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.

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.

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.

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.

Pass or Fail?

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?