The Will of the Father

Matthew 21:28-32 is our next parable of interest. It is a question to the chief priests and elders of his own people, the Jews. It is a question that demands a simple determination, that is, which of two sons did the will of their father. It is a question that is posed in a public setting with many witnesses to the answer, and in the context of Jesus just having his authority questioned.

Clearly, it is a misconception of the nature of authority. It is a misconception belonging to the chief priests and elders, who feel that their authority under the law is being challenged. What the chief priests and elders take as their sole right, is in actuality no more than a permission, and one might go so far as to say a duty, to act. Namely, it is the duty of the individual rather than the sole property of rulers.

On a personal note, let me just say that the exchange between the chief priests and Jesus ranks as one of the coolest in the new testament. Had the chief priests and elders chosen one answer or the other, Christ would have had an answer waiting for them, but for all their bluster and bravado, their political indecisiveness pretty much dictated the answer they got.

On the heels of that trump card, Christ asked a question of the chief priests and elders that would explain authority to both the local rulers as well as the witnesses standing around – all of which, I imagine, were standing with their mouths open in dismay.

A father asked both of his sons to work in his vineyard. One said he would but didn't, and one said he wouldn't but did. So which son acted with authority? Of course, in this context we mean only to engage one's empowerment to be an obedient child. One son gave lip service – that is, he not only disobeyed his father's will, but he also lied to his father.

Such an act constitutes rebellion, but we should not think that one son was especially evil and the other especially good – the other son also rebelled. The difference is that one of the sons repented of his decision. I ask, what is the dynamic of that decision? I answer, the dynamic of that decision is that the son thought things through a little further. He weighed the choices before him and came to a decision. What did he decide? He decided that his father's will was better than his own. He saw his place in relationship to his father, he saw his duty. His conclusion was love, devotion, fealty.

The chief priests and elders saw the right answer to the question Christ posed to them. They answered correctly. Yet, the parameters of the two sons were not fully explained. What if they one that gave lip service was the eldest son, the son who would inherit the birthright? Was that a part of the question, even though it was not stipulated?

After they answer the question, Christ explains the will of the father by contrasting the chief priests and elders against the publicans and harlots. Jesus had a habit of resorting to the publicans and harlots, chief priests and elders were prone to disregard this class of people.

I include here an excerpt from www.Bible-history.com to shed some light on the attitude held by Jewish priests and elders in regard to publicans:

'The Jewish people were under the yoke of foreign oppressors ever since the Babylonian captivity. During the New Testament times, the land of Israel was within the province of Syria and the tax collectors were collectors of Roman taxes, they were extortioners, and very despised.

The Jews detested these tax collectors not only on account of their abusive and tyrannical attitude, but because the very taxes that they were forced to collect by the Roman government were a badge of servitude and a constant reminder that God had forsaken His people. The tax collectors were always classed by the people with the harlots, usurers, gamblers, thieves, and dishonest herdsmen, who lived promiscuous, lawless lives. Some of the common terms for the tax collectors were "licensed robbers" and "beasts in human shape."

According to Rabbinism, there was no hope for a tax collector. They were excluded from all religious fellowship including the Temple and Synagogue. Their money was considered tainted and it defiled anyone who accepted it. They could not serve as a witness in any court in Israel. The Rabbis had no word to describe any sort of help for the tax collector because they expected him to externally conform to the law in order to be justified before God.

Ancient Jewish writings reveal some interesting views of Rabbis toward the tax collectors:

"As one robber disgraced his whole family, so one publican in a family; promises were not to be kept with murderers, thieves and publicans" -Nedar 3:4

"The synagogue alms box and the temple corban must not receive their alms" -Baba Kama 10:1

"It was not lawful to use riches received from them, as gotten by rapine; nor could they judge or give testimony in court -Sanhedr. 25, sec. 2

The attitude of Jesus toward the tax collectors was in stark contrast to that of the Rabbis. He had come to seek and save the lost. The Pharisees were separatists and did not lower themselves to have anything to do with a tax collector, who was to them no better than a Gentile. But Jesus came not to condemn anyone, but to save every sinner and offer a better life. He never taught that there was anything inherently wrong with paying tribute to the Roman Government or collecting the tax. He was opposed to extortioners, but would fling open the door of repentance and salvation to them. He rejected none, not even the worst.'

In regard to harlots, I include this excerpt from www.biblestudytools.com:

'In New Testament times, a kindred danger beset the followers of Christ, especially in Greece and Asia Minor (Acts 15:20,29; Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19). That lax views of sexual morality were widely prevalent in the generation in which Christ lived is evident both from His casual references to the subject and from His specific teaching in answer to questions concerning adultery and divorce (compare Josephus, Ant, IV, viii, 23; Vita, section 76; Sirach 7:26; 25:26; 42:9, and the Talm). The ideas of the times were debased by the prevalent polygamous customs, "it being of old permitted to the Jews to marry many wives" (Josephus, BJ, I, xxiv, 2; compare Ant, XVII, i, 2). The teaching of Jesus was in sharp contrast with the low ideals and the rabbinical teaching of the times. The controversy on this question waxed hot between the two famous rival rabbinical schools. Hillel reduced adultery to the level of the minor faults. Shammai opposed his teaching as immoral in tendency. kata pasan aitian (Matthew 19:3), gives incidental evidence of the nature of the controversy. It was characteristic of the teaching of Jesus that He went to the root of the matter, making this sin to consist in "looking on a woman to lust after her." Nor did He confine Himself to the case of the married. The general character of the terms in Matthew 5:28, pas ho blepon, forbids the idea that gunaika, and emoicheusen, are to be limited to post-nuptial sin with a married woman. On the other hand it is a characteristic part of the work of Jesus to rescue the erring woman from the merciless clutches of the Pharisaic tribunal, and to bring her within the pale of mercy and redemption (Matthew 21:31,32). He everywhere leaned to the side of mercy in dealing with such cases, as is indicated by the traditional and doubtless true narrative found in the accepted text of the Fourth Gospel (John 7:53-8:11).'

George B. Eager

Suffice it to say that publicans and harlots were not only rejected by local leadership but often abused. Imagine the relationship between the birthright son and the younger sibling. The eldest can do no wrong – at least in his own eyes. He expects ultimately to receive all from the father – so he might even question the need to have a younger brother around. The younger brother might well experience rejection and abuse. The younger brother might think: 'why bother? It's all going to the eldest anyway.'

The similarity in the brothers and elders-vs-common-rabble is not only apparent to us but was not lost on those who listened to Jesus. He pointed to these similarities without pulling any punches. The publicans and harlots would get to heaven before the chief priests and elders. I note in this that it not totally ruled out for the chief priest and elders to reach heaven. However, a singular point seems central to this achievement: a propensity toward repentance. The younger son repented. With repentance goes faith.

