Book One, Chapter One

Table of Content

Book One:

The Great Reflection

1. Introduction

2. Images

3. God With Man

4. Patterns and Shadows

5. The Classic Pattern:

Fiery Serpents

6. The Two-Sided Existence

7. Mirror Image

8. Facing the Mirror

9. Through the Interface

10. Elusive Reality

11. USMs: Universal Spiritual Mechanics

Laws and Theories

12. Rhyme and Reason

Book Two:

The Spiritual / Corporeal Handshake

1. Dualities

2. Following Suit

3. Actions Initiated From the Other Side

4. Does the Spiritual Require the Corporeal?

5. Ups and Downs

6. More Toward the Spirit

7. Working the Lines

8. Man / Son of Man

Part One

Book Three:

The Upper Room

1. Man / Son of Man

Part Two

2. Man / Son of Man

Part Three

3. Ingestion

4. The Holy Ghost

5. Holy Communication

6. Spirit and Truth:

a Two-Sided Coin

7. Man and God:

a Two-Sided Coin

8. The Power of the Mind

9. A New Focus

Book Four

What Exactly is Spiritual?

1. The Effort to See

2. Our New Mind

3. Crook’d Staff in Hand

4. Am I a Rock, Am I an Island?

(Are your thoughts really your own?)

5. What Exactly is Spiritual?

6. Perception

7. Practicing the God-Mind

8. Mapping Out Your New Mind

9. The Purpose of the New Mind

10. Every Man is a Letter

11. Realization

12. Embracing Spirituality

13. Discerning Spirits

14. Heart and Mind

15. Discerning Evil Spirits

16. Levels and Types

Emotional Levels

Lost Levels

Social Levels

Aggregate Levels

The Mindful Type

The Spiritual Archetype

Three Bonus Studies

Book One

The Great Reflection

INTRODUCTION

I am entering a study that chases shadows; that pursues phantoms. It will be a study that will

stalk secrets and clutch clues. I will conclude with a greater understanding of the relationship

between what is corporeal and what is spiritual. I will look at the interface between the two; a

looking glass not unlike Alice’s, where secret transactions occur, and the stirrings of enlightenment

are broadcast.

We are familiar with the concept that the earthly temple is a reflection of the Heavenly, a

shadow of things to be. This study, then, will deal with ‘mirror images’; and of all reflections, I will

begin with man, for man was created in the ‘likeness’ or ‘mirror image’ of his creator; and while the

flesh may be a secondary issue, we may see that, of our nature, we have inherited certain family

traits. If we, then, derive what we call human nature from God, it should be no surprise that God

displays some of those same traits.

Micah 1:8 gives us an image of God in His own words, “Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.”

We, as a race, struggle with our search for a concept of God. It is a real issue for us because

we ‘feel’ connected, but are hardly sure how. Accordingly, many cling to a fragmented concept: the

group on the right will say God is love; the group on the left will say God is a man of war - both

concepts are scripturally based. Both, however, are examples of people seeking a single, simple

answer. I might be jumping ahead of myself, to introduce the meat of the word of God to those not

yet weaned from the milk, but quite frankly, a stronger constitution is needful to bear up under the

weight of the ‘bigger picture’.

Isaiah 45:7 gives us that bigger picture thusly, “I form the light, and create darkness: I

make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

This may not sit well with those who believe that God ‘cannot’ look upon evil. It may not

sit well with those who believe that God ‘cannot’ lie. As for me, I think it wise not to place

limitations on God. He can do whatever He wants to do. He’s God. I don’t have a problem with that

concept of God; to me, He is still Holy and Reverend. The point I wish to stress in regard to Isaiah

45:7 is that if we are made in the likeness of God, we should not whitewash His or our nature. I think

we must simply trust that He has a plan. Some people, and not a few, get caught up in that whole

‘how can God allow bad things to happen to good people’ thing.

Hosea 6:1-3 gives us a better mental approach to the issue, “Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up. After two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: His going forth is prepared as the morning; and He shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.”

An interesting note about this particular verse is its reference to ‘cyclic’ occurrences such as

rain, such as the rising sun. The word ‘prepared’ is significant, as will be seen later. Note, too, that

the ‘cyclic’ reference is but a small part of a larger reference, or ‘a shadow’: and that is our salvation

in Christ through His resurrection - He being lifted, or raised up, draws all men up with Him. It bears

repeating that this study will deal with shadows and reflections. If you are desirous of truth, as am

I, then what we want out of all this is an understanding. We just want to know. By and by, we will

know, that is if we do not trip ourselves up on old preconceptions. It would not do if our best

reasoning only led us back to incomplete first thoughts.

If God’s word is, as the scripture states and I believe, a treasure chest containing both old and new treasure, should we ignore the new? Take for example the concept bodied forth in Isaiah 43:10. As concepts go, this will seem foreign to many staunch advocates of God’s God-ness. So many times have I heard from them that God has no beginning and no end, even though they will completely accept that Christ is the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end).

Here is what Isaiah 43:10 says: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.”

And here is my paraphrased version of that verse: “You are My witness and My chosen servant, says God, that you may both know and believe that I am actually God. There was no god formed before Me, and there shall be no god formed after Me.”

If we truly believe the verity of God’s written word, then what we see here is God, Himself,

indicating how He came into being: by some process (here unstated) of formation or realization. In all of our experience, the process of formation requires an external power or agency to form the thing that is formed. In the absence of another power, God was the agency that formed himself.

