugal, saving up for our retirements – hoping for a few good years of ease. But, in every case where one of us dies, what we acquired in life is always left to those who remain. Sometimes, we plan it out, and other times it falls to chance.

The part about our life's work being left to others is never a problem for those who are in the habit of sharing, of caring for others. None of us know the day or hour; no one makes it out alive. But, is there room in our attitudes for other people? In our drive to be successful, have we made a place for fullness of life? The sad part of this story is not that the man died, but that he was so consumed with his plans and purposes that he overlooked the joys of the time he lived in.

What is the meaning here? Live now, love now. Do the math.

New wine

Matthew 9:16-17 is where we find our next parable. It speaks of sewing, cloth, wine and bottles. By now, I sincerely hope that all of us know that the language of a parable is symbolic. Parables are not merely quaint; parables use what we already understand to help us understand things we don't understand – things we're not even thinking about.

I bundle myself tightly in my work. I sit in an easy chair with my computer in front of me, my legs up, and a mouse and keyboard in my lap. It takes about a minute if I need to get up or reach something. Sometimes, what I need to reach is frustratingly just out of reach. Fortunately, I have a back scratcher sitting on my portable office nearby. It is about a foot long, and with it I can easily extend my reach.

Those things that are taught in a parable are just out of reach. The parable is a tool that extends our reach – so when Christ tells us about sewing a new piece of cloth onto an old garment, he is speaking of a common problem that many of us are already acquainted with. We, then, become equipped to reach the higher spiritual problem he

wants us to pick up.

He tells us the same thing a second time using a variant, but still common problem: putting new wine into old bottles. There is a problem in both of these scenarios. It is a problem that hinges on the difference between success and failure.

What is the meaning of putting new cloth on an old garment? Firstly, it is an attempt at repairing a problem – it is a cheap fix realized through chewing gum and paperclips. The problem not only remains unresolved, it actually gets quite bad. In the illustration, the rent is made worse: the breach opens wider, and the new cloth is lost. Loss, here, is the point. Had an old piece of cloth been used, and the tear opened again, both fabrics were suitable as they were both already closer to loss than the new.

The old garment must run its course. It is meant to be lost. Old can never be made new – but new can be preserved. Adding new to old in an attempted rescue is a waste of the new. It is like casting pearls before swine. Then, there is the wine. Some cheap souls might attempt to reuse an old wine bottle, but the pressure of the new will always prove too powerful. As the Luke 5:37 variant of the parable goes: “the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.”

New goes in new, and both are preserved. Meaning: a thing is meant to reach its end; it cannot be unnaturally preserved past its time and purpose. However, it may be renewed, by which I mean something new is spawned from the old. Something new is made to replace the old. Saving is not about the old garment, but about the type of it. Life, and eternity, are not about dragging the old bottles along. Life is about something totally new, and totally different.

There is a contention between success and failure – between the new and old. Success is keyed into the new and failure is keyed into the old. We naturally want to patch our favorite old jeans. Luke 5:39 tells us that our very nature strives to hang on to the old, the dear, the comforting – what we have had for so long, and invested so much of ourselves into. Any one who has tasted the old wine, will resist the new, and say the old is better.

So then, that spiritual problem just out of reach. Let us extend our reach, and take hold of it. Christ is a messenger with a new message. To put it in the old invites certain failure. Christ is life communicating life –how then can we hope to make it fit in a thing that must perish? If sight for the blind is preached, it must be preached to seeing eyes.

That is the paradox. The definition is this: a way is opened only to those who are open to the way. New light for new eyes, a new message for new ears, new life for a new body.

Salvation is that way. What will you make of it, failure or success?

Mind of God

Christ speaks of his relationship with Satan in Matthew 12:29, so naturally, we want to know the meaning of this parable. He had just told his audience that a house divided cannot stand, for they, including Pharisees, at least thought, and perhaps voiced the bold assertion that Jesus cast out devils by the power of Satan.

On the most basic level, none of us can do two things at once – if those two things are opposites. I can face forward, but not forward and backward. In fact, no matter how fast I might try to spin around, my back will always be behind me. How then can I both gather, and scatter abroad?

So Christ gave an example of this conundrum in a parable. It immediately points out both the problems of the situation, and the planned focus inherent in such problem solving. Not only must one map out one step at a time, but one must place those steps in their proper order. 'First, bind the strong man, then spoil his house.'

In this, Christ presaged his coming conflict with Satan, moreover his intent to take from Satan what he was guarding. Christ foretold his victory in the clear steps of the parable.

Luke 11:21-22 is an alternate telling of the parable that illuminates the attributes both of the standing enemy and the coming conqueror.

The strong man armed to guard his palace represents Satan. His palace was this world, and his goods were the allegiances we made with him, and the practices we held in common. He had not only armed himself with handy weapons, but also with supposedly superior armor. If you think your armor is good enough, you feel distanced from attack.

You feel safe, in a place all your own, and untouchable.

Christ said of himself, 'When a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he takes from him all his armor wherein he trusted'. This shows us that Satan had

built not only his palace, but indeed, his entire kingdom, trusting in armor that could be defeated. If he trusted in it, then so did his legions of enslaved minions, associates, and collaborators.

So then, what is the fall of such a strong man? The leader of the host is both shamed and destroyed; he is displayed as a public example. Then, the legions are judged. They are stripped of all advantages afforded by the former association, and they are punished in a manner befitting their former association. What was taken from them is divided among the new regime. The spoils of conquest are an intrinsic element of war. What side are you on?

Now, there was a moral to this story, for the teaching of Christ often extends past the parable to a closing argument. In this case, Christ points out the difference between the host of the strong man, and the host of the conqueror. It is a difference that damns the one and blesses the other.

Matthew 12:31-32 is the summation in Christ's own words. “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.�

So, was that the armor that Satan trusted in? Was that the price of collaboration with the strong man armed to guard his palace? What was that armor, and that perceived advantage? What were they all hiding behind? A lie will always evaporate under the conquering light of the truth.

Essentially, Christ's closing argument compared Christ with the Holy Spirit. We must be certain we have not overlooked this telling point. From the human point of view, the Trinity occupies a single entity. We may recall that Christ is, at times, portrayed as a messenger bringing a message from a higher authority. We must ask, what makes Christ the son of man, if indeed he only referenced himself?

Jesus was a man imbued with the mind of God; that is to say the spirit of God. How such a thing comes together in a man is seen in two truths. God is a spirit named Holy. And, the Holy Ghost is a spirit named Holy. Picture the host of the strong man, and also the host of the conqueror. What we actually see is what one group encourages and the other does not – a Holy mindset: the mind or spirit of God. It is both the nature and message of the messenger. You can dis the messenger, but not the message.

As a man thinks

Now we turn to farming. 'A sower went out to sow'. We see intent; we see the purpose – but not necessarily the sower's qualifications. Instead, we see that this sower throws seeds anywhere and everywhere. Perhaps he is not the farmer, but a hired hand. This parable is found in Matthew 13:3-9.

Some fell: by the way side, on stony ground, among thorns, on good ground. Seems this guy was in a hurry to get through. Impoverishment was not an issue, neither scarcity of seed. The process seems disorderly, yet a certain amount of seed does appear to fall within the parameters of 'good ground'.

Each final location of sown seed, of course, is meant to represent a measure of human reception. All are measures of the human condition, and show plainly not only that all of us receive the same seed, but also illuminates what each of us might do with what we receive.

Way side? Too busy. Stony ground? Uncommitted. Thorns? Hanging with the wrong crowd. For the way side, the parable states that the gift is trampled down without concern, that it is fodder for the wild animals. Some variations of the parable also show the gift being eaten by worms, or in other words, spoiling and becoming foul.

For the stony ground, the parable expresses a lack of moisture and depth of earth. It cannot find a place to take root, and thus becomes a pitiful attempt that ends in harsh failure. Does the seed fail? No, It is of the same stock that falls into good ground. No, it is the stony ground that fails. And for thorns, the parable shows us that the fruit can only be choked out – thwarted by the proliferation of everything other.

The parable gives us only one winning combination: seed falling into good ground. In certain variations of this parable, the 'good ground' is put forth as ground that has been prepared for the seed. Let us take a moment to consider the standard for successful farming.

Firstly, it cannot be the way side; prepared ground is ground dedicated to one purpose.

Stones must be removed so that the seeds can take root. The thorn bush must also be

removed: the farmer wants no competition with his seed as he has dedicated the good ground only to his own seed. So then, the entire field must be worked to insure that the seed gets equitable amounts of moisture and sunshine.

In this parable, the seed sprang up and increased. Some thirty, sixty, and a hundred fold.

Let us briefly consider seeds that produce ears – like wheat or corn. How many ears can a single ear reproduce? Here in the Midwest, I see huge fields of corn, and know that each ear contains the potential to make hundreds more.

Is it only a coincidence, then, that Christ concludes with “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear?� I think not. Let us imagine that the seed is the mind of God. All of us receive it, not just the Christian, but Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and every other mind set. What we do with it is what makes of us 'way side' or 'stony ground' or 'thorns' or 'good ground'.

Since we have assumed that the seed is the mind of God, let us further consider that the 'good ground', or prepared ground, must be an adequate habitat for such mentality, and that the preparation is Christ's closing statement. The more one trains his ear to hear, the more that ear will receive. What we hear takes root in our minds. Proverbs 23:7 tells us, 'As a man thinks, so is he.'

The Harvest Continuing in the vein of seeds and sowing, let us consider the parable found in Matthew 13:24-30. Christ describes for us the kingdom of heaven, showing us whose it is, what it includes, and what is removed. By implication, the location of the kingdom is also shown.

'The kingdom of heaven is like a man that sowed good seed in his field.'

At once, we see that one entity possesses the entire farm: the field, the barn, and all else.

It is the farmer. In other words, it is the one who has invested himself into the labor. This farmer has bought land, built a barn, prepared the field, and put his best seed toward his goal.

We can see a clear connection between the farmer in the parable and God in his kingdom of heaven. What we must also be able to see is that God is not a flesh and blood farmer.

He is a spiritual farmer, who plants spiritual seed in a spiritual field. If it has anything at all to do with flesh and blood people like you and me, it has to do with our spirits – that is to say: our minds.

What might be the goal of a spiritual farmer? If he prepares our spirits, and plants spiritual seed there, he himself being spirit, he expects a spiritual harvest: a matured spiritual product, or the end result of growing spiritual seed in the field of our spirits.

This harvest will see two ends. One is storage for reuse, while the other is consumption.

As the story continues, the flesh and blood farmer of the parable slept, and while he did, his enemy sought to spoil the harvest by planting among the wheat a weed that is fit neither for consumption, nor again for reuse. The tares of the parable are a plant that is almost identical to the wheat. At maturation, however, it proves its uselessness with an obvious lack of fruit. The enemy went his way, the hired help noticed the tares, and the farmer concluded that his enemy was to blame.

What might this part of the story say about the spiritual truths to which Christ points?

Does God sleep? Is the devil waging a war of attrition? Is the planting of tares part of a cycle – to which we must ask, are there enough good seed to insure a continued and flourishing enterprise? The spiritual nature is indeed one of cycles. Those who attend such truths, like the servants in the parable, approach the matter only through a genuine interest in the outcome, and despite natural passions, will always defer to the wisdom of the farmer.

Many of us picture this parable as a depiction of the end (the one in which the angels come forth and sever the wicked from among the just.) We tend to see our souls, that is to say: our personal identities, as the harvest. If that is the case, then we must also assume that the tares are almost identical to who we are: pseudo-souls, almost-people, not-quite-folk. They walk among us.

On the other hand, it is safe to say that a spiritual entity, who plants spirit in spirits, is not planting people. It is also safe to say that people are not the desired harvest. What is the good spiritual seed of a spiritual farmer? God is God, good is good, spirit is spirit, mind is mind. There is only the One. What we see in the parable is the mind of wheat as opposed to the mind of tare. We see a fruitful mind as opposed to a fruitless mind.

It is true enough to assume that our identities are not the same as our souls – for as we see in the Biblical creation story, a living soul includes a body of flesh and blood. Still from our point of view, we are very much attached to our spiritual allegiances. We either

think and act like what God is working toward, or we think and act like the thing Satan planted in the field – which field still very much belongs to God. The final determination of the parable is that both wheat and tare develop together. The wheat becomes more wheat-like, and will never change its nature. The tare becomes more tare-like, and its nature cannot be changed. If the tare is in your mind, God will bundle all such thinking together to be burned (and here, my suggestion is to view that not as hell and damnation, but as a source of fuel.) If the wheat is in your mind, the fruit will be consumed spiritually to maintain and magnify the spirit, while some of that fruit will be stored, to be planted in new fields.

I alluded to the location of the kingdom of heaven at the beginning of this study. Like the farmer, who has his field and barn and seed and hoped for harvest, all of this work being his – heaven's kingdom is where the work of God is enacted. It is all here, in the thoughts of our minds, and all around us in our works, for it is we the servants who watch the fields.

Spirit on Tap We turn our attention now to Matthew 18:18. We look at a single statement that is found between two parables. It is a statement that is often overlooked, although it is found within a body of words often cited in religious services. To be fair, I have seen it addressed, but not thoroughly. In fact, it is touched upon so lightly that I wonder why they bring it up at all. I believe it to be an important statement, and I believe that important statements, that is to say, the understanding of important statements, should always begin with an attempt at definition.

Before I approach that definition, we should take note of the context in which the statement is found. First, it is found between two parables. The former parable addresses the lost sheep, the shepherd who rejoices at finding it, and the ninety-nine sheep that stayed put. The latter parable addresses the servant whose debt was forgiven, but who in turn would not forgive a fellow servant. Between these two, Christ spoke to his disciples about those the disciples would need to forgive. More precisely, he relays the order in which a personal trespass should be approached. It is in the body of this particular discourse that Matthew 18:18 comes up.

Here, what we want is a firm grasp on the concept of 'trespass'. We turn to Wikipedia.

The concept has calcified into actionable law, where in a civil court one person may lay claims of wrongdoing against another. Trespass breaks down into three variants: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Pretty basic stuff, really. To view the full article go to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law.

There is also trespass of goods, and trespass of land. In most of the actionable cases, intent must be proved, although the law recognizes trespass due to negligence. So then, we are speaking of real, not imagined, slights. Peter referred to trespasses as sins in the question he posed Jesus in Matthew 18:21. However, I must reassert that the sins be real, and not imagined. For example, in the exercise of our freedom of speech, we daily run the risk of hurting someone's feeling, of offending their sensibilities, but for the most part these are not actionable under the law. Therefore, there is no real cause for distress, and no real offense that must either be addressed or forgiven.

This is the context in which we find Christ making this statement in Matthew 18:18 – “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” It is, to begin with, a concluding statement to the argument he just presented. That argument was an organized treatment of the forgiveness of trespass. Binding on earth is representative of the servant who threw his fellow servant into prison over a small debt. That act of imprisonment is equally reflected in heaven – that is to say, the personal connection of the spirit to the individual. Loosing on earth, or the act of forgiveness, is also equally reflected in heaven. By that I mean that the individual who forgave, finds within his personal connection to the spirit an equal degree of forgiving.

Christ went on to fit one final piece into the puzzle of this discourse, a finishing touch, as it were, to present the full image. He dropped this clue about spirit and connection into Matthew 18:19-20, “Again I say unto you” (or, I must reassert), “That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

What final meaning, or definition, may we draw from this section of scripture? The theme of this discourse seems clear. It is the theme of spiritual connection. It is the theme of spiritual reflection. It is the action and reaction that is equal between the individual of this plane, and his spirit that resides in heaven.

Finally, when I think about the words, 'bind' and 'loose', I am reminded of a water tap. If you twist the handle one way, you close off the flow – that is, you restrict or bind the passage between the source and destination. If you twist it the other way, you open the connection. You loose the flow of water from its source. In this manner, the water will reach the one in need, and the refreshing may proceed.

Don't look at the eunuch There is an exchange in Matthew 19:1-12, which is not a parable, yet deserves our attention. I say this because I am engaged in a quest of sorts. It is a quest for definition

and meaning. The search is on for a better understanding. Now, the exchange concerns divorce, adultery, and the sexual abstinence of men. It runs like this: the Pharisees grill Jesus on the issue of divorce. They seek to trap him in legal nit-picking. He tells them, “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

But, the Pharisees are unwilling to hear the truth, so they continue to argue the point.

Why then, they ask, did Moses allow it? Jesus answered that it was because of the hardness of the hearts of men, but it was not so from the beginning. The only just cause they had for putting away a wife was the discovery of adultery. Note that Christ did not suggest she be stoned. In fact, what he told them was that the danger of adultery existed in their inclinations toward divorce.

Divorce posed two dilemmas. The first was that another man was caused to commit adultery for marrying the divorced adulteress. Such a past could remain covered as the woman sought the security of a stable life. Second was that if the woman was not guilty of adultery but was divorced anyway, and the man remarried, the man committed adultery because, in the eyes of God, he was still one with the wife he put away.

Enter the disciples. They figure that if a man runs such a high risk of falling out of God's favor, then he should just not marry. He should make God his choice and leave the women alone altogether. I don't doubt that they were amazed by the whole exchange.

The truth seemed to make the institution of marriage a bit more dark and gloomy. So then we come to the point of this study.

Jesus talks about the eunuch. However, the eunuch is not the point I wish to bring up.

Don't look at the eunuch. Someone like the apostle Paul will pick up on that. Rather I wish to draw attention to two statements the Christ makes in relation to the non-relation.

Suffice it to say that there are reasons why a man might abstain from congress with a woman. We'll leave the issue of being a eunuch as the odd bit of trivia mostly unrelated to modern practice. Again I say, do not look at the eunuch.

These are the two statements of interest: One, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” (See verse 11) Two, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (See verse 12) For all the reasons why a man might not be with a woman, there are still plenty of reasons for a man to be one with his wife – as God intended. Now, society might place the having of children as the top reason, but I dare say that God would place love in the number one slot. Children, while important in their own right, are a natural extension of the institution of marriage. Love must be first.

So obviously, all men cannot receive the saying. But – those who can receive it, they are

the ones to whom it is given. It is meant for them. They are open to that particular avenue. And – it is not like they are doomed to some sad life that saps their very will to persevere. They can receive it because they are prepared for it. They are strong enough for it. We see in this that the Almighty never intended for everyone to be exactly the same.

Some people are just different. That should be respected. There are many places in life that are different, and that require different sorts of people to fill them. Diversity is a personal choice of God. He doesn't want everyone to marry, or have children. He doesn't give everyone a tongue to pray with, or eyes to see why he is so worthy of our praise. He does not want everyone to be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, etc. He doesn't want everyone to believe, and as unbelievable as that may sound for the believers, God has made a place for those who will not, or can not.

I can see the whole of us as a clock. We are the gears that click and turn. Some of us are small, some large. Some of us spin faster than some others of us. Some of us turn a different way – but the whole contraption works, and that is what God wants. There is a force, a tension, between the differences that keeps it all ticking.

If all of us were eunuchs, life would grind to a halt. So, don't look at the eunuch. If all of us were Muslims, life would grind to a halt. So, don't look at the Muslim. For that matter, don't look at the Christian or the Jew. Don't pay any special attention to the complaints you perceive in yourself, and don't exalt yourself unduly. You fill the spot that God gave you. You understand the message he has crafted for you. Don't try to manipulate the world around you, to remove or to change the things that trouble you.

Seek a personal relationship with your God, and while that remains unresolved, live the life you have, love the one you are with. Make yourself useful, and allow the light of virtue and truth that is in you to inspire others. Resist fear and terror; exalt love.

In Matthew 19:16-21 there is an exchange which is mirrored in Mark 12:28-31 and Luke 10:25-28. The exchange, while not a parable, is worthy of inclusion solely for reasons of definition. We want to know, we want to understand, we want a clearer picture of the truth in the words of our Lord. Now, in all three instances, the exchange of words deals exclusively with the first, or greatest commandment, and also the second, which Jesus says is like the first.

As one stumbles into this exchange, one immediately begins to associate the word 'commandment', and the Jews, with the big ten delivered by Moses. I was surprised to find, in a quick check, that the two great commandments actually come from different sources, and represent a collective amalgamation of general opinion. It stands that these

two concepts summarize the Yin and Yang of the Ten Commandments, and represent two interconnected spirits of the law working hand in hand.

The first concept is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” This concept and general consensus epitomizes the first actual commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” as well as all subsequent commandments that deal with the individual's relationship with God. The second concept is found in Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.” This concept epitomizes all the commandments that deal with an individual's relationship to other people. These two concepts, combined, are viewed as the spirit of the law. What does Jesus say about these two core concepts? Matthew 22:40, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

The great commandment is a 'two-part' commandment. 'Love your God/love your neighbor' is the whole of it. For mankind, it stands as the prime constant that binds us, that bonds us. It is our moral compass upon which must be based all of our judgments and higher prejudices. We must give all to our God, but by the same token we cannot give any less to those around us than we would give to ourselves. For man, there can be no 'Holy War' against our neighbors, no 'Jihad'. There may only be a Holy compassion.

There can be no 'business as usual', for that must dissolve to allow brotherly love to address the needs of the people.

Love is the definition here, more than love, a connected love. I would like to conclude with this from Wikipedia: Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, wrote, This is the first and great commandment - It is so, 1. In its antiquity, being as old as the world, and engraven originally on our very nature.

2. In dignity; as directly and immediately proceeding from and referring to God. 3. In excellence; being the commandment of the new covenant, and the very spirit of the Divine adoption.

4. In justice; because it alone renders to God his due, prefers him before all things, and secures to him his proper rank in relation to them.

5. In sufficiency; being in itself capable of making men holy in this life, and happy in the other.

6. In fruitfulness; because it is the root of all commandments, and the fulfilling of the law.

7. In virtue and efficacy; because by this alone God reigns in the heart of man,

and man is united to God. 8. In extent; leaving nothing to the creature, which it does not refer to the Creator.

9. In necessity; being absolutely indispensable.

10. In duration; being ever to be continued on earth, and never to be discontinued in heaven.

It is a short chapter, and I would like to see it to the end. Matthew 19 finishes with an exchange between Christ and his disciples on the topics of entrance into the kingdom, and the regeneration.

Matthew 19:23-30. It goes like this: Then Jesus said to his disciples, Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Peter answered him, We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?

Jesus said to them, Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

It is needful to note that Christ repeats himself. This, I think, is for emphasis. We must focus. For of all the points in this exchange upon which we require definition, repetition should not be dismissed. Let us, therefore, list the points and examine them.

First. Repetition for emphasis. What is repeated? Two matters: the insufficiency of the man of substance, and the nature of the kingdom. “A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom,� KJV. The word 'hardly' means: 'with little likelihood'. We want to know, then, how hard can it be? Jesus wanted to make that point plain – thus the repetition. It is so hard for a man of substance to enter heaven, that there is a greater likelihood of someone threading a needle with a camel. There is simply too much substance to fit through the strait and narrow eye. Think of a dog with a stick in its mouth trying to get through a narrow door. He must either drop the stick, or discover how to walk sideways.

Christ mentioned the kingdom twice. Repetition. Once, he called it the kingdom of heaven, then possibly in the same breath, he turned around and called it the kingdom of God. The word 'of' implies ownership, so when he says 'kingdom of God' we get a clear picture of a 'kingdom' ruled by God. God is king: the kingdom belongs to him. He owns

and operates it. On the other hand, when we read 'kingdom of heaven', we must surely know that Christ is not talking about a kingdom that is simply named 'heaven'. No. It is a kingdom that is ruled by heaven, (owned and operated.) Heaven is equal to God, but more on that later.

Second. Can a worldly man enter the kingdom? We think of worldliness as involving a necessary amount of ownership. We know from bitter experience that substance is hard won, and easily lost. On this plain of existence, we depend on our substance. We eat it, we wear it, we trade with it. We also know that there are levels of substance, and levels of worldliness. Imagine if you carried all you own and use on one of your shoulders.

You might find yourself dropping some of the excess weight. With God all things are possible. There is a way to get through the strait and narrow, but it will cost you. God can get you through the eye of that needle, but it is up to you not to be as gross as a camel.

Doubtless, a crafty rich man might find a way to squeeze through the strait and narrow.

He might line up his possessions in single file and march them through – oh, but wait: “with man this is impossible.” No. He cannot push them through, or pull them through.

He is not allowed to go back and forth to bring them in one at a time. His passage through is totally personal, so paying someone to help won't work either. Man has a predisposition – that is to say, a worldly, possession-oriented way of looking at things. It is an inclination that colors his every thought, action, and reaction.

But: “with God all things are possible.” God provides a formula that will ensure you get through that strait and narrow entrance into the kingdom. That formula is neither worldly, nor possession-oriented. Rather, the formula is a radical departure from the norm. Man must change his way of thinking. To enter a spiritual kingdom, man must learn to see things spiritually. He must become different; he must become new. He must learn to associate and identify with spiritual possessions – that is, he must spiritually see a spiritual core nature, rather than physical extensions. That is why John told us in 1 John 3:2, Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Third. The astonished response of the disciples, especially of Peter. Everyone owned something they wanted to hang on to. Having possessions nearby is quite handy, after all. Peter was a man of some substance. He owned a home, he had a wife, he operated a business that kept his family fed. That is why, to me, his response seems anguished. He wasn't filthy rich, but what was his was his. He worked hard for it, and was emotionally invested in its maintenance. He may have really wanted to ask, 'what more do you want from us? We barely have too sticks to rub together, and we even left those behind to follow you – please tell us it's not for nothing.'

Fourth. Compensation. Christ made a list of compensations for those who forsook all to follow him. Whether these compensations are literal or figurative or spiritual has yet to

be determined. It is so often the case that we read something without fully seeing what it is that we are looking at. And as investments go, the list of compensations seems unparalleled. Give up one thing, get a hundred. Look closely at the list; if you leave your wife behind, you get a hundred more. That's a deal with appeal for any Solomon. To be candid, it sounds a bit like the seventy virgins that Muslims go on and on about.

If these compensations are worldly, we might envision a man not married, per se, but rather responsible for the maintenance and well being of many women, and not necessarily just of their physical needs. If this compensation is spiritual, and takes place in a higher realm, we might envision social protocols heretofore un-envisioned. As to a hundred fold more lands, that does, I admit, seem more or less solid. But, I have still to work through my worldly predispositions.

Fifth. Thrones. However these compensations play out, the most noteworthy of them all is the promise of thrones. Thrones represent not only power and authority, but a close proximity to Christ himself. Who could want for more than such a connection? In terms of compensatory thrones, I am reminded of the parable in which servants were left with a portion of their master's great wealth. Those who were able to use their portion to achieve even more were rewarded with greater responsibilities. Luke 19:17, And he said to him, Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.

Now, let us take a moment to look, not at the thrones of the disciples, but the throne of Christ. The New International Version of this text uses the words: “When the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne.” This version paints us a picture of some especially nice furniture. It is all very glorious, but I much prefer the rendering of the King James Version which reads: “When the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory.” The King James Version speaks clearly of a quality that is possessed by the one who sits, not by that which one sits in. Christ owns, and is in full possession of 'his' glory. For me, that speaks of what the Son inherits from the Father – of a thing or a title or a power, some quality that is passed down to the rightful heir.

Christ is not the only one to inherit something. He tells his disciples that, on top of the hundred-fold compensations, on top of the thrones, they will also inherit eternal life. Just as power and authority are passed down from the Father to the Son, so too eternal life is passed down from Christ to his followers. That is: life unending, life that goes on and on, perpetually recurring life, life that empowers the individual to move past his or her worldly, possession-oriented predisposition.

Sixth. Regeneration. In biology, regeneration is the process of renewal, restoration, and growth that makes organisms resilient to natural fluctuations or events that cause disturbance or damage. In theology, Regeneration is the spiritual transformation in a person, brought about by the Holy Spirit that brings the individual from being spiritually dead to become a spiritually alive human being. Regeneration is another way of speaking of being born again. This comes from an internet search.

Concerning the millennium, there are several schools of thought. The premillennial view sees it as pertaining to an alleged return of Christ to set up an earthly kingdom over which he will reign from Jerusalem with his apostles ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. This regime is supposed to continue for a literal 1,000 years.

There are those who think the regeneration has more to do with the prophet Daniel's concept of Christ's glorious approach to heaven, which would have commenced after his ascension. Then, there are those who favor the heavenly reward concept. This view involves a special honor for the apostles, a renovated earth, the final judgment, and the rebirth of the world. It is also said by some that the regeneration began on the day of Pentecost. And of course, there are the connections to Titus 3:5 and Acts 3:21.

The New International Version restates the regeneration as simply 'the renewal of all things'. This seems a rather middle of the road approach, but it actually plays into my court. I have long thought that events of all types and calibers are anti-linear – actually more dynamic and life like. There is an ebb and flow like the tides. There is an inhalation and an exhalation as with the lungs. My view sees it as a swinging back and forth as with a pendulum. 'The renewal of all things' is simply one natural extreme of that extent.

Seventh. First and last. We see in the compensations for believers and followers, a pattern that is not unfamiliar. When the householder of one particular parable employed workers for his field, he paid them in just that pattern at the end of the day: last first and first last. If you can picture it, envision a time-lapsed farmer plowing, planting, and reaching the end of his field. He turns to find that his crops are ready to be harvested, so he starts right away from where he stands. It is a time-lapsed harvest that begins with the last and works toward the first. Many things in the natural universe operate in this fashion, and by this pattern. It is like a pendulum that begins to swing back from where it stops.

Speaking of 'first and last', we come to the parable in Matthew 20:1-16. It is the story of the land owner who hired laborers for his fields. He hired men in stages, at different times of the day, and for varying reasons. He began early in the morning and hired men who also went out early to look for work. The work lasted through the day and into the evening. I imagine the man's vineyard was extensive.

He periodically went to the same market place to look for men to hire. Why? He went out at the third, sixth, and ninth hours. Why three hours apart? Why were there so many men in need of employment? We think of a budding city big enough for a community market. Such things begin and grow around a community of farmers, ranchers, and landowners. As these businesses increase, people are drawn in because they have no lands of their own. They must work for others.

The worker level of that society might include the unskilled, unlanded, dispossessed, and uneducated migrants who pretty much had no hope for a living other than the

goodwill of such employers. In a society that accepted the institution of slavery, these men teetered on the precipice of freedom and dignity. If for some reason these men failed to get themselves hired, they really did not have the wherewithal to provide their own gainful activity.

If the landowner went out after dawn to hire the first batch of workers, we might assume the time to be around 6AM. That would put the third hour at 9AM, the sixth hour at 12PM, the ninth hour at 3PM, and the eleventh hour at 5PM. The last batch of workers worked only one hour, according to the complaint, so the work day ended at 6PM. A 12 hour work day.

A quick internet search revealed these notes about the numbers 3, 6, 9 and 11. The number 3 is used 467 times in the Bible. It pictures completeness, though to a lesser degree than 7. The meaning of this number derives from the fact that it is the first of four spiritually perfect numerals (the others being 7, 10 and 12). The 3 righteous patriarchs before the flood were Abel, Enoch, and Noah. After the deluge, there was the righteous 'fathers' Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (later renamed Israel).

There are 27 books in the New Testament, which is 3x3x3, or completeness to the third power.

Jesus prayed three times in the Garden of Gethsemane before His arrest. He was placed on the cross at the 3rd hour of the day (9AM) and died at the 9th hour (3PM). There were 3 hours of darkness that covered the land while Jesus was suffering on the cross from the 6th hour to the 9th hour. Three is the number of resurrection. Christ was dead for three full days and three full nights, a total of 72 hours, before being resurrected on Saturday, April 8, just before sunset.

In the Bible, the number 6 symbolizes man and human weakness, the evils of Satan and the manifestation of sin. Man was created on the sixth day. Men are appointed 6 days to labor.

A Hebrew slave was to serve six years and be released in the 7th year. Six years were appointed for the land to be sown and harvested. The number 6 is also associated with Satan in his temptation of Jesus.

The bringing together of three 6's is the number and mark of the end time Beast of Revelation. As such, it represents the very best system of governance that mankind can produce without God and under the constant influence of God's chief adversary. Man's system on earth is made up of three parts (economic, religious and governmental) all of which are influenced and led by Satan. When 666 is multiplied by 7 it equals 4662, which depicts man’s total imperfection under Lucifer. When added across, 4 + 6 + 6 + 2 = 18; and 18 divided by 3 is 6.

Used 49 times in scripture, the number 9 symbolizes divine completeness or conveys the meaning of finality. Christ died at the 9th hour of the day, or 3PM, to make the way of salvation open to everyone. The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) is the only one of

God's annual Feast days of worship that requires believers to fast for one day. This special day, considered by many Jews to be the holiest of the year, begins at sunset on the 9th day of the seventh Hebrew month (Leviticus 23:32).

Nine also represents the fruits of God's Holy Spirit, which are Faithfulness, Gentleness, Goodness, Joy, Kindness, Long-suffering, Love, Peace and Self-control (Galatians 5:22 23).

The number eleven is important in that it can symbolize disorder, chaos, and judgment.

In the Bible, 11 is used twenty-four times and '11th' can be found 19 times. Coming after 10 (which represents law and responsibility), the number eleven represents the opposite - the irresponsibility of breaking the Law, which brings disorder and judgment.

In Genesis 11, men rebelled against God and built the tower of Babel. He judged them by confusing their language, resulting in chaos.

Jehoiakim, one of the last kings over Judah, ruled for 11 years (609 to 598 B.C.). His successor, King Jehoiachin, ruled for only three months before the Babylonians took control of Jerusalem in 597 B.C. and took him captive. After overcoming the city, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon set up Zedekiah as a puppet ruler of Judea. Zedekiah, however, soon rebeled against his masters. His reign ended in 586 B.C., after only 11 years, when Nebuchadnezzar once again conquered Jerusalem, but that time he destroyed the city and burned its temple to the ground. Any Jews that remained alive were taken captive.

The apostle John saw 11 things in connection with the final judgment (Revelation 20:12 - 14).

Now, an interesting point to this parable is the reasoning of the two parties: workers and landowner. A bargain was reached between the employer and employees, namely a day of labor for exactly one penny. For the workers hired at the third, sixth and ninth hours, they were told by the employer, “whatsoever is right I will give you”. This seems to suggest a standard. The employer guaranteed they would not be short-changed. I take it as the minimum wage of that day and age.

Those subsequent contracts, I think, represent and extended grace. He may not have actually needed extra workers, but the work days were long and any additional hands would reduce the work strain for all concerned. However, he also went out at the eleventh hour. Why? Who Can say? Even so, he found men standing idle because no one else hired them. These men represent the true losers. They are the least qualified, most sad-sack lot of the whole place. The employer also told these men, “whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive”. I think this represents pity on the part of the employer. The day was all but done. The last group would otherwise have had to go home to their families with nothing to show. No food for the kids.

I think the land owner of this parable represents a concept of righteousness that might have pretty well been common knowledge for that society, day, and age. The land owner

was a good man. He did not withhold his substance in any expression of his good character – which would be in keeping with the truth we find in 1John 3:18, “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.”

This is in full support of the common core element of law, namely to love God completely, and love your neighbor as yourself. The above-cited verse explains both love and righteousness, and may be summed up in an earlier statement found in 1John 3:17, “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”

The good land owner had his world's good, and he used it liberally in the execution of God's law. Christ portrayed a man, in his parable, who was an example of God's nature inhabiting a man. God is both the source of the law that makes good and right, and he is also the nature of acceptance of all that is good and right as it exists in man.

So then, the day ends and the steward calls the workers to be paid. Any manner of payment might have been chosen. In our day and age, we use the alphabetical system sometimes, or a system of identifying numbers. But, Christ was making a larger point.

All of us live in and realize a reality that swings back and forth like a pendulum. We know that weather turned rainy will soon enough swing back to sunny days. We know that winter or summer are but extremes of that swinging back and forth.

In the larger spiritual sense, that is to say – in the sense of mankind's evolution from man to son of man, what we lost in our fall was an extreme from which we have reached the furthest possible opposite. Times are dark, man's spirit no less so. The argument of the initial batch of workers was an argument that centered on the issue of equality. We are all too acquainted with this thorny issue, but each of us, in actuality, have our own contract under which we labor. That is all we have, and that is all we may draw from.

Contracts that others have are off limits – we shouldn't concern ourselves.

The point Christ made was concisely summarized in the question, “Is thine eye evil, because I am good?” The closing argument is based squarely on that. “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.” This argument must be seen in light of, and within the parameters of, this good vs evil issue. We ask, are the first last because their eye was evil? Had their attitude taken them beyond the boundaries of good will and grace? I'm sure the last, having received as much as the men who worked all day, would have been more thankful – in fact, in the face of such grace, they must have been humbled, knowing it was given rather than earned.

“Many be called, but few chosen.” Certainly, the land owner called many to work on his land. Being good, he would have been naturally drawn to, and in sympathy with those of his own spiritual caliber. If that man at all considered keeping any of them on permanently, you and I might agree that it would not be the ones with an evil eye.

There might be no concise definition for this complex concept, indeed its many facets demand more than a simple sentence. Yet, I think we might consider the possibility that,

as existence swings between its opposites, good will find its place among its own while evil is told, “Take that is thine, and go thy way.” It seems to be a part of the works that good is gathered while evil is culled.

The Will of the Father Matthew 21:28-32 is our next parable of interest. It is a question to the chief priests and elders of his own people, the Jews. It is a question that demands a simple determination, that is, which of two sons did the will of their father. It is a question that is posed in a public setting with many witnesses to the answer, and in the context of Jesus just having his authority questioned.

Clearly, it is a misconception of the nature of authority. It is a misconception belonging to the chief priests and elders, who feel that their authority under the law is being challenged. What the chief priests and elders take as their sole right, is in actuality no more than a permission, and one might go so far as to say a duty, to act. Namely, it is the duty of the individual rather than the sole property of rulers.

On a personal note, let me just say that the exchange between the chief priests and Jesus ranks as one of the coolest in the new testament. Had the chief priests and elders chosen one answer or the other, Christ would have had an answer waiting for them, but for all their bluster and bravado, their political indecisiveness pretty much dictated the answer they got.

On the heels of that trump card, Christ asked a question of the chief priests and elders that would explain authority to both the local rulers as well as the witnesses standing around – all of which, I imagine, were standing with their mouths open in dismay.

A father asked both of his sons to work in his vineyard. One said he would but didn't, and one said he wouldn't but did. So which son acted with authority? Of course, in this context we mean only to engage one's empowerment to be an obedient child. One son gave lip service – that is, he not only disobeyed his father's will, but he also lied to his father.

Such an act constitutes rebellion, but we should not think that one son was especially evil and the other especially good – the other son also rebelled. The difference is that one of the sons repented of his decision. I ask, what is the dynamic of that decision? I answer, the dynamic of that decision is that the son thought things through a little further. He weighed the choices before him and came to a decision. What did he decide?

He decided that his father's will was better than his own. He saw his place in relationship to his father, he saw his duty. His conclusion was love, devotion, fealty.

The chief priests and elders saw the right answer to the question Christ posed to them.

They answered correctly. Yet, the parameters of the two sons were not fully explained.

What if the one that gave lip service was the eldest son, the son who would inherit the

birthright? Was that a part of the question, even though it was not stipulated?

After they answer the question, Christ explains the will of the father by contrasting the chief priests and elders against the publicans and harlots. Jesus had a habit of resorting to the publicans and harlots, chief priests and elders were prone to disregard this class of people.

I include here an excerpt from www.Bible-history.com to shed some light on the attitude held by Jewish priests and elders in regard to publicans: 'The Jewish people were under the yoke of foreign oppressors ever since the Babylonian captivity. During the New Testament times, the land of Israel was within the province of Syria and the tax collectors were collectors of Roman taxes, they were extortioners, and very despised.

The Jews detested these tax collectors not only on account of their abusive and tyrannical attitude, but because the very taxes that they were forced to collect by the Roman government were a badge of servitude and a constant reminder that God had forsaken His people. The tax collectors were always classed by the people with the harlots, usurers, gamblers, thieves, and dishonest herdsmen, who lived promiscuous, lawless lives. Two of the common terms for tax collectors were "licensed robbers" and "beasts in human shape."

According to Rabbinism, there was no hope for a tax collector. They were excluded from all religious fellowship including the Temple and Synagogue. Their money was considered tainted and it defiled anyone who accepted it. They could not serve as a witness in any court in Israel. The Rabbis had no word to describe any sort of help for the tax collector because they expected him to externally conform to the law in order to be justified before God. Ancient Jewish writings reveal some interesting views of Rabbis toward the tax collectors: "As one robber disgraced his whole family, so one publican in a family; promises were not to be kept with murderers, thieves and publicans" -Nedar 3:4 "The synagogue alms box and the temple corban must not receive their alms" -Baba Kama 10:1 "It was not lawful to use riches received from them, as gotten by rapine; nor could they judge or give testimony in court -Sanhedr. 25, sec. 2 The attitude of Jesus toward the tax collectors was in stark contrast to that of the Rabbis.

He had come to seek and save the lost. The Pharisees were separatists and did not lower themselves to have anything to do with a tax collector, who was to them no better than a Gentile. But Jesus came not to condemn anyone, but to save every sinner and offer a better life. He never taught that there was anything inherently wrong with paying tribute

to the Roman Government or collecting the tax. He was opposed to extortioners, but would fling open the door of repentance and salvation to them. He rejected none, not even the worst.'

In regard to harlots, I include this excerpt from www.biblestudytools.com: 'In New Testament times, a kindred danger beset the followers of Christ, especially in Greece and Asia Minor (Acts 15:20,29; Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19). That lax views of sexual morality were widely prevalent in the generation in which Christ lived is evident both from His casual references to the subject and from His specific teaching in answer to questions concerning adultery and divorce (compare Josephus, Ant, IV, viii, 23; Vita, section 76; Sirach 7:26; 25:26; 42:9, and the Talm). The ideas of the times were debased by the prevalent polygamous customs, "it being of old permitted to the Jews to marry many wives" (Josephus, BJ, I, xxiv, 2; compare Ant, XVII, i, 2). The teaching of Jesus was in sharp contrast with the low ideals and the rabbinical teaching of the times. The controversy on this question waxed hot between the two famous rival rabbinical schools. Hillel reduced adultery to the level of the minor faults. Shammai opposed his teaching as immoral in tendency. kata pasan aitian (Matthew 19:3), gives incidental evidence of the nature of the controversy. It was characteristic of the teaching of Jesus that He went to the root of the matter, making this sin to consist in "looking on a woman to lust after her." Nor did He confine Himself to the case of the married. The general character of the terms in Matthew 5:28, pas ho blepon, forbids the idea that gunaika, and emoicheusen, are to be limited to post-nuptial sin with a married woman. On the other hand it is a characteristic part of the work of Jesus to rescue the erring woman from the merciless clutches of the Pharisaic tribunal, and to bring her within the pale of mercy and redemption (Matthew 21:31,32). He everywhere leaned to the side of mercy in dealing with such cases, as is indicated by the traditional and doubtless true narrative found in the accepted text of the Fourth Gospel (John 7:53-8:11).' George B. Eager Suffice it to say that publicans and harlots were not only rejected by local leadership but often abused. Imagine the relationship between the birthright son and the younger sibling. The eldest can do no wrong – at least in his own eyes. He expects ultimately to receive all from the father – so he might even question the need to have a younger brother around. The younger brother might well experience rejection and abuse. The younger brother might think: 'why bother? It's all going to the eldest anyway.'

The similarity in the brothers and elders-vs-common-rabble is not only apparent to us but was not lost on those who listened to Jesus. He pointed to these similarities without pulling any punches. The publicans and harlots would get to heaven before the chief priests and elders. I note in this that it is not totally ruled out for the chief priests and elders to reach heaven. However, a singular point seems central to this achievement: a propensity toward repentance. The younger son repented. With repentance goes faith.

The publicans and harlots believed the message of John – the same message, in fact, that the chief priests and elders heard. Like the younger son, the publicans and harlots repented, they availed themselves of God's permission to act. They decided that their father's will was better than their own. They saw their place in relationship to their father, they saw their duty. Their conclusion was love, devotion, fealty. They engaged their empowerment to be obedient children.

The Choice is Yours

We turn our attention to the parable of Matthew 21:33-46. In this one, Jesus speaks directly to the chief priests and Pharisees. We know this from the statement in Matthew 21:45, “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.�

In speaking to these people directly, Jesus addressed the Jewish nation. By this, I mean that Christ addressed those responsible for directing that nation under the covenant it had with God. I point not only to the government of that nation, but also to a type of government that misuses its religious edicts, redirecting them into personal and political goals. It has to be understood that this redirection is counter-productive to the goals of God. In other words, what God wants from the deal is blocked by the very people set up to ensure the result.

The parable is couched in terms of a vineyard and its fruit. Only one landowner owns the vineyard, and only he has any right to expect the fruit it produces. The harvest belongs to him. So in the parable, we see one with the wherewithal to purchase land, build upon it, plant it, and hire husbandmen to oversee its operation.

While the owner lives afar, he sends servants time and again to receive the harvest. They are sent away empty-handed, abused, even killed. Finally the son is sent. Not content to steal the fruit from the owner, the husbandmen hatch a scheme to steal the land as well.

It is apparent that they have gravely underestimated the owner's resources.

So Christ asked a question directed to the leaders of the Hebrew nation. What will the owner do? While these men were evil in their own right, they still recognized evil in others, and their response played right in Jesus' hands. The owner would marshal his forces and destroy the wicked men, giving the vineyard into the hands of men who would “render him the fruits in their seasons.” If one set of servants fail, perhaps another set will do what they are supposed to.

This parable is clearly an indication of the sacrifice of the son of God, but it is also a clear indication of a change in management. One phrase tells the tale. It is found in Matthew 21:43, “Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Read this sentence closely; go back and study it with open eyes. What does it really say?

Christ tells us that the nation of Israel will lose its contract to service the kingdom of God. That contract will be given to a different nation. That nation will be called upon to honor the terms of the contract – a thing the first nation failed to do. The second nation will be called upon to faithfully render the fruits of the kingdom of God. It will approach its charge in a way that differs from the failed approach of the first nation.

The first covenant was physical, geographical, genealogical, historical, and political.

The overseers of that covenant used the rules and guidelines of that covenant to deprive the owner of his rightful due. All that was good and right was blocked and withheld for the sake of personal political gain. Make no mistake, religion was used in place of civil law. Moreover, religion was used like a legal weapon against, not only its own people, but all other peoples as well.

Let me use the words of Christ to clearly show what the chief priests and Pharisees were up to: Luke 11:52, “Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

We may understand, then, that the second covenant is about learning, knowledge, truth, wisdom, and spirituality – the polar opposite of the first. Likewise, the second nation is the opposite of the first. It is a spiritual nation that lifts people rather than suppressing them. In that regard, the laws it employs to that end, while spiritually based, are set apart from religious application far enough to ensure that religion does not hinder the societal development that God desires.

Admittedly, Christianity has seen darker days wherein it failed the will of the very one it professed to serve. Yet, Christianity has not ceased evolving, growing, and becoming the husbandman of choice. America, the nation I believe was referenced in the parable, has in like manner evolved past its less than promising performance. We are poised on the precipice of a successful society in which civil law ensures the spiritual evolution of mankind, but America's place is by no means guaranteed – unless we as a people make a united stand for what is right and good.

America must be the beacon that guides the way – not in a national or political sense,

but in a wholly spiritual sense. It is not the government alone who must take a step forward, but each and every responsible individual. All threats against the spiritual evolution of mankind must be addressed. Presently, radical Islam is a threat of global proportions that threatens to destroy the key of knowledge, and plunge mankind thousands of years into his dark past.

There are other threats as well. There are threats to the environment in which our children must live, there are threats to the very existence of our children who are destroyed in their most vulnerable stages for commercial gain. There are national rivalries which would be energies better spent as national cooperations. There are systems and inbred institutions that constrict the flow of needed goods to the people that need them – to the people made needy by the self-same systems and inbred institutions.

It would be incorrect to say it is time for a change: it has always been time for a change, but two things have hindered that change. First are those who resist it, and second are all the rest of us who, while we support what is good in our thinking, have failed to stand up for it in any way that counts. I speak to Americans, and especially to Christian Americans: the ball is in your court – use your nation, use your government for what is good. The power is in your hands.

Christ made a disclaimer about the second nation, it goes like this: Matthew 21:42 and 44, “Did you never read in the scriptures, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing . . . and whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

Three things are clear: one, if you are built around the cornerstone of the new covenant, you will not fall, for you share the same power and authority. Two, if you fall upon the rock and you are not a rock yourself, you will be broken, for you are fragile and do not share in the strength. Three: the rock is not only hard and strong, but larger and more elemental than all of the rest of us. Plus it is not static, but able to move – and it will move forward, bringing a wall with it, grinding all who get in the way to powder. So the definition here is directed to the new nation, to the Christian, to those mortared into the new covenant. The definition is directed to you, American people.

Knowing what is to come, you have one of two choices to make: choose the power, or choose the powder.

Are You Worthy?

See now the parable of Matthew 22:2-14. It is the parable of the wedding. These are the parameters – the king prepared the wedding for his son, there was a predetermined list of guests for the wedding, there were servants tasked with gathering the invited guests. Oh, and the king had an army.

The king had great resources, and preparations for the wedding were extensive. He had looked forward to the wedding for a long time and rejoiced to do all he could for the joy of his beloved son. Not everyone was invited, but certainly representatives of various peoples and cities. A king with an army is quite likely a conquering king, and the invited guests were people with which he had a covenant of peace. They were a surrendered people who enjoyed the king's grace only through the instrument of a treaty.

It seems that in the course of time these people got uppity and took the king's grace for granted, feeling superior and seeing the king as ineffectual. What a mistake! Look at all they lost – they had been chosen by the king and would have remained chosen by the son. In their pride and arrogance, they threw all that to the wind.

This is another situation where Christ directly accused the governing body of the Hebrew nation. Such an accusation would have seemed like a knife in the heart, for Jewish theology was based on the notion of an unbreakable bond to God through Abraham; the seed of Abraham could not fail. Sadly, they held to the promise of God to Abraham without honoring their end of the bargain. There were terms for both sides in the covenant, and the treaty hinged in no small part on the compliance of the Hebrew nation.

This is a parable equal to the one in which Christ stated that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation. The servants report the non-compliance of the first set of guests, and the king chooses a second set of guests. Not only is the favor of the king removed, but certain guests who mistreated the servants had their cities burned.

The servants were sent into the highways to gather travelers to the wedding, and it is at this point that we come to our need for definition. Here, we will want to define the nature of the highway, the types of people found there, what they were coming from, why, and where they were headed. The gathering of the second set, at least on the surface, was indiscriminate – which means they were not 'chosen' as were the first.

These new guests were merely replacements, all the rest would be sorted out later. What

was to be sorted would include their abilities to recognize the treaty and the readiness to comply.

The highways may be considered as the avenues between nations. They may also be considered as timelines between critical historical junctures. The highways serve not only as a means of conveyance but as a spill-over: a place to be when there is no place to be.

The types of people found on the highways will be more than a few. Also, these types may be representative, in a larger sense, of nations and peoples without a clear connection to a king and a king's grace. They're a mixed bag. Some have no place, they live as vagabonds and hobos and Gypsies. Some seek purpose and travel toward something elusive which may be found in the next city. Some flee the places where they used to live but have yet to realize they have no place. There are those who embrace the place-less voids, they may follow those who travel and inhabit the highways, preying upon them at their leisure.

Those who seek purpose take a calculated risk. The place they were failed them in some regard, the place they go to may provide advancement. The purpose may only be a personal construct, they may not see the bigger picture. It could be that they suspect there is a bigger picture and only need an opportunity to embrace it.

Those who flee may do so perpetually – as those who are always at the wrong place at the wrong time, or those who can never make the right decisions. They may be the criminals and derelicts who somehow carry with them the mark of Cain. They are the chaff that every wind will drive before them.

Whoever the people are, those who seek or those who flee; those who have ceased to care and make a bed for themselves in no-man's-land, or those who make their living off the wayward, they represent a type without connection. They are like the men found in the marketplace who stand idle because no man has hired them.

Imagine the surprise of one such person who is approached by the servants of a mighty king. Perhaps the servants are accompanied by armed soldiers. You get a sense of urgency from the invitation. You realize the power and authority of the king. How do you choose? If you are the seeker who has been long in your travels, you may see this new opportunity as a step in the right direction. You will treat your invitation with respect. Should you garner the grace of the king, your advantage is assured wherever you find yourself.

If you are the one who flees you might view the invitation with fear. The power of the king and his army fills you with trepidation. You will treat your invitation with caution, acting in compliance as an extension of your sense of self-preservation. Besides, if you garner the grace of the king, your place may be assured. You may find a home. The king will protect and guide you so you no longer need to flee.

If you are the one who preys upon others, you may only see a greater opportunity. You care nothing for the invitation, you have no respect of persons, kings or soldiers. You are in it for the loot. If you are the one who has lost everything, and the only home you have, is no home at all, the invitation may humble you. Why would a king bother with the like of you? Life is hard in between, and if nothing else, you may benefit from a free meal.

Now, this is a wild-card of a king. He is impressive not only in his power and authority, he blazes the non-traditional trail. In other words, he pretty much does things his own way. Whether you have accepted the invitation out of fear or respect or a hope of getting something for nothing, you would be wise to arrive in a wedding garment. This might be akin to a Tux in some cultural applications, or to one's Sunday-go-to-meeting attire in other cultural settings. At least one owes it to oneself to put on one's best bib and tucker.

The wedding garment was a sign of respect, not so much station. In the parable, almost everyone, no matter their personal circumstance, was able to dress in a wedding garment. Now, one does not travel through life with a wedding garment in their backpack for just-in-case. The wedding garment, while not described in the parable, might have been no more than a clean white robe, or a garment adorned with some token of respect. As I just noted, while one does not travel equipped with a wedding garment, almost all of those invited to the wedding were able to obtain or accomplish the requirement of respect.

One who did not was singled out. He came to the wedding but failed to dress accordingly. It must be a given, and the king would have known, that many who frequented the highways were destitute and without the ability to provide for themselves. Yet, even the poor can wash, adorn, and present their selves respectfully. I think that if one tries, there will be an acceptance. It would likely be the rogue who was found in a disrespectful state. It would be someone emboldened by their own bravado. It would be someone working the fringe of the crowd who chose to wear their independent nature as a badge self-importance.

Is there a type that is known for such blatant disregard. Actually there are many, and they range from the supposedly benign to the unbridled antagonistic, and violent. Since the wedding of the son has greater spiritual implications, who would be the ones who choose not to wear the wedding garment? The basic definition of this parable is: you are either with the king, and his son or you are against. From the king's point of view, if you do not have the decency to respect the son, you do not belong. Those who do not belong, then, are those who disregard Christ. This group includes both the radical Islamist and the supposedly benign atheist. Are you worthy of the king's grace, or will you be thrown out?

Death cannot speak Another pause from the study of parables that we might examine a powerful explanation given by our Lord. Christ gives answer to the Sadducees in Matthew 22:29-32. The Sadducees were those who believed a man did not rise to life after death. They asked a question of Jesus about the resurrection – which, if you think about it, someone who does not believe in the resurrection should never bother to ask.

They believed the end was death, while resurrection, as bodied forth by Christ, was set toward the end of life. This opened the possibility of two resurrections, and indeed, the answer Christ gave addressed both a resurrection of life and a resurrection of death. Let us first explore the question, and then those who posed it.

A woman who had seven husbands in life would need to settle accounts in the afterlife.

In other words, she could only legally belong to one if all of them were alive. We are all well aware of the legalisms spouted by Sadducees, Pharisees, and that particular ilk. The tempters of Christ were doctors of the law and purveyors of pedigree. They prided themselves on being well versed in even the smallest facet of the law. They would divide and divide again, and no fine point was ever too fine for additional review.

As to those clever ones who thought they had a fine point, they were not unlike their rivals the Pharisees. Both groups were nationalistic in that they drew their authority from the law which God had given to Moses – a law that was legally recorded through the very lineage of the Hebrew nation. It was a proven standard and seal that was shown in the national pedigree they inherited through their fathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Aren't we all a bit legalistic? Aren't we all over-burdened with too many fine points?

Even in our modern mindset we recognize the division between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, but which do we lean the more toward? Our understanding is a rudimentary beast, born of personal prejudice and suckled on inopportune opinion. We take the parts we desire and jump to conclusions, clothing ourselves in the agreement with those of similar disposition, being equally prejudiced and opinionated.

