 
# DID YOU KNOW THIS?! Volume 1

28 words and phrases impacting our understanding of the Scriptures

by

Dr. O. William Cooper

Published by Logos Ministries Inc at Smashwords

Copyright, 1991 - 2011 Logos Ministries, Inc.

eBook Version 20110107

# LICENSE AND COPYRIGHTS

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Scriptures quoted, unless otherwise noted, are from "THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers."

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

License and Copyrights

Table of Contents

In Dedication

Introduction

THIS BODY OF DEATH

JESUS WAS SILENT AT HIS TRIAL

FULFILL THE LAW

THE LEPROSY LAW

MILK AND HONEY

THE HEM OF HIS GARMENT

DO YOU LOVE ME?

THE INN

HE TOOK BREAD

WHERE TWO OR THREE ARE GATHERED

BROKEN LEGS

A HOUSE ON A ROCK

THE PIT

THE PRODIGAL SONS PARABLE

THE FATHER RAN TO GREET HIS SON

THE VERY BEST ROBE

A RING FOR HIS FINGER

THE FATTED CALF

LET'S HAVE A FEAST

DEAD AND ALIVE

THE KISS

SANDALS

FATHER

THE PLEADING FATHER

THE SON'S REFUSAL

DID DAVID DANCE NAKED BEFORE THE ARK?

THE PROTECTION OF MY ROOF

AN EARNEST

JUST SAY THE WORD

Conclusion

About the Author

Endnotes

# IN DEDICATION

To my wife, Ruth, who during the 38 years of our courtship and marriage gave me the freedom to minister, study and write; who saw herself as sharing in ministry with me; who never once during that time ever offered a word of complaint or regret:

To my children, Ruth and Kiel, who accepted the ministry as "ours" when at times it would have been much more fun doing other things:

With deep gratitude, I humbly dedicate this book.

O. William Cooper

# INTRODUCTION

Good writing reflects the culture and ideas of the time in which it was written. The Bible was written in such a way that the culture and the values of that day are reflected appropriately. By this means it is often possible to determine a document's date of authorship. For example, when the writer of Genesis spoke of the well on the road to Egypt, this was a reference to something that everyone in that area recognized. However, we, as modern readers unfamiliar with the terminology and idioms of the times, can only know about these things as we attempt to rediscover the history and customs of that day.

If the term "cold war" were used in an undated, English-language document, we would know that it was written after World War II because we were not aware of the term until then. If an article written in English contained the word "perestroika," we could be quite certain that it was written after 1988. Most had never heard of this Russian word before Mikhail Gorbachev used it to describe the changes he wanted to effect in the Soviet Union.

A sentence may also express some very strong emotional content which the words themselves are unable to convey. For example, the word "depression" spoken to a person born around 1930 would probably cause him to think of bread lines, bank foreclosures, moving in with relatives and being out of work. On the other hand, if born after 1960, that person's first thought might be of a dejected emotional state. Cultural references are a vital part of communication.

We believe that the Bible, according to II Timothy 3:16, is the inspired Word of God. Hebrews 1:1 affirms that God has spoken when it says,

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets... Hebrews 1:1a

The prophets were vessels through whom God revealed Himself to His people. Though it was a voice that we could not identify as tenor or bass, the words of the prophet were a message from God. It was through Isaiah that God spoke to His people Israel about forgiveness, speaking to them through both the words and the personality of the prophet.

"Come now, let us reason together, " says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." Isaiah 1:18

As the epistle to the Hebrews reminds us, God spoke most clearly through His son, Jesus Christ, telling us that He is Love. This idea was expressed by letting us see God's love in the person and life of Jesus Christ, and by a host of illustrations and cultural details which allude to the Father's loving nature. God's people are reminded that He is both loving and just. By allowing them to witness Jesus forgiving the woman taken in adultery, God illustrated His love. He spoke of His justice by letting the Jewish leaders watch Jesus drive the money-changers out of the temple. Therefore, the clearest revelation of the personality and character of God can be seen in the person and life of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Throughout the ages God has spoken through the personalities of men like Abraham, Moses and Joshua, some of His most dedicated servants. The faithfulness of God to His people Israel was illustrated through the experiences which Abraham had with Jehovah; it was through the personality and experience of Moses that God displayed His concern for purity and obedience. Through the leadership of Joshua and the ways in which God dealt with him, the greatness of His power was proclaimed.

God also revealed the inner depths of His own personality and character through the personality and writings of some of His chosen servants. It is no accident that the writings of the Apostle Peter were crisp and fast paced, because that was who Peter was. Yet through that kind of impulsive personality, God was able to reveal some of the most intricate and delicate truths about His own nature.

On the other hand, the Apostle Paul was sharp, concise, logical. You can see this trait of his personality on every page of the epistle to the Romans. Still God was able to take this very logical personality and through it express something of the deep emotion and compassion which is found in the Epistle to the Philippians.

The writing of Luke -- both the Gospel and the Book of Acts -- are filled with pieces of detailed human data characteristic of the physician he was. Nevertheless, God was able to use the meticulous personality of Luke to convey some of the most emotional, human portraits of Jesus to be found in any Gospel.

The nature and human temperament of the writer is distinctive and identifiable; God used them to provide us with delicate, incisive pictures of His own character and personality.

He even used human languages to give us further insight. The romantic, emotional nature of the Hebrew language was an excellent vehicle through which God could reveal something of the intense passion He held for Israel, as well as the burning justice with which He confronted His erring people. It was not accidental that He spoke of these glimpses of Himself through the Hebrew language.

On the other hand, when He wanted to speak in precise, less emotional, almost scientific terms, God chose to use the Greek and Aramaic. The crispness of their expression and incisive precision of their word choices reveal the delicate detail of the doctrine and mode of living that Christians must observe to be a follower of Jesus.

The Greek New Testament is an illustration of this. It uses thirty-seven different words to convey various shades of a word which, in the English versions, is simply translated as "bring." By choosing the Greek and Aramaic languages, God opened a whole palette of specific meanings which would have been extremely limited had He chosen to reveal Himself in the English language. The choice of languages and specific words enabled God to impart a clearer revelation of Himself to the people who love Him.

The people to whom Paul wrote knew him and the cultural background in which his thinking was formulated; thus they were able to grasp cultural references which now elude the casual reader who is not familiar with the Apostle and his culture.

In picking up a Bible, we often encounter words and ideas which do not become clear even with accurate translation. Because we do not know the language in which Paul wrote and are not familiar with the cultural details of that time and locale, we need help in understanding these portions of Scripture. Finding the most accurate translation possible still does not tell us what the text means when speaking about such things as "shaving the front of your head for the dead," as mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:1, 2.

On one occasion Jesus talked about His presence and said, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20). Why, you might wonder, did He choose the numbers "two" or "three?" To what was Jesus referring in this statement? An awareness of Hebrew religious customs and regulations would give insights into this question.

Modern Bible readers tend to gloss over any word or concept which is not a part of their understanding. This results in the fact that many passages are either misunderstood or simply ignored. It happens because the reader lacks an understanding of the cultural meaning and does not know how to find that meaning.

Over the years, people have repeatedly asked questions about some of these terms and ideas which seem to have no meaning for us today. Still others either do not read such passages or believe things that are not true about these Scriptural statements.

As a result of this confusion and the need for understanding, a collection of these words and ideas has been compiled. The intention is to develop an understanding of the words or statements involved. Our hope is that this information will enable the reader to understand portions of the Scriptures more completely and therefore discern God's will more fully.

We are always indebted to those who have taught us either in the classroom or through the things they taught or wrote. We can remember some of these, but never all of them. Many of the ideas in this book were discovered in classrooms, books and trips to the Holy Land. Though I do not remember the names of the works I read or the authors to whom I listened, I gladly acknowledge that I am the beneficiary of the skill and accumulated wisdom of hosts of scholars who preceded me.

Several people have helped with the preparation of this volume. Proof reading was painstakingly pursued by Ms. Marilyn Burns, Ms. Sharon Spicka, and Mr. David Arnes. I am deeply indebted to them. Mr. Tom Houston designed the cover and Dr. Peter Stone assisted with computer design and graphics. Without their help this task would have been much more difficult to complete.

Dr. James Fleming, of Biblical Resources in Jerusalem, has had a major impact on my understanding. I am deeply indebted to him for his great skills.

The bold print in quotations from Scripture was placed there by this author for purposes of emphasis. This is to enable persons to pronounce the words though they do not know the language.

# THIS BODY OF DEATH

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Romans 7:24

This exclamation sounds like a very graphic way of speaking, but the truth is that Paul was referring to a legal situation. Though Paul's readers were aware of that to which he was referring, the modern reader is not.