In a closed loop of serial recurrences, the Trinity may be the diagram of that process.

So then, what of man: that we are formed in His image? Is not a reflection an image of something

that we believe to be real? If we look into a mirror, our reflection reenacts our every posture, and the

image appears just as real.

A Heads-up

Just a thankful heads-up to anyone who takes the time to read what I write. I have decided to return to my roots, so to speak. I plan to edit my first book, "The Great Reflection", and post it as a blog, chapter by chapter. Look for the first installment tomorrow.

There You Have It

I began topically, striving to reach a point in mentation whereby understanding of the scriptures began with and revolved around definition. The work, somehow, transformed itself into a serial attempt at broader clarity, as I went through the book of Luke point by point. I will not continue through the book of John in similar fashion, as I think that book deserves a study unto itself.

No. This is a good place to end this study, and perhaps, to make a return to the topical nature this work began with. I began this study with a pet peeve – namely, how people use a word or concept without first defining it. They seem to think if they say it loudly enough, the meaning will, somehow, come through on its own. I began this study with the much-maligned concept of 'Love'. I said I might return to it, as well the concept that the strait gate might be a Biblical passage.

I am not trying to extend this study, but rather, to bring it to an adequate end. Still, these topics are due further scrutiny. I, of course, will continue to ponder such things – I am an affirmed seeker, after all. But, what about you? Have I reached my fellow-seekers? If I have, here are a few things you might try on your own.

Choose a topic you might find in the Bible. That topic might be 'love', or 'key', 'spirit', 'knowledge', or anything you decide upon. Get yourself a good Bible engine for your computer. Type in that word and search out every instance of its use. Collect them. Place them together and arrange them in an order that helps you to better understand the concept. Combine them into a synthesis that is not overly loquacious. Let it be as brief and lean as possible. Let there be definition. It'll be good.

I leave you with these thoughts. We are seekers. How does one define a seeker? A seeker might seek anything thing. If we claim we seek truth, someone might counter, “What is truth? Are mine the same as yours?” Language contains many words. They orbit concepts like planets and moons. There may be no single answer to existence and purpose of life, rather many individual definitions. However, I see and seek in an existence that is inclusive – it holds the one and it holds the many.

A lot of people seek only their individuality and license. They are like the waves in the sea. Some others seek oneness. They are also like waves in the sea. Even those who imagine they are Captains of their own vessels, charting a course under their own steam, cannot deny they are still part of something bigger than themselves – something that includes them with all else it holds.

All existence, life, being, seeking – they are directional, they are developmental. We move toward something by moving away from something else. We become. The seeker is a 'becomer'. We do not seek idle states of trivia-glut. When we finally find that which we have sought, we add it to ourselves. We become ourselves, plus that which we have discovered. Then – what if what we have discovered is the whole? What if our adding the whole to ourselves is only us mirroring the whole adding us to itself?

A physical Jesus said that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Be the seeker, be the treasure you find. One may be the question and the answer. One may be the wave and the sea.    

The Vanishing Savior

The following, in my opinion, is one of the coolest stories in the new testament. It is later on the same day that the women discover Jesus is missing from the tomb. They went down very early that Sunday morning and after the discovery, they went to the disciples with their news. Peter went to the grave to see for himself.

The group of disciples to which the women brought their news included much more people than the core group. Luke 24:9 informs us that the women brought their news to “the eleven, and all the rest.” When we think of the following of Jesus, we think of men and women together. Some women followed Jesus from the beginning of his ministry in Galilee. Some men traveled with their wives and sisters and mothers. There is evidence of children among the followers.

So, the news of the resurrection was announced in the early morning hours and later in the day, two of the disciples took off walking down a road openly and without fear. They were on their way to a town named Emmaus. That particular town was believed to be approximately seven miles from Jerusalem. When I walk at a fast pace, I can cover three miles in about forty-five minutes. Since they were taking their time, I give them a walking time of around three hours.

Of the two disciples, one is immediately named. He is Cleophas, with some translations being Alphaeus or Clopas. Many scholars identify this disciple as the brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary. His wife was also named Mary and his sons included Jude, James, and Simon, half-brothers or cousins of Jesus. The unnamed disciple may have been Cleophas' son Simon. More on that later.

These two disciples are joined on the road to Emmaus by Jesus himself, only they do not recognize him. Their eyes are closed to his true identity. While it is possible that Jesus looked different after his death on the cross and three days in the grave, this is not the only instance where Jesus is not recognized after his resurrection. From an account in another gospel, Mary Magdalene sees him but thinks he might be the groundskeeper.

When the two disciples reached their home in Emmaus, they invited Jesus to eat with them. The reason why is found in Luke 24:29. It was getting close to dark, as the verse says, “it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” I mention this only to point out the time of departure from the main group. An approximate three-hour walk would have placed their departure around noon.

As they ate, Jesus took the bread, blessed it and broke it – sort of a signature move. One of the core disciples would have recognized that from the last supper, but no doubt, in his three years of ministry, Jesus would have often eaten with his followers, perhaps breaking bread, in the same way, each time. It was at the point where Jesus blessed and broke the bread that the two disciples' eyes were opened and they recognized the man as Jesus.

