Three Small Sayings

I guess my studies have officially moved from the topical to the linear. At any rate, we wrap up the ninth chapter of Luke with three small sayings. In Luke 9:57-62, we find Jesus and those he traveled with in their usual travel mode. They are in 'the way', we are told. It was most likely a large road used to heavy traffic. Let us remind ourselves where Jesus had just been.

This is the timeline of chapter nine: the disciples kick things off when they are sent to surrounding towns to heal. On my own, I placed this occurrence in the city of Tiberius. When the disciples return, Jesus takes them to a desert place belonging to the city of Bethsaida (Julias). Next, the five thousand were fed, after which, Jesus prayed and queried his disciples about who they and the people thought he was. Here was the connection, and my reason, for placing events in and around Tiberius.

Eight days later, specifically, Jesus led three of his disciples up into some hills for the transfiguration. Many agree the location of this was Mount Tabor in southern Galilee. When he came down, the following day, he healed a boy and set his face toward Jerusalem. Between Jerusalem and himself was a village of the Samaritans to which he sent his disciples to secure lodging. They did not receive him.

What was general location of Samaritan occupation? It was an area between the lower Galilee and Jerusalem. A well-traveled road ran between Nazareth and Jerusalem, along which could be found such places as Mount Tabor, Nain, and the village of Sychor. It is in this particular 'way' that we find the three sayings of this study.

On the whole, it seems rather more relaxed than the usual multitude-packed events of Jesus ministry. Interestingly, it appears the author of the text had these three odd sayings of Jesus, but not a lot of information about them. It is as if the author decided to place them here for lack of a better plan. So it turns out that Jesus is casually strolling along the way and speaks to three different individuals while his disciples have gone ahead to make reservations.

Let us look at the three sayings with an eye toward definition. First saying: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” This is said in response to the claim made by the first individual in verse 57. It might have seemed to Jesus that he was always on the road, that he was ceaselessly dogged by followers who regularly made claims they couldn't possibly keep. He was traveling a long road and perhaps he wanted nothing more at the moment than a place to stop and rest. He had sent disciples ahead for just that reason.

On the other hand, this saying may speak to the larger issue of permanence and dependability. Certain things in this world have a place with all the accouterments. A permanent feature of every fox is its den. You will not find a fox without the concomitant hole. It is certain knowledge that one may depend upon, just as surely as every bird is associated with a nest. Yet, the assertion of the Son of man's homelessness is put forth with equal certainty. The association to non-association may be as permanent and relevant to the Son of man, and by extension, as it is to all sons of men. It may be counted as the mold that type is always cast in.

Second saying: “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” This response, found in verse 60, addressed the type who is concerned with things that come to an end. The non-association mold is not an iron shackle. One is never bound to the impermanent matters of death. One may turn and reassociate oneself with life.

Speaking of molds, there seems to be one that is a shackle of sorts. The type who always turns back is obviously cast in the mold of 'no forward progress'. This type is one to take one step forward and two steps back. Imagine if you hired this type for an important job. This type is not up to the task. Jesus' response to any claim made by this type is found in verse 62, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Three small sayings, when added up, equal one very large meaning. Wherever a man sets his sights, that is where he will go. A man may turn and reassociate himself at any time – and that is the mold that man is cast in.

In My Name

Something needs to be said about the name of Jesus Christ. Something needs to be decided, to be settled. We turn our attention to Luke 9:46-56. Many Christians pray fervently, ending a hope, a request, a proclamation with the phrase 'in Jesus name'. Some say 'in the name of the Lord', while others say 'in the name of the only begotten son of God'.

In verses 46 through 48, Jesus perceived the errant pride in the hearts of his disciples. So, he took a child and told them that to get Jesus they had to get the smallest, humblest, most insignificant and overlooked of people – children. We've all heard the sermons – childlike humility, etc. But, the thing I want you to see here is just how we are supposed to receive that small child. “In my name.”

But, what does it really mean to place oneself under the name of Jesus Christ? What is it we're not getting about the name? First of all, the name of Jesus is not an incantation. There is no power or effect in such practice. Second of all, Jesus' name is bigger than you let on. Christ has many names, and all must be included 'in the name'.

What are the names of Jesus, then, and how, exactly, do we place ourselves under those names as a whole? Let me present a short list of the names of Jesus Christ. Just to list a few, they are “the truth”, “the life”, “the way”, “the son of God”.

Greatness may be seen in that which is the least esteemed, but that is apparently how it all works. When we receive Jesus, we take him as the ambassador of the one who sent him: his Father. When we receive the little child, we take that humble child as the ambassador of the greatest among us. The one who sends the message, the messenger and the one to whom the message is sent are all rolled up as one, making it effectively impossible to pick and choose.

If you want God, you cannot have him without Jesus. If you want to be great in heaven, you cannot have it without humility in this earthly life. These matters are all one and the same.

So, we want to get Jesus and we decide to do so by receiving the child in Jesus' name. This is the question I pose: do we receive the child in the name of truth, in the name of life, as an extension of the way, or as an ambassador of the son of God – and wouldn't any such spirit within us place us in the stead of Jesus? It is my opinion that what we should get about “in my name” is that it is not simply a sound or designation. Whatever we do, or say, or think, or pray “in the name”, we do so in the embassage of the son of God.

Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary – Ambassage:

embassy, a message of a public nature brought by ambassadors. The word also sometimes includes the ambassadors themselves. ( Luke 14:32 )

Are there limitations on the name? Does it fall solely under the purvue of one group or the other? The disciple John asked a follow-up question to clarify what Jesus meant by 'in the name'. In verse 49, John confessed that he and others of the disciples had forbidden a man who had cast out devils in Jesus' name – simply because he wasn't one of the disciples.

