The Spirit/Flesh Connection

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

What are we looking at? Luke 1:35 says, “And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

These are the questions we should ask. How are spirit and flesh connected? How does a spiritual entity engender a mortal offspring? What part of that engendered being is holy? How is the creation of Adam like the conception of Jesus,and finally, why did the angel express distance from Mary's child?

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

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

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

Another consideration is this, how can a spiritual God, who is in no way, shape or form anything even remotely resembling flesh, say 'let us make man in our image, after our likeness?' For that matter, what exactly would be the image and likeness of an invisible spiritual entity?

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

Still confused? Is that meant to read the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest, or the Holy Ghost as the power of the Highest? I believe it is the latter and for this reason – the Bible is written in such a way that many things are repeated, but they don't simply say the exact same thing: they say the same thing a different way. What the angel said was that the Holy Spirit was the power of God.

It was the Holy Spirit that would overshadow Mary and make something like Adam, but with a twist. Whereas Adam, and all men, have been flesh with a spiritual insertion, Jesus was to be a spirit with an extension of flesh. In our cases, even though we share a part of God, it is still the flesh that rules. The flesh has quite a will and bends all reason to its own advantage – we are the swine in the parable of the swine and the pearl. That is a tragically difficult obstacle for our spiritual element to overcome. Our minds are overwhelmed by our flesh.

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

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

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

Luke's Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A growing belief[6] points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41 In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple. Adherents claim that Luke's Gospel was targeted at Sadducee readers. This might explain a few features of Luke. He begins the story with an account of Zacharias the righteous priest who had a Temple vision of an angel(1:5-25). Luke quickly moves to account Mary's purification (niddah), Jesus' Temple redemption (pidyon ha-ben) rituals (2:21-39), and then to Jesus' pilgrimage to the Temple when he was twelve (2:46), possibly implying his bar mitzvah.”

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

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

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

Luke identified himself with those who “most surely believed.” Those declarations that had been set forth in order by so many others were, in his own words, “delivered.” Perhaps his work in the gospel of Luke was to bring about a synthesis of fragmentary eyewitness accounts. The “many” included not only a cloud of eyewitnesses, in the common sense of the word, but also, as we might term them today, 'credible witnesses', 'expert witnesses', 'character witnesses', etc.

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

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

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

Luke brought it all together, either for the beloved of God, or a lawyer, or other person of note. He was not making it up off the top of his head. He went to a great personal effort to produce the gospel. He took the steps needed to present the facts as they were. Luke, himself, was a 'minister of the word', bringing us the communication of the spirit.

An Odd Inclusion

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

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

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

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

That is all there is. Many women often followed with Jesus and the disciples, but they are excluded from this story. Many church elders followed Jesus regularly. They, too, are excluded. It was commonplace that anywhere Jesus went the multitudes followed, as well as the sick and infirm seeking to be healed. None of these are present in the story of Jesus' betrayal and arrest. It seems the writers did this deliberately. It is as if they wanted the story to only be about these core facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any indication of identity from the Bible itself? Consider this. Amos 2:16 says, “And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day.” I add this as a reference to the young man in the garden. Was he 'courageous among the mighty?' Who were the mighty in Jesus' day, and who might have been the bravest? Could it have been a Roman soldier, or the like, who could not afford for his identity to be known? Could it have been, and this is wild speculation on my part, a high ranking official such as, say, Pilate himself?

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

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

Where there is life

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

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

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

So then, I look to my favorite source for information, Wikipedia, for some insight into Passover wine and new wine. Here is what I found:

“We know little about the kind of grape varieties available – or if grape varieties were even a concept – at the time of the Last Supper. "It's not until relatively recently in history, about 1,000 years or less, that we have any written evidence of named grape varieties," says Dr. Sean Myles, an adjunct professor at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and a researcher in agricultural genetics.

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

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

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

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

Mixing wine with spices, fruits and especially tree resin was common a practice. Winemakers believed that tree resins like myrrh, frankincense and terebinth preserved wine and helped stave off wine spoilage. They'd also add things like pomegranates, mandrakes, saffron and cinnamon to enhance the flavor of the wine.

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

There are many opinions about the wine of the last supper, but not a lot of hard evidence. I had been of the opinion that it was a boiled concoction made with bitter herbs, but my recent inquiries proved me wrong. One new discovery about the wine of the Passover I did find interesting. It seems the Passover laws, or protocols, required Jewish male to drink four cups of wine during the Seder. You can read an article on that here: http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/658549/jewish/Why-four-cups-of-wine.htm

Now, on to 'new' wine. There are two terms for this found in the Bible, they are 'asis' and 'tirosh.' 'Asis, "sweet wine," or "new wine," the product of the same year (Cant 8:2 ; Isaiah 49:26 ; Joel 1:5; 3:18; Amos 9:13), from a root meaning "to tread," hence, juice trodden out or pressed out, thus referring to the method by which the juice is obtained. The power of intoxication is ascribed to it. The explanations for both this and the following term are found at http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/wine/.

Tirosh, properly "must," translated "wine" (Deuteronomy 28:51); "new wine" (Proverbs 3:10); "sweet wine" (Micah 6:15; RSV, "vintage"). This Hebrew word has been traced to a root meaning "to take possession of" and hence it is supposed that tirosh is so designated because in intoxicating it takes possession of the brain. Among the blessings promised to Esau (Genesis 27:28) mention is made of "plenty of corn and tirosh." Palestine is called "a land of corn and tirosh" (Deuteronomy 33:28; Compare Isaiah 36:17). See also Deuteronomy 28:51; 2 Chr 32:28; Joel 2:19; Hosea 4:11, ("wine [yayin] and new wine [tirosh] take away the heart").

I have talked with many people who have said to my face they would prefer hell over heaven because all of their drinking buddies will be there. What a laugh! Nowhere in the Bible is hell mentioned as a place where the condemned can mingle with old friends. Neither is it mentioned that alcohol will be served. Our notion of hell comes to us originally from the word 'Sheol' which simply refers to the grave.

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

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