Luke 5

There are an awful lot of facts presented in the Bible. They assail us in a constant flow; we find it difficult to keep the newer information in context. For instance, as being in the fifth chapter of this book, we feel confident about the status of Jesus' disciples. In Luke 5:11, after a miracle on the sea, it is said that they forsook all and followed him. But wait – weren't they already disciples?

Before the miracle, Jesus was staying in Simon's house. It was in the city of Capernaum. Jesus had preached in their Synagogue, after which, he departed to Simon's house and healed his mother-in-law – chapter four, verse thirty-eight. Before that, Jesus was in his hometown of Nazareth, and before that, Jesus was at the place where John baptized him.

According to the gospel of John, Jesus was still in that same place where John the baptist did his baptism thing. It was the day after the baptism when two of John's disciples left John to be disciples of Jesus. One of them was Andrew, Simon's brother, who went and told Simon and brought him to Jesus. We were all under the impression that it was there, at the place of baptism that Jesus accepted Simon as a disciple, naming him Peter.

However, the gospel of Luke changes that all around. No doubt, they attended the Sabbath service in which Jesus exorcised the unclean spirit. He took Jesus home with him and witnessed the miraculous healing of his mother-in-law, but still, it took the miracle of the fishing trip to make them forsake all.

Let us look a little closer. Whose ship did Jesus enter to preach? It was Simon's ship, one of two in a fishing partnership. It is a safe bet that fishing was the family business. When Simon had cast out at Jesus behest, he had been up all night fishing without success. He was tired and sleepy. Why would he go to all that trouble for a stranger? It appears that Jesus' word was good enough – indicative of experience drawn from a relationship. Perhaps the early disciples needed to fully commit.

So Simon and Andrew were disciples. There was the one other mentioned but not named from the gospel of John. What about the fishing partners? James and John were just as amazed by the miracle on the sea. That brings the number of disciples to five, with at least four of them definitely known to come from Capernaum. Then, Jesus picks up Levi in the same city. That's half his disciples from one place.

It takes but a brief perusal of available documents to see that all but one of the disciples was from that general area of Galilee. Most of them were related to each other. Bartholomew (Nathaniel) was from Cana, with a possible connection to the wedding Jesus attended, and Judas was from southern Judea near the lower end of the dead sea.

Speaking of disciples, was discipleship some willy-nilly everyday commonplace occurrence, or was it a more controlled and restricted practice? Who had disciples back then? We note this indicative question in Luke 5:33, “Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees . . ?”

It seems to me that discipleship was a practice restricted to accredited religious groups and personalities. If Pharisees had disciples, was John a Pharisee? If Jesus prayed at his own baptism, after the practice of the disciples of John, was he also a disciple up til then? If discipleship was limited by accreditation, was Jesus a bonafide Rabbi of one of the accredited religious orders? Mark 5 has so much food for thought, we might have to loosen the belt.

Let us return our attention to the multitudes. Mark 5 presents the reader with a time in Jesus' early ministry in which he was swamped by literal throngs. News of him had gotten out. He was famous. People knew that he had healed infirmities, so they gathered all their sick folk and flocked to him. Even in his preaching, he had to sit in a ship that sat at a distance from the shore. On top of this, we see that many Pharisees and doctors of law had come from surrounding areas to hear him.

Luke 5:17 tells us that there were “Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem . . .” That's a lot of people. So then, how do we reconcile the fact of Jesus preaching from inside a house. Was it the house of Simon Peter? The multitudes, in their attempts to set their infirm loved ones before the healer, let them down 'through the tiling into the midst.' That speaks clearly of an interior. Perhaps Jesus sat just inside the doorway with the crowds gathered outside. Standing room only.

It is in this context that we must read the things Jesus said as he spoke to the people, and to the Pharisees, and to the doctors of the law, emphasizing the points he wished them to understand. Points like:

“They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

“Can you make the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.”

“No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.”

These are not stand-alone sayings, but they must be filtered by the context in which they are found. I came not to do 'this but 'that.' Why? No man puts this on that. Why was that said to these particular people at this particular time? Seekers have great minds. What would you find if you really applied yourself?

Pause for Thought

How does one define 'passing through'? The account in Luke 4:16-30 concludes with that concept. I have never seen or heard a discussion of that recorded fact. It seems most folk will not pause long enough to consider such a thing. In this short study, we will pause for thought. We will embrace the concept. We will seek definition.

Jesus had gone home to Nazareth and preached famously. To the very people who had known him before the commencement of his public ministry, Jesus read from Isaiah. He stood and read from Isaiah 61:1, then he returned the scroll to the minister and sat down.

All eyes were on Jesus. Estimates place the population of Jesus' Nazareth from 400 to 480. One may imagine a synagogue large enough to accommodate that population. Quite a large crowd would gather there each Sabbath.

After his reading, Jesus angered the locals with his words. They felt insulted. The implication of his speech made them indignant. They somehow transformed, on that holy day, from a church-going crowd into a blood-thirsty mob. However many men had filled that synagogue, they took Jesus physically and dragged him to a high precipice to hurl him over the edge to his death.