Just as we, in the American legal system, deal with the crime of murder in terms of first, second and third degree, the Roman legal system described several levels of guilt for this offense. The above verse was referring to one of the most severe punishments of Roman law. The dead body was literally chained to the murderer -- face to face, hand to hand, toe to toe. The condemned man was sentenced to go through the remainder of his life chained to this decaying corpse. Keep in mind the acceleration of the decomposing process in that warm climate; then try to imagine how it would be with this body in front of you while eating or in attempting to talk to your wife and children. Imagine the horror as each day the stench becomes increasingly offensive, bringing alienation from family and friends, depriving you of tenderness or intimacy with another human being. As the decaying corpse becomes rigid -- stiff -- when rigor mortis sets in, sitting down becomes virtually impossible. Sleep escapes you as death permeates every waking moment. Each day the stench grows worse and becomes increasingly more offensive, both to you and everyone around you. Therefore, you are progressively more isolated from family and friends. There is no escape from the reminder of your crime.

The murderer could not avoid breathing in the stench of this decaying body which was his constant companion. It is not difficult to understand that many times the condemned man would lose his mind if he did not first die of inhaled putrefaction.

What a picture of sin! Using his knowledge of Roman legal practice to draw a vivid comparison, Paul had been talking about Christians who sin. Though making a desperate attempt to live a sinless life, Paul became increasingly aware of the fact that the harder he tried, the more frustrating his failure became.

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing. Romans 7:1

Paul felt his sin was as much a burden strapped to him as the decaying body chained to a murderer had been. Oh, how we can identify with Paul's struggle! Forgiven, chosen to follow Jesus, we want to be obedient; but no matter how hard we try, there is still sin in our lives. Then Paul identifies our only hope,

Thanks be to God - Through Jesus Christ our Lord! Romans 7:25

Trying harder never solves the problem of sin in our lives. If there is to be a change, it will have to be the result of what Jesus Christ does in us. There is a conflict raging in the life of every Christian. The law of God does battle with the law of sin. But Paul reminds us in whom our hope lies even when we fail.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1

In reflecting upon our own lives, one can't help but see that struggle of the law of God versus the law of sin. Surely you have felt the frustration of the bondage of the murderer as you tried again and again to eliminate the power of sin in your life.

However, Paul reminds us that as we continue presenting our bodies to God as sacrifices that live, Jesus increasingly becomes the solution to the battle we have lost so often. Remember:

There is now **no condemnation** for those who are in Christ Jesus... Romans 8:1

No more stench! No more dead body to lug around! There is freedom -- total freedom in Christ!

# JESUS WAS SILENT AT HIS TRIAL

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, 'Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?' But Jesus remained silent. Matthew 26:62-63a

Can you imagine a person remaining silent when on trial for his life?

In the above text, Jesus was standing trial before Caiaphas, the High Priest appointed by the Curator Valerius Gratus. His father-in-law, Annas, was the proper High Priest, but Caiaphas was appointed to the position by Roman authorities in order to give Rome some control in the religious affairs of the Jews.

Witnesses and false witnesses were brought before the Sanhedrin; but Jesus said nothing in His own defense. It would have been in the best interest of the Pharisees and other religious leaders if Jesus had defended Himself. Then they might have been able to trap Him into saying something which could have been turned against Him. In utter frustration, Caiaphas blurted out his question to Jesus, "are you not going to answer?"

If you just consider the literal words of the text, it would be easy to misunderstand the meaning of this incident because there are many seemingly logical explanations for Jesus' silence.

It could be that Jesus was just being stubborn by refusing to speak. On the other hand, it is conceivable that He was expressing a strong nationalism by refusing to cooperate with the High Priest appointed by the puppet regime of Rome. Possibly Jesus was communicating a strong determination not to become involved in their attempts to trip Him up. It could just as easily have been His way of manifesting a radical dependence upon God. Each of these suggestions has some degree of possibility and acceptance by readers of the text.

A possibility that seems even more plausible is that Jesus may have been exhibiting a "radical" integrity. By this we mean a voluntary adherence to truth or obedience to the law which is to be observed, not from a fear of detection, but because of one's personal commitment to truth and obedience to the law and the commands of Scripture. A modern example of this is the way many devout Christians seem to observe speed limits out of fear of detection and punishment rather than from a desire to obey the Scriptural command of submitting to those authorities who are placed over them.

Intent on keeping the Law, in Old Testament times the Jews "built a hedge around the law." Because they were so intent on keeping the Law, they went further than the Law required. They established extra-biblical criteria which were more stringent than the law of Moses itself. These Jews felt that if they completely observed these stringent criteria, they would never violate the Law itself.

Look at an illustration of this idea. In Leviticus, there is a clear command from God,

I am the Lord who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy. Leviticus 11:45

The ancient "fathers" would have been asked, "Fine, but what does that mean?" They would have been on the spot, because it was extremely important to obey this command, but God did not give them specifics about it. They, therefore, set down a long list of things that would help their people to keep this very important, but general commandment.

Some of these criteria demand that they were not to touch any "unclean" thing, such as a dead body, for that would make them unclean. They were not to touch or eat any "unclean" food. They were to have no dealings with Gentiles. They were to avoid all contact with tax collectors and sinners (thieves, murderers and prostitutes). Though these criteria are not spelled out in the command to be holy, as far as the Jews were concerned, they were the criteria for fulfilling this injunction.

The term "sinners" was used to describe two groups of people: those who lived an immoral lifestyle, i.e., those guilty of adultery, prostitution or defrauding others; and people who took part in a dishonorable vocation, i.e., tax collecting. Both groups were forever deprived of their civil rights. They could never hold public office; they were excluded from polite society; they were considered in the same category as shepherds, leather workers, donkey-drivers and shyster peddlers. Among the Jews, there were dire consequences for anyone who was personally involved with such people. To have any dealings with them would mean being forever barred from acting as a witness in court.

On a number of occasions, Jesus ate with publicans and "sinners" and associated with Samaritans and other Gentiles. He publicly accepted Zacchaus' invitation to dinner and may have been his over-night guest. This would disqualify Jesus from ever being a witness in court. Jesus had daily contacts, for a number of years, with Levi, Matthew, the tax collector. All of these incidents would forever disqualify Him from witnessing in court, even on His own behalf.

It seems Jesus' radical commitment to truth and obedience to law may have silenced Him at His own trial. It was immaterial to Him whether those in authority would or would not remember to invoke the rule concerning the loss of the right to witness in court through association with tax-collectors, sinners and prostitutes. It would be immaterial to Him. Jesus had knowingly set aside His right to witness in court when He ministered to these needy, outcast people. Thus, Jesus answered questions when required to do so, but did not speak a word in his own defense.

We believe that this is what Philip was explaining to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:32. The Ethiopian wondered at the meaning of these words.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. Isaiah 53:7

# FULFILL THE LAW

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Mt. 5:17, 18

This is part of the Sermon on the Mount, the legal code of the Kingdom of God. There have been some who, in their reading of this passage, have thought of these words as picturesque speech, pleasant sounding words. This they are, but they are more.

We need to ask ourselves some careful questions about what Jesus said. What did He mean when He said he had come to "fulfill" the Law and the Prophets.

First of all, it is appropriate to point out that Matthew is not saying that Jesus terminated the law which God had given Moses at Sinai.

The word which Jesus used was "plaerosai", which means to "fill something completely, to make something totally full". This word could be used to describe that phase of the moon called "full". It could also be used to describe something or someone who is satisfied, having partaken to or beyond the point of satisfaction or comfort. The form of this Greek word is First Aorist Active Infinitive, which leads to a more careful understanding of, "to fill them full once and for all." Kittel adds a very helpful insight when he said,

_It can only mean full measure. The noun, however, underlines the overflowing wealth of the blessing with which Christ accompanies His apostle . 1_

It has to do with weights and measures. The following quote will give you some idea of just how important this was to the Hebrew people.

_If someone's measures, weights or scales are not accurate, they are to take them away from him and are to penalize him with a fine. If someone charges above the going prices, they are to compel him to sell at the market prices. The punishment by heaven] over weights and measures is more severe than the punishment for immorality; he [the guilty person] is as one who denies the exodus from Egypt.[ 2_

"Fulfill" was commonly used in the market place. The people of that day also had trouble with inaccurate measures. The sellers of grain used an omer (just over two and one half quarts) as a common measure. One seller would fill the measure almost to the top, whereas another would fill it level full. This prompted an agreement: their standard measure was to place the Omer in a larger vessel of grain and fill the omer until the grain overflowed on all sides. It was then "fulfilled" or filled full; so the term "full-measure" (plaerosai) was commonly used in the marketplace.

The statement of Jesus about fulfilling the Law and Prophets, was a simile. Just as the grain measure was filled up when it runs over the sides, so the Law was brought to its intended meaning and purpose through the presence and teaching of Jesus Christ.

It is not surprising that the balance of the chapter is a series of illustrations of how the Law was filled to the top of its meaning in Jesus Christ. He used these examples because they were very well known to every person who heard Him speak on this occasion.

Notice the ways with which Jesus demonstrates that He fills the Law "up to the very top". At that time, people thought of the Pharisees as the prime example of obedience to the Law. But Jesus said that one had to go far beyond their observance to be acceptable before God - what a shocking statement!

In Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus uses the illustration of murder. He said,

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder.'...but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Matthew 5:21

The unfulfilled Law forbade the act of murder. The "fulfilled" Law, in Jesus Christ, was more demanding yet. Jesus was saying that the fulfillment of the Law, which He brought, was that we will not only think in terms of the act of murder, we will even seek to be restored to those with whom we have harsh thoughts. This is far more demanding than the forbidding of the actual act of murder.

