Who is the son of man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passover Wine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fork in the Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Man of Many Talents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass or Fail?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Death cannot speak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you worthy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Choice is Yours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Will of the Father

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George B. Eager

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

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

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

Called

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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