Make no mistake: they had Jesus in hand. They had seized him by his wrists. They held him by his shoulders and arms. They shoved him angrily from behind with the bulk of the mob following. When they reached the cliff, he simply passed through that mob and went his way. How is that possible?

Here are some questions I wonder if anyone ever asks. Where were his disciples? Did they struggle to free their master from the mob? There is no mention of them. Some synagogues permitted women and older children to quietly listen from an enclosed upper balcony. Was Mary there? Did Jesus' siblings attend? The text is silent on this point. We are given only two points of reference: Jesus and the mob.

Let us pause long enough to consider what 'passing through' may involve. I leave you with these notions. Definitions include: 'passing through a hole or around something'. Did Jesus bolt through the crowd like a football player? Also, there is the passing through of 'infiltration'. Did Jesus somehow pass himself off as one of the crowd while he made his way to the trailing end of the mob? Had there been sudden confusion among them?

Somehow, Jesus moved through the physical mob in a way that ended with his body being no longer in their center. Had he used a power similar to that of walking on water? We have too little information to form a clear picture but for me, personally, I favor the infiltration scenario.

First Impressions

First impressions are important. Few will deny this truth. In this present study, I want to look at the first impressions of Jesus and what was thought of him by the people when he began his public ministry.

Luke 4:14-15 tells us this, “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.”

So then, even before he was glorified of all, a fame of him had gone out through those regions – word of mouth. But, a fame of what? All we are told to this point is that he had been baptized and that he went into the wilderness and was tempted by the devil, fasting for forty days.

There was certainly something to speak of, in regard to the baptism. For one, the Holy Spirit was seen, in a physical form, to descend upon the man. In addition to this, John had been speaking of one who would follow him – one who would perform greater works.

And just who were those people who came out to see John? There were locals who knew John, there were those who knew that Jesus was his cousin, there were tax collectors for Rome and even soldiers. There were people who knew and followed prophecy. There were people who wished to be free of the yoke of Rome, who eagerly anticipated the Messiah who would set them free.

Was John just a wild man in the wilderness? He was addressed as 'Master.' Folks did not give that title to just any passer-by. It seems that John was taken quite seriously even by the local government. It is not so much of a stretch then to think he may have had some religious training and some unmentioned connection to the religious bodies in authority. Was he a rogue Pharisee? Had he been a Doctor of the law before trading in his fine robes for animal skins?

John had a fame of his own. It might have seemed to the multitudes that he had passed on his fame to another. A point of interest about the baptism of Jesus is that he prayed. Most of us accept that Jesus was a powerful speaker. He had a way with words. I don't imagine that public prayer was present from everyone John baptized. In fact, I get the impression that the prayer of Jesus was a custom or ritual. I see it more as a practice of, say, a Pharisee or Sadducee or the Essenes.

The fame that went out abroad about the baptized Jesus most assuredly included his forty day wilderness trial. Was that a rite of passage? Was it an early Rabbinical trial by fire? It is worth consideration that, just perhaps, Jesus did not simply wander off into the hills to face his demons alone. For there to be a fame of such an accomplishment, let alone knowledge of the act, it is well within the realm of possibility that the trial of Jesus was monitored in some fashion and by some interested party.

According to Luke, when Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit, he took up a regular practice of teaching in the local synagogues. He was called Rabbi, after all. I can only imagine that those who were called 'Master' or 'Rabbi' were so called for a reason – that reason being that they were actually a bona fide Master or Rabbi.

The way we read this account in Luke gives the sense of immediacy – as of a young student who moves directly from graduation to his first job. Of course, Luke does not indicate whether the passage of time is in weeks or months. I think it would be interesting, at this point, to compare parallel passages from the other gospels.

In Matthew 4:12, 13 and 17 we see this first impression of Jesus: “Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, which is in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This is the version found in Mark 1:14-15, “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

In the first chapter of the gospel of John, the fact of Jesus' baptism is inferred rather than directly stated. Also, there is no mention of Jesus' forty days in the wilderness. However, we do see a progression of events marked with the expression 'next day.' First, John preaches the coming of the one that is to follow him, fielding queries from the Pharisees, priests, and Levites.

Next, John sees Jesus and directs the attention of the people to him, saying that Jesus, specifically, is the man he had been preaching about. Then, on the following day, John says to two of his disciples, “Behold the Lamb of God.” Those two desert John and follow Jesus. They spend the night with him. Where he was staying and whether or not he was renting a room, I've no idea, but it was one of those two who began to spread the word that the Messiah had been found.

The one to whom the first report of a Messiah went was Simon, a fisherman on the sea of Galilee. Obviously, they were on the move as, on the next day, Jesus went into Galilee and found Philip who brought in Nathanael. And finally, the next 'next day' that we encounter is the one that brings Jesus and his new disciples to the wedding in Cana. It is that 'next day' that is intended to sum up the progression. I would ask at this point, why had Jesus' mother come all the way from Nazareth to attend this wedding – but that is another study altogether.

The Luke version concerns itself more with the topic of fame than do the other versions. Still, it is easy to deduce from any of the gospels that Jesus was being noticed, followed and talked about.

