Wisdom

Luke 7:24-35 continues upon the departure of John's disciples. Jesus was still in the city of Nain. Jesus was still in the company of “many of his disciples” and “much people.” When John's disciples left, the same crowd remained. It was to this crowd that Jesus turned and spoke about John.

It is evident in his address that Jesus spoke to people who had once followed John. John had been the big thing until Jesus showed up. It was as if Jesus took all of John's customers and John was facing bankruptcy – and wondering how much longer he should hold out before he closed up shop.

They now followed Jesus, but previously, they had followed John. Jesus asked them why. He asked them what they were hoping to find in the baptist. He asked them what they were looking for in the former 'big thing.'

It is in these passages that we discover critical information, not only about John but also about the people who had once followed him. As for the crowd who had followed John, including some of the disciples present, it becomes apparent that they had been baptized by John. Even Jesus had been baptized.

In regard to that fact, Jesus made this comment in verse 35, “But wisdom is justified of all her children.” Here, I would ask the reader to focus on the word 'justified.' Merriam-Webster gives this definition of the word: 'to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.' The word justified is used twice in this portion of text. Before Christ made his comment, the writer of this gospel pointed out that the very act of being baptized “justified God,” proving, as the definition goes, that His 'capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power' in their lives was just and right.

It is also pointed out, by way of comparison, that “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves” by not being baptized by John. In other words, the audience that Jesus addressed had accepted the counsel of God, and by doing so, had proven the actions and wisdom, both of God's counsel and of their own response, to be just, right and reasonable. It is obvious to all who read these accounts that there was a bone of contention between Jesus and the religious authorities. It now occurs to me that the failure to be baptized by John figured heavily into that contentious relationship.

Baptism was the open and visible testimony that an individual had knowingly accepted the counsel of God. To illustrate that clear division between either accepting or rejecting the counsel of God, Jesus made this comparison between those who accepted and those who did not: “Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.”

Joy and sorrow are like oil and water. They are used to represent the two types of individuals. Those who accept the counsel of God seek to share their joy in new life, but the sorrowful will not be a part of their celebration. The sorrowful, who have rejected the counsel of God, seek to share a sense of grave dedication and self-enslavement to the letter of the law, but those who find joy in new life will not be brought down to such an un-life-like existence.

There had been a time when a dedication to the letter of the law was applicable. That time was not the time of Jesus. Jesus set that previous time as opposite to his time of new life as outlined in the counsel of God. Jesus gave his opinion of his cousin, John. Of all the men born of women, and representative of the previous time – a time in which the law ruled with an iron fist, John was the greatest, for he was a prophet of God tasked with bringing mankind into the time of Christ, where the counsel and covenant of God were realized in redemption, new life, joy, and love.

Jesus painted a picture of John as the greatest of all men, but he added that the least of men in the time of Christ were greater than all men of the previous time, including John, because those in the time of Christ were the children of God's wisdom. They justified God's will and work.

Pointing clearly and openly at the Pharisees and lawyers, Jesus explained what it was not to be a child of the wisdom of God – showing the utter futility of the mindset that is based on rejection rather than acceptance. John came adhering to a legalistic appearance, “neither eating bread nor drinking wine” and the Pharisees and lawyers rejected him. Jesus came in a more relaxed and life-like appearance: “eating and drinking” and accepting anyone who accepted the counsel of God. The Pharisees and lawyers used that to reject Jesus. In the eyes of the Pharisees and lawyers, you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't.

I suppose, in the minds of Pharisees and lawyers, all was fair, for they fought for what they believed in. Too bad they believed in their law-keeping rather than God. The mind that rejects will find a reason to reject again. In their rejection of John and Jesus, the Pharisees and lawyers actually rejected God. There is no wisdom in that.

Rumor Has It (Part Two)

Luke 7:19-23 shows us something curious about John the Baptist. In church services, we are force-fed the relationship between John and Jesus where John baptizes Jesus in the Jordan. He boldly proclaims, in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

I think we can all agree that, at the time of baptism, John seems confident of his cousin's role in God's plans for Israel. One point we reserve for Bible trivia, but seldom seriously consider, is the blood relation between John and Jesus. They were cousins. Mary's sister was John's mother. It's not like John and Jesus lived on opposite sides of the world. I think it is possible that the two of them grew up together.