The publicans and harlots believed the message of John – the same message, in fact, that the chief priests and elders heard. Like the younger son, the publicans and harlots repented, they availed themselves of God's permission to act. They decided that their father's will was better than their own. They saw their place in relationship to their father, they saw their duty. Their conclusion was love, devotion, fealty. They engaged their empowerment to be obedient children.

Called

Speaking of 'first and last', we come to the parable in Matthew 20:1-16. It is the story of the land owner who hired laborers for his fields. He hired men in stages, at different times of the day, and for varying reasons. He began early in the morning and hired men who also went out early to look for work. The work lasted through the day and into the evening. I imagine the man's vineyard was extensive.

He periodically went to the same market place to look for men to hire. Why? He went out at the third, sixth, and ninth hours. Why three hours apart? Why were there so many men in need of employment? We think of a budding city big enough for a community market. Such things begin and grow around a community of farmers, ranchers, and landowners. As these businesses increase, people are drawn in because they have no lands of their own. They must work for others.

The worker level of that society might include the unskilled, unlanded, dispossessed, and uneducated migrants who pretty much had no hope for a living other than the goodwill of such employers. In a society that accepted the institution of slavery, these men teetered on the precipice of freedom and dignity. If for some reason these men failed to get themselves hired, they really did not have the wherewithal to provide their own gainful activity.
If the landowner went out after dawn to hire the first batch of workers, we might assume the time to be around 6AM. That would put the third hour at 9AM, the sixth hour at 12PM, the ninth hour at 3PM, and the eleventh hour at 5PM. The last batch of workers worked only one hour, according to the complaint, so the work day ended at 6PM. A 12 hour work day.

A quick internet search revealed these notes about the numbers 3, 6, 9 and 11. The number 3 is used 467 times in the Bible. It pictures completeness, though to a lesser degree than 7. The meaning of this number derives from the fact that it is the first of four spiritually perfect numerals (the others being 7, 10 and 12). The 3 righteous patriarchs before the flood were Abel, Enoch, and Noah. After the deluge, there was the righteous "fathers" Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (later renamed Israel).

There are 27 books in the New Testament, which is 3x3x3, or completeness to the third power.

Jesus prayed three times in the Garden of Gethsemane before His arrest. He was placed on the cross at the 3rd hour of the day (9AM) and died at the 9th hour (3PM). There were 3 hours of darkness that covered the land while Jesus was suffering on the cross from the 6th hour to the 9th hour. Three is the number of resurrection. Christ was dead for three full days and three full nights, a total of 72 hours, before being resurrected on Saturday, April 8, just before sunset.

In the Bible, the number 6 symbolizes man and human weakness, the evils of Satan and the manifestation of sin. Man was created on the sixth day. Men are appointed 6 days to labor.

A Hebrew slave was to serve six years and be released in the 7th year. Six years were appointed for the land to be sown and harvested. The number 6 is also associated with Satan in his temptation of Jesus.

The bringing together of three 6's is the number and mark of the end time Beast of Revelation. As such, it represents the very best system of governance that mankind can produce WITHOUT God and under the constant influence of his chief adversary. Man's system on earth is made up of three parts (economic, religious and governmental) all of which are influenced and led by Satan. When 666 is multiplied by 7 it equals 4662, which depicts man’s total imperfection under Lucifer. When added across, 4 + 6 + 6 + 2 = 18; and 18 divided by 3 is 6.

Used 49 times in Scripture, the number 9 symbolizes divine completeness or conveys the meaning of finality. Christ died at the 9th hour of the day, or 3PM, to make the way of salvation open to everyone. The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) is the only one of God's annual Feast days of worship that requires believers to fast for one day. This special day, considered by many Jews to be the holiest of the year, begins at sunset on the 9th day of the seventh Hebrew month (Leviticus 23:32).

Nine also represents the fruits of God's Holy Spirit, which are Faithfulness, Gentleness, Goodness, Joy, Kindness, Long-suffering, Love, Peace and Self-control (Galatians 5:22  23).
The number eleven is important in that it can symbolize disorder, chaos, and judgment. In the Bible, 11 is used twenty-four times and "11th" can be found 19 times. Coming after 10 (which represents law and responsibility), the number eleven represents the opposite - the irresponsibility of breaking the Law, which brings disorder and judgment.

In Genesis 11, men rebelled against God and built the tower of Babel. He judged them by confusing their language, resulting in chaos.

Jehoiakim, one of the last kings over Judah, ruled for 11 years (609 to 598 B.C.). His successor, King Jehoiachin, rules for only three months before the Babylonians take control of Jerusalem in 597 B.C. and take him captive. After overcoming the city, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon sets up Zedekiah as a puppet ruler of Judea. Zedekiah, however, soon rebels against his masters. His reign is ended in 586 B.C., after only 11 years, when Nebuchadnezzar once again conquers Jerusalem but this time he destroys the city and burns its temple to the ground. Any Jews that remained alive were taken captive.

The apostle John saw 11 things in connection with the final judgment (Revelation 20:12 - 14).

Now, an interesting point to this parable is the reasoning of the two parties: workers and landowner. A bargain was reached between the employer and employees, namely a day of labor for exactly one penny. For the workers hired at the third, sixth and ninth hours, they were told by the employer, “whatsoever is right I will give you”. This seems to suggest a standard. The employer guaranteed they would not be short-changed. I take it as the minimum wage of that day and age.

These subsequent contracts, I think, represent and extended grace. He may not have actually needed extra workers, but the work days were long and any additional hands would reduce the work strain for all concerned. However, he also went out at the eleventh hour. Why? Who Can say? Even so, he found men standing idle because no one else hired them. These men represent the true losers. They are the least qualified, most sad-sack lot of the whole place. The employer also told these men, “whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive”. I think this represents pity on the part of the employer. The day was all but done. The last group would otherwise have had to go home to their families with nothing to show. No food for the kids.

I think the land owner of this parable represents a concept of righteousness that might have pretty well been common knowledge for that society, day, and age. The land owner was a good man. He did not withhold his substance in any expression of his good character – which would be in keeping with the truth we find in 1John 3:18, “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.”

This is in full support of the common core element of law, namely to love God completely, and love your neighbor as yourself. The above-cited verse explains both love and righteousness, and may be summed up in an earlier statement found in 1John 3:17, “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”

The good land owner had his world's good, and he used it liberally in the execution of God's law. Christ portrayed a man, in his parable, who was an example of God's nature inhabiting a man. God is both the source of the law that makes good and right, and he is also the nature of acceptance of all that is good and right as it exists in man.

So then, the day ends and the steward calls the workers to be paid. Any manner of payment might have been chosen. In our day and age, we use the alphabetical system sometimes, or a system of identifying numbers. But, Christ was making a larger point. All of us live in and realize a reality that swings back and forth like a pendulum. We know that weather turned rainy will soon enough swing back to sunny days. We know that winter or summer are but extremes of that swinging back and forth.