Tradition places the location of the Jesus baptism as Bethabara, sometimes thought to be Bethany beyond Jordan, but at any rate, east of the Jordan river where the Jordan was parted by Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. It is thought to be a one day journey from Bethabara to Cana, but from Bethany to Cana, a trip of two to three days. Considering the generalized location of the baptism, where would the wilderness most likely have been?

We get this from Wikipedia, “These discussions began to take on a different shape in the late 1990s, when mine clearing operations east of the Jordan enabled archaeological digs to unearth an ancient church marking baptism on a site where the Jordan River flowed in the first century, matching the place marked on the Madaba map. The local Arabic name of the site is Al-Maghtas, "the immersion/baptism". This rapidly led to a growing consensus among archaeologists, scholars and church leaders that this site, just east of the Jordan River and slightly north of the place where it empties into the Dead Sea, is most likely to be the place where John the Baptist was baptizing.”

Both Bethany and Bethany beyond Jordan are near the Dead Sea and within walking distance of Qumran.

Whatever we do in life, people see us and form opinions, either good or bad. All of us make first impressions. Jesus was from the beginning known to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. His life progressed prophetically, from his place of birth to his place of baptism and trial, to his place of burial. People talked about these things into the small hours of the night. They followed the life of Jesus with keen interest. No other first impression has lasted as long or endured such scrutiny. Jesus is, to this day, still “glorified of all.”

The Unmarked Reputation

Not much is given us on the early years of Jesus. All the Bible will divulge is the incident when he was twelve. Yet, there is one verse, Luke 2:40 to be specific, that speaks of his years before age twelve.

Too many race past this verse assuming it only reflects the passage of time. It gives us so much more, in fact, this particular verse attributes to the young Jesus nothing less than a reputation. Let us quickly check a dictionary on the meaning of that word. It is given as “the common opinion that people have about someone or something,” and “the way in which people think of someone or something,” also the “overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general,” as a “recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability,” and lastly “a place in public esteem or regard.”

There are four points that make up the reputation of Jesus that was held in common by the public in general. Luke 2:40 says, “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.” It is clear to see that each point is something visible and recognizable. Each point was a consensus.

'The child grew': that was a thing seen with the eye. His parents saw it, his neighbors saw it, the people who followed prophecy and, no doubt, checked in on Jesus saw it. Then, the child 'waxed strong in spirit': simply put, the child had a keen mind. He was clever, a quick study – perhaps a natural at solving problems thought to be beyond the scope of childhood. The normal happy chatter and games of children are usually relegated to a level of importance that is far below the daily concerns of adults. A child with such a mind would have been noticed and news of it voiced abroad.

'Filled with wisdom.' There was no public education then, there was not so much as a rudimentary level of book smarts, and yet, the public opinion of Jesus was that he was wise. I doubt that his wisdom would have merited canonical mention had only his Mom or Dad thought he was wise. There had to be a consensus of public esteem. No trivial matter would it have been to find wisdom in an uneducated child of that day. People would have sought to derive some advantage from it. You can bet Jesus was questioned and engaged on matters of import.

Finally, 'the grace of God was upon him' Jesus carried himself well. His manner was convincing. He sported a certain charm of demeanor. Quite a reputation for a child not yet twelve. For the normal boy of that day, knowledge would have consisted only of those things learned from the mother, the father, or heard in the Sabbath services. Such a reputation did not necessarily mean that he was liked for it by every illiterate, hard-working person of the community: daily concerns and the political clime of the time were just too pressing.

All of this culminated in Jesus' coming of age as seen in this excerpt from a Bible Gateway article on the topic: “Jesus is twelve years old. If the Mishna is relevant to the first-century Jewish practice, which is likely in this case, then religious instruction would have become more intense for Jesus upon his reaching twelve (m. Niddah 5:6; m. Megilla 4:6; m. `Abot 5:12). The custom of bar mitzvah for a thirteen-year-old Jewish boy was not in place at this time (Fitzmyer 1981:440).”

There is more to the reputation of young Jesus as we see in verse 52. After the incident of the temple at age twelve, Jesus returned with his family to Nazareth and was subject to them – but – his reputation continued to grow. He was generally known to have become even wiser. He increased in stature, which may mean, as Merriam-Webster puts it, “the level of respect that people have for a successful person.”

Not only that, but Jesus also was liked and respected in his community. There was the evidence of public consensus that Jesus increased in not only in favor with God, but also in the regard of friends and acquaintances. All of this early reputation may have ultimately been relegated to public life. His public ministry, at the age of thirty or so, might have been somewhat of a head-scratcher for the community he grew up in.

There is nothing in the scriptures of the life of such a one with such a reputation. Had there originally been texts that church authorities later deleted, it begs the question 'just what did they wish to hide?' Despite the lack of specifics in Jesus' early life, I am still encouraged that something, even as generic as this, remains. The few words of this study tell a big truth.

A Mother's Child

On this Mother's Day, many mothers around the world are blessed and revered by their children. Moreover, the fathers and husbands revere the mothers and wives. It is clearly seen that there is something special about them, something worthy of praise. No mother in history has received more praise than the mother of the savior of mankind. Yet, her praise is indirect – that is through the son.

