Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

The entire 23rd chapter of Matthew is a rant and a railing; it is a condemnation of spiritual leaders. Christ does not pull his punches but unleashes the full force of his ire against those who sit in Moses' seat. These leaders, against which our Lord rails so vehemently, constitute the guidance of an entire nation. The rule these leaders exert is both religious and political, and despotic in nature, for they have taken to themselves exclusive ownership of the house of David.

Yes, this is another departure from the study of parables, but it is one truly deserving of definition. Christ spoke openly to the common man, but also as openly to leaders of men. His parables set his message in story form. His condemnations were plainly worded. His truth was stark, even brutal. There is no room for doubt of intent here, but perhaps room for misunderstanding – a matter we shall address. In pointing out the Scribes, Pharisees, and all other leaders, Christ pointed to a type of spirit in action. It is a will and mind embodied even in leaders of our present day. Definition, in its initial phase, will always begin with comparison. Let us compare the old to the new.

Christ identified the outward manifestations of the type. “They say, and do not. They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.”

We know these all too well. Politicians send young men and women to wars they themselves will not fight in. Preachers will demand, cajole, and connive tithes for fancy churches they will not pay for themselves. These edifices are gaudy testaments to their inflated sense of self-worth. Further evidence of their swelling can be seen in suits costing hundreds of dollars, Florsheim shoes, and Rolex watches. We even hear them as they refer to themselves as Pastor this or pastor that. World leaders prefer to be known as leaders rather than the public servants they actually are.

In case there was a doubt, Christ fully exposed their secret dealings and power plays:

“ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (ye) say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever swears by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?”

Funny how similar their concerns for money and gifts are to those of modern day preachers. The important parts are used as means to an end, and they show themselves more interested in the revenue than the connection to God. Christ tells us plainly what the spiritual meaning of the physical act should be, for all action and intent must have the backing of purpose.

“Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, swears by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, swears by it, and by him that dwells therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him that sits thereon.”

A large and gaudy display often shows that something is missing. Christ went on to compare the outward gleam to inner disrepair: “ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel . . . ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.”

Christ gave a simple explanation of how rightness works: “clean first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.”

Christ made it brutally clear what kind of leaders and preachers and teachers and experts and professionals we seem doomed to attract: “ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

Could this next sentence be an indication of the Catholic church? Christ said, “ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous.” As with the military spirit that must constantly beat the drum and stir patriotic sympathies, the church plays the emotions of the common man as if they are strings on a harp, ever parading before us prophets and saints and holy personas that keep church goers neatly mired in manageable habits and attitudes.

Christ exposed them by the length of their arms. In patting their own backs to prove themselves liberal, and morally advanced, they only proclaim their true allegiances. “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”

America, for all its condemnation of war, yet funds and trains the foreign soldiers it will someday turn to fight. For all its condemnations of past atrocities done in the name of the Catholic church, modern churches still build themselves up by tearing others down. Too many are the insignificant details that denominations wish to be identified in. Some wear beards or hair coverings, some denounce music, some lift themselves in the naming of a name. One will always find in such choices the rejection and exclusion of all who bear a different stripe. Personal agenda and restrictive identification often find a way to become radical and destructive. The question becomes then, who is fit to lead?

First to the Jew, but also to leaders of every station, caliber, era and historical placement Christ states his rejection of any and all who are not inclusive in their thinking. To all who would steal the kingdom of God and deprive their fellow man of its good, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kills the prophets, and stones them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord.”

The sad fact about these leaders is that they all claim to come in the only name that matters – their own. Their downfall will be that they cannot conceive that another may come in another name: that very concept is rejected out of hand. Yet, these very souls exercise authority over us. They have ensured they have the power to command, but it is not from strength. They live in secret fear of the day when we stop listening and start saying. They fear the spilling forth of such a flood, couching it in such terms as 'mass panic', 'rioting and looting' – but that is not all of us; that is only the ignorant and criminal element who hold no place in leadership.