Christ gave answer to the Sadducees, and to us alike. We do not know the scriptures, therefore our conclusions and fine points are erroneous. If we have not fully fathomed what God has said to us, how can we fully comprehend the power at his disposal? If we have an incomplete understanding of the word of God, an understanding filtered by our own limited ambitions, then our understanding of God and what he is all about is also

filtered.

Matthew 22:29, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” A cursory review of the scriptures will accomplish no more than a limited understanding of God. The statement Christ gave the Sadducees was a lead-in to his explanation of one of the two resurrections: the resurrection of life. When a man, or a woman, rises to life after their physical death – they are like the angels of God. They are like the angels!

They . . . “are as the angels of God in heaven.” So – how are they angels of God in heaven? What degree of life and freedom are they permitted in heaven? Well – according to the son of God, and who better to know, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. This statement was given in response to our filtered understanding of the scriptures.

A filtered understanding will thus conclude that the resurrected, like the angels of God, are sexless or have no binding relationships. In fact, Christ only states that there is no marriage like our filtered understanding is used to. There is marriage in heaven, to be sure: it is the marriage of the son of God to the church. So then, we must inquire: who exactly is the church? The church, in answer to our own question, is the entire body of those who reach heaven. They are the ones that live on.

Our misunderstanding of the scriptures is a monster of an obstacle. We not only know less of the power of God, but less of his true nature, and therefore, less of our own connection. We cannot assume that there are molecular bodies in heaven. They may be atomic. We cannot even be sure that there are bodies. We do after all speak of a spiritual plane. Perhaps all there is in the way of a body is a sense of personal identity. And what will that identity associate with?

Unlike the limited nationalistic view held by the Sadducees and Pharisees, a spiritual identity will associate with life. The Sadducees associated with Abraham, Issac and Jacob in a nationalistic and genealogical sense, all of whom had bodies that died. Christ turned that association against them with the very scriptures they were so well versed in.

Matthew 22:31-32, “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

If the Hebrews found their continuance in their Patriarchs, and their fathers lived on in and through them, then how could those who rejected resurrection lay claim to them?

The reference to scripture was a jab in the soft underbelly of non-believers and well deserved. If you do not believe in the resurrection, do you even get to talk about it? If you do not believe in God, do you even merit an opinion? I think not. Life is for the living: to be lived, embraced, and discussed by the living only. Death cannot speak.

Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

The entire 23rd chapter of Matthew is a rant and a railing; it is a condemnation of spiritual leaders. Christ does not pull his punches but unleashes the full force of his ire against those who sit in Moses' seat. These leaders, against which our Lord rails so vehemently, constitute the guidance of an entire nation. The rule these leaders exert is both religious and political, and despotic in nature, for they have taken to themselves exclusive ownership of the house of David.

Yes, this is another departure from the study of parables, but it is one truly deserving of definition. Christ spoke openly to the common man, but also as openly to leaders of men. His parables set his message in story form. His condemnations were plainly worded. His truth was stark, even brutal. There is no room for doubt of intent here, but perhaps room for misunderstanding – a matter we shall address. In pointing out the Scribes, Pharisees, and all other leaders, Christ pointed to a type of spirit in action. It is a

will and mind embodied even in leaders of our present day. Definition, in its initial phase, will always begin with comparison. Let us compare the old to the new.

Christ identified the outward manifestations of the type. “They say, and do not. They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.”

We know these all too well. As politicians send young men and women to wars they themselves will not fight in, so preachers will demand, cajole, and connive tithes for fancy churches they will not pay for themselves. These edifices are gaudy testaments to their inflated sense of self-worth. Further evidence of their swelling can be seen in suits costing hundreds of dollars, Florsheim shoes, and Rolex watches. We even hear them as they refer to themselves as Pastor this or Pastor that. World leaders prefer to be known as leaders rather than the public servants they actually are.

In case there was a doubt, Christ fully exposed their secret dealings and power plays: “ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (ye) say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever swears by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?”

Funny how similar their concerns for money and gifts are to those of modern day preachers. The important parts are used as means to an end, and they show themselves more interested in the revenue than the connection to God. Christ tells us plainly what the spiritual meaning of the physical act should be, for all action and intent must have the backing of purpose.

“Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, swears by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, swears by it, and by him that dwells therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him that sits thereon.”

A large and gaudy display often shows that something is missing. Christ went on to compare the outward gleam to inner disrepair: “ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel . . . ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.”

Christ gave a simple explanation of how rightness works: “clean first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.”

Christ made it brutally clear what kind of leaders and preachers and teachers and experts and professionals we seem doomed to attract: “ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

Could this next sentence be an indication of the Catholic church? Christ said, “ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous.” As with the military spirit that must constantly beat the drum and stir patriotic sympathies, the church plays the emotions of the common man as if they are strings on a harp, ever parading before us prophets and saints and holy personas that keep church goers neatly mired in manageable habits and attitudes.

Christ exposed them by the length of their arms. In patting their own backs to prove themselves liberal, and morally advanced, they only proclaim their true allegiances.

Christ accused them openly in their allegiance, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of

them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”

America, for all its condemnation of war, yet funds and trains the foreign soldiers it will someday turn to fight. For all the condemnations of past atrocities done in the name of the Catholic church, modern churches still build themselves up by tearing others down.

Too many are the insignificant details that denominations wish to be identified in. Some wear beards or hair coverings, some denounce music, some lift themselves in the naming of a name. One will always find in such choices the rejection and exclusion of all who bear a different stripe. Personal agenda and restrictive identification often find a way to become radical and destructive. The question becomes then, who is fit to lead?

First to the Jew, but also to leaders of every station, caliber, era and historical placement Christ states his rejection of any and all who are not inclusive in their thinking. To all who would steal the kingdom of God and deprive their fellow man of its good, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kills the prophets, and stones them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord.”

The sad fact about these leaders is that they all claim to come in the only name that matters – their own. Their downfall will be that they cannot conceive that another may come in another name: that very concept is rejected out of hand. Yet, these very souls exercise authority over us. They have ensured they have the power to command, but it is not from strength. They live in secret fear of the day when we stop listening and start saying. They fear the spilling forth of such a flood, couching it in such terms as 'mass panic', 'rioting and looting' – but that is not all of us; that is only the ignorant and criminal element who hold no place in leadership.

“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works.”

To the rest of us, here is what we must not be a part of: “Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”

“Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

“Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

“He that is greatest among you shall be your servant . . . and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

(But) “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased.”

Pass or Fail?

Matthew 25:1-13. The parable we study here is the one about ten virgins. They are all to be wed to the bridegroom, for the bridegroom will be one with all who are willing and prepared. The point of this parable is simple and plain, but what peaks our interest is 'how' the parable is worded. There are layers of definition which are pretty much dictated by exact wording. Let us look beyond the surface layer.

First, the virgins number 10, and this number is divided in half. Half of them are wise and half of them are foolish. Half are prepared, half are not. Seeing as how the original lot was ten, the overnight camp may be seen as the test that winnows the unacceptable from the preferred. What we must see here is that being wise or foolish is equal to the mindset that is either like or unlike the one they go to meet. We may assume that the five wise virgins did their homework.

Second, we see that all those called to meet the bridegroom traveled away from where they were and made camp, having still a way to travel. We see that they were halfway between where they used to be and where they wanted to go. The place they left behind was the place they used to live, but that is not to say that the place they wanted to go was anything like the place from which they had separated themselves. We might take a guess that these spirits were between the worldly and the non-worldly. All ten of them had separated themselves from their worldly residence, but only five of them had made the necessary preparations to remain separated.

Third. More can be discerned about the overnight camp from the exact wording. We can see that they had been chaperoned by retainers who guarded them, and that they were housed in temporary shelter, say a tent. The cry that went out at midnight tells us all this and more. This was the cry: “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.”

The cry did not announce, ' we have arrived with the bridegroom.” By this, we know two things: one is that the bridegroom was still on his way coming from where he had been to where he would reside for the marriage. Two is that the guardians who made the cry had learned of his near approach and relaid the news to their charge. They told the virgins, “go ye out to meet him.”

The virgins had to arise, go out, and travel some distance yet to meet him. They had slumbered in a tent from which they would depart, and while they slept, their lamps had gone out. They got up and went to light their lamps, for it was still dark, only the foolish virgins discovered that they had used up their entire supply of oil. They sought to borrow from the wise virgins and were rebuked. The oil that remained to the wise virgins had to last them through the final leg of their journey. This was a big fail for the foolish virgins. They had to rush back to the worldly place from where they came, seek sellers, appropriate new supplies, and rush back to camp. By the time they got back, those with the prerequisite supplies were gone. They had moved on.

Next, we see that the bridegroom arrived, the virgins also entered, and the door was shut.

Note that the place of the marriage was a construct of more permanence that the

campsite of the virgins. It had a door. A door, by the very nature of it being a door, shows us many things, not the least of which is that it may be locked, but more importantly we take note of the likelihood of the structures importance – and thus the importance of those who inhabit the construct. The foolish finally arrive. Their access is barred; entrance is blocked. They call out for admittance but are rejected. We see in this that someone controls the door and makes the decision of opening or not opening.

The wording of the rejection is also key. The bridegroom said that he did not know them. Let us be realistic: he knew exactly who they were – he had called all ten of them.

Here, we are reminded of Christ's words elsewhere: “many are called, but few are chosen.” By saying that he did not know them, a declaration was made in regard to opposition. The bridegroom said, 'you are no part of me', or, 'you are not like me.' The whole purpose of the marriage is 'oneness'. The foolish virgins, in light of their unpreparedness, were never one with the bridegroom. The wise virgins, in light of their making sure to be prepared, and stay prepared, were always one with the bridegroom.

Lastly, the cry went out at 'midnight'. That was a halfway point in itself. At that time, it was made known that the bridegroom was on his way, but he only arrived later. Christ ended his parable with this admonition: “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” In other places of scripture, we are told

by Christ that his coming will be at a time when we know not, or least expect. In some instances, a servant is caught unawares sleeping or acting inappropriately. In this instance with the virgins, the bridegroom came while the foolish were overwhelmed with worldly matters – this is in accord with certain other parables that concerned the wedding of the King's son. Some of the invited were engaged in business, some in pleasure – all were so tied up in worldly concerns that they had no time to be one with the son.

If you were to assess your own state of preparedness or your state of worldly occupation, what would be your honest judgment, pass or fail?

A Man of Many Talents.

Matthew 25:14-30. This is the parable of talents. It is a story most of us are familiar

with, so I will narrow the focus of this study. I will race past the details of this parable and attend the point our Lord makes. The synopsis of the parable is this: a man, in preparation of a long journey, divides his wealth among his servants. We may view this as a diversified portfolio. He chose how much to give each servant, no doubt, based on his knowledge of their dependability. It was a matter of who had the proven track record.

Some got more talents than others. However, all were faced with the same possibilities.

The man with only one talent could have invested like the others. He was one of the lot, after all. He did not exist in a vacuum. His fear might be understandable in that he had less elbow room. The man with ten talents might have lost one talent and retained nine, but the man with one, having lost one, would have none.

We find the summary of the parable in Matthew 25:29, “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.� According to this, had the servant invested and lost the one talent he would have fallen into the same category: 'unprofitable.' Obviously, the master of the servants in this parable was a businessman. His servants were merely doing the things he would do had he remained and not traveled. I can't see the master hiding his own money for fear of loss.

Many people have difficulty with the concept found in Matthew 25:29. They cannot understand why a loving God will give to the one who already has something and not to the underdog, or to the one in need. We must keep in mind that none of the talents possessed by the servants belonged to them. They belonged to the master. While many view the larger picture as one of harsh judgment, I think Christ was actually explaining spiritual mechanics – and that by comparison to physical mechanics.

Let us explain it in different terminology. I will borrow from the concept of physical exercise. Two arms are given identical muscles. One arm is exercised while the other is not. The arm that exercises its muscle is given addition muscle. The arm that does not exercise suffers muscle loss and weakness. In this light, I think that Christ merely explained a universal principle. We have common sayings like, 'it takes money to make money' and 'move it or lose it' (alternately: 'you snooze you lose.')

What made the unprofitable servant wicked? Sloth. He failed to act on the will of his master. He was part of a machine that had to use its talents to make more talents. That process suffered due to one individual's inaction. He was the weak link in the chain of

success. We might say that he was not on the same page as the rest of the crew. The fact that the master would not have hidden his own money shows us that that one servant was not like-minded, as were the servants who invested what they had been given. They used their talents in the same way that their master would have. They were like-minded; they were on the same page.

The man who did not use what he was given lost what he had. The man with many talents ended up owning it. Let us consider this. If we esteem a talent as spiritual, how must we esteem the earth we bury it in? Good advice: do not bury your spiritual gifts under the world. Worldliness is not a viable solution. Do not resign yourself to the outer darkness of utter abandonment. Dig up your talents. Use them. Work them. Grow them.

Be the man of many talents.

A Fork in the Road: I was hungry, thirsty, a naked stranger, sick and in prison; some of you cared, some of you did not. This is the test found in the parable of the sheep and the goats. The parable is found in Matthew 25:31-46.

The seeker of truth seeks truth because it is his nature to do so. Our quest for truth is a quest for God, who is one with Christ, and so it follows that our quest for God is a quest for Christ, with whom we are one. The seeker of truth is actually on a quest for self. Our self-nature is the nature of the one we seek, and the very reason that we do what we do.

Our choices follow the nature to which we are most closely aligned.

The parable of the sheep and goats is a parable about natures. The nature of the sheep is aligned to the nature of the shepherd. The nature of the goat seeks self-elevation. A cursory observation of goats is enough to show that goats seek out a higher position.

They are climbers. Their nature is aligned to the one who sought to be as high as God. Mark 8:33, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.” 1 Timothy 3:6, “Lest being lifted up with pride he

fall into the condemnation of the devil.” Isaiah 14:12-14, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven . . .

I will be like the most High.”

The parable represents a fork in the road of personal choice. The king divides the sheep to his right and the goats to his left: choice. The sheep choose to focus on the small details of each pasture their shepherd leads them to, and thereby sustain themselves; the goats choose to focus on self and higher ground. It can be said that the sheep have a predilection toward the right while the goats lean ever to the left. Also, there are two opposing destinations, each the natural outcome of personal inclination.

Matthew 25:40, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:45, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” That being put forth, it must be noted that sheep and goats alike had a blind spot. The goats for all their climbing and self-absorption, could not see that their focus excluded the people that Christ the King considered his brethren. The focus of the sheep, on the other hand, was so commonly attuned to the brethren that they failed to associate the details of their nature with the details of the nature of God. The small ordinary details are always a part of the bigger picture. A person who gathers pennies shares the exact nature of the one who possesses dollars.

There are two epithets associated with the king's judgment of the sheep and goats.

Matthew 25:34, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 25:41, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Let us examine the words chosen. Blessed simply means a better happier state. That might work out as either actively made better or happier through the work of God, or better and happier as the outcome of alignment between our nature and that of God. On the other hand, cursed may not necessarily be an active application by the hand of God, but rather, and this is my assumption, a recognition of the nature of opposition.

The choices are always our own. Every step places us at the fork in the road of personal choice. That being said, I would like to end this small study with a few points of interest.

First is the fact that Christ immediately associates himself with the king who sits in judgment. He says in Matthew 25:31, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. “ Glory is a state to be arrived at, to attain. Holy angels will accompany him, and the throne of attained glory speaks of a kingdom, (one which will be inherited by those who are aligned to him by their very nature.)

It is interesting to note that just as the Son of man will be accompanied by angels when he arrives, so too will the devil be accompanied by angels when he attains the outcome of his self-will and opposition to God. For me, that says both God and the devil are big enough and strong enough to have angels. Angels, in one particular sense, are messengers of the will of their master. God's messengers tell men the message from God. The angels of the devil have a message of opposition to God. Who are those angels? Revelation 12:9 says, “Satan, which deceiveth the whole world, he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Who are the ones speaking the message of opposition to God and Christ? They are the angels of the devil.

They are here in the earth. They are real. Are they you? In that vein, we must see more than a few wayward individuals. We must know that the message goes out on a national level. Islam is a national phenomenon. Atheism is a national phenomenon. Christ said this in Matthew 25:32, “And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another.”

You will always find yourself at a place where choices must be made. You must align yourself. You will always be a member of some nation. What is that nation's alignment?

What message does it send? Which angels has the strongest voice? If men who speak the message of the devil go to the place where the devil's angels go, then might it not be a real possibility that seekers, like some of you are, may speak with the mighty voice of an angel of God? The choice is yours to make.

Let's look at opposites for a moment. The blessed achieve eternal life while the cursed achieve eternal punishment. One is not immediately impressed that life and punishment are listed as opposites. We think of death as the opposite to life. The outcome of the cursed predilection is given added veracity in that it is named in another way. The punishment that is said to be everlasting is also phrased as everlasting fire. Similar expressions from other areas of scripture are eternal damnation, the second death and outer darkness. We never see that death is eternal or everlasting. Only life has that guarantee.

Passover Wine Matthew 26:26-29 is not a parable, but rather an exercise in discerning what is said from what is not said. It is the last supper. Jesus eats with his twelve disciples. Is the usual Jewish Passover custom replaced by something new? Does Christ put himself in the place of the lamb that is slain? Is it his body that is eaten and is it his blood that covers to the end of redemption?

He breaks the bread, he pours the wine, he speaks – what does he say and what does he not? Many readers race through the passage on their way to read another passage, and the message is taken at face value, that it is just something that is said and something that is done, and a thing that has become a custom of men and a regular church practice.

Let us examine the thing that was done. Matthew 26:19, “And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.” It was that thing the Jews did once a year in obedience to God. It was the Jewish commemoration of salvation and freedom. It was not the Easter meal, nor was the last supper, at this point, particularly Christian.

Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples. It was the Jewish thing to do. We see in the thing that was done that Jesus and his disciples all identified with that Jewish custom. Also, we see in Matthew 26:21, “And as they did eat,” that they were eating the Passover before the breaking of bread later in verse 26.

As for things done, all of them were first engaged in the custom of the Jews. They were, after all, of that faith. As for things done, the breaking of the bread was added toward the end of the meal, before the hymn was sung. What we must consider is whether the breaking of bread was a part of the Jewish Passover or a transition from the Jewish commemoration of salvation to a Christian commemoration of salvation. The Breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine wholly supplant the Paschal Lamb.

What are we looking at when we view the final meal of Jesus? What do we see in the bread and the wine? First of all, none of the disciples took up the bread and the wine on their own. They neither broke the bread, nor poured the wine. Christ did both. Then he handed it to the disciples. All the disciples did was receive the gift.

The Paschal Lamb eaten on the Jewish Passover had always represented the work of God. It was God's mighty hand and outstretched arm. Likewise, the bread and the wine represent the work of Christ: his broken body and spilled blood. The work of Christ was not separate from the work or will of God the Father, neither was the representation of Christ's work separate from the representation of God's work. It follows that the celebration and commemoration of salvation in Christ must necessarily be a part of the celebration and commemoration of the Jewish Passover.

What this means is that the Jew and the Christian are one. They are united in God, in Christ, and in salvation. What this does not mean is an Easter meal, sunrise service, or crackers and grape juice in church.

Much of this is common thought, and many people stop here. Yet, there is more to the breaking of bread and the pouring out of the wine. There is a saying that is so common that one is at odds as to just what must be done with it. It is, 'you are what you eat.'

Think this: just as the Jews eat the lamb (their salvation) and are saved, so too do the Christians eat the Passover bread (their salvation) and are saved.

Christ did the thing that was done, the disciples took that work into themselves. If we are what we eat, when we partake of the body and blood of Christ, then we must become the work of Christ. We must become the broken body and spilled blood of Christ. We must become salvation and the continuance of the Passover. This transformation is an alignment toward the goal: for the Jew, it was the promised land flowing with milk and honey. For the Christian, it is Heaven and the New Jerusalem. It is our ascension into freedom.

Now, let us examine what Christ said as he passed around our freedom. He said of his body as he knowingly broke it in Matthew 26:26, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Another way to say this might be, 'This is my sacrifice and victory, make it a part of you.' In the very next verse, Christ said of the blood he was to shed on the cross, “Drink ye all of it.”

What he did not say was, 'drink some of it', or 'drink the part you want', or even 'drink your part and your brother's part, – he spoke to all of them as one. What he said of his sacrifice and victory was, 'Don't waste a drop.'

He also said, “For this my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” The blood of the old testament came from the lamb and was applied over the door. The lamb was eaten, but the blood was not. Blood was considered the life

of the body, so that the following laws forbade the consumption of blood. Neither was wine used as a representation of that life. What changed with the new testament?

In the new testament, both body and blood were considered life to be incorporated, not symbolically but in truth. Imbibe the symbols, but don't stop there. Be what you eat. Be the life, be the victory that gains the freedom. Reach the promised land neither as Jew nor Christian, but as the son of God. Yes, symbols play a critical role in our spiritual evolution, but let's keep them in their proper places. Lamb's blood over a door and Christ being the door: let's not put the round peg in the square hole. Let us also remember that Christ called for the Passover, and not Easter or church service, as the vehicle of his new testament symbols.

As he ate the Jewish Passover with his disciples, he took an item from that particular commemoration and turned it into a symbol, saying in Luke 22:19, “This do in remembrance of me.”

Finally, there is something which Christ said that needs a fresh eye. Let us throw some water in our faces and shake our heads and wake ourselves. Let us take a new look at the words of Christ with fresh eyes. He said this in Matthew 26:29, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” What is he saying? Wine will be served in Heaven? God's kingdom will be here on earth, with harvests of grapes? And if the latter is the case, will the disciples be reincarnated?

I end this on a lighter note, speaking especially to those who have considered hell because that is where their drinking buddies will be. Nowhere in scripture are we told that alcoholic beverages will be served in hell. Yet, new wine will be served in the kingdom of God.

Who is the son of man?

I turn now to the book of Mark, to the second chapter, with attention to verses 20-28.

Two brief, but telling, parables present themselves in this text. They occur in the early portion of Christ's three-year ministry, and it is illuminating to read that more than disciples traveled with him. Pharisees seem to have dogged his early steps, and we have to ask 'why?'

It could be they traveled with him from town to town. Although new on the scene, Jesus had quickly become a person of interest. It could be that the Pharisees mentioned in this text merely came out to meet him as he entered their town. Christ had a routine of speaking at the synagogues of towns he visited. Perhaps word traveled ahead of him.

Turns out he had been in Capernaum healing the sick and amazing onlookers with unexpected miracles. He had been asked why his disciples did not fast. Perhaps there was a regular time for that ritual, but it appears Jesus and his disciples were maxed out with all the people brought to Peter's house for healing. He called the tax collector to be a disciple, there by the sea. He ate with him a feast that included not only his disciples, new and old; not only the women that ministered to him, and that would have included some children, but also forgiven sinners, publicans, and recently healed believers. The numbers could well have reached into the hundreds.

Let us not forget that church leaders and teachers of the law, Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawyers followed along. There was much interest from the latter as to whether Jesus and his following would 'get it right' – according to the law. They fasted, they observed the law, they wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples did not. Jesus had an answer in Mark 2:19-20. He said, “Can the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom

is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.�

It is a short, but telling, parable. First of all, it tells us that we are not looking at guests to a wedding, as we have seen in other parables. These are neither guests nor attendees, they are children – and not only that, they are 'children of the bridechamber.' There was a certain mythos surrounding the concept of the bridal chamber. It was a secret place meant only for the union of a noble heir and his virgin bride. It was the place where future heirs were engendered.

Fasting is set forth in the light of two opposing associations. First is the joy of knowing you are heir to your father. Second is the void that is filled with rituals and customs of men. The one speaks of certainty while the other says we are on hold, waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. For those who followed Jesus, those whose faith proved them, that hope was fulfilled in Christ.

To further explain what he was saying, he added the parable of the patch and the wine bottles. These should not be viewed apart from what he just said about fasting. They are an addendum to that topic. They, along with the part about fasting, constitute the three witnesses that prove a point. When Christ says that a patch made from new material will only worsen the rent in an old garment, ask yourself what that has to do with fasting, with waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. When Christ says that new wine will burst used bottles, ask yourself what that has to do with fasting, with waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. Note the spirit and mental state of the children of the bridechamber and compare that with the spirit involved in mending a torn garment or ensuring the successful fermentation of a new batch of wine.

It is for you, the reader, to ascertain your own thoughts on this issue, for I will deal separately with the parable of mending and wine making. I will examine the wording and meaning of this important parable at length in another section of this study. For now, it is necessary that you keep the connection of these three alive in your thinking. As with the associations of the fasting issue, both mending and wine making also have two opposing associations. With the mending, it is old patch or new patch, and which one is the right choice. With wine making, it is old bottle or new bottle, and which one is the right choice.

Then Jesus walked through a field of wheat or barley. With him traveled the disciples, the women that served and attended the needs of his ministry, all the publicans and sinners and healed believers that followed him, and the Pharisees that observed and tested his ministerial strengths. It was the Sabbath, so that meant they couldn't walk awfully far. It also meant that a synagogue was the likely destination. The Pharisees brought a point to Christ's attention. His disciples were plucking grain on the Sabbath.

Obviously, they saw it as a breach of Sabbath law. Why did the disciples do it?

It seems reasonable to assume that the disciples of Christ frequented synagogues and were as aware as any others of the laws of the Sabbath. We know that Christ was big on the law – that is, the core law – and often took a stand against legalisms and nitpicking.

Were the disciples hungry, were they bored? Had their supplies run low? Had Christ asked his disciples to pick grains knowing the Pharisees would be keen to bring it up?

Christ had a point to make, and while we may tire of the Pharisees' constant nagging and ragging, I think that Christ included them in his ministry as much as his disciples. I get the sense of Christ revamping an entire religious system on the go.

Christ answered the Pharisees with an example from scripture they would know well.

David and his men ate showbread in the temple, and none of them were priests – but they were men. He explained to them that the Sabbath was made for men, therefore, the 'son of man' was also Lord of the Sabbath. He explained that men should not be slaves to the Sabbath, therefore, 'the son of man' was also Lord of the Sabbath. Why do you think Jesus used that expression? It is not said that Christ picked any of the grain; he was not defending himself, neither was he defending his disciples, but he was refuting the Pharisees' notions of what was right and wrong.

He could have said that the King of Kings was Lord of the Sabbath, but he didn't. He said the Lord of the Sabbath was the son of man. So, who was the son of man? Who is he still? Was the son of man the bridegroom? Of course he was. Then, aren't the children of the bridechamber, the heirs of all their father gives, also the sons of man? The question is, do men control their customs, or do the customs control men? Finally, are you a son of man? If so, then take control.

Do you see what I see?

I am between parables again, but I feel I have a responsibility to the truth. If the Spirit will take the time to bring something to my attention, I can certainly take the time to see what it means. There are points in Mark 3 we need to examine. In the past, I am sure that

I have been as guilty as anyone else of racing past these points, of overlooking these points. In doing so, we are all guilty of robbing ourselves of the clarity we need in such matters.

Christ had just healed the withered hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath. In a list of 40 miracles, that one was number 11. It was still fairly early in the three-year ministry. The importance of this point will be made clear in a moment. The context in which this point belongs must first be made plain. After the healing, the Pharisees left and consulted with the Herodians (Mk. 3:6) on how to destroy Jesus. Why, because he did something good?

After the healing, Jesus left and went down to the sea of Galilee. There he arranged to have a boat ready to launch at a moments notice. People followed him there. Not only the twelve, not only the women and children but literal crowds from each and every town. Makes you wonder how fast word got around. Something wonderful was occurring, and they all wanted to go and see. There was a crowd from Galilee, a crowd from Judaea, a crowd from Jerusalem, a crowd from Idumaea, a crowd from beyond Jordan, a crowd from Tyre, and a crowd from Sidon (Mk. 3:7-8). Altogether, it was nothing short of a multitude.

Is it any wonder he arranged for a boat? So many people followed, seeking to be healed, it was impossible to sit down and eat. The possessed fell prostrate before him and confessed that he was the Son of God. Plague victims pressed in from all sides. Jesus was surrounded, so he took his closest followers and retreated to a mountainous area above the maddening crowd. Here is a point I had overlooked before.

The twelve were called disciples elsewhere, but it was here on this hilltop that they were ordained. What does it mean to be ordained? Who is authorized in such practices? A quick search of the internet shows this from Wikipedia: 'Ordination is the process by which individuals are consecrated, that is set apart as clergy to perform various religious rites and ceremonies'. Jesus was called a Rabbi. Did he ordain the twelve into a rabbinical order? Was this the new school making a break from the old school?

Can we assume that the anger and violence of the Pharisees were due to a sense of being betrayed by one of their own? The Pharisees, as is all too plain, followed Jesus from the beginning and went with him everywhere. Many scholars make the assumption that Jesus was a member of some order or the other. Some like to place Jesus among the Essenes, but it was the scribes and Rabbis, taken collectively, that comprised the group known as the Pharisees. Of all the religious and political groups of that day, the Pharisees are known as the most progressive. Could it have been that Jesus was their star pupil? Why did the Pharisees consult with the purely political Herodians rather than the Sadducees?

Here is another point most of us have gravely underestimated. Christ had just ordained the twelve, and now, they were returned and in a house, with the multitude pressing in on them in an unpredictable and unmanageable manner. In Mark 3:21 we find this odd statement, “And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.”

Out from where, we ask? As an addendum, the very next verse adds this information: Mark 3:22, “And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.” Then in the following verse, 23, Jesus “called them unto him.” Through his closest followers, but also throngs from seven geographic regions, Jesus called those who went out and came down. In other words, he called the scribes and Pharisees. He called them because they had said that he was beside himself and that he had an unclean spirit.

He rebuked them with a parable that spoke in terms of a kingdom and a house. The authority of either must be united, else it is not what it claims to be, and by small digressions it will whittle itself into non-existence. Then Jesus says this in verse 27, “No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoils his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” More than the reference to a kingdom, we should look at his reference to a house, and the authority of that house.

Two possibilities stand out. Either Christ spoke of the house of Satan, or he spoke of the house of the scribes and Pharisees. If it was the former, Christ forewarned of his attack on sin and death, and his victory through man's redemption. If it was the latter, then Christ was letting the Pharisees know that his plan to bring them down was going as planned. Jesus may then be seen in the light of a purist whose intent was to put religion right. As later verses clearly show, what mattered to him was obedience to the will of God and devotion to the Holy Spirit of Truth. In the context of those two parameters, every deficiency, spiritual, physical, or political, could be rectified.

The seeds of Mark Four: Jump with me. I shall move from point to point as I examine the entire fourth chapter of Mark. This is where the ship comes into play. As you might recall, our study in Mark three informed us that Christ had arranged in advance to have a ship ready. Mark Four is a soapbox chapter. Christ used the ship as a platform from which to preach to a sold out crowd. It was a multitude comprised from seven separate geographical regions. It was standing room only.

The text claims that Jesus spoke to the multitude only in parables and that he taught them many things, the expression “in his doctrine” shows us that the writer picked

certain of the parables to bring forward. It seems noteworthy that the parables mentioned in Mark four are those that deal with seeds. Let us count them off.

The first parable (Mk. 4:3-8) was the one about the sowing of seeds in divergent growing conditions, the one that Jesus explained in detail to his disciples in Mark 4:1420. The second seed parable is found in Mark 4:26-29. It is the one that shows us the goal of the exercise – the harvest. The third is found in Mark 4:30-32. It is the one that compares the kingdom to a mustard seed, that is the making of something large and wonderful from a thing that seems insignificant.

In this study, I will not deal so much with the parables as I will the connective tissue that binds muscle to bone, as it were. We must keep in mind that these parables were not preached to the Pharisees, or to anyone proficient in the law, but to the uneducated masses. Many of them knew all too well how the thing with seeds worked. They were results-driven individuals who knew, for instance, that you had to plant seeds in good soil. They knew the tiny mustard seed produced a large tree. So despite their total lack of scientific knowledge about how the seeds took on and grew, they understood perfectly that if you wanted to eat, the harvest was the whole point.

I believe many of them understood the parables, and the rest of them had the necessary experience to work it out – if only they would apply themselves. Christ even explained his parables with common knowledge and understatements. His words never went over their heads. Mark 4:21 is an example of the understatement. It is a question that needs no answer and explains perfectly that things are done for a reason. You light a candle for the light, not the dark. You plant the seeds to get something predetermined. You speak not to the nose, but to the ear. “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mk. 4:23) It is just as obvious that we, today can work these things out – if only we apply ourselves. Sometimes we are just too lazy. We want the answers handed to us on a silver platter. Even the disciples failed in that regard, asking for the meaning of the parable rather than working it out. So Christ explained it to them and made it very clear. What I want us all to see, however, is the connective wording between the parable and the truth.

Christ said this in Mark 4:13, “Know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?” What did he mean? People like you and I need to be quite clear on this. A parable can be a locked door to many, but what is the key that opens a parable? It may surprise you to be told this, but the parable is the key. The parable has a predetermined structure which may be used to determine any truth. Through the parable, all spiritual truths will open to us.

Many of us look and don't look at the same time. We look right at something and fail to see it. When Christ stilled the raging sea, how many boats were in the water? I had

always thought there was just the one, but as it turns out, other boats launched out with his. Mark 4:36 says this, “And there were also with him other little ships.” I present that as proof that we don't always see what we are looking at. Our focus can be limiting.

It should not surprise you, then, that I say many who read the Bible miss the finer details and deeper truths. Christ, himself, said as much in the statement, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” You simply have to work at it. The man who always looks at his feet will neither see the moon nor will he be convinced of it by another's words.

In this regard, I present the finer details and deeper truths found in Mark 4:24-25. “Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” It's like a universal law of direction. Which direction do you choose?

Augmentation might be considered another law. By augmentation I mean direction, practice, work, development. For example, you look at the moon and you see the face, but you want more details. You build a crude telescope and the craters begin to take shape. It is the desire that brings the means, and you know that if you can refine the telescope, more will come to you.

The majority of us have to work for what we get. If we want to eat, we must work the harvest. Our nature dictates that we will do what we must to obtain what we need. The same is as true of our spiritual needs as it is of our physical needs. Many of us don't realize our spiritual needs, therefore, there is no work in that direction. We look at our shoes and ignore the moon. Others of us do, at some point, adopt a notion of the moon – if we can wear them on our feet.

Jesus explained things to his disciples, the others had parables, which is the same thing, they just had to choose a direction and do the work. Many do more than ignore the moon, they campaign against it. They fight it tooth and nail. They belittle it as fantasy and wish fulfillment. It is an isolationist scenario in which they refuse to be instructed, for that would require they looked up from their own sense of self.

This is why Jesus spoke in parables. Some would take the high and glorious and soil it, utilize it in a low manner. Mark 4:11-12, “Unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted . . .” They have chosen their direction. It is pro-self and anti-truth, for they fear the loss of identity.

Do you have an eye for details?

I turned my attention to Mark, chapter five, in search of the next parable but found none.

Instead, I found so much more. I have always been impressed that those who chronicled these deeds of Christ chose the words that we now read. If a thing was written down, that was because the writer thought it important enough to mention. They could have lingered on the major points – that Christ was a priest/king, or that Christ was a healer, or a prophet, savior, or the very son of almighty God. Yet, they thought certain small details merited mention.

I see the authenticity of the Bible in those small details. They prove to me the humanity of Christ or the dismay of ordinary people faced with the unimaginable. I have often said that I see the things that others overlook, but in truth, we all see the details. They are there before us in black and white. A person with a blind spot will not immediately catch on, neither will the person with something to prove, nor yet again will the person who assumes, presumes, or predetermines.

Do you have an eye for details? If so, I invite you to reexamine with me the fifth chapter of the book of Mark. It is, at once, a book both of mesmerizing miracles and convincing real-life details. Christ had just taught the multitudes from a hired ship by the western shore of the sea of Galilee. He had crossed to the eastern side, calming a storm in transit.

Chapter five presents us with three miracles.

The first of these is the man possessed by Legion. After the miracle, the gentiles of that region gathered to find that not only was the man dressed and in his right mind, but 2000 dead pigs were floating in the sea of Galilee. That second point affected them more than the first, for their livelihoods had been diminished. The people feared his destructive power and asked him to leave.

Back on the other side, likely at the very place from which he had departed, the leader of that city's synagogue kneeled before him to beg a favor. It is possible that Jairus was one of those who had taunted him and schemed with the Herodians for his destruction.

Times and fates, however, defy the most stalwart of lives. Things change. When they do, we must change with them. Christ, having the reputation as a Master and healer was the last hope for a daughter loved, but upon death's very door. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Jairus begs for his daughter's life and Christ answers the plea. Yet, even before he raises that 12-year-old girl from the dead, he heals a woman with an issue of blood. Mark five displays three wonderful and wrenching miracles. Now, it might be enough, if the writer had only some major point to express, if only the miracles had been recounted, for indeed they showed the divine in Christ, they showed his healing power. Yet, more than

these alone, the writer felt that certain small details were important enough to write about. Let us examine those details together.

We turn first to the possessed. Might it not have been enough to state that the man had an evil spirit? Would it not have been sufficient to show the power of the son of God over so many evil spirits that they were named Legion? If you just had that to report, no more needed to be said. Yet, more was said. Why? I think it is because the writer was amazed at what had occurred. The list of reported facts went well beyond the comfortable realm of that which was considered 'normal'. These are the small details that amazed the writer.

The possessed man was strong – no one could tame him. Obviously, previous attempts to subdue the man had failed. They had failed with ropes, they had failed with fetters, they had even failed with chains. The man always managed to remove them, even in some cases breaking them into pieces. Myths are built around such men, and stories of this type continue from generation to generation. As an example of such, I was once incarcerated in a jail in the city of Leesville, Louisiana. The jail had stood since the late 1880s. A story was told to me of a man so strong, that when he awoke from a drunk to find himself in jail, he bent the bars on the door with his bare hands. I saw those bars with my own eyes, they were one inch thick and made from blue steel. As I say, authenticity may be found in the details.

So, this strong wild man was important to the writer. This was the type of man that Jesus faced – a man known to inhabit the mountain wilds and tombs of the dead – a man heard by many to cry pathetically, and known for such a lamentable state that he would even cut himself with rocks. He was feared by the locals and left to his own devices. This was the man that ran at Christ while those with him watched, amazed and helpless to act.

Christ commanded the spirit to depart from the man, who then fell at Jesus' feet and worshiped him.

“What have I to do with you, Jesus, son of the most high God?” said the man in a loud

voice, upon which Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” The man answered, “My name is Legion: for we are many.” Now, throughout this exchange, those who attended Jesus stood quietly watching. Legion begged to retain their corporal host, desperate enough to accept the bodies of 2000 pigs. The command of Christ could not be denied, for Christ would not suffer the evil spirits, and when the swine had been possessed, Christ sent them in a panic to their deaths.

So, what is the important message in this report? The story could have begun and concluded on the power of Christ over a legion of evil spirits. Yet, there are details about the wild man – and something else the writer felt was important. The locals saw their livelihoods dead in the sea. They feared him who was stronger than Legion. They

rejected him who had trimmed their purse strings so short.

Then, there is the miracle of the raised girl. It would have been enough to show the healer so willing to heal. It would have been enough to show a powerful man on his knees before Jesus. But there are details, and as we are coming to see, there is truth in the details. Let us look at the details. He was back on the other side again. He was near the sea of Galilee in the same area in which he taught the multitudes in parables. There was still enough of a crowd that Jesus again was thronged. Despite the press, one of the rulers of the synagogue made his way to Jesus and fell at his feet, humble, prostrate, desperate.

Now, Jesus traveled with a sizable entourage, and upon his return to the western banks of Galilee, this number was compounded by the crowd that surrounded him. One man, proud in his station, pushed through the multitude, but his station and his pride no longer mattered: his daughter was dying, and Jesus could heal her. He had healed others. It was a father's desperation that threw this leader at the feet of a man his order rejected.

Who ruled the synagogues? A council of elders which may have been constituted of Pharisees and other religious rulers. Perhaps Jairus witnessed the healing of the withered hand. Whether his take on the law set him at disagreement with Jesus, or he had been named among those that chapter three of this book called 'friends', the healer's reputation was undeniable. Jairus humbly begged the life of his daughter.

It is the small details that make a story real. Those unsung tidbits of scripture describe the human nature. They paint a vivid portrait of the moment, and the spirit in which the facts go down. It seems rather immediate, but Jesus went with the ruler of the synagogue. Jesus' entourage went with him, and a large following of people filled in every empty space so that the writer wrote that Jesus was 'thronged'.

Under these circumstances, Jesus was bumped and jostled to the point that even his disciples could not guard his person. I don't doubt they tried. I don't doubt there was a measure of frustration in that event. Into that pressed scenario came a woman with a disease. She touched the clothing of Jesus and was healed. Skeptics will always be more of what they practice. Naturally, they will say this event is just too fantastic to believe.

There is no record that anyone knew of her until the incident. Information for the record would have had to be gathered after the fact. Again, the writer felt that information warranted mention. What are the details? The woman had an issue of blood. Her ailment had blighted her life for 12 years. She had spent all her money on Doctors, but had not improved, rather it is said that she got worse. Furthermore, the writer wanted the reader to know a small but important detail – a very human detail – the woman had suffered at the hands of those who could not really help. That represents 12 years of dashed hopes.

Yet, she had enough faith left, and enough desperation, to push through the throng and touch the clothing of Jesus. No doubt, she had been part of the multitudes since chapter three, in which the withered hand was healed. No doubt, she also heard of the man who had been possessed on the eastern banks of the Galilee. Whether in the council of friends or not, faith drove her to act.

Jesus stopped because of a detail. That detail was that he 'felt' the healing virtue leave his person. I have always found this particular story very telling. Imagine the hustle, the bustle. Imagine the jostling and the clamor of voices, the dust rising up from the road.

Imagine the focus of the disciples to get Jesus to Jairus' house – and Jesus stops and turns. The voices vanish as he calls out, “Who touched my clothes?”

This is where the human factor convinces me of the truth of the miracle: his disciples responded thus, “You see the multitude thronging you, and yet you ask, who touched me?” They were incredulous. They were perplexed at his words. How could he say such a thing under those conditions? I wonder if I am the only one who sees that Jesus perceived the 'virtue' going out of him as an energy taking direction? Virtue seems a vague concept to many, but I wish the reader of this study to see virtue as energy and power, effective in its discharge. The woman, it is said, knew immediately that her plague was gone. She also felt the weight of Jesus' question as wholly personal.

I relate to that, and I'll tell you why. In elementary school, I was trying to read a comic book during a class. I had it concealed inside the school book I held so that if the teacher should look my way, he would see the jacket of the school book. A sort of charged silence overtook the classroom, and the teacher cleared his throat. A wave of adrenaline flooded my system, telling me I was the target of the throat-clearing. I knew without a doubt that I had been found out.

The woman, I have little doubt, felt much the same. She was compelled to confess her deed – not that she was guilty of any wrong doing – but still, she threw herself before him and confessed all. He said, “Your faith has made you whole.” Can you see it? Jesus deliberately and knowingly healed many people. She was not one of them. It was the woman and her faith that tapped into the energy of Christ. She effected her own healing.

Jesus' words were not platitudinous but spoke of the real connection between such power and the spirit of the person.

While that transpired, people came from the house of Jairus. They were not a part of the crowd that day but surely were as privy to all the word-of-mouth that flew around the actions of Jesus. They would have known of his reputation and formed an opinion.

These might have been servants of the house of Jairus, or they might have been friends or fellow elders of the synagogue. One line is attributed to them, but it speaks volumes for such an overlooked detail.

They said, “Your daughter is dead: why trouble the Master any further?” Was it mere servants who thought of Jesus as 'the Master'? Was it friends, or family, or fellow elders who used the word 'Master'? It is telling that this detail was retained in the account, more so that the writer, or translator, thought to capitalize the word.

Must have been a wrenching moment for the father of the girl, but how close to Jairus' house were they when that occurred? Probably quite close, for it was at a point where Jesus, Jairus, and three disciples could go on alone. Christ would have had to deliberately turn back the crowd that had followed him. Remember, he was thronged by a multitude. His command to the crowd to would need to be forceful. While not a part of the story, I can imagine those of the household meeting Jesus and Jairus at the outer gates of the property.

Let us look at what Jesus told Jairus. He said, “Be not afraid, only believe.” He said this on the heels of having told the woman that her faith had made her whole. I bring this up because it points to a connection between faith and fear as if they are opposites – the one being fully able to cancel out the other. Faith powers miracles and that spiritual frame of mind cannot be achieved through fear.

So, Christ enters the house to heal the girl. Obviously, there are people still there – family members, neighbors, friends of the family – grieving and mourning in the cultural fashion. Jesus rebukes the custom and is “laughed to scorn”, as the scripture puts it. Without the small details, it may be assumed a writer of such an account need only present the core matter, that being to show Jesus as the healer, and or the son of God. If such propaganda is the tactic, then all coincidental characters will have their hands in the air and be singing praises, but people knew when someone was dead, so of course, they would laugh and scorn and ridicule – that was part and parcel of who they were. That shows me they were real.

Jesus puts them all out of the room. The only others there are the parents and the three disciples. Jesus takes the girl's hand and says, “Talitha cumi.” This is a Syriac expression, which according to my inquiry, Jesus used regularly, as it was the common language in which he communicated. The writer of Mark thought this particular expression was important enough to keep in Syriac and to translate for the reader. It is confusing to me because if Jesus normally spoke in this dialect of Aramaic, then the writer was already translating what Jesus said for the reader. Why not simply do the same with this expression and say that Jesus took the hand of the maid and said arise little maid. This detail is intriguing in that the Syriac expression is treated as an incantation.

Finally, the girl arises from her state (Jesus had said that she only slept) and everyone is duly and rightfully amazed. In closing, I would like to illuminate a final detail, one that

shows me the veracity of the account of a miracle. It's a little thing, but it stands tall in my estimation. Jesus turns to the parents and tells them to be sure to make the girl eat some food. Sounds like a physician. Sounds like someone who knew the first need of a body that comes from such a state as that girl was certainly in. Do you have an eye for details? Think on these. It may be the story takes on an added dimension for you – the dimension of a spiritually awakened reader.

Three small verses Mark 6:1-3 is another of my off-topic side-trips. Given there is so much of the Bible to read, small details are not dwelt upon long enough to clearly understand. That is the case of these three verses in Mark Six. So, I would like us all to simply stop. Stop racing forward. Stop awhile and dwell on these three small verses.

Jesus had entered his own country of Judea; his disciples followed him. Jesus' hometown of Bethlehem was just five or six miles south of Jerusalem. On the Sabbath, he taught at the synagogue. We are impressed, initially, with the familiarity of the locals.

It is a familiarity that makes us suspect that the events of these three verses took place in Bethlehem.

We gather much from the attitudes and thoughts of the locals. Not only is divine authority brought into question, but also, we see that Jesus' Rabbinic status is seen as less than credible. Now, we are familiar with the habit of Jesus teaching in synagogues, but in actuality, there was no formal synagogue hierarchy – they had no specified preachers and the customs allowed for any man to read and speak.

However, we also know that the elders and Pharisees and Sadducees, etc., were received with attitudes of respect. Their knowledge of scripture and authority was a given among the lower echelons of society. Their deeds, while mundane, were rarely doubted. That is not the case with Jesus in this particular synagogue. The attitude of the people was, from the beginning, one of incredulity. Note how they reasoned among themselves about his knowledge, his authority, his reputation.

Mark 6:2 give us this: “Many hearing him were astonished, saying, from whence hath this man these things?” In other words, just who did Jesus think he was? They questioned the source of knowledge and wisdom he drew upon, for it smacked of not being the ordinary doctrine of the Rabbis to which they were accustomed. By extension,

if his doctrine was so different, how far afield was he in his deeds?

We know little of the Rabbis in the day of Jesus. For instance, did they wear a particular type of clothing or hat that might quickly identify them. A Rabbi seen in his Rabbi threads would have been more immediately accepted – in the Pavlovian sense of acceptance. Rabbis might also have been more sedentary, preferring to travel less than Jesus did. In fact, Jesus may have been the only man called Rabbi, at that time, who made house calls. Yet, being called Rabbi by a small troupe of followers is not the same thing as being among the bonafide elite.

We have a saying that goes: 'familiarity breeds contempt.' They found it hard to believe that one of their own, a commoner like themselves, should reach so far above his station in life. While they seem to have certainly known him and his family, their familiarity with Jesus seems not to have extended to any knowledge of formal training or credentials on Jesus' part. What did they base their attitude on, we must ask? When they asked among themselves, “Is not this the carpenter?” I get no sense that they meant the twelve-year-old boy learning the trade from his father Joseph. 'The carpenter' indicates someone who made a living in that trade. The people viewed Jesus as a common laborer – just as ordinary and small as themselves. They galled, 'How dare he be so big'?

Somehow, I see a message bubbling just under the surface of this incident. As a message, it is vague and elusive, but I suspect that in it familiarity, contempt, and faithlessness are interwoven. It is asserted that because they did not believe, Jesus could only do a few incidental miracles in the country of his birth.

Their knowledge of Jesus demands a bit more scrutiny. In their familiarity, certain family members are listed. Mary, James, Joses, Juda, and Simon are listed, plus a plurality of sisters. Jesus came from a large family, and that demands some investigation. We are looking at a family with seven or eight children. This should key thoughts about the logistics of feeding such a family, which in turn should lend credence to the statement of the people: 'the carpenter.' It seems altogether plausible that the carpenter worked along with father and brothers in the ongoing routine of putting bread on the table. Because of their familiarity of Jesus and his family, I can see the adult Jesus in the role of a carpenter.

When we think of a family, we think of the years it takes for children to grow up in their community. If Jesus was the first child of Joseph and Mary, some scholars believing she

married at age 14, and if Jesus was in his thirties when he returned to preach in his own country, that would suggest that some of his siblings were in their twenties. Perhaps some of Jesus' sisters had already been married into the community. Mary would certainly be in her mid to upper forties at that time.

Jesus was perhaps near the half-way mark in his three and a half year ministry, so he may have been away from home for two or three years before this return. The locals would have had a clear memory of Jesus as 'the carpenter.' That is in contradiction, I realize, to those who believe Christ had been absent from his country since his early teens – perhaps in India. I also realize that many think the siblings of Jesus came from a previous marriage on the part of Joseph, but what if that was not the case?

What if Joseph had been around longer than many want to believe. I am not suggesting that the sex life of revered saints was prolific, but if a woman has one child a year, fourteen years plus eight would have Joseph around in Mary's twenties and when Jesus was eight. We know Joseph was around when Jesus was twelve. With such a large family, why did Joseph and Mary travel to Jerusalem with just a twelve-year-old Jesus?

If they left all the other children in the care of others and just took Jesus, that would suggest a specific purpose.

I could go on. Three small verses can -- given enough thought, bring many new questions to bear. It is obvious that I think on these matters. Such thoughts are a joy, for they are elevated above the everyday. If any follow my writings, I would sincerely hope that it is for the same reason. May the Holy Spirit answer our every question.

The Parable of Mark Seven Mark seven contains the travels of Jesus from Gennesaret, North to Tyre and Sidon, then South and East to Decapolis and back North to the sea of Galilee. Along the way, Jesus performed many miraculous healings. It was in Gennesaret that the Pharisees and elders from Jerusalem approached Jesus about the issue of unwashed hands.

Knowing how many people Jesus traveled with, and then on top of that, how many people followed him, we can appreciate that reaching Jesus was no small task. Yet we find that those who had come from Jerusalem did just that. This raises questions. How

difficult was it to get an audience with Jesus? Had they traveled that distance for the sole purpose of speaking to Jesus, or had they been in tow all along? Did Pharisees normally travel among the disciples?

Also, if they traveled from Jerusalem just to see Jesus, why did they deem that necessary and had their conversation with Jesus degraded into nitpicking over small points of the law or had that been their initial interest? Another consideration is this: did they speak as they walked or were they in a more comfortable setting – say around a synagogue before or after one of his Sabbath talks? Did all of this, finally, declare the standing that Jesus had among the Pharisees and religious elders?

At any rate, it was during his conversation with them that Jesus delivered the parable.

This is the parable as found in Mark 7:15, “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”

It would appear that Jesus was somewhat central to the people that he called together. It was in response to the conversation he had with his peers from Jerusalem that Jesus “called all the people unto him.” They were a bit distant from the exchange, yet close enough to be called over physically to his location. It was not their attention that he called for as much as their ear-shot nearness. I get the impression of Jesus sitting with the Pharisees and elders perhaps in a market square or open area between houses or a plaza near a synagogue.

I get the impression of the crowd surrounding Jesus and the Pharisees, and Jesus making an exaggerated point – perhaps shaming the Pharisees in the process. I once failed in math during elementary school, and the teacher had all the other students stand around my desk to make a point. I was to be surrounded until I got it.

It was later, after the exchange, that Jesus explained the parable to his disciples. He did this in Mark 7:17-23. It is because of this that we today may see so clearly what Jesus meant by it. The contention is between physical gestures and spiritual realities. The point of the parable is that physical gestures cannot achieve spiritual goals. We can, in fact, be quite spiritual even if we eat with dirty hands. If we are not defiled by such, then defilement is spiritual rather than physical. Jesus offered an extended list of things that do defile a man.

One may note from that list that all of them share something in common. They are spiritual attributes. Please follow my reasoning on this. Jesus said that the things that defile a man are the things that are produced in the heart. Now of course, by saying this, I intend to be understood as saying 'things that are produced in the mind.' If you read every verse in the Bible that deals with the heart, as I have, you come away with the understanding that the writers of the Bible wrote 'heart' while they meant 'mind.'

This is most easily seen in such a verse that puts it this way: “thoughts of the heart,” First Chronicles 29:18.

In my writing, I have a catch phrase that I return to often. It goes like this: “Spiritual is mental is spiritual.” Any attribute that is of the mind lies within the realm of the spirit. In other words, the mind of a man and the spirit of a man are one and the same. Our thoughts, our imaginations, our emotions all stem from the mind.

It is only from such a spiritual realization that one may understand how futile the physical gestures really are. The Catholics get down on their knees and the Muslims bow down on their faces, but both are no more than physical gestures and accomplish no spiritual goal. They bear no truth and have no effect. Some people pray with their faces toward the sky and their hands folded, clasped, or placed together: all physical. Some people finger beads, set up statues of saints, wear beards, wear caps, refrain from musical instruments during worship. All such things are physical rather than spiritual.

The list of things that defile a man are mental attributes and they do so because they are spiritual and touch upon God. Moreover, these attributes are easily translated into physical activities that men feel more at home in. The physical action of a Muslim killing an infidel is based solely in the defiling spiritual attribute of blood lust. Such defiling activities can in no manner appease God, who is spiritual. Neither can they bring the perpetrator of such actions closer to God. We must see the list of defiling attributes as thoughts that lead to depravities. To be spiritual, on the other hand, would involve thoughts that lead us in the opposite direction.

The Cross and the Heart: Mark eight contains two points of interest relevant to the spirit of these studies. I wish to bring these points forward. These points are parts of larger issues, and while the larger

issues are accorded due attention, these parts are often not viewed as important in their own right.

In Mark 8:15 Jesus charged his disciples, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.” The disciples thought it was because they brought no bread. If ever a sentence was a parable, this was the one. What I wish to point out is the aftermath: the response of Jesus.

He said, in Mark 8:17, “Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? Have ye your heart yet hardened?” We come close, here, to a definition of a 'hardened heart'. Normally, we think of this in terms of Pharaoh's resistance to Moses. We view him as contrary, and as obstinate. Now, according to this response of Jesus to his disciples, we may see the hardened heart as the condition of being obtuse. A hardened heart is simply a matter of not being perceptive, of failing to understand. It is a matter of the mind: wholly spiritual.

How had they failed to understand? They thought of physical bread rather than spiritual leaven. They jumped to the ordinary and comfortable conclusions of the world. It is no understatement to say that human nature is predisposed to a worldly and physical take on new information. If I said, 'heaven is blue', your first thoughts would be of a blue sky.

After all, you've seen that often enough, and you associate heaven with a skyward direction. It will likely be a secondary consideration that I meant 'blue' as sad and 'heaven' as the kingdom of God. A hardened heart is a solid worldly preconception.

