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.