A Sad Truth

Hidden truths and overlooked is the reason I do what I do. It is why I began with the parables, and it is why I now, from time to time, veer off the beaten path to cover the odd expression or subtlety of wording. I had fully intended to find a parable to work from – then this caught my eye.

Mark 10:1-9 is one of those small episodes in which the religious authorities attempt to test Jesus in matters of the law. Of course, as he always does, Jesus rips them a new one. I am always cheering for Jesus in these slugfests, and Jesus never fails to deliver. In this particular exchange, Jesus tells the Pharisees, the keepers of the law, that something is not quite right in their interpretation.

Indeed, it is a sad truth and a message that all of us should take to heart. Jesus speaks as much to you and me as he does to the Pharisees. That is because we share the same blind spot and predisposition as the Pharisees. So, here is a brief rundown of the incident. The Pharisees pose a simple question from the law: is it legal (but more to the point: is it right) for a man to divorce his wife?

Jesus responds with a question of his own. “What did Moses command you?” There is a subtlety here that seems always to be overlooked. What did Moses, the man, command? What the Pharisees considered as unassailable canon was based more on the instructions of a man than on the actual spirit of God's own law. In a way, this is similar to extremist Muslims who base their canon more on the instructions of a man than on the law of God.

Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses only allowed divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of men. He also told them that the law of God was different from what Moses allowed. In so saying, Jesus tells all of us a sad truth about the predispositions of the religiously-minded – the ones who are always trying to force an issue. The subtlety that Jesus reveals shows us that much in the law of God, at least, those parts most cherished and upheld by men, is no more than arbitrary instruction by some other man.

I think, if we are honest about it, most of what Jewish and Christian leaders and zealots have gone on and on about, are the writings and interpretations of the writings of men. My opinion is that much of what Moses instructed the Jewish people was politically motivated. I say this out of respect for the overwhelming task that Moses took upon himself. Just think of all that Moses had to deal with, of all the people and various factions lobbying, as it were, for special needs and interests. Moses had a lot on his plate.

Moses had to hold it all together – somehow. Divorce was just a small part of that 'somehow.' But, that was neither the law nor the will of God, and Jesus did not fail to explain that part, both in public to all who listened, and in private to his disciples as they sought a clearer understanding of his words. Jesus classified what Moses allowed as a precept. Here, it is up to us to determine if precept is the same thing as law.

A quick internet search for the common definition of the word precept gave me this: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought. Synonyms used for precept are principle, rule, tenet, canon, doctrine, command, order, decree, dictate, injunction, and mitzvah, which means a good deed done for religious duty. All of these may, indeed, be legal, although none of them is inherently 'right.' There are wrong decrees and wrong doctrines to be sure.

More importantly, any of these may be created solely from the predispositions of a man, that is: from his thoughts and opinions and feelings. As such, they are wholly arbitrary, non-universal, temporary, and re-writable. There is much in our faiths that we take for solid truth written in stone – but, it simply is not. We have a predisposition for certain things that simply are not the law – by which I mean: the law given by a spiritual God.

A law given by a spiritual God is a spiritual law. While it may exist in our physical world, and be enacted physically, there is a spirit behind it that is bound to no particular enactment or person. Jesus explained the spirit behind marriage: the union of one physical male to one physical female in Mark 10:6-9, “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Now, we can look at the precept of divorce, an arbitrary decree given by a man, and see it as perfectly legal, or we can look at the law of marriage given by a spiritual God, and know that it is right. The spirit of the law follows through in every aspect and facet of truth, as Jesus explained to his disciples in Mark 10:11 and 12, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” Why? Because they are still united in the spirit of the law: they are still one flesh. One flesh may not act against itself as every decision must be made in one spirit. “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Why? Because they are still united in the spirit of the law: they are still one flesh. One flesh may not act against itself as every decision must be made in one spirit.

There is in these verses a subtle truth that begs honest inspection. There are two laws. One is given by God, the other is given by man. That which is given by man is not really the law, but it strikes a chord with those who look for an easy workaround. It is a sad truth to see so much of it in our faith: that is to say: little physical enactments that replace the spirit of the law.

We see in the Bible Jesus twice quoted as quoting Elias, and railing against the hypocrisy of men in seeking the commandments of men rather than the law of God, as Paul says in Titus 1:14, “. . . commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” We see religious people washing their hands, fingering beads, bowing to pray, marching around square buildings – performing any and almost every physical enactment except the one that actually counts: attending the true spiritual law of God.

Salt

In the previous study, I said that the chapter had concluded on a certain note, but there was actually one statement left. It is the statement about salt that we are all so familiar with. Those of us whose lives have in some way been touched by church or sermons or the odd Bible verse have at some point been made aware that “salt is good.” Verses 49 and 50 of Mark 9 cover this statement, of which I would ask additional attention from the reader.

Let me first offer the statement in its entirety. Mark 9:49-50, “For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.”

It must be first seen that a comparison is at play in this statement. The comparison is between salt and fire. It must be seen that the comment is based in a specific understanding of Jewish ceremonial practice. A temple sacrifice, as it was offered to God, was salted with salt. That is, the parts that were kept had salt placed on them. We know salt as both a seasoning and a preservative.

