Do you have an eye for details?

I turned my attention to Mark, chapter five, in search of the next parable but found none. Instead, I found so much more. I have always been impressed that those who chronicled these deeds of Christ chose the words that we now read. If a thing was written down, that was because the writer thought it important enough to mention. They could have lingered on the major points – that Christ was a priest/king, or that Christ was a healer, or a prophet, savior, or the very son of almighty God. Yet, they thought certain small details merited mention.

I see the authenticity of the Bible in those small details. They prove to me the humanity of Christ or the dismay of ordinary people faced with the unimaginable. I have often said that I see the things that others overlook, but in truth, we all see the details. They are there before us in black and white. A person with a blind spot will not immediately catch on, neither will the person with something to prove, nor yet again will the person who assumes, presumes, or predetermines.

Do you have an eye for details? If so, I invite you to reexamine with me the fifth chapter of the book of Mark. It is, at once, a book both of mesmerizing miracles and convincing real-life details. Christ had just taught the multitudes from a hired ship by the western shore of the sea of Galilee. He had crossed to the eastern side, calming a storm in transit. Chapter five presents us with three miracles.

The first of these is the man possessed by Legion. After the miracle, the gentiles of that region gathered to find that not only was the man dressed and in his right mind, but 2000 dead pigs were floating in the sea of Galilee. That second point affected them more than the first, for their livelihoods had been diminished. The people feared his destructive power and asked him to leave.

Back on the other side, likely at the very place from which he had departed, the leader of that city's synagogue kneeled before him to beg a favor. It is possible that Jairus was one of those who had taunted him and schemed with the Herodians for his destruction. Times and fates, however, defy the most stalwart of lives. Things change. When they do, we must change with them. Christ, having the reputation as a Master and healer was the last hope for a daughter loved, but upon death's very door. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Jairus begs for his daughter's life and Christ answers the plea. Yet, even before he raises that 12-year-old girl from the dead, he heals a woman with an issue of blood. Mark five displays three wonderful and wrenching miracles. Now, it might be enough, if the writer had only some major point to express, if only the miracles had been recounted, for indeed they showed the divine in Christ, they showed his healing power. Yet, more than these alone, the writer felt that certain small details were important enough to write about. Let us examine those details together.

We turn first to the possessed. Might it not have been enough to state that the man had an evil spirit? Would it not have been sufficient to show the power of the son of God over so many evil spirits that they were named Legion? If you just had that to report, no more needed to be said. Yet, more was said. Why? I think it is because the writer was amazed at what had occurred. The list of reported facts went well beyond the comfortable realm of that which was considered 'normal'. These are the small details that amazed the writer.

The possessed man was strong – no one could tame him. Obviously, previous attempts to subdue the man had failed. They had failed with ropes, they had failed with fetters, they had even failed with chains. The man always managed to remove them, even in some cases breaking them into pieces. Myths are built around such men, and stories of this type continue from generation to generation. As an example of such, I was once incarcerated in a jail in the city of Leesville, Louisiana. The jail had stood since the late 1880s. A story was told to me of a man so strong, that when he awoke from a drunk to find himself in jail, he bent the bars on the door with his bare hands. I saw those bars with my own eyes, they were one inch thick and made from blue steel. As I say, authenticity may be found in the details.

So, this strong wild man was important to the writer. This was the type of man that Jesus faced – a man known to inhabit the mountain wilds and tombs of the dead – a man heard by many to cry pathetically, and known for such a lamentable state that he would even cut himself with rocks. He was feared by the locals and left to his own devices. This was the man that ran at Christ while those with him watched, amazed and helpless to act. Christ commanded the spirit to depart from the man, who then fell at Jesus' feet and worshiped him.

“What have I to do with you, Jesus, son of the most high God?” said the man in a loud voice, upon which Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” The man answered, “My name is Legion: for we are many.” Now, throughout this exchange, those who attended Jesus stood quietly watching. Legion begged to retain their corporal host, desperate enough to accept the bodies of 2000 pigs. The command of Christ could not be denied, for Christ would not suffer the evil spirits, and when the swine had been possessed, Christ sent them in a panic to their deaths.

So, what is the important message in this report? The story could have begun and concluded on the power of Christ over a legion of evil spirits. Yet, there are details about the wild man – and something else the writer felt was important. The locals saw their livelihoods dead in the sea. They feared him who was stronger than Legion. They rejected him who had trimmed their purse strings so short.

Then, there is the miracle of the raised girl. It would have been enough to show the healer so willing to heal. It would have been enough to show a powerful man on his knees before Jesus. But there are details, and as we are coming to see, there is truth in the details. Let us look at the details. He was back on the other side again. He was near the sea of Galilee in the same area in which he taught the multitudes in parables. There was still enough of a crowd that Jesus again was thronged. Despite the press, one of the rulers of the synagogue made his way to Jesus and fell at his feet, humble, prostrate, desperate.

Now, Jesus traveled with a sizable entourage, and upon his return to the western banks of Galilee, this number was compounded by the crowd that surrounded him. One man, proud in his station, pushed through the multitude, but his station and his pride no longer mattered: his daughter was dying, and Jesus could heal her. He had healed others. It was a father's desperation that threw this leader at the feet of a man his order rejected.