He sat right there with them. He had been in their company for hours preaching from the scriptures, but only now they saw him for who he was. Their mouths must have fallen open only to be stammering and speechless. There he sat – Jesus, back from the dead. They recognized their Lord – and then he just vanished. In our day and age, we are used to many fantastic representations in TV and film, but he vanished as he sat between them. Did the bread fall from hands no longer there?

They had not recognized him until that moment, but something in them wanted to. They may have thought the style and delivery of preaching seemed familiar – they just couldn't place it with the face. They reasoned among themselves, in verse thirty-two, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Of course, they had to jump right up and run back to the other disciples. Another three-hour trek, perhaps this time made in half the time. And here is the part I mentioned earlier that I would get back to. They recounted their adventure to the others, perhaps waking them to do so, and they said in verse thirty-four, “The Lord is risen indeed,” and here, they did not say that Jesus had revealed himself unto them, which might have seemed more natural, but they mentioned a name, “and hath appeared to Simon.”

Had Cleophas blinked or looked away at the critical moment? Was Cleophas very old with diminished eyesight? If he was revealed to Simon, then is that Simon the unnamed disciple? Even as they recounted their tale, Jesus appeared to all of them. It startled them, hearts were racing. Many still did not believe the resurrection, they had just lost their Lord to the cruelty of the Romans, a thing that all their experience told them was permanent.

He proved to them that he was real, that he was back. He ate something in their sight. He showed his physical wounds to them. In other gospel accounts, Jesus upbraids them for their unbelief, but not in Luke. As he had done for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus explained everything. He then led them to Bethany where he blessed them and was “carried” up into heaven.

Carried by what, or by whom? Was it a moonlit evening? Was it cloudy? Certainly, as endings go, this one is brief. Some accounts have him around for as many as forty days after his resurrection. In those other accounts, he heals and preaches and is seen by thousands. Did he reveal himself to his accusers, or did they hear of his presence, perhaps seeking verification, but all too late? Did Pilate hear of his doings in those final forty days? All of that would make a great movie, but more importantly, and lastly, what was the significance of Luke's exclusion of the forty days? Was there significance in Jesus revealing only “unto the eleven, and to all the rest?” Was there significance to the location of the Ascension? Bethany was the home of Lazarus (another resurrected) and Mary.

Things We Don't Notice

We turn our attention to the last chapter in the book of Luke. We look at the first twelve verses. The women from chapter twenty-three return to the sepulcher. They had followed to see where Joseph placed the body, then they went home to prepare the spices. After that, they observed the Sabbath – in other words, they had to wait a whole day before they could return with the spices they had prepared.

So. let us check our facts. It is very early on a Sunday morning. The women who returned to the grave of Jesus are listed in verse ten. They were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. Wikipedia tells us this about Mary the mother of James:

Although James the younger is often identified with James, son of Alphaeus, the New Advent Encyclopedia identifies him with both James, son of Alphaeus and James the brother of Jesus (James the Just). According to the surviving fragments of the work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord of the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis, who lived c. 70–163 AD, "Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas"

These three women were not alone, they were in the company of other women. Verse one calls them “certain others” while verse ten calls them “other women that were with them.” So, there were at least two other women present with the listed three. In all probability, there were more than two. These were the women who had followed Jesus from the beginning of his ministry in Galilee.

Again, early on the first day of the week, these women who had followed Jesus from Galilee went to the tomb. In verses two through four, they found the stone rolled away, they entered the tomb only to discover that the body was gone, and they were “much perplexed.” They were bewildered, uncertain, and troubled over the turn of events.

I mention all of this in preparation for making a point. Of course, they were surprised to find the body missing, but my point is that the stone being rolled away was just as much an eye-opener. They had followed to see Jesus buried. There is little doubt they also saw the stone being rolled into place.

Did these women go to the grave expecting to see the stone rolled away? The short answer is no. At least five of them went to the grave – perhaps, they thought that such a number was sufficient to roll the stone away. This little bit of information is perhaps a clue to the size of the stone and the entrance to the grave. More clues to follow.

A dead body is like a sack of potatoes. It is hard to manage. The size of the grave entrance had to be sufficient for at least two men to carry a body through it. Since no mention of the women having trouble entering the grave is made, one may assume that the sepulcher was designed with a slight descent into the cavity.

So, the women who actually entered came back out with the news, and as they stood perplexed, two men appeared in shining garments. White garments were not unheard of in that culture, but the implementation of the word 'shining' suggests something other than merely white cloth. When Jesus was on the mountaintop with Moses and Elijah, all three of them were shining. We have a kind of naturally shiny view of angels. But, it was also around dawn when these events transpired. The sun was coming up. The light could have caught the white garments in an especially eye-catching manner.

The women were so taken by the appearance of the two men that, in fear, they fell on their faces. Now, one may think of that culture and time as a people who would fall on their faces at the drop of a hat, but a sudden reflexive fear is more in keeping with human nature as we know it. For instance, what does one do when he or she perceives the near report of gunfire? They hit the deck. It is only human nature to duck and cover.

The women of the Bible are not as often mentioned as the men. In this particular case, we find them equal to the men in a certain sense. That is, they had to be reminded what Jesus told them. They were with Jesus from the beginning; they heard all of his sermons, all of his sayings. Yet, like the men, they had to be reminded. This too is human nature.

If only they had believed his words from the beginning! All of us who have grown old reach a point of personal realization where we think, 'why didn't I listen to my parents? They were right from the beginning. How much I might have spared myself if only I had listened.'