The other point I wish to bring forward is found in Mark 8:31-34. Jesus plainly tells his disciples what he is about to go through and what he must endure physically to achieve his spiritual goal. Peter pulls him around to rebuke him – likely to say something on the order of 'we won't let that happen; we'll protect you'. So, Jesus faces the other disciples (turns his back on Peter) and says, in Mark 8:33, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” Again, we see the physical world-view at work. The things that be of men stand in stark opposition to the things that be of God. I digress; I am still getting to the point. That point is found in Mark 8:34. After his exchange with Peter, and possibly as a result of it, Jesus called everyone together to speak to them as a whole. It is likely that Jesus stood apart with his disciples for the exchange with Peter, then called over the multitude, who were lounging at a distance waiting for something to happen. In Mark 8:34, Jesus said to everyone, “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”

This is the point: The disciples had not yet experienced the crucifixion of Christ, not that he was speaking to them alone, yet the Roman cross was well-known in the time of Jesus. It may have found its way into the common language and thoughts. It may have

figured into local metaphors. Somewhere in the backs of their minds, all of them may have thought it a real possibility they end up on a cross. It may have been in the common usage that a cross represented the thankless and pay-less struggles of their everyday physical existence.

Christ said two things to them. One was, 'if you want to be like me' (come after me), meaning, as I think he did, 'if you want to be spiritual'. The second was, follow me, or in other words, 'do as I do.' If “take up your cross” was common enough to be understood by all who listened, what might it have meant to them? Jesus told them, if you want to be like me, approach these common worldly difficulties, not as things that will defeat you, but as a means to a higher spiritual victory.

Mark 9:1-2 In one of the towns below Mount Hermon, in the area of Caesarea Philippi, we find Jesus and his followers in a stationary state. By that I mean they were either camped out or they had access to a house. Jesus and his disciples remained in that area for at least six days before the transfiguration.

There is no reason to think they had not already been there some time. Indeed, a good bit at the end of chapter eight took place in that same region. In Mark 9:1-2 we find this time-line: Jesus told his disciples that some of them would see the powerful coming of the kingdom before their deaths, then six days later, he took Peter, James and John up into the mountains.

Did Jesus specifically refer to these three disciples? I think a common misconception about the coming kingdom of God is that it will be the end result and culmination of a linear historical process. In other words, most of us are predisposed to imagine the kingdom of the book of Revelation: the kingdom that follows the apocalypse and the end of the world as we know it.

Here is my point in all of this – if Jesus specifically referred to the three disciples that witnessed the transfiguration, then the transfiguration they saw was the coming of the kingdom of God with power. That being said, we must understand that the revelation of God's kingdom to man is an individual spiritual experience rather than a historical event.

Coming Down the Mountain: I want to speak about the interval between the transfiguration and the confrontation. I'll explain by saying this: Jesus and three disciples came down from the mountain upon

which had occurred the transfiguration. That took time. Between the transfiguration and their return to the remaining disciples, who were confronted by the scribes, there was a space in which occurred a little more than scampering over rocks.

In Mark 9:9-13 a certain amount of conversation took place that I wish to look at, but first I'll backtrack enough to say this: the transfiguration was stunning. It was stunning not so much because of the brightness, but because the disciples were stunned. Such things just didn't happen. For men to appear in such a manner might seem more appropriate in a science fiction setting than a real-world historical setting. The disciples were afraid. They hardly knew how to act or what to say.

And then there was that voice from nowhere. Suddenly, everything seemed normal again. The men were gone and the disciples stood with Jesus only. Of course, Jesus charged them to keep it all a secret. That fact in itself deserves examination, but I will leave it for others. I want to bring up a matter of a different nature. The disciples recognized dead prophets. In a society that frowned on images, insomuch that there were neither statues nor paintings of the prophets, just how did these simple men recognize them as Moses and Elijah?

Were they moved only by old testament descriptions? If so, they must have been awfully well read for their non-clerical vocations. Or, did Jesus tell them who the two men were?

In the space that it took them to return to the other disciples, a conversation occurred on two separate levels. The first was between the disciples themselves, which would suggest that they came down the mountain either ahead of Jesus, or trailing.

Jesus had told them, in verse 9, that he wished the matter kept secret until the Son of man “were” risen, and so in verse 10 the disciples are seen “questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.” I get the sense they huddled at some distance behind Jesus as they walked. They tried to figure it out on their own but came up short. Then they caught up with him to ask outright.

The fact that they asked about Elijah shows me that they at least connected the dots in a scriptural sense. They had recognized the dead prophet, Elijah, and they remembered that Elijah must come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, Malachi 4:5. Here is my question. Did anyone see what Jesus said in Mark 9:9? He said, “Till the Son of man were risen.” Was it just bad grammar in those days, or are we to understand the term 'Son of man' in a plural sense?

The writers gave that name a greater degree of respect, as we can see in the fact that they capitalized 'Son.' He is the only begotten, so, we must look not at the word son but rather at the word 'man.' Normally, when we think of man in the plural form, we say or write the word 'mankind.' Perhaps the writers of scripture haven't always followed that

protocol. On a divergent note, allow me to suggest an alternative interpretation. It may be that the word 'were' was used as a replacement for the future tense expression 'would be.' It was a condition I Progressive, putting emphasis on the course of an action.

Other scripture passages make a clearer case of Jesus' comparison between Elijah and John the Baptist. In Mark 9:12-13, Jesus shows the reason that Elijah had to be first.

That reason was restoration. Indeed, if we look closely at Malachi 4:6, we see that it was either restoration or a curse: there was to be one or the other. John was Elijah, setting the stage for the work of Jesus. Malachi has a strong connection to the transfiguration passages of Mark nine. Take note that a fuller is referenced both in the transfiguration and in Malachi 3:2.

Jesus responded not only about the prophetic connection to John but also to prophetic connections to himself. He said, “And how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things and be set at nought.” It seems that Jesus was commenting about a notable difference between Elijah and the Son of man. That difference was one of direction: Elijah waxed while Jesus waned, as is found in Isaiah 53:12, “He was counted among the transgressors . . .” They were two sides of the wheel of Yin and Yang, yet, the reverse was said by John in John 3:30, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” Lastly, Jesus indicated that they had done with John (Elijah) as it was written of him. There was a written source that told or foretold of John's demise. Elijah went up in a fiery chariot.

Nothing was done to him. Where is the book to which Jesus refers?

This Kind: We turn our attention to Mark 9:14-29. So, Jesus had returned from the transfiguration with three disciples in tow. As he arrived, people saw him coming, ran to him, greeted him. The multitude had not diminished. They waited. Much had transpired in Jesus' absence. He found his remaining disciples in a heated debate with the scribes. No Pharisees are mentioned, though we know they followed Jesus as much as the throngs.

We also know the Sadducees and local elders, wherever Jesus went, were a constant source of testing and strife.

Who were the scribes, exactly? According to Wikipedia, a scribe is a person who writes books or documents . . . and may help keep track of records for priests and government.

Scribes of the ancient world were distinguished professionals who could exercise functions we would associate with lawyers, government ministers, financiers and even judges. It was such a crew that Jesus found grilling his disciples. Jesus demanded to know why they questioned his disciples.

The crowd was excited. A fact that might be overlooked is the reaction of the people

upon Jesus' return. They were greatly amazed. Why was that, I wonder? Had the political tides changed in his absence? Did the people see the scribes as attaining the dominant position? Then Jesus came back – it seems it was just in time, for the disciples had failed in the power of the new ministry and were now being called out for it.

Yet, before the scribes could muster a response, one close to the center of the controversy stepped up with the answer. In his absence, the remaining disciples of Christ had been presented with a case of possession which was beyond the abilities. The father of the possessed boy told the whole story – they brought the boy into the circle of attention. He was still in the grips of a grievous malady, as the possessing spirit threw the boy about.

Jesus spoke with the father, questioned him about the boy, even as all others held their tongues, waiting to see what might happen next. All along, the crowd kept growing.

People sent word of mouth (albeit hushed) that increased the number of curious onlookers. Jesus noticed the increase and chose that setting in which to drive out the evil spirit. So many witnesses served a dual purpose as they not only advertised the good news and the power of faith in God but were set against the naysayers in the sense of legal witnesses.

It is of note that Jesus named the spirit. He named it “dumb and deaf” in verse 25. It may be that the disciples had some practice in healing and power against the evil spirits.

Christ did send them out on such field trips. That might explain why the boy was brought to the disciples as well as their botched attempt. Did the disciple know, I wonder, what the name of the spirit was? At any rate, we wonder about the name. It obviously heard Jesus' command. It cried out as it left the boy.

We are aware of at least one case in which the spirits and Christ were in communication.

Jesus asked for and received the of 'Legion.' So, in the case of this poor boy, we might assume that the spirit acted in a manner that resulted in no forthcoming name – as if it could not or would not communicate. It is a fact that this spirit was of a kind the disciples could not fight. This kind of spirit, Jesus admitted later, was beyond them, perhaps for that very reason. This kind of spirit was shielded from the disciples and was accessed only through a heightened spiritual regimen that more attuned one to spiritual realities.

The disciples had failed because they were more nearly physical and worldly than spiritual. This is a lesson for all believers. Even the closest and most devout followers of Christ still have worldly limitations to overcome. Discipleship calls for discipline.

Preaching in the House:

In my temporary departures from the parable proper, I think I am striving for continuity.

The point of these studies remains true, however, as I seek simply to expand topical awareness. When a seeker seeks truth, he must necessarily begin with a definition. In deriving such a definition through a more exacting scrutiny, and in the course of finding point-on answers, the seeker is compelled to ask the questions that deliver.

In short, we have to understand the words we see and hear. Not everyone communicates as I do, and I approach a matter with that in mind. You and I might have certain difficulties in nailing down a meaning within the context of a shared communication.

Therefore, we can expect more vigilance will be demanded of us as we wrestle with communications from other cultures and timelines.

So, as I try to complete Mark nine for the sake of continuity, I am careful to ask the right questions rather than to simply, in a cavalier spirit, accept what I read at face value.

Please follow with me as I seek the definitions that will facilitate the acquisition of truth.

Let us closely attend the verses 30 through 50. These amount to simple conversational tidbits that are often not lingered over. Let us, together, ask the right questions while we are here.

Jesus did not want everyone to know where he was going on this particular trip as he passed with his disciples through the regions of Galilee. This part is plainly seen in Mark 9:30. Perhaps they arose in the hours before dawn so they might leave without the multitudes following them. I see them not drawing attention to themselves. I also see something more than the usual circuit of the ministry. I see them passing through Galilee with a definite destination in mind. It is as if they made a straight line for Capernaum, a fishing village that was central to both Jesus' ministry and his disciples' home-life.

Once there, the expression in 'the' house is used in verse 33. That seems a more definite reference than in 'a' house – at least it does to me. Capernaum is thought to be the hometown of Peter and his older brother Andrew, as well as the sons of Zebedee James the greater and John. The tax collector Matthew also made his home there. Since Jesus was already acquainted with the house of Peter, having healed Peters' mother-in-law, I can see him resorting there once more.

Since Peter had a mother-in-law, it is safe to assume that Peter had a wife and possibly children. If Andrew also lived in the house, he also may have had a wife and children present. Archaeologists pretty much agree that they have uncovered the first-century house of Peter and Andrew, a dwelling connected to two courtyards and having, at least, one room large enough to seat all the disciples at once.

Having the expression 'the' house instead of 'a' house makes perfect sense in this regard.

These were all ordinary people with lives and families. It seems only reasonable that there were times within the ministry of Christ when a break was called for. So, Jesus and his disciples took a quiet trip home. When they arrived, some issues came up for discussion.

During their quiet trip, Jesus had discussed his approaching fate with the authorities. The disciples couldn't quite get their heads around the concept that Jesus, a man of miraculous powers, could possibly come to such a despicable end. They seemed fearful to ask for clarification – instead, they argued over which of them might end up as the apostolic top dog.

The in-house rebuttal took shape along the lines of reversal, which was one of Christs' preferred teaching techniques. In this, Christ usually taught that the things which men desired were exactly opposite of what God desired. He taught that the same was true for the things that men expected to happen as a natural consequence. Such were the lines of reversal: if a man lifted something up, God rejected it. The predispositions of men are always contrary to the truth of a spiritual God. So, in the house, in a room large enough to fit all the disciples, Christ sits down with a child in his arms, and preaches lowly humility. In other words, the first is last and servant to all. They believe with simple innocent joy like a child. Who was the child Jesus held? Was it one of Peters' children?

Was it a child of Andrews wife?

The in-house preaching of Mark 9:37 covered the communication that binds all to one another. If a man receives the Son of God, he receives God. If a man receives the message, he receives the messenger. If a man receives the preaching of the apostles of Christ, he receives Christ. It is the communication that makes us one – that is to say that the mind of God, the Holy Spirit of Truth, is communicated. Therefore, all of us must exercise caution in who we reject, for it just might be that in rejecting someone we think of as just another person, we end up rejecting God. All of us have a reward, we find that in verse 41 – that is, of course, if we do not reject it simply because it comes to us in the face of a person who is a challenge to our self-will and pride. Even the simplest act, as in giving a glass of water to a thirsty person, not because they are thirsty so much, but because it is what Christ would do, will ensure the reward that is ours. And let me just add, there have been many times in my life, when totally amazed at my steps along the precipice, I say to myself, “Man, I sure am glad I didn't mess that up!”

Some people take the child in Christs' arms to mean literal children, especially when Christ says that thing about offending one of the little ones. I too am dead set against anyone who harms or mishandles a small child but let us stop in all honesty and admit that there is an addendum to that charge made by Christ. There is a qualifier attached to

the little one. It is not just any child, but it is exactly as Christ says, “one of these little ones that believe in me.”

It is faith alone that will make one acceptable to God. It is faith alone that will lead one to be the first by way of being servant to all. It is faith that will receive the child, and it is faith alone that will receive the communication of God even through a person we cannot consider as superior enough, or valid enough to stand before us and teach. Only faith will ensure the reward that is ours.

We are considering the right questions, as a traveler considers which shoes will be most comfortable and last the longest as we traverse uncertain roads. We would not find ourselves unshod with the roughest roads still ahead. Anyone who strives toward a goal must necessarily equip for the task. If you want to see the moon, you don't equip with a microscope. So hopefully, we ask the right questions as we seek the real meaning of the communication.

The chapter concludes in discussion about technique. Just how should one approach the task at hand? The discussion covers certain physical actions which many people have taken literally – which in turn has caused many to approach the task at hand illequipped. Christ told us that flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, so why would anyone really think to enter heaven as a physical being? To make the transition from physical to spiritual, one must leave behind the body, even if it has only one eye or one hand.

To equip for such a transition, a person needs to stop thinking physically and find a way to approach reality in a spiritual manner. While the successful scenario is not covered, the scenario of failure is repeated three times for emphasis. If one fails to approach spiritual reality on spiritual grounds, one is left only with the certainty of physical decomposition.

Salt: In the previous study, I said that the chapter had concluded on a certain note, but there was actually one statement left. It is the statement about salt that we are all so familiar with. Those of us whose lives have in some way been touched by church or sermons or the odd Bible verse have at some point been made aware that “salt is good.” Verses 49 and 50 of Mark 9 cover this statement, of which I would ask additional attention from the reader.

Let me first offer the statement in its entirety. Mark 9:49-50, “For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace

one with another.”

It must be first seen that a comparison is at play in this statement. The comparison is between salt and fire. It must be seen that the comment is based in a specific understanding of Jewish ceremonial practice. A temple sacrifice, as it was offered to God, was salted with salt. That is, the parts that were kept had salt placed on them. We know salt as both a seasoning and a preservative.

When we look at salt as a preservative, we note in the temple sacrifices that the sacrifice was a 'meal for God' that was shared with his servants the priests. The meat could not possibly be consumed all at once; there were simply too many sacrifices. Therefore, the meat had to last without spoilage. A good thing must be preserved and not allowed to be lost. In this regard, salt may be seen as symbolic of redemption.

When we view salt in the sense of seasoning, we understand that salt makes the sacrifice not only palatable but acceptable in the ceremonial sense of faithful compliance to the laws of God. If all obligations have been met, if all parameters are in place, if a man has assured his conscience before God that things are right, the sacrifice is acceptable. Those of us who live lives of sacrifice rather than license already have an intimate awareness of salt.

The comparison might read like this, 'Just as sacrifices are salted with salt, so every life must be salted with fire.' It behooves us to possess a higher understanding of what Christ meant when he said “fire.” We don't have far to go to get the facts. We need only resort to the old testament to find the fire we seek. The symbolic use of the word fire is prevalent in the old testament.

Exodus 3:2 gives us the very first symbolic use of the word fire, “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush: and he looked and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.” In short, 'fire' equals 'God.' In this sense, symbolic fire is quite real in the lives of men. The second old testament instance of this symbolic, though very real, fire is found in Exodus 13:21, “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light . . .” Fire equals God. A third instance is found in Exodus 24:17, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.” The presence of God in the lives of men was seen with actual eyes, the glory of the real God was witnessed with real eyes. God equals devouring fire. The people so associated God with fire that since God rested on the Sabbath, fire was not now allowed to burn in any

home during the Sabbath. Exodus 35:3.

So many are the associations of fire to God that even the Christian faith fully accepted it as found in Hebrews 12:29, “For our God is a consuming fire.”

So, if everyone is to be salted with fire, and that fire is God, two facts present themselves. Fact one is that no life goes unsalted by God. All lives are included in the concept of 'every one' – those who believe in God, those who do not, those who believe in another god: whether it be Allah, Buddha or whatever. People who believe in a higher force, or nature, or in themselves: no one is exempt from the salting of fire.

Fact two is that this single additive, like salt, is what makes a life acceptable and palatable to God. I ask then, are you salted with fire? And, is there a fire that has lost its fire? In other words, are you salted with a salt that just doesn't cut it? If we are looking at a salt that has lost its saltness, then, by comparison, we are looking at a fire that has gone out. We are looking at a life that was salted with God – and then lost God: the only thing that ever made it acceptable. Certainly, Allah makes no life acceptable, Buddha makes no life acceptable. The same can be said for every god that is not really God. The same can be said for nature, science, non-belief or belief in the will of man – these just do not cut it.

One must understand the importance of salt to get the reference that Jesus makes in these verses. Salt was so important that people made salt covenants. The word salary has its origin in people being paid in salt. It is also important to see the fact that every relationship between God and man has always been a covenant. That is, God's love is his agreement, his word.

Every agreement between God and man has been a peace treaty in which both sides proclaim what they will give and what they expect in return. I say peace treaty because mankind has fought God from the beginning. Now, we might jump out in the ocean to save a drowning man, but the time comes when we tire of him fighting our attempts to save him – the time comes when we simply have to wrap an arm around his throat and forcefully drag him in.

When Jesus told his disciples to have salt in themselves, he meant the fire of God. Have God in yourselves. Have in yourselves the one thing that makes you acceptable. That, as I maintain, is the mind of God, which Christ exemplified. Nor can we wrangle among ourselves over any detail of faith, but we must place between us a salt covenant. We must come to an accord that plainly states what we are willing to give and we will reasonably accept in return.

A Sad Truth:

Hidden truths and overlooked is the reason I do what I do. It is why I began with the parables, and it is why I now, from time to time, veer off the beaten path to cover the odd expression or subtlety of wording. I had fully intended to find a parable to work from – then this caught my eye.

Mark 10:1-9 is one of those small episodes in which the religious authorities attempt to test Jesus in matters of the law. Of course, as he always does, Jesus rips them a new one.

I am always cheering for Jesus in these slugfests, and Jesus never fails to deliver. In this particular exchange, Jesus tells the Pharisees, the keepers of the law, that something is not quite right in their interpretation.

Indeed, it is a sad truth and a message that all of us should take to heart. Jesus speaks as much to you and me as he does to the Pharisees. That is because we share the same blind spot and predisposition as the Pharisees. So, here is a brief rundown of the incident. The Pharisees pose a simple question from the law: is it legal (but more to the point: is it right) for a man to divorce his wife?

Jesus responds with a question of his own. “What did Moses command you?” There is a subtlety here that seems always to be overlooked. What did Moses, the man, command?

What the Pharisees considered as unassailable canon was based more on the instructions of a man than on the actual spirit of God's own law. In a way, this is similar to extremist Muslims who base their canon more on the instructions of a man than on the law of God. Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses only allowed divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of men. He also told them that the law of God was different from what Moses allowed. In so saying, Jesus tells all of us a sad truth about the predispositions of the religiously-minded – the ones who are always trying to force an issue. The subtlety that Jesus reveals shows us that much in the law of God, at least, those parts most cherished and upheld by men, is no more than arbitrary instruction by some other man.

I think, if we are honest about it, most of what Jewish and Christian leaders and zealots have gone on and on about, are the writings and interpretations of the writings of men.

My opinion is that much of what Moses instructed the Jewish people was politically motivated. I say this out of respect for the overwhelming task that Moses took upon himself. Just think of all that Moses had to deal with, of all the people and various factions lobbying, as it were, for special needs and interests. Moses had a lot on his plate.

Moses had to hold it all together – somehow. Divorce was just a small part of that 'somehow.' But, that was neither the law nor the will of God, and Jesus did not fail to explain that part, both in public to all who listened, and in private to his disciples as they sought a clearer understanding of his words. Jesus classified what Moses allowed as a precept. Here, it is up to us to determine if precept is the same thing as law.

A quick internet search for the common definition of the word precept gave me this: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought. Synonyms used for precept are principle, rule, tenet, canon, doctrine, command, order, decree, dictate, injunction, and mitzvah, which means a good deed done for religious duty. All of these may, indeed, be legal, although none of them is inherently 'right.' There are wrong decrees and wrong doctrines to be sure.

More importantly, any of these may be created solely from the predispositions of a man, that is: from his thoughts and opinions and feelings. As such, they are wholly arbitrary, non-universal, temporary, and re-writable. There is much in our faiths that we take for solid truth written in stone – but, it simply is not. We have a predisposition for certain things that simply are not the law – by which I mean: the law given by a spiritual God. A law given by a spiritual God is a spiritual law. While it may exist in our physical world, and be enacted physically, there is a spirit behind it that is bound to no particular enactment or person. Jesus explained the spirit behind marriage: the union of one physical male to one physical female in Mark 10:6-9, “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Now, we can look at the precept of divorce, an arbitrary decree given by a man, and see it as perfectly legal, or we can look at the law of marriage given by a spiritual God, and know that it is right. The spirit of the law follows through in every aspect and facet of truth, as Jesus explained to his disciples in Mark 10:11 and 12, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” Why? Because they are still united in the spirit of the law: they are still one flesh. One flesh may not act

against itself as every decision must be made in one spirit. “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Why? Because they are still united in the spirit of the law: they are still one flesh. One flesh may not act against itself as every decision must be made in one spirit.

There is in these verses a subtle truth that begs honest inspection. There are two laws.

One is given by God, the other is given by man. That which is given by man is not really the law, but it strikes a chord with those who look for an easy workaround. It is a sad truth to see so much of it in our faith: that is to say: little physical enactments that replace the spirit of the law.

We see in the Bible Jesus twice quoted as quoting Elias, and railing against the hypocrisy of men in seeking the commandments of men rather than the law of God, as Paul says in Titus 1:14, “. . . commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” We see religious people washing their hands, fingering beads, bowing to pray, marching around square buildings – performing any and almost every physical enactment except the one that actually counts: attending the true spiritual law of God. One:

Mark 12:28-34, while not a parable, gives an exchange between Christ and one of the scribes in attendance when Jesus told the Sadducees they were getting it all wrong. This particular scribe seems to have been moved by Christ's answers and had gained a newfound measure of appreciation and respect for Jesus. He entered into a genuine discussion with Jesus, not trying to tempt him, or trap him in legalisms. We see in the scribe a certain recognition of a kindred spirit. We might even say that, at least for a moment, Christ and the scribe were one in their zeal for the law of God. It was the true core nature of the law that interested the scribe. It was the truth of the law

that spurred him to speak. What we can take away from the exchange is that not all of the religious elite were hypocrites. Some were genuine in their love of God. “Which is the first commandment of all?” This scribe cut right to the chase. He wanted to speak about the important stuff. It was not a test to see if Jesus knew the law. It was a bridge and a foundation for communication between what the scribe perceived as like minds. And of course, Jesus knew his stuff.

He answered without hesitation. Jesus quoted Moses, the lawgiver, from Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Jesus went right to the source of the law – the law that all scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees professed – the law from which they derived their authority. It was exactly the answer this scribe wanted to hear.

“Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” If Jesus had been just a Rabbi, he, at least, knew the law as well as any other. What mattered to the scribe was not whether this man was a man or God, nor again whether he was better or worse than other religious authorities – what mattered to this man was a true love of God. What I would like to impress on the reader in the word 'one.' Many, when they read, pass by quickly. There is danger in speed reading the Bible. It is the danger of a cavalier attitude: 'oh yes, the scribe said this, and oh yes, Jesus said that' is an empty appraisal.

Stop long enough to consider what you read. Jesus said that God is one, and that is not God the abstract, but God our Lord.

How should we interpret the word 'one?' Should we see it in terms of monotheism? If that's the best we can do, I think we should class ourselves with all the legalistic, name dropping Pharisees and Sadducees who are doing no more than taking a worldlyeducated stance. They work and fidget with all the peripheral facts and figures, yet they have no connection to the central truth. Rather, I would impress upon the reader that the correct interpretation of the word 'one' is not 'singular' but 'all-inclusive.'

The Lord our God is one (all-inclusive) Lord. What is a Lord, then? The Lord is the one who possesses the Lordship. All within the Lordship: be it authority, privilege, or servants – all are his: all are one.

This is what I want of the reader: read what Jesus answers, and each time Jesus says 'all', read it as 'one'. Understand both 'all' and 'one' to mean included as a genuine, bonafide part of the whole. For instance, my legs are one with my body and upon my legs, the whole body stands. Therefore, I stand with all my legs.

Mark 12:29-30, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (one) heart, and with all thy (one) soul, and with all thy (one)

mind, and with all thy (one) strength: this is the first commandment. By 'first' we are to understand 'premier.' When Jesus says this is the first commandment, we must define that to mean 'the most important.' Here is an alternative reading: 'Hear, O Israel; God is all-inclusive: and thou shalt love thy Lord with thy all-inclusive heart, and with thy allinclusive soul, and thy all-inclusive mind, and thy all-inclusive strength: this is the most important truth to live by.'

This resonates with the scribe, for he agrees with his all-inclusive heart in Mark 12:3233. In the response of the scribe, we see a mind that sees beyond the traditions of me, in that his response values truth: “more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

In the law of all-inclusiveness, the second commandment is the same as the first. We might consider it the 'if then' statement that verifies the truth of the law. If you love your Lord all-inclusively, then you love his children ( your brethren) also, for they are included in the Lordship of the Lord.

Jesus perceived the response of the scribe as 'discreet.' Here is what that means: 'Middle English discret < Anglo-French, Old French <Medieval Latin discrētus, Latin: separated (past participle of discernere; see discern), equivalent to dis- dis-1 + crē-separate, distinguish (variant stem of cernere) + -tus past participle suffix.' I borrowed this from an on-line dictionary.

The scribe had distinguished himself from the pack, or from the 'pride', I might say. He separated himself as more discerning than most. So, Jesus told him this in verse 34: “thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” What would such a statement mean in regard of the scribe, or in regard of any of us?

God is the lord: he is the premier authority. The kingdom, the Lordship, the truth are all included within the Lord. We can say of ourselves as we can say of the scribe – as, indeed, Christ might have said to the scribe: you see the truth, now include it; when you include the truth, you will be included in the truth.

The Test:

A teacher might well know, beforehand, whether a student will pass or fail a test. The signs are always there. The teacher will know the character of each student and will be aware of their habits and patterns. It was not idle chin-stroking when Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. What we do or say the most, that is what we are all about.

In this examination, we turn our eye toward Mark 12:38-40. It is here that Jesus explains the standard by which we may put the spirit of a person to the test. To those around him at the time, Jesus exposed the scribes, but this handy trick works as well with any man behind any pulpit, or any man on any soapbox.

He said, “Beware of the scribes.” He told them to take a good long look, to be aware.

Let us take that long look and be aware, not only of who scribes are but also of what they do. For those in Jesus day, the definition of a scribe was 'an ancient Jewish recordkeeper or, later, a professional theologian and jurist.' Got that off the internet. So, discounting the record keepers with no authority, what we are looking at is the professional – not only the title, not only the tier within society but the mindset and attitude.

I believe it was the attitude, the pride concurrent with that mindset, that Jesus warned of.

We are aware that all words and actions must, necessarily, stem from that root, just as the fruit of a tree has its origin in its own root. Just as a salesman's every word may be seen to stem from his drive toward, desire for and anticipation of the dollar, so too, the veneer of the scribe is stripped away by the list that Jesus attributes to them.

He said this of them: “which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: which devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers.”

If they 'love' to be seen in their office garb and 'love' public acknowledgments, then they may be seen in their labors toward such. They may be seen actually trying to accomplish these ends. They will make their long-winded prayers quite public. They do these things to maintain their station and advantage in society. The coffers must remain filled, even if the widow is turned out for the expected tithes.

Seems pretty damning. Is it any wonder they sought his life? And, we may learn from this list; we may make our own lists. This test is equally applicable to modern day preachers and politicians. I have made my lists, and I must say that the preachers and politicians look almost identical. You've got your love for public accolades and some seriously attention-grabbing expensive suits. The neckties are gaudy, the wristwatches are flashy, and the Florsheim shoes are shiny. The bellies are often large and the public message never fails to touch upon funding.

The apple never falls far from the tree and the bad apple always harbors a gnawing worm within. Jesus concluded about the scribes that they would receive, not the usual, average, or run-of-the-mill damnation, but “greater” damnation. Some will try and fall short while others will fail spectacularly. Be like the teacher who knows the student.

Apply this simple test before the final exam. One might even be so daring as to apply the test to oneself.

When We Speak: When we speak, this is what we assume goes on: a neuron fires, then the mouth makes words. Another way to think of this process is: a thought forms in the mind, which activates the physical brain so that mental concepts may be expressed, or transmitted, via physical sounds produced by the mouth. What we assume is the we have a thought and then we speak.

This is going to be a short study. It deals with a concept transmitted physically through Mark 13:11. In the latter portion of the statement which the only begotten son of God put forth, we find this explicitly expressed: “it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”

Read that again. It is a concept connected to disciple-specific possibilities, but which in no way depends upon those particular events for its own measure. It is a concept that is fully able to stand on its own two feet. The examination of the latter part of the statement, I guarantee, in no way takes the concept out of context.

Let us examine the concept as it stands. “it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” I have long affirmed that mind and spirit are one and the same; this has been a central tenet throughout my writings. Think about it. The mind, while connected to the physical

brain, is in no way bound to it. Medical science accepts that the mind can continue to function after the physical death of the brain.

So, we think it is within ourselves that thoughts and concepts originate, but, the son of God says that is not true. Spirit is the realm of God; no thought can ever be hidden from him. While we may be allowed some elbow room to freely organize and express, we do not own, we do not rent, we merely have been granted access. The mind is the spirit; the spirit is the mind of God, who is Holy and Reverend.

Spontaneity is called to mind by the statement found in Mark 13:11. That would be interpreted as thoughts or concepts that are not forced into the mold of preconception.

Our free thoughts are not our own. Our minds are not our own. We have been granted access to the Holy mind of God – the Holy Spirit of Truth – which agrees in one, joining the spiritual father to the physical son.

Christ is the Truth, being imbued with the Holy Ghost. His mind is the spirit of truth, making him one with the father. Like father like son, after all. The son expressed to all potential children of God, via the Holy Ghost, that he would see us be one together with the father and son, as we find in John 17:21, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.”

Think of your mind, or spirit, as one and the same with God and Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:16 tells us, in the plainest of all words that, “we have the mind of Christ.”

Powers and the Elect:

As I scanned forward for another parable, my eyes fell upon two words: 'powers' and 'elect'. See for yourself in Mark 13:22-27. This is the part where Christ speaks about the times during and after the tribulation. In verse 23 he states, “Behold, I have foretold you all things.” So, this is what we can expect for the end of the old and beginning of the new.

Many have been the sermons on this topic; many church hours have been overcharged pounding the doom and gloom of judgment into wide-eyed, head-shaking congregations.

What I see, and what I wonder if others see, is a definition that towers above the topic of judgment.

Two things stand out in this stretch of scripture. First is the very end of the tribulation and second is the coming of Christ to establish the new age. Jesus told his disciples that in the end, and this certainly began in their lifetimes, there would be false Christs and false prophets who would be able to display “signs and wonders.”

In the Bible, we have seen real prophets and Christ, himself, display real signs and wonders, real eye-openers. Diseases have been cured, the dead have been raised, strange sights have been seen from the shining face of Moses to the glory of Christ standing with Moses and Elijah. To pick up on the cue, the signs and wonders of false Christs and false prophets will be nothing more than false signs and wonders. They may dazzle the eye, but they are only smoke and mirrors.

To be sure, the rise of these actors is possible only because the curtains are drawn on an empty stage. In other words, there is a void to be filled. There is a yearning audience willing to pay dearly for the show. The cravings of a certain type of people are directly responsible for the emergence of such entrepreneurs. This type of people does not represent all types, however. This type can be deceived because of their own inclination toward an easy path. These will be grouped with the unbelievers as those who have chosen the wrong direction and spiritual inactivity.

There is only one type of person who will successfully navigate the treacherous end times. I speak of the elect. Who are the elect? One dictionary puts them as the 'carefully selected.' It is a type of person who has been singled out through circumstances that are not applicable to the common, or run-of-the-mill. It is a type of person, who by his very nature of being the opposite of those who are deceived, will do his own spiritual legwork – someone who stands apart from the bleating throngs, and as such, has the elbow room to seek and find the truth on his own spiritual legs.

It is said that in the coming, this type of person will be gathered from all the world for the purpose of establishing the new age. A better world will be manned by just this type.

They are gathered from the “four winds.” They will be found in every nation and every tongue and every social order. They will be alike regardless of race, creed, or religion, and will sync perfectly because they are spiritually advanced.

The elect will not be fooled by the false prophets. There will be no false Christs for the elect; they already know the true Christ. They will be everywhere despite the world's

ongoing anti-spiritual spirit. They will be rejected and stand alone, but I believe they will find each other – and while the warmongers war, while the mega-churches spiral out of control and while the non-believers and believers in blue elephants get swept along in the wake, The elect will find their place and ready themselves for the new age.

The mind of the common world is flawed. It hungrily seeks and accepts a common but easy state. It does not strive to be exceptional. Scientific facts and measurements aside, the common world is a pig at home in its mud sty, for it cannot tell its slop apart from its own filth. The mind of the world is an anti-spirit spirit. To be sure, it is the prevailing spirit of the world and has been set on a pretty high pedestal.

Which brings me to 'powers' . . . as the New American Standard version of Ephesians 6:12 states, “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Christ said plainly in Mark 13:25, “the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.” This makes it quite obvious that there are evil powers in heaven. They are wicked spiritual forces and world forces of this present darkness.

If I have seen one constant in my studies, it is that spirit and mind are the same. The spirit of the world is the mind of the world. Wicked spirits in heaven are wicked minds in the highest places of authority. They are mindsets, philosophies, precepts and protocols that seek to be written in stone. The real Christ will shake that all around and the powers, who are superstars in their own minds, will fall from heaven. The elect will see this.

As a closing thought, I want to touch briefly on timelines. When we think of the tribulation, we think of the final days. We think of some unnamed, unset time in the future (another common comfort of the common world mind.) But, what if the future is now? Christ said that the elect would be gathered from the “uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.” That is a range from the lowest to the highest to be sure, but since the word 'earth' is specifically used, and not 'world', I think it safe to assume the far end of that spectrum would place the elect somewhere out in space. This is just a thought, but, as far as timelines go, we are in the space age.

Two Small Parables:

To continue from the previous study, I look to Mark 13:26-37. Here, we find two small parables with a huge amount of information. Read the parables first.

Mark 13:28 says, “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; when her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: so ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.”

Mark 13:34 says, “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.”

We immediately form two pertinent questions regarding Mark 13:26-27. When will it be seen and Who are 'they'? By 'it', I refer to Christ's statement from verse 26, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” This event is the 'it' that 'they' see.

Since it follows on the heels of the powers of heaven being shaken and the stars falling from on high, I will make the leap and assume that the event occurs directly after the tribulation. Further, I will assume that the ones who see their nemesis coming and marshaling his forces for their destruction are none other than the stars that fall.

Reading Mark 13:30-31 leads us to yet another question. Jesus affirms the immutable truth of his prophecy, in that “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away,” and tells his disciples that all these events will be witnessed by their generation. Our question, then, is this: How long can a generation last?

Here, we must not confuse a generational lifespan with a generational type. When Christ said “this generation,” he obviously meant something more far-reaching than mere physical age. Christ often couched spiritual meaning in common expressions. As a type, a generation can be viewed in the light of its defining characteristics. I speak of characteristics that unite all of a type's constituents, regardless of time or epoch. Here, I can suggest characteristics such as 'born again', 'redeemed', 'elect'.

Mark 13:32-33 speaks of spiritual preparedness and sleep (or spiritual inactivity.) We are told that no one knows the exact time of the prophecied event except God, himself, yet, we are instructed to remain spiritually prepared for it. We are told to “watch and pray.”

We are told to give this point special attention for the very reason that we do not know when the event will occur. We are instructed to take upon ourselves the nature of the porter.

Mark 13:34. Who is the porter? In the sense of this particular application, a porter is a gatekeeper, or in the broader sense, one whose business it is to look for the return of the Master – to usher the Master into what is his own and into the company of his servants.

It is impossible that any one individual can remain vigilant around the clock. It is here that we think of a porter-collective – a porterhood. The flame of vigilance is passed in turn between one porter and another – at every shift change, or changing of the guard.

We find in Mark 13:35-36 a list of possible times that the Master could suddenly show up. The purpose of the porter, his calling, you might say, is to be spiritually alert, spiritually active, spiritually looking down the road and straining to see any indication of the coming of the Master. It is not a matter of when the Master likely to find the porter asleep, but that spiritual vigilance, in any watch, has not been provided for. All the servant will want to be alerted to the Master's coming, so they might prepare to greet him – it is one of the porter's duties to make the call that gathers the servants to their Master's joyful return.

Spiritual vigilance is the defining key to these verses. The final verse, 37, unites all of us as a generational type. Christ gives his command to every one of us from the disciples of the first century AD to the porters of the 21st century. It is as if Christ turns and looks into my own eyes and says to me personally, “Watch.”

Where there is life: Mark 14:25 is a single verse pulled from the entire chapter. In it, only Jesus speaks. One topic is touched upon with reference to the circumstances involved. It is the last supper and Jesus has done the 'this is my body/this is my blood' part. He has done the part about one of them betraying him. None of that is included in this particular verse. You will hear about the body, the bread, the wine and the blood in church sermons.

And yet, his simple statement does reference the wine they had all just imbibed. He said this to them: “Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” It is often relegated to a level of importance far below the 'body and blood' or 'betrayer' parts. Still, this simple declaration opens to us the entire realm of heaven and hell.

First of all, we are looking at the matter of wine – that is real, physical wine. We must specifically consider, here, the difference between 'Passover wine' and 'new wine'. Next, we must consider the time and place that we will be united with Christ. Popular thought has Christ returning at the 'end', with the faithful called up to meet him in the clouds. It is the whole nine yards of redemption or damnation, and it encompasses our generalized notions of heaven and hell.

So then, I look to my favorite source for information, Wikipedia, for some insight into Passover wine and new wine. Here is what I found: “We know little about the kind of grape varieties available – or if grape varieties were even a concept – at the time of the Last Supper. "It's not until relatively recently in history, about 1,000 years or less, that we have any written evidence of named grape varieties," says Dr. Sean Myles, an adjunct professor at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and a researcher in agricultural genetics.

However, we do have a good amount of evidence on wine making during the era and the styles of wines people of Jesus' time would make and enjoy. By the night of the Last Supper, the Holy Land already had a long history of wine making. Scholars believe that the Holy Land had been making wine since at least 4000 BC. Vintners would plant their vines along rocky hillsides and carve out vats in the bedrock to serve as wine presses.

Cultures around the Middle East had a variety of pottery vessels to collect and serve wine.

"In Jerusalem, they had a particular taste for rich, concentrated wines," says Dr. McGovern.

While watering down wine was a common practice in classical civilization, Jerusalem preferred rich wines. Isaiah (1.21-22) criticizes the city by comparing it to wine cut with water.

In an inland city of Judah, archeologists found a jar with the inscription, "Wine made from black raisins." Winemakers may have dried out grapes on the vine or on mats in the sun to concentrate the grapes and create a very sweet and thick wine. Elsewhere in the region, archeologists have found jars with inscriptions like "smoked wine" and "very dark wine."

Mixing wine with spices, fruits and especially tree resin was common a practice.

Winemakers believed that tree resins like myrrh, frankincense and terebinth preserved wine and helped stave off wine spoilage. They'd also add things like pomegranates, mandrakes, saffron and cinnamon to enhance the flavor of the wine.

We can conclude that there was a skilled winemaking culture present during the time of the Last Supper and that around Jerusalem, vintners made strong wines, often mixed with tree resins, spices, and fruits.â&#x20AC;?

There are many opinions about the wine of the last supper, but not a lot of hard evidence. I had been of the opinion that it was a boiled concoction made with bitter herbs, but my recent inquiries proved me wrong. One new discovery about the wine of the Passover I did find interesting. It seems the Passover laws, or protocols, required Jewish male to drink four cups of wine during the Seder. You can read an article on that here: http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/658549/jewish/Whyfour-cups-of-wine.htm Now, on to 'new' wine. There are two terms for this found in the Bible, they are 'asis' and 'tirosh.' 'Asis, "sweet wine," or "new wine," the product of the same year (Cant 8:2 ; Isaiah 49:26 ; Joel 1:5; 3:18; Amos 9:13), from a root meaning "to tread," hence, juice trodden out or pressed out, thus referring to the method by which the juice is obtained.

The power of intoxication is ascribed to it. The explanations for both this and the following term are found at http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/wine/.

Tirosh, properly "must," translated "wine" (Deuteronomy 28:51); "new wine" (Proverbs 3:10); "sweet wine" (Micah 6:15; RSV, "vintage"). This Hebrew word has been traced to a root meaning "to take possession of" and hence it is supposed that tirosh is so designated because in intoxicating it takes possession of the brain. Among the blessings promised to Esau (Genesis 27:28) mention is made of "plenty of corn and tirosh."

Palestine is called "a land of corn and tirosh" (Deuteronomy 33:28; Compare Isaiah 36:17). See also Deuteronomy 28:51; 2 Chr 32:28; Joel 2:19; Hosea 4:11, ("wine [yayin] and new wine [tirosh] take away the heart").

I have talked with many people who have said to my face they would prefer hell over heaven because all of their drinking buddies will be there. What a laugh! Nowhere in the Bible is hell mentioned as a place where the condemned can mingle with old friends.

Neither is it mentioned that alcohol will be served. Our notion of hell comes to us originally from the word 'Sheol' which simply refers to the grave.

However, when we are all united with Christ, there will be 'new wine' â&#x20AC;&#x201C; I imagine a kind of celebration that Christ will share with us. But, is there actually spiritual wine to be imbibed in a spiritual heaven. I think not. Go back and read Mark 14:25 again. Christ does not mention heaven at all, rather, he clearly names the kingdom of God. It is a kingdom on this earth with real wine.

God is the God of the living (Mark 12:27). Christ is the life. Where there is life, there

you will find the living.

An Odd Inclusion:

Mark 14:51-52 is an odd inclusion in an otherwise normal Jesus scenario. When we look at the statement found in these two verses, we must ask an important question. Why did they think this information was important enough to include?

When taken as a whole, the four gospels display a stoic and highly concentrated style of writing. In other words: the writers did not spend a lot of effort writing about collateral issues and people. They stuck to the topic and were often stingy with the facts. Many details were omitted from the writing of the gospels insomuch that we, the seekers of truth, are impressed with the random bit of information.

For instance, women in the gospels seem of such low esteem that their names are omitted. When a writer of a gospel includes a name, or how the woman is related to the topic at hand, we sit forward and pay attention. If they thought it was that important, we also think it is important â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and we want to know why.

Mark 14, and especially the latter verses of the chapter, are dedicated to the disposition of the protagonist. By this I mean, the story focuses on the prayers in the garden and the betrayal by Judas. Speaking collaterally, the disciples are included but then reduced to the three that Jesus took with him to watch while he prayed. Then, Christ and the three returned to the others. That leaves only the introduction of the antagonist leading those interested in Jesus' capture.

That is all there is. Many women often followed with Jesus and the disciples, but they are excluded from this story. Many church elders followed Jesus regularly. They, too, are excluded. It was commonplace that anywhere Jesus went the multitudes followed, as well as the sick and infirm seeking to be healed. None of these are present in the story of

Jesus' betrayal and arrest. It seems the writers did this deliberately. It is as if they wanted the story to only be about these core facts.

And yet . . . one rogue fact seems to slip in under the radar. What are we to make of such an inclusion? We know the Bible had parts of it censored and edited. If it was not a case of poor editing, then it must be a deliberate inclusion. If the writers wanted this fact known, we must conclude they thought it was important to the story. There was one follower at the arrest who was not a named disciple.

Those who arrested Jesus had been invested with the authority to do so. They had weapons and with them came the real possibility of arrest, torture, and punishment. In the face of this, everyone fled, including the young man without an identity. We know who Jesus was in the story, we know who the disciples were in the story, but the young follower is a mystery.

Is there any way to determine who the mystery man might have been? Let us turn our collective hand to the case. We will sleuth it out together. Our first clue is what the young man wore. Everyone else there wore normal clothing that included shoes, a headcovering, the Tallith or upper cloak, a girdle, the Chaluq or under-dress, and the Aphqarsin or innermost covering. The young man, on the other hand, was naked. All he had to cover his nakedness was a single linen cloth.

Now we must turn our attention to the attitudes of that culture toward nakedness. We must also consider if the linen cloth was commonly obtainable or an item of some value.

Jewish views on nudity in late antiquity were clearly negative. A person's nakedness was considered as their 'shame.' However, nakedness was also associated with the innocence of children and with extreme poverty. We note in the parable of the good Samaritan, a story of a man who was robbed, that the robbers had “stripped him of his clothes.”

So, who was the naked nameless man, and just how had he come by the linen cloth that covered him? What are the possibilities? He could have been a self-styled prophet who, in the literal and visual style of early prophets, presaged the death and burial of Christ with a body wrap. He could have been a young man entwined with a lover who became curious about all the noise.

Is there any indication of identity from the Bible itself? Consider this. Amos 2:16 says, “And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day.” I add this as a reference to the young man in the garden. Was he 'courageous among the mighty?' Who were the mighty in Jesus' day, and who might have been the bravest?

Could it have been a Roman soldier, or the like, who could not afford for his identity to be known? Could it have been, and this is wild speculation on my part, a high ranking

official such as, say, Pilate himself?

And lastly, consider this. What if the young rich man finally sold all that he had, threw his last worldly possession, a linen cloth, around his naked body, and came to follow Christ, albeit a bit late in the game. What if the linen cloth had been left behind by those who arrested Jesus and later recovered by one of the disciples. What if that disciple, being rich, would later have Jesus' body buried in his own grave, and what if he used that recovered cloth to wrap the body.

Whichever possibility we are inclined toward, the fact stands that the writers of the gospels were spartan in their inclusion of information. Either the event or the person was important enough to merit inclusion.

Luke's Gospel: Who was Luke? Why did he write a gospel? This small investigation encompasses the first four verses of the first chapter of the gospel of Luke. It is a brief introduction to the gospel that follows but provides specific points of information. While Luke does not identify himself, as such, since it is worded specifically to one Theophilus, Luke must have been sufficiently known to him so that no personal accreditation was needed.

Let us discover who Luke and Theophilus were believed to be. Thought to have been both a physician and an apostle of Paul, Luke is considered the author of the gospel that bears his name as well as the book of Acts. Scholars consider Luke to have written most of the new testament, more even than Paul.

Actual facts about Luke are few and far between. Scholars think that he is either a Greek physician who lived in Antioch or a Hellenic Jew that resided in Troas. Being a student of Paul and sometimes traveling with and ministering to, Luke is likely to have obtained the bulk of his knowledge about Jesus from Paul.

This comes from Wikipedia. “Theophilus is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). Both Luke and Acts were written in a refined Koine Greek, and the name "θεόφιλος" ("Theophilos"), as it appears therein, means friend of God[2] or (be)loved by God or loving God[3] in the Greek language. No one knows the true identity of Theophilus and there are several conjectures and traditions around an identity.”

Coptic tradition and John Wesley believe Theophilus to be a person of importance from Alexandria. Some argue that Theophilus was a Roman official. Academia maintains that Theophilus was an honorary title.

More from Wikipedia: “Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer during his trial period in Rome. To support this claim people appeal to the formal legalese present in the prolog to the Gospel such as "eyewitnesses", "account", "carefully investigated", "know the certainty of things which you have been instructed".”

“The conclusion of The Book of Acts ends with Paul still alive and under arrest awaiting trial, suggesting it was the intention of the author to update Theophilus on Paul's history to provide for an explanation of his travels and preaching and serve as evidence in support of his innocence under Roman law. Some also point to the parallel between the account of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate narrated in Luke's Gospel with the account of Paul's trials before Roman judges in the Book of Acts. In total, Jesus was declared innocent 3 times by Pontius Pilate as was Paul before various judges.”

“A growing belief[6] points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41 In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple. Adherents claim that Luke's Gospel was targeted at Sadducee readers. This might explain a few features of Luke. He begins the story with an account of Zacharias the righteous priest who had a Temple vision of an angel(1:525). Luke quickly moves to account Mary's purification (niddah), Jesus' Temple redemption (pidyon ha-ben) rituals (2:21-39), and then to Jesus' pilgrimage to the Temple when he was twelve (2:46), possibly implying his bar mitzvah.”

“He makes no mention of Caiaphas' role in Jesus' crucifixion and emphasizes Jesus' literal resurrection (24:39), including an ascension into heaven as a realm of spiritual existence (24:52; Acts 1:1). Luke also seems to stress Jesus' arguments with the Sadducees on points like legal grounds for divorce, the existence of angels, spirits, and an afterlife (Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead). If this was the case then Luke is trying to use Jesus' rebuttals and teachings to break down Theophilus' Sadducean philosophy, maybe with the hope that Theophilus would use his influence to get the Sadducees to cease their persecution of the Christians. One could also look at Luke's Gospel as an allegorical (‫ ֶמרֶממ ז‬remez) reference to Jesus as "the man called the Branch" prophesied in Zechariah 3:8; 6:12-13, who is the ultimate high priest foreshadowed by the Levitical priesthood.”

All of this, even if conjecture, is enlightening. To sit down and write, by hand, two lengthy documents is no small chore. What reason would Luke have for such an undertaking? In the short opening to the gospel of Luke, Luke tells us why in his own words. He tells us he thought it seemed good to throw in his own two cents worth. Much more information does Luke give us.

Luke may have been inspired to try his hand by the “many” who had already “taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things.” It could have been, as some scholars accept that he was providing necessary information to Paul's attorney. He could have been attempting to ease the persecution of Christians via the Sadducees. He could have simply wanted to recount all that he had learned from Paul and believed sincerely.

There is also the possibility that he was contracted to write his works by a wealthy patron.

Luke identified himself with those who “most surely believed.” Those declarations that had been set forth in order by so many others were, in his own words, “delivered.”

Perhaps his work in the gospel of Luke was to bring about a synthesis of fragmentary eyewitness accounts. The “many” included not only a cloud of eyewitnesses, in the common sense of the word, but also, as we might term them today, 'credible witnesses', 'expert witnesses', 'character witnesses', etc.

Here is how one Wikipedia article describes witnesses (those who might have 'delivered' information to or for Luke's gospel): “A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony.”

Here is what those of us who study the gospels understand: in the three and a half year public ministry of Jesus, he was followed almost daily by an innumerable cloud of eyewitnesses. There were the multitudes – those who sought to hear him speak and those who sought a miracle. There were the disciples and other apostles. One scripture verse (Luke 10:1) states that he sent out seventy of them, two by two, preaching and healing the sick. There were the women that followed his ministry from the beginning, possibly with children in tow. There was Mary Magdalene, possibly Jesus' own mother, Salome, and Peter's wife and mother to name a few: (Mark 15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, John 19:25).

Finally, there were the chief elders, the scribes, the Pharisees and Sadducees that dogged his every step testing him, tempting him. One type of witness is actually named, possibly as the credible witnesses one would find hard to doubt. They were called the “ministers of the word.” Was Luke speaking plainly, or being cryptic? Did he mean 'word' as in Jesus, or did he simply mean the law, the communications of God, over which the above list of notable suspects exercised authority? Did Luke intend that we understand him to mean the disciples themselves?

Luke brought it all together, either for the beloved of God, or a lawyer, or other person

of note. He was not making it up off the top of his head. He went to a great personal effort to produce the gospel. He took the steps needed to present the facts as they were.

Luke, himself, was a 'minister of the word', bringing us the communication of the spirit.

The Spirit/flesh connection: My focus, here, is a single verse. It is Luke 1:35. This verse describes the conception of the son of God. Here, the wording is critical, for the same words that describe the conception of Jesus Christ also describe the creation of Adam.

What are we looking at? Luke 1:35 says, “And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” These are the questions we should ask. How are spirit and flesh connected? How does a spiritual entity engender a mortal offspring? What part of that engendered being is holy?

How is the creation of Adam like the conception of Jesus,and finally, why did the angel express distance from Mary's child?

Let's take it slow – one step at a time. First, I wish to restate my long-held belief that our spirit and mind are one and the same. All that I will iterate in this study is predicated on that belief. It is the mind, that is to say: the spirit within a man, that connects us to God. Jesus clearly declared that flesh and spirit are like oil and water.

He said in John 3:6, “ That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” They are separate, unlike, distinct. If the flesh, therefore, is a nonspiritual entity, how may God, a spirit, find a place in mortal man? It is through the mind, not the brain, that God connects himself to flesh. It was that way from the start.

Recall the creation of Adam – who was no more than flesh until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. This is found in Genesis 2:7 and it is only after the fleshly element and the spiritual element are combined that Adam is called a living soul. From this, I gather that before the breath of life was administered, Adam was just another soul, as might have been said of any of the animals God had created without an application of the breath of life. I also gather from this – that is, a breath of life from a totally spiritual entity – that the life we are actually considering, here, is spiritual life. In other words, a living soul is a soul with spiritual life added.

Another consideration is this, how can a spiritual God, who is in no way, shape or form anything even remotely resembling flesh, say 'let us make man in our image, after our

likeness?' For that matter, what exactly would be the image and likeness of an invisible spiritual entity?

Jesus, on the other hand, was a very physical identity. He was a flesh and blood man born of a flesh and blood woman. Yet, it is said he was engendered by an entity who was not flesh and blood. How does that even work? This is how the angel explained it to Mary: ' the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.'

Still confused? Is that meant to read the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest, or the Holy Ghost as the power of the Highest? I believe it is the latter and for this reason – the Bible is written in such a way that many things are repeated, but they don't simply say the exact same thing: they say the same thing a different way. What the angel said was that the Holy Spirit was the power of God. It was the Holy Spirit that would overshadow Mary and make something like Adam, but with a twist. Whereas Adam, and all men, have been flesh with a spiritual insertion, Jesus was to be a spirit with an extension of flesh. In our cases, even though we share a part of God, it is still the flesh that rules. The flesh has quite a will and bends all reason to its own advantage – we are the swine in the parable of the swine and the pearl. That is a tragically difficult obstacle for our spiritual element to overcome. Our minds are overwhelmed by our flesh.

Christ, on the other hand, was configured differently. He was the same flesh as any of us, but it was his mind, the Holy Spirit, that activated and actualized the flesh, reigning it in to the creative will of the Father from the beginning.

What was the reasoning of the angel on this point? He told Mary that because the Holy Spirit was holy the flesh would be also, and flesh Christ was because the angel referred to him as that holy 'thing'. It sounds a bit snooty on the part of the angel, as if it placed distance between the child to be born, as flesh, and itself, as spiritual, or as if the angel had to reassure itself of its own superiority, being no part flesh.

It is only the spiritual part of a Christ man that makes him holy: his flesh is an extension of all that holiness. So, here is the surprising good news – the spirit that was breathed into Adam, the spirit that drew flesh to itself and bent it to the will of God, or the spirit that was breathed upon the disciples when Christ imparted the Holy Ghost: it is all one and the same spirit. You and I share with Jesus the Very spirit of God. Sure, we have a lot to overcome, but we also have a good reason to move forward. Thank you, Holy Spirit.

Heavenly Politics: I turn my attention to a small verse in the second chapter of Luke. It is always the little things – things we overlook, things we take for granted or at face value – things that speak volumes.