Jesus replied in verse 50, “Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” According to the son of God, “in my name” is not restricted to any one fraternity, club, church or faith. If a Muslim or a confessed Atheist did or said something in the name of Jesus, it would be just as acceptable as the deeds and words of a born-again Christian.

One is either for or against. If the spirit proves that you are for Jesus, you are for Jesus. To do or say or think anything in the name of Jesus is to do so as Jesus himself would do, say and think. To employ the name of Jesus, or Christ, or truth, or life, etc – one must necessarily be 'in' that spirit. As an argument, if Jesus is the truth, then the Holy Spirit of Truth is the spirit of Jesus.

As always, when I use the word spirit, what I really mean is 'mind'. Are you in the mindset of Jesus? Does the Holy Spirit of Truth guide and assist your thoughts and decisions?

Let us look at what it means to not be “in my name”. In verses 51 through 56, we find the disciples John and James not to be in the mindset of Jesus. Jesus had set his face toward Jerusalem. He was determined to confront the religious authority of his culture. That was trouble that one town wanted no part of. When they would not receive him, his two disciples stepped up.

In defense of their master, they were prepared to go all postal on the town – Elias style. They asked Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven in response. I am not here to say they had the prerequisite experience in calling fire down. While it may be within the realm of possibility that the apostles performed miracles other than healing, I think the attitude of these two falls more within the parameters of excitement. They were more than willing to try on some power from on high. Exorcisms, reanimations, water-walking, and transfigurations were all very intoxicating, after all.

But, wielding such power is not the definition of “in my name”, and Jesus told them so. He said this in verse 55, “ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” 'Manner of spirit' is an expression equal to 'mindset'. If they were not in Jesus spirit or name, whose name had they placed themselves under?

Jesus explained that he had not come to destroy men's lives, so, who had come to do such a thing?

I offer this from 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.”

I offer this from John 10:10, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly.”

In whose name does the Muslim place himself? Is it the name of one who would save men's lives, to offer a more abundant life? If that was the case then Muslims would be followers of Christ. Instead, they place themselves under the name of Mohamed.

Does the atheist give or save in the embassage of Christ? If that was the case then atheists would be followers of Christ. Instead, they take to themselves only in their own name.

Does the modern day Christian actually place himself in the embassage of Christ when they pray, or communicate, or act? As long as a Christian does no more than use the name as an incantation they know not what manner of spirit they are of.

Faithless and Perverse

Let us now turn our attention to Luke 9:37-45. It is the story of the healing of a man's only son. The boy was possessed. The possession was described this way by the father: “a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him.”

A vicious cycle is here described whereby the boy is thrown into a fit that damaged his body and left him foaming at the mouth only to begin again without respite. Modern-day parallels include epilepsy, Bell's palsy, cranial nerve palsies, and tumors.

Normally, I associate the word spirit with the word mind, but here, I think the father's use of the word spirit is more in line with ignorant superstition to do with supernatural entities such as ghosts. We see the same thing in Matthew 14:26, “When the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, it is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.”

The father complained that the disciples (Jesus had left nine of them behind when he took three of them into the hills the day before) were unable to save the boy from his dilemma. Now, it is not like the disciples were bumbling idiots. Jesus had trained them for such things. They had been sent out into all towns and villages two by two, and they returned excited with tales of success.

In another version of this story, Jesus tells his disciples that this kind of spirit comes out only by prayer and fasting, and in yet another version, Jesus tells his disciples they could not cast out the spirit because the lacked the prerequisite faith. Here, Jesus complains in broader terms, saying in verse 41, “O faithless and perverse generation . . .”

What should this statement tell us? Does it indicate an opinion or certain knowledge about why things happened the way they did? Is this statement by Jesus an indictment against a limited and superstitious mindset? Jesus did not point the finger only at disciples unable to handle this one matter when they had done so well with many so others. No, the indictment was against an entire generation.

Jesus went on to ask the question, 'how long do I have to put up with you?' He certainly indicated disapproval and disappointment in that generation, but we, today, might as well throw our hats into the ring – we are just as faithless and perverse. We, like the disciples, have had our share of success stories, but we also have just as much trouble understanding sometimes. It tasks us to get our heads around some concepts. We find some truths just as bothersome and elusive.

It is easy enough to understand why Jesus used the word faithless, but why did he use the word perverse? That word cries out to be investigated. Let us be the ones to investigate – and understand.

This is what perverse means: (of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences. Synonyms include contrary, obstructive, and pigheaded. Seems we are our own worst enemies. Our predispositions work against us.

We might be used to working with a microscope, but we will never see the moon if we always return the 'tried and true' comfort zone. To see the moon, as far away as it is, we need to try something new.

Let's see, how about a telescope? Yes, that just might work.

Likewise, if we should step up and say, 'I want to see the spiritual', we will need a different instrument altogether. We see the worldly truths with worldly eyes – to see the spiritual truths, we will need to find our spiritual eyes. The construction of a certain mindset might be called a 'spiriscope'.

Finally, in verse 44, Jesus said this to his disciples, “Let these sayings sink down into your ears, the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.” They did not understand – they could not see the spiritual truths. Yet, it was not as if this was the first times Jesus told them such things.

He, in fact, spoke of these same matters earlier in this chapter. It was not mentioned on the earlier occasion that they did not understand. But here, after Jesus healed the boy they could not. After the railing accusation, 'faithless and perverse', they must have thought he referred to their failure.

When someone switches gears in a conversation and we fail to keep up, it is all too easy to return to our 'tried and true' interpretations. After all, that is where we are most comfortable. That is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he accused us of being contrary and obstructive.