In Luke 2:34, an old man named Simeon blessed the child Jesus according to the customs and laws of that day. He had been assured by the Holy Spirit that he would not die until he saw with his own eyes the Lord's Christ. Simeon, a devout Jew who awaited the consolation of Israel, clearly saw Jesus as a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Israel (the people.)

When Simeon blessed Jesus, Mary shared that blessing in her heart. When Simeon praised Jesus as Christ and savior, Mary felt it and tucked it away as a special treasure and reason for joy. Mothers shine the brightest in their children. The praiseworthy Mom dotes on her children and gives her all for their benefit. The formative years of a child belong to the mother, insomuch that we may be sure much of who Jesus was came by way of who Mary was.

So Mary, proud of her son, humbled and awed, stood before Simeon, Joseph by her side, and received each and every word with acute interest. She was surprised by the words that came through his lips, but not unduly – she had, after all, spoken with an angel of the Lord. Simeon served to justify her thoughts – thoughts she handled every day since the words of the angel.

It was the Jewish thought and law that the first-born male was accounted holy to the Lord. Mary began with that. Then an angel comes along and tells her Jesus would be considered not only holy but the very son of the Most High. Now, she stood before Simeon and heard his words added to everything else.

This child was set for the fall and the rise of many in Israel, a sign that would be spoken against, so that the thoughts of the hearts of many might be revealed, including Mary's thoughts. She would know that her thoughts had been right all along; she would know her son as the son of God and savior of her people. Perhaps through the coming years, Mary would become the most educated person on the topics of Christ and salvation. She would ask; she would search it out; she would store it away in her heart.

Let us take a moment to consider the concepts that were bodied forth in this section of scripture. To say they are curiously worded would be an understatement. A light to lighten the Gentiles: we see this reflected in the first chapter of the gospel of John, verses one through twelve. Isaiah also wrote of this light in Isaiah 49:6 when God said, “It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”

The glory of your people Israel: may correctly be viewed as 'the best representative' of the people of Israel. Jesus was, in his place, a model to be aspired to. Jesus was the perfect model of the type of Hebrew, Israeli, Jew, Christian, and man of any nation that God desired.

The fall and the rising again of many in Israel: This speaks to us of building, especially of demolition that clears the way for something new. The ministry of Jesus was set against many in fact. We see the church elders, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, the lawyers and Doctors of the law all thoroughly bashed by the truths of Jesus. They lost quite a bit of standing in the eyes of the locals and perhaps more so in the eyes of the Roman authorities. Religious authority, as a whole, fell – but they recovered and were better for the humbling. History teaches they were set on a path of improvement: individual-faith-in-God-wise.

Christ was not only the new and improved Israel, he was the new and improved non-Hebrew (and this was how Mary's son was to prove himself the light from God) for anyone anywhere who believed, to them he gave the power to become children of God. He included everyone, even the enemies of faith. There was but one test: nothing overly complicated, just 'believe'.

It was not necessarily a bad thing that Jesus was set for a sign to be spoken against. The whole thing about spiritual demolition and reconstruction is getting a heart to commit. One must not only take a stand, but one must be known for that stand. The religious authorities dressed in their finest religious garb, but underneath, they were the enemies of God. That had to come out. Ultimately, we all must know exactly where we stand.

Our hearts can betray us with a multitude of superfluous and duplicitous thoughts, all of them camouflaged to the end of personal advantage – but that is neither 'yea' or 'nay'. One must choose – and one must believe in one's choice.

Mary believed, but she was prejudiced – it was her son. The Pharisee, Nicodemus, believed – but he had to struggle with what he thought he believed. He had amassed a lifetime worth of head knowledge that only left him unsure. The desperate father of a demon-possessed son wanted to believe, and cried out in tears, “help thou mine unbelief.” Do you want to believe?

Honor your mother, praise her and know that in the doing you prove you are more aligned to faith than not. You are more the child of God than you let on. You may be struggling with preconceptions that hinder your reconstruction. God is love and Christ is our example of the son of love. If mothers teach us anything, it is how we are who we are because of love.

Heavenly Politics

I turn my attention to a small verse in the second chapter of Luke. It is always the little things – things we overlook, things we take for granted or at face value – things that speak volumes.

Here is an angel of God speaking to shepherds in the fields at night. An innumerable host appears with the angel, lighting up the night sky in a fearsome manner. They are promoting the birth of Christ to the locals. A little word of mouth goes a long way. Their advertisement is magnificent and frightening.

It is a small account, but no telling of the Nativity is complete without it. It is heard often at the season of Christmas, it is sung about, and preached in churches, and I suppose – if you focus on the manger or the angels, you might miss the actual wording of the celestial beings.

In the Bible, the words 'host' and 'hosts' refer to armies. To be sure, the hosts of God came to earth in the old testament to fight the armies of the world. So when we talk about the heavenly hosts, we are actually speaking of a war machine. When we turn our thoughts to such matters, politics comes to mind.