Here is an angel of God speaking to shepherds in the fields at night. An innumerable host appears with the angel, lighting up the night sky in a fearsome manner. They are promoting the birth of Christ to the locals. A little word of mouth goes a long way. Their advertisement is magnificent and frightening.

It is a small account, but no telling of the Nativity is complete without it. It is heard often at the season of Christmas, it is sung about, and preached in churches, and I suppose – if you focus on the manger or the angels, you might miss the actual wording of the celestial beings.

In the Bible, the words 'host' and 'hosts' refer to armies. To be sure, the hosts of God came to earth in the old testament to fight the armies of the world. So when we talk about the heavenly hosts, we are actually speaking of a war machine. When we turn our thoughts to such matters, politics comes to mind.

We recall that the hosts of heaven once fought among themselves. It was civil war among angelic factions, as one seceded from the union and battled for its own identity.

Such are matters that must be solved politically. Just as one such political tool is the crack commando squad of highly trained elite forces, so another tool that has often proved useful is negotiation.

The highest ranking authority will set terms and conditions for a peace treaty. Something is given, and something is expected in return. Wars end with peace treaties. It is through such negotiations that hostilities come to an end so the important things may once again occupy the mind.

When you hear the story of the angels praising God before the shepherds, you might at first be impressed that these celestial beings all worship and serve God. You might think these thoughts in a vacuum, that is, without reference to the politics of Heaven.

Was Christ a peace offering that brought about an end to celestial hostilities? Had some of the angels set themselves against mankind? Were we like the slaves of the American Civil War – property over which some fought to hold and some fought to free?

The wording of the heavenly hosts in the presence of the shepherds is the impetus for this study. They could have said anything. They could have said what they said in a

number of different ways. Yet, they chose to use these words: “And on earth peace, good will toward men.”

One has to ask: 'peace' as opposed to what? 'Good will' as opposed to what? Had the tides just turned? Had there not been good will toward men? Had there been, instead, hostility toward mankind? Was earth a battlefield upon which there was now peace, an end to hostilities? Was that peace a peace between warring celestial factions?

And finally, was not the advent or birth of Christ as man as much a boon for the angels as it was for mankind? It certainly seems to have united them in a cause they could all agree on: “Glory to God in the highest.”

A mother's child: On this Mother's Day, many mothers around the world are blessed and revered by their children. Moreover, the fathers and husbands revere the mothers and wives. It is clearly seen that there is something special about them, something worthy of praise. No mother in history has received more praise than the mother of the savior of mankind. Yet, her praise is indirect – that is through the son.

In Luke 2:34, an old man named Simeon blessed the child Jesus according to the customs and laws of that day. He had been assured by the Holy Spirit that he would not die until he saw with his own eyes the Lord's Christ. Simeon, a devout Jew who awaited the consolation of Israel, clearly saw Jesus as a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Israel (the people.)

When Simeon blessed Jesus, Mary shared that blessing in her heart. When Simeon praised Jesus as Christ and savior, Mary felt it and tucked it away as a special treasure and reason for joy. Mothers shine the brightest in their children. The praiseworthy Mom dotes on her children and gives her all for their benefit. The formative years of a child belong to the mother, insomuch that we may be sure much of who Jesus was came by way of who Mary was.

So Mary, proud of her son, humbled and awed, stood before Simeon, Joseph by her side, and received each and every word with acute interest. She was surprised by the words that came through his lips, but not unduly – she had, after all, spoken with an angel of the Lord. Simeon served to justify her thoughts – thoughts she handled every day since the words of the angel.

It was the Jewish thought and law that the first born male was accounted holy to the Lord. Mary began with that. Then an angel comes along and tells her Jesus would be

considered not only holy, but the very son of the Most High. Now, she stood before Simeon and heard his words added to everything else.

This child was set for the fall and the rise of many in Israel, a sign that would be spoken against, so that the thoughts of the hearts of many might be revealed, including Mary's thoughts. She would know that her thoughts had been right all along; she would know her son as the son of God and savior of her people. Perhaps through the coming years, Mary would become the most educated person on the topics of Christ and salvation. She would ask; she would search it out; she would store it away in her heart.

Let us take a moment to consider the concepts that were bodied forth in this section of scripture. To say they are curiously worded would be an understatement. A light to lighten the Gentiles: we see this reflected in the first chapter of the gospel of John, verses one through twelve. Isaiah also wrote of this light in Isaiah 49:6 when God said, “It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”

The glory of your people Israel: may correctly be viewed as 'the best representative' of the people of Israel. Jesus was, in his place, a model to be aspired to. Jesus was the perfect model of the type of Hebrew, Iraeli, Jew, Christian, and man of any nation that God desired.

The fall and the rising again of many in Israel: This speaks to us of building, especially of demolition that clears the way for something new. The ministry of Jesus was set against many in fact. We see the church elders, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, the lawyers and Doctors of the law all thoroughly bashed by the truths of Jesus. They lost quite a bit of standing in the eyes of the locals and perhaps more so in the eyes of the Roman authorities. Religious authority, as a whole, fell – but they recovered and were better for the humbling. History teaches they were set on a path of improvement: individual-faith-in-God-wise.

Christ was not only the new and improved Israel, he was the new and improved nonHebrew (and this was how Mary's son was to prove himself the light from God) for anyone anywhere who believed, to them he gave the power to become children of God. He included everyone, even the enemies of faith. There was but one test: nothing overly complicated, just 'believe'.

It was not necessarily a bad thing that Jesus was set for a sign to be spoken against. The whole thing about spiritual demolition and reconstruction is getting a heart to commit.

One must not only take a stand, but one must be known for that stand. The religious authorities dressed in their finest religious garb, but underneath, they were the enemies

of God. That had to come out. Ultimately, we all must know exactly where we stand.

Our hearts can betray us with a multitude of superfluous and duplicitous thoughts, all of them camouflaged to the end of personal advantage – but that is neither 'yea' or 'nay'.

One must choose – and one must believe in one's choice.

Mary believed, but she was prejudiced – it was her son. The Pharisee, Nicodemus, believed – but he had to struggle with what he thought he believed. He had amassed a lifetime worth of head knowledge that only left him unsure. The desperate father of a demon-possessed son wanted to believe, and cried out in tears, “help thou mine unbelief.” Do you want to believe?

Honor your mother, praise her and know that in the doing you prove you are more aligned to faith than not. You are more the child of God than you let on. You may be struggling with preconceptions that hinder your reconstruction. God is love and Christ is our example of the son of love. If mothers teach us anything, it is how we are who we are because of love.

The Unmarked Reputation: Not much is given us on the early years of Jesus. All the Bible will divulge is the incident when he was twelve. Yet, there is one verse, Luke 2:40 to be specific, that speaks of his years before age twelve.

Too many race past this verse assuming it only reflects the passage of time. It gives us so much more, in fact, this particular verse attributes to the young Jesus nothing less than a reputation. Let us quickly check a dictionary on the meaning of that word. It is given as “the common opinion that people have about someone or something,” and “the way in which people think of someone or something,” also the “overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general,” as a “recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability,” and lastly “a place in public esteem or regard.”

There are four points that make up the reputation of Jesus that was held in common by the public in general. Luke 2:40 says, “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.” It is clear to see that each point is something visible and recognizable. Each point was a consensus.

'The child grew': that was a thing seen with the eye. His parents saw it, his neighbors saw it, the people who followed prophecy and, no doubt, checked in on Jesus saw it.

Then, the child 'waxed strong in spirit': simply put, the child had a keen mind. He was clever, a quick study – perhaps a natural at solving problems thought to be beyond the

scope of childhood. The normal happy chatter and games of children are usually relegated to a level of importance that is far below the daily concerns of adults. A child with such a mind would have been noticed and news of it voiced abroad.

'Filled with wisdom.' There was no public education then, there was not so much as a rudimentary level of book smarts, and yet, the public opinion of Jesus was that he was wise. I doubt that his wisdom would have merited canonical mention had only his Mom or Dad thought he was wise. There had to be a consensus of public esteem. No trivial matter would it have been to find wisdom in an uneducated child of that day. People would have sought to derive some advantage from it. You can bet Jesus was questioned and engaged on matters of import.

Finally, 'the grace of God was upon him' Jesus carried himself well. His manner was convincing. He sported a certain charm of demeanor. Quite a reputation for a child not yet twelve. For the normal boy of that day, knowledge would have consisted only of those things learned from the mother, the father, or heard in the Sabbath services. Such a reputation did not necessarily mean that he was liked for it by every illiterate, hardworking person of the community: daily concerns and the political clime of the time were just too pressing.

All of this culminated in Jesus' coming of age as seen in this excerpt from a Bible Gateway article on the topic: “Jesus is twelve years old. If the Mishna is relevant to the first-century Jewish practice, which is likely in this case, then religious instruction would have become more intense for Jesus upon his reaching twelve (m. Niddah 5:6; m.

Megilla 4:6; m. `Abot 5:12). The custom of bar mitzvah for a thirteen-year-old Jewish boy was not in place at this time (Fitzmyer 1981:440).”

There is more to the reputation of young Jesus as we see in verse 52. After the incident of the temple at age twelve, Jesus returned with his family to Nazareth and was subject to them – but – his reputation continued to grow. He was generally known to have become even wiser. He increased in stature, which may mean, as Merriam-Webster puts it, “the level of respect that people have for a successful person.”

Not only that, but Jesus also was liked and respected in his community. There was the evidence of public consensus that Jesus increased in not only in favor with God, but also in the regard of friends and acquaintances. All of this early reputation may have ultimately been relegated to public life. His public ministry, at the age of thirty or so, might have been somewhat of a head-scratcher for the community he grew up in.

There is nothing in the scriptures of the life of such a one with such a reputation. Had there originally been texts that church authorities later deleted, it begs the question 'just what did they wish to hide?' Despite the lack of specifics in Jesus' early life, I am still

encouraged that something, even as generic as this, remains. The few words of this study tell a big truth.

First Impressions:

First impressions are important. Few will deny this truth. In this present study, I want to look at the first impressions of Jesus and what was thought of him by the people when he began his public ministry.

Luke 4:14-15 tells us this, “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.”

So then, even before he was glorified of all, a fame of him had gone out through those regions – word of mouth. But, a fame of what? All we are told to this point is that he had been baptized and that he went into the wilderness and was tempted by the devil, fasting for forty days.

There was certainly something to speak of, in regard to the baptism. For one, the Holy Spirit was seen, in a physical form, to descend upon the man. In addition to this, John had been speaking of one who would follow him – one who would perform greater works.

And just who were those people who came out to see John? There were locals who knew John, there were those who knew that Jesus was his cousin, there were tax collectors for

Rome and even soldiers. There were people who knew and followed prophecy. There were people who wished to be free of the yoke of Rome, who eagerly anticipated the Messiah who would set them free.

Was John just a wild man in the wilderness? He was addressed as 'Master.' Folks did not give that title to just any passer-by. It seems that John was taken quite seriously even by the local government. It is not so much of a stretch then to think he may have had some religious training and some unmentioned connection to the religious bodies in authority.

Was he a rogue Pharisee? Had he been a Doctor of the law before trading in his fine robes for animal skins?

John had a fame of his own. It might have seemed to the multitudes that he had passed on his fame to another. A point of interest about the baptism of Jesus is that he prayed.

Most of us accept that Jesus was a powerful speaker. He had a way with words. I don't imagine that public prayer was present from everyone John baptized. In fact, I get the impression that the prayer of Jesus was a custom or ritual. I see it more as a practice of, say, a Pharisee or Sadducee or the Essenes.

The fame that went out abroad about the baptized Jesus most assuredly included his forty day wilderness trial. Was that a rite of passage? Was it an early Rabbinical trial by fire? It is worth consideration that, just perhaps, Jesus did not simply wander off into the hills to face his demons alone. For there to be a fame of such an accomplishment, let alone knowledge of the act, it is well within the realm of possibility that the trial of Jesus was monitored in some fashion and by some interested party.

According to Luke, when Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit, he took up a regular practice of teaching in the local synagogues. He was called Rabbi, after all. I can only imagine that those who were called 'Master' or 'Rabbi' were so called for a reason – that reason being that they were actually a bona fide Master or Rabbi.

The way we read this account in Luke gives the sense of immediacy – as of a young student who moves directly from graduation to his first job. Of course, Luke does not indicate whether the passage of time is in weeks or months. I think it would be interesting, at this point, to compare parallel passages from the other gospels.

In Matthew 4:12, 13 and 17 we see this first impression of Jesus: “Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, which is in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This is the version found in Mark 1:14-15, “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is

fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

In the first chapter of the gospel of John, the fact of Jesus' baptism is inferred rather than directly stated. Also, there is no mention of Jesus' forty days in the wilderness. However, we do see a progression of events marked with the expression 'next day.' First, John preaches the coming of the one that is to follow him, fielding queries from the Pharisees, priests, and Levites.

Next, John sees Jesus and directs the attention of the people to him, saying that Jesus, specifically, is the man he had been preaching about. Then, on the following day, John says to two of his disciples, “Behold the Lamb of God.” Those two desert John and follow Jesus. They spend the night with him. Where he was staying and whether or not he was renting a room, I've no idea, but it was one of those two who began to spread the word that the Messiah had been found.

The one to whom the first report of a Messiah went was Simon, a fisherman on the sea of Galilee. Obviously, they were on the move as, on the next day, Jesus went into Galilee and found Philip who brought in Nathanael. And finally, the next 'next day' that we encounter is the one that brings Jesus and his new disciples to the wedding in Cana. It is that 'next day' that is intended to sum up the progression. I would ask at this point, why had Jesus' mother come all the way from Nazareth to attend this wedding – but that is another study altogether.

The Luke version concerns itself more with the topic of fame than do the other versions.

Still, it is easy to deduce from any of the gospels that Jesus was being noticed, followed and talked about.

Tradition places the location of the Jesus baptism as Bethabara, sometimes thought to be Bethany beyond Jordan, but at any rate, east of the Jordan river where the Jordan was parted by Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. It is thought to be a one day journey from Bethabara to Cana, but from Bethany to Cana, a trip of two to three days. Considering the generalized location of the baptism, where would the wilderness most likely have been?

We get this from Wikipedia, “These discussions began to take on a different shape in the late 1990s, when mine clearing operations east of the Jordan enabled archaeological digs to unearth an ancient church marking baptism on a site where the Jordan River flowed in the first century, matching the place marked on the Madaba map. The local Arabic name of the site is Al-Maghtas, "the immersion/baptism". This rapidly led to a growing consensus among archaeologists, scholars and church leaders that this site, just east of the Jordan River and slightly north of the place where it empties into the Dead Sea, is most likely to be the place where John the Baptist was baptizing.”

Both Bethany and Bethany beyond Jordan are near the Dead Sea and within walking distance of Qumran.

Whatever we do in life, people see us and form opinions, either good or bad. All of us make first impressions. Jesus was from the beginning known to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. His life progressed prophetically, from his place of birth to his place of baptism and trial, to his place of burial. People talked about these things into the small hours of the night. They followed the life of Jesus with keen interest. No other first impression has lasted as long or endured such scrutiny. Jesus is, to this day, still â&#x20AC;&#x153;glorified of all.â&#x20AC;?

Pause for Thought:

How does one define 'passing through'? The account in Luke 4:16-30 concludes with that concept. I have never seen or heard a discussion of that recorded fact. It seems most folk will not pause long enough to consider such a thing. In this short study, we will pause for thought. We will embrace the concept. We will seek definition.

Jesus had gone home to Nazareth and preached famously. To the very people who had known him before the commencement of his public ministry, Jesus read from Isaiah. He stood and read from Isaiah 61:1, then he returned the scroll to the minister and sat down.

All eyes were on Jesus. Estimates place the population of Jesus' Nazareth from 400 to 480. One may imagine a synagogue large enough to accommodate that population. Quite a large crowd would gather there each Sabbath.

After his reading, Jesus angered the locals with his words. They felt insulted. The implication of his speech made them indignant. They somehow transformed, on that holy day, from a church-going crowd into a blood-thirsty mob. However many men had

filled that synagogue, they took Jesus physically and dragged him to a high precipice to hurl him over the edge to his death.

Make no mistake: they had Jesus in hand. They had seized him by his wrists. They held him by his shoulders and arms. They shoved him angrily from behind with the bulk of the mob following. When they reached the cliff, he simply passed through that mob and went his way. How is that possible?

Here are some questions I wonder if anyone ever asks. Where were his disciples? Did they struggle to free their master from the mob? There is no mention of them. Some synagogues permitted women and older children to quietly listen from an enclosed upper balcony. Was Mary there? Did Jesus' siblings attend? The text is silent on this point. We are given only two points of reference: Jesus and the mob.

Let us pause long enough to consider what 'passing through' may involve. I leave you with these notions. Definitions include: 'passing through a hole or around something'.

Did Jesus bolt through the crowd like a football player? Also, there is the passing through of 'infiltration'. Did Jesus somehow pass himself off as one of the crowd while he made his way to the trailing end of the mob? Had there been sudden confusion among them?

Somehow, Jesus moved through the physical mob in a way that ended with his body being no longer in their center. Had he used a power similar to that of walking on water?

We have too little information to form a clear picture but for me, personally, I favor the infiltration scenario.

Luke 5:

There are an awful lot of facts presented in the Bible. They assail us in a constant flow; we find it difficult to keep the newer information in context. For instance, as being in the fifth chapter of this book, we feel confident about the status of Jesus' disciples. In Luke 5:11, after a miracle on the sea, it is said that they forsook all and followed him. But wait â&#x20AC;&#x201C; weren't they already disciples?

Before the miracle, Jesus was staying in Simon's house. It was in the city of Capernaum.

Jesus had preached in their Synagogue, after which, he departed to Simon's house and healed his mother-in-law â&#x20AC;&#x201C; chapter four, verse thirty-eight. Before that, Jesus was in his home town of Nazareth, and before that, Jesus was at the place where John baptized him.

According to the gospel of John, Jesus was still in that same place where John the

baptist did his baptism thing. It was the day after the baptism, when two of John's disciples left John to be disciples of Jesus. One of them was Andrew, Simon's brother, who went and told Simon and brought him to Jesus. We were all under the impression that it was there, at the place of baptism that Jesus accepted Simon as a disciple, naming him Peter.

However, the gospel of Luke changes that all around. No doubt, they attended the Sabbath service in which Jesus exorcised the unclean spirit. He took Jesus home with him and witnessed the miraculous healing of his mother-in-law, but still, it took the miracle of the fishing trip to make them forsake all.

Let us look a little closer. Whose ship did Jesus enter to preach? It was Simon's ship, one of two in a fishing partnership. It is a safe bet that fishing was the family business. When Simon had cast out at Jesus behest, he had been up all night fishing without success. He was tired and sleepy. Why would he go to all that trouble for a stranger? It appears that Jesus' word was good enough – indicative of experience drawn from a relationship.

Perhaps the early disciples needed to fully commit.

So Simon and Andrew were disciples. There was the one other mentioned but not named from the gospel of John. What about the fishing partners? James and John were just as amazed by the miracle on the sea. That brings the number of disciples to five, with at least four of them definitely known to come from Capernaum. Then, Jesus picks up Levi in the same city. That's half his disciples from one place.

It takes but a brief perusal of available documents to see that all but one of the disciples was from that general area of Galilee. Most of them were related to each other.

Bartholomew (Nathaniel) was from Cana, with a possible connection to the wedding Jesus attended, and Judas was from southern Judea near the lower end of the dead sea.

Speaking of disciples, was discipleship some willy-nilly everyday commonplace occurrence, or was it a more controlled and restricted practice? Who had disciples back then? We note this indicative question in Luke 5:33, “Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees . . ?”

It seems to me that discipleship was a practice restricted to accredited religious groups and personalities. If Pharisees had disciples, was John a Pharisee? If Jesus prayed at his own baptism, after the practice of the disciples of John, was he also a disciple up til then? If discipleship was limited by accreditation, was Jesus a bona-fide Rabbi of one of the accredited religious orders? Mark 5 has so much food for thought, we might have to loosen the belt.

Let us return our attention to the multitudes. Mark 5 presents the reader with a time in

Jesus' early ministry in which he was swamped by literal throngs. News of him had gotten out. He was famous. People knew that he had healed infirmities, so they gathered all their sick folk and flocked to him. Even in his preaching, he had to sit in a ship that sat at a distance from the shore. On top of this, we see that many Pharisees and doctors of law had come from surrounding areas to hear him.

Luke 5:17 tells us that there were “Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem . . .” That's a lot of people. So then, how do we reconcile the fact of Jesus preaching from inside a house.

Was it the house of Simon Peter? The multitudes, in their attempts to set their infirm loved ones before the healer, let them down 'through the tiling into the midst.' That speaks clearly of an interior. Perhaps Jesus sat just inside the doorway with the crowds gathered outside. Standing room only.

It is in this context that we must read the things Jesus said as he spoke to the people, and to the Pharisees, and to the doctors of the law, emphasizing the points he wished them to understand. Points like: “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

“Can you make the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.”

“No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.”

These are not stand-alone sayings, but they must be filtered by the context in which they are found. I came not to do 'this but 'that.' Why? No man puts this on that. Why was that said to these particular people at this particular time? Seekers have great minds. What would you find if you really applied yourself?

Beatitudes and the Afterlife:

A topic often preached in churches is that of the beatitudes. The blessings are regularly taken out of context as if they are a stand-alone concept. What is the context they are taken out of? They follow on the heels of Jesus healing the multitudes, everyone seeking to get in close and touch him.

That follows on the heels of Jesus praying all night before choosing twelve apostles from among his disciples – which should tell us that Jesus had more than twelve disciples. That followed the accounts of two Sabbaths upon which Jesus angered the authorities of the synagogues. Jesus rubbed their noses in the law and, thus, made enemies. And finally, the beatitudes lead into the commandments that govern Christian behavior, for example, love your enemies.

I am taking this study from the sixth chapter of Luke. I wish to highlight the broader implications of the beatitudes and the commandments, both of which may be classed with the parable of Lazarus. The parable of Lazarus deals with the difference between our present lives and our lives to come. To put that in alternate phrasing, the beatitudes and the commandments for Christian behavior deal with the contrast between worldly physical lives and the spiritual lives to come – lives without physical bodies.

Jesus makes comparisons between the two states of existence that are as stark as comparisons between night and day. They may be seen to be as simple as cause and effect. They may be viewed as comparable to Yin and Yang. They may also be interpreted as present proofs of transcending truths. Let us look at a few examples.

Luke 6:21 states, “Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.” This states rather plainly that the tables are due to be turned. What is 'down' in our present existence will be 'up' in the life to come. This reckoning is given as a proof of just whose company the Christian stands in, as seen in Luke 6:22-23, “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for

joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.”

The Christian, first of all, must see that he stands in the company of prophets, but secondly, he must see the 'reward' in heaven as the 'effect' end of cause and effect. In the example of night and day, one does not merely cease to be as its opposites steps in to replace it. Night works toward day. The night actually 'achieves' the day. In that sense of working toward our spiritual reward in a spiritual heaven, we must do those works that achieve the desired ends.

In the beatitudes, Jesus tells us that there is a bright day to follow for those of us in the company of prophets – but we must work for it. To reach an easterly destination one must actually walk in that direction. In opposition to that desired day, Jesus speaks of the children of the men who persecuted the prophets of old. He tells us the same truths, that because they are full in this present existence, the tables will turn in the life to come and they shall know only want.

In all of the beatitudes, the condition of the present existence becomes its exact opposite in the life to come. Some say that life here on Earth is no life at all, but only existing in a state of day to day survival at the barest level. That will be a spiritual truth for many in the afterlife – it will not be life for them. Because everything that Jesus says in the beatitudes may be seen in the light of Yin and Yang, that is to say, in the light of opposites, it is needful to see the following commandments in that light also.

Jesus did not present the beatitudes and stop there, he immediately followed with protocols that are necessary to achieve an opposite spiritual outcome. Let me ask this, if those who have this world's good end up with the opposite in a spiritual afterlife, what will 'loving your enemies' achieve? Those enemies who remain enemies will have already received their reward by the time they come to the afterlife. From that point and forward, the opposite will be their truth.

They will have been handed a state similar to the rich man in the parable of Lazarus.

They will find themselves in a state of personal torment. They will desire relief and comfort. They will call for compassion and sympathy. However, they will only receive the hot coals of their own misdeeds. When a Christian turns the other cheek, he is actually playing a winning hand. All these things must be done with the future state in mind. With whatever measure you mete out, it shall be measured to you again – or, you only get out of it what you put into it.

The Christian stands not only in the company of prophets. When we exercise those 'spiritual muscles' that are God: i.e.: mercy, we are children of the most high. Like father like son. We stand in the company of the first begotten son of God.

Chapter six ends with several parables. This point must remain clear: all of the parables at the end of chapter six must be read in the context of the above. They were employed to clarify both the beatitudes and the commandments. I leave you, the reader, with this simple question: are you working toward the night, or are you working toward the day?

A Bevy of small Parables:

Why do we call Jesus Lord? There should really only be one reason. Jesus, himself, asked the same question in the final verses of Luke Six. He asked in Luke 6:46, â&#x20AC;&#x153;And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?â&#x20AC;? By calling Jesus Lord, we are saying, 'you are the master; say and I will do.' How often do we stop and take stock of the words we use and claim to understand?

They all loved to sit around and hear Jesus speak. We do as well. With thumb and finger to our collective chin, we give the nod of wizened sage, but that nod is more like a congratulatory pat on the back. We came, we listened, we nodded. In doing so, we have only approached the constituents of our lives in the spirit of a master. In our hearts, we never relinquish our white-knuckled grip on the reins. We turn our steed into the onslaught of personal reality and spur the beast for speed.

We rarely stop and take stock. We know the words, but that is simply head-knowledge and a far cry from understanding. Even those of us who understand stand at a considerable distance from the wisdom of acting upon what we understand. What is the wise thing to do? Stop and accept the fact that calling Jesus Lord is an act of relinquishment. That will not occur until, at the stage of understanding, one breaks free of book-smarts and begins to incorporate truth rather than merely recognize it.

Let's do that here. Turn loose of the reins. Climb down from your speeding mount and give due consideration to what Jesus is actually saying.

First up are the blind people mentioned in Luke 6:39. It is apparent that the blind do not perceive the light. This parable is about light and dark. It is the difference between being alive and only existing. It contrasts understanding against book-smarts. It highlights those who incorporate truth. The blind recognize the world around them, but they are not illuminated. The light shines all around them, but they do not see it.

Let us imagine that you are in need. You need to be guided, taken by the hand and led along. People like yourself, and that includes you, will not fit the bill. There is a quality of ineptitude about the blind. They simply lack all experience when it comes to the light.

When we accept the hand that is to guide us, we give control to another. Wouldn't we rather have a guide who actually sees more than we do? We know there is a ditch out there somewhere; it is our fervent desire that our guide knows more than we do. In that same light, or lack thereof, why take the hand of a guide if you will not let yourself be led?

In verse 40, Jesus gives an example of being blind. You have taken the master's hand.

You handed over the reins. That is a declaration that you at least recognize your darkness and need. All that is left is for you to receive instructions: step here, step there. While you are learning, that is: incorporating what the master gives you, you are not yet complete. Anyone who is complete must be recognized as in possession of the light you seek.

The parable of the mote, verses 41-42, places the disciple in the role of the blind guide.

You simply have not reached the place where you may act in that manner. You still need to learn from those who have more light in them than you do. If you recognize that you are at that place rather than at the place of a guide, then you must also recognize that you are engaged in more than the gathering of facts and figures. Knowing about something, even being in a state of agreement with something, is still being in the dark.

The dark and the light are personal levels of you. You must incorporate light, not just know of or agree with it. You must bring that light into who you are. You must remake yourself with the light. Until you do, the darkness remains. If the earnest acceptance of instruction from Jesus brings light into your persona, that is, not just calling Jesus Lord, but doing what he says, then your willing state and propensity to be educable is the end result of the incorporation of light into who you are (becoming.)

The good tree, in verse 43-44, speaks to that nature. If you are the tree that calls Jesus Lord then you bear the appropriate fruit. You will be instructed. You will do the things he says to do and thereby incorporate light into your being. For every tree is known by

its own fruit. What this entails is like the acorn tree accepting the instructions of the acorn seed. The acorn fruit is proof of incorporation.

If the fig tree puts forth thorns for fruit, it has not been instructed by the fig seed. It has only provided lip service. If the grapevine calls the grape seed Lord but puts forth brambles, then it is evident in the fruit what the grape has incorporated. It shows. It is there for all to see. You cannot be spiritual if your fruit is the fruit of worldliness. You cannot claim enlightenment is your fruit is only that of facts and figures.

Furthermore, we see in verse 45, that in the comparison of men to trees, it is from the spirit that we produce our fruit that proves who and what we really are. A good spirit produces good fruit and an evil spirit produces evil fruit. Within each of us is an accumulating abundance of our ongoing incorporation. Like busy caterpillars, we continually munch â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and we are what we eat: it shows. How does it show? Whatever it is we are all about, that is the thing we will speak of the most. Our conversation will always return to what we believe and what we do.

I've spoken of incorporation of instruction, of light, of truth. How important is it? The final parable of Luke six shows us that we cannot simply come to Jesus and listen. Up to that point, there is only knowledge and understanding. To be at the level of wisdom, we must do the things we know and understand. They must be a part of our persona, our character, our very nature. The thing about having a foundation is a solid connection to the stuff that makes you who you are.

The caterpillar locks his many legs into his food source, physically becoming one with it. As food sources go, the caterpillar chooses to incorporate only what he is locked into.

The evidence of preference will be there for all to see. Between the man with a foundation and the man without a foundation, the stream that beats vehemently against them is one and the same. That is to say that there are not two sets of rules. Those who espouse a worldly philosophy are subject to the same spiritual stream. While they insist on being the master of their own destinies, they have failed to avail themselves of things necessary for their completion.

The Greatest Faith in Israel:

The Christian thinks he is all that; the Jew thinks he is all that. In fact, every religion and faithful follower think the same way. Rather than their God or their prophets, they actually extol their own faith as an accomplishment. It is a boastful spirit that says to all others, 'this is how it is done.'

So what if you clasp your hands and kneel and contort your face while you pray! So what if you kiss a wall and wear curly locks! So what if you parade thousands around a giant cube! In this study, I turn to Luke 7:1-9 to discover what Christ thought about the faith of his people.

Jesus rubbed shoulders with many people in the course of a day. Most of them claimed to be faithful. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the elders of the Synagogues â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they all thought of themselves as pious, as devout. They claimed Abraham; they claimed Moses.

They wore all the right clothing and said all the right words and adamantly adhered to each custom, law, and precept. They had every right to pat themselves on their collective back. They had every right to crow â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they were the faithful, after all; they were devout.

They were all that.

But Jesus had a different standard to judge by. He claimed meekness and lowliness. He knew the turmoil of professed faith and offered rest from its rigors. Now, there were many people who did not really know what they believed in, but they knew the misery of their daily lives. They knew the desire for all things that life deprived them of. When Jesus viewed the world around him, he knew that the will of men stood in opposition to the will of the spirit.

The story of the centurion provides a rare example of a faith that was greater than boastful profession or desperation. The story describes the nature of a Roman centurion.

He is described as a man who loved Israel. The elders who had been sent to Jesus praised the man for the benefits they had enjoyed; he had built them a synagogue. It seems obvious from this testimony, as well as the fact that the dying servant was dear to

him, that the centurion had a connection to the people around him. Perhaps the man was known to care, or to display compassion.

He had only just heard of Jesus â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that Jesus had the power to heal. Being the type of man he was known to be, the centurion doubtless knew a great deal about Jewish culture and news. He would have known what the Jews believed about God. And here was a healer who claimed to heal by the authority of that God. It is a moving story and many recognize humility in the Roman when he sends friends to Jesus. Jesus was almost there when the friends of the centurion conveyed a message to Jesus. The Roman said to Jesus, 'don't bother. You really don't need to come all the way here. Besides, I am not worthy that someone as godly as you should come under my roof. The authority of your word is enough. If you say it, it will happen, for just as you command spirits I command people, so I know authority and yours is of God.' The friends returned to find the centurion's servant healed. Jesus was moved by the centurion's genuine faith and healed the servant from a distance simply by the authority of his word. Jesus was so impressed with that Roman's faith he turned to those who followed him and told them the faith of an outsider was the greatest faith in all of Israel.

I have no doubt that among the company Jesus traveled in one could not help but find the obligatory Pharisee or church elder. Why was Jesus impressed with the faith of the Roman? Why did he need to make a point of it to the crowd? What did he recognize in the Roman that he could not recognize in his own countrymen?

The Roman, indeed, was humble but that is not what impressed Jesus. It is my opinion that what Jesus recognized in the Roman was a sincere recognition of the authority that he exercised â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that it was of God. While some claimed the keeping of custom as their faith and others claimed hopes for the expulsion of Rome from Israel as their faith and while yet others claimed their desire for what Jesus offered as their faith, the outsider claimed a recognition of Christ's authority as a certain knowledge.

Let's face it â&#x20AC;&#x201C; how can you claim to believe in Jesus if you don't recognize his authority?

Rumor Has It (Part One)

Luke 7:11-18 is an account of Jesus raising the dead. It occurs on the day after the incident with the centurion's sick servant. Jesus had traveled to the city of Nain, a walled city with a gate. Traveling with Jesus were “many of his disciples” and “much people.” I can envision a small crowd.

As Jesus and his crowd were making to enter through the gate into the city, they were met by another crowd of people exiting through the gate. That second crowd was, in fact, a funeral procession. That crowd followed along with a widow who was on her way to bury her only son.

On the surface, such a crowd might give the impression that the widow, her late husband, and her deceased son had garnered the love and respect of the community. A first thought is that one or more of the tragic family unit were objects of community admiration.

Such is not a certainty, however. People without their own business to attend will invariably attend someone else's business. Simple and gregarious folk may follow along for no other reason than they are curious and have nothing better to hold their attention.

Also, a tenet of such Jewish events were the professional mourners who could be hired.

Whatever the case, the poor woman had lost her entire family. She was a broken soul knowing only the sorrow of bitter loss. Jesus felt sorry for her and responded with compassion. He felt it was all too much for her to bear. Now, he did not have to raise her son from the dead – he could simply have extended his condolence, but Jesus was the son of God acting in his father's name. He was the outward expression of God's will.

This miracle must be compared to the miracle of the previous day. Whereas the healing of the centurion's servant engendered awe, the raising of the dead son engendered fear. A wandering Rabbi raises a corpse to life – literally, talks it back to life, then takes him by the hand and personally delivers him back to his mother. What's one to think?

They were taken aback. They were at a loss. This was definitely not normal. They actually trembled with fear, and the opinions they voiced among themselves were couched in words of utter amazement. They are recorded as having said such things as “God has visited His people” and “a great prophet is risen up among us.” Such words glorified God. Prophets in Israel were never rare. The greatest of the prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha, performed similar miracles. Doubtless, all that crowd grew up hearing the stories of Elijah and Elisha in their synagogues. Now, they had witnessed such a miracle with their own eyes and it made their hearts skip a beat.

Jesus had previously performed miracles and word of those miracles had spread. The nature of such news about Jesus was couched in words such as 'fame.' This time, however, a different word was applied – that word was 'rumor.'

Rumor is defined thus: 'a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth' and 'circulated as an unverified account.' In other words: where's the evidence?

The rumor of Jesus raising the dead son of the widow went far and wide, ultimately reaching the ears of the disciples of John the Baptist. In part two of 'Rumor Has It' I will explore the concerns that John voiced.

Rumor Has It (Part Two) Luke 7:19-23 shows us something curious about John the Baptist. In church services, we are force-fed the relationship between John and Jesus where John baptizes Jesus in the Jordan. He boldly proclaims, in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

I think we can all agree that, at the time of baptism, John seems confident of his cousin's role in God's plans for Israel. One point we reserve for Bible trivia, but seldom seriously consider, is the blood relation between John and Jesus. They were cousins. Mary's sister was John's mother. It's not like John and Jesus lived on opposite sides of the world. I think it is possible that the two of them grew up together.

It is possible they spoke often to each other on higher topics. It is, after all, more than evident that they chose similar paths in their adult lives. Both became masters of a sort, commanding apostles and disciples – and that was likely a position arrived at through already established societal structures such as the synagogue, the temple, or schooling within orders such as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or even the Essenes.

How can it be that John goes from confidence in John 1:29 to doubt in Luke 7:19? As a

concept, the Lamb of God can find an informal relationship to the Passover lamb. The constituents of such a concept might include 'being covered by the blood', 'redemption' or being 'set free', 'the first born being spared from death' or 'the death of the first born as a ward against death.' Not to be overlooked is the connection between the slaying of an unblemished lamb for the Passover celebrations, the 'body' and the 'blood', and the crucifixion, or 'slaying' at the time of Passover.

These well could have been topics of discussion between two cousins pursuing similar goals. Jesus might have referred to himself as the Lamb of God, and that could have been the reason John said what he said in John 1:29. And while John's statement seems bold and confident, it might have been nothing more than parroting what he had heard from his cousin.

Had that been the case, and John began to hear rumors of his cousin, his actions would have been justified. Yes, he had baptized his cousin, but he needed to know if Jesus was the one he and his disciples looked for. All of the major religious groups of Jesus' day looked for the coming of one who would set Israel free from the yoke of Rome. John's need to know, actually, aligns him with the prevalent mind-set of that era.

All established religious orders of that day lived in expectation of a coming Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament law and prophets. The Pharisees and Sadducees found it hard to swallow that the coming Messiah could be found in the person of one of their own. For them, a messiah had to be big enough and Holy enough to justify their keeping of the law. The Essenes, on the other hand, imagined a day of reckoning that lay somewhere in the future, but the confrontation between the forces of light and dark would clearly see them come out on top. The fact that John entertained the notion that “he that should come” might be realizable in the person of a living contemporary could indicate a connection to the Zealots.

So John sent two of his disciples to ask. While they were there, they witnessed actual deeds rather than simply hear more talk. They saw with their own eyes everything that Jesus told them to report back to John. They saw sight given to the blind, fully functional legs given to the lame, and life given to the dead. They saw those with infirmities healed. They saw those with plagues healed. They even saw the incredible cleansing of lepers. They heard the Gospel and saw how the poor of the land had their hope restored.

In part one of this study I asked the question, 'where's the evidence?' The disciples of John returned to their master with evidence. That is how Jesus answered them. Doubting Thomas, in similar fashion, had his doubts answered with evidence. He told Thomas, in John 20:24-27, “Be not faithless, but believing.” Thomas had been offended in the truth of Jesus as reported by his fellow disciples. A week earlier, his fellow disciples had been

offended in the truth of Jesus – in so much that Jesus ate fish and a piece of honeycomb in their presence as evidence of his risen reality. To John the baptist, and to all the rest of us, Jesus says pretty much the same thing, “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”

The evidence is there; we do not have to remain faithless.

Wisdom:

Luke 7:24-35 continues upon the departure of John's disciples. Jesus was still in the city of Nain. Jesus was still in the company of “many of his disciples” and “much people.”

When John's disciples left, the same crowd remained. It was to this crowd that Jesus turned and spoke about John.

It is evident in his address that Jesus spoke to people who had once followed John. John had been the big thing until Jesus showed up. It was as if Jesus took all of John's customers and John was facing bankruptcy – and wondering how much longer he should hold out before he closed up shop.

They now followed Jesus, but previously, they had followed John. Jesus asked them why. He asked them what they were hoping to find in the baptist. He asked them what they were looking for in the former 'big thing.'

It is in these passages that we discover critical information, not only about John but also about the people who had once followed him. As for the crowd who had followed John, including some of the disciples present, it becomes apparent that they had been baptized

by John. Even Jesus had been baptized.

In regard to that fact, Jesus made this comment in verse 35, “But wisdom is justified of all her children.” Here, I would ask the reader to focus on the word 'justified.' Merriam-

Webster gives this definition of the word: 'to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.' The word justified is used twice in this portion of text. Before Christ made his comment, the writer of this gospel pointed out that the very act of being baptized “justified God,” proving, as the definition goes, that His 'capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power' in their lives was just and right.

It is also pointed out, by way of comparison, that “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves” by not being baptized by John. In other words, the audience that Jesus addressed had accepted the counsel of God, and by doing so, had proven the actions and wisdom, both of God's counsel and of their own response, to be just, right and reasonable. It is obvious to all who read these accounts that there was a bone of contention between Jesus and the religious authorities. It now occurs to me that the failure to be baptized by John figured heavily into that contentious relationship.

Baptism was the open and visible testimony that an individual had knowingly accepted the counsel of God. To illustrate that clear division between either accepting or rejecting the counsel of God, Jesus made this comparison between those who accepted and those who did not: “Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.”

Joy and sorrow are like oil and water. They are used to represent the two types of individuals. Those who accept the counsel of God seek to share their joy in new life, but the sorrowful will not be a part of their celebration. The sorrowful, who have rejected the counsel of God, seek to share a sense of grave dedication and self-enslavement to the letter of the law, but those who find joy in new life will not be brought down to such an un-life-like existence.

There had been a time when a dedication to the letter of the law was applicable. That time was not the time of Jesus. Jesus set that previous time as opposite to his time of new life as outlined in the counsel of God. Jesus gave his opinion of his cousin, John. Of all the men born of women, and representative of the previous time – a time in which the law ruled with an iron fist, John was the greatest, for he was a prophet of God tasked with bringing mankind into the time of Christ, where the counsel and covenant of God were realized in redemption, new life, joy, and love.

Jesus painted a picture of John as the greatest of all men, but he added that the least of men in the time of Christ were greater than all men of the previous time, including John, because those in the time of Christ were the children of God's wisdom. They justified God's will and work.

Pointing clearly and openly at the Pharisees and lawyers, Jesus explained what it was

not to be a child of the wisdom of God – showing the utter futility of the mindset that is based on rejection rather than acceptance. John came adhering to a legalistic appearance, “neither eating bread nor drinking wine” and the Pharisees and lawyers rejected him.

Jesus came in a more relaxed and life-like appearance: “eating and drinking” and accepting anyone who accepted the counsel of God. The Pharisees and lawyers used that to reject Jesus. In the eyes of the Pharisees and lawyers, you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't.

I suppose, in the minds of Pharisees and lawyers, all was fair, for they fought for what they believed in. Too bad they believed in their law-keeping rather than God. The mind that rejects will find a reason to reject again. In their rejection of John and Jesus, the Pharisees and lawyers actually rejected God. There is no wisdom in that.

Human Nature?

Luke 7:36-50 continues from the same events. To remind ourselves of those events, Jesus had been witnessed healing plagues and infirmities, driving out evil spirits, giving sight to the blind, cleansing lepers, putting the lame back on their feet, and raising the dead. The witnesses included disciples, a crowd, the locals of Nain and their religious leaders. One of the local Pharisees invited Jesus to eat with him in the house where he lived in Nain.

We are somewhat inclined to view the Pharisees only as the enemies of Jesus, always offended by his claims, always planning his demise. We gather this from their words and deeds. That this Pharisee invited him into his home shows us a different side to their nature. They were, after all, members of their respective communities. They were often social and civil. Pharisees cared adamantly about the law. That was their bone of contention with Jesus.

The fact that this Pharisee, Simon by name, was so kindly disposed toward Jesus might indicate a certain kinship of spirit, for it is obvious that Simon did not invite just anyone into his home. There were a whole city full of sinners to whom Simon's home was offlimits. And yet, a sinner somehow managed to get past the Pharisee's house servants to crash the party.

Having gotten past the witless servants, Simon still spotted the intruder. He could tell a sinner from a block away. What I want to ask here is how did he know at a glance? Was it the way the woman dressed, or the fact that she was female, or uninvited? Was she poor and ragged? Was she of the Samaritan people? Did Simon know this particular sinner personally? I doubt this woman's sin was adultery, else she might already have

been stoned and unable to attend.

Yes, this is the story of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears. I am not here to rehash that tale; you can hear the forgiveness end of that story in church. Having no clear answer how Simon knew she was a sinner, I turn my attention to a detail few of us consider – that is where she stood. The Bible text informs us that she stood behind Jesus in a position conducive to the washing of his feet. That fact is an indication of the seating of those times.

It is believed that there were no chairs in those days, that people reclined on padded benches, or else on arranged pillows. In an arrangement like that, reaching the food becomes an issue. Of course, servants might have served them, but other than that, the seating would have been close. I think this may have been the case for there is no mention of anyone other than Jesus being invited to eat. So then, the picture is this: Jesus and Simon reclining close to one another – a comfortable situation that allowed casual conversation and easy access to the food.

An easily identifiable sinner came in. She carried an alabaster box of ointment. Were they expensive in those days? Was the ointment expensive? How did the sinner come by the box of ointment? Did she steal it, or had she spent hard earned coin to buy it? At any rate, she was able to stand behind Jesus and wash his feet with tears and anoint his feet with ointment.

This portion of text is also the place we find the parable of the two debtors. I have treated this parable elsewhere. I'll not rehash it here, instead, I would like to turn our attention to what the Pharisee forgot to do. While Simon was being civil and social, why did he not complete the custom with a kiss and with water for Jesus to wash his feet in?

Was Simon being rude? Was he so overwhelmed with recent events that he simply forgot? Was he, perhaps, focused on a plan to get Jesus alone and trap him in word games while Jesus' guard was down?

After the short parable about the two debtors, which Jesus employed to show Simon the link between love and forgiveness, he told him that the woman's sins were all forgiven.

There are two points in that exchange that I wish to address. First was the beginning of the exchange.

Jesus told Simon he had something to tell him. In his own words, this is how Simon answered in verse 40, “Master, say on.” What we have here is a case of a Master calling a Master 'Master.' Was that a professional courtesy? Is this an indication that Jesus was one of them – a Pharisee? It certainly gives me pause for thought. Second is the aftermath of forgiving a sinner.

Jesus explained himself with the parable and in the light of that explanation, turned and forgave the woman. The aftermath shows me that there was at least one other person eating with Simon and Jesus: thus the use of 'they.' The fact that they thought the same or similar thought, comparing his actions of forgiveness to his previous miracles of the day, lead me to believe that there was at least one other Pharisee in the group. Their mindset is portrayed thus: ' He performed miracles, he raised the dead, he also forgives sins. Who is he?'

For that matter, who was it, exactly, that recounted this exchange? Was it one of the Pharisees? To be fair, some scripture references indicate a close relationship between the Pharisees and at least one of the disciples of Christ, yet it still seems to me that none of them appeared on the invitation list. What I base my current opinion on is the fact that the person who recounted the tale (not necessarily the person who was the final author of the gospel) pegged the woman as a sinner initially in verse 37.

Finally, there is the point of the forgiveness of sin as Jesus explained it. Forgiveness and love go hand-in-hand. The more you are forgiven, the more you love. Also, the more you love, the more you are forgiven. Was Jesus telling us any more than that it is human nature? We love those who give us the most. We love those who give us the best. In a bar, the one who buys the drunk the most drinks is his best pal.

That is just how we are on the receiving end, but how are we on the giving end? Our human nature dictates that we either give, or forgive, those we deem the most worthy.

Most of us, upon getting an unexpected gift, feel somehow obligated to give something back. When we have a choice in who we might forgive, we lean toward the innocent, or toward the person of good character. Our human nature gives us a resounding 'no' when it comes to persons of a nasty character or reputation. When they are against us, they just don't deserve the time of day.

This shows us that there is not love only on the receiving end. It is a reflection of the love on the giving and forgiving end. Likewise, I think that the love found on the giving and forgiving end is a reflection of the love that is found on the end in need. There is an unmistakable connection between the one who loves much and the one who forgives much. That connection reveals that the one who forgives sees something of himself in the one he pities. Likewise, we who stand in the greatest need look always to the one so like ourselves that he will surely understand.

It is clear that Jesus came to us in human nature and for human nature. It is clear that the reflection of the divine is seen as much in the contrite as the reflection of the humble is seen in the divine.

Collateral Points:

Luke 8 is one of the places where we find the sower parable, but it is also found in Matthew. I have already covered this parable – see the study entitled 'As a man thinks' – so here in Luke, I will focus on collateral points.

What do I mean by collateral points? We all too often concern ourselves with only the core topic of a study. We look through our personal telescopes and count off the planets but disregard the moons. We hurry to reach the end of the labor, willing to relegate all minor points to the category of trivia. These are the collateral points, the things we hurry past without giving due credit. If we were to look through our personal telescope at the earth, an appraisal of its moon would render truths about the tides and how they help drive the weather of an entire world.

Let us look at the little things. Let us seek meaning and strive for definition. Luke 8 begins with Jesus traveling through the towns and cities of a region. You may well ask, 'what region?' In Luke 7, Jesus had last been seen in the city of Nain. Let us find out where that was. A quick internet search gives us this information: less than ten miles south of Nazareth and near Mount Tabor, Nain is located in lower Galilee. Jesus traveled through the region of Galilee visiting “every” town and city. The unmentioned time frame for these events would have been between weeks and months.

The account tells us that all of the twelve disciples traveled with him. For them, it was more than a learning experience. They served the mission needs in multiple stations: seating agents, ushers, security – just to name three. Women also traveled with him, and certain facts are given. Here, I would like us to linger over the collateral points.

Only three of the women are named, but it is said that beside these, many other women traveled in his company. These women are said to have “ministered unto him” and it is assumed that it was put this way for a reason. Jesus managed the entire troop, as well as all public speaking engagements, from a singular position. Such daily rigors will take a

toll on any man. Many women, each with a job to do, each volunteering to use their own “substance.”

What did they own? Did they have food? Did they share fabric for clothing? Who among them had currency to spend? I am no expert on the status of women in those times, but it is clear these women had possessions over which they had the final say and gladly used them to attend the needs of Jesus.

Of what kind or type were these women? There are the “certain women” which are described in part, and there are the “many others” who are only mentioned in passing. It may be that the certain women are representative, at least in part, of the many others. It might well have taken a chapter or two to list and describe all the women with their infirmities. So it is that through the certain women we get a sense of them all. Susanna is named but not described. Joanna was known as the wife of Herod's steward, Chuza. This woman, at least, gives us an idea of how a woman might have acquired substance, being a woman with connections.

The most explicit description is of Mary, who was as often as not, simply called Magdalene. It was as if her fame or notoriety lay in her association to the city of Magdala. She may have been recognized as typical, through her looks or appearance, as one from that city. Be that as it may, she was also the most recognized among the healed as the one from whom seven devils were driven out.

She may have been a wild one. Such women were put away or stoned. Yet, she may have been hidden – I am thinking of blood ties to important people. Some scholars think Joanna may have been the granddaughter of the high priest Theophilus, a 'person of eminent quality.' If so, could not Mary have been of similar standing? If she had a connection to high station, that would more readily explain her access to substance.

When Jesus spoke to the gathered people in verse 4, it was in the open countryside between the cities. It may have been more practical, considering the size of his troop and the number of people who came to hear him, to make camp outside city limits. It was in such a setting that Jesus delivered the sower parable.

All of us know this parable and most of us understand it. Many of us feel a connection to it for we are the physical field in which a spiritual God has planted a spiritual seed. We feel a certainty that what develops in our spirits – that is, who and what we are becoming – is the harvest that God expects.

What is especially interesting about this parable is how Jesus explains it to his disciples later. Even though he had delivered the same parable to both the people and his disciples, there was a certain dynamic at work that separated the disciples from the

common crowd. That same dynamic works today to divide the believer from the nonbeliever.

The best way I can explain it is with an illustration of biceps. Think of the believer as the bicep on the right arm and the non-believer as the bicep on the left arm. The believer is exercised where the non-believer goes unused. The same dynamic that sees the exercised muscle grow sees the unexercised muscle shrivel away.

Mark 4:25 says, “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” That is the dynamic, and every time I think of it I am reminded of how exercised muscles get bigger while ignored muscles get smaller.

Just like physical muscles, our spiritual attributes may either be exercised or ignored. If you do either, even in secret, the proof of it will be evident. That same dynamic is applied through Jesus' statement that a tree is known by its fruit. There are basically the two directions: being more or being less.

The more you are, the more you become. The more effort you put into something, the more you will get out of it.

Jesus confirmed this with his own words. The same disciples who had just heard his explanation of the sower parable, who had been made aware of a truth that was withheld from the majority, were present when it was told Jesus that his mother and siblings wanted to see him but could not reach him for the overwhelming number of people.

And this is how Jesus responded in verse 21: “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it.” My friends, that is 'do' as in seek, as in strive.

That is 'do' as in exercise. Anyone who seeks to be more of himself can ill afford to ignore the word of God. Anyone who seeks truth must give credence to his spiritual qualities. He must not only seek, but grasp, and most importantly, he must exercise.

Candlesticks and Spiritual Dynamics: Candlesticks and secrets. This is a small side-explanation and summation immediately following the sower parable. What we have here is an explanation of an explanation.

The sower parable, itself, was an explanation of a spiritual dynamic, but it was long and complex. Jesus felt the need of an addendum.

Luke 8:16-18, “No man, when he has lit a candle, covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed; but sets it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.

For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

Take heed therefore how you hear: for whosoever has, to him shall be given; and whosoever has not, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have.”

We often see that Jesus used the commonplace – simple ordinary everyday things – to further illuminate a truth. In this instance, he turns to candlesticks. The dynamic of the sower parable involved taking ownership of one's spiritual qualities and working them to produce more of the same. The dynamic was hidden inside a parable as a secret, and yet, that secret was explained to the disciples.

The addendum was meant to show the disciples that secrets are a part of the overall answer. Lighting a candle is not merely a symbol of light as opposed to darkness, but more to the point, it represents the navigation of that darkness. Darkness, therefore, might be deemed representative of the secrets hidden within while the addition of light may be viewed as a first step toward successful navigation.

One lights a candle to expose the secrets of the dark. It is common to most of us; it is something done daily by millions of people. When I go into a room, I turn on the lights.

I want to know where the leg of the couch is so I do not stump my toe. I wish to avoid all stumbling and all tripping over things. I want to see where each step is supposed to go. I may not always remember which side of the room my dresser is on. I may not have a clear mental concept of how high up on the door the lock is found. I could feel around in the dark, or I could better train my memory, but for me and for millions of others, it is simply more efficient to turn on the lights.

We are digging through a drawer in a chest of drawers. It is a drawer of possibilities.

Let's see – where is that muscle I wish to add? In the dark, there are secrets; in the light, there are realizations. A seeker's first step of discovery is to turn on the light. How does this apply itself to the dynamic of the sower parable? I want biceps and I am in the gym looking at the exercise equipment. Looking at the equipment is of no use to me, neither is the knowledge of what they are for. Nothing at all will happen until I take that first step.

On a spiritual level, my first step is the light of life. By that alone may I discover, and use, those secrets which otherwise would have only tripped me up. There is something hidden inside of me; I believe it is there, but I cannot see it. I say this about the 'me' I wish to be. What is my first step in becoming that person? Where do I start? I can make a start – but what must I do? Once I see what I want to become and once I see what I have to work with, what can I expect for all my faith and labor? The light of life answers all of these questions.

My personal harvest can only be a better me – that is, more of who and what I already was. When I went digging through my drawer in search of a muscle to exercise, it was not a muscle that I found, rather it was a muscle illuminated. The muscle by itself would have been nothing but a secret shrouded in darkness – unfound and unused. What I found and what I exercised was only possible in the light of life. As it turns out, that light of life is the muscle – and it is the exercise – and it is the 'me' I have wanted all along.

So we fire up our personal candle with the light of life. We do not hide the light, we embrace it as the first step in a battle to wrestle secrets from the dark. The whole point of the light is this: we want to see. We want a clear line of sight and a complete vision.

We want to find ourselves and know the illumination of who we really are. The more we exercise that illumination the more we become that illumination. The hidden parts of us are rescued from the darkness to be added into our whole illuminated being.

The seed that was planted in our fertile soil was nothing less than the light of life. The muscle that we now exercise is our 'Jesus muscle'. The seeker who seeks truth is actually seeking to become truth. It bears repeating, “Whosoever has, to him shall be given; and whosoever has not, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have.” What, then, for seekers, is the key?

Jesus tells us this, “Take heed therefore how you hear.”

That is not 'what' you hear, or 'why' you hear, nor again is it 'when' or 'who' or 'where'. It is only the 'how' that will prove useful. Lighting that candle is the how. That is our first step and starting place. It is the commencement of the exercise of illumination. It is the seeker becoming Jesus, and while that may seem a strange and off-the-wall comment to the conservative Christian, Jesus himself declared that truth when he said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Therefore, every soul faces one of only two possible directions in life. What will you choose? Will you choose the exercise of life and light to become life and light, or will you choose to waste away through attrition until you are erased by the darkness of death? My choice is the way, the truth, and the life.