Keeping it Close

I may have already dealt with the transfiguration, but that in no wise means it is covered. Here in Luke, the account of the transfiguration is brief, a mere nine lines of text. Let us examine the Luke account. Where did it come from? Those known to be involved were Jesus, Peter, John, and James.

Why did Jesus choose these three to go with him? I get the sense of an inner circle of disciples who stood in the office of spiritual companions, support, or even the equivalent of prayer warriors. What can be said about these three? Aside from being the three Jesus chose on this personal occasion, Jesus also chose them for the prayer in Gethsemane. On both occasions, the three disciples were described as sleepy.

Which one of them was lucid enough to recount the tale? It was actually an amalgam of three memories that found its way into written form some years later. According to the account, they only caught the tail end of it as they struggled to wake up. Their first impression was of three figures with two of them departing.

What those three figures spoke of was a blank that had to be filled in by another. The only one who knew of the conversation with any certainty was Jesus himself. When the three disciples were startled from their sleep, it was very bright. Fists were in their eyes, rubbing away the sleep. But , they knew something important was coming down.

Peter suggested the erection of three tabernacles, one for each of the transfigured figures. A tabernacle was a small, movable tent that was used as a place of worship by the ancient Israelites. This definition of a tabernacle explains the response of God, who overshadowed, or enshrouded the three disciples in a dark cloud or fog. I can imagine this moment as part of a Steven Spielberg movie with thick swirling mist and rays of bright light darting here and there. I can imagine the hairs standing on the backs of their necks. God told them with an audible voice to concern themselves only with Jesus.

However they came by the impression of events that eventually made its way into print, they “kept it close,” and in the years that followed, they often mulled it over recounting their impressions among themselves. The whole account leaves me with questions.

Why were the disciples sleeping; was their schedule that rigorous? Did Peter suggest three tents because they had lugged tents with them up the mountain? What brought them from their slumber? In a society with restrictions against images and likenesses, just how did they recognize the two bright figures as Moses and Elijah?

Unless there was another there to record the facts, three disciples in the frame of mind that was so heavy with sleep they did not know what they were saying when they spoke – well, that sounds like three groggy minds that would have misconstrued a conversation, and blurry eyes that did not see straight. Christ might have relayed the conversation and identities to them, just as he might have relayed the account of his forty days in the wilderness. Who best to know?

As for the story in the book of Luke, Luke not being present, would have heard the account from one of the three disciples, but not immediately after the fact. The text says that the disciples “kept it close, and told no man in those days . . .” As to the gospel of Luke itself, The most probable date for its composition is around 80-100 AD. James is thought to have died eleven years after the death of Jesus – about 44 AD. Peter is thought to have died some 23 years later around 67 or 68 AD. John is thought to have died sometime between 89 and 120 AD.

Peter is thought to have died in Rome around the same time as Paul, who are both considered the founders of the church of Rome. Luke was in Rome at that time with Paul, and could just as easily have had contact with Peter. Between the time of the transfiguration, witnessed by Peter, John, and James, and the writing of the account by Luke, there was enough time and likelihood that memory of the event underwent natural revision.

Abductive Reasoning

Why does a man say or do the things he says or does? Why do we read the things in the Bible in the sequences in which they unfold? It's as simple as this: one comes first, two comes second, three comes third.

I'm still in the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, but now I am looking at how things are ordered and why events and words are placed where they are.

In verse 26, Jesus speaks of his purpose, and by extension, the purposes of his disciples, and by further extension, the purposes of any of the rest of us. As I write out that verse, and as you read it, remember that purpose is a goal reached by degrees: degrees of hard work, commitment, practice, discipline, and sacrifice.

Luke 9:26, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.”

First, 'Son of man' is a term that includes any and all of humanity who have ascended. It is a term that speaks of an individual who has come into his own, spiritual, free from the shackles of flesh and worldly detours. The glory that Jesus was working toward was the same glory as that of God. It was a glory shared in common by all the holy angels of God. It is the same glory that all of us are invited to be one with.

In verse 26, Jesus told his disciples that the coming ascended humanity would reject all who rejected the glory of God and the path to its achievement, which Christ exemplified. The reason why Jesus said what he said where and when he said it may be explained by the previous verse. Jesus said this in verse 25, “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?”

It is a difference between all the things of the world and the one thing that a man may be and it boils down to a simple choice between the two. Who we are and who we make of that – well, that is the only thing that we really own. You might call it our birthright. So just like Esau who preferred a bowl of lentil soup to his birthright, we may choose between all the little things the world has to offer and the one big important thing that is really ours.

Only one choice lends itself to who we are. If we make light of it or esteem it as less than worldly baubles, we show ourselves to be ashamed of the one thing we could ever keep as our own.

That one thing is explained more completely in verse 24. That one thing is actually life. Many mistake life for an existence with substance, and gifts, and tools for acquisition. All of these baubles are lost in the end. The only life that we may grow and achieve is eternal life: the glory of God which Jesus strived to attain. Verse 24 shows us the choice between the worldly life that will be lost in the end and the eternal life, and how (that is, through whose example) we may obtain it.

Choosing an eternal life over a disposable life is explained in verse 23, by which I mean, the practice of it – the actual nuts-and-bolts mechanics of making the right choice. Luke 9:23 says this, “And he said to them all, if any man will come after me,” (that is, to follow his example, to take each step toward the goal in same order as Jesus) “let him deny himself,” (the disposable life) “and take up his cross daily,” (work for it, put the choice into actual practice, do the reps) “and follow me.”