In the larger spiritual sense, that is to say – in the sense of mankind's evolution from man to son of man, what we lost in our fall was an extreme from which we have reached the furthest possible opposite. Times are dark, man's spirit no less so. The argument of the initial batch of workers was an argument that centered on the issue of equality. We are all too acquainted with this thorny issue, but each of us, in actuality, have our own contract under which we labor. That is all we have, and that is all we may draw from. Contracts that others have are off limits – we shouldn't concern ourselves.

The point Christ made was concisely summarized in the question, “Is thine eye evil, because I am good?” The closing argument is based squarely on that. “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.” This argument must be seen in light of, and within the parameters of, this good vs evil issue. We ask, are the first last because their eye was evil? Had their attitude taken them beyond the boundaries of good will and grace? I'm sure the last, having received as much as the men who worked all day, would have been more thankful – in fact, in the face of such grace, they must have been humbled, knowing it was given rather than earned.

“Many be called, but few chosen.” Certainly, the land owner called many to work on his land. Being good, he would have been naturally drawn to, and in sympathy with those of his own spiritual caliber. If that man at all considered keeping any of them on permanently, you and I might agree that it would not be the ones with an evil eye.

There might be no concise definition for this complex concept, indeed its many facets demand more than a simple sentence. Yet, I think we might consider the possibility that, as existence swings between its opposites, good will find its place among its own while evil is told, “Take that is thine, and go thy way.” It seems to be a part of the works that good is gathered while evil is culled.

Begin the Swing

It is a short chapter, and I would like to see it to the end. Matthew 19 finishes with an exchange between Christ and his disciples on the topics of entrance into the kingdom, and the regeneration.

Matthew 19:23-30. It goes like this: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

It is needful to note that Christ repeats himself. This, I think, is for emphasis. We must focus. For of all the points in this exchange upon which we require definition, repetition should not be dismissed. Let us, therefore, list the points and examine them.

First. Repetition for emphasis. What is repeated? Two matters: the insufficiency of the man of substance, and the nature of the kingdom. “A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom,” KJV. The word 'hardly' means: 'with little likelihood'. We want to know, then, how hard can it be? Jesus wanted to make that point plain – thus the repetition. It is so hard for a man of substance to enter heaven, that there is a greater likelihood of someone threading a needle with a camel. There is simply too much substance to fit through the strait and narrow eye. Think of a dog with a stick in its mouth trying to get through a narrow door. He must either drop the stick, or discover how to walk sideways.

Christ mentioned the kingdom twice. Repetition. Once, he called it the kingdom of heaven, then possibly in the same breath, he turned around and called it the kingdom of God. The word 'of' implies ownership, so when he says 'kingdom of God' we get a clear picture of a 'kingdom' ruled by God. God is king: the kingdom belongs to him. He owns and operates it. On the other hand, when we read 'kingdom of heaven', we must surely know that Christ is not talking about a kingdom that is simply named 'heaven'. No. It is a kingdom that is ruled by heaven, (owned and operated.) Heaven is equal to God, but more on that later.

Second. Can a worldly man enter the kingdom? We think of worldliness as involving a necessary amount of ownership. We know from bitter experience that substance is hard won, and easily lost. On this plain of existence, we depend on our substance. We eat it, we wear it, we trade with it. We also know that there are levels of substance, and levels of worldliness. Imagine if you carried all you own and use on one of your shoulders. You might find yourself dropping some of the excess weight. With God all things are possible. There is a way to get through the strait and narrow, but it will cost you. God can get you through the eye of that needle, but it is up to you not to be as gross as a camel.

Doubtless, a crafty rich man might find a way to squeeze through the strait and narrow. He might line up his possessions in single file and march them through – oh, but wait: “with man this is impossible.” No. He cannot push them through, or pull them through. He is not allowed to go back and forth to bring them in one at a time. His passage through is totally personal, so paying someone to help won't work either. Man has a predisposition – that is to say, a worldly, possession-oriented way of looking at things. It is an inclination that colors his every thought, action, and reaction.

But: “with God all things are possible.” God provides a formula that will ensure you get through that strait and narrow entrance into the kingdom. That formula is neither worldly, nor possession-oriented. Rather, the formula is a radical departure from the norm. Man must change his way of thinking. To enter a spiritual kingdom, man must learn to see things spiritually. He must become different; he must become new. He must learn to associate and identify with spiritual possessions – that is, he must spiritually see a spiritual core nature, rather than physical extensions. That is why John told us in 1 John 3:2, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

Third. The astonished response of the disciples, especially of Peter. Everyone owned something they wanted to hang on to. Having possessions nearby is quite handy, after all. Peter was a man of some substance. He owned a home, he had a wife, he operated a business that kept his family fed. That is why, to me, his response seems anguished. He wasn't filthy rich, but what was his was his. He worked hard for it, and was emotionally invested in its maintenance. He may have really wanted to ask, 'what more do you want from us? We barely have too sticks to rub together, and we even left those behind to follow you – please tell us it's not for nothing.'

Fourth. Compensation. Christ made a list of compensations for those who forsook all to follow him. Whether these compensations are literal or figurative or spiritual has yet to be determined. It is so often the case that we read something without fully seeing what it is that we are looking at. And as investments go, the list of compensations seems unparalleled. Give up one thing, get a hundred. Look closely at the list; if you leave your wife behind, you get a hundred more. That's a deal with appeal for any Solomon. To be candid, it sounds a bit like the seventy virgins that Muslims go on and on about.

If these compensations are worldly, we might envision a man not married, per se, but rather responsible for the maintenance and well-being of many women, and not necessarily just of their physical needs. If this compensation is spiritual, and takes place in a higher realm, we might envision social protocols heretofore un-envisioned. As to a hundred fold more lands, that does, I admit, seem more or less solid. But, I have still to work through my worldly predispositions.

Fifth. Thrones. However these compensations play out, the most noteworthy of them all is the promise of thrones. Thrones represent not only power and authority, but a close proximity to Christ himself. Who could want for more than such a connection? In terms of compensatory thrones, I am reminded of the parable in which servants were left with a portion of their master's great wealth. Those who were able to use their portion to achieve even more were rewarded with greater responsibilities. Luke 19:17, “And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.”

Now, let us take a moment to look, not at the thrones of the disciples, but the throne of Christ. The New International Version of this text uses the words: “When the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne.” This version paints us a picture of some especially nice furniture. It is all very glorious, but I much prefer the rendering of the King James Version which reads: “When the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory.” The King James Version speaks clearly of a quality that is possessed by the one who sits, not by that which one sits in. Christ owns, and is in full possession of 'his' glory. For me, that speaks of what the Son inherits from the Father – of a thing or a title or a power, some quality that is passed down to the rightful heir.