They thought he was dead, but then, they were reminded of his words – and they believed. They ran to tell the apostles. Herein lies another point we don't notice. We have bought into the general concept of frightened apostles cowering in darkened rooms for fear of their lives. Multitudes followed Jesus. They followed him to Jerusalem. They lost him for a time but found him again after the trial. They followed him to the crucifixion and stood afar off.

The remaining eleven apostles were not the only apostles of Jesus, they were just his inner circle. Aside from the general multitude, there were at least seventy-two other appointed apostles. You may recall that Jesus, in chapter ten, sent them two by two, in the same manner, he had sent out the twelve – preaching and healing. When the women went to the eleven with their news, verses nine and ten inform us that “the apostles” noted in verse ten included “all the rest” mentioned in verse nine.

And then there was Peter. He was somewhat mercurial in nature. When first receiving the news, he with the others did not believe. He thought they were idle tales. But Peter gave the matter a second thought. Maybe, just maybe, they were right. What was it Jesus had said? So, Peter leaps to his feet and “runs” to the sepulcher.

Here is another clue about the grave – that is to say, about its design. Peter, in verse twelve, did not enter the grave but stooped down and looked inside. “Stooping down” is that clue. From a stooping position outside the grave entrance, Peter was able to see the place where the body had been laid. The body was absent but the “linen clothes” were still there.

Some depictions of the sepulcher have a great round wheel of a stone that may only be moved by the strength of many. Some scholars imagine a grave where the entrance is on top and the body has to be lowered into the cavity. It is human nature that we run with whatever is in front of us. When they say big wheel, we go with it. When they say hole in the ground, we go with it.

We think one thing by excluding all other possibilities. Well, here is another possibility. The grave was small enough to stoop down and see inside. The stone that was rolled away from the entrance was small enough that approximately five women thought they could move it.

An Open Image of Crucifixion

This study will finish the 23^rd chapter of Luke, concerning itself with verses twenty-six through fifty-six. Many of us have seen multiple movie representations of the life and death of Jesus. Speaking just of the trial and crucifixion scenes, a more or less generalized image has developed and taken root in our basic concept of these events.

This is the picture: a rushed and secretive condemnation by the Sanhedrin, a Romanized public trial complete with a brutal beating, a march to Calvary replete with soldiers flogging Jesus and pushing back the crowd, and a beaten Lord too weak to carry his cross – falling several times until the soldiers snatch a random man from the crowd and force him to bear the load.

The Luke account does not present such an image. So, let us take a closer look at the particulars of this account. First of all, we know that the accusers of Jesus numbered between twenty-three and seventy-one members and may have included the temple guards who had arrested him. The Luke account of the secretive condemnation, in its brevity, does not include false witnesses.

However, by the time that the trial ends and his accusers, in the company of Roman soldiers, lead him away for crucifixion, an ample crowd of sympathetic people has gathered to follow the procession. On the trailing end of that crowd, we may assume some of the closest followers were also present.

Simple mockings had occurred, but no movie-style beatings are recorded. The scene does not appear overly crowded, nor do the soldiers seem especially aggressive. I assume there is a modicum of dignity afforded to Jesus, as it is my assertion that he was an actual Rabbi in the order of the Pharisees. Sure, he had gone rogue on them, but he was one of them, after all.

The accusers had gotten their way in the matter, so I assume that at that point, marching down the street, their attention was on themselves. They felt justified and vindicated and would have thought all eyes were on them; they would have marched stiffly with their shoulders proudly squared back for all to see. They were occupied with conversations between their members.

No crown of thorns is mentioned, but I assume that Jesus still wore the “gorgeous robe.” The tempo of the march to Calvary was such that Jesus, standing, was able to turn to the mournful women and speak as he normally spoke to people. He was not prodded by the soldiers, nor did he fall beneath the cross. In fact, it is presented as an almost immediate occurrence past the gates that a man coming out of the country was engaged as the cross bearer.

We find “one Simon” in verse twenty-six bearing the cross “after Jesus.” There also followed a “great company of people” with the women wailing and lamenting the fate of Jesus. As crowd dynamics go, that seems to put Jesus' position as coming after the accusers with possible room for a couple of Roman soldiers to attend a more or less well-behaved crowd. Jesus not only had the time and opportunity but as well the composure to turn and address the crying women.

As for Simon, why was the cross put on him? In what fashion was it laid on his shoulders? Was Simon an itinerant looking for work? Did they put a coin in his hand? If the Sanhedrin was showing Jesus that much courtesy and respect, was it they, rather than the Romans, who pressed him into service? If it was the case that the accusers arranged for Jesus not to carry the cross, what was there real motive? Did they deliberately deny him the cross because of certain things he had been heard to say?

Let us take up another salient point. Jesus was already on the cross when the “sixth hour” is mentioned. He had already had a conversation with one of the thieves on a cross beside him. He had already said, “Father, forgive them.” His clothing already had been parted and had lots cast for them, which makes more sense when the “gorgeous robe” is taken into account.

There is, admittedly, some confusion among the experts as to the exact placement of the sixth hour. For our purposes, we need only look at the whole account to see how the timeline unfolded. The Sanhedrin convened, according to Luke 22:66, just after dawn. After a hasty condemnation, they arose and led Jesus to Pilate, which in my estimation would have been between eight and nine. They Herod episode would have taken it to ten or eleven. The final determination and the march to Calvary could have all been accomplished before noon.