In Matthew 5:27-30, Jesus deals with the act of adultery. He said,

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27, 28

Again, the old Law forbade the act of adultery. The fulfillment of the Law, which Jesus brought, forbids the thought of adultery. This is a vastly higher standard than the old Law which was given to Moses.

In Matthew 5:31, 32, Jesus deals with the experience of divorce. He said,

It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:31, 32

The old Law required that a man must give his wife a certificate of divorce if he divorced her. He could do that for any reason, even a simple thing such as burning his dinner. The fulfilled Law, which Jesus brought, demanded that divorce no longer be a whim of the husband, but that he be considerate of the wife being sent away. This was totally new and intensely more stringent than the old understanding of the Law.

The old Law forbade the breaking of an oath. Jesus said it this way,

Again you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No'. Anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Mt. 5:33-37

Under the old Law, one need only be careful to keep the oath he made. The fulfilled Law, through Jesus Christ, was far more demanding. He instructed His disciples to live in such a way that the level of their integrity, in the minds of people, would render an oath unnecessary. It required that they and we remember that there is nothing of our own on which to base our oath. Therefore it behooves us not to make one at all.

Again, Jesus offered another example which dealt with the act of revenge. He said,

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:38-42

The old legal system allowed for revenge. The fulfilled Law, which Jesus brought, however, makes it clear that there is no place for revenge. It requires that we seek a way to serve those who harm us and give kindness to those who offer abuse.

Jesus reminded them of the old Law concerning enemies. He said,

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Matthew 5:43, 44

The Law, which Jesus filled to the top, called upon the people of God to return love for hate, prayer for persecution.

Giving to the needy was not a new idea, but Jesus gave it a new perspective when He said to them,

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. ...So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets to be honored by men. Matthew 6:1, 2

In keeping with the old system, some people would give to the poor, but they would have a trumpeter go ahead of them so that everyone would know about the kindness they extended to the needy. Their concern was their reputation, not the need of the destitute. Jesus filled the Law "up to the top" by instructing His disciples to give quietly out of concern for the needy, not for their own image.

Prayer was a vital part of the old Law. Jesus offered His disciples a better way. He said,

When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.... When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Matthew 6:5, 6

Under the old system, the ultimate purpose of some prayers was to make an impression on other people. Jesus filled the Law "up to the top" by insisting that the motive for prayer was fellowship with God and deep concern for human need. It is an experience which is void of personal advantage. This is filling the Law "up to the top".

Jesus continued with this explanation when talking about fasting, about the purpose of riches, about worry and about judging others. In each instance, filling the Law "up to the top" required a greater commitment to God than the previous understanding of the Law.

When Jesus talked about "fulfilling the Law" He was not talking about the termination of the Law. Jesus was saying that He came to invest the Law with every ounce of meaning God intended it to contain; to bring people to a purity of thought as well as of careful action which was always God's will for the people of His Kingdom.

# THE LEPROSY LAW

...When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, 'Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.' Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. 'I am willing,' he said, 'be clean!' and immediately the leprosy left him. Then Jesus ordered him, 'Don't tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.' Lu 5:12b-16

In this particular passage, Jesus was teaching in a Galilean town near the Sea of Galilee. As the text indicates, Jesus met a man with a very advanced case of leprosy.

There are several parts of this brief paragraph which might escape notice. Let us look at each one separately.

In the first part of verse 12, Luke writes,

While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. Luke 5:12a

It appears that Jesus encountered the leprous man in the city. Jewish law, however, required that a person with leprosy had to stay away from every place where uninfected people might be. This was particularly true of the cities or villages. These people were literally ostracized from society, living in caves and confining themselves outside every city or village. They never, under any circumstances, entered an inhabited area. They never encountered anyone except other people with leprosy. If they strayed too close to uninfected people, they would be pelted with stones. This leper was definitely violating the law concerning his confinement.

Luke tells us:

When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, 'Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.' Luke 5:12b

This was unusual. Whenever a person with leprosy encountered a person who was not infected, the leper was required to cry out, "Unclean! Unclean!" It appears that in this instance the leper was so intent on getting Jesus to heal him that he failed to cry out as he was required to do.

According to the text, Jesus did not scold the man for his inappropriate action:

Jesus reached out and touched the man. Luke 5:13a

This would have been a shock to anyone in the village, because no one would ever touch a person who had leprosy, which was highly contagious. To put yourself in serious risk of contracting the disease was forbidden. By the same token, any person who touched an individual who had contracted the disease was ceremonially unclean, and could not participate in the worship of the community until a certain amount of time passed to make sure that they were not infected.

After Jesus healed the man, Jesus gave him a command:

Go show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing. Luke 5:14b

Jesus was referring to a law that every Jew knew quite well.

According to Leviticus 13, it was the priest who examined the leper and pronounced him clean or unclean. The former victim had to present himself to the priest, outside the camp, for his observation. If the priest agreed that the disease had been cured, he would pronounce the patient "clean." At that point the cured person was required to make the prescribed sacrifices.

You will find these requirements in Leviticus 14:

1. Bring two live, clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hissop.

2. Kill one bird over fresh water in a clay pot.

3. Dip the live bird, cedar wood, scarlet yarn, hissop into the blood.

4. The priest must sprinkle the one to be cleansed with blood seven times.

5. The priest would pronounce him clean.

6. The man must wash his clothes.

7. Shave all his hair.

8. Bathe with water;

9. He is now ceremonially clean! With all of this accomplished, and being ceremonially clean, the former leper was still not accepted back into the community. There were still other requirements.

10. Now the healed leper may enter the camp or city, but not his tent or home for seven days.

11. After seven days he must again shave all the hair from his body,

12. Wash his clothes,

13. Bathe with water,

14. He is now clean! However, he then was required to:

a. On the eighth day bring two male lambs, and one ewe lamb one year old. All must be without defect.

b. He must bring an ephah of fine flour, mixed with oil, a grain offering.

c. He must also bring one log of oil (about one half pint).

d. The priest then presented the one to be cleansed and the above offerings at the door of the tabernacle or temple.

e. Then the priest offered one male lamb and the oil as a guilt offering.

f. The lamb and oil was to be waved before the Lord as a wave offering, which was given this name because of the way in which it was performed.

_The offering was placed upon the hands of the offerer, and after putting his hands under those of the offerer, the priest moved the whole backward and forward, constituting a horizontal movement. 3_

g. A lamb was slaughtered at the temple where sin and guilt offerings were slaughtered.

h. The lamb was holy and therefore belonged to the priest.

i. The priest must place some of the blood on the lobe of the cured man's right ear, on his right thumb, and on the big toe of his right foot.

j. The priest took some of the oil in the palm of his hand.

k. The priest shall dip his right forefinger into the oil and sprinkle it before the Lord seven times.

l. The priest was to put some of the remaining oil on right ear lobe, right thumb, right toe, on top of the blood that was already there.

m. The priest placed the remaining oil on the head of the one to be cleansed.

n. This sacrifice and anointing was to make atonement for the victim.

o. The priest then offered the sin offering for the victim.

p. The priest then slaughters the burnt offering, which could be a young bullock, a ram, or a he-goat. This sacrifice was given this name because the animal was to be completely consumed, by fire, with the exception of the skin. This offering was a symbol of entire surrender to God.

q. This is offered on the altar with the ephah of flour, to make atonement for the victim.

r. He is now pronounced clean!

There is another procedure if the person is poor.

1. Take one male lamb as guilt offering.

2. Take a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil.

3. Take a log of oil -- one half pint.

4. Take two doves or two young pigeons -- one for a sin offering, one for a burnt offering.

5. Otherwise the instructions are the same.

These few words of instruction which Jesus gave the healed leper, set in motion a very long and involved procedure. By touching the leprous man, Jesus made it very clear that He was more concerned about the man than about the disease. Remember, the purpose of this was not so the person would be healed of his disease; that was already accomplished.

Go show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them. Luke 5:14

Jesus was clearly using this miracle not only to heal the man, but also to witness to the priests. He wanted them to know that there was one present who could heal such devastating diseases.

# MILK AND HONEY

So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey - the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Ex. 3:8

Do you remember the first time you read these words in the Bible? I remember quite well! I thought that it was a slick paper, beautiful picture, Chamber of Commerce-type of description. In fact, it is a hyperbole -- an exaggeration intended not to deceive, but to stress a truth God wants to convey.

Notice that God used two different means to describe the area:

1. Tribal names that one can find on a map

2. The hyperbole intended to describe the area.

This map of the area pinpoints where these different groups were located. It will identify the location of the area God had in mind. The area above the dotted line, to the left, is "honey; the area below the line, to the right, is "milk." Did you ever say something like this: "I couldn't have done that in a thousand years"? Who has a thousand years to do anything? The message that this statement was intended to convey was, "I would never have been able to do that." God was not saying that there would be milk or sticky honey running down the hillsides of Canaan. He was saying that this was the kind of area He was giving to Israel.