On a Windy Day:

The Golan Heights is a hilly elevated area measuring 718 square miles, itself dominated by the 9,000 foot tall Mount Hermon – this according to a Wikipedia article. The Golan overlooks the Jordan Rift Valley in which is found the Sea of Galilee. This body of water is the lowest freshwater lake on Earth measuring between 686 and 705 feet below sea level. Anyone living in such a geographical region would be accustomed to winds rushing down from the higher elevations.

It is not a strange thing to read about such a windstorm in Luke 8:22-25. This is the place where Jesus rebuked the wind and wave to amaze his fearful disciples. This is where he asked the convicting question, “Where is your faith?” Here, I will not cover the religious import of the power of Christ over the elements. That may be found in a worthy church sermon.

Here, I wish to focus on details overshadowed by topics for sermons. In this story of the power of the Son of God, there are lesser facts, or details, that paint a clear picture of the physical event. The ship was certainly solid and built well enough to take them across the lake. The lake was large – somewhere in the ballpark of a 33-mile circumference. As to how long the trip from one side to the other might have taken, I have no clue as much would depend on the type of ship and prevalent weather conditions.

Let us look at the wording of the tale. First, is the ambiguity of the timeline. Those who knew the details surrounding Jesus should have been able to place the event more precisely than, “on a certain day”. Then there was the ship – named a ship as opposed to a boat – obviously large enough to carry all of them: at least twelve disciples and one master, but there could have been others, a crew for example. It was not claimed to be a fishing vessel, so perhaps it was a ship made for the transport of people.

Then, there was the “storm of wind” that was described as coming 'down.' It is easy to race past such a small detail, but for me, such wording supports the authenticity of the story, for it shows an accustomed knowledge of the events typical of that geographical setting. Speaking of authenticity, let us look next at the reaction of the disciples to the storm of wind. The story text informs us simply that “they were filled with water.” It tells us nothing of waves or choppy water or the rocking of the ship in a storm.

We are informed, in verse 24, that along with the wind, Jesus also rebuked the “raging of the water.” But, how might the water rage? I can imagine straight line winds driving both water and ship in a single direction. Was the ship facing into the wind? Was the wind pushing against the side of the ship? In straight line circumstances the ship might have one side high and one side at the water line – and of course, the wind would blow sea spray into the ship.

Not much could be done in a sudden storm. Perhaps there was not so much as a bucket

with which to bail. They could only watch as the ship filled with water and assume they were about to capsize and sink. Another detail we must consider here is the sleeping Jesus. What does the fact that he had to be awakened suggest? Was he really tired? The transference of virtue can really take the wind out of one's sails. Was he a heavy sleeper?

Did he not know he was getting soaked? Within this scenario is the possibility that the ship might have sported an enclosed area, or cabin, in which a passenger might find a bed to sleep in – further indicating a lengthy voyage. Or, did he simply sleep the sleep of faith?

Understandably, the disciples feared for their lives. When they awoke their master, it was not with a request to help bail water from the ship – they were beyond that. Against the roar of wind and wave they simply shouted, “we perish.” Perhaps crew members had already been swept overboard.

I believe that whoever remembered the story, while lacking the specific memory of time and date with which to place it properly, still recounted a true tale, a physical event.

Relatively speaking, the event occurred early in the ministry of Christ, and I say that for the reason of raw reaction. Here were disciples who had traveled with Jesus on a daily basis. They witnessed the healings. They witnessed the dead raised. Yet, as they were witness to another of his many miracles, namely the calming of the sea, in their awe, they questioned what kind of man it was they followed.

It seems almost as if they were not quite convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, did not fully believe in him. It was a real and timely point when Jesus asked them, “Where is your faith?” So, what about the rest of us? Jesus asks us the same question. Are you convinced? Do you believe? Where is your faith?

Pigs and Devils:

On the shore of Lake Gennesaret, below Mount Hermon, in the city of Hippos, or

possibly a town slightly to the north in the Decapolis, Jesus stepped off the ship. He had just calmed the wind and sea. There, he was met by a man possessed of devils. A similar account in the Gospel of Matthew speaks of two possessed men.

The possessed man in the Gospel of Luke, 8:27-38, wore no clothes. He ran wild where the dead were interred. Men had often tried to restrain him, but he had always broken free of his bonds. In today's Western culture, that man might go unnoticed, or even find acceptance. Make no mistake, however, we are reading an account of actual demonic possession. It is described for us in black and white, so, let us examine that description.

The expression “unclean spirit” can be interpreted as 'unclean mind' speaking more of moral abandon than violence or evil intent. Unclean is also a word used in connection with Jewish ceremonial acceptance. For an example, touching a dead body made one ceremonially unclean. The fact that it is said “ for oftentimes it had caught him” denotes a state that was not consistent. Sometimes on and sometimes off might be an apt description of his condition. That the town folk attempted to restrain him, lends itself to several interpretations.

It could be that when the man found himself in his altered state, that he would hurt himself and that might be one reason he was constrained. He could have occasionally hurt others. While that area is normally considered to have been more Greek and Roman than Jewish, it still might have been possible that his state of wild moral abandon was seen as offensive. It might have been that the town folk simply wanted to shut him away from their women and children. It might also have been that his altered state somehow affected their livelihoods. They were hard working gentile swine herders after all.

One of the most important descriptions of his possessed state, however, was the fact that he could speak and reason. When He met Jesus on the shore, Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to remove itself. The man was in one of his possessed states. Yet, even being possessed as he was, he fell to his knees, reasoning and pleading with Jesus in a knowledgeable fashion.

Here is a startling fact: the history of mankind is the history of possession. Man has either been found in his right mind or in his wrong mind. When I say 'mind' you should understand by now that I mean 'spirit'. The spirit, or mind, is non-corporeal, yet, it does its best in connection to a physical vehical. In the Biblical creation story, we find the physical vehical (Adam) being enhanced with a spirit (mind) after which he was identified as a 'living soul'.

It may be said that the spirit 'needs' even 'craves' a connection with a physical host. Here, I would remind the reader, in defense of my statement, that Jesus explained that connection in this way in Matthew 12:43, “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man,

he walks through dry places, seeking rest, and finding none.” Every spirit needs a home.

So sometimes, when the bad spirits find a place that is 'swept', they move all their buddies in with them. Then, to the 'imminent rueage' of a quiet community, these devils begin to party like there is no tomorrow.

So Jesus takes a moment to talk to this guy. He addresses the spirit inside, who names himself Legion because there were many of them. Rather smacks of schizophrenia. Jesus and Legion come to an understanding, in other words, they strike a bargain. They have to come out of the man, but Jesus won't drive them out entirely. Instead, he will allow the spirits (minds) to possess nearby pigs. Every spirit craves a vehical.

But – was this cunning on the part of the Son of God? Did he know the vehicals would reject the sudden introduction of alien minds? Did he know the brains and bodies would react violently? Or – did Jesus, at that point deliberately drive the pigs into the lake?

Here's the thing: the pigs didn't run in circles, and they didn't run in odd directions. As one, the all ran in one direction: down the slope and into the lake. Whether the pigs panicked or the Lord drove them to their deaths, the result was the same. Legion lost his home and was forced to walk through dry places seeking rest and finding none.

Now, the villagers lost their living in this exchange. If they had lost their livelihoods to a normal circumstance, they would have come out in anger rather than fear, but fear the Lord they did, because they knew the man who had been possesed. They had tried and failed to constrain him, yet, here he sat at the feet of a powerful Rabbi whose exploits preceded him. All they could do was ask him to leave and cause no more grief. This man could have lived anywhere, and Jesus could have found a possesed man to save anywhere else. Jesus, for that matter, could have sent the unclean Legion into the birds flying above, but he didn't. He destroyed a herd of nasty pigs. Is there a message in that?

In verse 31, Legion asked that they not be commanded to “go out into the deep.” Yet, when they entered the pigs, the herd ran into the lake and were drowned. We might think of the lake as 'the deep', but on another hand altogether, the deep spoken of in verse 31 might be the definition of the 'dry places' devils seek to avoid. I can imagine the deep as a great void (Luke 16:26) that is neither here nor there. It might be a dark and featureless hell where any spirit (mind) would find great difficulty navigating. We might think of that 'deep' as a bottomless pit or even a lake of burning fiery torment.

How does a spirit navigate such a deep? Indeed, all navigation there may be no more than an attempt to escape. How does one walk without feet or grasp without fingers?

How does anyone navigate without a vehical? We have a saying which may well come from that hellish void, and it goes like this: 'I feel for you; I just can't reach you.'

Picture What You Read:

Our habit: read and move on. We read too quickly for our own good. I suggest we slow down. It is common for me to read a sentence two or three times. I'm a very slow reader – I linger. I ask questions. I count alternate possibilities. I form a picture in my mind.

One does not seek truth by zipping through a text.

We study Luke 8:40-56. Here, I will ask the reader to slow down and picture what you read. For instance, the crowd that Jesus left behind when he crossed over to the Decapolis waited patiently for his return and received him back with gladness. What should that tell us? Obviously, after the healing of the possessed man, Jesus and those with him could simply have walked down the coast to another town.

When you stop to think about it, it is as if Jesus told them, “wait here, I'll be right back.”

Certainly, there are occasions where Jesus traveled by ship and the multitudes ran down the coast to meet him where he stopped. Yet, these did not anticipate his next departure, rather, they stayed in one place and waited patiently.

Now, the story that follows in these verses occurs solely within the parameters of Jesus' walk to Jairus' house. Two miracles occur. That may be enough information to build a sermon around one's predisposition, but there is a bigger picture. There are details which those who zip through fail to see.

Jairus was a ruler of the local Synagogue, a married man with a twelve-year-old daughter. It was his only child. What should that tell us? Had Jairus been married long, a twelve-year-old would have perhaps been the youngest of many children. I see a possibility that Jairus was a young man, and the twelve-year-old was his first child.

Otherwise, it is possible that the family had lost children to disease or in childbirth.

This particular leader of the Synagogue made a public display of his desperation. An

older leader might have tripped over his pride. As we, the seekers, are forced to move forward without the benefit of sufficient facts, it is the imagination that fills in the blanks. We are not told, at this point in the text, whether Jairus walked with Jesus or ran ahead to be with his daughter. We are told this: “But as he (Jesus) went the people thronged him.”

Anyone who has been in the middle of a large crowd knows that there is a level of noise that is pervasive. One must speak loudly to be heard above the normal susurrus of the crowd. That crowd noise, even whispered, is the result of people talking to and listening to one another. How does one get the attention of a crowd? How does one stop such a self-absorbed movement?

One could throw up their hands and yell, “Hey!” Someone had touched Jesus, and he wanted to know who. His disciples did not have to explain much – it was obvious – but they said to him, 'look around, we're all bumping into each other.' It was a woman with a twelve-year issue of blood (at which point, we must wonder why a double dose of the number 12.)

Jesus had stopped an entire multitude. He had gotten their attention. I imagine there was not so much as a whisper as they listened for what he might say next. Jesus spoke, the disciples answered, the crowd took a step back Just in case the Rabbi was angry (who knows – maybe one of them had accidentally stepped on the heel of his sandal.) The woman, with nowhere to hide, stepped forward and confessed.

Had Jairus been present on the march to his house, he would have had to wait patiently for these events to unfold – all while his little girl lay dying at home. Had I been Jairus, and knowing Jesus agreed to come, I think I would have run back home. However, Jairus did walk with, he did wait while the events unfolded. He did not know that his only child had already died.

The walk to his house might not have been that far. Towns were small in those days.

Two things slowed the march, they were the woman with the issue and the crowd. Even as Jesus spoke to the woman, someone came to Jairus to tell him the sad news. Before we move on to that, let us finish with the woman.

The whole account: stopping the crowd, getting their attention, asking who touched him, disciples answering, the woman confessing, and Jesus' response – that all may have taken no more than fifteen minutes. There are two points to consider, and they are related. The first is that Jesus told the woman it was her own faith that had healed her, and yet, (point two:) Jesus claimed to have perceived virtue leaving his person.

We must consider the connection between a faith-based decision and the divine response. They go hand in hand it seems. We must also consider the woman's

desperation as parallel to the desperation of Jairus. Finally, let us also consider the physical effect on Jesus. All that depletion of virtue might have left Jesus weak and exhausted. At some future point, the seeker of truth will need to ponder the exact nature of virtue as it seems to be a real quality shared between the physical and spiritual identity.

Now, even after Jairus had been told of the death of his daughter, Jesus insisted they have faith. The woman with the issue had faith and was healed – not only had Jesus made a point of it to the crowd, but Jairus himself heard the same words. He was a witness that the woman's faith had made her whole. In this, we should be warned that none of us may approach an expectation on this order without the corresponding faith.

At the house of Jairus, Jesus allowed no one to go in with him except “Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.” Two points assert themselves: first is the list of disciples and second is the location of the mother. This list of disciples seems to be the standard fare. Peter, James, and John are the same three disciples that witnessed the transfiguration and closest to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

If the two faith-related issues involved in these verses are a cue, then we must consider this trio of disciples in the light of faith. Perhaps, while the other disciples administered the everyday operations of Jesus' ministry, Jesus relied more on the trio for faith and spiritual bolstering. We might consider them as his prayer warriors. Their station might have been somewhat akin to that of the men who held up Moses' arms while he divided the sea.

As to the mother of the maiden, we ask why she was not inside weeping over her lost daughter? That she was standing outside the house, and thus able to be allowed in with the rest, seems somewhat less distraught and tragic. Had she come out to meet them at the door? Was she one of those who had come to Jairus with the news? It is a small point, I agree, and you might wonder why I even bring it up. What is a seeker to do with such a small detail? For me, it paints the picture more vividly in the hues of human nature and adds to the veracity of the account.

Six people enter, Jesus, Peter, James, John, and the parents. There are people present in the room where the body lies. Relatives, perhaps, and friends of the family. Professional mourners, I expect. All of them were familiar with death. Others had died, they had gone to comfort other families and other friends. In those days, death was to be expected – more so than in our modern era of medicine.

So, when Jesus claimed the girl only slept, “they laughed him to scorn.” That is some pretty severe laughing, and bitter ridicule. Obviously, the disciples did not laugh – they had already seen him raise the dead. I would not imagine that the parents laughed as

their hope for remedy was too dire. Here, we see more of the authority of Jesus – the same authority that stopped the crowd and commanded their immediate attention.

He, the girl, her parents in a tearful embrace, and with his three stalwart companions by his side, Jesus took the hand of the girl and brought her back. Let us go further than most and see the things that others overlook. Jesus was in the habit of being spot-on. He told it like it was. One thing we find in this account, as compared to other dead being raised, Is what Jesus tells the parents. He tells them to feed her. We do not often see that in an account of Jesus raising the dead – and he had said that she only slept. His words are rather like those of a Doctor.

Perhaps the girl had a condition that only looked like death. But, Jesus told the parents one other thing, and it is most curious. He told them to tell no one. Obviously, that didn't happen, but, why would he say such a thing? As soon as the girl came out of the house, it would be known. Jesus had just ejected those who had laughed him to scorn because they knew the girl was dead. They stood outside speaking with people in the crowd.

And the crowd, based on the reputation of the Rabbi, would certainly be expecting something of the kind. We know that Jesus said similar things to others – but, what was it Jesus thought to hide? Unless – such words were reverse psychology. All had heard his words regarding faith. I suppose he preferred that the facts not be reported where they might hinder the growth of faith.

Maintaining Our Focus: It must be obvious, for those who've read my recent studies, that I've wandered somewhat afield of the topic of parables. Indeed, that was my original point of embarkation, but I feel we must maintain our focus wherever we turn our attention, for definition is essential to any scripture that is normally raced past without due contemplation.

And so, I continue, arriving now at the ninth chapter of Luke. If a man recites the numbers one through three, and having just finished the first number of the three, we may not apply the word 'then' to his recitation of the last numeral. If we say, “He said one, then he said . . .”, we must apply the word then to the next numeral in line.

'Then' is defined thus: next in order of time; next in order of place. Chapter nine of Luke begins with the word 'then'. We must stop long enough to ask ourselves what this beginning follows. Jesus had just returned from the Decapolis to find the crowd patiently awaiting his return. This should indicate to us that Jesus sailed back to the place from

which he had departed – the place where he healed the woman with the issue of blood and raised the only daughter Jairus.

From the city of Nain in the lower Galilee, Jesus had set about to go, as it says in Luke 8:1, “throughout every city and village.” His journey took him from the lower Galilee to a place on the coast of the lake from which he could sail across to the Decapolis and then back again. Most have Jesus sailing north to south and back again. I rather think the narrative keeps him in the lower Galilee. My own thought is that Jesus sailed across from Tiberius, or that general area, and back again.

We come to the word 'then' at the beginning of chapter nine. What better place to bring up Herod than in his own capitol city. It seems altogether reasonable that if Jesus and his disciples were in Tiberius, and people were being healed, word would get around quickly. Luke 9:9 seems very much like a clue, “And Herod said, John I have beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.” Tiberius was closer to John's stomping grounds along the Jordan than was Capernaum.

It is in this ninth chapter that we find Jesus sending out the twelve to preach and heal in the surrounding cities and towns. One thing we do not often stop to think is this: those twelve disciples were out there doing the same sort of things as Jesus had been doing.

They were healing people – performing miracles. And they must have done well for when they returned, in verse 10, they were pleased enough with their first solo flight to tell their Master “all that they had done.”

Very little information is given to the seeker. We are told nothing of where the disciples went or what they did. We can infer from their manner of return that Jesus did not go with them. But, how long were they gone, and what did Jesus do in their absence? If, as I am inclined to think, Jesus was still in the lower Galilee, then he was just a hop, skip and a jump away from Magdala, the home of Mary – which was not that far from the town of Cana, where Jesus attended a certain wedding.

He was not that far from where his family lived. He could have visited home for awhile.

So little information – so much imagination. It was alluded to that Herod wanted to meet him. What if he did? Herod certainly had the pull to have a man brought to his palace.

Herod had listened to John. Perhaps he wanted to hear what Jesus had to say. Or, perhaps Herod perceived a threat. A conversation between the two would have developed the opinions of each for the other. We find that later, in chapter 13 of Luke, Jesus has, in fact, quite a negative opinion of Herod, calling him a 'fox'.

Fox, as an expression, implies wiliness, trickery and deceit. These are traits one might determine of another through conversation and interaction. Consider the exchange found in Luke 13:31-32. “Certain” of the Pharisees came to warn Jesus that Herod was plotting

to killing him. That was nice of them, but it also brings up the question of Jesus' relationship to the order of the Pharisees. Jesus told them to go back to the Tetrarch and tell him that on the third day he would be “perfected”. One has to stop and wonder what Jesus intended to convey with that word – and why. Herod was Jewish, therefore moved

by Jewish custom and religious thought. Although Herod had John killed, we perceive from scripture that Herod, reluctant to execute the prophet, respected and feared the man.

For a Jewish leader, alone between Rome and his own people, yet still connected to his Jewish heritage and culture, what pertinence might the concept of a prophet being 'perfected', or reaching his goal, have. How might have Herod learned of Jesus' goal but through conversation? It is said that when Jesus was sent to Herod by Pilate, Herod desired to see a miracle. Had Herod tried to get a miracle out Jesus way back in chapter nine – perhaps by craft or trickery?

So, was Jesus brave enough to enter Tiberius, the home of Herod, who murdered his cousin John? After his disciples told him all that they had done, Jesus took them to a desert place that belonged to the city called Bethsaida, possibly Bethsaida Julias. Seems rather like a former city gone to ruin, a place where animals grazed. Many argue that it is a location near where the Jordan flows into the lake, and it may be where the baptisms took place. Many also think this is where the five thousand were fed.

As to that, when I explore that number in my next study, I will look also at all the numbers of this chapter.

The Numbers in Nine: The ninth chapter of the gospel of Luke is a chapter of numbers. Let us list and consider these numbers. There were the twelve disciples, the two coats, the five loaves and two fishes, and the five thousand men – a number we should keep in mind whenever we read about 'multitudes' or 'throngs'. Then there was the number fifty; Jesus had his disciples manage the crowd, seating them in groups of that number with space enough between for the disciples to move freely. Finally, there were the twelve baskets.

Twelve is used twice, being concerned firstly with a connection to Jesus and secondly to the evidence of miracles – and not the first miracle of that day for Christ had been healing people all day. We see an unmistakable link between the twelve who belonged to Christ and the twelve that proved the miraculous power of the divine.

Two is used twice, firstly as advice not to overstock, but to allow for whatsoever might happen and secondly for the pitifully insufficient amount of fish in the face of such monumental need. There is a link here, as well. The meaning to be derived from either is not to control the miraculous but to allow for it, to serve it if need be.

We come to the five, the five thousand, and the fifty. In the tradition of Jewish numerology, known as gematria, five is the number of protection and grace, fifty is the number for the jubilee, meaning atonement, liberty, and freedom. Five thousand is not especially Jewish, in regard to their gematria, but one may see a vague reference to the plate mail that contained five thousand shekels of brass. Such a reference might also put protection in mind.

Five thousand has no numerological meaning, per se, however, one thousand symbolizes the multitude. Five thousand might then stand for grace to the multitude. Doubtless, Jesus' multitude was larger than the men who were numbered. There were also women and children. To help the reader get his or her head around such a number, the Shrine Auditorium, and Expo Hall, in Los Angeles, California, has a seating capacity of some 6,300 individuals. In terms of required space, it uses 54,000 square feet.

The number five, in some form or other, is used three times between verses one and seventeen. Jewish gematria, while it may not include five thousand, does concern itself with the number 555. Their word for it translates as 'an eagle' and specifies a swift attack. From the Greek, we derive the meaning 'discernment of spirits'. Another Greek word that adds up to 555 can mean 'desire', which might reference, for our purposes, the multitude that Jesus fed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but it can also mean 'sacrifice'.

A final interesting aside about the gematria meaning of 'an eagle' â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Israel's 1970's fighter jet, Nesher (Eagle), was replaced by the American-made F-15 Eagle.

Abductive reasoning:

Why does a man say or do the things he says or does? Why do we read the things in the Bible in the sequences in which they unfold? It's as simple as this: one comes first, two comes second, three comes third.

I'm still in the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, but now I am looking at how things are ordered and why events and words are placed where they are.

In verse 26, Jesus speaks of his purpose, and by extension, the purposes of his disciples, and by further extension, the purposes of any of the rest of us. As I write out that verse, and as you read it, remember that purpose is a goal reached by degrees: degrees of hard work, commitment, practice, discipline, and sacrifice.

Luke 9:26, â&#x20AC;&#x153;For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.â&#x20AC;?

First, 'Son of man' is a term that includes any and all of humanity who have ascended. It is a term that speaks of an individual who has come into his own, spiritual, free from the

shackles of flesh and worldly detours. The glory that Jesus was working toward was the same glory as that of God. It was a glory shared in common by all the holy angels of God. It is the same glory that all of us are invited to be one with.

In verse 26, Jesus told his disciples that the coming ascended humanity would reject all who rejected the glory of God and the path to its achievement, which Christ exemplified.

The reason why Jesus said what he said where and when he said it may be explained by the previous verse. Jesus said this in verse 25, “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?”

It is a difference between all the things of the world and the one thing that a man may be and it boils down to a simple choice between the two. Who we are and who we make of that – well, that is the only thing that we really own. You might call it our birthright. So just like Esau who preferred a bowl of lentil soup to his birthright, we may choose between all the little things the world has to offer and the one big important thing that is really ours.

Only one choice lends itself to who we are. If we make light of it or esteem it as less than worldly baubles, we show ourselves to be ashamed of the one thing we could ever keep as our own.

That one thing is explained more completely in verse 24. That one thing is actually life.

Many mistake life for an existence with substance, and gifts, and tools for acquisition.

All of these baubles are lost in the end. The only life that we may grow and achieve is eternal life: the glory of God which Jesus strived to attain. Verse 24 shows us the choice between the worldly life that will be lost in the end and the eternal life, and how (that is, through whose example) we may obtain it.

Choosing an eternal life over a disposable life is explained in verse 23, by which I mean, the practice of it – the actual nuts-and-bolts mechanics of making the right choice. Luke 9:23 says this, “And he said to them all, if any man will come after me,” (that is, to follow his example, to take each step toward the goal in same order as Jesus) “let him deny himself,” (the disposable life) “and take up his cross daily,” (work for it, put the choice into actual practice, do the reps) “and follow me.”

Now, just who they were to follow and the steps in order were laid out in verse 22. In that verse, Jesus said this to them, “The Son of man” (including ascended humanity) “must suffer many things,” (as in, 'all our kind intentions and years of exemplary service) “and” (then) “be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and” (then) “be slain, and” (then) “be raised the third day.” Every step in order and in its own place and time.

Why exactly was Jesus saying such things to his disciples? He had just straitly charged them and commanded them not to voice abroad one telling fact (verse 20) – that he was the “Christ of God.” There was a time and a place for that to be known, but as yet Jesus was not on that particular stepping stone. We make a big deal about Peter stepping up to confess “thou art the Christ,” but I think that all his disciples were in on that one.

In the gospel of Luke, chapter nine, the recognition of Christ by his disciples is set at odds with what the general population thought of him. Before Jesus asked his disciples who they (verse 20) thought he was, he asked them who the people (verse 18) thought he was. The disciples told him who the people thought he was in verse 19. Obviously, there was a buzz going around about the miracle man who healed all manner of disease and infirmity, who even raised the dead. It was such a deal that it prompted Jesus to ask about it.

Albeit speculation, the thoughts of the crowd were, believe it or not, a source of information. They were, I believe, the same source that Herod turned to earlier in the chapter. The fact of the buzz, as well as both Herod's and Jesus' concern for who the people thought Jesus was, at least for me, raises a flag: that both the source of speculation and Jesus, with his followers, were in the area of Tiberius, where Herod, seemingly out of the blue, is mentioned in the same context.

Keeping it Close:

I may have already dealt with the transfiguration, but that in no wise means it is covered.

Here in Luke, the account of the transfiguration is brief, a mere nine lines of text. Let us examine the Luke account. Where did it come from? Those known to be involved were Jesus, Peter, John, and James.

Why did Jesus choose these three to go with him? I get the sense of an inner circle of

disciples who stood in the office of spiritual companions, support, or even the equivalent of prayer warriors. What can be said about these three? Aside from being the three Jesus chose on this personal occasion, Jesus also chose them for the prayer in Gethsemane. On both occasions, the three disciples were described as sleepy.

Which one of them was lucid enough to recount the tale? It was actually an amalgam of three memories that found its way into written form some years later. According to the account, they only caught the tail end of it as they struggled to wake up. Their first impression was of three figures with two of them departing.

What those three figures spoke of was a blank that had to be filled in by another. The only one who knew of the conversation with any certainty was Jesus himself. When the three disciples were startled from their sleep, it was very bright. Fists were in their eyes, rubbing away the sleep. But , they knew something important was coming down.

Peter suggested the erection of three tabernacles, one for each of the transfigured figures. A tabernacle was a small, movable tent that was used as a place of worship by the ancient Israelites. This definition of a tabernacle explains the response of God, who overshadowed, or enshrouded the three disciples in a dark cloud or fog. I can imagine this moment as part of a Steven Spielberg movie with thick swirling mist and rays of bright light darting here and there. I can imagine the hairs standing on the backs of their necks. God told them with an audible voice to concern themselves only with Jesus.

However they came by the impression of events that eventually made its way into print, they “kept it close,” and in the years that followed, they often mulled it over recounting their impressions among themselves. The whole account leaves me with questions.

Why were the disciples sleeping; was their schedule that rigorous? Did Peter suggest three tents because they had lugged tents with them up the mountain? What brought them from their slumber? In a society with restrictions against images and likenesses, just how did they recognize the two bright figures as Moses and Elijah?

Unless there was another there to record the facts, three disciples in the frame of mind that was so heavy with sleep they did not know what they were saying when they spoke – well, that sounds like three groggy minds that would have misconstrued a conversation, and blurry eyes that did not see straight. Christ might have relayed the conversation and identities to them, just as he might have relayed the account of his forty days in the wilderness. Who best to know?

As for the story in the book of Luke, Luke not being present, would have heard the account from one of the three disciples, but not immediately after the fact. The text says that the disciples “kept it close, and told no man in those days . . .” As to the gospel of Luke itself, The most probable date for its composition is around 80-100 AD. James is

thought to have died eleven years after the death of Jesus – about 44 AD. Peter is thought to have died some 23 years later around 67 or 68 AD. John is thought to have died sometime between 89 and 120 AD. Peter is thought to have died in Rome around the same time as Paul, who are both considered the founders of the church of Rome. Luke was in Rome at that time with Paul, and could just as easily have had contact with Peter. Between the time of the transfiguration, witnessed by Peter, John, and James, and the writing of the account by Luke, there was enough time and likelihood that memory of the event underwent natural revision.

Faithless and Perverse:

Let us now turn our attention to Luke 9:37-45. It is the story of the healing of a man's only son. The boy was possessed. The possession was described this way by the father: “a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him.”

A vicious cycle is here described whereby the boy is thrown into a fit that damaged his body and left him foaming at the mouth only to begin again without respite. Modern-day parallels include epilepsy, Bell's palsy, cranial nerve palsies, and tumors.

Normally, I associate the word spirit with the word mind, but here, I think the father's use of the word spirit is more in line with ignorant superstition to do with supernatural entities such as ghosts. We see the same thing in Matthew 14:26, “When the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, it is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.”

The father complained that the disciples (Jesus had left nine of them behind when he took three of them into the hills the day before) were unable to save the boy from his dilemma. Now, it is not like the disciples were bumbling idiots. Jesus had trained them for such things. They had been sent out into all towns and villages two by two, and they returned excited with tales of success.

In another version of this story, Jesus tells his disciples that this kind of spirit comes out only by prayer and fasting, and in yet another version, Jesus tells his disciples they could not cast out the spirit because the lacked the prerequisite faith. Here, Jesus complains in broader terms, saying in verse 41, “O faithless and perverse generation . . .”

What should this statement tell us? Does it indicate an opinion or certain knowledge about why things happened the way they did? Is this statement by Jesus an indictment against a limited and superstitious mindset? Jesus did not point the finger only at disciples unable to handle this one matter when they had done so well with many so others. No, the indictment was against an entire generation.

Jesus went on to ask the question, 'how long do I have to put up with you?' He certainly indicated disapproval and disappointment in that generation, but we, today, might as well throw our hats into the ring – we are just as faithless and perverse. We, like the disciples, have had our share of success stories, but we also have just as much trouble understanding sometimes. It tasks us to get our heads around some concepts. We find some truths just as bothersome and elusive.

It is easy enough to understand why Jesus used the word faithless, but why did he use the word perverse? That word cries out to be investigated. Let us be the ones to investigate – and understand.

This is what perverse means: (of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences. Synonyms include contrary, obstructive, and pigheaded. Seems we are our own worst enemies. Our predispositions work against us.

We might be used to working with a microscope, but we will never see the moon if we always return the 'tried and true' comfort zone. To see the moon, as far away as it is, we need to try something new.

Let's see, how about a telescope? Yes, that just might work.

Likewise, if we should step up and say, 'I want to see the spiritual', we will need a different instrument altogether. We see the worldly truths with worldly eyes – to see the spiritual truths, we will need to find our spiritual eyes. The construction of a certain mindset might be called a 'spiriscope'.

Finally, in verse 44, Jesus said this to his disciples, “Let these sayings sink down into your ears, the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.” They did not understand – they could not see the spiritual truths. Yet, it was not as if this was the first times Jesus told them such things.

He, in fact, spoke of these same matters earlier in this chapter. It was not mentioned on the earlier occasion that they did not understand. But here, after Jesus healed the boy they could not. After the railing accusation, 'faithless and perverse', they must have thought he referred to their failure.

When someone switches gears in a conversation and we fail to keep up, it is all too easy to return to our 'tried and true' interpretations. After all, that is where we are most comfortable. That is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he accused us of being contrary and obstructive.

In My Name:

Something needs to be said about the name of Jesus Christ. Something needs to be decided, to be settled. We turn our attention to Luke 9:46-56. Many Christians pray fervently, ending a hope, a request, a proclamation with the phrase 'in Jesus name'. Some say 'in the name of the Lord', while others say 'in the name of the only begotten son of God'.

In verses 46 through 48, Jesus perceived the errant pride in the hearts of his disciples.

So, he took a child and told them that to get Jesus they had to get the smallest, humblest, most insignificant and overlooked of people – children. We've all heard the sermons – childlike humility, etc. But, the thing I want you to see here is just how we are supposed to receive that small child. “In my name.”

But, what does it really mean to place oneself under the name of Jesus Christ? What is it we're not getting about the name? First of all, the name of Jesus is not an incantation.

There is no power or effect in such practice. Second of all, Jesus' name is bigger than you let on. Christ has many names, and all must be included 'in the name'.

What are the names of Jesus, then, and how, exactly, do we place ourselves under those names as a whole? Let me present a short list of the names of Jesus Christ. Just to list a few, they are “the truth”, “the life”, “the way”, “the son of God”.

Greatness may be seen in that which is the least esteemed, but that is apparently how it all works. When we receive Jesus, we take him as the ambassador of the one who sent him: his Father. When we receive the little child, we take that humble child as the ambassador of the greatest among us. The one who sends the message, the messenger and the one to whom the message is sent are all rolled up as one, making it effectively impossible to pick and choose.

If you want God, you cannot have him without Jesus. If you want to be great in heaven, you cannot have it without humility in this earthly life. These matters are all one and the same.

So, we want to get Jesus and we decide to do so by receiving the child in Jesus' name.

This is the question I pose: do we receive the child in the name of truth, in the name of life, as an extension of the way, or as an ambassador of the son of God – and wouldn't any such spirit within us place us in the stead of Jesus? It is my opinion that what we should get about “in my name” is that it is not simply a sound or designation. Whatever we do, or say, or think, or pray “in the name”, we do so in the embassage of the son of God. Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary – Ambassage: embassy, a message of a public nature brought by ambassadors. The word also sometimes includes the ambassadors themselves. ( Luke 14:32 ) Are there limitations on the name? Does it fall solely under the purvue of one group or the other? The disciple John asked a follow-up question to clarify what Jesus meant by 'in the name'. In verse 49, John confessed that he and others of the disciples had forbidden a man who had cast out devils in Jesus' name – simply because he wasn't one of the disciples.

Jesus replied in verse 50, “Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”

According to the son of God, “in my name” is not restricted to any one fraternity, club, church or faith. If a Muslim or a confessed Atheist did or said something in the name of Jesus, it would be just as acceptable as the deeds and words of a born-again Christian.

One is either for or against. If the spirit proves that you are for Jesus, you are for Jesus.

To do or say or think anything in the name of Jesus is to do so as Jesus himself would do, say and think. To employ the name of Jesus, or Christ, or truth, or life, etc – one

must necessarily be 'in' that spirit. As an argument, if Jesus is the truth, then the Holy Spirit of Truth is the spirit of Jesus.

As always, when I use the word spirit, what I really mean is 'mind'. Are you in the mindset of Jesus? Does the Holy Spirit of Truth guide and assist your thoughts and decisions?

Let us look at what it means to not be “in my name”. In verses 51 through 56, we find the disciples John and James not to be in the mindset of Jesus. Jesus had set his face toward Jerusalem. He was determined to confront the religious authority of his culture.

That was trouble that one town wanted no part of. When they would not receive him, his two disciples stepped up.

In defense of their master, they were prepared to go all postal on the town – Elias style.

They asked Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven in response. I am not here to say they had the prerequisite experience in calling fire down. While it may be within the realm of possibility that the apostles performed miracles other than healing, I think the attitude of these two falls more within the parameters of excitement. They were more than willing to try on some power from on high. Exorcisms, reanimations, waterwalking, and transfigurations were all very intoxicating, after all.

But, wielding such power is not the definition of “in my name”, and Jesus told them so.

He said this in verse 55, “ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” 'Manner of spirit' is an expression equal to 'mindset'. If they were not in Jesus spirit or name, whose name had they placed themselves under?

Jesus explained that he had not come to destroy men's lives, so, who had come to do such a thing?

I offer this from John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.”

I offer this from John 10:10, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly.”

In whose name does the Muslim place himself? Is it the name of one who would save men's lives, to offer a more abundant life? If that was the case then Muslims would be followers of Christ. Instead, they place themselves under the name of Mohamed.

Does the atheist give or save in the embassage of Christ? If that was the case then atheists would be followers of Christ. Instead, they take to themselves only in their own name.

Does the modern day Christian actually place himself in the embassage of Christ when they pray, or communicate, or act? As long as a Christian does no more than use the name as an incantation they know not what manner of spirit they are of.

Three Small Sayings: I guess my studies have officially moved from the topical to the linear. At any rate, we wrap up the ninth chapter of Luke with three small sayings. In Luke 9:57-62, we find Jesus and those he traveled with in their usual travel mode. They are in 'the way', we are told. It was most likely a large road used to heavy traffic. Let us remind ourselves where Jesus had just been.

This is the timeline of chapter nine: the disciples kick things off when they are sent to surrounding towns to heal. On my own, I placed this occurrence in the city of Tiberius.

When the disciples return, Jesus takes them to a desert place belonging to the city of Bethsaida (Julias). Next, the five thousand were fed, after which, Jesus prayed and queried his disciples about who they and the people thought he was. Here was the connection, and my reason, for placing events in and around Tiberius.

Eight days later, specifically, Jesus led three of his disciples up into some hills for the transfiguration. Many agree the location of this was Mount Tabor in southern Galilee.

When he came down, the following day, he healed a boy and set his face toward Jerusalem. Between Jerusalem and himself was a village of the Samaritans to which he sent his disciples to secure lodging. They did not receive him.

What was general location of Samaritan occupation? It was an area between the lower Galilee and Jerusalem. A well-traveled road ran between Nazareth and Jerusalem, along which could be found such places as Mount Tabor, Nain, and the village of Sychor. It is in this particular 'way' that we find the three sayings of this study.

On the whole, it seems rather more relaxed than the usual multitude-packed events of Jesus ministry. Interestingly, it appears the author of the text had these three odd sayings of Jesus, but not a lot of information about them. It is as if the author decided to place them here for lack of a better plan. So it turns out that Jesus is casually strolling along the way and speaks to three different individuals while his disciples have gone ahead to make reservations.

Let us look at the three sayings with an eye toward definition. First saying: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” This is said in response to the claim made by the first individual in verse 57. It might have seemed to Jesus that he was always on the road, that he was ceaselessly dogged by followers who regularly made claims they couldn't possibly keep. He was traveling a long road and perhaps he wanted nothing more at the moment than a place to stop and rest. He had sent disciples ahead for just that reason.

On the other hand, this saying may speak to the larger issue of permanence and dependability. Certain things in this world have a place with all the accoutrements. A permanent feature of every fox is its den. You will not find a fox without the concomitant hole. It is certain knowledge that one may depend upon, just as surely as every bird is associated with a nest. Yet, the assertion of the Son of man's homelessness is put forth with equal certainty. The association to non-association may be as permanent and relevant to the Son of man, and by extension, as it is to all sons of men. It may be counted as the mold that type is always cast in.

Second saying: “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” This response, found in verse 60, addressed the type who is concerned with things that come to an end. The non-association mold is not an iron shackle. One is never bound to the impermanent matters of death. One may turn and reassociate oneself with life.

Speaking of molds, there seems to be one that is a shackle of sorts. The type who always turns back is obviously cast in the mold of 'no forward progress'. This type is one to take one step forward and two steps back. Imagine if you hired this type for an important job.

This type is not up to the task. Jesus' response to any claim made by this type is found in verse 62, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Three small sayings, when added up, equal one very large meaning. Wherever a man sets his sights, that is where he will go. A man may turn and reassociate himself at any time – and that is the mold that man is cast in.

The PR Crew( part one):

So, Jesus had been walking in the way. His sights were set on Jerusalem. As he walked, he talked to this or that person – all very casual and relaxed. The beginning of chapter ten must be imagined as nothing is written save the action Jesus took and the words he spoke. For my part, I can imagine more open countryside. I can picture in my mind a time to stop and rest from the march.

I want to look briefly at the first two verses in chapter ten of Luke. Verse one declares an action. Verse two declares a rationale. A rationale is defined as 'a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief'.

While verse one precedes verse two, it is verse two that explains or leads into the action.

We would not be amiss to assume that all the talk came before the action, that Jesus first sat and talked these matters over with the people before the mobilization of a team some seventy men strong. I can imagine folks lifting their hands to volunteer: “Oh! I'll go!

Pick me!”

Let us look first at the second verse and second at the first verse. In other words, let us examine the rallying call that brought together a group of seventy willing volunteers.

What was the reasoning that Jesus employed? This is what he said in verse two, this was his summation, “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his harvest.”

They were sent to gather. That was the purpose of their work. They were an extension of the ministry of Christ, an extension of both his healing and his preaching. These seventy people were not the disciples – obviously, neither were they the first to be sent ahead two by two. The words used to describe these people were “other" and "also.”

Now, let's look at the action. Jesus appointed seventy volunteers to go ahead of him into every village or town that he, himself, would go to on the way to Jerusalem. This group

of seventy appointees was divided into pairs. That is exactly thirty-five duos. That would give us an initial estimation of thirty-five preliminary towns and villages.

I would very much like the reader to see this as more than aimless wandering through towns and villages. I want you to hold in mind both the beginning of the task and the completed goal. See them both at the same time, as two sides of one coin. When Jesus finally arrived in Jerusalem, the seventy were already there – along with the fruit of their labors. Or did you think the multitudes just grabbed a handy palm branch and started singing an impromptu Hosanna?

The seventy appointees were a public relations crew of sorts. They had gone ahead of the Lord of the harvest for the sole purpose of gathering his harvest to him. They brought it all together. Initially, Jesus had preached to them the gathering of the harvest.

They went two by two into every town teaching what they had been taught. Like a snowball rolling downhill, they were a movement that gathered both momentum and mass. They were the Jesus movement.

In part two of this particular study, we will look at the instructions under which this PR crew operated. We will note the correlation between physical actions and words and actual spiritual fact.

Part Two of The PR Crew So, here we are at the instructions. Jesus had picked his crew. He did not send them out unprepared. Before he let them go, he gave them a set of instructions – PR crew protocols, if you will. Jesus described circumstances they would encounter, but also gave them a way to act and things to say for each of them. Let's examine them.

Let us first list the circumstances they would encounter. They would go their ways: verse three. They would enter the homes of other people: verse five. They would find themselves in different cities: verse eight. They would encounter sick people: verse nine.

As to the sick, the seventy were instructed to heal them. The healings were performed in Jesus' name and were so successful that the seventy returned in verse 17 with “joy” and amazement. These were seventy ordinary people living and conducting their daily affairs in the name, that is in the stead, of the only begotten son of God. About that Jesus said in verse 21, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes . . .” To which “things” did Jesus refer? He referred to the fact, and the seventy were amazed by it, that they knew for a fact, as per verse 17, that “even the devils” were

subject to seventy ordinary people through the name of Jesus. The wise and prudent just didn't get it.

About the cities the seventy entered, Jesus gave these 'follower protocols' – if a city rejected them, as per verse 10 and 11, they were to go out into the streets and make a public proclamation for all to hear. The words were these: “Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.”

There was a real connection between the words and actions of the seventy and the concomitant judgment passed down from spiritual realms. The same people, the same message of truth, the same kingdom came to all the cities Jesus sent his followers to.

Some cities rejected the messengers – in doing so they rejected Jesus and thus God. Mighty works of healing were performed in these cities no less than Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. Even the devils were subject to ordinary people of the kingdom of God. These cities saw it all and still rejected the kingdom.

As to the cities that received the seventy, the same communication of the kingdom went forth. “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” However, there was an additional protocol regarding the cities that received them. The seventy were instructed to eat whatever was set before them. That was an issue for practicing Jews. Many of the cities between Jesus and Jerusalem were located in the region of Samaria, in the bacon belt.

They were warned not to go from house to house as if they could pick and choose. They had to find one good household for their base of operations.

Then, there was the matter of their preparations and travel. They were instructed to prepare nothing. Carry no extras was the plan. All of their provision was to be found in the cities and homes that received them. As to each journey, we may consider two points. Either each pair was given a set destination, or else, each pair, when told “Go your ways”, was actually sent where they originated from. Home towns first. They were instructed to focus on the mission and not be distracted by folk they met along the way.

In that Jesus claimed they were lambs among wolves, I am impressed with his genuine concern. These were the 'babes'. They were humble, simple folk who, in their zeal and love for Christ, had garnered a place near and dear to him. The road can be a dangerous place.

Finally, Chorazin mentioned with Capernaum and Bethsaida, one of three cities cursed

by Jesus, was only an hour walk north of Capernaum. While no Bible expert seems quite certain which of the 'mighty works' were performed in Chorazin, some possible miracles may have included the healing of the leper, the healing of the man with the withered hand, and the raising to life of the daughter of Jairus.

This study does seem to sprawl, with its many overlapping concepts, but there is definition to be found. We may also find definition of self. Many of us, you and I included, are humble, zealous, ordinary people. We love Christ; we share our love. You and I are one with the messenger of God, one with the messenger of the kingdom. This, then, is the definition. We are the message; we are the kingdom.

Luke Ten Twenty-Two:

When the seventy returned to Jesus, thrilled by their success, Jesus claimed that he saw Satan fall from heaven suddenly in a flash, as if a bolt of lightning. That statement could have been one of two things. Either Jesus used it as praise for the success of the seventy, or Jesus made the statement as a one-up â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as if to tell them he was around back in the day and saw the original devil subjected to the will of God. Then Jesus prayed openly. Both the seventy and the disciples heard the prayer, after which Jesus turned to his disciples to speak privately. Between the prayer and turning to his disciples, Jesus made a statement, and it is that statement I wish to examine here. I find it difficult to place that statement either fully with the prayer, or yet again, fully with his private words for his disciples.

If it may be a part of either, it is more likely to belong with the prayer. Yet, it does not seem to me to be a part of the prayer. It seems altogether a stand-alone statement.

Perhaps it was a statement of exaltation (Luke 10:21, â&#x20AC;&#x153;In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spiritâ&#x20AC;?.) More than the realization of success in part of the plan, there was a more nearly complete realization of the full will of God.

Here is the statement: “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”

The statement may be divided into three sections. In the first, it is as if Jesus realizes, or claims for the benefit of the listeners, heirship to the Father. According to the dictionary, that is the position or rights of an heir; the right of inheritance. I think all of us can get behind such a claim with a fairly complete understanding.

The remaining sections are what I find most deserving of closer inspection. I would like to contrast the sections against one another. There are two types of knowledge here, or revelation. First, knowledge of the Son of the Father is revealed only to the Father. God alone knows who his Son is. The fact that we use a capital 'S' in son should be kept in mind. It is developmental in the sense of one who has come into one's own – someone who has finally 'arrived'.

There is no addendum to this statement. It is simply a knowledge that is revealed to the Father alone. Second, knowledge of the Father is revealed only to the Son of the Father.

This second statement, reverse in the sense of a mirror image, does have an addendum.

Not only to the Son of the Father is the Father revealed, but also to whoever the Son will share the knowledge.

Shall we consider the difference between the two revelations as insurmountable? Is it that Jesus will tell us who God is, but God will not tell us who Jesus is? Well, that's just confusing! As I have stated earlier, Jesus is God's communication of self to mortal man.

In that sense, God does reveal the knowledge of his Son. The Son also, as the message, reveals knowledge of the Father . . . that's sort of the point I think.

So, is there anything really withheld? I am mindful of some other things revealed by Jesus. In the prayer he had just prayed for all to hear, he said this – “thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” I am also mindful that the truth of parables was revealed to some and withheld from others.

I guess it all boils down to a single fact: some people get it and some people don't.

Revelation is not some random bit of trivia available for public consumption. Spiritual knowledge is subjective rather than objective. Synonyms of the word 'objective' include detached, neutral, dispassionate, uninvolved, and disinterested. Revelation of the Father is personal. Revelation of the Son is personal. Revelation of heirship is personal.

One Thing Is Needful:

This study is taken from Luke 10:38-42. I had placed Jesus around the sea of Galilee at such locations as Tiberius and Bethsaida. Then came an open area where Jesus fed five thousand people, and about a week later, a mountainous area, possibly Tabor. After coming down from the mountain and healing a boy, Jesus approached the border of Samaria. After sending his disciples to secure a place in one of the Samaritan villages, and being denied access, Jesus was found in the 'way' as he traveled toward Jerusalem.

As he moved forward, he sent seventy volunteers ahead of himself to heal and preach the gospel. Still in the 'way', those volunteers returned with joy to report their successes.

Also in the same 'way' and in the company of his disciples and volunteers, among many other followers, Jesus prayed openly before speaking privately with his disciples. It was, then, on the next leg of their journey that they came to stay in the home of Martha and Mary.

Many learned people believe this Mary and Martha to be the sisters of Lazarus, which puts the location at Bethany. Jesus' march toward Jerusalem would have been nearly complete as Bethany was about 1.5 miles east of Jerusalem. In the context of this

timeline, the story of Martha and Mary lies between Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the palm-leaf-gathering mission of the seventy volunteers.

We know little about this family. Let us take our clues from the text. The fact that Mary sat at Jesus' feet to hear him speak might suggest the choice of an older sister. A person with seniority might well use said seniority to their own advantage. The complaint of Martha is not unlike that of any adolescent. As a younger sister, Martha would have found herself in the position of having to work her way up along the ladder rungs that prove one through the experience of hard work and learning. Many of us can look at our pasts, within the ranking of our families, and feel a certain kinship with Martha and her complaint.

The fact that Jesus was speaking in his usual manner suggests that there were more people in the house than just the family of Martha and Mary. Martha's â&#x20AC;&#x153;much servingâ&#x20AC;? suggests preparations for such a meal as might be served for many people. I would think that beside Jesus and the family of Martha and Mary at least the disciples were included.

A conservative estimate would place between sixteen and twenty people at this event.

The typical home in Jesus' time was somewhat spacious and could easily accommodate a small crowd. The fact that Jesus was speaking and almost all the other people present were listening suggests a length of time suitable to Q&A and making points. Issues discussed in such a context may range from an hour to several hours.

So, what about all the other people who had been traveling with Jesus? I suppose some of the multitudes and some of the seventy were camped around the home of Martha and Mary. I don't think all of them were there; by necessity, some of them would have gone into the town for their needs.

So, Jesus spoke, all plus Mary listened, and Martha was left with all the work. Had Lazarus been a younger sibling and not, as I suspect, an older head of the house, he might well have found himself assisting Martha. Most agree that the relationship Jesus had with Lazarus Mary and Martha was more than mere acquaintance. They were close friends. As I look at their relationship, I must confess that one thing I have never seen is mention of parents. Only the three are ever mentioned â&#x20AC;&#x201C; no parents, no wife or children for Lazarus, and obviously no servants since Martha seemed to be doing all the work.

There have been many sermons about that one needful thing that would not be denied Mary; I am not here to preach. The image portrayed in this account does, however, present us with some idea of how included Mary was among a predominantly male following. Indeed, many see Mary as a disciple of equal standing with the twelve.

What was that needful thing, then? As I can speak for none save myself, my opinion is

that it is receiving the bread of life. That is, seeking the truth and growing spiritually.

Was Jesus so uncaring, then, about Martha's plight – the pain and frustration of a dear friend? Did he care if the people listening to him ate earlier rather than later? Did he so much as tell Martha that she was making a mountain out of a molehill? Or, did Jesus simply invite her to take time out from her worries to sit and refresh her spirit?

The Finger of God: We find ourselves in the eleventh chapter of Luke between the verses fourteen and twenty seven. Along the way, we have been impressed by the multitude of people who followed Jesus. We have also been impressed by his many believers, disciples, apostles and volunteers. However, not everyone believed Jesus. Many were suspicious of him and not a few were downright hostile.

Case in point: Jesus cast out a devil (defined as a “dumb” devil) and the person was able to speak – only some people weren't buying it. They accused Jesus of being in league with Satan, or Beelzebub. They reasoned Jesus was only able to cast out devils if the devil in charge allowed it, as if it was all for show.

The “house divided” speech, of course, is what follows, but our take on that particular speech is what matters. As explanations go, many people have, through the ages, had a rather large blind spot in regard of it. Many people only receive the part about Satan divided against himself, but really, there is more to it than that.

We have to admit that 'a house divided' is general at worst and slightly less than precise at best. Jesus spoke of a broken nature both in a house and a kingdom. He spoke of an absence of unity and solidarity. His words were pointed at those he spoke to. As he had passed through Samaria and was a mere stone throw away from Jerusalem, we must recognize that Jesus spoke to Jews. Those who accused him of using the power of a devil to cast out devils themselves claimed to be part of God's kingdom and house.

Obviously, they were not on the same page with God. To claim such a close association to God while being unable or unwilling to see God's nature, power and work clearly indicates a division and loss of unity. Jesus was quick to point out that their own children also cast out devils. He asked them by whose authority their children cast out devils. He assured them their own children would judge them in that matter.

We get this from John Gill's Exposition of the Bible: “Now since the Jews pretended to do these things, Christ asks them, by whom they cast out devils? Whether by the Spirit of God, or by Beelzebub? They would doubtless say by the former, and not the latter, which would show their great partiality; for admitting that the like actions were done by

them, as by him, why not by the same power? Why should their ejection of devils be ascribed to God, and his to Beelzebub? Therefore they shall be your judges; who will rise up against you, and condemn you one day, for this unequal judgment.”

What I find particularly interesting here is the expression Jesus employed for his proof positive that they were witnessing the very power of God. 'The finger of God' – where have we heard that before? What association does that phrase possess?

I found this explanation at stackexchange.com under Biblical Hermeneutics. “Jesus thus said to the Pharisees that "the Kingdom of God was nigh." He implied therefore to his listeners who were familiar with the Hebrew Bible that the "mighty hand and outstretched arm" of God was next, since the "finger of God" was now presently evident to them. In other words, when Jesus had mentioned that the Kingdom of God was at hand, he signaled the immanency of the return of the Kingdom of God to earth (just as the Exodus in Egypt resulted in the visible theocratic Kingdom at the giving of the Ten Commandments on Sinai). Please note that the Ten Commandments (Old Covenant) was given 50 days (Shavuot) after the Exodus from Egypt in the same way that the New Covenant was given 50 days (Pentecost) after the resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene.”

We associate the finger of God with the writing of the law of God – in other words, God's will. We also associate the finger of God with judgment as when a hand appeared in midair to write upon a wall, “You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.” We find that in Daniel 5:27. The choice of 'finger of God' for 'spirit of God' is interesting to say the least.

We also find the finger of God mentioned in Exodus 8:19 when Moses bested the Pharoah's magicians. Moses, in effect, stripped Pharoah of his armor, bound him and spoiled his goods. Jesus explained it this way in Luke 11:22, “But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.”

Jesus was that stronger man where Satan was concerned. Jesus cast out devils by the power of God – he did not need to turn to a lesser power to achieve that end. That was what Jesus told the people. He told them they were on the other side of the dividing line, and then he told them this in verse, “He that is not with me is against me.” That is a warning to be taken seriously.

All of this occurred around the man who had been dumb and was now able to speak.

Jesus did not forget the once possessed man. He got back to him – and this was still part of his warning to the divided. He said to them in verses twentyfour through twentysix, “When the unclean spirit goes out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he says, ‘I will return to my house whence which I came out.’ And

when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then he goeth and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in, and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.”

Division from God, by its very nature, is a state of possession. While many of them were responsible for the sweeping and garnishing, that is, making themselves attractive and available for evil spirits, most of them, like the king in Daniel five, were unable to read the writing on the wall.

The Spirit/Body Connection: Luke 11:34-36 begins with the physical human eye. Consider what your eyes actually do. They perceive patterns of light and dark, then send information to the brain. The brain is the physical vehicle for the mind. In other words, your brain is owned and operated by your mind, and as I hope you recall, mind and spirit are one and the same. It stands to reason that our spirits are affected by the physical eye. How our spirits are so affected is a matter of personal choice.

This is what Jesus said: “The light of the body is the eye.” Obviously, light does not enter physically into the body; the eye is more like a window into the world around us, allowing our bodies to better navigate. This access is via the mind. Jesus was keen to qualify that statement with this warning: “Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.” Again, it is shown that the information we send to our spirits is purely a matter of choice.