When we look at salt as a preservative, we note in the temple sacrifices that the sacrifice was a 'meal for God' that was shared with his servants the priests. The meat could not possibly be consumed all at once; there were simply too many sacrifices. Therefore, the meat had to last without spoilage. A good thing must be preserved and not allowed to be lost. In this regard, salt may be seen as symbolic of redemption.

When we view salt in the sense of seasoning, we understand that salt makes the sacrifice not only palatable but acceptable in the ceremonial sense of faithful compliance to the laws of God. If all obligations have been met, if all parameters are in place, if a man has assured his conscience before God that things are right, the sacrifice is acceptable. Those of us who live lives of sacrifice rather than license already have an intimate awareness of salt.

The comparison might read like this, 'Just as sacrifices are salted with salt, so every life must be salted with fire.' It behooves us to possess a higher understanding of what Christ meant when he said “fire.” We don't have far to go to get the facts. We need only resort to the old testament to find the fire we seek. The symbolic use of the word fire is prevalent in the old testament.

Exodus 3:2 gives us the very first symbolic use of the word fire, “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush: and he looked and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.” In short, 'fire' equals 'God.'

In this sense, symbolic fire is quite real in the lives of men. The second old testament instance of this symbolic, though very real, fire is found in Exodus 13:21, “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light . . .” Fire equals God.

A third instance is found in Exodus 24:17, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.” The presence of God in the lives of men was seen with actual eyes, the glory of the real God was witnessed with real eyes. God equals devouring fire. The people so associated God with fire that since God rested on the Sabbath, fire was not now allowed to burn in any home during the Sabbath. Exodus 35:3.

So many are the associations of fire to God that even the Christian faith fully accepted it as found in Hebrews 12:29, “For our God is a consuming fire.”

So, if everyone is to be salted with fire, and that fire is God, two facts present themselves. Fact one is that no life goes unsalted by God. All lives are included in the concept of 'every one' – those who believe in God, those who do not, those who believe in another god: whether it be Allah, Buddha or whatever. People who believe in a higher force, or nature, or in themselves: no one is exempt from the salting of fire.

Fact two is that this single additive, like salt, is what makes a life acceptable and palatable to God. I ask then, are you salted with fire? And, is there a fire that has lost its fire? In other words, are you salted with a salt that just doesn't cut it? If we are looking at a salt that has lost its saltness, then, by comparison, we are looking at a fire that has gone out. We are looking at a life that was salted with God – and then lost God: the only thing that ever made it acceptable. Certainly, Allah makes no life acceptable, Buddha makes no life acceptable. The same can be said for every god that is not really God. The same can be said for nature, science, non-belief or belief in the will of man – these just do not cut it.

One must understand the importance of salt to get the reference that Jesus makes in these verses. Salt was so important that people made salt covenants. The word salary has its origin in people being paid in salt. It is also important to see the fact that every relationship between God and man has always been a covenant. That is, God's love is his agreement, his word.

Every agreement between God and man has been a peace treaty in which both sides proclaim what they will give and what they expect in return. I say peace treaty because mankind has fought God from the beginning. Now, we might jump out in the ocean to save a drowning man, but the time comes when we tire of him fighting our attempts to save him – the time comes when we simply have to wrap an arm around his throat and forcefully drag him in.

When Jesus told his disciples to have salt in themselves, he meant the fire of God. Have God in yourselves. Have in yourselves the one thing that makes you acceptable. That, as I maintain, is the mind of God, which Christ exemplified. Nor can we wrangle among ourselves over any detail of faith, but we must place between us a salt covenant. We must come to an accord that plainly states what we are willing to give and we will reasonably accept in return.

Preaching in the House

In my temporary departures from the parable proper, I think I am striving for continuity. The point of these studies remains true, however, as I seek simply to expand topical awareness. When a seeker seeks truth, he must necessarily begin with a definition. In deriving such a definition through a more exacting scrutiny, and in the course of finding point-on answers, the seeker is compelled to ask the questions that deliver.

In short, we have to understand the words we see and hear. Not everyone communicates as I do, and I approach a matter with that in mind. You and I might have certain difficulties in nailing down a meaning within the context of a shared communication. Therefore, we can expect more vigilance will be demanded of us as we wrestle with communications from other cultures and timelines.

So, as I try to complete Mark nine for the sake of continuity, I am careful to ask the right questions rather than to simply, in a cavalier spirit, accept what I read at face value. Please follow with me as I seek the definitions that will facilitate the acquisition of truth. Let us closely attend the verses 30 through 50. These amount to simple conversational tidbits that are often not lingered over. Let us, together, ask the right questions while we are here.

Jesus did not want everyone to know where he was going on this particular trip as he passed with his disciples through the regions of Galilee. This part is plainly seen in Mark 9:30. Perhaps they arose in the hours before dawn so they might leave without the multitudes following them. I see them not drawing attention to themselves. I also see something more than the usual circuit of the ministry. I see them passing through Galilee with a definite destination in mind. It is as if they made a straight line for Capernaum, a fishing village that was central to both Jesus' ministry and his disciples' home-life.