We recall that the hosts of heaven once fought among themselves. It was civil war among angelic factions, as one seceded from the union and battled for its own identity. Such are matters that must be solved politically. Just as one such political tool is the crack commando squad of highly trained elite forces, so another tool that has often proved useful is negotiation.

The highest ranking authority will set terms and conditions for a peace treaty. Something is given, and something is expected in return. Wars end with peace treaties. It is through such negotiations that hostilities come to an end so the important things may once again occupy the mind.

When you hear the story of the angels praising God before the shepherds, you might at first be impressed that these celestial beings all worship and serve God. You might think these thoughts in a vacuum, that is, without reference to the politics of Heaven.

Was Christ a peace offering that brought about an end to celestial hostilities? Had some of the angels set themselves against mankind? Were we like the slaves of the American Civil War – property over which some fought to hold and some fought to free?

The wording of the heavenly hosts in the presence of the shepherds is the impetus for this study. They could have said anything. They could have said what they said in a number of different ways. Yet, they chose to use these words: “And on earth peace, good will toward men.”

One has to ask: 'peace' as opposed to what? 'Good will' as opposed to what? Had the tides just turned? Had there not been good will toward men? Had there been, instead, hostility toward mankind? Was earth a battlefield upon which there was now peace, an end to hostilities? Was that peace a peace between warring celestial factions?

And finally, was not the advent or birth of Christ as man as much a boon for the angels as it was for mankind? It certainly seems to have united them in a cause they could all agree on: “Glory to God in the highest.”

The Spirit/Flesh Connection

My focus, here, is a single verse. It is Luke 1:35. This verse describes the conception of the son of God. Here, the wording is critical, for the same words that describe the conception of Jesus Christ also describe the creation of Adam.

What are we looking at? Luke 1:35 says, “And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

These are the questions we should ask. How are spirit and flesh connected? How does a spiritual entity engender a mortal offspring? What part of that engendered being is holy? How is the creation of Adam like the conception of Jesus,and finally, why did the angel express distance from Mary's child?

Let's take it slow – one step at a time. First, I wish to restate my long-held belief that our spirit and mind are one and the same. All that I will iterate in this study is predicated on that belief. It is the mind, that is to say: the spirit within a man, that connects us to God. Jesus clearly declared that flesh and spirit are like oil and water.

He said in John 3:6, “ That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” They are separate, unlike, distinct. If the flesh, therefore, is a non-spiritual entity, how may God, a spirit, find a place in mortal man? It is through the mind, not the brain, that God connects himself to flesh. It was that way from the start.

Recall the creation of Adam – who was no more than flesh until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. This is found in Genesis 2:7 and it is only after the fleshly element and the spiritual element are combined that Adam is called a living soul. From this, I gather that before the breath of life was administered, Adam was just another soul, as might have been said of any of the animals God had created without an application of the breath of life. I also gather from this – that is, a breath of life from a totally spiritual entity – that the life we are actually considering, here, is spiritual life. In other words, a living soul is a soul with spiritual life added.

Another consideration is this, how can a spiritual God, who is in no way, shape or form anything even remotely resembling flesh, say 'let us make man in our image, after our likeness?' For that matter, what exactly would be the image and likeness of an invisible spiritual entity?

Jesus, on the other hand, was a very physical identity. He was a flesh and blood man born of a flesh and blood woman. Yet, it is said he was engendered by an entity who was not flesh and blood. How does that even work? This is how the angel explained it to Mary: ' the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.'

Still confused? Is that meant to read the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest, or the Holy Ghost as the power of the Highest? I believe it is the latter and for this reason – the Bible is written in such a way that many things are repeated, but they don't simply say the exact same thing: they say the same thing a different way. What the angel said was that the Holy Spirit was the power of God.

It was the Holy Spirit that would overshadow Mary and make something like Adam, but with a twist. Whereas Adam, and all men, have been flesh with a spiritual insertion, Jesus was to be a spirit with an extension of flesh. In our cases, even though we share a part of God, it is still the flesh that rules. The flesh has quite a will and bends all reason to its own advantage – we are the swine in the parable of the swine and the pearl. That is a tragically difficult obstacle for our spiritual element to overcome. Our minds are overwhelmed by our flesh.

Christ, on the other hand, was configured differently. He was the same flesh as any of us, but it was his mind, the Holy Spirit, that activated and actualized the flesh, reigning it in to the creative will of the Father from the beginning.

What was the reasoning of the angel on this point? He told Mary that because the Holy Spirit was holy the flesh would be also, and flesh Christ was because the angel referred to him as that holy 'thing'. It sounds a bit snooty on the part of the angel, as if it placed distance between the child to be born, as flesh, and itself, as spiritual, or as if the angel had to reassure itself of its own superiority, being no part flesh.

It is only the spiritual part of a Christ man that makes him holy: his flesh is an extension of all that holiness. So, here is the surprising good news – the spirit that was breathed into Adam, the spirit that drew flesh to itself and bent it to the will of God, or the spirit that was breathed upon the disciples when Christ imparted the Holy Ghost: it is all one and the same spirit. You and I share with Jesus the Very spirit of God. Sure, we have a lot to overcome, but we also have a good reason to move forward. Thank you, Holy Spirit.

