Try Me

Stream and purchase my music from these sites:
 
24-7 Entertainment, 7 Digital, Amazon Music, Aspiro, Deezer, eMusic, Google Play, Gracenote, Hoopla, iHeartRadio, iTunes, JB Hi-Fi, Last.fm, MediaNet, Musiwave, Muve Music, Myxer, Nielsen Soundscan, Nokia, Omnifone, Play.com, Rdio, Rhapsody, Rovi, Shazam, Simfy, Slacker, Spotify, and We7.

www.dlherring.com

Christmas 2016

O the pageantry! O the parades! My how the world loves Christmas! It is such a worldwide phenomenon that even non-Christians celebrate the event. Today in the news, an article appeared on CNN.com entitled 'Christmas reborn in Iraqi town freed from ISIS.'

We all love Christmas. The lights, the gifts beneath a Christmas tree, money in the bank. Christmas is the most lucrative of all the holidays, and a yearly boost to business in general. It is encouraged and advertised by business. It is practically shoved down our throats. While suicides do not increase at Christmas, the expectations placed on some is a burden that causes stress, grief, and many family quarrels.

Mainly, however, Christmas is 'the' Christian holiday, and Christians will defend it for many reasons. I will not put forth that one defense of Christmas is 'it is for the kids', that defense is used for Easter and Halloween as well. When Christians defend Christmas, they are in effect defending their faith in Christ.

Christians, however, are to be lumped together with all who celebrate Christmas – whatever the reason or defense may be. For the reveler, it is merely another occasion to revel. To those who party, it is another occasion to party. Those who drink will not dismiss the opportunity to raise a glass with or without friends, as the case may be. The entire package of stringing up lights, erecting pine trees indoors, indulging, imbibing and giving gifts is a spirit shared in common between Christians and non-Christians alike.

Are you a Christian celebrating Christmas? Are you doing that for Christ? Have you taken it upon yourself to honor the son of God, to remember his birthday, with symbols and tokens from a usurped pagan festival? This opinion piece is more a question than an argument or accusation.

Jesus never had a portrait painted or a statue made. His exact date of birth is a matter that even experts may only guess at. In all of his short life on earth, Jesus only asked to be remembered for one thing. That one thing was not his birthday. What Jesus asked to be remembered for may be found in Luke 22:19, “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.”

If Jesus has asked that any particular day or event be remembered, it is the Passover rather than his birthday. The Catholic church would have us remember crackers and wine, but I think that Jesus wanted more than that. I think that rather than have us celebrate worldly tokens and symbols, he wanted us to celebrate our connection to God through the salvation of our spirits. We were saved from the worldly spirit in man and that was accomplished through the sacrifice only Christ could effect.

Christ ransomed our spirits from the world. My question is this – what is your spirit connected to? Is it connected to partying or revelry? Is it connected to pagan practices? Is it connected to commercially procured gifts? Is it anchored in the customs of man rather than the will of God?

God placed his spirit in his son and sent him as a messenger to man. The message sent was the will of a spiritual God. Should we not rather celebrate the redemption of our spirits from the world?

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?

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 to 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 indicate 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 imminence 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 twenty-four through twenty-six, “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.

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 “much serving” suggests preparations for such a meal as might be served for many people. I would think that besides 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 – 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?

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 – 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, “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit”.) 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.

Where Will You Find God?

This is a short opinion piece. Consider these questions. Do you know someone who places God fully in the old testament, that is, so far back in history as to be inapplicable to modern issues? Do you know someone who believes God is some white-bearded sky daddy so far up in heaven as to be ineffective? Many people dismiss God from their lives in sweeping generalizations. But, where is God to be found?

We must not be too quick to set ourselves apart from God. God is found neither in the past nor the future, nor again in some inaccessible realm. Where God is found is in the hearts and minds of his children – right here and right now. Jesus told us that God is a spirit. Whether or not God lives in our spirits is up to us.

This opinion piece is drawn from Psalms 22:3 and Romans 10:8. My take on the matter is that God lives in his praises, and both God and Jesus are as close to us as the words we speak. In that God inhabits His praise, each time one of us lifts Him up, He becomes stronger and more alive – not only in our spirits but also in the world we share with other people.

The communication of God to man is His only begotten son. Jesus stood upon this Earth not only as that message, which from the beginning has been that God inhabits man but also as the prime example of living praise. A father never exists apart from his children; the real connection between father and child is that message that has come down to us through the ages. It is a beautiful message.

Each of us has the power. If any of us prays for God's presence in the world, the answer to that prayer may be found in praise. Let us continue the communication of praise. Let us share it between ourselves and abroad. We have it within our own power to take on the mantle of living praise, of spiritual father inhabiting mortal child.

This opinion piece is praise. By this praise, I lift up my heavenly Father – right here and right now. It is my assertion here that God's mighty presence in this world depends on our humble praises. Like Jesus, we have both the power and the choice to stand as living praise: God in man. God lives here. I share myself with you. It is a beautiful communication. Will you share yourself with another?

The PR Crew (Part Two)

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 the were 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.

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.

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 accouterments. 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.

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, water-walking, 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.

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.

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.

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, “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.”

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.