Once there, the expression in 'the' house is used in verse 33. That seems a more definite reference than in 'a' house – at least it does to me. Capernaum is thought to be the hometown of Peter and his older brother Andrew, as well as the sons of Zebedee James the greater and John. The tax collector Matthew also made his home there. Since Jesus was already acquainted with the house of Peter, having healed Peters' mother-in-law, I can see him resorting there once more.

Since Peter had a mother-in-law, it is safe to assume that Peter had a wife and possibly children. If Andrew also lived in the house, he also may have had a wife and children present. Archaeologists pretty much agree that they have uncovered the first-century house of Peter and Andrew, a dwelling connected to two courtyards and having, at least, one room large enough to seat all the disciples at once.

Having the expression 'the' house instead of 'a' house makes perfect sense in this regard. These were all ordinary people with lives and families. It seems only reasonable that there were times within the ministry of Christ when a break was called for. So, Jesus and his disciples took a quiet trip home. When they arrived, some issues came up for discussion.

During their quiet trip, Jesus had discussed his approaching fate with the authorities. The disciples couldn't quite get their heads around the concept that Jesus, a man of miraculous powers, could possibly come to such a despicable end. They seemed fearful to ask for clarification – instead, they argued over which of them might end up as the apostolic top dog.

The in-house rebuttal took shape along the lines of reversal, which was one of Christs' preferred teaching techniques. In this, Christ usually taught that the things which men desired were exactly opposite of what God desired. He taught that the same was true for the things that men expected to happen as a natural consequence. Such were the lines of reversal: if a man lifted something up, God rejected it. The predispositions of men are always contrary to the truth of a spiritual God. So, in the house, in a room large enough to fit all the disciples, Christ sits down with a child in his arms, and preaches lowly humility. In other words, the first is last and servant to all. They believe with simple innocent joy like a child. Who was the child Jesus held? Was it one of Peters' children? Was it a child of Andrews wife?

The in-house preaching of Mark 9:37 covered the communication that binds all to one another. If a man receives the Son of God, he receives God. If a man receives the message, he receives the messenger. If a man receives the preaching of the apostles of Christ, he receives Christ. It is the communication that makes us one – that is to say that the mind of God, the Holy Spirit of Truth, is communicated. Therefore, all of us must exercise caution in who we reject, for it just might be that in rejecting someone we think of as just another person, we end up rejecting God.

All of us have a reward, we find that in verse 41 – that is, of course, if we do not reject it simply because it comes to us in the face of a person who is a challenge to our self-will and pride. Even the simplest act, as in giving a glass of water to a thirsty person, not because they are thirsty so much, but because it is what Christ would do, will ensure the reward that is ours. And let me just add, there have been many times in my life, when totally amazed at my steps along the precipice, I say to myself, “Man, I sure am glad I didn't mess that up!”

Some people take the child in Christs' arms to mean literal children, especially when Christ says that thing about offending one of the little ones. I too am dead set against anyone who harms or mishandles a small child but let us stop in all honesty and admit that there is an addendum to that charge made by Christ. There is a qualifier attached to the little one. It is not just any child, but it is exactly as Christ says, “one of these little ones that believe in me.”

It is faith alone that will make one acceptable to God. It is faith alone that will lead one to be the first by way of being servant to all. It is faith that will receive the child, and it is faith alone that will receive the communication of God even through a person we cannot consider as superior enough, or valid enough to stand before us and teach. Only faith will ensure the reward that is ours.

We are considering the right questions, as a traveler considers which shoes will be most comfortable and last the longest as we traverse uncertain roads. We would not find ourselves unshod with the roughest roads still ahead. Anyone who strives toward a goal must necessarily equip for the task. If you want to see the moon, you don't equip with a microscope. So hopefully, we ask the right questions as we seek the real meaning of the communication.

The chapter concludes in discussion about technique. Just how should one approach the task at hand? The discussion covers certain physical actions which many people have taken literally – which in turn has caused many to approach the task at hand ill-equipped. Christ told us that flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, so why would anyone really think to enter heaven as a physical being? To make the transition from physical to spiritual, one must leave behind the body, even if it has only one eye or one hand.

To equip for such a transition, a person needs to stop thinking physically and find a way to approach reality in a spiritual manner. While the successful scenario is not covered, the scenario of failure is repeated three times for emphasis. If one fails to approach spiritual reality on spiritual grounds, one is left only with the certainty of physical decomposition.

This Kind

We turn our attention to Mark 9:14-29. So, Jesus had returned from the transfiguration with three disciples in tow. As he arrived, people saw him coming, ran to him, greeted him. The multitude had not diminished. They waited. Much had transpired in Jesus' absence. He found his remaining disciples in a heated debate with the scribes. No Pharisees are mentioned, though we know they followed Jesus as much as the throngs. We also know the Sadducees and local elders, wherever Jesus went, were a constant source of testing and strife.

Who were the scribes, exactly? According to Wikipedia, a scribe is a person who writes books or documents . . . and may help keep track of records for priests and government. Scribes of the ancient world were distinguished professionals who could exercise functions we would associate with lawyers, government ministers, financiers and even judges. It was such a crew that Jesus found grilling his disciples. Jesus demanded to know why they questioned his disciples.