Who ruled the synagogues? A council of elders which may have been constituted of Pharisees and other religious rulers. Perhaps Jairus witnessed the healing of the withered hand. Whether his take on the law set him at disagreement with Jesus, or he had been named among those that chapter three of this book called 'friends', the healer's reputation was undeniable. Jairus humbly begged the life of his daughter.

It is the small details that make a story real. Those unsung tidbits of scripture describe the human nature. They paint a vivid portrait of the moment, and the spirit in which the facts go down. It seems rather immediate, but Jesus went with the ruler of the synagogue. Jesus' entourage went with him, and a large following of people filled in every empty space so that the writer wrote that Jesus was 'thronged'.

Under these circumstances, Jesus was bumped and jostled to the point that even his disciples could not guard his person. I don't doubt they tried. I don't doubt there was a measure of frustration in that event. Into that pressed scenario came a woman with a disease. She touched the clothing of Jesus and was healed. Skeptics will always be more of what they practice. Naturally, they will say this event is just too fantastic to believe.

There is no record that anyone knew of her until the incident. Information for the record would have had to be gathered after the fact. Again, the writer felt that information warranted mention. What are the details? The woman had an issue of blood. Her ailment had blighted her life for 12 years. She had spent all her money on Doctors, but had not improved, rather it is said that she got worse. Furthermore, the writer wanted the reader to know a small but important detail – a very human detail – the woman had suffered at the hands of those who could not really help. That represents 12 years of dashed hopes.

Yet, she had enough faith left, and enough desperation, to push through the throng and touch the clothing of Jesus. No doubt, she had been part of the multitudes since chapter three, in which the withered hand was healed. No doubt, she also heard of the man who had been possessed on the eastern banks of the Galilee. Whether in the council of friends or not, faith drove her to act.

Jesus stopped because of a detail. That detail was that he 'felt' the healing virtue leave his person. I have always found this particular story very telling. Imagine the hustle, the bustle. Imagine the jostling and the clamor of voices, the dust rising up from the road. Imagine the focus of the disciples to get Jesus to Jairus' house – and Jesus stops and turns. The voices vanish as he calls out, “Who touched my clothes?”

This is where the human factor convinces me of the truth of the miracle: his disciples responded thus, “You see the multitude thronging you, and yet you ask, who touched me?” They were incredulous. They were perplexed at his words. How could he say such a thing under those conditions? I wonder if I am the only one who sees that Jesus perceived the 'virtue' going out of him as an energy taking direction? Virtue seems a vague concept to many, but I wish the reader of this study to see virtue as energy and power, effective in its discharge. The woman, it is said, knew immediately that her plague was gone. She also felt the weight of Jesus' question as wholly personal.

I relate to that, and I'll tell you why. In elementary school, I was trying to read a comic book during a class. I had it concealed inside the school book I held so that if the teacher should look my way, he would see the jacket of the school book. A sort of charged silence overtook the classroom, and the teacher cleared his throat. A wave of adrenaline flooded my system, telling me I was the target of the throat-clearing. I knew without a doubt that I had been found out.

The woman, I have little doubt, felt much the same. She was compelled to confess her deed – not that she was guilty of any wrong doing – but still, she threw herself before him and confessed all. He said, “Your faith has made you whole.” Can you see it? Jesus deliberately and knowingly healed many people. She was not one of them. It was the woman and her faith that tapped into the energy of Christ. She effected her own healing. Jesus' words were not platitudinous but spoke of the real connection between such power and the spirit of the person.

While that transpired, people came from the house of Jairus. They were not a part of the crowd that day but surely were as privy to all the word-of-mouth that flew around the actions of Jesus. They would have known of his reputation and formed an opinion. These might have been servants of the house of Jairus, or they might have been friends or fellow elders of the synagogue. One line is attributed to them, but it speaks volumes for such an overlooked detail.

They said, “Your daughter is dead: why trouble the Master any further?” Was it mere servants who thought of Jesus as 'the Master'? Was it friends, or family, or fellow elders who used the word 'Master'? It is telling that this detail was retained in the account, more so that the writer, or translator, thought to capitalize the word.

Must have been a wrenching moment for the father of the girl, but how close to Jairus' house were they when that occurred? Probably quite close, for it was at a point where Jesus, Jairus, and three disciples could go on alone. Christ would have had to deliberately turn back the crowd that had followed him. Remember, he was thronged by a multitude. His command to the crowd to would need to be forceful. While not a part of the story, I can imagine those of the household meeting Jesus and Jairus at the outer gates of the property.

Let us look at what Jesus told Jairus. He said, “Be not afraid, only believe.” He said this on the heels of having told the woman that her faith had made her whole. I bring this up because it points to a connection between faith and fear as if they are opposites – the one being fully able to cancel out the other. Faith powers miracles and that spiritual frame of mind cannot be achieved through fear.