Christ is not the only one to inherit something. He tells his disciples that, on top of the hundred-fold compensations, on top of the thrones, they will also inherit eternal life. Just as power and authority are passed down from the Father to the Son, so too eternal life is passed down from Christ to his followers. That is: life unending, life that goes on and on, perpetually recurring life, life that empowers the individual to move past his or her worldly, possession-oriented predisposition.

Sixth. Regeneration. In biology, regeneration is the process of renewal, restoration, and growth that makes organisms resilient to natural fluctuations or events that cause disturbance or damage. In theology, Regeneration is the spiritual transformation in a person, brought about by the Holy Spirit that brings the individual from being spiritually dead to become a spiritually alive human being. Regeneration is another way of speaking of being born again. This comes from an internet search.

Concerning the millennium, there are several schools of thought. The premillennial view sees it as pertaining to an alleged return of Christ to set up an earthly kingdom over which he will reign from Jerusalem with his apostles ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. This regime is supposed to continue for a literal 1,000 years.

There are those who think the regeneration has more to do with the prophet Daniel's concept of Christ's glorious approach to heaven, which would have commenced after his ascension. Then, there are those who favor the heavenly reward concept. This view involves a special honor for the apostles, a renovated earth, the final judgment, and the rebirth of the world. It is also said by some that the regeneration began on the day of Pentecost. And of course, there are the connections to Titus 3:5 and Acts 3:21.

The New International Version restates the regeneration as simply 'the renewal of all things'. This seems a rather middle of the road approach, but it actually plays into my court. I have long thought that events of all types and calibers are anti-linear – actually more dynamic and life like. There is an ebb and flow like the tides. There is an inhalation and an exhalation as with the lungs. My view sees it as a swinging back and forth as with a pendulum. 'The renewal of all things' is simply one natural extreme of that extent.

Seventh. First and last. We see in the compensations for believers and followers, a pattern that is not unfamiliar. When the householder of one particular parable employed workers for his field, he paid them in just that pattern at the end of the day: last first and first last. If you can picture it, envision a time-lapsed farmer plowing, planting, and reaching the end of his field. He turns to find that his crops are ready to be harvested, so he starts right away from where he stands. It is a time-lapsed harvest that begins with the last and works toward the first. Many things in the natural universe operate in this fashion, and by this pattern. It is like a pendulum that begins to swing back from where it stops.

The Greatest Commandment

In Matthew 19:16-21 there is an exchange which is mirrored in Mark 12:28-31 and Luke 10:25-28. The exchange, while not a parable, is worthy of inclusion solely for reasons of definition. We want to know, we want to understand, we want a clearer picture of the truth in the words of our Lord. Now, in all three instances, the exchange of words deals exclusively with the first, or greatest commandment, and also the second, which Jesus says is like the first.

As one stumbles into this exchange, one immediately begins to associate the word 'commandment', and the Jews, with the big ten delivered by Moses. I was surprised to find, in a quick check, that the two great commandments actually come from different sources, and represent a collective amalgamation of general opinion. It stands that these two concepts summarize the Yin and Yang of the Ten Commandments and represent two interconnected spirits of the law working hand in hand.

The first concept is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” This concept  epitomizes the first actual commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” as well as all subsequent commandments that deal with the individual's relationship with God.

The second concept is found in Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.” This concept epitomizes all the commandments that deal with an individual's relationship to other people. These two concepts, combined, are viewed as the spirit of the law. What does Jesus say about these two core concepts? Matthew 22:40, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

The great commandment is a 'two-part' commandment. 'Love your God/love your neighbor' is the whole of it. For mankind, it stands as the prime constant that binds us, that binds us. It is our moral compass upon which must be based all of our judgments and higher prejudices. We must give all to our god, but by the same token we cannot give any less to those around us than we would give to ourselves. For man, there can be no 'Holy War' against our neighbors, no 'Jihad'. There may only be a Holy compassion. There can be no 'business as usual', for that must dissolve to allow brotherly love to address the needs of the people.

Love is the definition here, more than love, a connected love. I would like to conclude with this from Wikipedia: Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, wrote,
This is the first and great commandment - It is so,
1. In its antiquity, being as old as the world, and engraven originally on our very nature.
2. In dignity; as directly and immediately proceeding from and referring to God.
3. In excellence; being the commandment of the new covenant, and the very spirit of the Divine adoption.
4. In justice; because it alone renders to God his due, prefers him before all things, and secures to him his proper rank in relation to them.
5. In sufficiency; being in itself capable of making men holy in this life, and happy in the other.
6. In fruitfulness; because it is the root of all commandments and the fulfilling of the law.
7. In virtue and efficacy; because by this alone God reigns in the heart of man, and man is united to God.
8. In extent; leaving nothing to the creature, which it does not refer to the Creator.
9. In necessity; being absolutely indispensable.
10. In duration; being ever to be continued on earth, and never to be discontinued in heaven.

Don't look at the eunuch

There is an exchange in Matthew 19:1-12, which is not a parable, yet deserves our attention. I say this because I am engaged in a quest of sorts. It is a quest for definition and meaning. The search is on for a better understanding. Now, the exchange concerns divorce, adultery, and the sexual abstinence of men. It runs like this: the Pharisees grill Jesus on the issue of divorce. They seek to trap him in legal nit-picking. He tells them, “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

But, the Pharisees are unwilling to hear the truth, so they continue to argue the point. Why then, they ask, did Moses allow it? Jesus answered that it was because of the hardness of the hearts of men, but it was not so from the beginning. The only just cause they had for putting away a wife was the discovery of adultery. Note that Christ did not suggest she be stoned. In fact, what he told them was that the danger of adultery existed in their inclinations toward divorce.

Divorce posed two dilemmas. The first was that another man was caused to commit adultery for marrying the divorced adulteress. Such a past could remain covered as the woman sought the security of a stable life. Second was that if the woman was not guilty of adultery but was divorced anyway, and the man remarried, the man committed adultery because, in the eyes of God, he was still one with the wife he put away.

Enter the disciples. They figure that if a man runs such a high risk of falling out of God's favor, then he should just not marry. He should make God his choice and leave the women alone altogether. I don't doubt that they were amazed by the whole exchange. The truth seemed to make the institution of marriage a bit more dark and gloomy. So then we come to the point of this study.

Jesus talks about the eunuch. However, the eunuch is not the point I wish to bring up. Don't look at the eunuch. Someone like the apostle Paul will pick up on that. Rather I wish to draw attention to two statements the Christ makes in relation to the non-relation. Suffice it to say that there are reasons why a man might abstain from congress with a woman. We'll leave the issue of being a eunuch as the odd bit of trivia mostly unrelated to modern practice. Again I say, do not look at the eunuch.