Some sources have the sixth hour reckoned at about noon, but recall, the text of the Luke account has much of the crucifixion accomplished before the sixth hour is mentioned. The three hours on the cross are the long wait. It is my thought that the Roman practice of crucifixion deliberately included a prolonged period of time in which the crucified were meant to suffer and the onlookers were meant to consider the might of Rome. They did not just stand around, idling, until at last, they said “Screw this! Let's break their legs and go home.”

The darkness during those three hours was of note for the simple reason that it was not yet night. It was noted that Jesus, on the cross, cried out before he uttered his final statement in verse forty-six, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” That brings the timeline to the few hours before evening. It makes sense that Joseph was able to return to Jerusalem and plead for the dead body of Jesus. Had it been too late, Joseph might not have been able to obtain an audience with Pilate. Another point thought worthy of note was that found in verse fifty-four, “the Sabbath drew on.”

In the reckoning of the Jewish day, the day took a particular precedent from Genesis 1:5, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” If Jesus died around three in the afternoon, then the Sabbath was only a few hours away.

The author of the Luke narrative thought certain points were worthy of note. We should not overlook these points. One such point was the conversation that Jesus had with one of the thieves. The manner in which the thief spoke to and about Jesus shows us a depth of familiarity on the part of the thief. Was the thief one of the multitudes who had followed Jesus?

Another point was the centurion. Who heard his remark clearly enough to record it? Would that not place the one who heard the centurion close to the cross? It was noted that the remark of the centurion glorified God. When we read the comment in verse forty-seven, “Certainly this was a righteous man,” we must ask why.

Was it enough that a Roman recognized righteousness in a man? Else, if it had nothing to do with the nature of a gentile, it had everything to do with the words. Does it glorify God simply to think that a man is good or just? Would it not glorify God much more to recognize Jesus as the son of God rather than simply a “righteous man?” On that note, did the description of Joseph in verse fifty glorify God? The author noted that Joseph was “a good man, and just.”

Also of note to the author were the placement of the followers of Jesus in verses forty-eight and forty-nine. Some watched and left, “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.” Was that a Jewish thing, an act of sorrow? Breast smiting was mentioned in one of the parables Jesus told his followers. Did the accusers, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the elders, and that lot – did they also smite their breasts in attrition?

So, all those people left, but some lingered – “afar off.” Who were they? Why did the author describe them in the words he used? Verse forty-nine states, “And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things.” They did not want to get too close to the Romans and the Sanhedrin.

Who were the acquaintances of Jesus, and why were the women listed separately? The mention of Galilee is the mention of the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Some of those women are actually named elsewhere. There was his mother, Mary. There was, of course, Mary Magdalene. There was also Joanna, Susanna, and Salome.

Why were not these women designated as acquaintances? Were acquaintances only men, or did that designation include family? Were the brothers and sisters of Jesus there? Were people like Lazarus, considered friends, present? Were his close followers there? Were there secret supporters There?

Luke's account is the simplest account, seemingly not trying to present an agenda, but merely giving the bare-bone facts of the matter.

Pilate Washed his Hands

Of course, that is not found in the Luke account; rather, we get that from the book of Matthew. In looking at Luke 23:1-25, we see that Pilate was more than willing to free Jesus. He spoke up in the defense of Jesus. He lobbied for his release. In the Luke account of the trial of Jesus, Pilate acted as his only advocate and champion.

So, let us work back from the point where Pilate should have washed his hands but did not. In verse 25, Pilate finally relented and “delivered Jesus to their will.” 'Their' was comprised solely of the people who brought Jesus to Pilate and who stood as his accusers. More on that later.

Before Pilate relented, he said this in verse 22, “Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.” This was the third time that Pilate stood up for Jesus.

The second occasion of Pilate as the advocate for Jesus' innocence can be found in verse 20, “Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.” Judging by the reactions of the accusers to the appeals put forth by Pilate, said advocacy was no quiet and casual matter. I can see the Prefect having to raise his voice to be heard over the tumult of the crowd.

The initial instance of Pilate's advocacy for Jesus may be found in verses 14-16, “Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.”

These three instances of advocacy were all accomplished after the return of Jesus from Herod. At that particular time, the celebration of the Passover, Herod, also being a Jew, was in Jerusalem. Herod had actively followed the news of Jesus. He had wanted to meet him for a long time; he wanted to see a miracle with his own eyes. When it was evident that no miracle was forthcoming, Herod and his soldiers mocked Jesus and dressed him in a 'gorgeous' robe and sent him back. The robe was a message. It had a meaning. My thought is that it had a political significance – as of royalty or high rank. It was an in-joke between two rulers that united them against the religious absurdities of Judaism.

The same group of men who led Jesus to Pilate led Jesus to Herod. They stood and accused Jesus to Herod as they had to Pilate. Movies might depict this multitude as a conglomeration of religious elite and common citizens. However, one must know that those in charge are not assailed by the common mob – that is not how it is done. Only those with business are allowed in. The accusers had business, and on that note, we should take a quick look at bureaucracy.

The tempo of the gospel accounts may give us a sense that events happen in quick succession, but it just doesn't happen like that. We are told that Jesus was whisked off to see Pilate – this is shortly after dawn. Let me ask this, how many of us have gone downtown to conduct business only to discover that some office is not yet open? So, we either have to sit in our cars and wait, or go do some shopping and come back later. Do you really think Pilate leaped from bed at the crack of dawn just to deal with Jews? I think he took his own sweet time, maybe had breakfast first, washed and took care of personal matters before opening to the public.