This "milk and honey" phrase was used by God when He spoke to Moses from the burning bush in Exodus 3:8. The phrase appears in eight different Old Testament books for a total of 20 times. It apparently is not used in the New Testament.

"The land of milk and honey" was not irresponsible exaggeration. It was a symbolic way to describe exactly what the land was like. The words "milk" and "honey" were carefully chosen. Each is a very graphic way to describe the lands and their people in Israel. Both groups have characteristic types of land and people.

MILK

This group tends to be located in the south and south-east. The land is usually very low; the climate very hot. Qumram and the Dead Sea area are typical of the "milk" region. The weather is seriously affected by the fact that their land is located where two deserts meet -- the Arabian Desert on the east and the Sahara desert on the south.

These are desert people. They have three basic characteristics:

1. They are very unpredictable.

2. They are very lonely and quiet because they cannot survive if they live close together.

3. Life for them is most exhausting. The heat is intense and draining. The work is drudgery. The life expectancy of the people was short and less predictable, male, 45 years; female, 35 years. Most other Arabs have five to seven children per family, but these people have an average of one child per family.

The land in this region is quite barren and the soil very poor. Without heroic efforts, it is nearly impossible to grow crops in this area. Therefore these people are herdsmen who raise an assortment of sheep and goats. It is from these goats that they get the milk from which they make cheese, a major source of nourishment for the people.

HONEY

The other group was called "honey." This group was located in the north and western part of Palestine. They receive about 20 to 40 inches of rainfall annually. One needs only 11 inches of rain to grow winter wheat. In fact, there are areas of that land where two or more crops of grain are harvested each year.

The land is relatively high when compared with the Dead Sea, the lowest place on the face of the earth. The soil is very rich and fertile; the weather temperate. It is very easy to grow beautiful crops there.

The people in the area are quite different from those in the milk area. They too have general characteristics:

1. They are a gregarious, noisy people who tend to live in large cities, as opposed to those who live in the south. The largest cities in Palestine are in the honey area.

2. The "honey" people tend to be very predictable. You usually know how they will act and react. It is not surprising that the gods they served were as predictable as the people were.

3. Life was easier for them as opposed to the exhausting life of their neighbors to the south and east. The "honey" people had time for leisure and enjoyment.

4. They also had the disadvantage of being in the area of Palestine where devastating armies always plundered. In Megiddo there are at least 20 levels of cities that had been built and then destroyed by invading armies as they went across "The way of the Sea" to attempt military supremacy.

Even today, these farmers grow just about all the food Israel needs and in some cases they have a surplus to export.

Life for the "honey" people is less tenuous than it is for the "milk" people. The "honey" people - people of the North -- tended to live considerably longer, also. Men might be expected to live to the age of 55 while women might be expected to live for 45 years. Galilee falls within the area of "honey."

Remember, God was responding to the cry of Israel against the abuse of the Egyptians. He gave Moses both a promise for the present and a hope on which to pin his expectations of the future. God is like that. He is sensitive to the cry of the abused. God provides great blessing to those who have suffered great loss.

When God spoke of "milk and honey," it was a figure of speech to describe the kind of land He was going to give Israel as they came out of Egypt.

# THE HEM OF HIS GARMENT

A woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because, she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.' Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. Mark 5:25-29

This is sometimes called the miracle on the way to a miracle. The story is found in each of the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew 9:20, Luke 8:43, and Mark 5:25. Notice what Mark says,

A woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. Mark 5:25

In Leviticus 15, there are instructions concerning a woman who has "a discharge of blood other than her period" or "beyond her period." In both of these instances, the instructions are the same.

She is unclean as long as the discharge continues. In the case of the woman in Mark 5, she had been unclean for 12 years. She had been barred from all forms of worship for 12 years.

Leviticus 15 also says that anything she touched would be unclean. This would mean that her husband had also been unclean for 12 years and barred from any experience of worship and even from the mandatory feasts. This was unthinkable for any Jew of that day. If this woman had a son under thirteen years of age, he would not have been able to prepare for his bar-mitzvah and could not have taken part if he had been prepared. He would have been as ostracized as his father.

This woman had been a social outcast for 12 years. She could not go to market to buy food because her money would make others unclean. She could not go to the well to get water and talk with the other women of the community because she would have made them unclean, a situation that would have been intolerable for their husbands. No one would have anything to do with her. No one would visit her home; she was welcomed in no home in the community. She was totally ostracized from everyone and everything in her community.

It was in these dire straits, whatever their specific nature, that this outcast woman decided to come to Jesus for help. Notice that she came up behind Him. This is not the height of confidence. She knew that on these narrow, busy streets, every person who bumped into her would become unclean. This would make them very angry. She knew that if she achieved her goal of touching Jesus' cloak or "the hem of his garment", Jesus would also be made unclean.

Did you ever wonder why she wanted to touch the hem of His garment? Or did you ever wonder what is the "hem of his garment? In the time of Jesus, every Jewish man wore a garment which had no seam - it was woven in one piece throughout. This was called his tunic. In Deuteronomy, you will find these words,

Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear. Deuteronomy 22:12

It was this fringe that this woman was determined to touch. This "tsitsit," as this undergarment is called, had great meaning in that society. Very strict Jewish men today will not discuss Torah with a man who does not wear the "tsitsit". The more important the man, the longer the fringe and the more flowing his robes. The fringe of the "tsitsit" was a man's symbol of authority and position in the community. By the early Middle Ages, Jewish men no longer wore the long flowing robes. They then designed a very short "tsitsit" which is still worn, and a talis, a shawl-like garment which is worn by the men at worship. Both are used, by very conservative Jews, to this day.

We must be clear. The fringe had no mystical, magical power of its own. It was the symbol of the man's power in the community. There is record, however, of another situation recorded in Mark, where the people touched the hem, the fringe of Jesus' garment, and they were healed. This is also found in Matthew 14:36. When Jesus was in Gennesaret, the people brought out the sick and all who touched the hem or fringe of His garment were healed.

Notice what Mark tells us about this woman's medical care,

She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. Mark 5:26

For centuries it was thought that diseases were in the blood. In order to get rid of the disease, they felt that they had to get rid of that blood. The practice of blood-letting was widely known in the time of Jesus. Incidentally, it continued until the 18th century. We know that George Washington received this treatment for some of his medical problems.

The woman's problem was that she had an issue of blood. The result of this condition would be that she was tired and weak all the time. When one doctor could not help her, she went to another doctor. This doctor would also believe that the disease was in the blood and cut her to release the disease. This would only make her weaker than she already was. Each doctor would in turn do the same procedure, collect his fee and leave her worse than she had been when she came to him.

The "hem" or "fringe" that this poor woman touched was the tassel which was added both to the bottom of his "tsitsit" or undergarment as well as the cloak or outer garment which Jewish men wore. It was the symbol of His power and position in the community. It was her way of saying that Jesus was a man of great power and she could benefit from that power if she could just touch the symbol of His power.

# DO YOU LOVE ME?

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?' 'Yes, Lord' he said, 'You know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs.' John 21:15

Most of us are very impressed with the tension Peter experienced when Jesus asked him three times if he loved Him. I don't know about you, but if someone asked the same precise question of me two times in a row, I would wonder what was happening. I would begin to question in my mind if they thought I had not told the truth the first time. But if they asked me the same personal, penetrating question three times in a row, I am certain that my tension level would be extremely high.

Most of the time, however, people do not look carefully at the question Jesus asked of Peter. Jesus said to him, "Do you love me more than **these**?" Just what did He mean by the word "these"? There is no way to be certain. The context of this experience is a fishing situation. Jesus may have asked Peter if he loved Jesus more than the vocation to which he had given the earlier part of his life. On the other hand, the two of them were close by the rest of the disciples. In view of the fact that Peter had promised that he would never deny Jesus and then did so anyway, it is just as possible that Jesus meant the other disciples when He used the word "these".

Jesus asked Peter the question three times. Why three times? We are all familiar with the fact that Peter denied Jesus three times. It could be that it was a way to identify the source of Jesus' questions about just how committed Peter was to his Lord. If you deny me three times, perhaps I need to emphasize the question of faithfulness three times. Another reason may have to do with the Jewish Law, noted in Deuteronomy 17:6, that truth was confirmed not by the word of one witness, but by the word of two or three witnesses. It is just possible that Jesus was establishing the witness of Peter concerning his relationship to Jesus by asking the same questions three times.

There is still another possibility. If you look at the question in your English Bible, it appears that the question was exactly the same three times in a row. The truth is that it was the same only twice. This does not mean that the translators did a poor job. It is, rather, that our language does not have the depth of expression which is present in the Greek.

When Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me?" Jesus used the word "agapae." This word describes a selfless form of love that is not caused by an act of kindness on the part of someone else, nor is it extinguished by someone's error. It comes from within. It is to love totally without any thought of response. It is a love that has no boundaries. John expresses something of the greatness and limitlessness of this form of love when he said, "God is love." I John 4:8. "Agapae" love is an expression of the character of God, reflected in human relationships.