It is possible they spoke often to each other on higher topics. It is, after all, more than evident that they chose similar paths in their adult lives. Both became masters of a sort, commanding apostles and disciples – and that was likely a position arrived at through already established societal structures such as the synagogue, the temple, or schooling within orders such as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or even the Essenes.

How can it be that John goes from confidence in John 1:29 to doubt in Luke 7:19? As a concept, the Lamb of God can find an informal relationship to the Passover lamb. The constituents of such a concept might include 'being covered by the blood', 'redemption' or being 'set free', 'the first born being spared from death' or 'the death of the first born as a ward against death.' Not to be overlooked is the connection between the slaying of an unblemished lamb for the Passover celebrations, the 'body' and the 'blood', and the crucifixion, or 'slaying' at the time of Passover.

These well could have been topics of discussion between two cousins pursuing similar goals. Jesus might have referred to himself as the Lamb of God, and that could have been the reason John said what he said in John 1:29. And while John's statement seems bold and confident, it might have been nothing more than parroting what he had heard from his cousin.

Had that been the case, and John began to hear rumors of his cousin, his actions would have been justified. Yes, he had baptized his cousin, but he needed to know if Jesus was the one he and his disciples looked for. All of the major religious groups of Jesus' day looked for the coming of one who would set Israel free from the yoke of Rome. John's need to know, actually, aligns him with the prevalent mind-set of that era.

All established religious orders of that day lived in expectation of a coming Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament law and prophets. The Pharisees and Sadducees found it hard to swallow that the coming Messiah could be found in the person of one of their own. For them, a messiah had to be big enough and Holy enough to justify their keeping of the law. The Essenes, on the other hand, imagined a day of reckoning that lay somewhere in the future, but the confrontation between the forces of light and dark would clearly see them come out on top. The fact that John entertained the notion that “he that should come” might be realizable in the person of a living contemporary could indicate a connection to the Zealots.

So John sent two of his disciples to ask. While they were there, they witnessed actual deeds rather than simply hear more talk. They saw with their own eyes everything that Jesus told them to report back to John. They saw sight given to the blind, fully functional legs given to the lame, and life given to the dead. They saw those with infirmities healed. They saw those with plagues healed. They even saw the incredible cleansing of lepers. They heard the Gospel and saw how the poor of the land had their hope restored.

In part one of this study I asked the question, 'where's the evidence?' The disciples of John returned to their master with evidence. That is how Jesus answered them. Doubting Thomas, in similar fashion, had his doubts answered with evidence. He told Thomas, in John 20:24-27, “Be not faithless, but believing.” Thomas had been offended in the truth of Jesus as reported by his fellow disciples. A week earlier, his fellow disciples had been offended in the truth of Jesus – in so much that Jesus ate fish and a piece of honeycomb in their presence as evidence of his risen reality. To John the baptist, and to all the rest of us, Jesus says pretty much the same thing, “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”

The evidence is there; we do not have to remain faithless.

Rumor Has It (Part One)

Luke 7:11-18 is an account of Jesus raising the dead. It occurs on the day after the incident with the centurion's sick servant. Jesus had traveled to the city of Nain, a walled city with a gate. Traveling with Jesus were “many of his disciples” and “much people.” I can envision a small crowd.

As Jesus and his crowd were making to enter through the gate into the city, they were met by another crowd of people exiting through the gate. That second crowd was, in fact, a funeral procession. That crowd followed along with a widow who was on her way to bury her only son.

On the surface, such a crowd might give the impression that the widow, her late husband, and her deceased son had garnered the love and respect of the community. A first thought is that one or more of the tragic family unit were objects of community admiration.

Such is not a certainty, however. People without their own business to attend will invariably attend someone else's business. Simple and gregarious folk may follow along for no other reason than they are curious and have nothing better to hold their attention. Also, a tenet of such Jewish events were the professional mourners who could be hired.

Whatever the case, the poor woman had lost her entire family. She was a broken soul knowing only the sorrow of bitter loss. Jesus felt sorry for her and responded with compassion. He felt it was all too much for her to bear. Now, he did not have to raise her son from the dead – he could simply have extended his condolence, but Jesus was the son of God acting in his father's name. He was the outward expression of God's will.

This miracle must be compared to the miracle of the previous day. Whereas the healing of the centurion's servant engendered awe, the raising of the dead son engendered fear. A wandering Rabbi raises a corpse to life – literally, talks it back to life, then takes him by the hand and personally delivers him back to his mother. What's one to think?