Now, just who they were to follow and the steps in order were laid out in verse 22. In that verse, Jesus said this to them, “The Son of man” (including ascended humanity) “must suffer many things,” (as in, 'all our kind intentions and years of exemplary service) “and” (then) “be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and” (then) “be slain, and” (then) “be raised the third day.” Every step in order and in its own place and time.

Why exactly was Jesus saying such things to his disciples? He had just straitly charged them and commanded them not to voice abroad one telling fact (verse 20) – that he was the “Christ of God.” There was a time and a place for that to be known, but as yet Jesus was not on that particular stepping stone. We make a big deal about Peter stepping up to confess “thou art the Christ,” but I think that all his disciples were in on that one.

In the gospel of Luke, chapter nine, the recognition of Christ by his disciples is set at odds with what the general population thought of him. Before Jesus asked his disciples who they (verse 20) thought he was, he asked them who the people (verse 18) thought he was. The disciples told him who the people thought he was in verse 19. Obviously, there was a buzz going around about the miracle man who healed all manner of disease and infirmity, who even raised the dead. It was such a deal that it prompted Jesus to ask about it.

Albeit speculation, the thoughts of the crowd were, believe it or not, a source of information. They were, I believe, the same source that Herod turned to earlier in the chapter. The fact of the buzz, as well as both Herod's and Jesus' concern for who the people thought Jesus was, at least for me, raises a flag: that both the source of speculation and Jesus, with his followers, were in the area of Tiberius, where Herod, seemingly out of the blue, is mentioned in the same context. 

The Numbers in Nine

The ninth chapter of the gospel of Luke is a chapter of numbers. Let us list and consider these numbers. There were the twelve disciples, the two coats, the five loaves and two fishes, and the five thousand men – a number we should keep in mind whenever we read about 'multitudes' or 'throngs'. Then there was the number fifty; Jesus had his disciples manage the crowd, seating them in groups of that number with space enough between for the disciples to move freely. Finally, there were the twelve baskets.

Twelve is used twice, being concerned firstly with a connection to Jesus and secondly to the evidence of miracles – and not the first miracle of that day for Christ had been healing people all day. We see an unmistakable link between the twelve who belonged to Christ and the twelve that proved the miraculous power of the divine.

Two is used twice, firstly as advice not to overstock, but to allow for whatsoever might happen and secondly for the pitifully insufficient amount of fish in the face of such monumental need. There is a link here, as well. The meaning to be derived from either is not to control the miraculous but to allow for it, to serve it if need be.

We come to the five, the five thousand, and the fifty. In the tradition of Jewish numerology, known as gematria, five is the number of protection and grace, fifty is the number for the jubilee, meaning atonement, liberty, and freedom. Five thousand is not especially Jewish, in regard to their gematria, but one may see a vague reference to the plate mail that contained five thousand shekels of brass. Such a reference might also put protection in mind.

Five thousand has no numerological meaning, per se, however, one thousand symbolizes the multitude. Five thousand might then stand for grace to the multitude. Doubtless, Jesus' multitude was larger than the men who were numbered. There were also women and children. To help the reader get his or her head around such a number, the Shrine Auditorium, and Expo Hall, in Los Angeles, California, has a seating capacity of some 6,300 individuals. In terms of required space, it uses 54,000 square feet.

The number five, in some form or other, is used three times between verses one and seventeen. Jewish gematria, while it may not include five thousand, does concern itself with the number 555. Their word for it translates as 'an eagle' and specifies a swift attack. From the Greek, we derive the meaning 'discernment of spirits'. Another Greek word that adds up to 555 can mean 'desire', which might reference, for our purposes, the multitude that Jesus fed – but it can also mean 'sacrifice'.

A final interesting aside about the gematria meaning of 'an eagle' – Israel's 1970's fighter jet, Nesher (Eagle), was replaced by the American-made F-15 Eagle.

Maintaining Our Focus

It must be obvious, for those who've read my recent studies, that I've wandered somewhat afield of the topic of parables. Indeed, that was my original point of embarkation, but I feel we must maintain our focus wherever we turn our attention, for definition is essential to any scripture that is normally raced past without due contemplation.

And so, I continue, arriving now at the ninth chapter of Luke. If a man recites the numbers one through three and having just finished the first number of the three, we may not apply the word 'then' to his recitation of the last numeral. If we say, “He said one, then he said . . .”, we must apply the word then to the next numeral in line.

'Then' is defined thus: next in order of time; next in order of place. Chapter nine of Luke begins with the word 'then'. We must stop long enough to ask ourselves what this beginning follows. Jesus had just returned from the Decapolis to find the crowd patiently awaiting his return. This should indicate to us that Jesus sailed back to the place from which he had departed – the place where he healed the woman with the issue of blood and raised the only daughter Jairus.

From the city of Nain in the lower Galilee, Jesus had set about to go, as it says in Luke 8:1, “throughout every city and village.” His journey took him from the lower Galilee to a place on the coast of the lake from which he could sail across to the Decapolis and then back again. Most have Jesus sailing north to south and back again. I rather think the narrative keeps him in the lower Galilee. My own thought is that Jesus sailed across from Tiberius, or that general area, and back again.

We come to the word 'then' at the beginning of chapter nine. What better place to bring up Herod than in his own capitol city. It seems altogether reasonable that if Jesus and his disciples were in Tiberius, and people were being healed, word would get around quickly. Luke 9:9 seems very much like a clue, “And Herod said, John I have beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.” Tiberius was closer to John's stomping grounds along the Jordan than was Capernaum.