Peter's response seems direct enough.

Yes, Lord, You know that I love you. John 21:15b

This answer, in the Greek text, however, is substantially different in its meaning. Peter used the word "phileo." This word has more to do with tender affections. The Greeks understood it well when they compounded the word with another, "adelphos," which means "brother." From this combined word we get our phrase "brotherly love." It is a tender affection, a very human emotion, but it has definite limits. In fact, on one occasion Jesus said,

The man who loves (phileo) his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:25

It was His way of saying that this was a form of love which was unworthy in terms of eternal values. It might be accurate to say that Peter replied, "Yes, Lord, you know that I like you." Peter was trying to give a positive answer without telling a falsehood. He did not really answer the question which Jesus asked. By his answer, Peter really changed Jesus' question. Jesus asked, "Do you love me without reservation?" Instead of speaking about unconditional love, Peter spoke of brotherly love which is intense, but has definite limits. Peter had to change the word because he did not love Jesus unconditionally, but he did have great affection for Jesus.

Notice Jesus' response:

Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs.' John. 21:15c

Whatever the level of our love and commitment to Jesus Christ, there is a correspondent responsibility that goes with it.Lambs are the most vulnerable part of the flock. Jesus was saying that even if we just love Him in the way that Peter did (phileo), we must give ourselves to care for the vulnerable of His people.

Feeding literally means herding, one who pastures or provides fodder for sheep. It is the important task of initiating and maintaining the health and growth of the flock.

Again, Jesus confronted Peter:

'Simon son of John, do you truly love me?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Take care of my sheep.' John 21:16

Jesus gave Peter a second opportunity to deal with his relationship with Him. He used the same word, "agapae," to ask Peter if he loved Him without reservation; to inquire if he refused to place limits upon his love for Jesus.

Peter was again on the spot. He answered in the same manner as before. He said, in effect, "Yes, Lord, you know that I **like** (phileo) you." The text gives no indication, but the tensions in this conversation must have been much higher by this time.

Jesus could not have been thrilled with the response, but still reached out to His beloved friend, saying to Peter, "take care of my sheep." John 21:16b. In this second charge, Jesus addresses Peter's attention to the sheep. These are more mature than the lambs. Nevertheless, all of the flock needs the gentle care. "Take care" (poimaino) comes from the word "shepherd" (poimen). The idea of shepherding, as opposed to feeding, includes the whole range of responsibilities for the care of sheep: discipline, authority, protection, restoration, as well as feeding.  Jesus challenges Peter to express the depth of his affection by the investment of himself in the care and nourishment of the children of God, whatever the stage of maturity.

A third time Jesus confronts Peter concerning the exact depth of his commitment:

The third time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, 'Do you love me?' He said, 'Lord, you know all things, you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my sheep.' John 21:17

In this third confrontation, Jesus asked a different question. Jesus said, "Do you love (phileo) me?" Jesus completely changed His question. He had been asking whether Peter loved Him with a limitless, God-like love. Failing to receive a positive reply on two occasions, Jesus came down to the level where Peter lived and asked Peter's question, "Peter, do you **like** (phileo) me?" It is a brotherly kind of limited love. Do you love me with the very human, limited, responding kind of love? Jesus was so patient. He was willing to accept Peter's affection at whatever level it could be shared.

But Peter was hurt (lupeo). This Greek word literally means to be deeply grieved; to experience intense pain and sorrow. There is an interesting question here. Was Peter hurt because Jesus asked the question three times or was he hurt because on the third question Jesus came down to the word "phileo" as Peter had, thus exposing the low level of his love for Jesus? We must exercise great generosity here, because the text is not conclusive. My own inclination is to understand the statement to mean that Peter experienced great pain because Jesus finally came down from the use of the word "agapae" to the word "phileo" in order to force both the question and the answer to deal with the same issue. In this dramatic exchange, I am struck deeply by the awesome expression of the patience and grace of Jesus, demonstrated toward Peter.

Jesus' response to Peter's painful confession is as dramatic as it is loving, Jesus said:

Feed my sheep. John 21:17c

The word "feed" (boskae) is exactly the same word Jesus used when He said "feed my lambs." Again, the word "sheep" is exactly the same word Jesus used when he said, "shepherd my sheep." No matter the level of maturity, God's people still need to be nurtured; they need total care.

I identify with this experience because it is my story told in Peter's life. I expect that it is your story as well. It is extremely important for us to come to grips with exactly how much we really love Jesus. By the same token, it is just as important for us to understand that no matter to what level we have come in our commitment and devotion, Jesus accepts us there and challenges us to reflect His love to others as our commitment frees us to be His servants.

# THE INN

And she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Luke 2:7

We tend to think of "the inn" as a first-century motel. The word used to describe such a place does not appear in Luke 2:7. The word translated "inn" is "kataluma," which means a guest chamber. It is a room on the roof of a Jewish, flat-roofed, private home, where guests were housed and where the family often slept in times of unusually high temperatures.

There are a number of passages, in both the Old and New Testaments that give insights into what an "inn" was and what it was not.

The Gospel of Luke is very helpful in describing the use of this word:

All the people saw this and began to mutter, 'He has gone to be the guest (kataluma) of a sinner.' Luke 19:7

The people of Jericho began to murmur because Jesus had accepted the hospitality of a tax collector named Zacchaeus. In this instance, the word "guest," "katalusai," suggests one who has accepted the hospitality of another. This has caused some scholars to wonder if Jesus had agreed to be the overnight guest of Zacchaeus and used the "kataluma," the cool upper room, to stay for the night as well as be his guest for dinner.

Luke gives further reference to this word:

And say to the owner of the house, 'The teacher asks: where is the guest room (katalusai) where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' Luke 22:11

Notice that the word "katalusai" is used to identify both a "guest" and a "guest room." This very familiar text identifies the fact that the upper room, where Jesus and His disciples observed the Passover, was exactly the same kind of place where Luke tells us there was no room for Mary and Joseph among the relatives of Joseph.

There is another kind of facility which may well have been used at the time of Jesus' birth. It was a "pandocheion" in Greek or "caravanserai" in Eastern languages. "Pandocheion" is a compound word: Pan, meaning "all," and "docheion" meaning to receive; to receive all. It was a place to receive strangers; a place where caravans might stop; a place where beasts of burden could be unloaded and sheltered. This word was used in Luke 10:34, where the Good Samaritan took the injured traveler to an "inn".

Our text does not tell us where Jesus was born. Luke 2:12 indicates that after his birth, Jesus was placed in a manger. This would fit the picture of the conditions of Jesus' birth previously described.

The Old Testament description gives a similar impression of what we call an "inn." Our translations of Joshua 2:1 and 6:22 speak of Rahab as a "prostitute." However, the Targum, an Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, speaks of her as an "innkeeper." The Mishnah, the philosophical law code written around 200 A.D. and upon which the Talmud was based, places an innkeeper as the lowest on the scale of degradation, even lower than a shepherd. This provides us with some idea of the reputation that an "inn" had at that time. At least in part, it was because of this evil reputation that Jews and even early Christians stressed the need to show hospitality to strangers - Hebrews 13:2.

Look at Joseph's life. The fact that he was a carpenter and stone cutter suggests that he probably came from a poor family. The carpentry trade was not lucrative. Joseph was probably as poor as the rest of his family. He could not have afforded to stay at an inn if he had wanted to do so.

Look also at the facts we have of Joseph's family. The text states that Caesar Augustus decreed that everyone should go to his own "town" or city. This meant that every relative of Joseph's from all over Palestine had to come to Bethlehem to be registered in this tax census. Nearly everyone who lived in Bethlehem would be part of the family and clan of Joseph. Family members would be insulted if a relative would come to town and stay at an "inn," a place of ill-repute, rather than use their upper room. It would be like going to visit one's parents and refusing their guest room in favor of a motel.

On the other hand, the fact that Mary was ready to give birth to her child and that her marriage with Joseph had not been legally consummated might have incensed his family. In such a situation, they could easily have refused the hospitality of the family. We will never know for certain what the reason for their refusal was.

It appears that although the city was bulging with returning members of Joseph's family, there might have been a place available for them to stay. However, we must remember that Mary was due to give birth to her baby. Even though there might have been enough room for sleeping, there probably was not enough room or privacy for her to give birth to her baby.

If you think about it, you realize even in His birth Jesus found a place among the outcasts and sinners of His society. Being the house guest of Zacchaeus and Levi was not so different from what Jesus experienced at His birth.

# HE TOOK BREAD

And he took bread, gave thanks and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19

Did you ever wonder why Jesus chose bread for what we call "the Lord's supper" or "communion"? Every kind of food on the Passover table had symbolic significance, but Jesus chose bread and wine. This suggests that Jesus had something very specific in mind when He made this choice.

Some have suggested that there was no special significance at all in the choices Jesus made. They take this one step farther and update it to our culture and times. The result is that they then feel free to be more "creative" in the ways in which they serve communion. In these services, often with youth groups, there is no telling what symbols they will use in this celebration.

I believe it was a symbolic choice that Jesus made and His disciples understood exactly what Jesus was trying to say. I believe it makes every difference in the world whether we use bread and wine or "coke" and potato chips.