So, Christ enters the house to heal the girl. Obviously, there are people still there – family members, neighbors, friends of the family – grieving and mourning in the cultural fashion. Jesus rebukes the custom and is “laughed to scorn”, as the scripture puts it. Without the small details, it may be assumed a writer of such an account need only present the core matter, that being to show Jesus as the healer, and or the son of God. If such propaganda is the tactic, then all coincidental characters will have their hands in the air and be singing praises, but people knew when someone was dead, so of course, they would laugh and scorn and ridicule – that was part and parcel of who they were. That shows me they were real.

Jesus puts them all out of the room. The only others there are the parents and the three disciples. Jesus takes the girl's hand and says, “Talitha cumi.” This is a Syriac expression, which according to my inquiry, Jesus used regularly, as it was the common language in which he communicated. The writer of Mark thought this particular expression was important enough to keep in Syriac and to translate for the reader. It is confusing to me because if Jesus normally spoke in this dialect of Aramaic, then the writer was already translating what Jesus said for the reader. Why not simply do the same with this expression and say that Jesus took the hand of the maid and said arise little maid. This detail is intriguing in that the Syriac expression is treated as an incantation.

Finally, the girl arises from her state (Jesus had said that she only slept) and everyone is duly and rightfully amazed. In closing, I would like to illuminate a final detail, one that shows me the veracity of the account of a miracle. It's a little thing, but it stands tall in my estimation. Jesus turns to the parents and tells them to be sure to make the girl eat some food. Sounds like a physician. Sounds like someone who knew the first need of a body that comes from such a state as that girl was certainly in. Do you have an eye for details? Think on these. It may be the story takes on an added dimension for you – the dimension of a spiritually awakened reader.

The Seeds of Mark Four

Jump with me. I shall move from point to point as I examine the entire fourth chapter of Mark. This is where the ship comes into play. As you might recall, our study in Mark three informed us that Christ had arranged in advance to have a ship ready. Mark Four is a soapbox chapter. Christ used the ship as a platform from which to preach to a sold out crowd. It was a multitude comprised from seven separate geographical regions. It was standing room only.

The text claims that Jesus spoke to the multitude only in parables and that he taught them many things, the expression “in his doctrine” shows us that the writer picked certain of the parables to bring forward. It seems noteworthy that the parables mentioned in Mark four are those that deal with seeds. Let us count them off.

The first parable (Mk. 4:3-8) was the one about the sowing of seeds in divergent growing conditions, the one that Jesus explained in detail to his disciples in Mark 4:14-20. The second seed parable is found in Mark 4:26-29. It is the one that shows us the goal of the exercise – the harvest. The third is found in Mark 4:30-32. It is the one that compares the kingdom to a mustard seed, that is the making of something large and wonderful from a thing that seems insignificant.

In this study, I will not deal so much with the parables as I will the connective tissue that binds muscle to bone, as it were. We must keep in mind that these parables were not preached to the Pharisees, or to anyone proficient in the law, but to the uneducated masses. Many of them knew all too well how the thing with seeds worked. They were results-driven individuals who knew, for instance, that you had to plant seeds in good soil. They knew the tiny mustard seed produced a large tree. So despite their total lack of scientific knowledge about how the seeds took on and grew, they understood perfectly that if you wanted to eat, the harvest was the whole point.

I believe many of them understood the parables, and the rest of them had the necessary experience to work it out – if only they would apply themselves. Christ even explained his parables with common knowledge and understatements. His words never went over their heads. Mark 4:21 is an example of the understatement. It is a question that needs no answer and explains perfectly that things are done for a reason. You light a candle for the light, not the dark. You plant the seeds to get something predetermined. You speak not to the nose, but to the ear. “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mk. 4:23)

It is just as obvious that we, today can work these things out – if only we apply ourselves. Sometimes we are just too lazy. We want the answers handed to us on a silver platter. Even the disciples failed in that regard, asking for the meaning of the parable rather than working it out. So Christ explained it to them and made it very clear. What I want us all to see, however, is the connective wording between the parable and the truth.

Christ said this in Mark 4:13, “Know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?” What did he mean? People like you and I need to be quite clear on this. A parable can be a locked door to many, but what is the key that opens a parable? It may surprise you to be told this, but the parable is the key. The parable has a predetermined structure which may be used to determine any truth. Through the parable, all spiritual truths will open to us.

Many of us look and don't look at the same time. We look right at something and fail to see it. When Christ stilled the raging sea, how many boats were in the water? I had always thought there was just the one, but as it turns out, other boats launched out with his. Mark 4:36 says this, “And there were also with him other little ships.” I present that as proof that we don't always see what we are looking at. Our focus can be limiting.

It should not surprise you, then, that I say many who read the Bible miss the finer details and deeper truths. Christ, himself, said as much in the statement, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” You simply have to work at it. The man who always looks at his feet will neither see the moon nor will he be convinced of it by another's words.

In this regard, I present the finer details and deeper truths found in Mark 4:24-25. “Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” It's like a universal law of direction. Which direction do you choose?

Augmentation might be considered another law. By augmentation I mean direction, practice, work, development. For example, you look at the moon and you see the face, but you want more details. You build a crude telescope and the craters begin to take shape. It is the desire that brings the means, and you know that if you can refine the telescope, more will come to you.