They were taken aback. They were at a loss. This was definitely not normal. They actually trembled with fear, and the opinions they voiced among themselves were couched in words of utter amazement. They are recorded as having said such things as “God has visited His people” and “a great prophet is risen up among us.” Such words glorified God.

Prophets in Israel were never rare. The greatest of the prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha, performed similar miracles. Doubtless, all that crowd grew up hearing the stories of Elijah and Elisha in their synagogues. Now, they had witnessed such a miracle with their own eyes and it made their hearts skip a beat.

Jesus had previously performed miracles and word of those miracles had spread. The nature of such news about Jesus was couched in words such as 'fame.' This time, however, a different word was applied – that word was 'rumor.'

Rumor is defined thus: 'a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth' and 'circulated as an unverified account.' In other words: where's the evidence? The rumor of Jesus raising the dead son of the widow went far and wide, ultimately reaching the ears of the disciples of John the Baptist. In part two of 'Rumor Has It' I will explore the concerns that John voiced.

The Greatest Faith in Israel

The Christian thinks he is all that; the Jew thinks he is all that. In fact, every religion and faithful follower think the same way. Rather than their God or their prophets, they actually extol their own faith as an accomplishment. It is a boastful spirit that says to all others, 'this is how it is done.'

So what if you clasp your hands and kneel and contort your face while you pray! So what if you kiss a wall and wear curly locks! So what if you parade thousands around a giant cube! In this study, I turn to Luke 7:1-9 to discover what Christ thought about the faith of his people.

Jesus rubbed shoulders with many people in the course of a day. Most of them claimed to be faithful. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the elders of the Synagogues – they all thought of themselves as pious, as devout. They claimed Abraham; they claimed Moses. They wore all the right clothing and said all the right words and adamantly adhered to each custom, law, and precept. They had every right to pat themselves on their collective back. They had every right to crow – they were the faithful, after all; they were devout. They were all that.

But Jesus had a different standard to judge by. He claimed meekness and lowliness. He knew the turmoil of professed faith and offered rest from its rigors. Now, there were many people who did not really know what they believed in, but they knew the misery of their daily lives. They knew the desire for all things that life deprived them of. When Jesus viewed the world around him, he knew that the will of men stood in opposition to the will of the spirit.

The story of the centurion provides a rare example of a faith that was greater than boastful profession or desperation. The story describes the nature of a Roman centurion. He is described as a man who loved Israel. The elders who had been sent to Jesus praised the man for the benefits they had enjoyed; he had built them a synagogue. It seems obvious from this testimony, as well as the fact that the dying servant was dear to him, that the centurion had a connection to the people around him. Perhaps the man was known to care, or to display compassion.

He had only just heard of Jesus – that Jesus had the power to heal. Being the type of man he was known to be, the centurion doubtless knew a great deal about Jewish culture and news. He would have known what the Jews believed about God. And here was a healer who claimed to heal by the authority of that God.

It is a moving story and many recognize humility in the Roman when he sends friends to Jesus. Jesus was almost there when the friends of the centurion conveyed a message to Jesus. The Roman said to Jesus, 'don't bother. You really don't need to come all the way here. Besides, I am not worthy that someone as godly as you should come under my roof. The authority of your word is enough. If you say it, it will happen, for just as you command spirits I command people, so I know authority and yours is of God.'

The friends returned to find the centurion's servant healed. Jesus was moved by the centurion's genuine faith and healed the servant from a distance simply by the authority of his word. Jesus was so impressed with that Roman's faith  he turned to those who followed him and told them the faith of an outsider was the greatest faith in all of Israel.

I have no doubt that among the company Jesus traveled in one could not help but find the obligatory Pharisee or church elder. Why was Jesus impressed with the faith of the Roman? Why did he need to make a point of it to the crowd? What did he recognize in the Roman that he could not recognize in his own countrymen?

The Roman, indeed, was humble but that is not what impressed Jesus. It is my opinion that what Jesus recognized in the Roman was a sincere recognition of the authority that he exercised – that it was of God. While some claimed the keeping of custom as their faith and others claimed hopes for the expulsion of Rome from Israel as their faith and while yet others claimed their desire for what Jesus offered as their faith, the outsider claimed a recognition of Christ's authority as a certain knowledge.

Let's face it – how can you claim to believe in Jesus if you don't recognize his authority?