Jesus could have chosen from a whole array of food that they commonly ate at Passover, but He didn't. He could have chosen the meat or the shank bone from the Passover meal to symbolize the mercy of God when the angel passed over the Hebrew homes that had sprinkled blood on their door-posts.

He could have chosen the charoseth. This is a mixture about the consistency of mortar which it symbolized. It would have reminded them of the mercy of God who delivered them from making the clay bricks for Pharoah by bringing them out of Egypt altogether.

He could have chosen the bitter herbs. This was a part of the Passover meal to remind them of just how bitter life was for their ancestors in Egypt.

Jesus could have chosen the salt water. It was a symbol of the power and mercy of God who brought Israel through the Red Sea, a body of salt water.

Jesus could also have chosen the hard-boiled egg. It was a reminder to the people of Israel, at each Passover, of just how hard the heart of Pharoah became when the confrontation with Jehovah took place concerning the plagues.

There were also green vegetables, or parsley, that Jesus could have chosen to remind them of the grace of God that had promised to make of them a new nation.

Jesus could have chosen any of these symbolic foods from the Passover meal, but He did not. Jesus had something else in mind when He chose bread.

Bread was also a part of the Passover meal. On that occasion, the unleavened bread was a symbol of the haste with which their fathers had left Egypt. They left so quickly that they could not take time for their bread to rise.

Bread suggested several different symbols to the Jewish mind. It was the symbol of abundance that the Jewish family remembered each Sabbath as they ate bread and drank wine, giving thanks for the bounty with which God had blessed their home.

Bread reminded them of the victor's meal which Melchizadek served to Abraham as he returned from releasing his nephew, Lot, and brought back all the goods that the Eastern alliance of kings had taken from Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 14:18.

Jewish people used a great deal of symbolism in every part of their lives. There is one more symbol attached to bread which appears to be most significant in what Jesus was trying to convey as He chose to use bread in this memorial. Jewish people had three or four ways to symbolize forgiveness.

1. The "kiss of forgiveness". This was mentioned in the discussion of the Prodigal Son.

2. The sharing of salt. Salt was one of their most valuable possessions. It was also thought of as a purifying agent.

3. A Jewish person should take the person who needs to be forgiven into his house and invite him to receive his hospitality.

4. Eat a meal with the person who needs to be forgiven. It is important to remember, at this point, that for these people to eat a meal and "to break bread" were one and the same thing. This was because they did not have knives and forks as we do. They broke off a piece of bread and this became their eating utensil. Bread was their basic symbol of forgiveness. It was this very idea that caused Joseph to identify himself to his brothers and then sit down with them in private to eat a meal. Joseph's forgiveness of his brothers was sealed by eating a meal; by breaking bread together. You will remember that he also put his arms around them and kissed them. These are additional expressions of forgiveness and trust.

When Jesus took the loaf and broke bread and gave it to the disciples, He was both offering them total forgiveness and sealing a covenant, which He was about to make with them.

The disciples did not know, at this point, just how much they were going to need the forgiveness of Jesus. Remember that after the resurrection, Jesus ate with His disciples time after time. They needed to know that they were forgiven even though they had all denied Jesus.

Eating with the guilty person is the strongest expression of forgiveness a Jew could receive. It was an acknowledgement of his guilt and an affirmation of his release from that guilt. Jesus wanted His disciples to know that they had failed, but He was more intent that they know that He had forgiven them. He made this clear by offering them bread.

When Jesus met Zacchaeus, He said,

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus,come down imme-diately, I must stay at your house today." Luke 19:5

It was not that Jesus had nowhere else to stay. Jesus wanted him to know with certainty that he was forgiven. To eat with him was a symbol of that reality.

When Jacob took his family and left town, Laban chased him for three days. After scolding Jacob for leaving the way he did, Laban said,

"Come now, let's make a covenant, you and I, and let it serve as a witness between us"...So they took stones and piled them in a heap, and they ate there by the heap. Genesis 31:44, 47

Eating with a person was both a sign of forgiveness and the seal of a covenant. This is precisely what Jesus was talking to them about all during supper.

It appears that Jesus chose the bread of the Passover to be part of his celebration with the disciples, so that they could be absolutely certain of their forgiveness.

# WHERE TWO OR THREE ARE GATHERED

Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. Matthew 18:19, 20

In the Jewish community, "minyan" is very important. The word "minyan," as found in Ezra 6:17, literally means "number." It is used today, as it was in Jesus' time, to identify the number of Jewish men necessary to conduct a service of worship. Some Jewish scholars hold that "minyan" dates back at least to the time of Ruth and Boaz. The Old Testament book of Ruth contains information about their wedding. In that account the author wrote:

Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, 'Sit here' and they did so. Ruth 4:2

Roughly speaking, "minyan" describes the makeup of a "congregation." It represents the ingredients, what it takes to make up a congregation, the changing of a private meeting into a public one.

The Jewish community usually understands "minyan" to mean ten Jewish men. I have attended a Torah service where at the stated time of beginning only eight Jewish men and two Gentiles were present. We stood and talked for half an hour. Phone calls were made, and when the remaining two Jewish men arrived, the service began.

There was value in the minyan rule. In small Jewish communities, two men who otherwise might avoid each other would be forced to be together to share the blessings of worship and perhaps iron out their differences.

The number which constitutes "minyan" has not always remained the same. The generally accepted "minyan" is ten Jewish men, but local custom has dictated as few as six. In the Jerusalem Talmud, "minyan" is defined as nine Jewish men and a Torah scroll present. The Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, dictates that nine Jewish men and the Ark join together to form "minyan." Still other combinations are suggested for different situations.

_The illustrious twelfth-century French authority Rabbenyu Tam, grandson of Rashi, commented on the apparently popular practice of counting a minor as part of a 'minyan' if the boy held a chumash (Pentateuch) in his hand. 13_

In a large city like Jerusalem, "minyan" would certainly be 10 Jewish men. In some of the very small villages and hamlets, like Nazareth, "minyan" might be as few as six.

Imagine the shock and surprise when Jesus said:

Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. Matthew 18:19, 20

This quotation raises some questions. If God, in Jesus Christ, is omnipresent, then why does Jesus use the stipulation "where two or three are gathered together" when He is everywhere present all the time? God, in Jesus Christ, is omnipresent. Jesus was not speaking so much in terms of theology as He was of worship. He was not saying He would stay away until at least two have come together. He was saying, "My presence is not legalistically determined by number, but by relationships." We will say more about this later.

Jesus spoke quite specifically. Why did He choose the numbers two or three? Why didn't he choose one? Or four?

There is no fellowship involved with a single person. There is also no verification. It is not coincidental that Deuteronomy speaks in this manner:

On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Deuteronomy 17:6

This passage establishes two or three witnesses as verification for truth. Jesus was establishing "minyan" for those who were His disciples. Jesus was not finding fault with Jewish "minyan." He was defining a worship relationship with God for His followers. Two is enough to establish a level of fellowship among Christian people. It is few enough to foster the idea of personal worship.

Keep in mind that Jesus' announcement in Matthew 18:20 is part of the paragraph of Matthew 18:15-20. The subject of that paragraph describes how to deal with a Christian brother who sins. A situation of fellowship is established when you and the erring Christian brother come together. You need no one else. Jesus' changing of the rules concerning the number required to worship had to be a terrible shock to the disciples who listened to Him.

He changed the whole concept of "minyan." Up until this time, "minyan" consisted simply of counting the qualified Jewish men who were present. Jesus changed the provision from numbers to relationships.

"Minyan", for the Christian, was dependent upon the quality of two relationships. There needed to be enough Christians present to establish a relationship of praise and thanksgiving with God. One person can worship God, but when two or more are praising God and giving Him thanks, the "truth" of their worship is also established. There also needed to be enough Christians present to establish a relationship of fellowship and unity with one another. One person can praise God and have fellowship with Him, but that person cannot have unity and fellowship with other Christians by himself. It takes at least two to meet this criteria.

Jesus has given the disciples, and those who challenged Him, a glimpse of just how great God's desire is to re-establish fellowship and a relationship of praise with those whom He has redeemed. It was God who initiated this change, not man. It was God, in Jesus Christ, who reached out to mankind to reopen the relationship.

Jesus was not talking about numbers, but relationships. When His people, whatever their numbers, gather to praise and give thanks to God and share unity and fellowship with each other, Jesus is present!

# BROKEN LEGS

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. John 19:31

This sounds like a grotesque request on the part of the Jews. Just imagine a living person having his legs intentionally broken. There was no anesthesia - no care provided. The legs were smashed or twisted until they broke while the person was hanging on the cross. The question that forces itself into our minds is, "Why would they do such a thing?"

The reason for the request to break the legs of the victims on the cross comes out of the Jewish religion and tradition. It was the time of the preparation for their Passover. As you may know, the preparations for Passover were extensive. They had to make sure that there was no leaven in their household. In order to accomplish this, they had to take a tour of the whole house to search for it. They could not have certain grains in their house, and they were to eat specific things for Passover. All of this was symbolic; all of it to impress upon the minds of the Jewish people the greatness of the gift of God when the angel of death passed over the homes of the Hebrew people where there was blood on the doorposts, while at the same time killing the first-born sons in Egyptian households where there was no lamb's blood on the doorposts.