It is interesting to note the two opposing eye actions as put forth by Jesus. The eye is either 'single' or 'evil'. One would assume the opposite of evil to be 'righteous' or at least 'good', but that is not the case. To get a clear picture of what Jesus means here, we must fully understand the application of the word 'single'. Most of us have two eyes, so, what's the exact application here? What is a single eye as regards the mind, or spirit?

When a marksman looks down the sights of his gun, when he takes a bead on his target through his scope, he closes one eye. He narrows his field of vision to lessen the input of distracting information. In a word, he 'focuses' on one thing. He concentrates his attention and effort on what he deems most important. It follows, then, that the meaning of the word 'evil' as an opposite to the word 'single' would be the opposite of concepts such as focus, concentration, and singular importance.

What we end up with is a singular window on the world as opposed to multitudinous windows on the world. To esteem a thing as important, in actual practice, sets that thing

above other things. The opposite of this – to hold all things at the same level, ascribes importance to nothing, and is the practical application of the word 'profane'. The choice of information we pump into our spirits affects our ability to navigate both physically and spiritually.

Then, there are the applications of 'light' and 'dark'. Jesus made these distinctions: “Therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light.” Note that Jesus is not repeating himself here. 'Thy whole body' and 'the whole' are two separate concepts.

'Having no part dark' necessarily presumes that there are, indeed, parts. I would hazard there are only two main parts we must consider – the spiritual part and the physical part.

Under these two headings may be listed the likes of mental parts, emotional parts, etc.

The meaning we may derive from this is simple: focus on one important thing. Having too many windows on the world may be equal to not seeing the tree for the forest.

Choosing wisely is the wisest choice. Anyone who seeks a goal must, first of all, be able to focus on it. If the oak is hidden behind a multitude of pine, the acorn is lost. All information from the eye is filtered through the spirit, and while we may have ample light to navigate this physical world, what choices have we made that will help us navigate the spiritual realm once our bodies fail us?

Building Graves: In Luke 11:37-52, we find Jesus having been invited to dine with Pharisees and lawyers.

Sort of a business luncheon. In the end, they were scheming to trap Jesus in his words, but I get the sense that in the beginning, the meal was no more than a polite courtesy.

This kind of thing: 'Hey Jesus, you seem well received by the people; come and rub elbows with the big boys.'

Now, we are well accustomed to the bad blood between Jesus and the church authorities, but on this particular occasion, Jesus really laid into them. It was not just Jesus and the Pharisee who invited him, nor do I get the sense of a simple meal at home. There was more than one Pharisee and there was more than one lawyer in attendance. All the authority figures were there. It was practically a convention.

We may view the incident as a contest of wills – God's way versus man's way. And Jesus told them all they were doing in opposition to the will of God. In a sense, we are as

guilty as the men Jesus spoke to. We embrace the customs of men, viewing them as common and ordinary. That's just how we do things; that's how we roll.

For anyone who claims a real connection with their God, not doing things the way their God wants them done is a no-no. “And many such things ye do,” said Jesus in Mark 7:13. Thus we nullify the word of God by our traditions. If we want to be right with God, we do not want to be those people. We may avoid sharing the guilt of those people by getting on the same page with God, by thinking and acting just the opposite of those Pharisees and lawyers who placed their authority above the authority of God. What did they do that was against God? Mom always taught me to wash my hands before I eat. At work, as a cook, I am expected to have clean hands and wear sterile gloves when handling food. Makes perfect sense as bacteria are passed from dirty hands.

But, I don't see those Pharisees as walking around touching things that were dirty. The Jewish rule was two-fold, don't touch things that are unclean, for one and for two, wash your hands anyway.

For the Pharisees, hand washing was a ritual matter. It was a practice meant to associate them with their God. Even today, we have a popular saying that goes, 'cleanliness is next to Godliness'. Jesus told them that the way of God was completely the reverse. First, make yourself clean in your heart and mind, then every other cleanliness will follow.

The “inward part” of a human being, verse 39, can harbor a lot of awful uncleanness.

Synonyms for the word awful include disgusting, horrible, terrible, dreadful, ghastly, nasty, vile, foul, revolting, repulsive, repugnant, odious, sickening, nauseating and too much more. In fact, Jesus described them as unmarked graves that men walk across unawares. If men knew the dead were beneath their feet, they wouldn't stand on them and be made foul. Normal people, even without religious restrictions, simply don't like to touch what they consider nasty. It's like the Jew or Muslim that discovers someone secretly slipped pork into their mutton. There is a certain retroactive gag reflex.

Jesus laid it all out for them – every advantage they reserved for themselves was at the expense of someone else – whether cajoled or robbed or bullied into compliance. Every good thing withheld belied a willfully mean and stingy spirit. Every item given was a cheap and showy veneer meant to hide a multitude of weightier omissions.

Now, 'whoa!', said the lawyers, 'we all know that the Pharisees are a bunch of misfits, but you're slamming us as well.' Jesus told the lawyers (who were like teachers or philosophers of religion) that they were just as guilty – and Jesus had enough 'woes' to go around. Lawyers were the go-to people for facts and figures regarding how the law of God should be defined. They were like exalted scribes who got to pal around with the big boys.

Someone who gets to say what's what is always at high risk when in close proximity to power. Basically, this type is found among many races and tiers of society – both religious and non-religious. They try to limit those around them, impeding spiritual progress. Those things which lawyers push off on the common man are burdensome and grievous, yet lawyers are as guilty as the Pharisees for reserving a place of advantage for themselves at the expense of those they place beneath them.

Many people of our own day and age have the same spirit as a Pharisee or a lawyer.

They share the same guilt for displacing God and doing their own thing, bringing those around them into subservience to a will that is theirs and theirs alone. In verse 47, Jesus accused the lawyers of building the graves of their prophets, as if a chess move destined for a heavy-handed checkmate. The prophets were their claim to fame, but it was their own fathers, as the lawyers of a former age, who killed them. Their words and actions, in effect, were self-damning.

Fast forward to our day and age where Catholics claim this saint or that – but who was it that killed Peter or Paul but the same central authority mindset seeking self-promotion and absolute advantage? Personally, I am put off by anyone who makes such a lofty claim. The saint of one man or the prophet of another matters not in the long run. The things that damn us are our own words and deeds. This is true because our own words and deeds are set against the will of God. The Jew, the Christian, the Muslim and atheist are all the same. We have a penchant to war against and subjugate anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across our shiny new super highway. To anyone with the strength of heart to open his eyes, the picture ceases to be the super highway and proves itself to be just another variation of the small dirt path.

There is no standard among us; we know only our own willful sense of self. It's 'me, me, me, and damn the contrary opinion'. One and only one standard may be found in the will of God. This is not open to the viewpoint of any one religion, and it is certainly not meant to be interpreted as the will of God apart from man. It is the will of such a spirit that would take on our very face to explain those things we need to know. It is the will of such a God who would send mankind a savior – not a savior who derides or destroys, but one who at great personal risk demonstrates the greater power of love and redemption.

A Message for 2017: Jesus came away from his luncheon with the 'big boys' and warned his disciples of their hypocrisy. This is a message for the year 2017. We find this amazing note in Luke 12:1, “In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of

people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, beware ye the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites. He described hypocrisy as leaven – a thing that swells, getting bigger and bigger. Two synonyms for the word hypocrite are 'fraud' and 'pretender'. The object of fraud is personal gain. Many accuse Christians, and the church in general, of hypocrisy while maintaining that they are spiritual, that they are believers, that they have a connection to God, vicariously, through concepts such as 'nature' and attitudes such as 'live and let live'. That, in itself, is hypocrisy.

We of our day and age may clearly see hypocrisy at work in Muslim radicals who claim the will of their God, yet murder, rape destroy, and pillage. The three major religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share the same ten commandments with one exception, that the Sabbath observance is held by the Muslims to be a matter specific to the Jews. It is the core law of all three faiths and includes prohibitions on murder and theft. When terrorists and extremists use their faith to justify their bloodlust and many crimes what is evidenced is clearly hypocrisy.

I take this excerpt about the core laws of faith from an article in the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.; the article is authored by counselor Ahmad Kutty: The Ten Commandments—with the exception of the fourth one, which deals with observance of the Sabbath—in essence and spirit constitute an integral part of the Qur’anic ethics and laws. The Qur’an presents itself as a book through which Allah has guided humankind to the noble ways of the previous prophets and messengers, who are to be emulated as the perfect role models of humanity. (See Qur’an 4:26; 6:90). Also, in a more fundamental sense, the Qur’an stresses that all the prophets and messengers, speaking different languages and raised in various times and places, taught essentially the same perennial religion (core religion called deen), although their precise promulgation of the laws of religion, responding to extremely divergent historical circumstances and milieu, assumed different forms. However, these fundamental commandments, in essence and spirit, belong to the perennial religion that allows for no abrogation or alteration. Although one hardly finds these commandments enumerated in a single place in the Qur’an as they are listed in the Torah, nevertheless, all of them with the exception of the rule to observe the Sabbath— which, according to the Qur’an, was specific to the Jews, and, therefore, has only a rather limited significance—are enumerated in various places with varying emphases in the Qur’an; hence one can safely conclude that these commandments are of universal relevance meant for all times and places. Here is a listing of these commandments as enumerated in the Bible with their parallels in the Qur’an: 1. In Bible, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20: 2-3); in the Qur’an:

(Your Lord has commanded that you worship none but Him) (Al-Isra’ 17: 23).

2. In the Bible: “You shall not make unto you any graven image … You shall not bow down to them or worship” (Exodus 20: 4–5); in the Qur’an, (Therefore keep away from the defiling idols.) (Al-Hajj 22: 30).

3. In the Bible: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20: 7); In the Qur’an, (Make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous) (Al-Baqarah 2: 224).

4. In the Bible: “Honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20: 12); in the Qur’an: ((Your Lord has decreed) that you show kindness to your parents) (Al-Isra’ 17: 23).

5. In the Bible: “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13); in the Qur’an: (And kill not one another) (An-Nisa’ 4:29).

6. In the Bible: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20: 14); in the Qur’an: (Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts… And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts.) (An-Nur 24: 30-31) 7. In the Bible: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20: 15); in the Qur’an: (They shall not steal) (Al-Mumtahanah 60: 12).

8. In the Bible: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20: 16); in the Qur’an: (You shall shun false testimony) (An-Nisa’ 4: 29).

9. In the Bible: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet you neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exodus 20: 17); in the Qur’an: (Do not desire the things which Allah has given to some of you in preference to others) (An-Nisa’ 4: 32).

I added the above excerpt to make a point. That point is the core law. That law is now just as it has always been. It is the law for all three faiths. We should remember, as the Pharisees should have remembered, that we must not assume the name or faith of our God in vain. If we claim a connection to our God, his will must come before our own.

Bloodlust or personal advantage of any stripe – these are of men, not God. If God sends a message, we should listen. If God sends a savior, we should seek him out. If God sends a bridge to a real connection, we should avail ourselves of that bridge. If we are given only one door, we should seek the key.

It is a sad testimonial that we who live in 2017 are not breaking down the doors to get close to Jesus. Any one of us who has walked the Avenue of the Americas at lunchtime

knows with certainty just what an innumerable multitude of people is like. So – what, we can walk all over each other for a bite to eat, but not to get closer Christ? Who are we anyway? Those people in Luke 12:1 were poor, humble, and illiterate, but they knew enough to try that much to be near him. We, on the other hand, have substance, pride, and a surfeit of smarts. I wonder – have we out-smarted ourselves?

Of all the people who tried so hard to get next to Jesus, his disciples had to really work overtime to keep their place in the shadow of the son of God. They were so close they all but stepped on his toes. But, here is a secret about their closeness – their desire was shared by Jesus; the disciples desired to remain close to Jesus, and Jesus wanted them in just that place. When he came out, he spoke to them “first of all.” Folks were tripping over each other to be close to Jesus, and he could have spoken to all of them, but he did not.

Why were they the closest to Jesus? All of them believed and all of them desired to hear Jesus speak, but the disciples, above all others, desired to learn from Jesus a particular truth – one they could adopt and practice. That truth was how to be like Jesus. That truth was how to become the truth – how to approach and achieve the nature of the son of God and the relationship with God that Jesus was willing to teach.

Jesus does not exist to justify anyone's opinion of how the world should be, or who is right and who is wrong. He is not presently the judge of any one of us. That will happen when he returns as King. He said this in Luke 12:14, “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” Who, indeed? God did not send him as a judge or divider but chose for him the role of teacher and example, of door and bridge. God sent Jesus as the one and only way that man could escape his self-induced exile and come home.

Will you get close to Jesus? In the year of our Lord 2017, will Jesus speak to you first of all? Will this be the year you open the door and cross over the bridge. Or, will you remain like the Pharisees – hypocrites?

Rich Toward God: I continue here in Luke, chapter twelve. There are many verses to consider in this study; they are verses 15 through 38. I hope to condense these verses and wring from them a more concise sense of meaning.

Here are the verses of main import: Luke 12:15, “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions.”

Luke 12:21, “So is he that lays up treasure for himself, but is not rich toward God.”

Luke 12:38, â&#x20AC;&#x153;And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.â&#x20AC;?

Between verses 15 and 21, Jesus told them about covetousness in the parable of a farmer who already had plenty for himself, but desired more. That 'more' was the fruit of his own labors. Everything he possessed or worked to manage, he himself had labored to obtain. The fact is, the man in the parable did not covet anything that belonged to other people, he was simply trying to get things set up for his retirement.

The man in the parable pulled down his old small barns and built new larger barns so that there would be room for his continuing harvests. Perhaps the man was old, and after working all his life, looked forward to a time when he could have the things he needed, but no longer had to work. He just wanted to enjoy life.

This story strikes a chord with me, and might for others as well, as I work my final few years toward retirement. I've worked away my life and good health; I've paid my dues. I look forward to my golden years in which I may draw my checks and no longer have to work for other people.

The man in the parable set up his larger barns and thought to himself that he was finally set â&#x20AC;&#x201C; he could now take his ease. That very night, after all of his hard work, and as if to spite his well-laid plans and earnest hopes, he died. Everything he owned went to others.

It happens to the poor and to the well off. After we die, all we possess goes to other people. I have known people who hoped to finally take it easy, only to die a month or two into their retirements.

The man in the parable, in order to have so much, surely hired laborers to achieve the possessions he hoarded. There was excess. He could have blessed the less fortunate with it. He could have handed out holiday bonuses to his workers.

The point here is not that we are condemned for having stuff in this life. The point is that our life here cannot be the limit of our concerns. God is a spirit, and like a farmer who has planted his spirit within us, he expects a harvest. Like a lender, God expects a return on his investment. Many of us hope to lay his harvest before him, with joy at his return.

We can either be rich toward ourselves, or we can be rich toward God. We cannot be both. Being rich toward God is a mindset that is more open and free than being rich toward ourselves. Getting our fair share from this world is a limited way of thinking. It is an exclusive mindset.

Between verses 21 and 38, Jesus made several good points: He revealed the hallmarks of an exclusive mindset and limited world view.

He suggested a winning strategy for the inclusively inclined.

He revealed the place, in these truths, of the returning God. The inclusive mindset is just like the mind of God. It is a spiritual match to the returning God, and what he is returning to receive. It is important to recall that God is returning from a wedding. It is the wedding of his son. That wedding, itself, is a spirit of inclusion and represents a sort of melding or fusing of like to like.

God provides the needs of all from the right-minded man to the man who has crippled his mind and limited his thinking. God even provides the needs of the animals who cannot think beyond the moment of their physical urges. God knows what we need and is inclusively inclined. If we do not ignore the needs of other people (and that does not mean that we must be itinerant and possessionless) then we are on the same page with God. It's a match.

The inclusive mindset has much to look forward to and much to hope for. Those who make a point to be on the same page with God know that all the goods of this world will be added. On the other hand, the exclusive mindset, in its self-limitation, cannot look past the moment of its physical urge. It refuses to see anything but fleeting worldly goods â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and its need to get it's fair share before they are gone. These have nothing to place their hope in but rust and moth and loss.

Those who are a match with the spirit that is God, who make a point to be on the same page with him, and place their hope in his inclusive return, know the joy of such a meld.

It is always on their minds and in their thinking. They are vigilant and watchful. They make it their business and go about it with determination. They have a practice and they have their sights set on the culmination, not of their own labors and rewards, but those of the returning God. Watches are mentioned in connection with the return. Watches were three-hour divisions of the night. Watching, in general, implied being alert. The second and third watches were the period of the night when most people were asleep and unaware. Those who watched were able to sound and alarm in times of need or trouble. Just as posted sentries might watch for the accepted approach of the enemy, the servant will await the accepted return of the Son of God who will include those happy souls as adopted children of the Father.

I did not give attention every verse in this study. I am trusting that you will read them for yourselves. I hope that you will do more than simply read them. Study them, reread them, compare them to my assessment. Know with all the certainty you can muster that God returns for you. If you seek the Kingdom of God, if your heart is in it, then you are rich toward God.

Preparations:

Luke 12:39-48 brings up the matter of just who needs to make preparations. This study begins with the statement: “If the goodman of the the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.” So, I begin with these questions: Who is the goodman of the house? Is he the owner or the watchman? Does 'his house' refer to ownership or the responsibility of a servant?

Recall from the previous study that Jesus had spoken of the preparations of a landowner who pulled down his small barn to build a bigger barn. Jesus indicated these preparations were not of the best inclination. Recall, also, that Jesus said such things (concerning the best inclination) as, “ Let your loins be girded about and your lights burning.” He admonished them to, first and foremost, 'seek the kingdom of God.' What does that say to us? It says 'make the proper preparations.'

Within the context of this present study, Jesus speaks a parable and Peter asks a question. The parable was about the goodman of the house. The question was this: “Speakest thou this parable unto us,” (the disciples) “or even to all?” Jesus had just issued a challenge: “Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.”

In response to the question – 'is that for everyone or just for us?' – Jesus asked Peter a question. It went like this: 'who is the servant entrusted with the care of the master's house?' In other words, 'who is the goodman of the house?' Jesus dropped two clues about the identity of this servant, and also described the servant's duties. First, the ones to whom the parable was intended, aside from being servants, were supposed to be both 'wise' and 'faithful' – stewards in the truest sense of the word.

A steward is a top-level servant. There is usually only one per house, and that servant oversees the duties and needs of all who reside in the master's house. That includes the master, the heir of the father, guests, and others servants. To each of those in the list, the steward is charged to give them their portion of meat in due season. Everyone has a

place and a position and a season. First is the master and his family. Next, come the guests and friends of the master. Last to be served are the steward and his fellow servants.

In all the house, this one servant bears the most comprehensive responsibility. It is actually a position of trust. Everyone depends on the steward. He can ill afford to let anyone down; he must wear whichever hat he is handed. The steward is the goodman of the house and is even responsible for household security. This individual must be faithful enough to stand for the whole house, ensuring all are encompassed in the will of the master. This individual must be wise enough to prepare for all eventualities.

Like the subject of this study, the subject of stewardship is wise and faithful preparedness. Yes, Jesus directed this parable to his disciples – as if he had said, “Yes, Peter, I mean this one for you.” Those who take to themselves the responsibilities of stewardship must be able to devote themselves to it wholeheartedly. Stewardship cuts two ways – like a shiny new knife. It rejoices the heart, and it is good and useful but it can also make a grievous wound with one careless slip.

Jesus indicated that there are great rewards built into the service: do good and the master, himself, will come forth and serve you your portion. A great honor, but not only that – a relaxed and confident mindset that frees one to commit one's full attention to the job. Jesus also indicated severe penalties for those who violate their trust in any way.

The failure of a steward may include sleeping on your watch, hoarding, withholding, late fulfillment of duties, or anything from inappropriate behavior to blatant abuse of those in your charge. You can expect exactly what Jesus described. You will be cut into pieces.

There will be no part of you that may depend on another part of you. Severed from any help you might provide for yourself, you will also be on the outside of all others when it comes to helping or even caring. You will be appointed your portion with the enemies of the house. You will be both an enemy of the house and an enemy of the enemy, for they will despise you as well.

So, what is the difference between “unto us”, (disciples, servants, stewards) and “even to all”? Jesus put it this way in verses 47-48: “And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.”

The reasoning follows, and it is a thing our own life-experience can validate, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

We know from other parables that the master of the house is a king who utterly destroys his enemies. We know also that talents given to servants will be required again with interest. Stewardship is not an occupation to enter into lightly. The question we must ask ourselves is this: are we prepared? We may also rightly ask ourselves: do we even know what the preparations are?

Do you doubt yourself? Have you concerns? Compare yourself to Jesus. Jesus is the heir to the father and himself said in John 10:30 â&#x20AC;&#x153;I and my Father are one.â&#x20AC;? If we know one thing about the son of his father, we know this, Jesus was a people person. His people skills were second to none. He was inclusive; he loved and forgave, but like his Father, he laid into his enemies without hesitation, without pulling his punches. Be like Jesus; Jesus was the model steward.

This study should stand as a stark warning to the governments of this world. A government is no more than a steward, a servant of the people. Governments are not here for themselves. They may not abuse the people in any way. Penalties await the failed steward. Good advice: unearth the preparations you need, realize them faithfully and wisely.

Fire on the Earth:

Luke 12:49-51 gives us a quote from Jesus. It is not only an expression of his purpose but a fair description of the process of spiritual advancement. We look at the major religions of our day and age and we can't help but compare Christianity to Islam.

Islam is a religion out of which any individual may eventually decide for a stricter interpretation. Islam is a religion that may at any moment devolve into the blood lust and violence of Jihad.

Christianity is a religion that attempts to circumvent these flaws of human nature through love.

At least, that is the general consensus. Islam is all judgment and bloodshed while Christianity seeks a cozy state of peaceful coexistence.

According to the statements found in Luke 12: 49 and 51, the Christian process is anything but cozy. Let us examine the actual words of Jesus.

One: 'Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace? I tell you, no, but rather division.'

Two: 'I have come to send fire on the earth.'

This looks very much like judgment. In fact, Jesus continues on to describe how families will be divided. Some will believe; some will not believe. Clashes of this nature are never pretty.

About that fire â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Jesus indicated that it had already been kindled. The spirit of some had already begun to pull away, to seek something other. Jesus merely fanned the flames.

Jesus indicated he faced the same thing. It was a sort of baptism by fire that all who seek spiritual advancement must face. It is the painfully bitter birth pang of an ascendant.

Spirit. 'Birth pangs', as applied to the process of spiritual advancement and the future of our world refers to certain convulsive geopolitical, geophysical, astrophysical and world-wide socio-economic events.

There is a process called winnowing. That is where the fruit of the harvest is shaken up to remove all things undesirable. The wind of the ascendant spirit is the key agent in this process. As is said in Luke 12:57, each individual must ultimately develop to the point where they are able to judge what is right and good for themselves.

I say 'for themselves' to bring attention to the difference between undeveloped judgment and developed judgment. When we initially burn with enthusiasm, when we have allowed others to affect our inexperience, we engage in a form of judgment that is devoid of spiritual development and wisdom.

The infant may kick in the womb, but walking comes after the pangs of birth, where even more development is slated to follow. The newly enlivened may cry loudly, but the voice must be developed in time and with patient practice. The life must die many

deaths and be restored through many trials by fire before a developed judgment and wisdom are attainable.

There is now, and will continue to be, violence in this world. When we compare the religions of Christianity and Islam, we see that judgment is involved in both. One must not be quick to allow another to motivate them. Rather, one must seek the winnowing wind of their own spiritual advancement. One must see that voices of others and their own voice are never the same. One's own voice, one's own ability to judge, will only develop from a fiery baptism.

Of that fiery baptism, Jesus said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;How I am straitened till it be accomplished.â&#x20AC;?

Strait is a noun. It is a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water. Jesus indicated being pressed between one certainty and another, as in The Strait of Gibraltar, as in being poised for the becoming, the transition. One synonym of strait is channel.

Strait is also used in reference to a situation characterized by a specified degree of trouble or difficulty. (The economy is in dire straits.) Some synonyms are a bad or difficult situation, difficulty, trouble, crisis, a mess, a predicament, a plight.

As I said, judgment is employed in both religions, but how does one reach the judgment stage? Does a person simply choose the form of judgment over a time-developed judgment? That would be a poor substitute. The agony of becoming. The absolute necessity the fiery baptism. Winnowing is built into the system. Ultimately, the desired spirit will prevail and the unnecessary chaff will be discarded.

Can you think for yourselves? Or, will you always be swayed by your preachers and imams? I urge you to the straitened path of spiritual development, to division from the chaff, to the fiery baptism and birth pangs of an individual who is wholly able to judge what is good and right. I urge you to reach judgment through love. I urge you to disavow the tools of bloodlust and violence. A rash and immediate fire is never the better choice.

There has always been a fire on the earth, Jesus just fanned the flames. It is the fire of spiritual discernment, of seeking what is good and right on our own. It is division from distractions and detours, from subjection to the will of undeveloped spirits in other people. It is a march, not of the many, but of the individual. It is a certain forward advancement of the spirit of each becoming man, woman, and child.

Are You the Bigger Sinner?

We turn our attention now to Luke 13:1-9. In these verses are found mention of certain sinners who died. It was commonly believed that these people died because of their sins.

It was thought that their deaths were punishments for sins so heinous they simply could not be overlooked. The sins and subsequent deaths of these people were spoken in hushed dread as warnings to quickly depart the wayward path.

Two sets of sinners are mentioned. First, there was the unnumbered group of Galilaeans whose blood was mixed with Roman sacrifices. It is not told how or why they died, but it is interesting to note that the blood sacrifices of the Romans are mentioned in such a matter-of-fact manner. Pilate is mentioned as either performing the evil action or having ordered it done.

Second, there were the eighteen people upon whom the tower of Siloam fell. Both sets of people were seen to have died an ignominious death. It is human nature 101 to have a bad reaction to a bad death. Jesus posed the question: were these people necessarily more sinful than anyone else? It is within these same verses that Jesus points out that all of us stand to die a similar death â&#x20AC;&#x201C; unless we repent.

So, is Jesus saying that a tower will fall on us or that our blood will be used in unholy rites? No. He is simply saying that every sinner dies. Some die horribly, some seem not to deserve such an end, but there is a common thread running through each occurrence.

An unrepentant dead sinner is no longer able to repent. All opportunities for repentance become unavailable after death.

Jesus, in his usual fashion, turned it all upon those who brought the matter up. He laid out for them, and for us by extension, the whole nine yards of sin and repentance, of second chances and extended grace. He did this in his signature vehicle of delivery: the parable.

Did anyone understand the parable? Do any of us? Do we get it, and if so, do we apply it to our own lives? On many levels, the unfruitful tree is symbolic of the life that is unconnected to God â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a willful independent spirit that moves and acts contrary to the will of God. The natural and immediate determination is to remove the unfruitful tree as

it is only taking up space that would be better used for anything that gave a return on the investment.

The parable shows us an advocate for the unfruitful tree, a champion who offers us that one final chance to turn it all around. Jesus is that champion who offers second chances to the unrepentant and unfruitful thing that just takes up space. Are you that one? Accept the help; it is a limited-time offer. If, after this, you remain unfruitful, you will be cut down. You have this time, as it is said, 'Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation; the acceptable year of the Lord.'

“Lord, let it alone this year also . . . and if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt thou shalt cut it down.” Take this final time to turn it all around. A falling tower may not be your demise; what's left of you after death may not be violated, but you will surely die in your sins with no remaining opportunities for change.

The Spirit of Infirmity:

Let's talk about miracles. It is a small account found in Luke 13:10-17 that describes the healing of a woman on a Sabbath and in a Synagogue. If this study dealt with the religious issues involved, I might write about the confrontation between Jesus and the leader of the Synagogue. I might highlight the shaming of Jesus' adversaries or the rejoicing of Jesus' followers.

This study has a narrow focus, however, as I wish to deal more precisely with the miracle itself. It will be my argument that whatever state the spirit is in the body will acquiesce to. Jesus had power over the spirits. When he delivered a person from an evil spirit, he often named them. If a possessed man could not talk, Jesus identified the spirit as he called it out: “Thou dumb and deaf spirit,” Mark 9:25.

In knowing this, we may better understand the spirit he dealt with on that Sabbath day with the afflicted woman. Here is what the verse says, Luke 13:11, “And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.”

These are clues the seeker may use to understand the truth that links spirit and flesh. We may assume that if a spirit is dumb and deaf, the flesh is dumb and deaf. We may assume that if a spirit is bent, the body, likewise, is bent. If the flesh mirrors the condition of the spirit, we may view the description of the physical ailment as an accurate description of the spirit as well. How was the woman's body described? For eighteen years she was unable to lift herself up, that is to stand straight. She was described as being 'bowed together'. In a later verse, this condition is further described as being 'bound' – as in chained or shackled.

One interesting synonym for 'infirmity' – as it reflects upon a more nearly spiritual aspect – is the word 'indisposition,' which is defined thus: “Lack of enthusiasm or inclination; reluctance.” Synonyms of a more strictly physical bearing include, 'weakness,' 'illness,' 'frailty,' disease.'

The description of being 'bowed together' offers up an image of someone suffering from osteoporosis.

My argument, as I have said, is that the condition of the body mirrors the condition of the spirit. Some people, I realize, will have a difficult time making the mental connection between such physical ailments and 'spirits.' Indeed, these people have a difficult time with the concept, as simple as it is, of a spirit. I'll say it again – mentality and spirituality are one and the same.

What binds the mind binds the flesh. The miracle for that bent woman was that she could stand straight again. The miracle for those of us seeking truth is that we now see Jesus healing spirits rather than bodies. We see the son of God, who is one with his spiritual father, as having power and authority over anything and everything spiritual.

To Stand Without:

Although I have written on this topic before, I have some thoughts to express here on Luke 13:22-30.

While Jesus was going from town to town in his advance upon Jerusalem, someone asked him, 'are there many saved?' Jesus responded that we should strive to enter the strait gate. This is not where he compares the narrow way that leads to life with the broad way that leads to destruction. That is found in Matthew 7:14.

Here, Jesus explained that the gate would be open just a short while, and his advice was that they should seize the opportunity. Indeed, there was a limited window of availability. Once the gate closed, there would be no further possibility of entry.

This is actually a warning to 'whosoever will.' If you want in, don't let the door close on you. It is also a statement that defines the type of people who will be forever 'locked out of' the kingdom of God. While it appears, from the text, that Jesus is speaking directly to the Jews, it is more a model of the type that believes he or she has a golden ticket to heaven â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an irrevocable surety.

Jesus cites the Jewish mindset inasmuch as the Jewish mindset rested in the cultural and blood connection to the patriarchs. The model, then, is a person whose rests in something of this world rather a spiritual reality. By this I mean such solid connections as lineage, religious order, Synagogue/church/Mosque and the limited laws, practices, or traditions of such.

The Jew believes his fast track into the kingdom is found in Abraham, the law of Moses, the Synagogue. The Christian holds his to be Sunday worship and tithes. The Muslim thinks Mohamed's teachings will bring him to paradise. There is all sorts of hand waving involved â&#x20AC;&#x201C; or sword waving as the case may be. But Jesus says there is a very narrow window of opportunity that will not always be open.

Jesus described himself as 'the way.' That is to say, he is the way into the kingdom of God. That is an avenue not all are inclined to travel. I like to say that the way is only open to those who are open to the way. A major downfall of the three faiths listed above is the underdog. Every one of those three religions has an underdog. Sometimes, they are called gentiles. Sometimes, they are called infidels. They are the Samaritans, the dogs, the other guy. They are always that poor red-headed stepchild that just doesn't meet the standard.

However, according to the son of God, the major religions, who assume they have a sure in, will find the door locked. They will knock in alarm and make such claims as their connections allow. You taught in our streets, we are the children of Abraham, we obeyed the laws of Moses, we went to church, we killed the infidel. They will see the kingdom of God filling, but not with them. Others will come from the east and west, from every nation and people â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and it will always be the red-headed stepchild.

If the way is open to all ages and times from the slain lamb to the coming king, how can it be also closed? The answer, of course, is that it is only closed to those who are closed to the way. The way is Jesus. I'll say it again â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the way is Jesus. Yet, I even must warn the Christian. To the Christian I say, the way, the only way, is Jesus. That does not mean that repeatedly saying his name is a golden ticket. The only way into the kingdom is to follow the path that Jesus took. You have to be a Jesus.

And you can't do that with the mind of the world.

Stages:

I did not fully cover the last set of verses, so I will include verse 30 in this study. Luke 13:30-35 puts several small points under the magnifying glass. There are points like a

'prophet in Jerusalem', 'being perfected', 'time', and the way reality is 'ordered'. I begin with the latter point in verse 30.

First last and last first â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that's just how reality rolls. I write, here, in the broader sense.

Of course, we recall the parable of the last workers being paid first, and we think in terms of how one might enter the kingdom â&#x20AC;&#x201C; indeed, we think of our place among the many who have placed their hopes in Jesus.

First last and last first is what I like to call a USM, that is to say, a Universal Spiritual Mechanic. It is a law that regulates how things work. Here, I would like the reader to picture in his mind the working of a pendulum. Envision the full scope of the pendulum as encompassing all there is. It moves from the one extreme to the opposite extreme and back again.

Let us call the one extreme 'first' and the opposite extreme 'last'. When the pendulum reaches 'last' and begins its return to the other end, it begins with the last. It is in that broader USM context that the last may be the first. Other models which explain the same mechanic are the 'Lemniscate', or the infinity symbol, and the Yin Yang symbol.

Next in our study, Jesus received Pharisees who warned him of Herod's intent to kill him. Jesus already had an audience when the Pharisees came to him. He had been going town to town teaching, and as we know, Jesus always had a crowd around him. When he answered the Pharisees, it seems as though he was also still speaking for the benefit of the multitude that traveled with him. In my mind, I have to picture the Pharisees pressing into the crowd, having to work their way to the center to reach Jesus.

When Jesus says that he must walk today and tomorrow and the third, to be perfected, it sounds to me like an explanation of the concept of 'stages'. One works toward perfection in stages, doing more and more, getting better and better, going higher and higher, until the goal is reached. Higher is a stage of development, better is a one-up within an ongoing process, more is an increased result in a series of actions or steps.

Stages and goals may both be filed under being a prophet in Jerusalem. It is clear from his own words that Jesus viewed, accepted, or at least promoted himself as a prophet in Jerusalem. From his answer to the Pharisees, Jesus went on in an oratory fashion to speak exactly like a prophet. One has to ask, at what stage of spiritual development must a man be in order to speak as a prophet of God? Jesus mentioned only three stages: today, tomorrow, and the third day. In the first two days, Jesus is walking, or working (as in cures). In the third day he is also working (as in the final stage of the process of perfection). We think of the three days in the belly of the earth. We think of his public ministry, his crucifixion/resurrection and ascension. We

must assume that the very fact of Jesus saying there was a 'today' means that he placed himself, not at the end, not in the middle, but at the beginning.

Let us examine the nature of his prophet's oration. If any of you have read extensively in the old testament, you may note a correlation between how Jesus spoke and how the angels spoke. In both cases they spoke as if they were God himself. To any who are unfamiliar with the nature of angelic discourse, return to the old testament and read of the angel speaking to Moses from the burning bush. The fact that Jesus speaks to Jerusalem as if God is speaking should clue us in to the stage of Jesus' spiritual progress.

Finally, some thoughts on the word 'perfected'. What is the common view on the concept of perfection? Not everyone in this world considers that concept to be relevant, but among those that do, Christians seem confused on the point. The Christ they believe in and follow said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” That is a direct command. One must assume that would only be predicated on an established and verifiable truth – that man can indeed be perfect. Yet most contemporary Christians are fond of the addendum, 'I am not perfect'. They prefer the 'sinner saved by grace' stage of spiritual development.

Neither was it only the son of God who commanded us to be perfect. In Genesis 17:1 God himself told Abraham, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” In Leviticus 19:2 God himself told all of Israel, “Ye shall be Holy, for I the Lord your God am Holy.” It must be a consensus around the throne that the perfection of man is totally do-able.

Mankind, however, including many Christians, seem not to believe the word of God. Rather, the common view of perfection is a mish-mash of super abilities with an absolutely negative amount of mistakes and ailments.

Therein lies the lament. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem – which is to say, O man! How can man be saved when he stubbornly clings to his own ways? When we take the truth of God and redefine it, what hope is there? We may not do God's way our way. That just doesn't work. Jesus knew what level he was playing on – some of us aren't even in the game. If I asked you, would you know? What stage of spiritual development are you at?

Go Up Higher:

I come now to Luke 14. I think, now, as opposed to my topical beginning, I have become comfortable moving chapter to chapter and verse to verse. It is still my intention to set forward the definition upon which a subject must be judged. We must know what it is we believe â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and why. At any rate, the first 24 verses of this chapter deal with a single scenario.

Jesus was invited to eat at the house of an unnamed Chief Pharisee on a Sabbath day.

For well over half a chapter, Jesus talks to Pharisees and lawyers. Many people had been invited, and it seems they were there to 'observe'. In that regard, it is notable that no one argued with Jesus or seemed to be angered by his discourse.

Challenges were made which no one there was able to refute. They had no answer. Also, two separate parables were told. But first, let us get a feel for the topography of the situation. Let's map it out. What kind of deal was this meal? It sort of jumps out at me that Jesus spent a lot of time in the company of the Pharisees. If Jesus wasn't preaching in a Synagogue on a Sabbath, he quite likely could be found in the home of some Pharisee.

This Pharisee's house seems quite large as it has many rooms for many guests. For that matter, unless it was a big town, some of the guests would have had to be visiting from neighboring provinces. They would have had to be invited in advance. Jesus was going town to town on his way to Jerusalem. This could have been voiced ahead, giving these people ample opportunity to assemble. I get the sense that it was planned. Moreover, since Jesus addressed the man who invited him on the topic of throwing a feast, I must assume that is exactly what the Pharisee had done.

All of them wanted to observe the sensation that was Jesus. They wanted to hear him speak and get a sense of who he was. Here are some things to consider. Most of Jesus' contentions were with the Pharisees. In most of the occasions where we find Jesus invited to eat at someone's home, it is a Pharisee that invites him. Most of the times that Pharisees are offended by Jesus, it is due to Jesus not doing things the Pharisee way. One has to ask: who was more of a threat to the Pharisee order â&#x20AC;&#x201C; some layman out in the boonies, or a rogue Pharisee?

I am not here to give a sermon. Although I have dealt with many of the parables already, I will leave these for the preachers. I am here to map out the floor tiles upon which we stand. In other words, the foundation upon which our beliefs stand.

I half expected one of the Pharisees to complain that Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath.

I find it curious that, among so many prominent dignitaries, there was found among them someone of the less fortunate. Dropsy. Edema would be no easy thing to cure, especially in a moment as Jesus had done. The man would have been all puffy from the

accumulation of fluids as a result of any number of physical ailments. It is as if they had it all planned – and that might well explain why Jesus seemed so perfunctory in his healing of the man. “He took him, and healed him, and let him go.”

Finally, I just want to touch briefly on the concepts of humility, exaltation, and worship.

Self-exaltation is something none of us appreciate – when it is found in another. It smacks of pride, willfulness, conceit, vainglory, vanity, and narcissism – all the things we hate to be accused of. Humility, however, is something we pride ourselves on. I guess what I am trying to point out is a right spirit versus a wrong spirit, a right mind versus a wrong mind, or even a good attitude versus a bad attitude.

When one keeps one's nose to the proverbial grindstone, one does not end up with less nose. Humility goes hand in hand with persistence – that is, humility as a daily practice.

A good habit. We might even look at humility as leaving yourself elbow room, or room for improvement. When you go up higher, it is because someone who matters thinks you matter. Those around you will be impressed.

Worship. Normally, we place this one out of reach. It is only something we do to God or Jesus. But according to Jesus, it is a common state – being impressed, having admiration for, or finding joy in the fortuitous turn. When a gambler puts all his money on a single bet and loses, he loses big. Have we given ourselves the elbow room we need to go up higher?

Addressing the Multitudes:

The Holy Land. It was not as barren as the movies make it out to be. Instead of sandy crags and rocky outcrops, Jesus traversed a land filled with grassy hillsides, fields, and trees. You might say it was a kind of terrain that echoed less well. As we know, Jesus often spoke outdoors in open fields and on grassy hillsides.

We also know that Jesus was rarely followed by a singular multitude. More often than not, his following was named, not in the singular, as in a multitude, but rather in the plural, as in multitudes.

I am in Luke 14, beginning at verse 25, where the multitudes are following Jesus, where Jesus turns to address them. How does one address such a large gathering?

First of all, Jesus would have had to have a good set of lungs. He would need to be able to speak over the milling noises associated with crowds. He could not depend on the acoustics of canyon walls.

Second of all, his speaking manner would have had to be slow and deliberate, with ample pauses to let his words sink in. In effect, Jesus would have turned and shouted at the crowd. It may only be me, but when I hear shouting, my first association is with anger. To my ear, some of the more robust languages, like German and Spanish, sound perpetually angry.

I can, of course, imagine an alternative means of delivery. With his inner circle strategically placed, the message could then have been passed front to back systematically. Here, I am thinking of how Jesus ordered his multitudes – as in groups of fifty, as in the miracle of the fish and loaves. Still, this incident in Mark has all the hallmarks of spontaneity.

Was Jesus annoyed with his crowd? It is like he suddenly wheeled on them and said, “You know, you can't just follow me around like puppies! Following me means going where I go, even to the cross. If you can't commit, you should leave now.”

We see it, too. They were wide-eyed amazed. Jesus was a marvel. He healed the sick, raised the dead, sent evil spirits packing, and stood up to the Pharisees with unheard of authority. And, the things he said – wow!

Many of us, today, are no more than those same wide-eyed followers. We have the same reasons for being followers – and we are just as uncommitted. Jesus doesn't want puppies for followers. If all we seek is a pat on the head, or a bone, or a treat, we are just underfoot.

We are all the multitudes. We've all heard the sermons; we've all heard the parables. But, there is a limit to how much, or how loud, one can shout. Does any of it get through to you? It is you who have a choice to make. It is you who must commit to the calling. No one is going to do it for you. Only you can make it so.

Salt:

So, here I am again. It is another Sunday morning with yours truly writing another Sunday blog. I have no idea if anyone even reads my blogs. Yet, I continue. A natural question to add in this place would be: “Why?” Why do I persevere? Of course, the answer must be: “That is just how important it is to me.”

It may be that some reader, say in far flung France, may some day benefit from something I have written, but that must come after I have benefited from writing it. To write what I do, I must understand something – I must study. A seeker of buried treasures never knows where he might unearth some wonderful gem or nugget. He or she must, therefore, always step forward with spade in hand.

There is something about each of us that makes us who we are, that validates our place in the grand scheme of things. That something, call it our salt, is what makes us worthy.

It makes us worthwhile. God forbid that we should lose who we are. Who we are defines what we do. What we do can be a positive influence on others, but only after it is a positive influence on us.

In Luke 14:34, Jesus took a common knowledge and made it remarkable. “Salt is good,” he said. O.K. – we sort of knew that anyway. So, what was the point? The point is: there is something about us that turns the bland and undesirable into something worth having and keeping, into something that may actually be relished and savored.

Case in point: I like sugar. Me and sweets resonate on the same frequency. Baklava is sweet – but I don't like baklava. Not enough salt. Either hand me a salt shaker with it, or keep your baklava to yourself. I also put salt in my oatmeal. I once watched my

Granddad eat oatmeal without sugar, cream, butter, and salt – and it totally freaked me out. I like salt everywhere, with the exception of in an open wound.

Here is what Jesus was saying. If your good points, and your only selling points, are your justification for existence – then do everything in your power not to lose yourself.

There is no remedy for such a loss. No one can step in and make up the loss for you.

Knowing just what it is about ourselves that justifies our existence is not something that comes automatically. One may look, but still, it will not come easy. One must commit to vigilant seeking even to approach the truth about oneself. Here, I do not mean just any old fact about oneself – rather, the highest level of truth.

What is the highest level of truth about you? You may still be looking; you may still be clueless, but, I will tell you a few things it is not. Your truth is not your body. It is not your house, or car, or job. It is not the money you have in the bank. Your value does not lie in any of these. Your salt is a spiritual matter. More importantly, it is a spirit-to-spirit matter. In other words, your 'good' is not good unless it is good for all others. Salt cannot be good if it remains unused. If it sits alone in it's own little pile, the oatmeal will always be bland. 'Share yourself' is a useful clue for each and every seeker.

Is there something good about who you are? Share it. When you share it with others, do they also think it is good? That is an important test. Too much salt in the oatmeal ruins it just as surely as not enough. Forcing upon others what you alone think is good can be so so bad. Use the test to hone your value. Grow personally, and evolve spiritually, test again and again – but always share the salt. Of course, having value always presupposes something or someone other than the item of value. In other words, just who are you of value to?

Many people get excited when they find the truth of who they are. A fire burns within them. They are zealous. But, without testing it's value with others, they force it on them to their hurt. It becomes a weapon that crushes body and soul. There is no one right way, no one ultimate truth except Jesus whose very name is truth. There is no value in isolation, only to the whole. Yeast that is set apart will not make the bread rise.

Folks in a religious fervor, those who reject the value in others, those who bash the others for their differences, fail to see where true value comes from. Salt is the best and highest and most inclusive spirit. Salt is truth; truth is Jesus, who is one with God. God is love. If you don't have Jesus, get him. Seek your value in truth. If you had Jesus and lost him, I'm sorry, but Raul can't salt your baklava.

Joy In Heaven:

Now, I come to Luke 15 – the whole chapter. It is 32 verses long and contains two questions and one parable. The parable is time-worn and well proven. It is the parable about the prodigal son. The two questions center on the man who lost a sheep and the woman who lost a coin.

What I wish to focus on may be seen in verses seven and ten. I include them here for ease of reference. “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.”

Also, “Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”

These two verses are the sum of the entire chapter. The two questions and the one parable were a response to the indignation the Pharisees and scribes felt when Jesus received and ate with sinners and publicans. This high profile chapter has been the base material for countless sermons. These are subjects taught to children in Bible school.

All of us remember what we've been told, but I am going to turn this around and ask the reader what Christ himself once asked in Luke 10:26: “How readest thou?” In other words, what is your take on it? Most people read through such verses so quickly, I doubt they actually see what they are reading. Do you see what you read? I know that is a strange question; most people will say, 'yes, of course, I see what I read'. Don't be offended.

There are interesting pictures which make little sense until one looks at them in a different way. When one begins to look at the empty spaces in the pictures, something new, and as yet unconsidered, presents itself. Let us examine the empty spaces in the verses I have included for ease of reference.

We usually see the thing we are told to see. In the case of verse seven, we see the lost sheep being found, or the lost coin being found. What we see is the joy in heaven over one sinner who repents. But, what about the empty spaces? Allow me to repeat verse seven here.

“I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.”

Look at the latter part of the sentence beginning with the word 'more'. As we can now see, there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, but that is just the 'more' part. In other words, there is more joy. An important new thought presents itself here. While it may not be more joy, necessarily, there is nevertheless still joy over the other 99 just persons.

So what is a just person, then? It is obviously the opposite of the sinner. It is a person who gets the whole thing right. It is a person who does not wander away from the flock, and therefore, have to be saved from peril and returned to the flock. The church would have us believe we're all lost sheep, yet, according to the words of the son of God, there are, statistically, 99 people who get it right for every one who gets it wrong.

This is what I mean when I use the words right and wrong in this context – to get it right is to understand one's place, to know where one belongs, to accept and remain in the relationship we have with our shepherd. To get it wrong, more importantly, to come to that state where repentance is called for, necessitates the need for help to find one's way back into the relationship.

Every member of the flock is a member who is prized and cherished. No penny in a dollar can make the dollar on it's own. That woman who lost her coin was unwilling to suffer the loss. The coin was hers. No doubt, she came by all of them the hard way. Her treasure was just not her treasure with part of it gone. In both scenarios, the return of the lost sheep and the finding of the lost coin, there was cause for joy and celebration.

Here, I repeat verse ten: “Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”

Here again, I wish to point out the empty spaces. Yes, there is joy in heaven – but how does Jesus put it? He could have said that the shepherd had joy, or that God or the Father had joy, but instead, Jesus employed an interesting application. The joy in heaven is not necessarily the joy of God, rather, it appears to be the joy of the angels of God.

To conclude, since God is a spirit (Jesus told us that), the angels would then be the administrators of a frame of mind, or a concept, or a creed, set of principles, faith, ideology. Angels may be seen, therefore, as the technicians who service a fundamental truth. Placing our focus on the angels, in this particular regard, may help us to make sense of such things as 'God' saying “Let us make man in our image.” Just saying . . .

When You Fail (Part One):

Let's take a look at the first nine verses of Luke 16. It is a parable spoken to the disciples. It concerns a steward that could have been any one of the apostles, or for that matter, it could be any one of us.

When Jesus says such a thing, what is he really saying? He is saying, 'Look at what you are doing.' He is saying, 'Look to yourself. This is you.' When we read this parable, we see precise parallels. The comparisons could be no clearer. Jesus' summation and admonition should set off alarms.

At no point in his admonition does Jesus say, “If you fail.” He says, “When you fail.”

Realistically, then, we must consider our own imminent failure. Let us look to the parable for parallels that might arm us against such nonfulfillment.

Here is a list of the comparisons: The mammon of unrighteousness are those indebted to God. The children of this world in their generation are compared to the steward.

It may be that a comparison is made between a beginning and an ending. The children of this world in their generation are set against the children of light. Are the children of light the angels of God? Are they the long-lived pre-flood patriarchs? Clearly, the children of light would never think to recover in such a manner as the failed steward. So, what exactly are the actions and reactions of this failed steward, and of these children of the world?

First, in his service to his master, the steward was charged with wasting his goods. The word 'his' is used here, and it is unclear from the text whether 'his' referred to the goods of the steward or the goods of the steward's master. My guess is that the goods involved belonged to the master. They were such things as the master had entrusted to the steward's care. The steward, for whatever his reasons were, had undercut his own employer. He had misappropriated; he had embezzled those goods to his own ends.

Second, when the steward was caught and forced to respond to his imminent loss of station, he did so by undercutting his employer one last time. While he was still empowered to do so, he handled the debts of his master's debtors in their favor, effectively saving them half of what they owed. In doing so, he made friends of the debtors, showing himself to be shrewd in business, and savvy enough to work for any of them.

Had the children of light failed their master, they would not have responded by undercutting him a second time. This survival mechanism, as a flaw in our nature, is so well developed that it is of a higher caliber than the integrity of the children of light.

Despite suffering the initial loss, the ingenuity of the steward in undercutting his employer a second time, impressed the master in that he 'commended' the unjust steward.

In that we, the children of this world's present generation, are compared to the unjust steward, our being 'wiser' than the children of light is only a comparison between 'wise' and 'unjust'. That is comparing apples with oranges. Wise should be compared to just, not it's opposite. What is unjust, anyway? Here are a definition and synonyms.

Unjust: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. Unfair, prejudicial, biased, inequitable, discriminatory, partial, one-sided, wrongful, unfair, undeserved, unmerited, unwarranted, uncalled for, unreasonable, unjustifiable, undue, gratuitous. (Sounds like business as usual, doesn't it?)

Can any of that be called wise? Crafty, perhaps, raising the bar, perhaps, thinking big, certainly, but not wise. The children of this world are all of that. The children of light were morally right and fair. Their wisdom was the real deal. Our wisdom â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not so much.

Let us make some of our own comparisons. How do we compare ourselves, certainly as children of this world and possibly as Christians considering their own imminent loss of grace? What was a steward's position? A steward held an intermediary position between the one who loaned and those in need of help. The steward was a manager and administrator who acted in the name of his master. Christians should think of their Christian stewardship in these terms.

When the mammon of unrighteousness (a term that is set in opposition to those who are just and righteous) find themselves in need and turn to the righteous one who provides, it is the steward who brokers the deal. A Christian steward should bear in mind that such a loan is always at interest, which are the goods that a steward may either treat morally or partially. The goods are in your hands. What will you do with them? Will you honor, and devote yourself to, the one you serve, or will you be self-serving?

The steward is the face of the master to the rest of the world. Befriend them now. Care about the burden of their interest. You are the children of this world â&#x20AC;&#x201C; you inhabit the same place as the mammon of unrighteousness. Failure is not a matter of if; this world is full of failures. An honest eye will show you that you are in the same boat with the rest of them. Your hand is held out for a loan no less.

When You Fail (Part Two):

We continue in Luke 16. Jesus had more to say on the matter of our last study. Here, I refer to verses 10 through 15. Are there more comparisons to make? Refer back to the previous study for a definition of the word unjust.

In verse ten 10, Jesus compares the concept of 'unjust' with the concept of 'faithfulness'.

In other words, faithfulness is the antithesis of all that is self-serving and gratuitous. It all actually boils down to two sets of behavior. There is behavior that can be justified and there is behavior that is unjustifiable. We must, therefore, know the meaning of the word 'justification'.

Justification: Merriam-Webster calls it an acceptable reason for doing something. An unjust steward can be considered a steward whose actions (diverting his master's goods toward self-serving ends) cannot validate his purpose as a steward. If what you desire is not part of the deal, you should not try to wring them from the deal by hook and crook.

Either accept the deal or go elsewhere.

Jesus continues, in verse 11, by saying the steward is also one of the mammon of unrighteousness. He is one of them â&#x20AC;&#x201C; no different. Anything the mammon needs to borrow from the rich man who lends, the steward needs also. We are all so impoverished

that we must borrow from the same source. The difference in the case of the steward is that he has been entrusted to faithfully dole out those things we all require.

That being said, Jesus places all of us on the bottom rung of the cosmic ladder. We must work our way up. A universal law is applied: if we can be faithful in the small things, we can be faithful in the big things. We must first prove ourselves in the small things. The reverse is equally applicable. If we prove ourselves unjust in the small things, we would not suddenly become faithful in matters that really count. The fact is that faithful people practice faithfulness, thus becoming even more faithful. The unjust also practice their self-serving ways. They will only ever become better at the thing they practice.

The bottom rung. It is a place for the things that belong to others. We may not be presumptuous. If we are unable to prove ourselves in the things that belong to others, we will never come to a place where something actually belongs to us. If we work hard, show integrity, we may advance our careers to a point where we are finally the boss and not the lacky. But, before we can be a boss, we have to keep our noses to the grindstone.

That is the common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, daily, dog-eat-dog business model. It's just good business, they say. You have to crack some eggs and all of that. It's the way things are. That's just how it's done. I'm not saying anything new here.

There is a higher level to consider, though. There is a comparison to be made between two of the statements made in this section of text. The first statement, found in verse 12, is that if you can't be faithful in the dog-eat-dog business model of all our day to day unrighteous mammon, in the bottom rung where things belong to everyone but you, then there will be no one to hand off to you those things, which in a future time, should have belonged to you. Your own unfaithfulness impedes the system that brings you to your own.

The second statement is found in verse 11. It is the higher level, based by way of comparison, on the lesser of the two models. If you can't be trusted with ordinary worldly riches, who will entrust to you the true riches that surpass all worldliness? If you cut me, I bleed. Nonetheless, I am a spiritual being. I strive toward an outcome on a higher level of spirituality.

As Jesus said these things, the Pharisees (ever on Jesus' heels) being described as covetous, derided him for his statements. They mocked, scoffed, ridiculed, and poked fun at his statements. All that he said sort of painted them in a bad light â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as the failed steward being called in to account for his unjustified actions. They were covetous â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but of what? Of the admiration and esteem in which the people held Jesus? Of the office of steward to the God of Israel? Of the personal advantage of said office â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which the rogue Rabbi threatened? Even the religious subscribe to a dog-eat-dog model.

The bottom line of this study is the bottom rung of the ladder. Nothing is yours yet. You are simply the steward. You have a place on a higher rung, but you must first prove yourself down here. To move up, your stewardship must find justification. By this, I mean true justification, not self-justification. When the Pharisees derided Jesus, he answered them in this manner.

You, the stewards of your God, have no justification for your stewardship. You merely justify yourselves before men. They see the outside, But God sees your spirits. All the things you covet are of the mammon of unrighteous, and therefore an abomination to God. Everything you seek to have and everything you fight so desperately to hold onto, none of that belongs to you.

Are you of the mammon of unrighteousness? Of course, you are. We all are. It is the bottom rung. Are you a steward of the riches of God? In a way, all of us are. Do you take your stewardship seriously? You must either practice faithfulness or expect to fail. Do you covet all the material and worldly facets of the bottom rung? You are doing all the wrong things. It is not for you to speak for God. You are a servant only. Forget about the power, the fame, the station. Do not seek to place your will above others. Changing things around is not the business of a steward. Not even a prophet may speak for himself, but all of us, as faithful servants, must bend to the will of a spirit who is above all worldliness.