It is in this ninth chapter that we find Jesus sending out the twelve to preach and heal in the surrounding cities and towns. One thing we do not often stop to think is this: those twelve disciples were out there doing the same sort of things as Jesus had been doing. They were healing people – performing miracles. And they must have done well for when they returned, in verse 10, they were pleased enough with their first solo flight to tell their Master “all that they had done.”

Very little information is given to the seeker. We are told nothing of where the disciples went or what they did. We can infer from their manner of return that Jesus did not go with them. But, how long were they gone, and what did Jesus do in their absence? If, as I am inclined to think, Jesus was still in the lower Galilee, then he was just a hop, skip and a jump away from Magdala, the home of Mary – which was not that far from the town of Cana, where Jesus attended a certain wedding.

He was not that far from where his family lived. He could have visited home for awhile. So little information – so much imagination. It was alluded to that Herod wanted to meet him. What if he did? Herod certainly had the pull to have a man brought to his palace. Herod had listened to John. Perhaps he wanted to hear what Jesus had to say. Or, perhaps Herod perceived a threat. A conversation between the two would have developed the opinions of each for the other. We find that later, in chapter 13 of Luke, Jesus has, in fact, quite a negative opinion of Herod, calling him a 'fox'.

Fox, as an expression, implies wiliness, trickery, and deceit. These are traits one might determine of another through conversation and interaction. Consider the exchange found in Luke 13:31-32. “Certain” of the Pharisees came to warn Jesus that Herod was plotting to kill him. That was nice of them, but it also brings up the question of Jesus' relationship to the order of the Pharisees. Jesus told them to go back to the Tetrarch and tell him that on the third day he would be “perfected”. One has to stop and wonder what Jesus intended to convey with that word – and why. Herod was Jewish, therefore moved by Jewish custom and religious thought. Although Herod had John killed, we perceive from scripture that Herod, reluctant to execute the prophet, respected and feared the man.

For a Jewish leader, alone between Rome and his own people, yet still connected to his Jewish heritage and culture, what pertinence might the concept of a prophet being 'perfected', or reaching his goal, have. How might have Herod learned of Jesus' goal but through conversation? It is said that when Jesus was sent to Herod by Pilate, Herod desired to see a miracle. Had Herod tried to get a miracle out Jesus way back in chapter nine – perhaps by craft or trickery?

So, was Jesus brave enough to enter Tiberius, the home of Herod, who murdered his cousin John? After his disciples told him all that they had done, Jesus took them to a desert place that belonged to the city called Bethsaida, possibly Bethsaida Julias. Seems rather like a former city gone to ruin, a place where animals grazed. Many argue that it is a location near where the Jordan flows into the lake, and it may be where the baptisms took place. Many also think this is where the five thousand were fed.

As to that, when I explore that number in my next study, I will look also at all the numbers of this chapter.

Picture What You Read

Our habit: read and move on. We read too quickly for our own good. I suggest we slow down. It is common for me to read a sentence two or three times. I'm a very slow reader – I linger. I ask questions. I count alternate possibilities. I form a picture in my mind. One does not seek truth by zipping through a text.

We study Luke 8:40-56. Here, I will ask the reader to slow down and picture what you read. For instance, the crowd that Jesus left behind when he crossed over to the Decapolis waited patiently for his return and received him back with gladness. What should that tell us? Obviously, after the healing of the possessed man, Jesus and those with him could simply have walked down the coast to another town.

When you stop to think about it, it is as if Jesus told them, “wait here, I'll be right back.” Certainly, there are occasions where Jesus traveled by ship and the multitudes ran down the coast to meet him where he stopped. Yet, these did not anticipate his next departure, rather, they stayed in one place and waited patiently.

Now, the story that follows in these verses occurs solely within the parameters of Jesus' walk to Jairus' house. Two miracles occur. That may be enough information to build a sermon around one's predisposition, but there is a bigger picture. There are details which those who zip through fail to see.

Jairus was a ruler of the local Synagogue, a married man with a twelve-year-old daughter. It was his only child. What should that tell us? Had Jairus been married long, a twelve-year-old would have perhaps been the youngest of many children. I see a possibility that Jairus was a young man, and the twelve-year-old was his first child. Otherwise, it is possible that the family had lost children to disease or in childbirth.

This particular leader of the Synagogue made a public display of his desperation. An older leader might have tripped over his pride. As we, the seekers, are forced to move forward without the benefit of sufficient facts, it is the imagination that fills in the blanks. We are not told, at this point in the text, whether Jairus walked with Jesus or ran ahead to be with his daughter. We are told this: “But as he (Jesus) went the people thronged him.”

Anyone who has been in the middle of a large crowd knows that there is a level of noise that is pervasive. One must speak loudly to be heard above the normal susurrus of the crowd. That crowd noise, even whispered, is the result of people talking to and listening to one another. How does one get the attention of a crowd? How does one stop such a self-absorbed movement?

One could throw up their hands and yell, “Hey!” Someone had touched Jesus, and he wanted to know who. His disciples did not have to explain much – it was obvious – but they said to him, 'look around, we're all bumping into each other.' It was a woman with a twelve-year issue of blood (at which point, we must wonder why a double dose of the number 12.)

Jesus had stopped an entire multitude. He had gotten their attention. I imagine there was not so much as a whisper as they listened for what he might say next. Jesus spoke, the disciples answered, the crowd took a step back Just in case the Rabbi was angry (who knows – maybe one of them had accidentally stepped on the heel of his sandal.) The woman, with nowhere to hide, stepped forward and confessed.

Had Jairus been present on the march to his house, he would have had to wait patiently for these events to unfold – all while his little girl lay dying at home. Had I been Jairus, and knowing Jesus agreed to come, I think I would have run back home. However, Jairus did walk with, he did wait while the events unfolded. He did not know that his only child had already died.