Before the three instances of advocacy, before the Herod interlude, say perhaps around nine in the morning, Jesus stood between the men who accused him and the Prefect of Rome. The initial accusations were made and Pilate questioned Jesus. Nine is still early for the ruling class, perhaps Pilate was a bit groggy. Having been accused of the serious crime of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, Pilate casually asked about an assumed title.

“Art thou the King of the Jews?” Verse 3.

Jesus answered in the same verse, “Thou sayest it.”

Now, most people simply take that answer at face value, thinking that Jesus was saying something like, 'those are your words, not mine'. However, the accusation was not that of Pilate but the religious elite, insomuch that Jesus should have answered something more on the lines of 'they sayest it'.

Pilate's question may have actually been more familiar than we are want to think; Jesus response may have been just as familiar. Without any proof to back my assertion, I submit that the possibility Jesus and Pilate may have had previous conversations is real. Pilate knew exactly who Jesus was – everyone knew of Jesus; his fame had gone abroad from day one. Jesus was associated with the religious elite – that is a fact. They followed him everywhere, were all in his business, and quite often invited him into their company. As a ruler, it stands to reason that Pilate also traveled in some of the same circles.

This may seem wild, but, what if the response “Thou sayest it,” did not mean 'your words, not mine', but rather, meant something more like 'you said this might happen.'?

Finally, back to the multitude of accusers. We want to know who this multitude consisted of. In verse 1, we read, “And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.”

This was shortly after dawn when Jesus had been judged by the Sanhedrin. As we recall from Luke 22:66, “As soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council.” The Sanhedrin was a group whose number ranged between twenty-three and seventy-one members. This, along with the possible inclusion of those who arrested Jesus and some false witnesses were the only ones who stood as accusers before Pilate.

Waiting

Luke 22:54-71 tells a more or less abridged version of the tale after Jesus' arrest. Without the exact time being specified, it is important that we keep the timeline in mind as we study these verses.

The timeline, in its simplest form, goes like this: the last supper, the trip to the garden, prayer, betrayal, journey to the waiting place, the waiting, the trial. A keen mind may somewhat deduce the approximate time needed for many of these actions. For instance, knowing the approximate location of the garden and the approximate destination after the arrest, one may arrive at a general walking distance between the two.

Even as an old man, I am able to walk three miles in forty-five minutes. The 1.5-mile hike between Bethany and the old Jerusalem would have been a mere fifteen-minute trek. “The hill east of Herod's Palace was known as the Upper City on Mount Zion. During Herod's reign and in the first century, the Upper City, once more inhabited, was the residential quarter of the Jerusalem aristocracy and priestly families.” We get that from Bible History Online.

The walk from the arrest site to the residential quarters of the upper city was not that far. If the arrest took place before midnight and the elders gathered as soon as it was day, as we are told in verse 66, then, the waiting by the fire in the midst of the hall took up most of the timeline in the Luke account.

Some sources go on about Jesus being first brought to Annas, then to his son-in-law, Caiaphas. In all likelihood, the whole priestly family of Annas lived in the same residential complex. Wikipedia says this about Annas: “Annas officially served as High Priest for ten years (6–15 A.D.), when at the age of 36 he was deposed by the procurator Gratus. Yet while having been officially removed from office, he remained as one of the nation's most influential political and social individuals, aided greatly by the use of his five sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas as puppet High Priests.”

Some sources, some based on certain scriptural references, go on about an illegal night trial. The account in Luke may be the more accurate account – at least by my estimation. Waiting by the fire in the midst of the hall has a more realistic feel. While the chief priests were present at the arrest, the big shots, Annas and Caiaphas, were at home asleep, having delegated all unwanted chores to the lesser dignitaries. Waiting for daylight in the hall of the residential complex shows an appropriate respect to high rank.

So, they light a fire in the hall and just sit quietly and wait. The maids and other servants were grumpy from unexpected extra duty insomuch that one of the maids accused Peter of being Peter. One has to realize that all of the apostles were as daily visible as was Jesus. Peter was just as well known; his face just as familiar. It was Peter that cut off the ear of some poor joker, upon which incident, Jesus promptly healed it. It was no small thing. Somewhere in the hall of the priestly residential complex, there sat around the fire a man who touched his ear and thought, 'Wow!' It begs the question of just how long Peter sat among them before someone said something.

Had Peter tried to disguise himself or did he just sort of sneak in? According to his own claim, he was prepared to follow Jesus into prison and to death. Had he walked boldly in? That Peter originally followed “afar off” does not mean that he totally abandoned his resolve to follow Jesus to the very end. Yet, in the end, that is exactly what he did. He sat in the same gathering in which Jesus sat; they could see each other. Jesus heard every denial.

At last, Jesus turned and looked Peter in the eye. How might we imagine that exchange? Did Jesus tilt his head in sadness? Did he cock an eyebrow? Was there a message in the eye contact? 'I told you. Maybe now you'll believe me.'

Peter left. Why did no one pursue? They recognized him. Maybe the disciples were not important enough to deal with just then – they could be rounded up later. What about the guy with the ear? Surely he had a grudge.