Will we fail? Many of us will, but that only tells us this one important fact: we should have seen from the beginning that we are on the bottom rung where everything belongs to everyone else. From the beginning, we should have cared for them more than for ourselves.

The Two Covenants:

I am going to deal, here, with the parable of the beggar Lazarus found in Luke 16:16-31, but not so much with the parable as certain comments upon which this parable depends.

We all know the parable. Lazarus dies and goes to heaven; rich man dies and goes to hell. To the studied, this parable is about how the tables turn.

The statements upon which this parable depend are indicative of the two covenants, that is to say, the old and new testaments. This, then, is the framework within which the parable is presented.

The old covenant is represented by Moses and the prophets while the new covenant is portrayed, from the time of John the baptist, as the preaching of the kingdom of God. The two covenants, after a manner, are set against one another. There is, however, an addendum that highlights one particular fact about the difference between the two covenants.

It is this: the new covenant is not a departure from the law. As an example, Jesus states that if you commit adultery under the new covenant, you are still guilty. The old covenant laws are still fully binding. Yet, Jesus paints a picture of a mass-mentalmigration from an old mold to a new, from an old standard to a new.

He said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;and every man presseth into it.â&#x20AC;? So then we must ask, what exactly are we pressing into? Is it into the preaching? Is it into something novel and different? Is it all about the new set of characters, or might it be, rather, a new mold â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a new approach to the same desired end?

The parable shows us how the rich man with everything ended up in a reverse situation.

Likewise, we see that Lazarus finds his situation reversed. We must remember that earlier in this chapter, Jesus told the Pharisees who derided him exactly the difference between the worldly and the heavenly. Everything is exactly the opposite.

If you know want in this life, you will know plenty in the afterlife. If you know plenty in this worldly plane, in a higher plane you will know want.

Believe it or not, the parable of Lazarus is a new covenant construct. It is the preaching of the kingdom of God. It is exactly what we would expect to hear from a John or a Jesus or any number of apostles, disciples, and the like. Although many of the old testament persuasion believed in a reward after death, and a place with Abraham in glory, that was not the focus of the older frame of mind.

The old testament focus was on the observance of the law in this present life. It was a bottom-rung frame of mind. In opposition, the frame of mind that everyone was pressing into, as Jesus spoke, was a top-rung frame of mind.

The point in all this is to say there was a predisposition to find a way around the law.

The Pharisees found there way around the law by using the law. The ones who followed John and Jesus would, naturally, be attempting to make a break from all the Pharisees represented â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that is the darker points of rule and oppression through law-mongering.

For the average Joe, pressing into the new, quite possibly for relief from the Pharisees always having their way, the law actually took a backseat to the needs of daily life. We may picture these average Joes by comparing them to modern day Joes. Sure, they go to church on Sunday, but what about the rest of the week? Strife and relief from strife.

They strive to obtain a means upon which they might subsist, but for the sake of respite, they will spend much of it in bars, at dances, in theaters, and at worldly sporting events.

The point of the parable was to say that the law would always apply. Don't throw the law out with the wash. In the new covenant construct, the rich man asks that Lazarus be sent to his brothers thinking that if they were approached by one from the dead, they might repent and avoid the reversal of fortune.

The final say and ultimate answer for those pressing into the new is a stark rebuttal found in verse 31, â&#x20AC;&#x153;if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.â&#x20AC;?

Of course, one did rise from the dead, and many of us press gladly into the resurrection of Jesus. But are we persuaded? Have we at all paid any heed to the will of God, to his law, or even to things just and wholesome? How many Christians say they believe in the Ten Commandments, yet regularly fail to observe the Sabbath of God? How many of us fail to honor our parents? How many of us totally ignore the needs of the less fortunate?

What is the divorce/adultery rate for our day and age? Just what is it that we are so blindly pressing into? It is the stewardship of our Father's goods which we gather to ourselves and withhold from our brothers. These are all simple bottom-rung matters, but we just can't seem to pass the test. Fail. Fail. Fail.

Our failures in simple matters have an outcome. We always prove who we are by word and by deed. What are the true colors of those pressing into what Christ offers?

Bloodlust and the black smoke of war. The gray cloud of approaching enemies and the red flames of hell licking up from our eternal abyss.

What is Little?

In this study of Luke 17:1-4, I begin with the salient points. Point one: Jesus is directly addressing his disciples. Point two: there will always be offenses in the world, that's a given. Likewise, it is a given that those through whom the offenses come will suffer greatly. Point three: in the making of this statement, Jesus points his finger directly at his own disciples by saying, “Take heed to yourselves.”

Just how bad that suffering will be is addressed in point four. Jesus tells his disciples that it would be better for them to tie millstones around their necks and cast themselves into the sea. Who is affected by the offense is part of the same statement, it is “these little ones.” Please note the use of the word 'these'.

Point five: is the example of trespass and forgiveness. Many people only see that the good Christian is someone who forgives no matter what. There is more to this example.

What I would first like to note is the possibility that the words 'trespass' and 'offense' are applied as different concepts, that the offense is not the trespass but, rather, the failure to forgive the trespass. Second is the possibility that the expression “these little ones” does not apply to children but to adults struggling with faith, and who need forgiveness to grow spiritually.

The strongest points in my list of five are that Jesus directly addresses his disciples (one and three), while the most confused and confusing point is that of the interplay between trespass and forgiveness (five). The concept of 'offense' is not a point in this study but, rather, an outcome of the points in general.

What do we as seekers need to understand in regard to this study? We need to know the meanings of the words 'offense' and 'trespass'. We need a spiritual take on the expression “these little ones.” We need to understand where the word 'rebuke' fits into the repertoire of the forgiving steward.

The definition of the word 'offense' is a breach of a law or rule. One synonym for the word offense is 'sin'. However, this definition is by no means so two-dimensional. There is much more to sin than just breaking the law. A secondary definition involves the connection between 'offense' and 'trespass', and not only that but also the connection between the one who trespasses and the one who forgives.

It goes like this: annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one's standards or principles. You can easily see, then, that offenses and trespasses are normally found on the personal level. Some connected synonyms are anger, indignation, exasperation, displeasure, vexation, and animosity.

These mindsets, or spirits, stand opposed to the will of God in that they effectively negate the possibility of spiritual growth in the people we have set ourselves against. As an example, the Salem witches may have been struggling with their faith and had the good Christians rebuked and forgiven them, they might have moved forward spiritually.

They might have become upstanding members of their community and pillars in the church.

We see in the examples given by Jesus in this study (point five), there is no option for wrath, or anger, or destructive actions. The only thing allowed here is a rebuke. Rebuke is defined as an expression of sharp disapproval. Some related synonyms are reprimand, reproof, and admonition. These actions go hand in hand with forgiveness as an outlet for spiritual growth for those who struggle with their faith.

Those who are weak and small in their spiritual stand may be considered the little ones that Jesus brought to his disciples' attention. Ask yourselves, who was it, mostly, that followed Jesus through the open countryside night and day? The multitudes that followed Jesus were comprised mostly of men. It was, after all, a patriarchal society. Of course, some women and children followed the men, but they were for the most part managed by men, possibly kept behind the press of men.

When Jesus mentioned offenses against the little ones, he used the word 'these'. Imagine, as he said this, that he gestured with his hand â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a sweeping motion that took in all those with enough muscle to get a good seat. Imagine the jostling to get in close enough to hear the Rabbi. Imagine the men with their families in tow, concerned for their safety.

What is Little? I ask that in a spiritual sense. Jesus said the physician came not to heal the healthy but the sick â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that is, the weak and ailing. That case is a case of a spiritual physician concerned with the spiritually weak and struggling. These little ones are you and me, who struggle with our faith, who make daily blunders and seek to be set right again.

The offense is to interfere with our spiritual progress in any way or for any rationale. If someone makes you angry or displeased, if someone vexes you, exasperates you and brings about a condition of animosity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; rebuke them. Always. That should never be the end of the matter. Ignoring or avoiding them is not a state of forgiveness. The forgiveness must follow for there to be spiritual growth. The two must work hand in hand.

Ignoring or avoiding is just as much an offense as murder. Anything that keeps your brother from reaching his spiritual potential is an offense. This study concerns a warning issued to those who seek and serve God. If you are zealous about the tenets of your faith, then as a steward, you are called upon to rebuke trespasses, forgive the trespasser, and by all means at your disposal, facilitate the spiritual growth of your fellow man.

The Thing About Faith:

Luke 17:5-10 offers us an opportunity to consider our faith. Many of us know the part that goes, 'if you had the faith of a mustard seed'. It is that small thing that works wonders and miracles. We know the part about moving mountains (or Sycamine trees) and casting them (or planting them) in the sea. Faith can move mountains. Right?

Realistically, however, there is not one recorded instance of a person performing such a miraculous act. It is still wholly a matter of faith. But, that's the thing about faith â&#x20AC;&#x201C; some see it one way, others discount it altogether. Among those who see it, I fear it is often misinterpreted.

Man often sees the attributes of God in man as a supernatural state. To be perfect, for example, necessitates a flawless state bordering on that of the superhero. At the very least, it establishes arbitrary lines which the normal human may not pass. I have often heard arguments from the non-Christian, such as, 'you can't smoke and be a Christian', or, 'you can't drink', etc. Even the Catholic church sets such lines when it tells it's monks and nuns they may not have relationships.

From practicing Christians we get similar limitations, such as, 'I'm just a sinner saved by grace'. Seems everyone equates being good with self-limitation. We set the standard so arbitrarily high that nobody can reach it. I think the same is true for our interpretation of faith. Many Christians, in their prayers, ask for faith in the same way the apostles did in Luke 17:5. It is seen as a thing in itself that may be given, intact, as a gift.

But in his answer, Jesus said, 'you have to work for it'. Let's look at his answer to a request for faith. It appears the apostles believed they had faith which Jesus could just 'miraculously' ratchet up. And yes, Jesus did tell them a little faith can work wonders. I think what he meant by the mustard seed was not so much the quantity, or the power per quantity, but rather something that grows, becomes, accrues, etc.

After his statement about faith, Jesus made this point – and he made it loud and clear: if you want faith, you have to work up to it. There are no short cuts, just the long way around. What is the long way around? Essentially, it consists of all the pennies that add up to a dollar.

This is what Jesus told them. Luke 17:10, “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”

The servant coming from the field cannot reasonably expect his master to set aside the order of things to elevate the servant beyond his station. There are still a lot of little tasks that must be completed before the servant can reach his desired goal.

Christians know the parameters of their service to God. The many small and ordinary tasks are laid out in black and white. These tasks are where we are at. We must focus on the little things. If we want faith from God or an increase in faith, we must approach it on our own – by the numbers. A dollar is achieved one penny at a time. Perfection is a goal we may come to, not by avoiding the commands of God, but by attending each and every one.

Christians assume that perfection is outside the normal reach of man, but it is not. This is what the Bible tells us about the perfection of man. Matthew 5:44, 45, and 48: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

These are some of the small and ordinary tasks the Christian must remain focused on.

You may obtain faith, and even perfection, by working for it. Focus on the commands of God and do not try to get ahead of yourselves.

Healed vs Whole:

Luke 17:11-19 is now our subject of interest. Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem. In a certain village, he is hailed by a group of ten lepers. This village was in an area associated with Samaria and Galilee. In that regard, the writer thought it appropriate to mention that one of the ten was a Samaritan – as if the other nine were not.

All ten of them, as a group, cried out, 'master, have mercy on us'. There is nothing particularly special in this account; it is wholly a matter of human nature to call for help when in difficulty. It is human to seek out and implore the one thought to be able to render said aid. It is, as I say, human nature. How, then, can we look at this account and not include ourselves.

When we pray to God in our difficulties, we beg his mercy. Like the group of lepers crying aloud, we bring attention to our own needs and desires, asking, 'master, have mercy on me'. Many of us have some real issues to work through. We could definitely use some help. To whom do we turn? We turn to the one who has the power to help.

Since, at that point, we have yet to see the effective power we seek, since we lack empirical evidence, it must be accounted a matter of hope and faith.

Those ten lepers might never have seen Jesus heal another person – they weren't exactly the social type. It was part of their stigma to stand afar off. If people wandered close to them, it was required that they loudly proclaim their disease. That made it hard to even be a beggar.

So Jesus agreed to heal them; he said to them, 'go and show yourselves to the priests'.

They asked for nothing more, but turned and headed for the priests. If Jesus had told them to do back flips, they would have – that is desperation. When human nature calls out under dire circumstances, it is in the spirit of desperation. To be done with and past some of our problems, we would jump through flaming hoops.

It is important to note that when the ten lepers turned to leave, they were not yet healed.

Their first steps were steps of hope and faith. It was within the parameters of the exercise of faith that they were healed. When we consider that spirit of faith upon which ten lepers acted, we must also see the concomitant spirit of obedience.

What spirit do we find ourselves in? When we hope for relief and call to God in prayer, is our spirit of hope in any way connected to a spirit of faith? Do we act upon our faith?

Obviously, there is no Jesus standing before us in the flesh. There is no corporeal master to instruct us. Yet, we have at our disposal literal volumes of instruction. Do we act on our hope and faith? Do we seek the instructions we need from the Bible?

It is true that thousands upon thousands turn to God in prayer. It is also true that many of us, like the ten lepers, receive an answer to our desperate pleas. Like the nine, we keep plugging along in the same direction. I'm not saying we are wrong to continue forward if it is in the spirit of obedience. But, let us examine a case of disobedience.

Ten men asked for help. Ten men received instruction. Ten men moved forward in obedience. One man turned back. On the way to show himself to the priests, one man saw that his body had been healed. It is safe to assume that the other nine did, as well.

What did the other nine men do? If they continued forward in obedience, they showed themselves healed to the priests. What if one or two of the men, in their excitement, instead ran back to their families and lives? Would that have completed the spirit of faith that healed them?

In this scenario of healing, the spirit is vital. The spirit of faith belongs with the spirit of hope. The spirit of hope stems from the spirit of desperation. The spirit of obedience must, therefore, be seen as inseparable from the other spirits. This is human nature.

When I say 'spirit', the reader should know that I mean 'mind'. The mind of desperation leads to hope and faith and, yes, obedience.

So, what about the Samaritan? What was on his mind? Certainly, he did not complete his march to the priests, as instructed. Instead, he did just the opposite. Why? Had he been healed of his disease by the local MD, it would still have been his duty to show himself to the priests. Jesus told the lepers nothing special. They would have had to do that, regardless.

Yet, the spirit is vital. Jesus gave them ordinary instructions. They obeyed. The spirits of obedience, faith, hope, and desperation come as a package deal. They are all part and parcel of human nature. They belong together.

There is, however, one spirit we have yet to deal with in this study. As a spirit, it is just as connected to faith as hope or obedience. It is the spirit of thanksgiving. The Samaritan

who turned back turned back in the spirit of overwhelming joy and humble thanksgiving. He felt that Jesus and God deserved something personal from him.

How often are we humbled by the answer to a prayer? How often do we turn back to give personal and real thanksgiving? How often do we see the person who was instrumental in our succor as more than just a person? There is something very important in the spirit of thanksgiving that we must absolutely take note of. When the Samaritan threw himself on his face and thanked Jesus personally, Jesus himself equated the act with giving glory to God. You have to get it; the two are the same.

The spirit of thanksgiving and the spirit of giving glory to God are the same. That does not only apply to Jesus, otherwise, his message and work could not have continued through his disciples. Anyone who saw an apostle of Jesus as 'just another fallible person', closed himself off from the message and work of Christ. The spirit of dismissing just another fallible person negates the avenue through which the spirit works. It sets you outside the loop so that whatever mind you have – be it desperation, hope, obedience, thanksgiving – they are all disconnected from the source of spiritual power which provides the spirit of faith that heals. At that point, don't even bother.

When the Samaritan gave thanks to Jesus for the healing which his own faith delivered, Jesus said this: “Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.” Jesus did not say that the man's faith had healed him, that is altogether different. He was healed along the way with the other nine.

The concept of wholeness, especially that of spiritual wholeness, speaks of a completeness whereby all the necessary parts and connections are in their proper places.

The Samaritan completed that spiritual circuit in a way the other nine did not. To give no more than an off-handed or perfunctory “thanks” just isn't enough to complete the circuit. To be whole, one must take it to the personal level.

No matter whether the answer comes to you via Jesus or a follower, or even the Bible, if you do not practice real thanksgiving, and thus, giving glory to God, you are not whole.

Kingdom Come:

This won't take long . . . . . . but it needs to be said.

We've got it all wrong. People of passionate faith believe in a place, either real or quasireal, that the devout resort to after death. It is viewed as a place of splendor, a heaven, a paradise. Some see rewards dispensed for their faithfulness: wings, halos, crowns, or virgins. It matters not the religion, the view is that the faithful and the good will leave this wicked world for a better place, while all the enemies of the faith will go to a place far worse.

Those who do not believe also have an opinion about the afterlife. They see a pipe dream with all the silly flutter of cardboard wings, they see the wishful thinking of the male libido, egotism, fantasy, and thought structures not thoroughly rooted in science.

What if I told you all of us are wrong? What if I told you there no Heaven, no Paradise, Nirvana, or Valhalla. I do not mean this in the sense that the unbelievers have already postulated in countless tirades. I mean there is no place outside the human experience, and again, this is not intended as the same argument as that of the unbelieving.

There is a place, but it is a place in the spirit – by which, I mean the mind. There is a kingdom, there is a paradise, but so far, all of us have wholly misinterpreted the subject.

Our normal misinterpretation involves a movement from one outside to another outside, all being separate from and external to the conscious identity.

The Pharisees, masters of the law of God, also got it wrong. Their concept of a kingdom was a place of victory for the nation of Israel, a place where the tyrannical rule of Rome was crushed beneath the heel of Abraham. In Luke 17:20-21, the Pharisees demanded Jesus to tell them when the Kingdom of their God would come.

Jesus answered, 'When? 'You can look for it til you turn blue in the face and you'll never see it coming. You can observe the stars, the prophecies of old, or anything you like – there are no signs. Neither may anyone say the kingdom is in the east or in the west, in this nation or that.'

As plainly as anyone could ever say anything, Jesus told them in Luke 17:21, “the kingdom of God is within you.”

Let me put that in perspective. If the kingdom is within the conscious identity of the individual, the king is also there. As Jesus said in John 4:24, “God is a spirit.” Here, we must understand that 'spirit' is not something outside the human condition – it is the human condition. It is what makes us who we are. Aside from so many pounds of flesh,

there is only the spirit to define who and what we are. The body, despite the science, is merely a vehicle for the spirit.

Each of us has a spirit – by which I mean, a conscious identity.

Each of us has a spirit – by which I mean, God is a spirit. Each of us is a part, or extension, of the same conscious identity that is God, the same spirit, the same mind.

Each of us, as a spiritual seed, has been planted in mortal clay. Some seeds will grow and be harvested, increasing the one who planted the seed. Some seeds will not grow at all. Some seeds will grow wild and be slated for a fiery end, as when the stubble and refuse of a field are burned.

Each of us is a part of God. What we make of that is in our hands. The kingdom is inside of us; the king is inside of us. And yet, the flesh will always perish. We seem to be tied to the eternal wheel of life and death. Where and when does the kingdom come if it is inside of us?

We look for something better. We look for it outside of ourselves, outside of our daily practices and rituals, outside of our thoughts and intent – anywhere other than where we actually are. We are here, each of us with our own little part of God and his kingdom inside of us. Sadly, we do not do the things that might bring God's kingdom to bear.

Here, within the societies on earth, in each of us, in our own time, we might produce God's kingdom on earth – with the right efforts.

Connect the dots: there is one king, there is one kingdom, and all of that lies within the human condition. Each of us has a spirit. God is a spirit. Are you looking for the kingdom of the spirit? It is within.

The Son of Man Revealed:

Let us continue our study of the spirit of God in man by taking a look at Luke 17:24-37.

Jesus had just dropped the hammer on the religious-minded, on the kingdom-minded. He told them, and us as well, not to look outside ourselves for the kingdom. The kingdom is not on the outside, he said. The kingdom of God is within.

Then Jesus predicted what they should look for. It is not like the arrival of an army in a cloud of dust, it is more like a revelation. It will be a realization. When the kingdom and the king are finally realized, it will be all at once. It will illuminate everything. He said this in Luke 17:24, “For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of man be in his day.”

We have sayings such as, 'your day will come', and. 'every dog has its day'. The predicted day of the Son of man will be the natural outcome of all that has gone before.

Things will come to a head, so to speak. What has been developing all along will finally bear fruit. There will be a sudden all-encompassing flash of illumination. We will, at last, when the Son of man is revealed, understand everything. It will all be clear.

Who is the Son of man? People around Jesus did not call him the Son on man; it was Jesus, alone, who styled himself thus. We get this from Wikipedia: The Hebrew expression "son of man" (‫בן–אדם‬, ben-'adam) appears 107 times in the Hebrew Bible, the majority (93 times) in the Book of Ezekiel. And this: The New Testament features the indefinite "a son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 (citing Psalm 8:4), and "one like a son of man" in Revelation 1:13, 14:14 (referencing Daniel 7:13's "one like a son of man"). [9] The four gospels introduce a new definite form, "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου", literally "the man's son." It is awkward and ambiguous in Greek. [1] In all four it is used only by Jesus (except once in the Gospel of John, when the crowd asks what Jesus means by it), and functions as an emphatic equivalent of the first-person pronoun, I/me/my.

Scholars seem confused as to the exact application of the expression. They suggest it shows the unreachable Holiness of God as opposed to the attribute of man's utter commonness. I would like to suggest something else.

God, a spirit, knows what it is like to be a father, i.e. the expression “only begotten son of God.” God has an opinion about the whole 'son' thing. Men, as flesh imbued with spirit, share that opinion. A son is the better part of the father. The father is proud of, or knows great joy in the son and lifts him up. The father paves the way for the son, gives him all that he has.

My suggestion is that son of man is the mortal equivalent to son of God. The two are connected in a spiritual sense and combined, act as a bridge between the lost state of man and the redeemed state of man.

When the only begotten son of God called himself the Son of man, I see a natural extension of state between the son and all who are one with the son. Consider the earnest prayer of Jesus found in John 17, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.”

How can mortal man be one with a spiritual God? The answer is this: they must be on the same spiritual page. I think the beginning of that is the realization that man is not separate from God – he is built around the Godcore – spirit is mind.

That realization will come. The seeds have been planted and everything develops according to a predetermined schedule. Among spirits in man, there are those who embrace their spirituality and those who reject it as so much wish fulfillment. The realization will come to all, but to some, it will be an 'oops' moment.

It will be like the fable of the grasshopper and ants. All along, the ants were preparing, developing, embracing. The grasshopper – well, he just wasn't the type. He laughed at the ants and made no preparations of his own. He cared not to develop. He may have been successful at ignoring it all summer, but when the cold winds began to blow, the realization came to him as well. It came in a flash.

Jesus made that point to his audience: the time will come. The realization will come, just as it did to all those who ignored and laughed at Noah, just as it came to all those who ignored and laughed at Lot. The revelation will be a realization. All of a sudden, it will be everywhere and everything. We will no longer be able to laugh at it or ignore it. It will not be outside of us and unaffecting. It will be within us and we will be forced to take it personally.

The coming of the kingdom of God will be the revelation of his son, whom he has exalted. The son is one with the spiritual father and we are one with the son – it is internal. The kingdom is within us, right now, developing. The king is in his kingdom.

His son is with him. We are all in here together. We are on a trajectory toward revelation.

We travel from the inside to the inside. The revelation of the Son of man is, by extension, our revelation.

Jesus said there will be, at the realization, two men in one bed (we have a modern expression regarding bedfellows, allies due to circumstance.) One will have an oops, the other will not. One will be accepted into the ark, the other will drown. There will be two women grinding at the same mill. One will fly high, the other will crash and burn.

I just hope your moment of realization is not an oops.

If you find yourself on a higher plane than the world you inhabit, consider yourself developmentally sound. Do not turn back to the world. If you are in your field on a trajectory toward harvest, let it grow. Some of us are wheat, some of us are chaff, but we all develop along the same trajectory. To turn back is to drive the wrong way on a very crowded highway.

The legend of Lot's wife is an admonition against turning away from the progress you have already made. Jesus said in Luke 9:62, the plowing man who turns back proves himself unfit for the revelation.

The realization will be a dark time. Jesus described that time with the words, “in that night.” It will be the oops moment of everyone not in the ark. It will be, for many, a time of stumbling and a time of weeping. The realization cuts deep.

Evidence:

To anyone who actually reads my weekly blog, I wish to apologize for the lack thereof last Sunday.

This week, I would like to take a closer look at Luke 17:37. I failed to address it in the previous study. This is it: “And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.”

Imagine, then, that you are a game hunter on safari. You see vultures circling in the sky.

From your wealth of hunting experience, you know this to be a sign that there is carcass ahead. Sight of the vultures is evidence of something you do not yet see.

There is, in our existence, not one thing that is self-evident, and while many hold with the concept – as in, 'we hold these truths to be self-evident' – evidence, itself, implies the support of something else. For example, the carcass is not self-evident. The truth of its existence, while as yet unseen, is supported by the vultures circling overhead. It is quite obvious.

I would like for us to consider how many different ways we may express the obvious, or how many life experiences include such obvious evidence of things as yet unseen.

Imagine that you are driving down the freeway, approaching the off ramp you wish to take. You move over in preparation. You see the sign that says 'Business District ½ Mile.'

That sign is the obvious evidence of the off ramp you do not yet see. What if, however, the sign has been removed – is all evidence of a truth gone? I think not. You still move over in preparation; your experience is obvious enough.

Imagine that war is coming. There are no troops on the streets; there is the report of neither bullet or bomb. Where is the proof of a coming war? Where is the evidence that supports the truth of it? If you are young, you are probably not even paying attention.

Let us say, then, that you are mature. Let us say that you follow the news. Let us go one step further and say that you have experience in the political intrigues that presage the onset of war. You've seen it all before.

The political maneuverings, as well your own savvy experience, are both proofs of coming war. In this case, obvious evidence is the support of such as 'knowledge', 'perception', 'understanding', 'insight', 'discernment', 'acumen', and 'common sense'.

Imagine, now, that a major flood approaches. Some guy named Noah keeps going on about it. Where is the proof? You've never, in your entire life, seen a drop of rain. Water falling from the sky – who makes this stuff up? You are the type that is most affected by the things you see – and you have never seen rain, only the solid ground you walk upon.

You cannot imagine the land covered with water. You believe only what you see.

Noah has been building a huge boat he calls an ark. It stands before you, bigger than life.

You see it with your own eyes. If you believe only what you see, why don't you believe what you see?

Imagine the end of the world approaches. Where is the obvious evidence? Imagine a mortal man who is actually the very Son of God. What supports the truth of it? Imagine God. Is there evidence? Your eyes see no off ramp sign. Your eyes see no drops of rain.

Your eyes see no troops and your ears hear no bombs. Yet, your eyes see and your ears hear. You are mature. You pay attention. You have experience and knowledge. You have perception and discernment.

Finally, you are the game hunter again. Beside you walks a game hunter with less acumen, less insight. He will not believe a carcass lies ahead. He is adamant in his selflimitation. He will not listen. He will not learn. He will not believe until he stumbles blindly into the guts and maggots. Belief at that point does little benefit; he has the mess on both boots.

Between the sighting of the vultures and the sighting of the carcass, there is a sojourn that rests in faith as the sole and sufficient evidence of truth.

Perseverance in Prayer:

Luke 18:1-8 is about the unjust judge. I have already made a study of this parable. Still, there is somewhat to say on the matter. Take a look at verse one. The first verse shows us that the writer of this account had been made aware of the meaning of the parable. As this writing occurred at some distance from the actual fact, we must assume that the making aware of the meaning was a practice whereby a previous source is divulged to a new iteration – over and over again down the time line.

So, the meaning of the parable was understood and passed along with each iteration. We must also assume that each person in the know also understood what the parable was not about. The parable did not purport that a man can wear down God with constant pestering. The parable did not compare the unjust judge, who basically made himself unreachable, to God. Jesus concluded his parable and subsequent explanation with this statement found in Luke 18:8 – “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, will he find faith on the earth?” What is the parable really about and what must each of us come to understand?

The parable is about faith. The parable is about an enduring faith that is able to go the distance. It is about a persevering faith that never gives up.

The bold widow was not rooted in the judge or his judgments. The widow was rooted in her faith. She came often before the judge, an issue the judge is shown to consider.

Obviously, the judge delayed his judgment time and time again. She never gave up; she knew her claim was just under the law. She had a right to be avenged of her adversary.

She knew that a judge had to bend his will to that of the law.

As in the case of the widow, our prayers are petitions to a judge. Our judge is just. The widow's judge is described as unjust. The widow is chronicled with the attributes of faith and perseverance. Let us ask, then, why the widow persevered in her faith? Let us ask

why the constant delays of the judge did not sway her faith? What did she have that so many of us seem to lack?

The widow did not ask for trivial matters; she asked for the one thing under the law she knew she had a right to ask for. Knowing what one may petition for is an important first step in prayer. Consider the case of King Solomon. He prayed not for long life, neither did he ask for the destruction of his enemies. Solomon petitioned for the wisdom necessary to lead God's people. Solomon asked for the very thing that God wanted and was willing to give. The king was already wise enough to know what to pray for.

We often pray about small matters that ultimately work themselves out without divine intervention. We are brash enough to ask for things we would doubtless waste upon the altar of our personal desires. We ask God to let us win the lottery – just in case.

Prayer is more than just a petition. Prayer is a relationship one may not enter without the prerequisite belief in the one we pray to. Not only must a person first believe in the one who hears our prayers, a person must develop an understanding of the one we stand before. We may not simply be caught up in personal issues and expect the random prayer to be answered. We must have a knowledge of what God wants and is willing to give. It is a relationship not unlike all others; a relationship is 'give and take'.

We may not seek a withdrawal from the bank of prayer before the required deposits. One gets from anything only what one puts into it. Perseverance in pray is a prerequisite to answered prayer. Belief in God is a prerequisite to prayer. Faith is the prerequisite to perseverance.

At this point, it will suffice to body forth some supporting Bible verses on the topic of perseverance in prayer. To that end, I submit these references: “Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving,” Colossians 4:2.

“Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer,” Romans 12:12.

“And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good,” 2 Thessalonians

3:13.

“And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this

in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people,” Ephesians 6:18.

“Ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you – If you remain in me and my

words remain in you,” John 15:7.

“We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope

for may be fully realized,” Hebrews 6:11.

Names and Connections:

For today's study, I wish to depart the usual routine and speak topically – which is how I started. Instead of following through with the next reference in the book of Luke, allow me to broach the concept of connections.

It is a level of understanding that many of us avoid. People fail to realize this level as they race through the reading of scripture like galloping wild horses. It is common to drink in large drafts of scripture in as singular a gulp as humanly possible.

Here, however, what we need to do, unlike the gulping drunk, is to step back and sip, as a wine taster sips wine, savoring each distinct nuance that completes the whole.

I wish to deal with three names and their connections. Those three names belong to God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. See them listed here.

Holy and Reverend.

The Holy Spirit of Truth.

The Truth.

Psalm 111:9 (KJV) “He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: Holy and Reverend is his name.” Also, John 4:24 (KJV) “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

John 16:13 (NIV) “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” Also, Acts 2:4 “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” Also, Luke 4:18 (KJV) “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me . . .” Also, Matthew 28:19 (KJV) “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

John 14:6 (KJV) “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Also, John 10:30 (KJV) “I and my Father are one.”

Finally, 1 John 5:6-8 (KJV) “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Those are the names; these are the connections: First, both God and the Holy Ghost are a 'spirit' – their first name is even the same, 'Holy'. God is a spirit named Holy and the Holy Spirit is a spirit named Holy.

Second, the Holy Spirit of Truth has his last name in common with the Son of God. Jesus Christ is the Truth and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

Third, all three persons of the Trinity are one and the same – this according to 1 John 5:6-8. It is also according to Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” True also according to Zechariah 14:9 “And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.” They are “One.” What does that Mean? God is a spirit, the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and Jesus (even in the flesh) is a spirit. If Jesus is the Truth, so also is the Holy Ghost and God. God, after all, is the Father of the Truth. Not only is Jesus the 'Word', but so is the Father of the Word and the Spirit of the Word. All three are the one way, but the pivotal component of the Trinity is the spirit that connects a spiritual Father to a flesh and blood person born of the Holy Spirit. That is according to Matthew 1:18. John 3:6 (KJV) confirms with these words, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The careful consideration of such connections should put a higher spin on the prayer of Jesus found in John 17:20-23 (KJV) “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”

The Thing About Prayer:

I return to the book of Luke. Luke 18:9-14 is an account of the parable that contrasts a proud Pharisee with a humble publican. Both men are inside the temple engaged in prayer. All the major points of this parable have been thoroughly covered in Sunday sermons.

I would bring forth the minor points â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which may prove to be just as major if given enough attention.

The treasure buried deep in these verses is the matter of prayer. Both men stand in the same temple, both men pray, both men pray to the same God. I would venture to say that prayer is sort of a universal constant between men.

We must ask how it is that the spirit in a man may either succeed or fail in the handling of such a constant.

Two different men engage in the same spiritual communication with the same spiritual God. How is it one is justified and the other is not? The answer rests in how each man uses his spirit.

Let me be clear on this one point: prayer is a spirit-to-spirit communication. All successful communication demands that there must be something in common.

Think of a lock and key. The lock is iron. A wooden key will likely fail to open the lock.

In similar fashion, a key of ice or of glass will break. Opening a lock is a material-tomaterial communication. There must be something in common.

A spiritual lock requires a particular kind of key – a spirit key made of the same spiritual metal.

Everything in existence requires something of whatever it has a relationship with. A cool fluid drink requires cup-likeness to hold it. A cup in reverse has nothing in common with the drink. A relationship between a road and the vessels that traverse it requires wheels.

A relationship between vessels and an ocean will require something different – like paddles or sails.

Prayer is a spirit-to-spirit communication, as I have said, but what does God require of man, spirit-to-spirit-wise? That is certainly something to consider. Here is something else to consider. God is a spirit. To pray to a spirit requires a material (so to speak) with something in common.

This is a big pill to swallow but prayer is a God-to-God communication. Logic dictates that if God is spirit, then spirit is God. To answer the objection that not all spirits are God, I give this response. All spirit is God. Within those parameters, there is spirit used correctly and spirit misused.

Free will is in the nature of man. In the nature of man is found every evil possession and fallen angel. Free will in man is spirituality (our part of God) that is not always used correctly.

The parable of the two praying men portrays prayer as a God-to-God communication with the first spirit in the account (the Pharisee) misused by pride and self-righteousness.

The second spirit in the account (the publican) is used correctly by humility. Humility justifies the part of God found in the publican. The misuse of the part of God found in the Pharisee finds no justification.

Here is the wording of the parable, which we may assume are the words of Jesus. “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself . . .” Luke 18:11. We may take these words to exemplify common usage. The communication was God-to-God; the communication was spirit-to-spirit. The Pharisee's misuse of his part of the spirit-to-spirit communication was an exaltation of his small footprint in the bigger picture.

God, as a lock, is properly exalted and does not require exaltation from the smaller part of Himself found in the Pharisee. An exalted God requires one thing from the small part of Himself found in a man – humility.

What I wish the reader to take away from this study is the fact that we are not separate from God. When we pray to God, there is something we have in common with him, and we must have that in order to pray, that something is the spirit of God residing in us.

Opening the Door to the Kingdom:

In an earlier study, I made the case for connections between God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and man. I return to the theme of connections in Luke 18:15-30. Christ delivers two truths about entrance into the kingdom of God. What I hope to show in this study is simple. The connections will be made plain.

Opening the door to the kingdom is, in fact, being open to the door.

Two cases are presented to Jesus. First is the spirit of the children who are brought to him to be touched. Second is the spirit of the ruler who asked Jesus what he needed to do.

When the disciples acted on Jesus' behalf, thinking to clear him some space, trying to keep the overwhelming multitudes at bay, Jesus answered them with these words.

Luke 18:16, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Upon hearing Jesus tell him to sell all and follow him, the rich ruler was very sorrowful.

Noting the spirit of the ruler, Jesus made the following comment.

Luke 18:24, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God.” One spirit is pro-kingdom, one spirit is pro-world, pro-wealth. In the spirit of the small child being brought to Christ, there is no sacrifice, there is no sorrow. The spirit of the small child is on a learning curve, gaining new experience with excitement and singular focus. The spirit of the small child sets its desire on what is before it, without comparing what lies ahead to the things of the world. There are no worldly expectations in the spirit of the child.

Now, I wish to take the mindset of the small child, described above, and show it's connection to previously explained connections.

Jesus is the door, he said so. He is that entrance into the kingdom of God which this study explores. God the Father and 'Door' the son are one. That is to say that they are connected by the same spirit – the Holy Spirit.

Both the door into the kingdom of God and our own openness to that door are found in the spirit of the individual. Jesus prayed in John 17 that you and I might be one with the Father and the Son. To be on that same page, we must have a matching spirit.

Think of the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. If we want to fit into the big picture, the only way we can do that is to be one of the interlocking pieces. We may not be something other than one of the pieces that came with the original set. Neither may we be a piece from another big picture.

Every spirit in every individual is naturally a part of the big spirit; the Holy Spirit is the spirit that is special to the Father and the Son – the spirit that makes them one. Our connection to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is an internal connection. It's a connection from our spirit to the Holy Spirit. We may not find that connection through anything physical such as worldly possessions.

In the context of the verses referred to in this study, both the small child and the rich ruler were connected through their personal spirits to the one spirit of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So, I ask this – what propelled the child forward, and what detained the adult?

The case with the spirit of the child is this – there is no dilution of the spirit with worldly concretion. There is no determent, no dissuasion, no preclusion or disincentive.

The case with the spirit of the adult proves otherwise. There is dilution. There is a full lifetime of concretion. Two red flags jump out at us. One is choice, the other is free will.

Free will (or willfulness) is an act of separation. This separation is implemented through desire, which walks hand-in-hand with choice.

Willfully and knowingly, man chooses to be separate from the spirit of God. Man chooses concretion deliberately, ignoring the truth that his will is unable to detach his little spirit from the big spirit. Therefore, man must view himself as physical and worldly rather than spiritual. It is choice that binds man in the chains of darkness.

The disciples were horrified. Everyone had possessions; they wondered how any of them could possibly overcome such an insurmountable obstacle. Jesus answered them with the following words.

Luke 18:27, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” Do you see it? It is a comparison between the physical, external, worldly man that man has created through willful separation and the internal, spiritual component in a man that no man, through any willful act, is able to separate himself from. It is a comparison between the external man of choice and the internal man of his true nature. That true nature, that spirit-to-spirit connection, can make all things possible.

We have a saying, 'fighting fire with fire.' Mankind does that every day. We may also fight choice with choice. The separating choice of the external man may be undone by the connecting choice of the internal man. The internal man is spiritual, the internal man is a spirit. God is a Spirit, Jesus said so. Man is a small spiritually interconnecting piece in the bigger picture.

The willful man who thinks he is separate can never escape the truth of his nature. One is either connected by choice or connected despite himself.

Finally, the kingdom of God, with its entrance (our internal Jesus/door connection,) is connected to yet another concept. That new concept, found in verse 30, is 'the world to come.' The disciples had forsaken all to follow Jesus, hoping to be a part of the kingdom of God. We must ask, are the kingdom of God and the world to come the same thing?

We may not say so with any certainty. The reward associated with the world to come is “life everlasting.” What is that exactly? Is it the same thing as life eternal? One synonym for the word everlasting is the word perpetual. The definition of the word perpetual is this: 'occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted.'

What if the world to come is but another round of the perpetual life/death cycle?

Certainly, even those who have forsaken all hope for more from the kingdom of God. What is the kingdom of God – really?

Matthew 12:28, “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.”

The good rewards that the disciples hoped to receive from the kingdom of God, Jesus claimed they would receive in this present world. Luke 18:29-30, “There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time.”

Just saying . . .

There Was A Tree In Jericho:

To those of you who actually read what I write, you know my posts are, at times, quite lengthy. This study of Luke 19: 1-4 may turn out to be short.

Think of the movies you've seen about Jesus. Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus walking with his disciples, Jesus teaching and walking through cities, feeding the thousands on a country hillside, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

Many depictions, such as this image from the movie J.C. Superstar, place Jesus in a treeless setting such as a barren desert.

Where are the trees?

This study of Luke 19: 1-4 shows Jesus inside the city limits of Jericho. Along the city street he walked, he and his disciples and the pressing throng, there was a sycamore tree, a tree that grows rather large. It was high enough for a man, who could not see Jesus for the press, to climb and see Jesus above the heads of the crowd.

It is my belief that there was an abundance of trees in Jesus' day. They were everywhere.

Had they used them all up, which some Hollywood movies suggest, they would have gone down the same road as the people of Easter Island.

Wood was a commodity of everyday use. It was useful in the preparation of daily meals for tens of thousands of people. It was used in construction. It was a food source. It was used daily in temple sacrifices. In the yearly Festival of Booths, palm covered booths and tabernacles were erected in a week-long celebration of the tabernacle Moses carried through the wilderness.

I am reminded of the triumphal entry. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey's colt. Thousands welcomed him, ripping branches from palm trees to lay on the road before him.

You might see the token palm in one of the movies, and you might see multiple trees in scenes of the garden prayer and betrayal â&#x20AC;&#x201C; otherwise, depiction of trees in the Holy Land is pretty skimpy.

Finally, let's jump back in time and think of Moses leading his people through the wilderness for forty years. Think of the logistics. How many people walked through the wilderness for forty Years? How many people needed to cook their daily meals? How many animals needed to be stalled and fed? How many fires had to be built for the sacrifices? Have you ever seen a movie about Moses where the landscape was filled with trees?

Accusation, Confession, and Judgment:

We turn our attention to Luke 19:7-10. Zacchaeus, a tax collector for Rome, was called by name. Jesus called him down from the sycamore tree and told him he would eat with him. Zacchaeus hosted Jesus and at least some of his troop that day. Jesus had not been invited; Zacchaeus had been invited. That was the decision of the Son of God. It was a savior's decision.

In verse ten, Jesus said plainly and publicly for all to hear, “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

The part about being lost – that was past tense. It had already happened. The part about seeking and saving was present tense. It was the ongoing mission of the Son of man. The fall of man, his sinful nature, his need for redemption – all were concepts widely known and believed. Nothing about those concepts was foreign to the people standing around at the time.

Jesus said what he said for a pointed reason. Zacchaeus was not the only one standing there who was lost. He was an example of being lost, an example of the need for salvation, an example of God's grace.

The people had complained, they stood there and accused Zacchaeus of being a sinner.

Sinners accusing sinners obviously ticked Jesus off. We can be so dense sometimes. And it wasn't just a few ornery individuals pointing the finger. Verse seven goes like this: “And when they saw it, they all murmured . . .”

Who, exactly, were 'they'? The people who had come to town with Jesus? Had he not traveled the country healing their diseases and forgiving their sins? His disciples? Had he not taught them better? Townfolk? Could they really be so grudging?

It was Jewish nature that accused. The national concept of a savior was bent around the hope that someone would save them from Rome. Rome was despised. Romans were despised. Anyone who sold out to Rome was despised. Was Zacchaeus a sinner because he collected taxes for the Romans? The Jewish consensus was a resounding 'Yes!' The bruised and burdened Jewish heart accused anyone who worked against the Jewish state. Jewish equaled good, Roman equaled bad. Law of God equaled good, law of Rome equaled bad. It was a natural reaction for that day and age.

While those around Jesus spoke ill of Zacchaeus, murmuring, accusing, Zacchaeus, on the other hand, made confession. In the spirit of making things right, he confessed to Jesus that either he would make things right, or was already in the process of making things right.

He said this in verse eight, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.”

The Hebrew law, found in Exodus 22, deals with the restoration of lost goods and requires a twofold, fourfold, or fivefold restoration.

To a son of Abraham, charity is a fundamental way of life. Jewish law requires an individual to give one tenth of his substance to the poor. “Tzedakah” is the Jewish word for charity. It is taken from the root “Tzadei-Dalet-Qof ” which translates as righteousness, justice or fairness.

A good article on this topic may be found here: http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm Zacchaeus worked for the Romans, but he was a fair and a just man who obeyed the laws of God. In everything we read about the man in these verses, we see a desire toward God and his laws. Zacchaeus had such a desire to see Jesus, who he unreservedly called Lord, that he climbed a tree, and when called down, “He made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully,” verse six.

Jesus judged the situation and the man in verse 9, “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.” Inasmuch as Zacchaeus was a son of Abraham no less than those who accused him of sin, and since it was the Son of man's ongoing mission to seek and save such sons of Abraham, Jesus clearly displayed the type of spirit in a man that is right with God and God's law.

Recognition and Title:

In Luke 19:39, Jesus is addressed as 'Master'. Christians, these days, see absolutely nothing odd about this. What I wish to point out is who, exactly, called him Master. In the multitude that crowded around Jesus, as he made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and positioned close enough to speak with Jesus, were Pharisees. It was they who called Jesus by the title of Master.

Pharisees were themselves, in their own station, addressed as Master. This instance was a case of Masters calling Jesus by the same title. It was a case of positive recognition of the station and title of a peer.

Jesus was more than a wannabe in their eyes; the Pharisees knew Jesus for who he was.

He was much more than some country-bumpkin upstart with twelve disciples. According to verse 37 of this section of scripture, Jesus was attended by “the whole multitude of the disciples.” Everyone who followed Jesus was a disciple – and Jesus had quite a large following. The Pharisees were part of that multitude, part of that following.

One has to ask, why did the Pharisees always follow Jesus? You would think, if they were there only to harrass and lay traps, the twelve, being closest, would set a perimeter, do some crowd control. That was the case for many among the press, but not so for the Pharisees. They were always close to Jesus.

Since I approach this as evidence of authoritative recognition of the station and title of Jesus in a social setting, I wish to address how many times, in the New Testament, the title of Master was applied. Master is the interpretation of both 'Rabbi' and 'Rabboni'.

In Matthew 8:19, a scribe addressed Jesus as Master. In Matthew 9:11, Pharisees addressed Jesus as Master. In Matthew 10:24-25, Jesus referred to himself as master. In Matthew 12:38, both scribes and Pharisees addressed Jesus as Master. In Matthew 17: 24, tribute collectors referred to him, in speaking to Peter, as “your master.” In Matthew 19:16, a young man with great possessions called Jesus “Good Master.” In Matthew 22:16, disciples of the Pharisees, and the Herodians, addressed Jesus as Master.

It is interesting that both Jesus and the Pharisees had disciples. It seems that having disciples was a standard practice of the Pharisees.

In Matthew 22:24, it was the Sadducees who addressed Jesus as Master. In Matthew 22:36, a Pharisee lawyer addressed Jesus as Master. In Matthew 23:8, Jesus said this about himself, “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” He said pretty much the same thing in verse 10, “for one is your Master, even Christ.” In Matthew 26:18, Jesus called himself by the title of Master. In Matthew 26:25, he was called Master by the disciple Judas. Again, Judas said, “Hail, master;” when he betrayed Christ.

Jesus is called by the recognized title of Master fifteen times in Mark, twentytwo times in Luke, and eight times in John. Altogether, in the New Testament, Jesus is addressed by the official title of Master some fiftynine times.

Such a number places one far above the upstart level. Pharisees were also referred to by the title of Master. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, he asked him this in John 3:10, “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”

I am convinced that Jesus had an official status among the religious leaders, and that his peers recognized that fact every time they addressed him by the title of Master.

Interestingly, John the Baptist, Jesus' close cousin, was also addressed as 'Master' in Luke 3:12. Here is what I wish to note in closing, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and lawyers were all masters of Israel. The title of 'Master' and the title of 'Rabbi' are one and the same. 'Master' is a bona-fide title. All of them, being addressed by the title of Master – whether Pharisee, John, or Jesus – all of them, I say again, had disciples. It was a standard practice for all titled religious leaders.

Balance Between the World and the Spirit:

Seekers of truth always dig deeper than the rest. We look, now, at Luke 20:25 as if viewing two layers – a worldly, or common, layer and a spiritual, or refined layer. Like everyone else, we see what is on the surface of things, although we are rarely inclined to take things at face-value. We see both where we are and where we should be.

If I said to you, “I am off to a good start,” my comment is only a common, face-value, worldly, on-the-surface-of-things statement. However, what I have not said, also makes a statement. To be off to a good start is a place and a condition that is equal to not yet having reached the finish line. Knowledge of the goal is that higher, refined layer.

When we want someone to pay special attention and get a particular point, we say 'listen up'. Up is the key direction. Whenever you see the face-value of something, as in where you are or what you are, you should strive to look beyond that. You should seek the unspoken truth that is above the world.

When Jesus spoke, he wanted people to 'listen up'. His parables were the unspoken truth behind the face of things, above the surface of the world. His message, although it was

couched in worldly illustrations, always pointed away from what a person was or where they were to what they were supposed to be and where they needed to go.

A case in point is Luke 20:25. For the reader, there are two levels to be seen in the statement Jesus made. On the surface of things, Jesus was outwitting the people who were trying to trap him in his words. At face-value, the statement was a clever reply, but the unspoken truth, above the worldly surface of things, was the issue of finding and keeping balance.

Jesus said, in Luke 20:25, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.”

How does one find a balance between the things of the world and the things of the spirit? Indeed, does one even seek said balance? You may notice that in his statement, Jesus used the word 'and' rather than the word 'or'. He did not say don't pay tribute to Rome, nor did he minimalize the importance of faithfulness to God. He said to find the proper balance.

The view on a balance between the world and God, in both Christian and non-Christian thought, is an 'either-or' arrangement. It is not a matter of balance but a restriction of one reality in preference for another reality. All realities are actually one and the same, yet certain people only see what is real through the lens of personal preference.

Some personal preferences restrict the use of musical instruments in worship services.

Some personal preferences restrict modern technology in daily life. Some personal preferences restrict the vocalization of the name of God. For some, prayer only works if you kneel down, or if you lay on your face, or if you fold your hands just so, or if you finger some beads. Some men can't be spiritual without a beard; some women must wear uncomfortable clothing and head coverings to be what they think they should be – or worse, to be what others think they should be.

The Christian can't seem to shake the inclination that in order to give God his due, he or she must restrict the normal realities of life. It is a restrictive state of mind that empties life of TVs and radios, and games, and computers – as if reality opposes itself -- as if God did not place or allow all these things in life.

As if it was not bad enough that the Christian can't find balance between his worldly reality and his spiritual reality, the Non-Christian comes along and bashes him with such accusations as 'you can't be a Christian if you smoke', or 'you can't be a Christian if you drink', or 'you can't be a Christian and have sex, too'. So, why can't a Catholic monk, or a nun marry and have children – how does that decrease their faith or devotion to God?

A balance between the world and God is a balance between the outer man and inner man. 'Either-or' is an impractical mindset. There is a balance to be found, and to the Christian, the Bible has this advice in regard to the 'either-or' approach to truth and spirituality, in the following NIV translation of Ecclesiastes 7:16-18.

“Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise – why destroy yourself? Do not be

overwicked, and do not be a fool – why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.”

Two Worlds, Two Types:

Luke 20:34-36 presents Jesus' answer to a complicated question meant to trap him in religious technicalities. See below.

“The children of this world marry and are given in marriage: But they which shall be

accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

This is how his answer breaks down: Two opposing types: This world and that world – one already obtained, the other to be obtained.

Those who are or are not given and those who do or don't receive the given in marriage.

Of the higher type (accounted worthy): The children of the resurrection are equal to the children of God. The children of God are equal to the angels – who are no longer bound to the wheel of life and death.

The fact that they do not die “any more” signifies that they used to regularly die 'again'.

Whereas they were, upon a time, associated both with life and death, the worthy will have their association to death removed.

That the worthy neither marry nor are given in marriage in no way signifies a situation indicative of “that” other world. It may well be that the non-marrying type, who are accounted worthy of the other world, are simply the type who refrain from marriage in this present world. In regard to this consideration, I remind the reader of the 144,000 virgins found in Revelation 14:4.

“These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they

which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. ” If there is a transition from opposing types, it is not necessarily to be found in aspects associated with this present world. The book of revelation seems only to indicate virgin men, but a transition that follows the pattern of 'worldly to spiritual' may mean a new spirit in women that is equal to the spirit in men.

Is 'that' world a wholly different physical world from “this' world? Consider this question with due diligence. If you took the time to research the word 'world', you would find this list of synonyms: everyone, everybody, people, mankind, humankind, society, humanity, sphere, arena, milieu, province, domain, and discipline. Obviously, a world is more than a physical location.

We have obtained a world that is a physical location, a solid rock speeding through a solid void. The cold vacuum of space is not so empty. The ethereal and invisible nature of spirituality, by the same token, may be more inhabited than previously established.

Think about it. Man, as a living thinking soul, could not inhabit this rock called Earth without an appropriate vehicle. The physical body perfectly matches the need, but alas, the body is bound to the cycle of life and death.

Likewise, a soul may not inhabit a world associated with eternal life without an appropriate vehicle. To obtain the necessary vehicle is to obtain the domain. The discipline of immortal angels frequents this physical world, but not as men do. And yet, Biblical accounts of angels depict them as men – as man-like yet untethered to death. In short, an opportunity has been presented to the children of men, an opportunity for an upgrade that is neither physical nor worldly.

The Apostolic Type:

From generation to generation, the Apostolic type carries forward with each conversion to faithful dedication. Are you the type? If you are, then every teaching, every warning that Christ ever made to his disciples is equally applicable to you.

I want to approach two specific verses from Luke 21 – verse 15 and verse 19. In his warnings of the future to come, Christ painted a clear picture of the people he addressed.

From verse 15, we get the point that the disciples and apostles, so warned of a dire fate, are in fact spiritually enhanced individuals. Jesus told them, “I will give you a mouth and wisdom” that will be essentially irresistible. It will be a wisdom in spoken word that the unenhanced will find compelling if not overpowering.

Now, the unenhanced believe they too have wisdom. They rest in their science of bare facts and figures, of math and measurements, of empirical physical evidence as set apart from the purely spiritual and mental aspects of reason and logic. Yet, it is the mental, that is to say, the spiritual, aspects of reason and logic that the apostolic type shall be enhanced with.

Sadly, the mouth and wisdom that will enhance many, is no guarantee of individual success. Just the opposite, in fact, as the outsmarted and outwitted will find avenues to persecute the righteous through lies if not through laws.

I have expressed in earlier works how wisdom is the trump card that beats book smarts.

First, comes knowledge – that is the basic level. The next level up from knowledge is understanding. Many people have knowledge, yet fail to attain understanding. The top

level is wisdom, trumping both knowledge and understanding. The enhancement given to the Apostolic type is a thing not guaranteed to academics even after years of study.

The enhancement is no mere fact or list of trivial information that an individual may trot out. Rather, it is the very nature of the Godly spirit placed in each and every man. In some of us, the tap is turned on and the water flows. In certain others, the tap is tightly closed. Some go so far as to remove the handle entirely. It is a choice and a followed path that leads to the enhancement. As I am want to say, this particular path is only open to those who are open to this particular path.

The enhancement is not meant for a peaceful life, but for a life embroiled in worldly woe. It is the perfect counterpart to the worldly mindset, ensuring that the truth and authority of God are present in every age. Our type may be assured of resistance if not outright persecution. We are called upon to persevere.

Many people cannot fathom the leap from worldly to spiritual. There is a worldly, a national Israel found in the nation of Israel and in the religion of Judaism. There is a spiritual Israel found in the Christian faith and in the walk of the apostolic. There is a spiritual individual and mindset which is an upgrade from the worldly mindset. That being said, the truth of the matter is that the worldly mindset is that same spiritual mindset, but with the tap tightly closed and the handle removed.

Man is a hybrid. He is half physical and half spiritual. All spirit is God, whether it is rightly used by some or wrongly used by others. The worldly mindset cuts its own spiritual legs off for the sake of willful independence. The worldly mindset, for all its science and measurements, is a crippled creature of disfigured proportions. Man has sought separation from God so desperately that he uses the word 'soul' to reference the spiritual aspect of himself that he has sought to be rid of.

From the beginning, the word 'soul' was a word that pointed to the hybrid nature of man.

We have this usage found in Genesis 1:7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” It has to be said; it must be understood and known with all surety that man “became” a living soul. Man was man before the spirit was introduced. God is spirit; God is life itself and truth, truth being everything that actually is.