“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works.”

To the rest of us, here is what we must not be a part of:

“Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”

“Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

“Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

“He that is greatest among you shall be your servant . . . and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

(But) “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased.”

 

Death cannot speak

Another pause from the study of parables that we might examine a powerful explanation given by our Lord. Christ gives answer to the Sadducees in Matthew 22:29-32. The Sadducees were those who believed a man did not rise to life after death. They asked a question of Jesus about the resurrection – which, if you think about it, someone who does not believe in the resurrection should never bother to ask.

They believed the end was death, while resurrection, as bodied forth by Christ, was set toward the end of life. This opened the possibility of two resurrections, and indeed, the answer Christ gave addressed both a resurrection of life and a resurrection of death. Let us first explore the question, and then those who posed it.

A woman who had seven husbands in life would need to settle accounts in the afterlife. In other words, she could only legally belong to one if all of them were alive. We are all well aware of the legalisms spouted by Sadducees, Pharisees, and that particular ilk. The tempters of Christ were doctors of the law and purveyors of pedigree. They prided themselves on being well versed in even the smallest facet of the law. They would divide and divide again, and no fine point was ever too fine for additional review.

As to those clever ones who thought they had a fine point, they were not unlike their rivals the Pharisees. Both groups were nationalistic in that they drew their authority from the law which God had given to Moses – a law that was legally recorded through the very lineage of the Hebrew nation. It was a proven standard and seal that was shown in the national pedigree they inherited through their fathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Aren't we all a bit legalistic? Aren't we all over-burdened with too many fine points? Even in our modern mindset we recognize the division between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, but which do we lean the more toward? Our understanding is a rudimentary beast, born of personal prejudice and suckled on inopportune opinion. We take the parts we desire and jump to conclusions, clothing ourselves in the agreement with those of similar disposition, being equally prejudiced and opinionated.

Christ gave answer to the Sadducees, and to us alike. We do not know the scriptures, therefore our conclusions and fine points are erroneous. If we have not fully fathomed the what God has said to us, how can we fully comprehend the power at his disposal? If we have an incomplete understanding of the word of God, an understanding filtered by our own limited ambitions, then our understanding of God and what he is all about is also filtered.

Matthew 22:29, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

A cursory review of the scriptures will accomplish no more than a limited understanding of God. The statement Christ gave the Sadducees was a lead-in to his explanation of one of the two resurrections: the resurrection of life. When a man, or a woman, rises to life after their physical death – they are like the angels of God. They are like the angels! They . . . “are as the angels of God in heaven.” So – how are they angels of God in heaven? What degree of life and freedom are they permitted in heaven? Well – according to the son of God, and who better to know, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. This statement was given in response to our filtered understanding of the scriptures.

A filtered understanding will thus conclude that the resurrected, like the angels of God, are sexless or have no binding relationships. In fact, Christ only states that there is no marriage like our filtered understanding is used to. There is marriage in heaven, to be sure: it is the marriage of the son of God to the church. So then, we must inquire: who exactly is the church? The church, in answer to our own question, is the entire body of those who reach heaven. They are the ones that live on.

Our misunderstanding of the scriptures is a monster of an obstacle. We not only know less of the power of God, but less of his true nature, and therefore, less of our own connection. We cannot assume that there are molecular bodies in heaven. They may be atomic. We cannot even be sure that there are bodies. We do after all speak of a spiritual plane. Perhaps all there is in the way of a body is a sense of personal identity. And what will that identity associate with?

Unlike the limited nationalistic view held by the Sadducees and Pharisees, a spiritual identity will associate with life. The Sadducees associated with Abraham, Issac and Jacob in a nationalistic and genealogical sense, all of whom had bodies that died. Christ turned that association against them with the very scriptures they were so well versed in.