The crowd was excited. A fact that might be overlooked is the reaction of the people upon Jesus' return. They were greatly amazed. Why was that, I wonder? Had the political tides changed in his absence? Did the people see the scribes as attaining the dominant position? Then Jesus came back – it seems it was just in time, for the disciples had failed in the power of the new ministry and were now being called out for it.

Yet, before the scribes could muster a response, one close to the center of the controversy stepped up with the answer. In his absence, the remaining disciples of Christ had been presented with a case of possession which was beyond the abilities. The father of the possessed boy told the whole story – they brought the boy into the circle of attention. He was still in the grips of a grievous malady, as the possessing spirit threw the boy about.

Jesus spoke with the father, questioned him about the boy, even as all others held their tongues, waiting to see what might happen next. All along, the crowd kept growing. People sent word of mouth (albeit hushed) that increased the number of curious onlookers. Jesus noticed the increase and chose that setting in which to drive out the evil spirit. So many witnesses served a dual purpose as they not only advertised the good news and the power of faith in God but were set against the naysayers in the sense of legal witnesses.

It is of note that Jesus named the spirit. He named it “dumb and deaf” in verse 25. It may be that the disciples had some practice in healing and power against the evil spirits. Christ did send them out on such field trips. That might explain why the boy was brought to the disciples as well as their botched attempt. Did the disciple know, I wonder, what the name of the spirit was? At any rate, we wonder about the name. It obviously heard Jesus' command. It cried out as it left the boy.

We are aware of at least one case in which the spirits and Christ were in communication. Jesus asked for and received the of 'Legion.' So, in the case of this poor boy, we might assume that the spirit acted in a manner that resulted in no forthcoming name – as if it could not or would not communicate. It is a fact that this spirit was of a kind the disciples could not fight. This kind of spirit, Jesus admitted later, was beyond them, perhaps for that very reason. This kind of spirit was shielded from the disciples and was accessed only through a heightened spiritual regimen that more attuned one to spiritual realities.

The disciples had failed because they were more nearly physical and worldly than spiritual. This is a lesson for all believers. Even the closest and most devout followers of Christ still have worldly limitations to overcome. Discipleship calls for discipline.

Coming Down the Mountain

I want to speak about the interval between the transfiguration and the confrontation. I'll explain by saying this: Jesus and three disciples came down from the mountain upon which had occurred the transfiguration. That took time. Between the transfiguration and their return to the remaining disciples, who were confronted by the scribes, there was a space in which occurred a little more than scampering over rocks.

In Mark 9:9-13 a certain amount of conversation took place that I wish to look at, but first I'll backtrack enough to say this: the transfiguration was stunning. It was stunning not so much because of the brightness, but because the disciples were stunned. Such things just didn't happen. For men to appear in such a manner might seem more appropriate in a science fiction setting than a real-world historical setting. The disciples were afraid. They hardly knew how to act or what to say.

And then there was that voice from nowhere. Suddenly, everything seemed normal again. The men were gone and the disciples stood with Jesus only. Of course, Jesus charged them to keep it all a secret. That fact in itself deserves examination, but I will leave it for others. I want to bring up a matter of a different nature. The disciples recognized dead prophets. In a society that frowned on images, insomuch that there were neither statues nor paintings of the prophets, just how did these simple men recognize them as Moses and Elijah?

Were they moved only by old testament descriptions? If so, they must have been awfully well read for their non-clerical vocations. Or, did Jesus tell them who the two men were? In the space that it took them to return to the other disciples, a conversation occurred on two separate levels. The first was between the disciples themselves, which would suggest that they came down the mountain either ahead of Jesus, or trailing.

Jesus had told them, in verse 9, that he wished the matter kept secret until the Son of man “were” risen, and so in verse 10 the disciples are seen “questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.” I get the sense they huddled at some distance behind Jesus as they walked. They tried to figure it out on their own but came up short. Then they caught up with him to ask outright.

The fact that they asked about Elijah shows me that they at least connected the dots in a scriptural sense. They had recognized the dead prophet, Elijah, and they remembered that Elijah must come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, Malachi 4:5. Here is my question. Did anyone see what Jesus said in Mark 9:9? He said, “Till the Son of man were risen.” Was it just bad grammar in those days, or are we to understand the term 'Son of man' in a plural sense?

The writers gave that name a greater degree of respect, as we can see in the fact that they capitalized 'Son.' He is the only begotten, so, we must look not at the word son but rather at the word 'man.' Normally, when we think of man in the plural form, we say or write the word 'mankind.' Perhaps the writers of scripture haven't always followed that protocol. On a divergent note, allow me to suggest an alternative interpretation. It may be that the word 'were' was used as a replacement for the future tense expression 'would be.' It was a condition I Progressive, putting emphasis on the course of an action.