The breath of life is the spirit of God. A soul, then, is exactly the combination of those two elements – physical man, of the dust of the ground, with the additive of the spirit of God, equals the hybrid of the living soul.

And so, I come to the second verse in Luke 21 that details the clear portrait of the Apostolic type. We get this from Luke 21:19, “In your patience possess ye your souls.”

That is the same thing as saying, 'persevere in body and mind' except for the curious

connotation of the word “possess.” A host is 'possessed' by something or someone other than the host. Here, I am thinking that the hybrid (body plus spirit) is possessed by the enhancement.

In the Apostolic type, the whole persona of the living soul is possessed and redirected by the persona of Christ. Christ is God in man; Christ in man is still God in man. As we know, Christ very effectively dealt with all naysayers, leaving them unable to respond to the wisdom in his words. We also know that his spiritual wisdom, received from God, was perceived as a threat by the worldly mindset.

Point-Counterpoint:

Luke 21:22-32 is the focus of this study. We are still within the parameters of the end of the world as described by Jesus. The warnings are still directed toward the Apostolic who adhere to the instructions of Christ and the laws of God. We take this point from verse 22: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” What is he talking about? He is talking about a sign of the times. The sign is Jerusalem compassed with armies. The admonition is to flee from and avoid the city at all cost. Seeing this sign means one thing in particular, namely that “the desolation thereof” is near.

At this point in the study, we should have three questions. The first question is, 'the vengeance of who'? The second question is, why don't I know 'all the things that are written' about this important event? As a sign of the times, finally, what kind of event are we really considering?

The sign is a generational event. By that, I mean that the event is intended for a particular generation of the chosen. The event is vengeance against the godly. It is an evil perpetrated by the peoples and nations of the world. Much is written about this animosity the worldly have against the chosen people of God. Of things written, there is a starting point, and it is found in John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the

lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

The natural continuation of the starting point may be found in Matthew 21:38, “But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.” It works outward in layers from the starting point, like ripples in a lake when a stone disturbs the still surface. The next layer reaches the faithful servants of the master. This comes from John 15:20, “Remember the word that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep your also.”

The ripples reach as far into the future as those who have kept the sayings of the original disciples. This we find in Luke 21:23 and 24, “But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

The ripples reach all of us. We are the same in our persecutions as the original apostles who became martyrs. We are the same as the Israelites of 70 AD. We are in the same boat as the master, and we carry our cross in no less real terms. It is a generational thing, and what must be understood about a generation is its perpetuity.

When in Luke 21:32, Christ said, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled,” he included with himself, the worldly Israel (the chosen people of God through the law), the apostles who bridged the gap, and the spiritual Israel (the chosen people of God through faith.) We are, all of us, “This generation.”

Within the parameters of 'this generation', the “times of the Gentiles” wax and wane.

They are the counterpoint to the times of the chosen. The end time of the Gentiles harbors great evils for the chosen – count on it. We see it coming in Luke 21:25 and 26, “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations,” (all of these occurring in the same end time of the Gentiles) “with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”

It is indeed bad news that the powers of heaven shall be shaken, but they are shaken in the time of the Gentiles, which is never a permanent condition. That time alternates with the time of the chosen, in which the powers of heaven grow strong and stronger still. All of the times are like a pendulum swinging back and forth, and if the coming time of the Gentiles is the last, then there is good news among the bad.

We know, even in the beginning of bad times; we look ahead and see clearly. The pendulum will swing again – one last time. Jesus said this in Luke 21:28, “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” At the end of the last time of the Gentiles, this will happen, as foretold by the son of God in Luke 21:27, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.”

'They' refers to the Gentiles; we already see him.

Look to Yourselves:

Luke 21:34-36 says it – no one is responsible for you but you. Each of us is responsible to look to him or herself – to try hard and succeed or do nothing and fail. These verses are no parable with hidden meanings, they are plain words from the very Son of God. He says this to all of us: “And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.”

A modern English translation goes like this: 'Pay careful attention to yourselves, in order to avoid a mindset that exaggerates the importance of being satisfied, of overindulgence, or undue attachment to the things of this temporary life, insomuch that you become unaware of your own doom.'

Nobody is going to do it for you – you are on your own.

This is what the very Son of God said about the coming day of judgment: “For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.” In other words, no one will be exempt from that day. If you think your salvation exempts you, think again.

Christ has this to say to those who think that way: “Watch ye therefore, and pray always,

that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

Said another way, 'All these things will definitely happen. If you want to escape them and stand before the Son of man, you must make sure you are worth it.' Prayer and vigilance are your only ticket.

The “snare” of those final times will catch people doing what they always do. Why do animal snares baited with food catch animals? It is because their very animal nature will not pass an opportunity to eat.

What is the nature of man? Even the religious share that human nature. We are conditioned to think along the lines of human nature. We go to church for an hour on Sunday, but we run home to watch the game on TV. We want a new car. When it comes to spending our hard-earned cash, we are very concerned that we get all our money can buy, and no skimping on quality – that will just not do.

Paying our bills occupies our thoughts. Going to the theater for a new movie, or eating out, or unwinding at a bar – these are the mousy little thing that will get us ensnared. We want our fair share. Some of us want more than our fair share. God forbid that anyone should stand between us and the things we try so hard to obtain.

History proves human nature, even among the religious, is all too willing to war and kill for the things it thinks it deserves. Look at all the protests and terrorism in our present day – how quickly willing people resort to violence over matters that are actually quite meaningless.

Anyone who really desires not to be caught in the snare must work especially hard not to be swept along in the tide of human nature. When the ship comes in, will you have a ticket, or will you be a part of the raging tidal beast racing toward that tiny piece of cheese – and personal doom?

The Thing About Leaders:

Let's talk about Judas for a moment, and I take this from Luke 22:1-6. Judas was one of the twelve. When the twelve were sent out two by two to preach and heal, Judas was one of them. In the power of Christ, he healed the sick and preached the good news.

Judas was not always bad. He believed in God and the kingdom and the law. He was a zealous Jew with high hopes – and possibly, he was also a zealot like Simon Zealotes.

So, what is it that we see in Judas? My answer is dashed hopes and shifting allegiances.

It is in Luke 22:3 that we find this information about Judas, “Then” (note the importance of the word 'then') “entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. ” Judas changed. Did everything change about Judas? No. Judas, perhaps in the mindset of fellow-apostle Simon Zealotes, decided that Jesus was not going to do anything about Rome as hoped.

After all, the hoped for Messiah was supposed to be a liberator of the Jewish people and a king of the Davidic line. If there was to be a Jewish king, there was no room for Rome.

Rome had to be removed – and that is exactly what people looked for in a savior.

The thinking might have been that if Jesus was not going to remove Rome, he stood in the way of those who would.

When your hoped for Messiah fails your expectations, what power do you fall back on?

Shifting alliances. For a Jew like Judas, that would have been the Sanhedrin. They were the religious leaders of Israel established by the commands of God. If Judas, who seemed to walk freely among them, was at all influenced by the concerns of the Sanhedrin, then Jesus not only stood in the way but actually made the Roman problem worse.

Speaking of leaders, these verses in Luke paint a clear picture of the very nature of leaders in general. The arrangement between the Sanhedrin and Judas stipulated that Judas was to find a way and a place for them to arrest Jesus, as verse six states, “in the absence of the multitude.”

Why was this the arrangement? We find the answer to this question in verse two. The leaders “feared the people.” One does not have to go far to see parallels in other leaders.

In our present day, we see leaders who redirect manpower, resources, and authority in efforts to keep the people from panicking or rioting. The bald fact is that leaders fear the people.

The Sanhedrin wished to kill Jesus – and quite frankly, that does not seem very holy or righteous for representatives of God. The question has to be asked, was Judas of the same mind? Many will say no. The very fact of his suicidal remorse suggests that he

only sought to have Jesus arrested and placed on the sidelines. Judas may have been less complicit in the murderous intent of the leaders than in the plans of the zealots.

An array of motives have been attributed to Judas. Some suggest he was in cahoots with Jesus to achieve the crucifixion that would effect the salvation of man. Some suggest Judas came to the conclusion that Jesus was not the answer to the Roman dilemma.

Whatever his motives for betrayal were, I think they were not to see Jesus killed.

Yet, two matters place Judas in the league of leaders. One was his familiarity with the leaders. Two was his service for hire. Had he worked for them before? Was he a relative of one of the council members? Had they played him, using his passion for Israel against him? We may never really know the answers to these questions.

And then, we must also ask this. Do the motives of the Sanhedrin really matter? To be concise, it all boils down to three facts. Judas betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin, who wanted him dead, and had they not feared the people, they would not have manipulated laws in a mockery of trial but would have murdered him in broad daylight.

This Do In Remembrance Of Me:

Luke 22:7-20 describes the last supper up to the cup after the meal. Sunday school will teach you this is the broken body of Christ and the new testament in his blood. They get that from the text; it was, after all, what Jesus told his disciples.

Many people look at the last supper without consideration for the fact that the last supper was the Passover. Many people read what Jesus said in verses nineteen and twenty, about his body and his blood, without a thought for the many things he did not say.

Jesus asked so little for himself, but he did ask this one thing in verse nineteen. He asked of them, and of us, to â&#x20AC;&#x153;do this in remembrance of me.â&#x20AC;? He did not ask us to sculpt statues or paint pictures of him. He did not ask to have additional holidays instituted on his behalf. He asked one thing only â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that the Passover be observed.

The Passover was and is a celebration of deliverance. It was observed, unchanged, from the time of Moses to the time of Jesus. It was the same every year. An unblemished lamb was slain and eaten. The blood of the lamb was applied to the delivered and was the sign by which they were spared from the penalty of death.

What we must notice about the last supper is that it was not described as containing a lamb. The main fair was bread and wine. There was an obvious shift in symbolism; Christ became the lamb. He became the sign through which men are to be spared the penalty of death. Yes, instead of death, those to whom his blood is applied are to find deliverance and new life.

His suffering was foreshadowed in the symbol of the Passover bread while his blood was foreshadowed in the symbol of the Passover wine – produced via crushing. The symbols did not commence in the last supper, but were existent in the preceding appellations: 'bread of life' and 'true vine'.

If therefore, the Lamb of God took on the symbols of bread and wine, it behooves the seeker to know just how these items figured into the Passover.

The Matzah, or unleavened bread, was central to the meal as not everyone was able to eat lamb. The matzah was also known as the 'bread of affliction' and was meant to represent a life without sin. The Passover meal, as I understand it, contained a stack of unleavened bread (at least three) each separated from the other by a napkin. The middle loaf was the one to be 'broken' at the meal. One might easily see the significance of the middle loaf in a stack of three as an indicator of Jesus' order in the Trinity.

I have taken information from https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-isthe-meaning-of-the-passover-foods/ and recommend you read the full article. This what the article says about the unleavened bread: “The most significant part of the Seder meal occurs when the Yachatz is picked up after the Karpas (parsley dipped in salt water) is eaten. The Yachatz is a single pouch containing three Matzah. The single pouch symbolizes unity. The middle Matzah is then removed, broken in half, and wrapped in a cloth. This is called the Afikomen. Jewish tradition says that the three Matzahs represent the Jewish people, the priests, the Levities, and the people. Jewish tradition does not know why the middle Matzah is broken. They do not know when this part of the Seder was established. However, for Christians the symbolism is obvious. The Yachatz represents our one and only God and the three Matzah represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The breaking of the middle Matzah symbolizes the punishment and death of Jesus Christ. It is important to note that Matzah is stripped and has holes. Onehalf of this broken Matzah is then wrapped and put away until just before the third cup.

This symbolizes Jesus’ burial and resurrection on the third day. The Passover Seder is a

great reminder of what Jesus Christ did for all of us. We can be delivered from the bondage of sin when we believe in Jesus Christ and ask Him to forgive our sins. ” The cup of wine mentioned in Luke 22:20 was the final of four cups throughout the meal. The article goes on to list them in this manner: Cup of Sanctification. It symbolized Israel’s deliverance from being under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Cup of Deliverance. It symbolized Israel’s deliverance from their bondage.

Cup of Redemption. It symbolized God’s promise to redeem Israel from with an outstretched arm.

Cup of Praise. It symbolized the fact that God took the Israelites to be His people.

As to whether Jesus drank alcoholic wine or grape juice, that is still hotly debated.

Psalm 104:15 seems to reference alcoholic wine when it states, “And wine that maketh glad the heart of man,” but one must know that natural wine back in those times only reached an alcoholic state of three to four percent. His adversaries also accused Jesus of being a winebibber, which would also suggest an alcoholic content.

However, as concerns the Passover, there is a contention that since they had no leaven in the bread, they would have no leaven in the wine. The natural fermentation of wine in those times was accomplished only from the sugars in the grape. No leaven was added.

It is supposed that that new wine was grape juice only, but there is no indication that new wine was fresh from the vat or no more than a day old. There are words from the original texts of Greek and Aramaic that support wine as unfermented juice. Let the reader judge for him or herself.

The Passover significance of the bread and the wine are clear enough. Jesus asked that we eat the Passover bread of affliction and life and drink the Passover wine of praise with him in mind. He was the lamb of God; his body was the middle loaf of matzah, broken on the cross. His blood was the new testament poured out to release us from the penalty of death. Thus, we belong to Christ and to God. We are given a kingdom by Christ as Christ was given a kingdom by God. It is a Passover of spiritual symbols that brings us to our promised land. Jesus asks that we partake of this spiritual Passover in remembrance of him.

One Verse – 28:

In this study, I want to deal with one verse only and one thought. Luke 22:28 has Jesus telling his disciples this, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.”

He said that to all twelve of his disciples, even the one who betrayed him. As far as we know, they were the only ones present at the last supper.

The statement is enigmatic and stands without support from other verses. What could Jesus have possibly referred to by the expression “my temptations?” Obviously, it was an ongoing issue. If the disciples had “continued” with Jesus in this regard, they were always with Jesus when Jesus was tempted. They knew each one of the temptations.

That fact alone opens to us the possibility that at least some of the disciples were present when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. They witnessed Jesus fasting for forty days. As we know, that temptation was written down – but where are the rest of the temptations?

Some of you reading this may recall a movie titled 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. My point in this is that temptations are real and must be dealt with in real ways. We must know for certain how the word was used by Jesus. If, for example, Jesus referred to something as a temptation in a purely euphemistic sense – well, that changes everything.

Synonyms for the word euphemistic include 'mild', 'understated', 'indirect', 'neutral', 'evasive', 'diplomatic', 'inoffensive', and 'polite'. If Jesus used the word 'temptations' as a substitute for another concept, that makes for a needle-in-a-haystack scenario for those of us seeking the truth.

On the other hand, if Jesus lived a life in which he daily overcame some temptation or other, why did not the writers of the gospels present us with these temptations? Why did they not name them and show us just how Jesus won each battle? It is possible, of course, that time, itself, has altered the direction from which we approach the word.

What if, originally, ( by which I include culturally-inclusive applications) the word implied a test or particular objective rather than the daily failings of human nature?

Here, I am thinking along the lines of the twelve labors of Hercules â&#x20AC;&#x201C; feats so difficult as to seem impossible. Surely, raising the dead, rising from the dead, walking on water, and such other similar exploits would qualify in this regard. One has to acknowledge that since there was a perpetual fame associated with the actions of Jesus, there must be a real reason for the fame.

It cannot be chalked up to the simplicity of uneducated peasants. I am pretty well educated, but I have to say, if I saw someone raise the dead or cure uncurable diseases with just a touch and a word, I too would be just as amazed. To see the things that Jesus did â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that would astound anyone.

No one denied the things he did, not even his enemies in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees did not deny the impossible things he accomplished. Sadducees did not deny his amazing feats. Rulers did not refute his deeds or fame. In all, the only thing that his enemies did in that regard was to suggest he performed his mind-blowing feats by a power other than God. When we look at the impossible things that Jesus was able to accomplish, how far can we take the list? How about a fish with a coin in its mouth? How about walking through a mob intent on stoning him? How about holding a conversation with Moses and Elijah?

How about feeding thousands with next to nothing? How about calming the storm?

Admittedly, Jesus did amazing things. Were these 'labors' to be accomplished? Such things are easy to see, but are there other labors that might pass us unnoticed? How about changing the mind of a mob intent on obeying the law by stoning a woman caught in adultery? That mindset was self-justifying, not to mention sanctioned in written law.

Such men could stone sinners with one hand tied behind their backs. They probably dreamed about stoning sinners.

We may also view the verbal battles Jesus won against the religious authorities in the sight of vast crowds as labors of a sort. If these were the temptations, they were indeed presented by the gospel writers. They are clearly, plainly and adequately presented.

Two Verses – 29 and 30:

These two verses speak of a kingdom given. We will investigate the nature of this kingdom. We will examine the extended kingdom to know if it is the same as the original or different. These are the verses from the King James version of the Bible: “And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may

eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

In the first place, God has a kingdom and sits on a throne. We ask, what kind of king are we talking about, and what type of kingdom does this kind of king have? Jesus gave us the answer to the first half of this question. In John 4:24, Jesus informs us that, “God is a spirit.” It stands to reason that a spiritual God has a spiritual kingdom. That kingdom includes the very solid and corporeal reality we all know so well.

It has always been difficult to reconcile the spiritual and corporeal realities. Jesus said this about the two realities in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” On the surface of things, that leads reason to assume that the two realities are separate. We inquire here if anything or anyone can be spiritual and corporeal at the same time.

There is a dawning awareness of truth. It stands as such: a spiritual God has an only begotten son, but that son is a man. Here, we study the nature of that corporeal being.

We find an answer to our seeking in Matthew 1:20, “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

See the above quote from Jesus in John 3:6, “ . . . that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Now, the developing awareness of truth stands as such: a spiritual God had an only begotten son who was both spiritual and corporeal. He was born of the flesh,

therefore he was flesh. He was born of the Spirit, therefore he was spirit. It was to this hybrid spirit/flesh son that the Father appointed a kingdom. Now we have to ask, what was the nature of the appointed kingdom?

Was it a hybrid Kingdom? Well, of course, it was. The Father's spiritual kingdom included the world and everything in it. Why should not the Son's kingdom be the same?

It appears that the spiritual and corporeal realities are joined at the hip, or they are joined in an eternal dance in which the Spirit leads. The worldly concept of Yin and Yang is that of opposites bound eternally in the union wholeness – in other words, the opposites are not two, but one.

So Jesus was appointed a kingdom. Are there similarities to the kingdom he appoints his disciples? Jesus said, “I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;” There is an apparent similarity. The kingdom is an extension, and it was appointed the disciples by Jesus just as it was appointed Jesus by God, “that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom . . .”

The kingdom of Christ is in and is a part of, the kingdom of God. Please refer to the following Biblical verses: Matthew 26:64, Mark 16:19, Hebrews 10:12, and 1Peter 3:22.

Christ is on the right hand of God in God's kingdom; the disciples are on the right hand of Christ in Christ's kingdom.

The kingdoms are not separate kingdoms. The disciples do not travel from a separate kingdom to the kingdom of Christ to eat and drink at his table in his kingdom. The kingdoms are all joined. The kingdoms are one kingdom, and while they are spiritual and spiritually governed, they include our corporeal world with its diminutive worldly kingdoms of man.

From their appointed kingdom, which is part of the kingdom appointed to Christ, which in turn is part of the bigger picture of the kingdom of God, these spiritual/fleshly disciples, (after the manner of Christ, who was both of the Spirit and of the flesh) will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. There are questions we must ask at this point.

First and foremost is this: are the tribes of Israel both spiritual and worldly? Do the disciples each represent one of the tribes, either literally or spiritually? Have the tribes evolved into something greater than tribes – such as nations or nationalities? Are all of them even still around; weren't ten of the tribes altogether lost – or did they, rather, merge with, and ultimately become one with other ethnicities? Finally, could the twelve tribes be twelve types of spiritually evolved humans? So much to think about.

In closing, let me just answer the fourth question with a verse from the book of Acts.

Paul said to king Agrippa in Acts 26:6-7, “And now I stand and am judged for the hope

of the promise made of God unto our fathers; Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.”

And again, from James 1:1, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

Obviously, to the those in the know back in the day, all twelve tribes still existed. Ten tribes did not disappear from the face of the earth, neither must they be reinvented. In a hybrid kingdom that is part of the bigger kingdom of God, which must always include the corporeal with the spiritual, twelve men born of the Spirit, will be responsible for the twelve tribes of Israel. These twelve tribes, or nations, may be both corporeal and spiritual. How will they be judged? I looked up the meaning to the word judge and found that, among the ordinary synonyms, the word judge has one interesting and telling synonym that I wish the reader to consider – that synonym for the word judge is the word 'gather'.

Who Was Peter?

We think we know him. The lead disciple, a fisherman known as one of the sons of thunder. Instrumental in the formation of the early church, he was a man both passionate and fallible. But, do we really know him? True to our very human nature, we assume; we jump to conclusions. Rarely do we stop to consider what it is we think we know.

This study comes from Luke 22: 31-32. In verse 31, Jesus said something to Peter that he had, in all likelihood, not stopped to consider. Jesus said, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:” I ask, how might Peter have been 'sifted' had Satan got his wish? What is the thing about sifting? It is a process by which the whole has those parts removed that are most important to the sifter. The remainder is discarded or otherwise negated.

What we see in this is that Peter, the man we thought we knew, had within his nature a mixed bag of characteristics. Some things about Peter were for Jesus, some things for

the devil. To know that Peter had such a mixed nature is to know that all of us have such a mixed nature. Peter was '50/50' – he could have gone either way.

At this point, human nature adjusts its thinking about Peter, saying, “well, yeah. He was a man.” Such adjustable reasoning serves only to rationalize the assumptions we have already jumped to. If the reader will look above, he or she will notice that the previous assumption about Peter included as much of his future state as it did his present state.

And now, human nature would include new data into its old assumption.

Between the original assumption and the adjusted assumption, the latter is more nearly correct. Should we think that human nature is completely settled in this new, more nearly correct assumption, new sets of data would only garner new adjustments – anything but being proven wrong.

That is a flaw in human nature, a nature that Peter shared. He too was not want to be proven wrong. He thought he was who and where he should be. We are the same. We are comfortable and settled in who and what and where we are – therefore, it is not we that must be adjusted, but the assumption.

Already, we see that what we thought we knew about Peter, and indeed about ourselves, can change in the blink of an eye – can change and yet, somehow, remain the same. We think we are all that, but we are not. We thought Peter was the lead disciple, a mover, and shaker in the early church, a martyr. Peter pretty much thought the same thing.

Jesus followed one startling and disturbing revelation with another. He said to Peter in verse 32, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

New data: Peter, the disciple, the passionate leader of the early church, the humble yet uncompromising martyr – he still needed to be 'converted'. I repeat, he still needed to be converted. Let's take a quick look at the significance of that one word.

The definition goes like this: To modify so as to serve a different function. To turn to another or a particular use or purpose; divert from the original or intended use. To change in character; cause to turn from an evil life to a righteous one. What was Peter's original or intended use – fodder for Satan? When we look at the Peter we think we knew, what do we see – someone who still needed to be converted from evil? Someone who had not yet been converted to righteousness?

What of the rest of us? Are we not in the same boat as Peter? We share the same fallible human nature. All of us jump to conclusions. Even as Peter heard the words of Jesus, he jumped to a conclusion: 'Oh, I'll follow you anywhere, even to the cross'.

Maybe, if we did not make such incomplete assumptions, we would not have to make so many embarrassing adjustments later on.

Saints With Swords:

We are still in the last supper. This study is taken from Luke 22:37-38. The meal is over, and before going to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray, Jesus is found in the upper room speaking to his disciples. In the previous study, we saw that Jesus was speaking to Peter.

He spoke also to the others.

He told them, in verse 37, “the things concerning me have an end.” In a previous study, I had likened some aspects of Jesus' ministry to the labors of Hercules. In other words, those things which Jesus had to accomplish were determined in advance. It was as if he had a list and was checking them off as he went.

Heal ten lepers: check. Walk on water: check. Raise the dead: check. And now here, in his last supper, with his disciples close about him, he tells them, in verse 37, one last item must be accomplished: “And he was reckoned among the transgressors.” Such were the labors of Christ.

But, what kind of men did he hang with? They were transgressors. That was the type; that was their character. They were a rough bunch, a common crew. At least one zealot was a regular member of his inner twelve. Who were the closest associates of Jesus?

There was a doubter, a betrayer, and a fearful denier, just to mention a few. They were ordinary men, not saints.

So, here they were, ordinary men, gathered around their master, sharing a pre-ordeal meal. What kind of men were they? Jesus speaks to them as he always had. Somehow, as was their habit, they missed the point. Jesus had said to them, in verses 35-36, “When I

sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

Did they receive his words intellectually or consider them on a spiritual level? No. Like children, not really understanding, but hoping to please, they took their master's words literally, and looked immediately among themselves for swords. And, guess what – they actually carried swords. They had them with them there at the last supper.

Jesus knew the 'labors' he had to accomplish. He also knew the men he traveled with. He knew his friend Judas would betray him. He knew Thomas would doubt. He knew his most loyal and ardent disciple would ultimately deny him. He knew that Simon was a member of the zealots, a group concerned with the freedom of Israel. Perhaps, Simon was not the only member. They carried weapons.

Being occupied by Rome, I do not imagine they carried them openly. This is an example of Biblical concealed carry. Saints with swords! They carried them from the supper to the garden where we are informed that it was Peter who wielded one of them. He sliced off a man's ear. Pretty Ninja-like for a fisherman.

Jesus knew they carried swords before he said anything. He knew one would be used that very night. He knew the men he chose – every strength and every weakness. What does he know about you?

In The Garden:

I am still in Luke and it is after the last supper when Jesus leaves the upper room and resorts to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. His disciples follow – all but Judas, who shows up later.

In the supper, Jesus was explaining to them that things were coming to an end. The disciples were a state of uncertainty. Perhaps they felt they were being hung out in the wind, left on their own. While they did eat a meal under these circumstances, in all likelihood, the meal was more ceremonial, more of a function, than filling.

In the Luke account, found in chapter twenty-two, Jesus indicates that one of the twelve will betray him. Then, one of them leaves. How did the rest of them not connect the dots? Why did they not recognize Judas as the betrayer and stop him? Perhaps, that was one of the points that weighed heavily on their spirits as they followed Jesus into the garden.

Gethsemane was a garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives. It was a place with old large olive trees in it. Wikipedia gives this account of its location: William M. Thomson, author of The Land and the Book, first published in 1880, wrote: "When I first came to Jerusalem, and for many years afterward, this plot of ground was open to all whenever they chose to come and meditate beneath its very old olive trees.

The Latins, however, have within the last few years succeeded in gaining sole possession, and have built a high wall around it. The Greeks have invented another site a little to the north of it. My own impression is that both are wrong. The position is too near the city, and so close to what must have always been the great thoroughfare eastward, that our Lord would scarcely have selected it for retirement on that dangerous and dismal night. I am inclined to place the garden in the secluded vale several hundred yards to the north-east of the present Gethsemane."

Wikipedia tells us that the Mount of Olives is a mountain ridge east of and adjacent to Jerusalem's Old City. While modern scholarship fails to pinpoint the location of the original garden, another place to which Jesus was known to resort was Bethany. His friend Lazarus lived there. Bethany is identified with the present-day West Bank city of al-Eizariya. Bethany was approximately 1.5 miles east of Jerusalem on the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. The traditional site of the Ascension of Jesus is the Mount of Olives, on which the village of Bethany sits.

In the Garden, it is stated in Luke 22:41, that Jesus was a distance of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;stone's castâ&#x20AC;? from his disciples as he prayed. He could well have been within visual range of the disciples. He might have been within earshot of his disciples. This means that the disciples may have been able to see and hear Jesus while he prayed in the garden.

The Luke account of Jesus' prayer does not seem overly long. That is to say that Jesus' audible prayer may not have lulled them to sleep. The account does state that it was shortly after the prayer ended that Jesus was betrayed. The timeline goes like this: Jesus prayed (however long that was) and returned a short distance to his sleeping disciples.

He wakes them and speaks. In Luke 22:47, at the very moment that he was speaking to his disciples, the multitude showed up to arrest him.

In a broader sense, the timeline boils down to: last meal, trip to garden, prayer, betrayal.

When the disciples awoke, the crowd was upon them. It is said that Jesus prayed earnestly because he was in an agony. I have to ask, how long is earnestly? The account of Jesus' disciples falling asleep is not attributed to them being up all night and into the wee hours of the morning. A different reason is cited.

Could Jesus have prayed for an hour? I can pray for about a half hour before I run out of things to say. After that, I am just repeating myself. When did they finish the last supper?

When did they arrive in the garden, perhaps a mile from the supper location? Was it around seven, eight or nine in the evening? Did Jesus pray until around ten or eleven?

One has no hard evidence upon which to work out the mechanics of the event. The best we can do is to sort of feel our way along the walls of the account as if groping in the dark. We all get a feel for the event when we consider it at length. If Jesus came back from his prayer and was almost immediately arrested, he would not have had time to tell his disciples that an angel showed up to comfort him, or that his sweat was like drops of blood.

The feel is that not all there were asleep. At least part of his prayer was heard and recorded. Someone saw an angel comfort the Lord. Had it been one of the disciples, they would have shaken awake the others to corroborate what they saw. Which of them witnessed the sweating? The disciples had been dealing with finality for hours, they were on overload, and while they 'slept for sorrow', I think that seeing an angel would have kept them awake.

During the death of her father, my wife slept. Sleep helps many to deal with matters that are beyond our control. All of our concern and focus on events can reach a point where there is nothing else the mind can do. Some slept during the prayer in the garden â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they had reached that point. Not all slept. Those who sleep miss the angels.

If all the disciples, minus Judas, was asleep. Who saw the angel? The prayer of Jesus took place in a place frequented by him. It was near to Jerusalem and it was near to Bethany. An account from another gospel places an unknown male in a linen cloth at the scene. Who was he? Did the account of blood-like sweat and a comforting angel come from him?

I have written in another study about the unknown man. I conjectured that it could have been a high-ranking Roman or the rich young ruler. Now, in consideration of the garden's proximity to Bethany, I would venture to include Jesus' friend Lazarus.

Waiting:

Luke 22:54-71 tells a more or less abridged version of the tale after Jesus' arrest.

Without the exact time being specified, it is important that we keep the timeline in mind as we study these verses.

The timeline, in its simplest form, goes like this: the last supper, the trip to the garden, prayer, betrayal, journey to the waiting place, the waiting, the trial. A keen mind may somewhat deduce the approximate time needed for many of these actions. For instance, knowing the approximate location of the garden and the approximate destination after the arrest, one may arrive at a general walking distance between the two.

Even as an old man, I am able to walk three miles in forty-five minutes. The 1.5-mile hike between Bethany and the old Jerusalem would have been a mere fifteen-minute trek. “The hill east of Herod's Palace was known as the Upper City on Mount Zion.

During Herod's reign and in the first century, the Upper City, once more inhabited, was the residential quarter of the Jerusalem aristocracy and priestly families.” We get that from Bible History Online.

The walk from the arrest site to the residential quarters of the upper city was not that far.

If the arrest took place before midnight and the elders gathered as soon as it was day, as we are told in verse 66, then, the waiting by the fire in the midst of the hall took up most of the timeline in the Luke account.

Some sources go on about Jesus being first brought to Annas, then to his son-in-law, Caiaphas. In all likelihood, the whole priestly family of Annas lived in the same residential complex. Wikipedia says this about Annas: “Annas officially served as High Priest for ten years (6–15 A.D.), when at the age of 36 he was deposed by the procurator Gratus. Yet while having been officially removed from office, he remained as one of the

nation's most influential political and social individuals, aided greatly by the use of his five sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas as puppet High Priests.”

Some sources, some based on certain scriptural references, go on about an illegal night trial. The account in Luke may be the more accurate account – at least by my estimation.

Waiting by the fire in the midst of the hall has a more realistic feel. While the chief priests were present at the arrest, the big shots, Annas and Caiaphas, were at home asleep, having delegated all unwanted chores to the lesser dignitaries. Waiting for daylight in the hall of the residential complex shows an appropriate respect to high rank.

So, they light a fire in the hall and just sit quietly and wait. The maids and other servants were grumpy from unexpected extra duty insomuch that one of the maids accused Peter of being Peter. One has to realize that all of the apostles were as daily visible as was Jesus. Peter was just as well known; his face just as familiar. It was Peter that cut off the ear of some poor joker, upon which incident, Jesus promptly healed it. It was no small thing. Somewhere in the hall of the priestly residential complex, there sat around the fire a man who touched his ear and thought, 'Wow!' It begs the question of just how long Peter sat among them before someone said something.

Had Peter tried to disguise himself or did he just sort of sneak in? According to his own claim, he was prepared to follow Jesus into prison and to death. Had he walked boldly in? That Peter originally followed “afar off” does not mean that he totally abandoned his resolve to follow Jesus to the very end. Yet, in the end, that is exactly what he did. He sat in the same gathering in which Jesus sat; they could see each other. Jesus heard every denial.

At last, Jesus turned and looked Peter in the eye. How might we imagine that exchange?

Did Jesus tilt his head in sadness? Did he cock an eyebrow? Was there a message in the eye contact? 'I told you. Maybe now you'll believe me.'

Peter left. Why did no one pursue? They recognized him. Maybe the disciples were not important enough to deal with just then – they could be rounded up later. What about the guy with the ear? Surely he had a grudge.

It was as the night wore on that thing began to click. At first, it was a waiting game.

Then, one by one, the chief priests, the elders, and the captains of the temple decided they would retire until daylight, try to get a little sleep before the trial.

It was in the latter hours, and possibly due to boredom from the long wait, that Jesus' captors began to torment and mock him. Perhaps even the servants had gone back to bed. There were no witnesses. So who recounted the tale? Was it the guy who had a new ear – a new respect for the man. Perhaps Jesus looked him in the eye also. 'Yes, I healed

you. I just picked your ear up from the ground and put it back in place. Remember your ear.' I cannot imagine that man as a willing participant in the mocking of Jesus.

Jesus looked at Peter, and Peter was moved. Jesus perhaps looked at the man with the new ear and perhaps he was moved. Peter felt shame and helpless remorse. Perhaps the man with the healed ear felt awe. Jesus alone knew what he was doing. Everyone else was just sort of hanging out. Now Jesus is looking at you. What do you feel?

Pilate Washed his Hands:

Of course, that is not found in the Luke account; rather, we get that from the book of Matthew. In looking at Luke 23:1-25, we see that Pilate was more than willing to free Jesus. He spoke up in the defense of Jesus. He lobbied for his release. In the Luke account of the trial of Jesus, Pilate acted as his only advocate and champion.

So, let us work back from the point where Pilate should have washed his hands but did not. In verse 25, Pilate finally relented and “delivered Jesus to their will.” 'Their' was comprised solely of the people who brought Jesus to Pilate and who stood as his accusers. More on that later.

Before Pilate relented, he said this in verse 22, “Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.” This was the third time that Pilate stood up for Jesus.

The second occasion of Pilate as the advocate for Jesus' innocence can be found in verse 20, “Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.” Judging by the reactions of the accusers to the appeals put forth by Pilate, said advocacy was no quiet

and casual matter. I can see the Prefect having to raise his voice to be heard over the tumult of the crowd.

The initial instance of Pilate's advocacy for Jesus may be found in verses 14-16, “Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.”

These three instances of advocacy were all accomplished after the return of Jesus from Herod. At that particular time, the celebration of the Passover, Herod, also being a Jew, was in Jerusalem. Herod had actively followed the news of Jesus. He had wanted to meet him for a long time; he wanted to see a miracle with his own eyes. When it was evident that no miracle was forthcoming, Herod and his soldiers mocked Jesus and dressed him in a 'gorgeous' robe and sent him back. The robe was a message. It had a meaning. My thought is that it had a political significance – as of royalty or high rank. It was an in-joke between two rulers that united them against the religious absurdities of Judaism.

The same group of men who led Jesus to Pilate led Jesus to Herod. They stood and accused Jesus to Herod as they had to Pilate. Movies might depict this multitude as a conglomeration of religious elite and common citizens. However, one must know that those in charge are not assailed by the common mob – that is not how it is done. Only those with business are allowed in. The accusers had business, and on that note, we should take a quick look at bureaucracy.

The tempo of the gospel accounts may give us a sense that events happen in quick succession, but it just doesn't happen like that. We are told that Jesus was whisked off to see Pilate – this is shortly after dawn. Let me ask this, how many of us have gone downtown to conduct business only to discover that some office is not yet open? So, we either have to sit in our cars and wait, or go do some shopping and come back later. Do you really think Pilate leaped from bed at the crack of dawn just to deal with Jews? I think he took his own sweet time, maybe had breakfast first, washed and took care of personal matters before opening to the public.

Before the three instances of advocacy, before the Herod interlude, say perhaps around nine in the morning, Jesus stood between the men who accused him and the Prefect of Rome. The initial accusations were made and Pilate questioned Jesus. Nine is still early for the ruling class, perhaps Pilate was a bit groggy. Having been accused of the serious crime of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, Pilate casually asked about an assumed title.

“Art thou the King of the Jews?” Verse 3.

Jesus answered in the same verse, “Thou sayest it.”

Now, most people simply take that answer at face value, thinking that Jesus was saying something like, 'those are your words, not mine'. However, the accusation was not that of Pilate but the religious elite, insomuch that Jesus should have answered something more on the lines of 'they sayest it'.

Pilate's question may have actually been more familiar than we are want to think; Jesus response may have been just as familiar. Without any proof to back my assertion, I submit that the possibility Jesus and Pilate may have had previous conversations is real.

Pilate knew exactly who Jesus was – everyone knew of Jesus; his fame had gone abroad from day one. Jesus was associated with the religious elite – that is a fact. They followed him everywhere, were all in his business, and quite often invited him into their company.

As a ruler, it stands to reason that Pilate also traveled in some of the same circles.

This may seem wild, but, what if the response “Thou sayest it,” did not mean 'your words, not mine', but rather, meant something more like 'you said this might happen.'?

Finally, back to the multitude of accusers. We want to know who this multitude consisted of. In verse 1, we read, “And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.”

This was shortly after dawn when Jesus had been judged by the Sanhedrin. As we recall from Luke 22:66, “As soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council.” The Sanhedrin was a group whose number ranged between twenty-three and seventy-one members. This, along with the possible inclusion of those who arrested Jesus and some false witnesses were the only ones who stood as accusers before Pilate.

An Open Image of Crucifixion:

This study will finish the 23rd chapter of Luke, concerning itself with verses twenty-six through fifty-six. Many of us have seen multiple movie representations of the life and death of Jesus. Speaking just of the trial and crucifixion scenes, a more or less generalized image has developed and taken root in our basic concept of these events.

This is the picture: a rushed and secretive condemnation by the Sanhedrin, a Romanized public trial complete with a brutal beating, a march to Calvary replete with soldiers flogging Jesus and pushing back the crowd, and a beaten Lord too weak to carry his cross â&#x20AC;&#x201C; falling several times until the soldiers snatch a random man from the crowd and force him to bear the load.

The Luke account does not present such an image. So, let us take a closer look at the particulars of this account. First of all, we know that the accusers of Jesus numbered between twenty-three and seventy-one members and may have included the temple guards who had arrested him. The Luke account of the secretive condemnation, in its brevity, does not include false witnesses.

However, by the time that the trial ends and his accusers, in the company of Roman soldiers, lead him away for crucifixion, an ample crowd of sympathetic people has gathered to follow the procession. On the trailing end of that crowd, we may assume some of the closest followers were also present.

Simple mockings have occurred, but no movie-style beatings are recorded. The scene does not appear overly crowded, nor do the soldiers seem especially aggressive. I assume there is a modicum of dignity afforded to Jesus, as it is my assertion that he was an actual Rabbi in the order of the Pharisees. Sure, he had gone rogue on them, but he was one of them, after all.

The accusers had gotten their way in the matter, so I assume that at that point, marching down the street, their attention was on themselves. They felt justified and vindicated and would have thought all eyes were on them; they would have marched stiffly with their shoulders proudly squared back for all to see. They were occupied with conversations between their members.

No crown of thorns is mentioned, but I assume that Jesus still wore the â&#x20AC;&#x153;gorgeous robe.â&#x20AC;?

The tempo of the march to Calvary was such that Jesus, standing, was able to turn to the mournful women and speak as he normally spoke to people. He was not prodded by the soldiers, nor did he fall beneath the cross. In fact, it is presented as an almost immediate occurrence past the gates that a man coming out of the country was engaged as the cross bearer.

We find “one Simon” in verse twenty-six bearing the cross “after Jesus.” There also followed a “great company of people” with the women wailing and lamenting the fate of Jesus. As crowd dynamics go, that seems to put Jesus' position as coming after the accusers with possible room for a couple of Roman soldiers to attend a more or less well-behaved crowd. Jesus not only had the time and opportunity but as well the composure to turn and address the crying women.

As for Simon, why was the cross put on him? In what fashion was it laid on his shoulders? Was Simon an itinerant looking for work? Did they put a coin in his hand? If the Sanhedrin was showing Jesus that much courtesy and respect, was it they, rather than the Romans, who pressed him into service? If it was the case that the accusers arranged for Jesus not to carry the cross, what was there real motive? Did they deliberately deny him the cross because of certain things he had been heard to say?

Let us take up another salient point. Jesus was already on the cross when the “sixth hour” is mentioned. He had already had a conversation with one of the thieves on a cross beside him. He had already said, “Father, forgive them.” His clothing already had been parted and had lots cast for them, which makes more sense when the “gorgeous robe” is taken into account.

There is, admittedly, some confusion among the experts as to the exact placement of the sixth hour. For our purposes, we need only look at the whole account to see how the timeline unfolded. The Sanhedrin convened, according to Luke 22:66, just after dawn.

After a hasty condemnation, they arose and led Jesus to Pilate, which in my estimation would have been between eight and nine. The Herod episode would have taken it to ten or eleven. The final determination and the march to Calvary could have all been accomplished before noon.

Some sources have the sixth hour reckoned at about noon, but recall, the text of the Luke account has much of the crucifixion accomplished before the sixth hour is mentioned.

The three hours on the cross are the long wait. It is my thought that the Roman practice of crucifixion deliberately included a prolonged period of time in which the crucified were meant to suffer and the onlookers were meant to consider the might of Rome. They did not just stand around, idling, until at last, they said “Screw this! Let's break their legs and go home.”

The darkness during those three hours was of note for the simple reason that it was not yet night. It was noted that Jesus, on the cross, cried out before he uttered his final statement in verse forty-six, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” That brings the timeline to the few hours before evening. It makes sense that Joseph was able to return to Jerusalem and plead for the dead body of Jesus. Had it been too late, Joseph

might not have been able to obtain an audience with Pilate. Another point thought worthy of note was that found in verse fifty-four, “the Sabbath drew on.”

In the reckoning of the Jewish day, the day took a particular precedent from Genesis 1:5, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” If Jesus died around three in the afternoon, then the Sabbath was only a few hours away.

The author of the Luke narrative thought certain points were worthy of note. We should not overlook these points. One such point was the conversation that Jesus had with one of the thieves. The manner in which the thief spoke to and about Jesus shows us a depth of familiarity on the part of the thief. Was the thief one of the multitudes who had followed Jesus?

Another point was the centurion. Who heard his remark clearly enough to record it?

Would that not place the one who heard the centurion close to the cross? It was noted that the remark of the centurion glorified God. When we read the comment in verse forty-seven, “Certainly this was a righteous man,” we must ask why.

Was it enough that a Roman recognized righteousness in a man? Else, if it had nothing to do with the nature of a gentile, it had everything to do with the words. Does it glorify God simply to think that a man is good or just? Would it not glorify God much more to recognize Jesus as the son of God rather than simply a “righteous man?” On that note, did the description of Joseph in verse fifty glorify God? The author noted that Joseph was “a good man, and just.”

Also of note to the author were the placement of the followers of Jesus in verses fortyeight and forty-nine. Some watched and left, “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.” Was that a Jewish thing, an act of sorrow? Breast smiting was mentioned in one of the parables Jesus told his followers. Did the accusers, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the elders, and that lot – did they also smite their breasts in attrition?

So, all those people left, but some lingered – “afar off.” Who were they? Why did the author describe them in the words he used? Verse forty-nine states, “And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things.” They did not want to get too close to the Romans and the Sanhedrin.

Who were the acquaintances of Jesus, and why were the women listed separately? The mention of Galilee is the mention of the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Some of those women are actually named elsewhere. There was his mother, Mary. There was, of course, Mary Magdalene. There was also Joanna, Susanna, and Salome.

Why were not these women designated as acquaintances? Were acquaintances only men, or did that designation include family? Were the brothers and sisters of Jesus there?

Were people like Lazarus, considered friends, present? Were his close followers there?

Were there secret supporters There?

Luke's account is the simplest account, seemingly not trying to present an agenda, but merely giving the bare-bone facts of the matter.

Things We Don't Notice:

We turn our attention to the last chapter in the book of Luke. We look at the first twelve verses. The women from chapter twenty-three return to the sepulcher. They had followed to see where Joseph placed the body, then they went home to prepare the spices. After that, they observed the Sabbath – in other words, they had to wait a whole day before they could return with the spices they had prepared.

So. let us check our facts. It is very early on a Sunday morning. The women who returned to the grave of Jesus are listed in verse ten. They were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. Wikipedia tells us this about Mary the mother of James: Although James the younger is often identified with James, son of Alphaeus, the New Advent Encyclopedia identifies him with both James, son of Alphaeus and James the brother of Jesus (James the Just). According to the surviving fragments of the work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord of the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis, who lived c. 70–163 AD, "Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas" These three women were not alone, they were in the company of other women. Verse one calls them “certain others” while verse ten calls them “other women that were with

them.” So, there were at least two other women present with the listed three. In all probability, there were more than two. These were the women who had followed Jesus from the beginning of his ministry in Galilee.

Again, early on the first day of the week, these women who had followed Jesus from Galilee went to the tomb. In verses two through four, they found the stone rolled away, they entered the tomb only to discover that the body was gone, and they were “much perplexed.” They were bewildered, uncertain, and troubled over the turn of events.

I mention all of this in preparation for making a point. Of course, they were surprised to find the body missing, but my point is that the stone being rolled away was just as much an eye-opener. They had followed to see Jesus buried. There is little doubt they also saw the stone being rolled into place.

Did these women go to the grave expecting to see the stone rolled away? The short answer is no. At least five of them went to the grave – perhaps, they thought that such a number was sufficient to roll the stone away. This little bit of information is perhaps a clue to the size of the stone and the entrance to the grave. More clues to follow.

A dead body is like a sack of potatoes. It is hard to manage. The size of the grave entrance had to be sufficient for at least two men to carry a body through it. Since no mention of the women having trouble entering the grave is made, one may assume that the sepulcher was designed with a slight descent into the cavity.

So, the women who actually entered came back out with the news, and as they stood perplexed, two men appeared in shining garments. White garments were not unheard of in that culture, but the implementation of the word 'shining' suggests something other than merely white cloth. When Jesus was on the mountaintop with Moses and Elijah, all three of them were shining. We have a kind of naturally shiny view of angels. But, it was also around dawn when these events transpired. The sun was coming up. The light could have caught the white garments in an especially eye-catching manner.

The women were so taken by the appearance of the two men that, in fear, they fell on their faces. Now, one may think of that culture and time as a people who would fall on their faces at the drop of a hat, but a sudden reflexive fear is more in keeping with human nature as we know it. For instance, what does one do when he or she perceives the near report of gunfire? They hit the deck. It is only human nature to duck and cover.

The women of the Bible are not as often mentioned as the men. In this particular case, we find them equal to the men in a certain sense. That is, they had to be reminded what Jesus told them. They were with Jesus from the beginning; they heard all of his sermons, all of his sayings. Yet, like the men, they had to be reminded. This too is human nature.

If only they had believed his words from the beginning! All of us who have grown old reach a point of personal realization where we think, 'why didn't I listen to my parents?

They were right from the beginning. How much I might have spared myself if only I had listened.'

They thought he was dead, but then, they were reminded of his words – and they believed. They ran to tell the apostles. Herein lies another point we don't notice. We have bought into the general concept of frightened apostles cowering in darkened rooms for fear of their lives. Multitudes followed Jesus. They followed him to Jerusalem. They lost him for a time but found him again after the trial. They followed him to the crucifixion and stood afar off.

The remaining eleven apostles were not the only apostles of Jesus, they were just his inner circle. Aside from the general multitude, there were at least seventy-two other appointed apostles. You may recall that Jesus, in chapter ten, sent them two by two, in the same manner, he had sent out the twelve – preaching and healing. When the women went to the eleven with their news, verses nine and ten inform us that “the apostles” noted in verse ten included “all the rest” mentioned in verse nine.

And then there was Peter. He was somewhat mercurial in nature. When first receiving the news, he with the others did not believe. He thought they were idle tales. But Peter gave the matter a second thought. Maybe, just maybe, they were right. What was it Jesus had said? So, Peter leaps to his feet and “runs” to the sepulcher.

Here is another clue about the grave – that is to say, about its design. Peter, in verse twelve, did not enter the grave but stooped down and looked inside. “Stooping down” is that clue. From a stooping position outside the grave entrance, Peter was able to see the place where the body had been laid. The body was absent but the “linen clothes” were still there.

Some depictions of the sepulcher have a great round wheel of a stone that may only be moved by the strength of many. Some scholars imagine a grave where the entrance is on top and the body has to be lowered into the cavity. It is human nature that we run with whatever is in front of us. When they say big wheel, we go with it. When they say hole in the ground, we go with it.

We think one thing by excluding all other possibilities. Well, here is another possibility.

The grave was small enough to stoop down and see inside. The stone that was rolled away from the entrance was small enough that approximately five women thought they could move it.

The Vanishing Savior:

The following, in my opinion, is one of the coolest stories in the new testament. It is later on the same day that the women discover Jesus is missing from the tomb. They went down very early that Sunday morning and after the discovery, they went to the disciples with their news. Peter went to the grave to see for himself.

The group of disciples to which the women brought their news included much more people than the core group. Luke 24:9 informs us that the women brought their news to â&#x20AC;&#x153;the eleven, and all the rest.â&#x20AC;? When we think of the following of Jesus, we think of men and women together. Some women followed Jesus from the beginning of his ministry in Galilee. Some men traveled with their wives and sisters and mothers. There is evidence of children among the followers.

So, the news of the resurrection was announced in the early morning hours and later in the day, two of the disciples took off walking down a road openly and without fear. They were on their way to a town named Emmaus. That particular town was believed to be approximately seven miles from Jerusalem. When I walk at a fast pace, I can cover three miles in about forty-five minutes. Since they were taking their time, I give them a walking time of around three hours.

Of the two disciples, one is immediately named. He is Cleophas, with some translations being Alphaeus or Clopas. Many scholars identify this disciple as the brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary. His wife was also named Mary and his sons included Jude, James, and Simon, half-brothers or cousins of Jesus. The unnamed disciple may have been Cleophas' son Simon. More on that later.

These two disciples are joined on the road to Emmaus by Jesus himself, only they do not recognize him. Their eyes are closed to his true identity. While it is possible that Jesus looked different after his death on the cross and three days in the grave, this is not the only instance where Jesus is not recognized after his resurrection. From an account in another gospel, Mary Magdalene sees him but thinks he might be the groundskeeper.

When the two disciples reached their home in Emmaus, they invited Jesus to eat with them. The reason why is found in Luke 24:29. It was getting close to dark, as the verse says, “it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” I mention this only to point out the time of departure from the main group. An approximate three-hour walk would have placed their departure around noon.

As they ate, Jesus took the bread, blessed it and broke it – sort of a signature move. One of the core disciples would have recognized that from the last supper, but no doubt, in his three years of ministry, Jesus would have often eaten with his followers, perhaps breaking bread, in the same way, each time. It was at the point where Jesus blessed and broke the bread that the two disciples' eyes were opened and they recognized the man as Jesus.

He sat right there with them. He had been in their company for hours preaching from the scriptures, but only now they saw him for who he was. Their mouths must have fallen open only to be stammering and speechless. There he sat – Jesus, back from the dead.

They recognized their Lord – and then he just vanished. In our day and age, we are used to many fantastic representations in TV and film, but he vanished as he sat between them. Did the bread fall from hands no longer there?

They had not recognized him until that moment, but something in them wanted to. They may have thought the style and delivery of preaching seemed familiar – they just couldn't place it with the face. They reasoned among themselves, in verse thirty-two, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Of course, they had to jump right up and run back to the other disciples. Another threehour trek, perhaps this time made in half the time. And here is the part I mentioned earlier that I would get back to. They recounted their adventure to the others, perhaps waking them to do so, and they said in verse thirty-four, “The Lord is risen indeed,” and here, they did not say that Jesus had revealed himself unto them, which might have seemed more natural, but they mentioned a name, “and hath appeared to Simon.”

Had Cleophas blinked or looked away at the critical moment? Was Cleophas very old with diminished eyesight? If he was revealed to Simon, then is that Simon the unnamed disciple? Even as they recounted their tale, Jesus appeared to all of them. It startled them, hearts were racing. Many still did not believe the resurrection, they had just lost their Lord to the cruelty of the Romans, a thing that all their experience told them was permanent.

He proved to them that he was real, that he was back. He ate something in their sight. He showed his physical wounds to them. In other gospel accounts, Jesus upbraids them for their unbelief, but not in Luke. As he had done for the two disciples on the road to

Emmaus, Jesus explained everything. He then led them to Bethany where he blessed them and was “carried” up into heaven.

Carried by what, or by whom? Was it a moonlit evening? Was it cloudy? Certainly, as endings go, this one is brief. Some accounts have him around for as many as forty days after his resurrection. In those other accounts, he heals and preaches and is seen by thousands. Did he reveal himself to his accusers, or did they hear of his presence, perhaps seeking verification, but all too late? Did Pilate hear of his doings in those final forty days? All of that would make a great movie, but more importantly, and lastly, what was the significance of Luke's exclusion of the forty days? Was there significance in Jesus revealing only “unto the eleven, and to all the rest?” Was there significance to the location of the Ascension? Bethany was the home of Lazarus (another resurrected) and Mary.

There You Have It:

I began topically, striving to reach a point in mentation whereby understanding of the scriptures began with and revolved around definition. The work, somehow, transformed itself into a serial attempt at broader clarity, as I went through the book of Luke point by point. I will not continue through the book of John in similar fashion, as I think that book deserves a study unto itself.

No. This is a good place to end this study, and perhaps, to make a return to the topical nature this work began with. I began this study with a pet peeve – namely, how people use a word or concept without first defining it. They seem to think if they say it loudly enough, the meaning will, somehow, come through on its own. I began this study with the much-maligned concept of 'Love'. I said I might return to it, as well the concept that the strait gate might be a Biblical passage.

I am not trying to extend this study, but rather, to bring it to an adequate end. Still, these topics are due further scrutiny. I, of course, will continue to ponder such things – I am an affirmed seeker, after all. But, what about you? Have I reached my fellow-seekers? If I have, here are a few things you might try on your own.

Choose a topic you might find in the Bible. That topic might be 'love', or 'key', 'spirit', 'knowledge', or anything you decide upon. Get yourself a good Bible engine for your computer. Type in that word and search out every instance of its use. Collect them. Place them together and arrange them in an order that helps you to better understand the concept. Combine them into a synthesis that is not overly loquacious. Let it be as brief and lean as possible. Let there be definition. It'll be good.

I leave you with these thoughts. We are seekers. How does one define a seeker? A seeker might seek anything thing. If we claim we seek truth, someone might counter, “What is truth? Are mine the same as yours?” Language contains many words. They orbit concepts like planets and moons. There may be no single answer to existence and purpose of life, rather many individual definitions. However, I see and seek in an existence that is inclusive – it holds the one and it holds the many.

A lot of people seek only their individuality and license. They are like the waves in the sea. Some others seek oneness. They are also like waves in the sea. Even those who imagine they are Captains of their own vessels, charting a course under their own steam, cannot deny they are still part of something bigger than themselves – something that includes them with all else it holds.

All existence, life, being, seeking – they are directional, they are developmental. We move toward something by moving away from something else. We become. The seeker is a 'becomer'. We do not seek idle states of trivia-glut. When we finally find that which we have sought, we add it to ourselves. We become ourselves, plus that which we have discovered. Then – what if what we have discovered is the whole? What if our adding the whole to ourselves is only us mirroring the whole adding us to itself?

A physical Jesus said that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Be the seeker, be the treasure you find. One may be the question and the answer. One may be the wave and the sea.