These are the two statements of interest:
One, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” (See verse 11)
Two, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (See verse 12)

For all the reasons why a man might not be with a woman, there are still plenty of reasons for a man to be one with his wife – as God intended. Now, society might place the having of children as the top reason, but I dare say that God would place love in the number one slot. Children, while important in their own right, are a natural extension of the institution of marriage. Love must be first.

So obviously, all men cannot receive the saying. But – those who can receive it, they are the ones to whom it is given. It is meant for them. They are open to that particular avenue. And – it is not like they are doomed to some sad life that saps their very will to persevere. They can receive it because they are prepared for it. They are strong enough for it. We see in this that the Almighty never intended for everyone to be exactly the same.

Some people are just different. That should be respected. There are many places in life that are different, and that require different sorts of people to fill them. Diversity is a personal choice of God. He doesn't want everyone to marry, or have children. He doesn't give everyone a tongue to pray with, or eyes to see why he is so worthy of our praise. He does not want everyone to be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, etc. He doesn't want everyone to believe, and as unbelievable as that may sound for the believers, God has made a place for those who will not, or can not.

I can see the whole of us as a clock. We are the gears that click and turn. Some of us are small, some large. Some of us spin faster than some others of us. Some of us turn a different way – but the whole contraption works, and that is what God wants. There is a force, a tension, between the differences that keeps it all ticking.

If all of us were eunuchs, life would grind to a halt. So, don't look at the eunuch. If all of us were Muslims, life would grind to a halt. So, don't look at the Muslim. For that matter, don't look at the Christian or the Jew. Don't pay any special attention to the complaints you perceive in yourself, and don't exalt yourself unduly. You fill the spot that God gave you. You understand the message he has crafted for you. Don't try to manipulate the world around you, to remove or to change the things that trouble you.

Seek a personal relationship with your God, and while that remains unresolved, live the life you have, love the one you are with. Make yourself useful, and allow the light of virtue and truth that is in you to inspire others. Resist fear and terror; exalt love.

Spirit on Tap

We turn our attention now to Matthew 18:18. We look at a single statement that is found between two parables. It is a statement that is often overlooked, although it is found within a body of words often cited in religious services. To be fair, I have seen it addressed, but not thoroughly. In fact, it is touched upon so lightly that I wonder why they bring it up at all. I believe it to be an important statement, and I believe that important statements, that is to say, the understanding of important statements, should always begin with an attempt at definition.

Before I approach that definition, we should take note of the context in which the statement is found. First, it is found between two parables. The former parable addresses the lost sheep, the shepherd who rejoices at finding it, and the ninety-nine sheep that stayed put. The latter parable addresses the servant whose debt was forgiven, but who in turn would not forgive a fellow servant. Between these two, Christ spoke to his disciples about those the disciples would need to forgive. More precisely, he relays the order in which a personal trespass should be approached. It is in the body of this particular discourse that Matthew 18:18 comes up.

Here, what we want is a firm grasp on the concept of 'trespass'. We turn to Wikipedia. The concept has calcified into actionable law, where in a civil court one person may lay claims of wrongdoing against another. Trespass breaks down into three variants: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Pretty basic stuff, really. To view the full article go to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law.

There is also trespass of goods, and trespass of land. In most of the actionable cases, intent must be proved, although the law recognizes trespass due to negligence. So then, we are speaking of real, not imagined, slights. Peter referred to trespasses as sins in the question he posed Jesus in Matthew 18:21. However, I must reassert that the sins be real, and not imagined. For example, in the exercise of our freedom of speech, we daily run the risk of hurting someone's feeling, of offending their sensibilities, but for the most part these are not actionable under the law. Therefore, there is no real cause for distress, and no real offense that must either be addressed or forgiven.

This is the context in which we find Christ making this statement in Matthew 18:18 – “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” It is, to begin with, a concluding statement to the argument he just presented. That argument was an organized treatment of the forgiveness of trespass. Binding on earth is representative of the servant who threw his fellow servant into prison over a small debt. That act of imprisonment is equally reflected in heaven – that is to say, the personal connection of the spirit to the individual. Loosing on earth, or the act of forgiveness, is also equally reflected in heaven. By that I mean that the individual who forgave, finds within his personal connection to the spirit an equal degree of forgiving.

Christ went on to fit one final piece into the puzzle of this discourse, a finishing touch, as it were, to present the full image. He dropped this clue about spirit and connection into Matthew 18:19-20, “Again I say unto you” (or, I must reassert),  “That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

What final meaning, or definition, may we draw from this section of scripture? The theme of this discourse seems clear. It is the theme of spiritual connection. It is the theme of spiritual reflection. It is the action and reaction that is equal between the individual of this plane, and his spirit that resides in heaven.

Finally, when I think about the words, 'bind' and 'loose', I am reminded of a water tap. If you twist the handle one way, you close off the flow – that is, you restrict or bind the passage between the source and destination. If you twist it the other way, you open the connection. You loose the flow of water from its source. In this manner, the water will reach the one in need, and the refreshing may proceed.

Divine Connections

Children, angels, and sheep are the topics of this investigation. We look to the parable found in Matthew 18:10-14, and again, by way of reference, in Luke 15:3-7. The main parable, as seen in Matthew, is told to the disciples in the context of a broader discussion. In that setting, Christ relays important facts.

The disciples had gathered around to ask, “who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” First of all, then, know it is a 'kingdom' that is being discussed. Positions of power and authority were of interest. A big question for all Jews of that day was why the people of God occupied such a low rung on the Roman ladder.

To this end, Christ placed a small child in the midst of his companions in order that he might illustrate the nature of greatness in the eyes of God. When I say greatness, I mean excellence, beauty, desirability. The nature of a child is then expounded upon. That nature, for the purpose of this present study, requires a better understanding on our part.

Christ told his disciples that for them to even have a shot at getting into the kingdom, they all must convert to become like the child. He was telling adults to become child-like. Further, he described the highest rank in the kingdom as the nature of lowliness. In this case, a brutally honest and self-defacing nature is not what Christ is pointing to. Rather, he is directing our attention toward the nature of acceptance, learning, belief, and looking up in the sense of a willing faith coupled with excitement.

It is vital to note Christ's addendum to this, that if any of us receive someone of this nature in his stead, it is equal in every respect to receiving Christ. To learn of Christ, is Christ. To seek, and to communicate the Word, is the Word. This higher nature is the expression of love, joy, yearning, and sharing all rolled into one.

A short list of offenses follow, and it is important that we see all of them as offenses against the child-like nature rather than against the child. Christ shows an acceptance of the inevitability of offenses; even the Son of God knows and accepts that bad things happen, but he places the blame squarely on the offender. Yet, not even the offender is cut off completely, for if they rectify the matter, they may still enter into life – albeit maimed or blind.