Other scripture passages make a clearer case of Jesus' comparison between Elijah and John the Baptist. In Mark 9:12-13, Jesus shows the reason that Elijah had to be first. That reason was restoration. Indeed, if we look closely at Malachi 4:6, we see that it was either restoration or a curse: there was to be one or the other. John was Elijah, setting the stage for the work of Jesus. Malachi has a strong connection to the transfiguration passages of Mark nine. Take note that a fuller is referenced both in the transfiguration and in Malachi 3:2.

Jesus responded not only about the prophetic connection to John but also to prophetic connections to himself. He said, “And how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things and be set at nought.” It seems that Jesus was commenting about a notable difference between Elijah and the Son of man. That difference was one of direction: Elijah waxed while Jesus waned, as is found in Isaiah 53:12, “He was counted among the transgressors . . .” They were two sides of the wheel of Yin and Yang, yet, the reverse was said by John in John 3:30, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” Lastly, Jesus indicated that they had done with John (Elijah) as it was written of him. There was a written source that told or foretold of John's demise. Elijah went up in a fiery chariot. Nothing was done to him. Where is the book to which Jesus refers?

Mark 9:1-2

In one of the towns below Mount Hermon, in the area of Caesarea Philippi, we find Jesus and his followers in a stationary state. By that I mean they were either camped out or they had access to a house. Jesus and his disciples remained in that area for at least six days before the transfiguration.

There is no reason to think they had not already been there for some time. Indeed, a good bit at the end of chapter eight took place in that same region. In Mark 9:1-2 we find this timeline: Jesus told his disciples that some of them would see the powerful coming of the kingdom before their deaths, then six days later, he takes Peter, James and John up into the mountains.

Did Jesus specifically refer to these three disciples? I think a common misconception about the coming kingdom of God is that it will be the end result and culmination of a linear historical process. In other words, most of us are predisposed to imagine the kingdom of the book of Revelation: the kingdom that follows the apocalypse and the end of the world as we know it.

Here is my point in all of this – if Jesus specifically referred to the three disciples that witnessed the transfiguration, then the transfiguration they saw was the coming of the kingdom of God with power. That being said, we must understand that the revelation of God's kingdom to man is an individual spiritual experience rather than a historical event.

The Cross and the Heart

The Cross and the Heart:

Mark eight contains two points of interest relevant to the spirit of these studies. I wish to bring these points forward. These points are parts of larger issues, and while the larger issues are accorded due attention, these parts are often not viewed as important in their own right.

In Mark 8:15 Jesus charged his disciples, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.” The disciples thought it was because they brought no bread. If ever a sentence was a parable, this was the one. What I wish to point out is the aftermath: the response of Jesus.

He said, in Mark 8:17, “Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? Have ye your heart yet hardened?” We come close, here, to a definition of a 'hardened heart'. Normally, we think of this in terms of Pharaoh's resistance to Moses. We view him as contrary, and as obstinate. Now, according to this response of Jesus to his disciples, we may see the hardened heart as the condition of being obtuse. A hardened heart is simply a matter of not being perceptive, of failing to understand. It is a matter of the mind: wholly spiritual.

How had they failed to understand? They thought of physical bread rather than spiritual leaven. They jumped to the ordinary and comfortable conclusions of the world. It is no understatement to say that human nature is predisposed to a worldly and physical take on new information. If I said, 'heaven is blue', your first thoughts would be of a blue sky. After all, you've seen that often enough, and you associate heaven with a skyward direction. It will likely be a secondary consideration that I meant 'blue' as sad and 'heaven' as the kingdom of God. A hardened heart is a solid worldly preconception.

The other point I wish to bring forward is found in Mark 8:31-34. Jesus plainly tells his disciples what he is about to go through and what he must endure physically to achieve his spiritual goal. Peter pulls him around to rebuke him – likely to say something on the order of 'we won't let that happen; we'll protect you'. So, Jesus faces the other disciples (turns his back on Peter) and says, in 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.” Again, we see the physical world-view at work. The things that be of men stand in stark opposition to the things that be of God.

I digress; I am still getting to the point. That point is found in Mark 8:34. After his exchange with Peter, and possibly as a result of it, Jesus called everyone together to speak to them as a whole. It is likely that Jesus stood apart with his disciples for the exchange with Peter, then called over the multitude, who were lounging at a distance waiting for something to happen. In Mark 8:34, Jesus said to everyone, “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”

This is the point: The disciples had not yet experienced the crucifixion of Christ, not that he was speaking to them alone, yet the Roman cross was well-known in the time of Jesus. It may have found its way into the common language and thoughts. It may have figured into local metaphors. Somewhere in the backs of their minds, all of them may have thought it a real possibility they end up on a cross. It may have been in the common usage that a cross represented the thankless and pay-less struggles of their everyday physical existence.

Christ said two things to them. One was, 'if you want to be like me' (come after me), meaning, as I think he did, 'if you want to be spiritual'. The second was, follow me, or in other words, 'do as I do.' If “take up your cross” was common enough to be understood by all who listened, what might it have meant to them? Jesus told them, if you want to be like me, approach these common worldly difficulties, not as things that will defeat you, but as a means to a higher spiritual victory.

The Parable of Mark Seven

Mark seven contains the travels of Jesus from Gennesaret, North to Tyre and Sidon, then South and East to Decapolis and back North to the sea of Galilee. Along the way, Jesus performed many miraculous healings. It was in Gennesaret that the Pharisees and elders from Jerusalem approached Jesus about the issue of unwashed hands.