For the Hebrew, to touch a dead body would make him unclean. To have a dead or dying body on the cross over Passover would be a source of uncleanness for their whole community. No one would be able to observe Passover unless the bodies were taken down from the crosses. This presented a problem. It was almost sundown and the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves were still hanging on crosses. In order to carry out the death sentence, the body could not be taken down from the cross unless the Roman officers had verified that the person was indeed dead. They had to hurry the dying along in order to be able to observe the Passover.

This was not a new request. It had happened before when the crucifixions interfered with the arrival of Sabbath, especially a festival such as Passover. The practical solution to the problem was to find a way to hasten death. The breaking of the victims' legs came in at this point to solve the problem.

Many people think that Jesus and the other two prisoners died from having the nails driven through their wrists and ankles. That would create excruciating pain, but it would not necessarily cause death. Death was not produced by the nails through the hands and feet. It was far more tragic than that. The Roman soldiers were masters of torture. The gruesome idea behind crucifixion was that by stretching out the arms and then allowing the whole weight of the body to be suspended from those arms made it difficult for the person to breathe. A degree of upward force could be exerted by the legs to keep the weight off the arms and enable the prisoner to continue breathing. The more tired the prisoner became, the more weight was applied to the arms and the less able the prisoner was to breathe. Eventually the prisoner would suffocate and die. This was an excruciating death. If the legs were broken, the prisoner would not be able to use his legs to support himself and thus suffocate more quickly.

It was on this account that the Jews requested that the legs be broken and thus hasten the death of the prisoners. Some scholars have suggested that the Jewish leaders were in fact being merciful by hastening the death, but it might have been difficult to convince the prisoners of that idea.

The whole process gives an added dimension to our understanding of what Jesus endured on our behalf. Pondering these facts it is not at all difficult to understand what was going on in the mind of Jesus when He said,

Abba Father... everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will. Mark 14:36

# A HOUSE ON A ROCK?

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against the house; yet it did not fall because it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the streams rose and the winds blew and beat against the house and it fell with a great crash. Matthew 7:24-27

You may remember, as I do, singing a chorus in Sunday School in which the words were a summary of the story recorded above: "The wise man built his house upon a rock..." I liked the chorus because it had a catchy tune, and I especially liked the motions we did as we sang it. When I was a bit older, I remember singing the chorus and enjoying it a little bit less because it raised some questions in my mind, such as:

1. Why is it wise to build a house on a rock, but foolish to build a house on sand? (There were several people, whom I considered very wise, whose homes were built on sand.)

2. Why does this song deal with rains? What difference would rain make?

3. Why would anyone build his house in a flood area in the first place?

4. Why would a house, built on sand, fall down, but a house built on a rock would not?

Have you ever asked these questions? I did not understand what Jesus' story was about, but the multitude, who listened to the Sermon on the Mount, knew exactly what He was saying. In the time of Jesus, people in the cities of Israel lived in houses; people who lived away from cities lived in tents. I do not think I ever saw a tent in all of Israel pitched on top of a hill. They were always pitched in a "wadi," which is the area where two hills meet, or as the dictionary defines it, "valley, ravine or watercourse that is dry except in the rainy season."

Israel does not have four seasons as we do in America. The countries of the Near East have only two seasons: a rainy season, from January through March or April, and a dry season for the rest of the year. That part of the world does not have much rain, but when it does rain, the water poses a problem. In the area where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they might have only two inches of rain in a whole year. In the desert regions, the land is either nearly barren rock with very little dirt covering it, or soil which is almost totally sand. Therefore, when it does rain, very little moisture soaks into the ground. Nearly all of it runs off. Even with only an inch or two of rain, severe flash floods can occur.

Because of this fact, the Bedouins never pitch their tents in the bottom of a wadi during the winter, but rather above the water line to protect themselves from flash floods that are a part of the rainy season every year. If they did not, their tents would be washed away. These tents, however, are set up below the crest of the hill to protect them from the fierce, cold winds that come every winter.

To begin with, in almost every instance you know that the bottom of a wadi is going to be the center of a flash flood each year during the rainy season. The silt that you see on the bottom of a wadi is the debris left in the wake of the flood. It is not really safe to pitch a tent, or build a house, less than ten or twelve feet above the silt and debris left following the flood of the previous year. This picture gives you an idea of how the floods leave silt and debris on the bottom of the wadi.

A stranger or a local person who is not too wise, might see the sand and think that it would be a very comfortable place to pitch a tent because it is so flat and smooth. An experienced person would know better.

Jesus used this story to draw a parallel between those who practice the errors about which He taught and the wise man who heard His teachings and obeyed them. Jesus also used the story to draw a parallel between people who heard Him but did not practice what He had taught, and the man who would foolishly build his house on the sand that seemed so safe, but was really an invitation to disaster.

# THE PIT

'Here comes that dreamer' they said to each other. 'Come now, let's kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns, and say that a ferocious animal devoured him. Then we'll see what comes of his dreams. Genesis 37:19, 20

My first encounter with this passage was in the King James Version where it says "pit" instead of "cistern." I can remember, as a child, wondering why Joseph didn't just climb out of the "pit" and escape. I thought of the "pit" as something like a triple-deep basement that would be hard to get out of, but not impossible. These cisterns were different. If a person were placed in one of these cisterns, he would not be able to get out without assistance. Archaeologists have discovered the bones of several people in the dry bottoms of some of these cisterns. These people for one reason or another were in the cistern and could not get out. It would be possible for another person to drop a rope to them and haul the person out. In fact, that seems to be the way Joseph was finally rescued from this "pit." The Hebrew word in Genesis 37:20, 22, is the word for cistern.

It appears there were several ways to collect water in that part of the world. Notice what is mentioned in II Kings:

And he said, 'This is what the Lord says: Make this valley full of ditches. For this is what the Lord says: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet this valley will be filled with water and you, your cattle and your other animals will drink.' II Kings 3:16, 17

The word for "trench" or "ditch" is different from the word "pit." There are occasions, however, when this word was used to describe a cistern-type of excavation. In Ex. 21:33, 34 we are reminded that there was a law in Israel to warn of the danger of an animal falling into a pit. It said:

If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay the owner and the dead animal will be his. Exodus 21:33, 34

I also remember wondering about the wording from one of the Psalms:

He who digs a hole and scoops it out falls into the pit he has made. The trouble he causes recoils on himself... Psalms 7:15, 16a

If a man dug it in the first place, why can't he get out if he falls into it, I thought, not realizing that the person who dug such a cistern would need a ladder or rope in order to get out when he was finished.

We need to remember that Palestine is a land of insufficient rainfall. Granted, there are areas, like Jerusalem, where the average rainfall is 26 inches per year. On the other hand, there are other areas, like Jericho, where the average rainfall is 5.5 inches per year. Still farther to the south, along the Dead Sea, there is an average of two to three inches. To add further to the difficulties of the people in this area, when rain does come, it inevitably results in flash floods because the soil is so poor that the water cannot sink in. In such situations, unless some arrangement is made to store what little rain they receive, people and animals cannot survive.

The whole passage of Genesis 37:20-22 took on a different view when I discovered that the word should in fact be "cistern" rather than "pit," especially when I found some information about a cistern.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia identifies a "pit" in these terms:

_A pit may be any cavity in the ground; "be'aer" especially refers to a cistern, hewn to collect rains. 16_

Notice that the description speaks not of something dug, but hewn, and this indicates that such a structure was made of rock. This rock, however, is very soft and not difficult to carve. On one of my visits to Israel we went into a deep cistern. High on the wall we could see the mark of the tool used to carve the rock. The print of the tool was eight to ten inches long rather than one inch long, which would indicate carving hard rock. Because the rock is very porous, water can seep out of such a cistern. This made it necessary for them to coat the inside with lime plaster.

We might think of a "cistern" as having a large opening at the top so that rain can get in. There may have been some like this, but most were not. Most cisterns were narrow at the top and are shaped like a bottle or bell toward the bottom. They would look something like this:

Cisterns were not used exclusively for the storing of water. When the cistern was empty of water, during the dry season, it could serve as a prison. This is what Joseph's brothers had in mind for him. This is also what was involved when Jeremiah was placed in a cistern which doubled as a prison (Jeremiah 38:7-13).

Cisterns also served as hiding places. Look at II Samuel 17:21 where the men of David hid in the "well," or "cistern," so that Absalom's men could not find them. There are many examples of cisterns throughout Palestine. When you visit Qumram, you can see six cisterns where the flash flood waters were collected for the use of the community through the balance of the year. There are 37 cisterns under the Temple Mount, one of which is 43 feet deep and holds 7.5 million gallons. At Gezer is a cistern 23 feet long by 12 feet wide and 94.5 feet deep. At Megiddo is another cistern which is 64 feet deep and 214 feet long.