A Bevy of Small Parables

Why do we call Jesus Lord? There should really only be one reason. Jesus, himself, asked the same question in the final verses of Luke Six. He asked in Luke 6:46, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” By calling Jesus Lord, we are saying, 'you are the master; say and I will do.' How often do we stop and take stock of the words we use and claim to understand?

They all loved to sit around and hear Jesus speak. We do as well. With thumb and finger to our collective chin, we give the nod of wizened sage, but that nod is more like a congratulatory pat on the back. We came, we listened, we nodded. In doing so, we have only approached the constituents of our lives in the spirit of a master. In our hearts, we never relinquish our white-knuckled grip on the reins. We turn our steed into the onslaught of personal reality and spur the beast for speed.

We rarely stop and take stock. We know the words, but that is simply head-knowledge and a far cry from understanding. Even those of us who understand stand at a considerable distance from the wisdom of acting upon what we understand. What is the wise thing to do? Stop and accept the fact that calling Jesus Lord is an act of relinquishment. That will not occur until, at the stage of understanding, one breaks free of book-smarts and begins to incorporate truth rather than merely recognize it.

Let's do that here. Turn loose of the reins. Climb down from your speeding mount and give due consideration to what Jesus is actually saying.

First up are the blind people mentioned in Luke 6:39. It is apparent that the blind do not perceive the light. This parable is about light and dark. It is the difference between being alive and only existing. It contrasts understanding against book-smarts. It highlights those who incorporate truth. The blind recognize the world around them, but they are not illuminated. The light shines all around them, but they do not see it.

Let us imagine that you are in need. You need to be guided, taken by the hand and led along. People like yourself, and that includes you, will not fit the bill. There is a quality of ineptitude about the blind. They simply lack all experience when it comes to the light. When we accept the hand that is to guide us, we give control to another. Wouldn't we rather have a guide who actually sees more than we do? We know there is a ditch out there somewhere; it is our fervent desire that our guide knows more than we do. In that same light, or lack thereof, why take the hand of a guide if you will not let yourself be led?

In verse 40, Jesus gives an example of being blind. You have taken the master's hand. You handed over the reins. That is a declaration that you at least recognize your darkness and need. All that is left is for you to receive instructions: step here, step there. While you are learning, that is: incorporating what the master gives you, you are not yet complete. Anyone who is complete must be recognized as in possession of the light you seek.

The parable of the mote, verses 41-42, places the disciple in the role of the blind guide. You simply have not reached the place where you may act in that manner. You still need to learn from those who have more light in them than you do. If you recognize that you are at that place rather than at the place of a guide, then you must also recognize that you are engaged in more than the gathering of facts and figures. Knowing about something, even being in a state of agreement with something, is still being in the dark.

The dark and the light are personal levels of you. You must incorporate light, not just know of or agree with it. You must bring that light into who you are. You must remake yourself with the light. Until you do, the darkness remains. If the earnest acceptance of instruction from Jesus brings light into your persona, that is, not just calling Jesus Lord, but doing what he says, then your willing state and propensity to be educable is the end result of the incorporation of light into who you are (becoming.)

The good tree, in verse 43-44, speaks to that nature. If you are the tree that calls Jesus Lord then you bear the appropriate fruit. You will be instructed. You will do the things he says to do and thereby incorporate light into your being. For every tree is known by its own fruit. What this entails is like the acorn tree accepting the instructions of the acorn seed. The acorn fruit is proof of incorporation.

If the fig tree puts forth thorns for fruit, it has not been instructed by the fig seed. It has only provided lip service. If the grapevine calls the grape seed Lord but puts forth brambles, then it is evident in the fruit what the grape has incorporated. It shows. It is there for all to see. You cannot be spiritual if your fruit is the fruit of worldliness. You cannot claim enlightenment is your fruit is only that of facts and figures.

Furthermore, we see in verse 45, that in the comparison of men to trees, it is from the spirit that we produce our fruit that proves who and what we really are. A good spirit produces good fruit and an evil spirit produces evil fruit. Within each of us is an accumulating abundance of our ongoing incorporation. Like busy caterpillars, we continually munch – and we are what we eat: it shows. How does it show? Whatever it is we are all about, that is the thing we will speak of the most. Our conversation will always return to what we believe and what we do.

I've spoken of incorporation of instruction, of light, of truth. How important is it? The final parable of Luke six shows us that we cannot simply come to Jesus and listen. Up to that point, there is only knowledge and understanding. To be at the level of wisdom, we must do the things we know and understand. They must be a part of our persona, our character, our very nature. The thing about having a foundation is a solid connection to the stuff that makes you who you are.

