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 is addressing 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 counterproductive 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 own 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 fails, 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, ans 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 insure 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 passed it's less than promising performance. We are poised on the precipice of a successful society in which civil law insures 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 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.

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 they 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. Some of the common terms for the 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 not totally ruled out for the chief priest 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.

Called

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 his 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, rules for only three months before the Babylonians take control of Jerusalem in 597 B.C. and take him captive. After overcoming the city, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon sets up Zedekiah as a puppet ruler of Judea. Zedekiah, however, soon rebels against his masters. His reign is ended in 586 B.C., after only 11 years, when Nebuchadnezzar once again conquers Jerusalem but this time he destroys the city and burns 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.

These 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.

Begin the Swing

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.