Knowing how many people Jesus traveled with, and then on top of that, how many people followed him, we can appreciate that reaching Jesus was no small task. Yet we find that those who had come from Jerusalem did just that. This raises questions. How difficult was it to get an audience with Jesus? Had they traveled that distance for the sole purpose of speaking to Jesus, or had they been in tow all along? Did Pharisees normally travel among the disciples?


Also, if they traveled from Jerusalem just to see Jesus, why did they deem that necessary and had their conversation with Jesus degraded into nitpicking over small points of the law or had that been their initial interest? Another consideration is this: did they speak as they walked or were they in a more comfortable setting – say around a synagogue before or after one of his Sabbath talks? Did all of this, finally, declare the standing that Jesus had among the Pharisees and religious elders?


At any rate, it was during his conversation with them that Jesus delivered the parable. This is the parable as found in Mark 7:15, “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”


It would appear that Jesus was somewhat central to the people that he called together. It was in response to the conversation he had with his peers from Jerusalem that Jesus “called all the people unto him.” They were a bit distant from the exchange, yet close enough to be called over physically to his location. It was not their attention that he called for as much as their ear-shot nearness. I get the impression of Jesus sitting with the Pharisees and elders perhaps in a market square or open area between houses or a plaza near a synagogue.


I get the impression of the crowd surrounding Jesus and the Pharisees, and Jesus making an exaggerated point – perhaps shaming the Pharisees in the process. I once failed in math during elementary school, and the teacher had all the other students stand around my desk to make a point. I was to be surrounded until I got it.


It was later, after the exchange, that Jesus explained the parable to his disciples. He did this in Mark 7:17-23. It is because of this that we today may see so clearly what Jesus meant by it. The contention is between physical gestures and spiritual realities. The point of the parable is that physical gestures cannot achieve spiritual goals. We can, in fact, be quite spiritual even if we eat with dirty hands. If we are not defiled by such, then defilement is spiritual rather than physical. Jesus offered an extended list of things that do defile a man.


One may note from that list that all of them share something in common. They are spiritual attributes. Please follow my reasoning on this. Jesus said that the things that defile a man are the things that are produced in the heart. Now of course, by saying this, I intend to be understood as saying 'things that are produced in the mind.' If you read every verse in the Bible that deals with the heart, as I have, you come away with the understanding that the writers of the Bible wrote 'heart' while they meant 'mind.'


This is most easily seen in such a verse that puts it this way: “thoughts of the heart,” First Chronicles 29:18.


In my writing, I have a catch phrase that I return to often. It goes like this: “Spiritual is mental is spiritual.” Any attribute that is of the mind lies within the realm of the spirit. In other words, the mind of a man and the spirit of a man are one and the same. Our thoughts, our imaginations, our emotions all stem from the mind.


It is only from such a spiritual realization that one may understand how futile the physical gestures really are. The Catholics get down on their knees and the Muslims bow down on their faces, but both are no more than physical gestures and accomplish no spiritual goal. They bear no truth and have no effect. Some people pray with their faces toward the sky and their hands folded, clasped, or placed together: all physical. Some people finger beads, set up statues of saints, wear beards, wear caps, refrain from musical instruments during worship. All such things are physical rather than spiritual.


The list of things that defile a man are mental attributes and they do so because they are spiritual and touch upon God. Moreover, these attributes are easily translated into physical activities that men feel more at home in. The physical action of a Muslim killing an infidel is based solely in the defiling spiritual attribute of blood lust. Such defiling activities can in no manner appease God, who is spiritual. Neither can they bring the perpetrator of such actions closer to God. We must see the list of defiling attributes as thoughts that lead to depravities. To be spiritual, on the other hand, would involve thoughts that lead us in the opposite direction.

Three Small Verses

Mark 6:1-3 is another of my off-topic side-trips. Given there is so much of the Bible to read, small details are not dwelt upon long enough to clearly understand. That is the case of these three verses in Mark Six. So, I would like us all to simply stop. Stop racing forward. Stop awhile and dwell on these three small verses.

Jesus had entered his own country of Judea; his disciples followed him. Jesus' hometown of Bethlehem was just five or six miles south of Jerusalem. On the Sabbath, he taught at the synagogue. We are impressed, initially, with the familiarity of the locals. It is a familiarity that makes us suspect that the events of these three verses took place in Bethlehem.


We gather much from the attitudes and thoughts of the locals. Not only is divine authority brought into question, but also, we see that Jesus' Rabbinic status is seen as less than credible. Now, we are familiar with the habit of Jesus teaching in synagogues, but in actuality, there was no formal synagogue hierarchy – they had no specified preachers and the customs allowed for any man to read and speak.


However, we also know that the elders and Pharisees and Sadducees, etc., were received with attitudes of respect. Their knowledge of scripture and authority was a given among the lower echelons of society. Their deeds, while mundane, were rarely doubted. That is not the case with Jesus in this particular synagogue. The attitude of the people was, from the beginning, one of incredulity. Note how they reasoned among themselves about his knowledge, his authority, his reputation.