It was as the night wore on that things began to click. At first, it was a waiting game. Then, one by one, the chief priests, the elders, and the captains of the temple decided they would retire until daylight, try to get a little sleep before the trial.

It was in the latter hours, and possibly due to boredom from the long wait, that Jesus' captors began to torment and mock him. Perhaps even the servants had gone back to bed. There were no witnesses. So who recounted the tale? Was it the guy who had a new ear – a new respect for the man. Perhaps Jesus looked him in the eye also. 'Yes, I healed you. I just picked your ear up from the ground and put it back in place. Remember your ear.' I cannot imagine that man as a willing participant in the mocking of Jesus.

Jesus looked at Peter, and Peter was moved. Jesus perhaps looked at the man with the new ear and perhaps he was moved. Peter felt shame and helpless remorse. Perhaps the man with the healed ear felt awe. Jesus alone knew what he was doing. Everyone else was just sort of hanging out. Now Jesus is looking at you. What do you feel?

In the Garden

I am still in Luke and it is after the last supper when Jesus leaves the upper room and resorts to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. His disciples follow – all but Judas, who shows up later.

In the supper, Jesus was explaining to them that things were coming to an end. The disciples were a state of uncertainty. Perhaps they felt they were being hung out in the wind, left on their own. While they did eat a meal under these circumstances, in all likelihood, the meal was more ceremonial, more of a function, than filling.

In the Luke account, found in chapter twenty-two, Jesus indicates that one of the twelve will betray him. Then, one of them leaves. How did the rest of them not connect the dots? Why did they not recognize Judas as the betrayer and stop him? Perhaps, that was one of the points that weighed heavily on their spirits as they followed Jesus into the garden.

Gethsemane was a garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives. It was a place with old large olive trees in it. Wikipedia gives this account of its location:

William M. Thomson, author of The Land and the Book, first published in 1880, wrote: "When I first came to Jerusalem, and for many years afterward, this plot of ground was open to all whenever they chose to come and meditate beneath its very old olive trees. The Latins, however, have within the last few years succeeded in gaining sole possession, and have built a high wall around it. The Greeks have invented another site a little to the north of it. My own impression is that both are wrong. The position is too near the city, and so close to what must have always been the great thoroughfare eastward, that our Lord would scarcely have selected it for retirement on that dangerous and dismal night. I am inclined to place the garden in the secluded vale several hundred yards to the north-east of the present Gethsemane."

Wikipedia tells us that the Mount of Olives is a mountain ridge east of and adjacent to Jerusalem's Old City. While modern scholarship fails to pinpoint the location of the original garden, another place to which Jesus was known to resort was Bethany. His friend Lazarus lived there. Bethany is identified with the present-day West Bank city of al-Eizariya. Bethany was approximately 1.5 miles east of Jerusalem on the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. The traditional site of the Ascension of Jesus is the Mount of Olives, on which the village of Bethany sits.

In the Garden, it is stated in Luke 22:41, that Jesus was a distance of a “stone's cast” from his disciples as he prayed. He could well have been within visual range of the disciples. He might have been within earshot of his disciples. This means that the disciples may have been able to see and hear Jesus while he prayed in the garden.

The Luke account of Jesus' prayer does not seem overly long. That is to say that Jesus' audible prayer may not have lulled them to sleep. The account does state that it was shortly after the prayer ended that Jesus was betrayed. The timeline goes like this: Jesus prayed (however long that was) and returned a short distance to his sleeping disciples. He wakes them and speaks. In Luke 22:47, at the very moment that he was speaking to his disciples, the multitude showed up to arrest him.

In a broader sense, the timeline boils down to: last meal, trip to garden, prayer, betrayal. When the disciples awoke, the crowd was upon them. It is said that Jesus prayed earnestly because he was in an agony. I have to ask, how long is earnestly? The account of Jesus' disciples falling asleep is not attributed to them being up all night and into the wee hours of the morning. A different reason is cited.

Could Jesus have prayed for an hour? I can pray for about a half hour before I run out of things to say. After that, I am just repeating myself. When did they finish the last supper? When did they arrive in the garden, perhaps a mile from the supper location? Was it around seven, eight or nine in the evening? Did Jesus pray until around ten or eleven?

One has no hard evidence upon which to work out the mechanics of the event. The best we can do is to sort of feel our way along the walls of the account as if groping in the dark. We all get a feel for the event when we consider it at length. If Jesus came back from his prayer and was almost immediately arrested, he would not have had time to tell his disciples that an angel showed up to comfort him, or that his sweat was like drops of blood.

The feel is that not all there were asleep. At least part of his prayer was heard and recorded. Someone saw an angel comfort the Lord. Had it been one of the disciples, they would have shaken awake the others to corroborate what they saw. Which of them witnessed the sweating? The disciples had been dealing with finality for hours, they were on overload, and while they 'slept for sorrow', I think that seeing an angel would have kept them awake.

During the death of her father, my wife slept. Sleep helps many to deal with matters that are beyond our control. All of our concern and focus on events can reach a point where there is nothing else the mind can do. Some slept during the prayer in the garden – they had reached that point. Not all slept. Those who sleep miss the angels.

If all the disciples, minus Judas, was asleep. Who saw the angel? The prayer of Jesus took place in a place frequented by him. It was near to Jerusalem and it was near to Bethany. An account from another gospel places an unknown male in a linen cloth at the scene. Who was he? Did the account of blood-like sweat and a comforting angel come from him?