The majority of us have to work for what we get. If we want to eat, we must work the harvest. Our nature dictates that we will do what we must to obtain what we need. The same is as true of our spiritual needs as it is of our physical needs. Many of us don't realize our spiritual needs, therefore, there is no work in that direction. We look at our shoes and ignore the moon. Others of us do, at some point, adopt a notion of the moon – if we can wear them on our feet.

Jesus explained things to his disciples, the others had parables, which is the same thing, they just had to choose a direction and do the work. Many do more than ignore the moon, they campaign against it. They fight it tooth and nail. They belittle it as fantasy and wish fulfillment. It is an isolationist scenario in which they refuse to be instructed, for that would require they looked up from their own sense of self.

This is why Jesus spoke in parables. Some would take the high and glorious and soil it, utilize it in a low manner. Mark 4:11-12, “Unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted . . .” They have chosen their direction. It is pro-self and anti-truth, for they fear the loss of identity.

Do you see what I see?

I am between parables again, but I feel I have a responsibility to the truth. If the Spirit will take the time to bring something to my attention, I can certainly take the time to see what it means. There are points in Mark 3 we need to examine. In the past, I am sure that I have been as guilty as anyone else of racing past these points, of overlooking these points. In doing so, we are all guilty of robbing ourselves of the clarity we need in such matters.

Christ had just healed the withered hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath. In a list of 40 miracles, that one was number 11. It was still fairly early in the three-year ministry. The importance of this point will be made clear in a moment. The context in which this point belongs must first be made plain. After the healing, the Pharisees left and consulted with the Herodians (Mk. 3:6) on how to destroy Jesus. Why, because he did something good?

After the healing, Jesus left and went down to the sea of Galilee. There he arranged to have a boat ready to launch at a moments notice. People followed him there. Not only the twelve, not only the women and children but literal crowds from each and every town. Makes you wonder how fast word got around. Something wonderful was occurring, and they all wanted to go and see. There was a crowd from Galilee, a crowd from Judaea, a crowd from Jerusalem, a crowd from Idumaea, a crowd from beyond Jordan, a crowd from Tyre, and a crowd from Sidon (Mk. 3:7-8). Altogether, it was nothing short of a multitude.

Is it any wonder he arranged for a boat? So many people followed, seeking to be healed, it was impossible to sit down and eat. The possessed fell prostrate before him and confessed that he was the Son of God. Plague victims pressed in from all sides. Jesus was surrounded, so he took his closest followers and retreated to a mountainous area above the maddening crowd. Here is a point I had overlooked before.

The twelve were called disciples elsewhere, but it was here on this hilltop that they were ordained. What does it mean to be ordained? Who is authorized in such practices? A quick search of the internet shows this from Wikipedia: 'Ordination is the process by which individuals are consecrated, that is set apart as clergy to perform various religious rites and ceremonies'. Jesus was called a Rabbi. Did he ordain the twelve into a rabbinical order? Was this the new school making a break from the old school?

Can we assume that the anger and violence of the Pharisees were due to a sense of being betrayed by one of their own? The Pharisees, as is all too plain, followed Jesus from the beginning and went with him everywhere. Many scholars make the assumption that Jesus was a member of some order or the other. Some like to place Jesus among the Essenes, but it was the scribes and Rabbis, taken collectively, that comprised the group known as the Pharisees. Of all the religious and political groups of that day, the Pharisees are known as the most progressive. Could it have been that Jesus was their star pupil? Why did the Pharisees consult with the purely political Herodians rather than the Sadducees?

Here is another point most of us have gravely underestimated. Christ had just ordained the twelve, and now, they were returned and in a house, with the multitude pressing in on them in an unpredictable and unmanageable manner. In Mark 3:21 we find this odd statement, “And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.”

Out from where, we ask? As an addendum, the very next verse adds this information: Mark 3:22, “And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.” Then in the following verse, 23, Jesus “called them unto him.” Through his closest followers, but also throngs from seven geographic regions, Jesus called those who went out and came down. In other words, he called the scribes and Pharisees. He called them because they had said that he was beside himself and that he had an unclean spirit.

He rebuked them with a parable that spoke in terms of a kingdom and a house. The authority of either must be united, else it is not what it claims to be, and by small digressions it will whittle itself into non-existence. Then Jesus says this in verse 27, “No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoils his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” More than the reference to a kingdom, we should look at his reference to a house, and the authority of that house.

Two possibilities stand out. Either Christ spoke of the house of Satan, or he spoke of the house of the scribes and Pharisees. If it was the former, Christ forewarned of his attack on sin and death, and his victory through man's redemption. If it was the latter, then Christ was letting the Pharisees know that his plan to bring them down was going as planned. Jesus may then be seen in the light of a purist whose intent was to put religion right. As later verses clearly show, what mattered to him was obedience to the will of God and devotion to the Holy Spirit of Truth. In the context of those two parameters, every deficiency, spiritual, physical, or political, could be rectified.

Who is the son of man?

I turn now to the book of Mark, to the second chapter, with attention to verses 20-28. Two brief, but telling, parables present themselves in this text. They occur in the early portion of Christ's three-year ministry, and it is illuminating to read that more than disciples traveled with him. Pharisees seem to have dogged his early steps, and we have to ask 'why?'