Mark 6:2 give us this: “Many hearing him were astonished, saying, from whence hath this man these things?” In other words, just who did Jesus think he was? They questioned the source of knowledge and wisdom he drew upon, for it smacked of not being the ordinary doctrine of the Rabbis to which they were accustomed. By extension, if his doctrine was so different, how far afield was he in his deeds?


We know little of the Rabbis in the day of Jesus. For instance, did they wear a particular type of clothing or hat that might quickly identify them. A Rabbi seen in his Rabbi threads would have been more immediately accepted – in the Pavlovian sense of acceptance. Rabbis might also have been more sedentary, preferring to travel less than Jesus did. In fact, Jesus may have been the only man called Rabbi, at that time, who made house calls. Yet, being called Rabbi by a small troupe of followers is not the same thing as being among the bonafide elite.


We have a saying that goes: 'familiarity breeds contempt.' They found it hard to believe that one of their own, a commoner like themselves, should reach so far above his station in life. While they seem to have certainly known him and his family, their familiarity with Jesus seems not to have extended to any knowledge of formal training or credentials on Jesus' part. What did they base their attitude on, we must ask? When they asked among themselves, “Is not this the carpenter?” I get no sense that they meant the twelve-year-old boy learning the trade from his father Joseph. 'The carpenter' indicates someone who made a living in that trade. The people viewed Jesus as a common laborer – just as ordinary and small as themselves. They galled, 'How dare he be so big'?


Somehow, I see a message bubbling just under the surface of this incident. As a message, it is vague and elusive, but I suspect that in it familiarity, contempt, and faithlessness are interwoven. It is asserted that because they did not believe, Jesus could only do a few incidental miracles in the country of his birth.


Their knowledge of Jesus demands a bit more scrutiny. In their familiarity, certain family members are listed. Mary, James, Joses, Juda, and Simon are listed, plus a plurality of sisters. Jesus came from a large family, and that demands some investigation. We are looking at a family with seven or eight children. This should key thoughts about the logistics of feeding such a family, which in turn should lend credence to the statement of the people: 'the carpenter.' It seems altogether plausible that the carpenter worked along with father and brothers in the ongoing routine of putting bread on the table. Because of their familiarity of Jesus and his family, I can see the adult Jesus in the role of a carpenter.


When we think of a family, we think of the years it takes for children to grow up in their community. If Jesus was the first child of Joseph and Mary, some scholars believing she married at age 14, and if Jesus was in his thirties when he returned to preach in his own country, that would suggest that some of his siblings were in their twenties. Perhaps some of Jesus' sisters had already been married into the community. Mary would certainly be in her mid to upper forties at that time.


Jesus was perhaps near the half-way mark in his three and a half year ministry, so he may have been away from home for two or three years before this return. The locals would have had a clear memory of Jesus as 'the carpenter.' That is in contradiction, I realize, to those who believe Christ had been absent from his country since his early teens – perhaps in India. I also realize that many think the siblings of Jesus came from a previous marriage on the part of Joseph, but what if that was not the case?


What if Joseph had been around longer than many want to believe. I am not suggesting that the sex life of revered saints was prolific, but if a woman has one child a year, fourteen years plus eight would have Joseph around in Mary's twenties and when Jesus was eight. We know Joseph was around when Jesus was twelve. With such a large family, why did Joseph and Mary travel to Jerusalem with just a twelve-year-old Jesus? If they left all the other children in the care of others and just took Jesus, that would suggest a specific purpose.


I could go on. Three small verses can -- given enough thought, bring many new questions to bear. It is obvious that I think on these matters. Such thoughts are a joy, for they are elevated above the everyday. If any follow my writings, I would sincerely hope that it is for the same reason. May the Holy Spirit answer our every question.

First John Three

A topical study of First John Three

There is no better way to celebrate Christmas than to honor Christ in our spirits. By that I mean our every thought and emotion. What we know, we know through the spirit which was sent to us by Christ from God. No book of the Bible better explains what we know through the spirit than First John. The third chapter of that book breaks down the issues of right and wrong in a manner that is easy to understand.

This is the case of what we know in spirit, not what we know in worldly facts and figures. The spirit is not measured by our hand, but it is measured to each of us according to the will of God. Now, before we go any further, let me explain what the Bible writers meant by spirit. You can look this up for yourselves. Whenever the Bible mentions the heart, it is a reference to the seat of our thoughts. In other words, the heart is the mind, therefore, the mind is the spirit. Similarly, it was believed that the emotions and passions were seated in the bowels.

The case that First John Three makes is a case about our thoughts and emotions – what we know, how we know it, and the exact location our minds and hearts anchor into the mind of God in Christ. Follow with me as John makes his case.



What we know about the sinner's mindset

John divides our spiritual knowledge into the two broad categories of right and wrong, good and bad, righteous and wicked, love and hatred. These extremes are opposing sides in an ongoing struggle. Love and good and righteousness are one and the same. Sin and hatred and lawlessness are one and the same.