The walk to his house might not have been that far. Towns were small in those days. Two things slowed the march, they were the woman with the issue and the crowd. Even as Jesus spoke to the woman, someone came to Jairus to tell him the sad news. Before we move on to that, let us finish with the woman.

The whole account: stopping the crowd, getting their attention, asking who touched him, disciples answering, the woman confessing, and Jesus' response – that all may have taken no more than fifteen minutes. There are two points to consider, and they are related. The first is that Jesus told the woman it was her own faith that had healed her, and yet, (point two:) Jesus claimed to have perceived virtue leaving his person.

We must consider the connection between a faith-based decision and the divine response. They go hand in hand it seems. We must also consider the woman's desperation as parallel to the desperation of Jairus. Finally, let us also consider the physical effect on Jesus. All that depletion of virtue might have left Jesus weak and exhausted. At some future point, the seeker of truth will need to ponder the exact nature of virtue as it seems to be a real quality shared between the physical and spiritual identity.

Now, even after Jairus had been told of the death of his daughter, Jesus insisted they have faith. The woman with the issue had faith and was healed – not only had Jesus made a point of it to the crowd, but Jairus himself heard the same words. He was a witness that the woman's faith had made her whole. In this, we should be warned that none of us may approach an expectation on this order without the corresponding faith.

At the house of Jairus, Jesus allowed no one to go in with him except “Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.” Two points assert themselves: first is the list of disciples and second is the location of the mother. This list of disciples seems to be the standard fare. Peter, James, and John are the same three disciples that witnessed the transfiguration and closest to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

If the two faith-related issues involved in these verses are a cue, then we must consider this trio of disciples in the light of faith. Perhaps, while the other disciples administered the everyday operations of Jesus' ministry, Jesus relied more on the trio for faith and spiritual bolstering. We might consider them as his prayer warriors. Their station might have been somewhat akin to that of the men who held up Moses' arms while he divided the sea.

As to the mother of the maiden, we ask why she was not inside weeping over her lost daughter? That she was standing outside the house, and thus able to be allowed in with the rest, seems somewhat less distraught and tragic. Had she come out to meet them at the door? Was she one of those who had come to Jairus with the news? It is a small point, I agree, and you might wonder why I even bring it up. What is a seeker to do with such a small detail? For me, it paints the picture more vividly in the hues of human nature and adds to the veracity of the account.

Six people enter, Jesus, Peter, James, John, and the parents. There are people present in the room where the body lies. Relatives, perhaps, and friends of the family. Professional mourners, I expect. All of them were familiar with death. Others had died, they had gone to comfort other families and other friends. In those days, death was to be expected – more so than in our modern era of medicine.

So, when Jesus claimed the girl only slept, “they laughed him to scorn.” That is some pretty severe laughing, and bitter ridicule. Obviously, the disciples did not laugh – they had already seen him raise the dead. I would not imagine that the parents laughed as their hope for remedy was too dire. Here, we see more of the authority of Jesus – the same authority that stopped the crowd and commanded their immediate attention.

He, the girl, her parents in a tearful embrace, and with his three stalwart companions by his side, Jesus took the hand of the girl and brought her back. Let us go further than most and see the things that others overlook. Jesus was in the habit of being spot-on. He told it like it was. One thing we find in this account, as compared to other dead being raised, Is what Jesus tells the parents. He tells them to feed her. We do not often see that in an account of Jesus raising the dead – and he had said that she only slept. His words are rather like those of a Doctor.

Perhaps the girl had a condition that only looked like death. But, Jesus told the parents one other thing, and it is most curious. He told them to tell no one. Obviously, that didn't happen, but, why would he say such a thing? As soon as the girl came out of the house, it would be known. Jesus had just ejected those who had laughed him to scorn because they knew the girl was dead. They stood outside speaking with people in the crowd.

And the crowd, based on the reputation of the Rabbi, would certainly be expecting something of the kind. We know that Jesus said similar things to others – but, what was it Jesus thought to hide? Unless – such words were reverse psychology. All had heard his words regarding faith. I suppose he preferred that the facts not be reported where they might hinder the growth of faith.

Pigs and Devils

On the shore of Lake Gennesaret, below Mount Hermon, in the city of Hippos, or possibly a town slightly to the north in the Decapolis, Jesus stepped off the ship. He had just calmed the wind and sea. There, he was met by a man possessed of devils. A similar account in the Gospel of Matthew speaks of two possessed men.

The possessed man in the Gospel of Luke, 8:27-38, wore no clothes. He ran wild where the dead were interred. Men had often tried to restrain him, but he had always broken free of his bonds. In today's Western culture, that man might go unnoticed, or even find acceptance. Make no mistake, however, we are reading an account of actual demonic possession. It is described for us in black and white, so, let us examine that description.

The expression “unclean spirit” can be interpreted as 'unclean mind' speaking more of moral abandon than violence or evil intent. Unclean is also a word used in connection with Jewish ceremonial acceptance. For an example, touching a dead body made one ceremonially unclean. The fact that it is said “ for oftentimes it had caught him” denotes a state that was not consistent. Sometimes on and sometimes off might be an apt description of his condition. That the town folk attempted to restrain him, lends itself to several interpretations.

It could be that when the man found himself in his altered state, that he would hurt himself and that might be one reason he was constrained. He could have occasionally hurt others. While that area is normally considered to have been more Greek and Roman than Jewish, it still might have been possible that his state of wild moral abandon was seen as offensive. It might have been that the town folk simply wanted to shut him away from their women and children. It might also have been that his altered state somehow affected their livelihoods. They were hard working gentile swine herders after all.