The caterpillar locks his many legs into his food source, physically becoming one with it. As food sources go, the caterpillar chooses to incorporate only what he is locked into. The evidence of preference will be there for all to see. Between the man with a foundation and the man without a foundation, the stream that beats vehemently against them is one and the same. That is to say that there are not two sets of rules. Those who espouse a worldly philosophy are subject to the same spiritual stream. While they insist on being the master of their own destinies, they have failed to avail themselves of things necessary for their completion.

Beatitudes and the Afterlife

A topic often preached in churches is that of the beatitudes. The blessings are regularly taken out of context as if they are a stand-alone concept. What is the context they are taken out of? They follow on the heels of Jesus healing the multitudes, everyone seeking to get in close and touch him.

That follows on the heels of Jesus praying all night before choosing twelve apostles from among his disciples – which should tell us that Jesus had more than twelve disciples. That followed the accounts of two Sabbaths upon which Jesus angered the authorities of the synagogues. Jesus rubbed their noses in the law and, thus, made enemies. And finally, the beatitudes lead into the commandments that govern Christian behavior, for example, love your enemies.

I am taking this study from the sixth chapter of Luke. I wish to highlight the broader implications of the beatitudes and the commandments, both of which may be classed with the parable of Lazarus. The parable of Lazarus deals with the difference between our present lives and our lives to come. To put that in alternate phrasing, the beatitudes and the commandments for Christian behavior deal with the contrast between worldly physical lives and the spiritual lives to come – lives without physical bodies.

Jesus makes comparisons between the two states of existence that are as stark as comparisons between night and day. They may be seen to be as simple as cause and effect. They may be viewed as comparable to Yin and Yang. They may also be interpreted as present proofs of transcending truths. Let us look at a few examples.

Luke 6:21 states, “Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.” This states rather plainly that the tables are due to be turned. What is 'down' in our present existence will be 'up' in the life to come. This reckoning is given as a proof of just whose company the Christian stands in, as seen in Luke 6:22-23, “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.”

The Christian, first of all, must see that he stands in the company of prophets, but secondly, he must see the 'reward' in heaven as the 'effect' end of cause and effect. In the example of night and day, one does not merely cease to be as its opposites steps in to replace it. Night works toward day. The night actually 'achieves' the day. In that sense of working toward our spiritual reward in a spiritual heaven, we must do those works that achieve the desired ends.

In the beatitudes, Jesus tells us that there is a bright day to follow for those of us in the company of prophets – but we must work for it. To reach an easterly destination one must actually walk in that direction. In opposition to that desired day, Jesus speaks of the children of the men who persecuted the prophets of old. He tells us the same truths, that because they are full in this present existence, the tables will turn in the life to come and they shall know only want.

In all of the beatitudes, the condition of the present existence becomes its exact opposite in the life to come. Some say that life here on Earth is no life at all, but only existing in a state of day to day survival at the barest level. That will be a spiritual truth for many in the afterlife – it will not be life for them. Because everything that Jesus says in the beatitudes may be seen in the light of Yin and Yang, that is to say, in the light of opposites, it is needful to see the following commandments in that light also.

Jesus did not present the beatitudes and stop there, he immediately followed with protocols that are necessary to achieve an opposite spiritual outcome. Let me ask this, if those who have this world's good end up with the opposite in a spiritual afterlife, what will 'loving your enemies' achieve? Those enemies who remain enemies will have already received their reward by the time they come to the afterlife. From that point and forward, the opposite will be their truth.

They will have been handed a state similar to the rich man in the parable of Lazarus. They will find themselves in a state of personal torment. They will desire relief and comfort. They will call for compassion and sympathy. However, they will only receive the hot coals of their own misdeeds. When a Christian turns the other cheek, he is actually playing a winning hand. All these things must be done with the future state in mind. With whatever measure you mete out, it shall be measured to you again – or, you only get out of it what you put into it.

The Christian stands not only in the company of prophets. When we exercise those 'spiritual muscles' that are God: i.e.: mercy, we are children of the most high. Like father like son. We stand in the company of the first begotten son of God.

Chapter six ends with several parables. This point must remain clear: all of the parables at the end of chapter six must be read in the context of the above. They were employed to clarify both the beatitudes and the commandments. I leave you, the reader, with this simple question: are you working toward the night, or are you working toward the day?

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.”