It could be they traveled with him from town to town. Although new on the scene, Jesus had quickly become a person of interest. It could be that the Pharisees mentioned in this text merely came out to meet him as he entered their town. Christ had a routine of speaking at the synagogues of towns he visited. Perhaps word traveled ahead of him.

Turns out he had been in Capernaum healing the sick and amazing onlookers with unexpected miracles. He had been asked why his disciples did not fast. Perhaps there was a regular time for that ritual, but it appears Jesus and his disciples were maxed out with all the people brought to Peter's house for healing. He called the tax collector to be a disciple, there by the sea. He ate with him a feast that included not only his disciples, new and old; not only the women that ministered to him, and that would have included some children, but also forgiven sinners, publicans, and recently healed believers. The numbers could well have reached into the hundreds.

Let us not forget that church leaders and teachers of the law, Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawyers followed along. There was much interest from the latter as to whether Jesus and his following would 'get it right' – according to the law. They fasted, they observed the law, they wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples did not. Jesus had an answer in Mark 2:19-20. He said, “Can the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.”

It is a short, but telling, parable. First of all, it tells us that we are not looking at guests to a wedding, as we have seen in other parables. These are neither guests nor attendees, they are children – and not only that, they are 'children of the bridechamber.' There was a certain mythos surrounding the concept of the bridal chamber. It was a secret place meant only for the union of a noble heir and his virgin bride. It was the place where future heirs were engendered.

Fasting is set forth in the light of two opposing associations. First is the joy of knowing you are heir to your father. Second is the void that is filled with rituals and customs of men. The one speaks of certainty while the other says we are on hold, waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. For those who followed Jesus, those whose faith proved them, that hope was fulfilled in Christ.

To further explain what he was saying, he added the parable of the patch and the wine bottles. These should not be viewed apart from what he just said about fasting. They are an addendum to that topic. They, along with the part about fasting, constitute the three witnesses that prove a point. When Christ says that a patch made from new material will only worsen the rent in an old garment, ask yourself what that has to do with fasting, with waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. When Christ says that new wine will burst used bottles, ask yourself what that has to do with fasting, with waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. Note the spirit and mental state of the children of the bridechamber and compare that with the spirit involved in mending a torn garment or ensuring the successful fermentation of a new batch of wine.

It is for you, the reader, to ascertain your own thoughts on this issue, for I will deal separately with the parable of mending and wine making. I will examine the wording and meaning of this important parable at length in another section of this study. For now, it is necessary that you keep the connection of these three alive in your thinking. As with the associations of the fasting issue, both mending and wine making also have two opposing associations. With the mending, it is old patch or new patch, and which one is the right choice. With wine making, it is old bottle or new bottle, and which one is the right choice.

Then Jesus walked through a field of wheat or barley. With him traveled the disciples, the women that served and attended the needs of his ministry, all the publicans and sinners and healed believers that followed him, and the Pharisees that observed and tested his ministerial strengths. It was the Sabbath, so that meant they couldn't walk awfully far. It also meant that a synagogue was the likely destination. The Pharisees brought a point to Christ's attention. His disciples were plucking grain on the Sabbath. Obviously, they saw it as a breach of Sabbath law. Why did the disciples do it?

It seems reasonable to assume that the disciples of Christ frequented synagogues and were as aware as any others of the laws of the Sabbath. We know that Christ was big on the law – that is, the core law – and often took a stand against legalisms and nitpicking. Were the disciples hungry, were they bored? Had their supplies run low? Had Christ asked his disciples to pick grains knowing the Pharisees would be keen to bring it up? Christ had a point to make, and while we may tire of the Pharisees' constant nagging and ragging, I think that Christ included them in his ministry as much as his disciples. I get the sense of Christ revamping an entire religious system on the go.

Christ answered the Pharisees with an example from scripture they would know well. David and his men ate showbread in the temple, and none of them were priests – but they were men. He explained to them that the Sabbath was made for men, therefore, the 'son of man' was also Lord of the Sabbath. He explained that men should not be slaves to the Sabbath, therefore, 'the son of man' was also Lord of the Sabbath. Why do you think Jesus used that expression? It is not said that Christ picked any of the grain; he was not defending himself, neither was he defending his disciples, but he was refuting the Pharisees' notions of what was right and wrong.

He could have said that the King of Kings was Lord of the Sabbath, but he didn't. He said the Lord of the Sabbath was the son of man. So, who was the son of man? Who is he still? Was the son of man the bridegroom? Of course he was. Then, aren't the children of the bridechamber, the heirs of all their father gives, also the sons of man? The question is, do men control their customs, or do the customs control men? Finally, are you a son of man? If so, then take control.

Passover Wine

Matthew 26:26-29 is not a parable, but rather an exercise in discerning what is said from what is not said. It is the last supper. Jesus eats with his twelve disciples. Is the usual Jewish Passover custom replaced by something new? Does Christ put himself in the place of the lamb that is slain? Is it his body that is eaten and is it his blood that covers to the end of redemption?