One of the most important descriptions of his possessed state, however, was the fact that he could speak and reason. When He met Jesus on the shore, Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to remove itself. The man was in one of his possessed states. Yet, even being possessed as he was, he fell to his knees, reasoning and pleading with Jesus in a knowledgeable fashion.

Here is a startling fact: the history of mankind is the history of possession. Man has either been found in his right mind or in his wrong mind. When I say 'mind' you should understand by now that I mean 'spirit'. The spirit, or mind, is non-corporeal, yet, it does its best in connection to a physical vehicle. In the Biblical creation story, we find the physical vehicle (Adam) being enhanced with a spirit (mind) after which he was identified as a 'living soul'.

It may be said that the spirit 'needs' even 'craves' a connection with a physical host. Here, I would remind the reader, in defense of my statement, that Jesus explained that connection in this way in Matthew 12:43, “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walks through dry places, seeking rest, and finding none.” Every spirit needs a home. So sometimes, when the bad spirits find a place that is 'swept', they move all their buddies in with them. Then, to the 'imminent rueage' of a quiet community, these devils begin to party like there is no tomorrow.

So Jesus takes a moment to talk to this guy. He addresses the spirit inside, who names himself Legion because there were many of them. Rather smacks of schizophrenia. Jesus and Legion come to an understanding, in other words, they strike a bargain. They have to come out of the man, but Jesus won't drive them out entirely. Instead, he will allow the spirits (minds) to possess nearby pigs. Every spirit craves a vehicle.

But – was this cunning on the part of the Son of God? Did he know the vehicles would reject the sudden introduction of alien minds? Did he know the brains and bodies would react violently? Or – did Jesus, at that point deliberately drive the pigs into the lake? Here's the thing: the pigs didn't run in circles, and they didn't run in odd directions. As one, the all ran in one direction: down the slope and into the lake. Whether the pigs panicked or the Lord drove them to their deaths, the result was the same. Legion lost his home and was forced to walk through dry places seeking rest and finding none.

Now, the villagers lost their living in this exchange. If they had lost their livelihoods to a normal circumstance, they would have come out in anger rather than fear, but fear the Lord they did, because they knew the man who had been possessed. They had tried and failed to constrain him, yet, here he sat at the feet of a powerful Rabbi whose exploits preceded him. All they could do was ask him to leave and cause no more grief. This man could have lived anywhere, and Jesus could have found a possessed man to save anywhere else. Jesus, for that matter, could have sent the unclean Legion into the birds flying above, but he didn't. He destroyed a herd of nasty pigs. Is there a message in that?

In verse 31, Legion asked that they not be commanded to “go out into the deep.” Yet, when they entered the pigs, the herd ran into the lake and were drowned. We might think of the lake as 'the deep', but on another hand altogether, the deep spoken of in verse 31 might be the definition of the 'dry places' devils seek to avoid. I can imagine the deep as a great void (Luke 16:26) that is neither here nor there. It might be a dark and featureless hell where any spirit (mind) would find great difficulty navigating. We might think of that 'deep' as a bottomless pit or even a lake of burning fiery torment.

How does a spirit navigate such a deep? Indeed, all navigation there may be no more than an attempt to escape. How does one walk without feet or grasp without fingers? How does anyone navigate without a vehicle? We have a saying which may well come from that hellish void, and it goes like this: 'I feel for you; I just can't reach you.' 

On a Windy Day

The Golan Heights is a hilly elevated area measuring 718 square miles, itself dominated by the 9,000 foot tall Mount Hermon – this according to a Wikipedia article. The Golan overlooks the Jordan Rift Valley in which is found the Sea of Galilee. This body of water is the lowest freshwater lake on Earth measuring between 686 and 705 feet below sea level. Anyone living in such a geographical region would be accustomed to winds rushing down from the higher elevations.

It is not a strange thing to read about such a windstorm in Luke 8:22-25. This is the place where Jesus rebuked the wind and wave to amaze his fearful disciples. This is where he asked the convicting question, “Where is your faith?” Here, I will not cover the religious import of the power of Christ over the elements. That may be found in a worthy church sermon.

Here, I wish to focus on details overshadowed by topics for sermons. In this story of the power of the Son of God, there are lesser facts, or details, that paint a clear picture of the physical event. The ship was certainly solid and built well enough to take them across the lake. The lake was large – somewhere in the ballpark of a 33-mile circumference. As to how long the trip from one side to the other might have taken, I have no clue as much would depend on the type of ship and prevalent weather conditions.

Let us look at the wording of the tale. First, is the ambiguity of the timeline. Those who knew the details surrounding Jesus should have been able to place the event more precisely than, “on a certain day”. Then there was the ship – named a ship as opposed to a boat – obviously large enough to carry all of them: at least twelve disciples and one master, but there could have been others, a crew for example. It was not claimed to be a fishing vessel, so perhaps it was a ship made for the transport of people.

Then, there was the “storm of wind” that was described as coming 'down.' It is easy to race past such a small detail, but for me, such wording supports the authenticity of the story, for it shows an accustomed knowledge of the events typical of that geographical setting. Speaking of authenticity, let us look next at the reaction of the disciples to the storm of wind. The story text informs us simply that “they were filled with water.” It tells us nothing of waves or choppy water or the rocking of the ship in a storm.

We are informed, in verse 24, that along with the wind, Jesus also rebuked the “raging of the water.” But, how might the water rage? I can imagine straight line winds driving both water and ship in a single direction. Was the ship facing into the wind? Was the wind pushing against the side of the ship? In straight line circumstances the ship might have one side high and one side at the water line – and of course, the wind would blow sea spray into the ship.