Christ views the 'little ones' who believe in him in a very personal way. The nature of belief is a part of him – who is the greatest in heaven. The connection is not hypothetical or metaphorical, but real in every sense. Speaking of connections, Christ uses specific language as he leads into his parable. For starters, the angel of the little one is not 'an' angel, neither is 'the' used, but rather, 'their angel'. These angels are always in direct connection with God.

On the point of God, Christ calls him 'Father' not once but twice. In both instances, Christ makes sure to point out that the 'Father' is in heaven -- or the kingdom. This I believe is in reference to the Jewish standard belief that their father was Abraham. Christ lifts fatherhood above the merely nationalistic and racially motivated – way up to the kingdom of heaven. Heaven is a totally different kind of kingdom – a kingdom of spirit and nature. Further, Christ connects himself and his followers under the same 'Father'. In one instance he says, “my Father”, but in another instance he says, “your Father”.

Then Christ tells of the one hundred sheep. A variation of this parable is found in Luke. I include it here, and add it to the former, to give the Matthew version added depth. Here, we will view the 'sheep' and 'little ones' as identical. We will view Christ as the shepherd, and we will view the angels of the little ones as the 'neighbors' of God. Christ plainly stated the he came to save the lost. In the seeking of the lost little one, who believes in him, there is joy.

There is more joy for the one that was found than for the ninety-nine that stayed put. Envision God as the one who found his lost sheep. He throws it over his shoulder, and when he gets home, he calls the angels to rejoice with him. Christ is the shepherd of the sheep who came to save the lost, but he told his disciples

this: “is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” The little ones, greatest in God's kingdom, are connected to God (who is one with Christ) through the angels, and Christ is one in nature with the little ones.

The Tower

The next parable is about assessment and sufficiency. It may be found in Luke 14:28-33. Christ spoke to his disciples about the cost of discipleship. Do you want to be a disciple? Check first to see if you have what it takes. It is not a thing that one may take lightly. It is not a mere title that allows one to sit on imagined laurels, rather it is an undertaking, a task, an ongoing endeavor.

If you intend to build a tower, you sit down first to count the cost. Do you have the resources to finish what you begin? If you lay the foundation, but the tower sits unfinished, you will be mocked as someone who had no clue about the real work or financing that goes into such a matter.

If you are a king at war with another king, you sit down first with your counselors to see if your 10,000 soldiers even have a chance against those 20,000 enemy combatants. If not, you send an ambassador seeking terms of peace while the enemy is still a great way off. This is your ship, and if you must, you will go down with it. First, however, you must ensure the safety of your people. There is no place here for bluster or pride.

We must question the tower builder and the king. What must they have drawn on to accomplish each task at hand? What sacrifices would they have made to ensure the completion of their hopes and plans? If the tower builder had seen an insufficiency of funds, he might have borrowed from a lender, or sold some possessions. The fact that he wanted a tower suggests that he already had possessions: a farm with fields, and crops that required enhanced storage, or else a business that needed surveillance, else a means of communication with other towers.

The king is shown to have 10,000 troops. That number is indicative of the population from which the soldiers were drawn. A kingdom suggests powers and assets from which to draw further. There are businesses paying taxes – take some extra in time of need. There are citizens which may be drafted and trained to fight – do so.

Sacrifices are sometimes needful. The builder might not want to sell his possessions or place himself in debt, but if he is really committed to his hope, he will even give up all that he has. The king may not wish to strain the relationship he has with the citizenry, he may be having his reputation tested. He will have to make choices, even sacrifices. He will have to choose between his reputation and his kingship. He may be called upon to give, or to give up, all that he has. It was common knowledge that losing kings did not fare well.

Christ made a strong case: forsake all that you have or you cannot be a disciple.

Will you be found?

Speaking of treasure, the next parable describes a windfall. We find it in Matthew 13:44. “The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field.”
This is a small parable that paints a big picture. Let's take a moment to visualize the scenario.

Let's say you are out walking. You are in a field. It is not your usual place. It is a piece of land that is owned by another person. It is not currently in use, and, as a result, wander walk freely. You stub a toe or catch a glint of something out of place – like yourself. No one is around; you start to dig a little. You find something of interest, something of value, but you are uncertain how much is buried there. So you cover the item of interest and run home for your special investigation tools.

That night, when you are sure you will not be discovered, you return with a shovel and spade to dig until there is nothing left to discover. Your eyes are wide, you pant for air. Aside from your labors, you are unquestionably beside yourself with excitement. What you've uncovered is special. It is quite literally a treasure.

It is a banner day, but there is a problem with your windfall – it is on land that belongs to another. It is certain the owner is unaware of it, else he would have availed himself of it. It is probable that the previous owner knew nothing of it as well. Yet, by all rights, it belongs to the owner of the land. Then it dawns on you, you can be the owner. You hatch a mighty plan.

You go to great lengths to hide the treasure in the same field; you want no one else to stumble upon it. So you hide the treasure in a place, and in a manner, that is least likely to be found by another. You realize that the land is owned only by default. If the owner was well to do, the land would most certainly be worked. You feel confident the owner will respond to an offer of purchase.

Phase two of the plan is more difficult. You gather your resources, liquidate your assets. Nothing is spared, and you feel you can offer a price the owner will view favorably. To your great delight, the owner sells, and you become the rightful and lawful owner. You did not steal the treasure; it is truly yours.

The parable does not so much depict the one-up you might happily experience. Rather, it depicts the lengths to which the kingdom of heaven is willing to go. The world may own you, and there you sit, undeveloped, going to weed. The treasure hidden within you is wasted on the current owner.

Then, a price is paid. You lawfully belong to one who can make the most of us.

Another thought has occurred to me. What if the owner of the field knew about the treasure? I'm wondering if the owner saw that treasure as a treasure. We have a saying that goes like this: one man's rubbish is another man's treasure. He neither wanted it nor did he make any use of it. It was only a treasure for you. So when you hid it, it was not from the owner, but others like yourself. Others might have done the same thing, but you wanted the treasure alone. It was just that personal.

Are you a scribe?

This next parable is not only one of my personal favorites, but also seems to link several other parables into a cohesive synthesis. It may be found in Matthew 13:47-50. In it, heaven is compared to a net that is cast into the sea, which gathered of every kind of fish indiscriminately. The net is only the first part of a work, and may at once be seen to represent the many pearls of the merchant, or the seeds of the farmer which are sown broadcast into the field.

In all of the scenarios, we see a clear and unmistakable intent. It was always the goal of the merchant to trade up. It was the intent of the farmer, that while many situations were supplied equally, the best seeds in the best soil was always the hoped for combination. As for the fishermen, when their net was full, they drew it to shore and sat down to complete the final phase of their labor. Many are called, but few are chosen. Only what the fishermen deem most desirable is gathered into vessels for safe keeping. The good choice is their livelihood, it is their life – literally.