Luke's Gospel

Who was Luke? Why did he write a gospel? This small investigation encompasses the first four verses of the first chapter of the gospel of Luke. It is a brief introduction to the gospel that follows but provides specific points of information. While Luke does not identify himself, as such, since it is worded specifically to one Theophilus, Luke must have been sufficiently known to him so that no personal accreditation was needed.

Let us discover who Luke and Theophilus were believed to be. Thought to have been both a physician and an apostle of Paul, Luke is considered the author of the gospel that bears his name as well as the book of Acts. Scholars consider Luke to have written most of the new testament, more even than Paul.

Actual facts about Luke are few and far between. Scholars think that he is either a Greek physician who lived in Antioch or a Hellenic Jew that resided in Troas. Being a student of Paul and sometimes traveling with and ministering to, Luke is likely to have obtained the bulk of his knowledge about Jesus from Paul.

This comes from Wikipedia. “Theophilus is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). Both Luke and Acts were written in a refined Koine Greek, and the name "θεόφιλος" ("Theophilos"), as it appears therein, means friend of God[2] or (be)loved by God or loving God[3] in the Greek language. No one knows the true identity of Theophilus and there are several conjectures and traditions around an identity.”

Coptic tradition and John Wesley believe Theophilus to be a person of importance from Alexandria. Some argue that Theophilus was a Roman official. Academia maintains that Theophilus was an honorary title.

More from Wikipedia: “Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer during his trial period in Rome. To support this claim people appeal to the formal legalese present in the prolog to the Gospel such as "eyewitnesses", "account", "carefully investigated", "know the certainty of things which you have been instructed".”

“The conclusion of The Book of Acts ends with Paul still alive and under arrest awaiting trial, suggesting it was the intention of the author to update Theophilus on Paul's history to provide for an explanation of his travels and preaching and serve as evidence in support of his innocence under Roman law. Some also point to the parallel between the account of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate narrated in Luke's Gospel with the account of Paul's trials before Roman judges in the Book of Acts. In total, Jesus was declared innocent 3 times by Pontius Pilate as was Paul before various judges.”

“A growing belief[6] points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41 In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple. Adherents claim that Luke's Gospel was targeted at Sadducee readers. This might explain a few features of Luke. He begins the story with an account of Zacharias the righteous priest who had a Temple vision of an angel(1:5-25). Luke quickly moves to account Mary's purification (niddah), Jesus' Temple redemption (pidyon ha-ben) rituals (2:21-39), and then to Jesus' pilgrimage to the Temple when he was twelve (2:46), possibly implying his bar mitzvah.”

“He makes no mention of Caiaphas' role in Jesus' crucifixion and emphasizes Jesus' literal resurrection (24:39), including an ascension into heaven as a realm of spiritual existence (24:52; Acts 1:1). Luke also seems to stress Jesus' arguments with the Sadducees on points like legal grounds for divorce, the existence of angels, spirits, and an afterlife (Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead). If this was the case then Luke is trying to use Jesus' rebuttals and teachings to break down Theophilus' Sadducean philosophy, maybe with the hope that Theophilus would use his influence to get the Sadducees to cease their persecution of the Christians. One could also look at Luke's Gospel as an allegorical (רֶמֶז remez) reference to Jesus as "the man called the Branch" prophesied in Zechariah 3:8; 6:12-13, who is the ultimate high priest foreshadowed by the Levitical priesthood.”

All of this, even if conjecture, is enlightening. To sit down and write, by hand, two lengthy documents is no small chore. What reason would Luke have for such an undertaking? In the short opening to the gospel of Luke, Luke tells us why in his own words. He tells us he thought it seemed good to throw in his own two cents worth. Much more information does Luke give us.

Luke may have been inspired to try his hand by the “many” who had already “taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things.” It could have been, as some scholars accept that he was providing necessary information to Paul's attorney. He could have been attempting to ease the persecution of Christians via the Sadducees. He could have simply wanted to recount all that he had learned from Paul and believed sincerely. There is also the possibility that he was contracted to write his works by a wealthy patron.

Luke identified himself with those who “most surely believed.” Those declarations that had been set forth in order by so many others were, in his own words, “delivered.” Perhaps his work in the gospel of Luke was to bring about a synthesis of fragmentary eyewitness accounts. The “many” included not only a cloud of eyewitnesses, in the common sense of the word, but also, as we might term them today, 'credible witnesses', 'expert witnesses', 'character witnesses', etc.

Here is how one Wikipedia article describes witnesses (those who might have 'delivered' information to or for Luke's gospel): “A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony.”

Here is what those of us who study the gospels understand: in the three and a half year public ministry of Jesus, he was followed almost daily by an innumerable cloud of eyewitnesses. There were the multitudes – those who sought to hear him speak and those who sought a miracle. There were the disciples and other apostles. One scripture verse (Luke 10:1) states that he sent out seventy of them, two by two, preaching and healing the sick. There were the women that followed his ministry from the beginning, possibly with children in tow. There was Mary Magdalene, possibly Jesus' own mother, Salome, and Peter's wife and mother to name a few: (Mark 15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, John 19:25).