We know for example that, “Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” We are also told, “He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil (has) sinned from the beginning.” Furthermore, the child of God knows his relationship with God by and through his relationship with the world: “Whosoever does not righteousness is not of God, whosoever sins hath not seen him, neither known him. Therefore, the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.”



What we know about the absence of love

The sinner is explained, in spirit, as the opposite of God. God is love, the sinner is anything but. Just as God acts upon the principle of love, and the child of God acts upon the principle of love, the sinner acts upon the opposing principle: hatred. The result of the sinner's principle in action is always seen as independence, isolation, resistance, rebellion, defiance, rejection, and ultimately, as violence and destruction.

John explains the difference between love and hatred thus: “Whoso hath this world's good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?” The Christian knows that all ties are not the ties of love; we are admonished to love our brothers, but “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.” Christ plainly told us that if we hate our brothers with our thoughts, we have already committed murder. That is why the spirit, and John, instruct us with these words: “Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. He that loves not his brother abides in death.”



The difference between the children of God and the children of the devil

The world is filled with sinners. They are a hateful bunch. This is exactly how we know that we are different from the world. This is how we know just how saved we are – for we used to be them. Christ redeemed us from them, and now they hate us as much as the righteous son of God. This is how we know that we share the mind of Christ and the mind of God – it is what we mean when we say we are born of God.

John said, “Marvel not, my brethren if the world hates you.” We know it hated God first. Since it opposed God, it is only to be expected that it would also oppose his son. Is it any wonder it rejects those who are one with Christ? The children will be like their father. The enemy of God the Father will also fight his children. All that the enemy of God has perpetrated against God's children, the coming of Christ is meant to undo: “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”

We know that Christ wages a war against the enemy of God's children. It is a war of attrition. Christ deflates the ranks of sinners by removing us. Therefore we “Know that he was manifested to take away our sins and in him is no sin. Whosoever abides in him sins not.” We disown the enemy of God and adopt God as our new father. God plants his seed in our thinking. “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”


What we know about truth and confidence

God replaces our hatred with love. It is no ruse on our part; it is the very thing we are. God planted love in our thinking, therefore, we are love. The enemy of God can express love as well as the child of God, but that is where it ends for them. We go a step further and actually walk the walk. We love in actual deed. We love in actual fact. We love God; we love our brothers. That is why John urges us to be sure.

“My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” Christ is the truth. By that, I mean that Christ is the perfection of man by the planting of God's seed. Christ is one with God – he is the same. We are one with Christ – we are the same. It is through that spirit that we are consoled and made confident in our relationship: “Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.”

Our new spiritual relationship comes with software to make it integrate seamlessly, and John wants the child of God to keep that in mind: “Beloved, if our heart condemns us not, then have we confidence toward God.” It can not be overstated that our new mind is both the desire of the father and the acquiescence of the child. It is because of that mental oneness, not only between God and you but also between you and I, that the spiritual wheel moves forward. John concludes,  “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” In deed and in truth.



How we perceive God's love

There is a perception of the love that is God. It is a perception in which the child of God views his father and his brother as indistinguishable from self. It is a mental image in which the planted seed of God shines so brightly that love becomes the new self. That is why John said this: “Hereby perceive we the love of God because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” Laying down one's life is not a result of the perception – it is the perception.

God is who we are; Christ is who we are; love is who we are. It is seen by the child of God that Christ is both the messenger and the message. For this reason, John said, “This is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” It is a truth of the spirit; the upgrade is both personal and obvious: “We know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren.” The message we have heard from the beginning is not something we have to guess at, nor is it a hidden thing that we must search high and low for it; the message is in black and white. It is there in The Bible for all of us to read. It is the command of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. John added, “And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”

It is a spiritual thing – a matter of the mind, for God planted his mind in Christ, who in turn, planted that same mind in you and I. Again, it can not be overstated that our new mind is both the desire of the father and the acquiescence of the child. John tells us this: “He that keeps his (Christ's) commandments dwells in him, and he in him. And hereby (or, it is because of this indwelling that) we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit (the mind) which he hath given us.”



What we know of our kinship with Christ

We know in our spirits and believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God. He is that because of the mind of God indwelling him. He has shared that mind with us, and because we share the mind of the son, God calls us his children. It is a spiritual love so finely tuned that we, like John, must stand in awe of it. As John said in praise, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.”

It is a love planned from the very beginning, and as such, it is a divine instrument that unites the future (the Father's desire) with the present (the son's acquiescence). The future is seen in 'shall appear' and the present is seen in 'see him as he is'. Even without concrete and verifiable evidence, this is a real truth that both lives in us and brings life to us who were dead in our sins. The truth written in First John Three claims and exclaims  the honor we give to Christ in the celebration of his birth: “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.”

Furthermore, John shows us that our hopes and our works unite in one forward moving momentum, but more importantly that the mindset we all strive toward is the same mindset found in the timeless and perfected Christ: “Every man that hath this hope in him purifies himself, even as he (Christ) is pure.”



The most important message a Christian can hear

It must be noted that the most important message the faithful will ever receive is the messenger himself. “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous.” So, let our celebration of Christmas not only embrace and lift up our savior but acknowledge our own like-mindedness with the son of God.

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.