So what happens to the many? Are they thrown back into the sea? Are they used as fertilizer? No. They are thrown into the fire so they won't raise a stink. Remember here that fire and fuel goes together. But, the point here defines what is kept, and what is removed from the catch. The entire work, with attention given to phase two, is compared to the end of the world, a time foretold when heaven's catch will be sorted.

In the end of the world, God's angels, Christ's mighty army, will be sent into the world. At that point, the many will have been called, the net will have been dragged to shore; the work of phase two will begin. Here, we recall what Christ said about two men in one bed: one is taken, one remains. A common interpretation, here, is that of the Rapture, in which God's elect are taken, and the undesirable are left behind. However, that is not the case.

The work of the angels is to sever the wicked from among the just. It is not the just that are taken, for they are preserved in vessels. It is the wicked that are taken out from among the just. Throwing them back into the sea is not an option. Christ makes it quite plain that the wicked will be thrown into a furnace of fire, which must be viewed in spiritual terms rather than a destruction of carcasses. Yes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that is not the point of the parable.

When Christ finished the parable, he asked his disciples if they understood what he was trying to get across. When they answered in the affirmative, Christ then tied the parable to his summation. It was more like a mini-parable, no more than a rudimentary comparison, a simple statement, but that final statement was intended to be the point of the previous parable.

What was that statement, and what was that point? We look in Matthew 13:52, “Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.”

Christ is literally telling his disciples, 'this is what I want you to get from the net parable.' If the seeker of truth wishes to get the same thing from the parable, he or she must dissect the summation into its various parts, and define them.

Those parts are: 'every scribe', 'instructed unto', 'kingdom of heaven', 'householder', 'bring forth', 'his treasure', 'things new and old.' All of the definitions that we will derive have a direct link to the parable of the net. Before we can tie a scribe to a fisherman, we must be able to see what a scribe and a householder have in common. Our first definition will be scribe/householder and fisherman/net user(possible angel).

A scribe is defined by his or her calling. The fact that Christ referenced 'every scribe', places the individual in question into a less than specific realm, somewhere between the absolute commonplace and the absolute unconventional. The calling would include secretarial and administrative duties, and the impetus would be one of acquisition and building. A data analyst would build his database. A farmer would build barns and silos. A fisherman would build his stockpile. A scribe would build upon a wealth of discovery and revelation. A householder will build a unique and defensible domain.

A modern twist on scribe is the seeker: curious, earnest, and focused. He is like the householder in that both live in their acquisitions. All that they seek and acquire becomes their personal domain and private treasure. These two are like the fisherman in that they must pick and choose the thing that will sustain them.

The fisherman fishes to live. The householder adds to and maintains what is his apart. The scribe, the seeker, is the 'prepared soil' of the farmer. He or she has the heavenly inclination. Christ made the point that we are instructed 'unto' the kingdom of heaven. We are prepared and trained. Our eyes and ears are geared toward, or 'unto', the truth. The kingdom of heaven, therefore, must be defined as that which a scribe or a seeker may see, hear, understand and record. We might alternatively call the kingdom of heaven the kingdom of the message. Heaven, being spiritual, must always be viewed as the reception and transmission of the Word.

For a fisherman to earn a living, he must be able to produce a catch. That is his treasure. For a farmer to have a harvest, he must transmit to his fields the seeds of a previous harvest. That is his treasure. Likewise, the householder and scribe must also be able to bring forth from their treasures, neither of which can be insubstantial or illusory. The scribe and householder use their respective treasures just like the merchant of pearls. They must use them to trade up, to bring forth more of the same. Like the merchant, the householder will use old treasures to obtain new treasures.

The fisherman may find a strange new fish in his net some day. If it meets the criteria of what he wants, he will not discard it. The common link in all these scenarios is the scribe, the disciple, the seeker of and maintainer of the message. The work of the scribe is not unlike the work of heaven, for heaven is the householder/fisherman/scribe/pearl merchant who takes of his old treasure to bring forth treasure that is new. Heaven trades up to itself. Heaven gathers itself into vessels. Heaven is the seeker seeking the truth of itself, and, as the householder knows, it takes treasure to make treasure.

One-up

Next up: Matthew 13:45-46 – Heaven is like a merchant man seeking goodly pearls. Most of us have more than a passing familiarity with this parable, as it is used both by the church, and by the secular sector. We recall that the merchant found one pearl of great price, and when he had, he sold all that he had to obtain it.

Most people view this as an allegory that loosely defines an individual's quest toward spirituality. The common understanding places the individual as central, and in an upward transition where he or she does, finds, achieves, or becomes more.

However, it is not the merchant, but heaven, that is the true subject of the parable. Heaven owns, seeks, sorts through many 'pearls' – all of which hold qualities of value, and unique beauty. The substance of heaven is spent in the acquisition of such notable treasure. The focus of heaven is bent toward these alone.

And yet, when a pearl is found to be more than notable – when one is found to be exceptional, uncommon, extraordinary – that pearly treasure is sought at the expense of the rest. Heaven trades in all the notable pearls for this one pearl of great price. How great is the value of this one pearl? That should be plain in the fact that all other pearls are sold, and using not just the price of the pearls, but all that he possesses to purchase it. That, of course, would include possessions beyond the pearls.

We are the pearls that heaven deals in. Most of us possess a unique beauty, and value. But for most of us, our highest value consists in our being traded up to obtain the uncommon individual of great price. Heaven stands ready to surrender all it possesses to acquire it, moreover, heaven places in that object all of its desire, and attention. Heaven's full focus turns to the one.

That alone should give us a new perspective on the expression “many are called, but few are chosen.” We should, therefore, be thoroughly impressed with the difficulty of reaching the strait gate. The way is actually so narrow that only the one may pass through it. If we, as individuals, are attempting to one-up, especially those of us with spiritual inclinations, we must derive a definition for the one, and with full focus, seek what that is.

For Christians, that will be one of two things: either you busy yourselves saving others, or you busy yourselves becoming the one. If any of you are willing to look it up, a hint toward the latter goal may be found in John 17.

Heaven like leaven

Heaven like leaven ( a nice rhyme ) – this curious parable is found in Matthew 13:33. Is it mere chance that these words come down to us rhyming each other? Now, this parable, for all its brevity, is rich in food for thought. We note that leaven is something small, on the order of a mustard seed. One needs a microscope to see the actual work of yeast. Leaven gets bigger with time. It grows. We think of expansion, we think of increase, we think of rising.

We are told that a woman 'took' the leaven. She would have to, I'm sure, as she was not born with leaven in her hands. The representation is of something outside of ourselves, of something that we take up, and add to our state – something that we can work with, and make something by its inclusion. But, why a woman?