Finally, there were the chief elders, the scribes, the Pharisees and Sadducees that dogged his every step testing him, tempting him. One type of witness is actually named, possibly as the credible witnesses one would find hard to doubt. They were called the “ministers of the word.” Was Luke speaking plainly, or being cryptic? Did he mean 'word' as in Jesus, or did he simply mean the law, the communications of God, over which the above list of notable suspects exercised authority? Did Luke intend that we understand him to mean the disciples themselves?

Luke brought it all together, either for the beloved of God, or a lawyer, or other person of note. He was not making it up off the top of his head. He went to a great personal effort to produce the gospel. He took the steps needed to present the facts as they were. Luke, himself, was a 'minister of the word', bringing us the communication of the spirit.

An Odd Inclusion

Mark 14:51-52 is an odd inclusion in an otherwise normal Jesus scenario. When we look at the statement found in these two verses, we must ask an important question. Why did they think this information was important enough to include?

When taken as a whole, the four gospels display a stoic and highly concentrated style of writing. In other words: the writers did not spend a lot of effort writing about collateral issues and people. They stuck to the topic and were often stingy with the facts. Many details were omitted from the writing of the gospels insomuch that we, the seekers of truth, are impressed with the random bit of information.

For instance, women in the gospels seem of such low esteem that their names are omitted. When a writer of a gospel includes a name, or how the woman is related to the topic at hand, we sit forward and pay attention. If they thought it was that important, we also think it is important – and we want to know why.

Mark 14, and especially the latter verses of the chapter, are dedicated to the disposition of the protagonist. By this I mean, the story focuses on the prayers in the garden and the betrayal by Judas. Speaking collaterally, the disciples are included but then reduced to the three that Jesus took with him to watch while he prayed. Then, Christ and the three returned to the others. That leaves only the introduction of the antagonist leading those interested in Jesus' capture.

That is all there is. Many women often followed with Jesus and the disciples, but they are excluded from this story. Many church elders followed Jesus regularly. They, too, are excluded. It was commonplace that anywhere Jesus went the multitudes followed, as well as the sick and infirm seeking to be healed. None of these are present in the story of Jesus' betrayal and arrest. It seems the writers did this deliberately. It is as if they wanted the story to only be about these core facts.

And yet . . . one rogue fact seems to slip in under the radar. What are we to make of such an inclusion? We know the Bible had parts of it censored and edited. If it was not a case of poor editing, then it must be a deliberate inclusion. If the writers wanted this fact known, we must conclude they thought it was important to the story. There was one follower at the arrest who was not a named disciple.

Those who arrested Jesus had been invested with the authority to do so. They had weapons and with them came the real possibility of arrest, torture, and punishment. In the face of this, everyone fled, including the young man without an identity. We know who Jesus was in the story, we know who the disciples were in the story, but the young follower is a mystery.

Is there any way to determine who the mystery man might have been? Let us turn our collective hand to the case. We will sleuth it out together. Our first clue is what the young man wore. Everyone else there wore normal clothing that included shoes, a head-covering, the Tallith or upper cloak, a girdle, the Chaluq or under-dress, and the Aphqarsin or innermost covering. The young man, on the other hand, was naked. All he had to cover his nakedness was a single linen cloth.

Now we must turn our attention to the attitudes of that culture toward nakedness. We must also consider if the linen cloth was commonly obtainable or an item of some value.

Jewish views on nudity in late antiquity were clearly negative. A person's nakedness was considered as their 'shame.' However, nakedness was also associated with the innocence of children and with extreme poverty. We note in the parable of the good Samaritan, a story of a man who was robbed, that the robbers had “stripped him of his clothes.”

So, who was the naked nameless man, and just how had he come by the linen cloth that covered him? What are the possibilities? He could have been a self-styled prophet who, in the literal and visual style of early prophets, presaged the death and burial of Christ with a body wrap. He could have been a young man entwined with a lover who became curious about all the noise.

Is there any indication of identity from the Bible itself? Consider this. Amos 2:16 says, “And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day.” I add this as a reference to the young man in the garden. Was he 'courageous among the mighty?' Who were the mighty in Jesus' day, and who might have been the bravest? Could it have been a Roman soldier, or the like, who could not afford for his identity to be known? Could it have been, and this is wild speculation on my part, a high ranking official such as, say, Pilate himself?

And lastly, consider this. What if the young rich man finally sold all that he had, threw his last worldly possession, a linen cloth, around his naked body, and came to follow Christ, albeit a bit late in the game. What if the linen cloth had been left behind by those who arrested Jesus and later recovered by one of the disciples. What if that disciple, being rich, would later have Jesus' body buried in his own grave, and what if he used that recovered cloth to wrap the body.

Whichever possibility we are inclined toward, the fact stands that the writers of the gospels were spartan in their inclusion of information. Either the event or the person was important enough to merit inclusion.