Matthew 22:31-32, “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

If the Hebrews found their continuance in their Patriarchs, and their fathers lived on in and through them, then how could those who rejected resurrection lay claim to them? The reference to scripture was a jab in the soft underbelly of non-believers and well deserved. If you do not believe in the resurrection, do you even get to talk about it? If you do not believe in God, do you even merit an opinion? I think not. Life is for the living: to be lived, embraced, and discussed by the living only. Death cannot speak.

Are you worthy?

See now the parable of Matthew 22:2-14. It is the parable of the wedding. These are the parameters – the king prepared the wedding for his son, there was a predetermined list of guests for the wedding, there were servants tasked with gathering the invited guests. Oh, and the king had an army.

The king had great resources, and preparations for the wedding were extensive. He had looked forward to the wedding for a long time and rejoiced to do all he could for the joy of his beloved son. Not everyone was invited, but certainly representatives of various peoples and cities. A king with an army is quite likely a conquering king, and the invited guests were people with which he had a covenant of peace. They were a surrendered people who enjoyed the king's grace only through the instrument of a treaty.

It seems that in the course of time these people got uppity and took the king's grace for granted, feeling superior and seeing the king as ineffectual. What a mistake! Look at all they lost – they had been chosen by the king and would have remained chosen by the son. In their pride and arrogance, they threw all that to the wind.

This is another situation where Christ directly accused the governing body of the Hebrew nation. Such an accusation would have seemed like a knife in the heart, for Jewish theology was based on the notion of an unbreakable bond to God through Abraham; the seed of Abraham could not fail. Sadly, they held to the promise of God to Abraham without honoring their end of the bargain. There were terms for both sides in the covenant, and the treaty hinged in no small part on the compliance of the Hebrew nation.

This is a parable equal to the one in which Christ stated that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation. The servants report the non-compliance of the first set of guests, and the king chooses a second set of guests. Not only is the favor of the king removed, but certain guests who mistreated the servants had their cities burned.

The servants were sent into the highways to gather travelers to the wedding, and it is at this point that we come to our need for definition. Here, we will want to define the nature of the highway, the types of people found there, what they were coming from, why, and where they were headed. The gathering of the second set, at least on the surface, was indiscriminate – which means they were not 'chosen' as were the first. These new guests were merely replacements, all the rest would be sorted out later. What was to be sorted would include their abilities to recognize the treaty and the readiness to comply.

The highways may be considered as the avenues between nations. They may also be considered as timelines between critical historical junctures. The highways serve not only as a means of conveyance but as a spill-over: a place to be when there is no place to be.

The types of people found on the highways will be more than a few. Also, these types may be representative, in a larger sense, of nations and peoples without a clear connection to a king and a king's grace. They're a mixed bag. Some have no place, they live as vagabonds and hobos and Gypsies. Some seek purpose and travel toward something elusive which may be found in the next city. Some flee the places where they used to live but have yet to realize they have no place. There are those who embrace the place-less voids, they may follow those who travel and inhabit the highways, preying upon them at their leisure.

Those who seek purpose take a calculated risk. The place they were failed them in some regard, the place they go to may provide advancement. The purpose may only be a personal construct, they may not see the bigger picture. It could be that they suspect there is a bigger picture and only need an opportunity to embrace it.

Those who flee may do so perpetually – as those who are always at the wrong place at the wrong time, or those who can never make the right decisions. They may be the criminals and derelicts who somehow carry with them the mark of Cain. They are the chaff that every wind will drive before them.

Whoever the people are, those who seek or those who flee; those who have ceased to care and make a bed for themselves in no-man's-land, or those who make their living off the wayward, they represent a type without connection. They are like the men found in the marketplace who stand idle because no man has hired them.

Imagine the surprise of one such person who is approached by the servants of a mighty king. Perhaps the servants are accompanied by armed soldiers. You get a sense of urgency from the invitation. You realize the power and authority of the king. How do you choose? If you are the seeker who has been long in your travels, you may see this new opportunity as a step in the right direction. You will treat your invitation with respect. Should you garner the grace of the king, your advantage is assured wherever you find yourself.