Traditionally, that is to say: from the point of view of that time and culture, bread making was a woman's work. It fell outside the purview of the common man. It was a restricted field of activity, a thing of narrow focus. The only one we might expect to take up leaven and bread making was the woman.

Here, we should not view the parable as relating only to women, per se – since we must make the leap from leaven to heaven – rather, we must see the issue as something that is taken up by individuals with an inclination to that particular narrow focus, individuals focused and dedicated to their own narrow field of personal interest.

As I am fond of saying – that particular path is open only to those who are open to that particular path. Therefore, taking up heaven, or truth, or the work of the kingdom – that is a particular matter that falls to those with an inclination to take up that particular matter. We are a qualified group of narrowly focused individuals, we find the matter to be one of personal interest.

The common man is a far-reaching group comprised of individuals spinning in tight restrictive circles. There are atheists and agnostics, people interested in work, and people interested in play, professionals, scholars, transients, butchers, bakers, and preachers. All of them are focused on what is in front of them. None of them stray from their field of focus. Like the others in the list, there are also truth seekers, laborers for the kingdom, and those with a heavenly inclination. These also remain true to their field of focus. They are the bread makers; think of that when you recall that Christ said, “I am that bread of life” and “This is the bread which comes down from heaven . . .”


The final detail of this parable is the richest morsel of them all. You'd think the most efficient way to make bread would be to simply throw the yeast in the whole lump, that is not the case in this parable; the leaven is added to three small measures. In effect, the leaven is taken up, and included into three divisions of our state, with a personal interest, or goal, in mind. Here is where definition serves us best, for we must define our 'state', and the three divisions of our state into which we include the heavenly leaven.

Our state is ever connected. We are connected to our environment, our community, our family, our co-workers – and, just as surely as our left brain is connected to our right, our physical/emotional self is connected to our spiritual self. Each and every self, or group of selves, is connected to the spirit through the spiritual self. Every point in the list above is connected to every other point via some form of communication. No state is without communication, therefore, we must define our state as a relay point in a chain of looped communication.

The three communicative divisions of our state exist in our physical, emotional, and spiritual natures. The three measures of meal are seen, then, as equally distributed to, as well as equal in development. No part is, or should be deprived. We may infer from this what kind of individual we wish to be. Each division may develop best in the company of other such divisions – thus the whole point of dividing in the first place, but to truly get the meaning of this, we must see that these divisions are meant to be a whole.

No one part of us should develop at the expense of some other part. All three of our natures: physical, emotional, and spiritual are meant to combine as a whole, and not just that, but intentionally, by predisposition, design, and as a set goal. If we view the combined three natures as a living creature – say, a head connected to two legs, each with hands instead of feet, we might well imagine how some creatures will look due to poorly developed appendages.

Some will be all head, two small tabs struggling to hold it up. Some will have one or more mighty legs, adept in grasping and taking, but so blind they continuously run into walls. The common man is such a creature, well-developed emotions and or physicality, the head only developed enough to aid it's grasping appendages. Even the common preacher, who claims to be spiritual, is seen as more emotionally developed than spiritual. Those with a heavenly inclination, those who labor for the kingdom, must seek the truth of wholeness.

Our physical/emotional half is a relay point in a looped communication between the physical experience, and our spiritual half. Our spiritual half is a relay point in a looped communication between our spiritual roots and our more corporeal branches. We must deprive ourselves of no one part to favor another, for we are meant to be whole: just as spiritual as physical/emotional.

Can you fly?

The three versions of the mustard seed parable are found in Matthew 13:31-32, Mark 4:31-32, and Luke 13:19.

The basic elements of these three parables are the same, with the supporting details differing only in the smallest of deviations. The mustard seed was sown in a field, sown in the earth and cast into a garden. The seed is described as the least of all seeds, less than all the seeds that be in the earth, and in Luke, is not described in any fashion.

This seed, which was twice sown and once cast, was the greatest among herbs, becoming a tree in Matthew, while in Mark, it grows to become greater than all herbs, shooting out great branches. In Luke, the seed grew and waxed a great tree. In all the parables, the birds and fowls of the air found lodging in the branches of, and under the shadow of the mustard tree. We may take this to mean that the birds found a temporary home, a place of refreshing, and a platform from which sprang the usual business of employed birds.

Other than the rather generic “sown in the earth”, placing such a tree in a field or garden carries with it a two-fold intent. The purpose of a large tree in a field or garden is not merely one of decoration. During harvest, one may imagine the workers seeking respite from the heat of the day. While the field or garden matures, birds will come down from their roost to eat the parasites that normally plague the fruit.

The birds are employees whose every need is satisfied. In symbolic terms, we may see the church as a mustard seed for the field, and the faithful as gainfully employed. We may also view the mustard tree as the more spiritually capable individual, to which fly all who are in need of direction, instruction, and personal growth. To what might we liken the field or garden? It may sound strange to some, but I envision a field of birds, a garden of birds. They are immature, unable to fly. It is only through the employment of the birds of the air that the birds of the ground may ever arise.

Second Chances

More on those servants in our next parable. We find this one in Luke 13:6-8. The story goes like this – a man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard. He looked to have fruit from it for three years, and for three years was disappointed. He finally gave up and told the dresser to have it removed, for he now thought that it took up space that might be put to better use. It cumbered the ground, he thought, choking and limiting the place it occupied. The dresser asked him to give it one more year so that he might dig around it and add fertilizer. It is a small parable, but a large story.

If we think of God as the man who had the fig tree planted in his vineyard, what does this parable tell us about God's purposes? A man with a vineyard grows grapes, that's the fact of the matter. What he wants is a harvest of grapes. Why put a fig tree in the middle of all those grapes? An experiment? Aesthetics? Leviticus 19:19 shows us that God placed a restriction on experimentation: “thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed.”

Was God being a rebel? Was he bending his own rules? Why was there room enough to put a fig tree among the grapes – and what does that say of you and I? Are we grapes or figs? I should ask, rather, is our thinking like the fruitful vine, or the unfruitful tree? How long has God hoped to get something out of us, only to be disappointed?

Slated to be uprooted and used as firewood, an unlikely individual thought to give us one last chance. Who does the dresser represent? Is he an angel, or is he that obnoxious neighbor who is always trying to cram his religion down our throats? (I am speaking here for the fruitless trees.) We would rather hope for the angel, a being of splendor and power. The neighbor offers us only what we don't want.

If I was a tree being dunged, I doubt I would understand the good of it. I doubt I could fully appreciate the power of the obnoxious neighbor. That power, of course, is the power to care, to love, to hope in second chances. As I said before, Those who attend such truths, as the servants of the parable, approach the matter only through a genuine interest in the outcome. It is we the servants who keep an eye on the fields.