Where there is life

Mark 14:25 is a single verse pulled from the entire chapter. In it, only Jesus speaks. One topic is touched upon with reference to the circumstances involved. It is the last supper and Jesus has done the 'this is my body/this is my blood' part. He has done the part about one of them betraying him. None of that is included in this particular verse. You will hear about the body, the bread, the wine and the blood in church sermons.

And yet, his simple statement does reference the wine they had all just imbibed. He said this to them: “Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” It is often relegated to a level of importance far below the 'body and blood' or 'betrayer' parts. Still, this simple declaration opens to us the entire realm of heaven and hell.

First of all, we are looking at the matter of wine – that is real, physical wine. We must specifically consider, here, the difference between 'Passover wine' and 'new wine'. Next, we must consider the time and place that we will be united with Christ. Popular thought has Christ returning at the 'end', with the faithful called up to meet him in the clouds. It is the whole nine yards of redemption or damnation, and it encompasses our generalized notions of heaven and hell.

So then, I look to my favorite source for information, Wikipedia, for some insight into Passover wine and new wine. Here is what I found:

“We know little about the kind of grape varieties available – or if grape varieties were even a concept – at the time of the Last Supper. "It's not until relatively recently in history, about 1,000 years or less, that we have any written evidence of named grape varieties," says Dr. Sean Myles, an adjunct professor at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and a researcher in agricultural genetics.

However, we do have a good amount of evidence on wine making during the era and the styles of wines people of Jesus' time would make and enjoy. By the night of the Last Supper, the Holy Land already had a long history of wine making. Scholars believe that the Holy Land had been making wine since at least 4000 BC. Vintners would plant their vines along rocky hillsides and carve out vats in the bedrock to serve as wine presses. Cultures around the Middle East had a variety of pottery vessels to collect and serve wine.

"In Jerusalem, they had a particular taste for rich, concentrated wines," says Dr. McGovern.

While watering down wine was a common practice in classical civilization, Jerusalem preferred rich wines. Isaiah (1.21-22) criticizes the city by comparing it to wine cut with water.

In an inland city of Judah, archeologists found a jar with the inscription, "Wine made from black raisins." Winemakers may have dried out grapes on the vine or on mats in the sun to concentrate the grapes and create a very sweet and thick wine. Elsewhere in the region, archeologists have found jars with inscriptions like "smoked wine" and "very dark wine."

Mixing wine with spices, fruits and especially tree resin was common a practice. Winemakers believed that tree resins like myrrh, frankincense and terebinth preserved wine and helped stave off wine spoilage. They'd also add things like pomegranates, mandrakes, saffron and cinnamon to enhance the flavor of the wine.

We can conclude that there was a skilled winemaking culture present during the time of the Last Supper and that around Jerusalem, vintners made strong wines, often mixed with tree resins, spices, and fruits.”

There are many opinions about the wine of the last supper, but not a lot of hard evidence. I had been of the opinion that it was a boiled concoction made with bitter herbs, but my recent inquiries proved me wrong. One new discovery about the wine of the Passover I did find interesting. It seems the Passover laws, or protocols, required Jewish male to drink four cups of wine during the Seder. You can read an article on that here: http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/658549/jewish/Why-four-cups-of-wine.htm

Now, on to 'new' wine. There are two terms for this found in the Bible, they are 'asis' and 'tirosh.' 'Asis, "sweet wine," or "new wine," the product of the same year (Cant 8:2 ; Isaiah 49:26 ; Joel 1:5; 3:18; Amos 9:13), from a root meaning "to tread," hence, juice trodden out or pressed out, thus referring to the method by which the juice is obtained. The power of intoxication is ascribed to it. The explanations for both this and the following term are found at http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/wine/.

Tirosh, properly "must," translated "wine" (Deuteronomy 28:51); "new wine" (Proverbs 3:10); "sweet wine" (Micah 6:15; RSV, "vintage"). This Hebrew word has been traced to a root meaning "to take possession of" and hence it is supposed that tirosh is so designated because in intoxicating it takes possession of the brain. Among the blessings promised to Esau (Genesis 27:28) mention is made of "plenty of corn and tirosh." Palestine is called "a land of corn and tirosh" (Deuteronomy 33:28; Compare Isaiah 36:17). See also Deuteronomy 28:51; 2 Chr 32:28; Joel 2:19; Hosea 4:11, ("wine [yayin] and new wine [tirosh] take away the heart").

I have talked with many people who have said to my face they would prefer hell over heaven because all of their drinking buddies will be there. What a laugh! Nowhere in the Bible is hell mentioned as a place where the condemned can mingle with old friends. Neither is it mentioned that alcohol will be served. Our notion of hell comes to us originally from the word 'Sheol' which simply refers to the grave.

However, when we are all united with Christ, there will be 'new wine' – I imagine a kind of celebration that Christ will share with us. But, is there actually spiritual wine to be imbibed in a spiritual heaven. I think not. Go back and read Mark 14:25 again. Christ does not mention heaven at all, rather, he clearly names the kingdom of God. It is a kingdom on this earth with real wine.

God is the God of the living (Mark 12:27). Christ is the life. Where there is life, there you will find the living.