Not much could be done in a sudden storm. Perhaps there was not so much as a bucket with which to bail. They could only watch as the ship filled with water and assume they were about to capsize and sink. Another detail we must consider here is the sleeping Jesus. What does the fact that he had to be awakened suggest? Was he really tired? The transference of virtue can really take the wind out of one's sails. Was he a heavy sleeper? Did he not know he was getting soaked? Within this scenario is the possibility that the ship might have sported an enclosed area, or cabin, in which a passenger might find a bed to sleep in – further indicating a lengthy voyage. Or, did he simply sleep the sleep of faith?

Understandably, the disciples feared for their lives. When they awoke their master, it was not with a request to help bail water from the ship – they were beyond that. Against the roar of wind and wave they simply shouted, “we perish.” Perhaps crew members had already been swept overboard.

I believe that whoever remembered the story, while lacking the specific memory of time and date with which to place it properly, still recounted a true tale, a physical event. Relatively speaking, the event occurred early in the ministry of Christ, and I say that for the reason of raw reaction. Here were disciples who had traveled with Jesus on a daily basis. They witnessed the healings. They witnessed the dead raised. Yet, as they were witness to another of his many miracles, namely the calming of the sea, in their awe, they questioned what kind of man it was they followed.

It seems almost as if they were not quite convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, did not fully believe in him. It was a real and timely point when Jesus asked them, “Where is your faith?” So, what about the rest of us? Jesus asks us the same question. Are you convinced? Do you believe? Where is your faith?

Candlesticks and Spiritual Dynamics

Candlesticks and secrets. This is a small side-explanation and summation immediately following the sower parable. What we have here is an explanation of an explanation. The sower parable, itself, was an explanation of a spiritual dynamic, but it was long and complex. Jesus felt the need of an addendum.

Luke 8:16-18, “No man, when he has lit a candle, covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed; but sets it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.

For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

Take heed therefore how you hear: for whosoever has, to him shall be given; and whosoever has not, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have.”

We often see that Jesus used the commonplace – simple ordinary everyday things – to further illuminate a truth. In this instance, he turns to candlesticks. The dynamic of the sower parable involved taking ownership of one's spiritual qualities and working them to produce more of the same. The dynamic was hidden inside a parable as a secret, and yet, that secret was explained to the disciples.

The addendum was meant to show the disciples that secrets are a part of the overall answer. Lighting a candle is not merely a symbol of light as opposed to darkness, but more to the point, it represents the navigation of that darkness. Darkness, therefore, might be deemed representative of the secrets hidden within while the addition of light may be viewed as a first step toward successful navigation.

One lights a candle to expose the secrets of the dark. It is common to most of us; it is something done daily by millions of people. When I go into a room, I turn on the lights. I want to know where the leg of the couch is so I do not stump my toe. I wish to avoid all stumbling and all tripping over things. I want to see where each step is supposed to go. I may not always remember which side of the room my dresser is on. I may not have a clear mental concept of how high up on the door the lock is found. I could feel around in the dark, or I could better train my memory, but for me and for millions of others, it is simply more efficient to turn on the lights.

We are digging through a drawer in a chest of drawers. It is a drawer of possibilities. Let's see – where is that muscle I wish to add? In the dark, there are secrets; in the light, there are realizations. A seeker's first step of discovery is to turn on the light. How does this apply itself to the dynamic of the sower parable? I want biceps and I am in the gym looking at the exercise equipment. Looking at the equipment is of no use to me, neither is the knowledge of what they are for. Nothing at all will happen until I take that first step.

On a spiritual level, my first step is the light of life. By that alone may I discover, and use, those secrets which otherwise would have only tripped me up. There is something hidden inside of me; I believe it is there, but I cannot see it. I say this about the 'me' I wish to be. What is my first step in becoming that person? Where do I start? I can make a start – but what must I do? Once I see what I want to become and once I see what I have to work with, what can I expect for all my faith and labor? The light of life answers all of these questions.

My personal harvest can only be a better me – that is, more of who and what I already was. When I went digging through my drawer in search of a muscle to exercise, it was not a muscle that I found, rather it was a muscle illuminated. The muscle by itself would have been nothing but a secret shrouded in darkness – unfound and unused. What I found and what I exercised was only possible in the light of life. As it turns out, that light of life is the muscle – and it is the exercise – and it is the 'me' I have wanted all along.

So we fire up our personal candle with the light of life. We do not hide the light, we embrace it as the first step in a battle to wrestle secrets from the dark. The whole point of the light is that we want to see. We want a clear line of sight and a complete vision. We want to find ourselves and know the illumination of who we really are. The more we exercise that illumination the more we become that illumination. The hidden parts of us are rescued from the darkness to be added into our whole illuminated being.

The seed that was planted in our fertile soil was nothing less than the light of life. The muscle that we now exercise is our 'Jesus muscle'. The seeker who seeks truth is actually seeking to become truth. It bears repeating, “Whosoever has, to him shall be given; and whosoever has not, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have.” What, then, as seekers, is our first step?

Jesus tells us this, “Take heed therefore how you hear.”

That is not 'what' you hear, or 'why' you hear, nor again is it 'when' or 'who' or 'where'. It is only the 'how' that will prove true. Lighting that candle is the how. That is our first step and starting place. It is the commencement of the exercise of illumination. It is the seeker becoming Jesus, and while that may seem a strange and off-the-wall comment to the conservative Christian, Jesus himself declared that truth when he said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Therefore, every soul faces one of only two possible directions in life. What will you choose? Will you choose the exercise of life and light to become life and light, or will you choose to waste away through attrition until you are erased by the darkness of death? My choice is the way, the truth, and the life.