If you are the one who flees you might view the invitation with fear. The power of the king and his army fills you with trepidation. You will treat your invitation with caution, acting in compliance as an extension of your sense of self-preservation. Besides, if you garner the grace of the king, your place may be assured. You may find a home. The king will protect and guide you so you no longer need to flee.

If you are the one who preys upon others, you may only see a greater opportunity. You care nothing for the invitation, you have no respect of persons, kings or soldiers. You are in it for the loot. If you are the one who has lost everything, and the only home you have, is no home at all, the invitation may humble you. Why would a king bother with the like of you? Life is hard in between, and if nothing else, you may benefit from a free meal.

Now, this is a wild-card of a king. He is impressive not only in his power and authority, he blazes the non-traditional trail. In other words, he pretty much does things his own way. Whether you have accepted the invitation out of fear or respect or a hope of getting something for nothing, you would be wise to arrive in a wedding garment. This might be akin to a Tux in some cultural applications, or to one's Sunday-go-to-meeting attire in other cultural settings. At least one owes it to oneself to put on one's best bib and tucker.

The wedding garment was a sign of respect, not so much station. In the parable, almost everyone, no matter their personal circumstance, was able to dress in a wedding garment. Now, one does not travel through life with a wedding garment in their backpack for just-in-case. The wedding garment, while not described in the parable, might have been no more than a clean white robe, or a garment adorned with some token of respect. As I just noted, while one does not travel equipped with a wedding garment, almost all of those invited to the wedding were able to obtain or accomplish the requirement of respect.

One who did not was singled out. He came to the wedding but failed to dress accordingly. It must be a given, and the king would have known, that many who frequented the highways were destitute and without the ability to provide for themselves. Yet, even the poor can wash, adorn, and present their selves respectfully. I think that if one tries, there will be an acceptance. It would likely be the rogue who was found in a disrespectful state. It would be someone emboldened by their own bravado. It would be someone working the fringe of the crowd who chose to wear their independent nature as a badge self-importance.

Is there a type that is known for such blatant disregard. Actually there are many, and they range from the supposedly benign to the unbridled antagonistic, and violent. Since the wedding of the son has greater spiritual implications, who would be the ones who choose not to wear the wedding garment? The basic definition of this parable is: you are either with the king, and his son or you are against. From the king's point of view, if you do not have the decency to respect the son, you do not belong. Those who do not belong, then, are those who disregard Christ. This group includes both the radical Islamist and the supposedly benign atheist. Are you worthy of the king's grace, or will you be thrown out?

The Choice is Yours

We turn our attention to the parable of Matthew 21:33-46. In this one, Jesus speaks directly to the chief priests and Pharisees. We know this from the statement in Matthew 21:45, “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.”

In speaking to these people directly, Jesus is addressing the Jewish nation. By this, I mean that Christ addressed those responsible for directing that nation under the covenant it had with God. I point not only to the government of that nation, but also to a type of government that misuses its religious edicts, redirecting them into personal and political goals. It has to be understood that this redirection is counterproductive to the goals of God. In other words, what God wants from the deal is blocked by the very people set up to ensure the result.

The parable is couched in terms of a vineyard and its fruit. Only one landowner own the vineyard, and only he has any right to expect the fruit it produces. The harvest belongs to him. So in the parable, we see one with the wherewithal to purchase land, build upon it, plant it, and hire husbandmen to oversee its operation.

While the owner lives afar, he sends servants time and again to receive the harvest. They are sent away empty-handed, abused, even killed. Finally, the son is sent. Not content to steal the fruit from the owner, the husbandmen hatch a scheme to steal the land as well. It is apparent that they have gravely underestimated the owner's resources.