He breaks the bread, he pours the wine, he speaks – what does he say and what does he not? Many readers race through the passage on their way to read another passage, and the message is taken at face value, that it is just something that is said and something that is done, and a thing that has become a custom of men and a regular church practice.

Let us examine the thing that was done. Matthew 26:19, “And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.” It was that thing the Jews did once a year in obedience to God. It was the Jewish commemoration of salvation and freedom. It was not the Easter meal, nor was the last supper, at this point, particularly Christian.

Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples. It was the Jewish thing to do. We see in the thing that was done that Jesus and his disciples all identified with that Jewish custom. Also, we see in Matthew 26:21, “And as they did eat,” that they were eating the Passover before the breaking of bread later in verse 26.

As for things done, all of them were first engaged in the custom of the Jews. They were, after all, of that faith. As for things done, the breaking of the bread was added toward the end of the meal, before the hymn was sung. What we must consider is whether the breaking of bread was a part of the Jewish Passover or a transition from the Jewish commemoration of salvation to a Christian commemoration of salvation. The Breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine wholly supplant the Paschal Lamb.

What are we looking at when we view the final meal of Jesus? What do we see in the bread and the wine? First of all, none of the disciples took up the bread and the wine on their own. They neither broke the bread, nor poured the wine. Christ did both. Then he handed it to the disciples. All the disciples did was receive the gift.

The Paschal Lamb eaten on the Jewish Passover had always represented the work of God. It was God's mighty hand and outstretched arm. Likewise, the bread and the wine represent the work of Christ: his broken body and spilled blood. The work of Christ was not separate from the work or will of God the Father, neither was the representation of Christ's work separate from the representation of God's work. It follows that the celebration and commemoration of salvation in Christ must necessarily be a part of the celebration and commemoration of the Jewish Passover.

What this means is that the Jew and the Christian are one. They are united in God, in Christ, and in salvation. What this does not mean is an Easter meal, sunrise service, or crackers and grape juice in church.

Much of this is common thought, and many people stop here. Yet, there is more to the breaking of bread and the pouring out of the wine. There is a saying that is so common that one is at odds as to just what must be done with it. It is, 'you are what you eat.' Think this: just as the Jews eat the lamb (their salvation) and are saved, so too do the Christians eat the Passover bread (their salvation) and are saved.

Christ did the thing that was done, the disciples took that work into themselves. If we are what we eat, when we partake of the body and blood of Christ, then we must become the work of Christ. We must become the broken body and spilled blood of Christ. We must become salvation and the continuance of the Passover. This transformation is an alignment toward the goal: for the Jew, it was the promised land flowing with milk and honey. For the Christian, it is Heaven and the New Jerusalem. It is our ascension into freedom.

Now, let us examine what Christ said as he passed around our freedom. He said of his body as he knowingly broke it in Matthew 26:26, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Another way to say this might be, 'This is my sacrifice and victory, make it a part of you.' In the very next verse, Christ said of the blood he was to shed on the cross, “Drink ye all of it.” What he did not say was, 'drink some of it', or 'drink the part you want', or even 'drink your part and your brother's part, – he spoke to all of them as one. What he said of his sacrifice and victory was, 'Don't waste a drop.'

He also said, “For this my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” The blood of the old testament came from the lamb and was applied over the door. The lamb was eaten, but the blood was not. Blood was considered the life of the body, so that the following laws forbade the consumption of blood. Neither was wine used as a representation of that life. What changed with the new testament?

In the new testament, both body and blood were considered life to be incorporated, not symbolically but in truth. Imbibe the symbols, but don't stop there. Be what you eat. Be the life, be the victory that gains the freedom. Reach the promised land neither as Jew nor Christian, but as the son of God. Yes, symbols play a critical role in our spiritual evolution, but let's keep them in their proper places. Lamb's blood over a door and Christ being the door: let's not put the round peg in the square hole. Let us also remember that Christ called for the Passover, and not Easter or church service, as the vehicle of his new testament symbols.

As he ate the Jewish Passover with his disciples, he took an item from that particular commemoration and turned it into a symbol, saying in Luke 22:19, “This do in remembrance of me.”

Finally, there is something which Christ said that needs a fresh eye. Let us throw some water in our faces and shake our heads and wake ourselves. Let us take a new look at the words of Christ with fresh eyes. He said this in Matthew 26:29, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” What is he saying? Wine will be served in Heaven? God's kingdom will be here on earth, with harvests of grapes? And if the latter is the case, will the disciples be reincarnated?

I end this on a lighter note, speaking especially to those who have considered hell because that is where their drinking buddies will be. Nowhere in scripture are we told that alcoholic beverages will be served in hell. Yet, new wine will be served in the kingdom of God.

A Fork in the Road

I was hungry, thirsty, a naked stranger, sick and in prison; some of you cared, some of you did not. This is the test found in the parable of the sheep and the goats. The parable is found in Matthew 25:31-46.

The seeker of truth seeks truth because it is his nature to do so. Our quest for truth is a quest for God, who is one with Christ, and so it follows that our quest for God is a quest for Christ, with whom we are one. The seeker of truth is actually on a quest for self. Our self-nature is the nature of the one we seek, and the very reason that we do what we do. Our choices follow the nature to which we are most closely aligned.