I have written in another study about the unknown man. I conjectured that it could have been a high-ranking Roman or the rich young ruler. Now, in consideration of the garden's proximity to Bethany, I would venture to include Jesus' friend Lazarus.

Saints With Swords

We are still in the last supper. This study is taken from Luke 22:37-38. The meal is over, and before going to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray, Jesus is found in the upper room speaking to his disciples. In the previous study, we saw that Jesus was speaking to Peter. He spoke also to the others.

He told them, in verse 37, “the things concerning me have an end.” In a previous study, I had likened some aspects of Jesus' ministry to the labors of Hercules. In other words, those things which Jesus had to accomplish were determined in advance. It was as if he had a list and was checking them off as he went.

Heal ten lepers: check. Walk on water: check. Raise the dead: check. And now here, in his last supper, with his disciples close about him, he tells them, in verse 37, one last item must be accomplished: “And he was reckoned among the transgressors.” Such were the labors of Christ.

But, what kind of men did he hang with? They were transgressors. That was the type; that was their character. They were a rough bunch, a common crew. At least one zealot was a regular member of his inner twelve. Who were the closest associates of Jesus? There was a doubter, a betrayer, and a fearful denier, just to mention a few. They were ordinary men, not saints.

So, here they were, ordinary men, gathered around their master, sharing a pre-ordeal meal. What kind of men were they? Jesus speaks to them as he always had. Somehow, as was their habit, they missed the point. Jesus had said to them, in verses 35-36, “When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

Did they receive his words intellectually or consider them on a spiritual level? No. Like children, not really understanding, but hoping to please, they took their master's words literally, and looked immediately among themselves for swords. And, guess what – they actually carried swords. They had them with them there at the last supper.

Jesus knew the 'labors' he had to accomplish. He also knew the men he traveled with. He knew his friend Judas would betray him. He knew Thomas would doubt. He knew his most loyal and ardent disciple would ultimately deny him. He knew that Simon was a member of the zealots, a group concerned with the freedom of Israel. Perhaps, Simon was not the only member. They carried weapons.

Being occupied by Rome, I do not imagine they carried them openly. This is an example of Biblical concealed carry. Saints with swords! They carried them from the supper to the garden where we are informed that it was Peter who wielded one of them. He sliced off a man's ear. Pretty Ninja-like for a fisherman.

Jesus knew they carried swords before he said anything. He knew one would be used that very night. He knew the men he chose – every strength and every weakness. What does he know about you?

Who Was Peter?

We think we know him. The lead disciple, a fisherman known as one of the sons of thunder. Instrumental in the formation of the early church, he was a man both passionate and fallible. But, do we really know him? True to our very human nature, we assume; we jump to conclusions. Rarely do we stop to consider what it is we think we know.

This study comes from Luke 22: 31-32. In verse 31, Jesus said something to Peter that he had, in all likelihood, not stopped to consider. Jesus said, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:”

I ask, how might Peter have been 'sifted' had Satan got his wish? What is the thing about sifting? It is a process by which the whole has those parts removed that are most important to the sifter. The remainder is discarded or otherwise negated.

What we see in this is that Peter, the man we thought we knew, had within his nature a mixed bag of characteristics. Some things about Peter were for Jesus, some things for the devil. To know that Peter had such a mixed nature is to know that all of us have such a mixed nature. Peter was '50/50' – he could have gone either way.

At this point, human nature adjusts its thinking about Peter, saying, “well, yeah. He was a man.” Such adjustable reasoning serves only to rationalize the assumptions we have already jumped to. If the reader will look above, he or she will notice that the previous assumption about Peter included as much of his future state as it did his present state. And now, human nature would include new data into its old assumption.

Between the original assumption and the adjusted assumption, the latter is more nearly correct. Should we think that human nature is completely settled in this new, more nearly correct assumption, new sets of data would only garner new adjustments – anything but being proven wrong.

That is a flaw in human nature, a nature that Peter shared. He too was not want to be proven wrong. He thought he was who and where he should be. We are the same. We are comfortable and settled in who and what and where we are – therefore, it is not we that must be adjusted, but the assumption.

Already, we see that what we thought we knew about Peter, and indeed about ourselves, can change in the blink of an eye – can change and yet, somehow, remain the same. We think we are all that, but we are not. We thought Peter was the lead disciple, a mover, and shaker in the early church, a martyr. Peter pretty much thought the same thing.

Jesus followed one startling and disturbing revelation with another. He said to Peter in verse 32, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

New data: Peter, the disciple, the passionate leader of the early church, the humble yet uncompromising martyr – he still needed to be 'converted'. I repeat, he still needed to be converted. Let's take a quick look at the significance of that one word.

The definition goes like this: To modify so as to serve a different function. To turn to another or a particular use or purpose; divert from the original or intended use. To change in character; cause to turn from an evil life to a righteous one. What was Peter's original or intended use – fodder for Satan? When we look at the Peter we think we knew, what do we see – someone who still needed to be converted from evil? Someone who had not yet been converted to righteousness?

What of the rest of us? Are we not in the same boat as Peter? We share the same fallible human nature. All of us jump to conclusions. Even as Peter heard the words of Jesus, he jumped to a conclusion: 'Oh, I'll follow you anywhere, even to the cross'.

Maybe, if we did not make such incomplete assumptions, we would not have to make so many embarrassing adjustments later on.