So Christ asked a question directed to the leaders of the Hebrew nation. What will the owner do? While these men were evil in their own right, they still recognized evil in others, and their response played right in Jesus' hands. The owner would marshal his forces and destroy the wicked men, giving the vineyard into the hands of men who would “render him the fruits in their seasons.” If one set of servants fails, perhaps another set will do what they are supposed to.

This parable is clearly an indication of the sacrifice of the son of God, but it is also a clear indication of a change in management. One phrase tells the tale. It is found in Matthew 21:43, “Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Read this sentence closely; go back and study it with open eyes. What does it really say?

Christ tells us that the nation of Israel will lose its contract to service the kingdom of God. That contract will be given to a different nation. That nation will be called upon to honor the terms of the contract – a thing the first nation failed to do. The second nation will be called upon to faithfully render the fruits of the kingdom of God. It will approach its charge in a way that differs from the failed approach of the first nation.

The first covenant was physical, geographical, genealogical, historical, and political. The overseers of that covenant used the rules and guidelines of that covenant to deprive the owner of his rightful due. All that was good and right was blocked and withheld for the sake of personal political gain. Make no mistake, religion was used in place of civil law. Moreover, religion was used like a legal weapon against, not only its own people, but all other peoples as well.

Let me use the words of Christ to clearly show what the chief priests and Pharisees were up to, Luke 11:52, “Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” We may understand, then, that the second covenant is about learning, knowledge, truth, wisdom, ans spirituality – the polar opposite of the first. Likewise, the second nation is the opposite of the first. It is a spiritual nation that lifts people rather than suppressing them. In that regard, the laws it employs to that end, while spiritually based, are set apart from religious application far enough to insure that religion does not hinder the societal development that God desires.

Admittedly, Christianity has seen darker days wherein it failed the will of the very one it professed to serve. Yet, Christianity has not ceased evolving, growing, and becoming the  husbandman of choice. America, the nation I believe was referenced in the parable, has in like manner evolved passed it's less than promising performance. We are poised on the precipice of a successful society in which civil law insures the spiritual evolution of mankind, but America's place is by no means guaranteed – unless we as a people make a united stand for what is right and good.

America must be the beacon that guides the way – not in a national or political sense, but in a wholly spiritual sense. It is not the government alone who must take a step forward, but each and every responsible individual. All threats against the spiritual evolution of mankind must be addressed. Presently, radical Islam is a threat of global proportions that threatens to destroy the key of knowledge, and plunge mankind thousands of years into his dark past.

There are other threats as well. There are threats to the environment in which our children must live, there are threats to the very existence of our children who are destroyed in their most vulnerable stages for commercial gain. There are national rivalries which would be energies better spent as national cooperations. There are systems and inbred institutions that constrict the flow of needed goods to the people that need them – to the people made needy by the self-same systems and inbred institutions.

It would be incorrect to say it time for a change: it has always been time for a change, but two things have hindered that change. First are those who resist it, and second are all the rest of us who, while we support what is good in our thinking, have failed to stand up for it in any way that counts. I speak to Americans, and especially to Christian Americans: the ball is in your court – use your nation, use your government for what is good. The power is in your hands.

Christ made a disclaimer about the second nation, it goes like this: Matthew 21:42 and 44, “Did you never read in the scriptures, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing . . . and whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

Three things are clear: one, if you are built around the cornerstone of the new covenant, you will not fall, for you share the same power and authority. Two, if you fall upon the rock and you are not a rock yourself, you will be broken, for you are fragile and do not share in the strength. Three: the rock is not only hard and strong but larger and more elemental than all of the rest of us. Plus it is not static, but able to move – and it will move forward, bringing a wall with it, grinding all who get in the way to powder. So the definition here is directed to the new nation, to the Christian, to those mortared into the new covenant. The definition is directed to you, American people.

Knowing what is to come, you have one of two choices to make: choose the power, or choose the powder.

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.