The parable of the sheep and goats is a parable about natures. The nature of the sheep is aligned to the nature of the shepherd. The nature of the goat seeks self-elevation. A cursory observation of goats is enough to show that goats seek out a higher position. They are climbers. Their nature is aligned to the one who sought to be as high as God.

Mark 8:33, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.” 1 Timothy 3:6, “Lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” Isaiah 14:12-14, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven . . . I will be like the most High.”

The parable represents a fork in the road of personal choice. The king divides the sheep to his right and the goats to his left: choice. The sheep choose to focus on the small details of each pasture their shepherd leads them to, and thereby sustain themselves; the goats choose to focus on self and higher ground. It can be said that the sheep have a predilection toward the right while the goats lean ever to the left. Also, there are two opposing destinations, each the natural outcome of personal inclination.

Matthew 25:40, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:45, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” That being put forth, it must be noted that sheep and goats alike had a blind spot. The goats for all their climbing and self-absorption, could not see that their focus excluded the people that Christ the King considered his brethren. The focus of the sheep, on the other hand, was so commonly attuned to the brethren that they failed to associate the details of their nature with the details of the nature of God.

The small ordinary details are always a part of the bigger picture. A person who gathers pennies shares the exact nature of the one who possesses dollars.

There are two epithets associated with the king's judgment of the sheep and goats. Matthew 25:34, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 25:41, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Let us examine the words chosen. Blessed simply means a better happier state. That might work out as either actively made better or happier through the work of God, or better and happier as the outcome of alignment between our nature and that of God. On the other hand, cursed may not necessarily be an active application by the hand of God, but rather, and this is my assumption, a recognition of the nature of opposition.

The choices are always our own. Every step places us at the fork in the road of personal choice. That being said, I would like to end this small study with a few points of interest. First is the fact that Christ immediately associates himself with the king who sits in judgment. He says in Matthew 25:31, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. “ Glory is a state to be arrived at, to attain. Holy angels will accompany him, and the throne of attained glory speaks of a kingdom, (one which will be inherited by those who are aligned to him by their very nature.)

It is interesting to note that just as the Son of man will be accompanied by angels when he arrives, so too will the devil be accompanied by angels when he attains the outcome of his self-will and opposition to God. For me, that says both God and the devil are big enough and strong enough to have angels. Angels, in one particular sense, are messengers of the will of their master. God's messengers tell men the message from God. The angels of the devil have a message of opposition to God.

Who are those angels? Revelation 12:9 says, “Satan, which deceiveth the whole world, he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Who are the ones speaking the message of opposition to God and Christ? They are the angels of the devil. They are here in the earth. They are real. Are they you? In that vein, we must see more than a few wayward individuals. We must know that the message goes out on a national level. Islam is a national phenomenon. Atheism is a national phenomenon. Christ said this in Matthew 25:32, “And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another.”

You will always find yourself at a place where choices must be made. You must align yourself. You will always be a member of some nation. What is that nation's alignment? What message does it send? Which angels has the strongest voice? If men who speak the message of the devil go to the place where the devil's angels go, then might it not be a real possibility that seekers, like some of you are, may speak with the mighty voice of an angel of God? The choice is yours to make.

Let's look at opposites for a moment. The blessed achieve eternal life while the cursed achieve eternal punishment. One is not immediately impressed that life and punishment are listed as opposites. We think of death as the opposite to life. The outcome of the cursed predilection is given added veracity in that it is named in another way. The punishment that is said to be everlasting is also phrased as everlasting fire. Similar expressions from other areas of scripture are eternal damnation, the second death and outer darkness. We never see that death is eternal or everlasting. Only life has that guarantee.

A Man of Many Talents

Matthew 25:14-30. This is the parable of talents. It is a story most of us are familiar with, so I will narrow the focus of this study. I will race past the details of this parable and attend the point our Lord makes. The synopsis of the parable is this: a man, in preparation of a long journey, divides his wealth among his servants. We may view this as a diversified portfolio. He chose how much to give each servant, no doubt, based on his knowledge of their dependability. It was a matter of who had the proven track record.

Some got more talents than others. However, all were faced with the same possibilities. The man with only one talent could have invested like the others. He was one of the lot, after all. He did not exist in a vacuum. His fear might be understandable in that he had less elbow room. The man with ten talents might have lost one talent and retained nine, but the man with one, having lost one, would have none.

We find the summary of the parable in Matthew 25:29, “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” According to this, had the servant invested and lost the one talent he would have fallen into the same category: 'unprofitable.' Obviously, the master of the servants in this parable was a businessman. His servants were merely doing the things he would do had he remained and not traveled. I can't see the master hiding his own money for fear of loss.

Many people have difficulty with the concept found in Matthew 25:29. They cannot understand why a loving God will give to the one who already has something and not to the underdog, or to the one in need. We must keep in mind that none of the talents possessed by the servants belonged to them. They belonged to the master. While many view the larger picture as one of harsh judgment, I think Christ was actually explaining spiritual mechanics – and that by comparison to physical mechanics.

Let us explain it in different terminology. I will borrow from the concept of physical exercise. Two arms are given identical muscles. One arm is exercised while the other is not. The arm that exercises its muscle is given addition muscle. The arm that does not exercise suffers muscle loss and weakness. In this light, I think that Christ merely explained a universal principle. We have common sayings like, 'it takes money to make money' and 'move it or lose it' (alternately: 'you snooze you lose.')

What made the unprofitable servant wicked? Sloth. He failed to act on the will of his master. He was part of a machine that had to use its talents to make more talents. That process suffered due to one individual's inaction. He was the weak link in the chain of success. We might say that he was not on the same page as the rest of the crew. The fact that the master would not have hidden his own money shows us that that one servant was not like-minded, as were the servants who invested what they had been given. They used their talents in the same way that their master would have. They were like-minded; they were on the same page.

The man who did not use what he was given lost what he had. The man with many talents ended up owning it. Let us consider this. If we esteem a talent as spiritual, how must we esteem the earth we bury it in? Good advice: do not bury your spiritual gifts under the world. Worldliness is not a viable solution. Do not resign yourself to the outer darkness of utter abandonment. Dig up your talents. Use them. Work them. Grow them. Be the man of many talents.

Pass or Fail?

The parable we study here is the one about ten virgins. They are all to be wed to the bridegroom, for the bridegroom will be one with all who are willing and prepared. The point of this parable is simple and plain, but what peaks our interest is 'how' the parable is worded. There are  layers of definition which are pretty much dictated by exact wording. Let us look beyond the surface layer.

First, the virgins number 10, and this number is divided in half. Half of them are wise and half of them are foolish. Half are prepared, half are not. Seeing as how the original lot was ten, the overnight camp may be seen as the test that winnows the unacceptable from the preferred. What we must see here is that being wise or foolish is equal to the mindset that is either like or unlike the one they go to meet. We may assume that the five wise virgins did their homework.

Second, we see that all those called to meet the bridegroom traveled away from where they were and made camp, having still a way to travel. We see that they were halfway between where they used to be and where they wanted to go. The place they left behind was the place they used to live, but that is not to say that the place they wanted to go was anything like the place from which they had separated themselves. We might take a guess that these spirits were between the worldly and the non-worldly. All ten of them had separated themselves from their worldly residence, but only five of them had made the necessary preparations to remain separated.

Third. More can be discerned about the overnight camp from the exact wording. We can see that they had been chaperoned by retainers who guarded them, and that they were housed in temporary shelter, say a tent. The cry that went out at midnight tells us all this and more. This was the cry: “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.” The cry did not announce, ' we have arrived with the bridegroom.” By this, we know two things: one is that the bridegroom was still on his way coming from where he had been to where he would reside for the marriage. Two is that the guardians who made the cry had learned of his near approach and relaid the news to their charge. They told the virgins, “go ye out to meet him.”

The virgins had to arise, go out, and travel some distance yet to meet him. They had slumbered in a tent from which they would depart, and while they slept, their lamps had gone out. They got up and went to light their lamps, for it was still dark, only the foolish virgins discovered that they had used up their entire supply of oil. They sought to borrow from the wise virgins and were rebuked. The oil that remained to the wise virgins had to last them through the final leg of their journey. This was a big fail for the foolish virgins. They had to rush back to the worldly place from where they came, seek sellers, appropriate new supplies, and rush back to camp. By the time they got back, those with the prerequisite supplies were gone. They had moved on.

Next, we see that the bridegroom arrived, the virgins also entered, and the door was shut. Note that the place of the marriage was a construct of more permanence that the campsite of the virgins. It had a door. A door, by the very nature of it being a door, shows us many things, not the least of which is that it may be locked, but more importantly we take note of the likelihood of the structures importance – and thus the importance of those who inhabit the construct. The foolish finally arrive. Their access is barred; entrance is blocked. They call out for admittance but are rejected. We see in this that someone controls the door and makes the decision of opening or not opening.

The wording of the rejection is also key. The bridegroom said that he did not know them. Let us be realistic: he knew exactly who they were – he had called all ten of them. Here, we are reminded of Christ's words elsewhere: “many are called, but few are chosen.” By saying that he did not know them, a declaration was made in regard to opposition. The bridegroom said, 'you are no part of me', or, 'you are not like me.' The whole purpose of the marriage is 'oneness'. The foolish virgins, in light of their unpreparedness, were never one with the bridegroom. The wise virgins, in light of their making sure to be prepared, and stay prepared, were always one with the bridegroom.

Lastly, the cry went out at 'midnight'. That was a halfway point in itself. At that time, it was made known that the bridegroom was on his way, but he only arrived later. Christ ended his parable with this admonition: “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” In other places of scripture, we are told by Christ that his coming will be at a time when we know not, or least expect. In some instances, a servant is caught unawares sleeping or acting inappropriately. In this instance with the virgins, the bridegroom came while the foolish were overwhelmed with worldly matters – this is in accord with certain other parables that concerned the wedding of the King's son. Some of the invited were engaged in business, some in pleasure – all were so tied up in worldly concerns that they had no time to be one with the son.

If you were to assess your own state of preparedness or your state of worldly occupation, what would be your honest judgment, pass or fail?

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?