Private cisterns are plentiful throughout Palestine:

_Many modern buildings in Jerusalem are like those of biblical times in having private cisterns, filled by rainwater from the roof. The Old Testament speaks of ordinary citizens enjoying the water of their own cisterns (II Kings 18:31), and thousands of small cisterns have been found on the sites of ancient cities (e.g., Gezer, Beth-shemesh, Debir, and Tel en-Nasbeh, as well as Jerusalem). 19_

Certainly, the recipients of the book of Revelation fully understood the image that John used when he, on nine occasions, used "the pit" or "the bottomless pit" to refer to a place of incarceration. The discovery of what a "pit" was, made a big difference in my understanding. With this information, I believe we can understand the text much as they would have understood it:

He threw him (Satan) into the abyss (pit) , and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. Revelation 20:3

John has taken a situation which every Jew would understand very well and used it to describe a spiritual truth which was not well understood. I do not believe John is talking about a literal cistern that Satan is going to be thrown into and then sealed. To talk about a cistern in any other term than a place to collect water was to think in terms of a place of detention. John is saying that Satan is not only bound, but that he does not have the opportunity of escape. The idea of locking or sealing the "pit" simply means that there is no way for anyone else to assist in the escape from this place of detention.

# THE PRODIGAL SONS

The parable of the Prodigal Son is told only by the Evangelist Luke. Officially, people refer to this parable as The Prodigal Son. That is a misnomer. By any calculation, this man had two prodigal sons. The directions of their waywardness were different, but prodigal nevertheless.

This is a parable. We must assume, therefore, that it was probably not a true story, but one intended to take a scenario that the people understood well and use it to convey a spiritual truth that was not as well known. It is not always true, but there is often a degree of shock, a moment of scandal in a parable to make it unforgettable. That certainly is the case in this one.

Note the reason given for the three parables in Luke 15. Luke wrote:

Now the tax collectors and 'sinners' were all gathered around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, 'This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.' Then Jesus told them this parable: Luke 15:1-3a

There followed three parables, all of which dealt with lostness. There is a progression in the parables:

1. The Lost Sheep

2. The Lost Coins.

3. The Lost Sons

Each of the parables deals with something valuable that was lost. In each parable that which was lost was found. In each parable rejoicing followed the finding of the lost. You get the impression that Jesus told the stories of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin in order to place a strong emphasis on the story of the Lost Sons.

If you study the parable of the Prodigal Son carefully, it quickly becomes clear that Jesus is talking about the father and not so much the erring sons. It is a masterful picture of the love and mercy of the father. The love and forgiveness of this father are almost impossible to miss. Jesus was saying, to the Pharisees and teachers of the law that He consorted with the tax collectors and "sinners" because the Father loved them in spite of their wandering ways. O what a picture of the love of God!

This entire story is a collection of many cultural phenomena that would be well understood by the people to whom Luke wrote, but they totally escape us. This is because we are not familiar with the culture of Jesus' day. Our task is to explore this parable with you. We want to spell out the meaning of these cultural details that add so much to the meaning of what Jesus was saying to those who were trying to trap Him.

# THE FATHER RAN TO GREET HIS SON

But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son. Luke 15:20b

Jesus was describing a household of great wealth. There were servants here; an inheritance to be divided; a ring to use in purchasing; a long robe which identified people of means. Such a family had servants whose task it was to welcome guests and wash their feet. The initial greeting would be by a servant and not by the head of the house.

There are a number of facets to this story which would have been surprising to the people who heard Jesus speak. No member of a wealthy family would ever come out of the house to greet a person who was coming to visit. It would have been considered degrading to the whole family to act in such a way. The greeting would take place inside the house and not out in the street.

You may remember the story of Jephthah which is told in the book of Judges. This story refers to the same issue Jesus was dealing with in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Israel was in a military bind. Jephthah was a righteous man and he deeply desired to be victorious for God in battle. He took a vow which was costly, but did not seem to be nearly as costly at first as it turned out to be. This was the oath Jephthah took before God.

If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering. Judges 11:30, 31

Jephthah knew that no member of his family would ever come out to greet him. That would be culturally unacceptable. It would seem certain that Jephthah thought that the most he could lose through this vow might be his dog or the lowest servant in his household. Certainly he would never anticipate that a member of his family would dare to come out to meet him. His daughter would certainly know better.

The thing that makes the story of Jephthah pertinent here is that his daughter ignored the cultural prohibition and ran out to meet her father. This posed a dilemma for Jephthah. He had vowed, before God, to make a burnt offering of the one who first came from his house to greet him. Jephthah must now either keep his vow and thus lose his daughter to a horrible death or preserve the life of his daughter by breaking his vow with God. The last option was unthinkable to him.

In the story of the Prodigal Son, Jesus said that the man "ran to his son." This wealthy man would be expected to wear a long robe to indicate his elevated position in the community. It would be unacceptable for him to leave his house to greet his son or anyone else. It would be difficult to run in that robe without falling down or exposing his ankles, another unacceptable idea. Look at the way Hebrews 12:1 describes a runner.

Let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Hebrews 12:1, 2

This is a picture of an Olympic runner. These athletes ran in the nude. The author draws an impossible picture in order to get the point across - a runner cannot win a race wearing a rich man's robe. The robe would get tangled up in his legs and cause him to stumble.

The father in the story Jesus told would have to lift the hem of his robe in order to run. The moment he did this, his ankles would be exposed and he would be publicly embarrassed before the entire community. As Jesus told the story, the father set aside the customs appropriate for his station in life in order to go out and greet his son. The fact that he saw the son a long way off suggests that he had been watching for the son on a regular basis. It could also mean that he went out to meet the son in the hope that he could get to him before any from the village encountered him and vented their wrath upon him because of the way he treated his father, for that is the way village people treat a wayward son.

The people of that part of the world had a practice to deal with unfortunate conduct. When a person did something very repulsive to their family or to the community, the town's people would break a clay pot in the presence of the person to indicate the broken relationship. The town's people might also do physical violence to the person, but they would certainly ostracize him in a manner somewhat like the "shunning" of the Amish people in America. They would avoid the person altogether and have absolutely nothing to do with him. They would neither touch him nor anything that he had touched. He was treated like a leper, and this was particularly true if he lost or sold his property to a Gentile.

In Luke 15, Jesus uses three parables to highlight our lost condition: separation from God. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus tells of the father's running out to meet his wayward son in order to protect the son and show just how anxious God the Father was to see His lost sons returned and restored to His family. In the parable, the father was willing to sustain ultimate humiliation in order to restore his wayward son. Jesus told the story in this way in order to accomplish two things:

1. He wanted the Pharisees to see just how devastating it was for the Father to see His creation lost and alienated from Himself.

2. Jesus wanted the Pharisees to discover just how far the Father was willing to go in order to restore His wandering sons, the publicans and sinners, the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, to Himself.

This is one of the most beautiful and complete pictures of the compassion of God, expressed toward people who have turned away from Him in order to follow their own ways, and are returning home.

No price was too great to pay; no humiliation too great to endure in order to restore the rebellious to the family again. That is an awesome picture of who God is!

# THE VERY BEST ROBE

But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! bring the best robe and put it on him...' Luke 15:22a

People of the Middle East, in the first century, did not wear three-piece suits. This was a climate which regularly shifts from exceptionally hot conditions during the day to very cold conditions at night. Basic clothing consisted of five things:

1. A covering for the head

2. Sandals - these were shoes worn by the middle and upper class. Slaves were seldom permitted to wear them.

3. An undergarment - much like a loincloth

4. A tunic - a garment extended from the shoulders to the ankles. The working class wore shorter garments which would not inhibit their brisk activity.

5. A cloak - a loose garment which would only be worn during the coldest times of the day, particularly at night. Jewish law allowed a lender to hold a borrower's cloak as a form of insurance that the borrower would repay the loan. However, the law went on to say that though the lender could hold the cloak, it had to be returned to the borrower before nightfall. This was because the borrower would have no protection against the bitter cold nights in that part of the world. It was also required that the borrower bring the cloak back to the lender the first thing in the morning.

The "best robe" was a "stola." Vine, a modern language scholar, describes it in these terms:

_Stola denotes any stately robe, a long garment reaching to the feet or with a train behind. It is used of the long clothing in which the scribes walked, making themselves conspicuous in the eyes of men. 20_

The body covering worn by servants was of the simplest material possible. The "best robe," on the other hand, was made of the finest materials available. It would be made of much finer, lighter material than even the middle class would be able to secure. It would be more skillfully made than most any other garment available. The same is true today. You can purchase a suit of clothes rather inexpensively, but if you have the necessary funds, you can purchase a very finely tailored suit made of the best materials. This robe would hang from the shoulders to the floor. It was made in such a way that when a person sat down on the floor, the feet would be covered. This was because they felt it was a sign of reverence or awe to cover one's feet. It is not surprising that in Isaiah 6:2 the seraphim covered their feet with one pair of wings. They were in the presence of the Holy God.

The "stola" was also made with wide sleeves. The more important the person, the wider the sleeves. It was a way of showing just how important or wealthy a person was. We should note that both the length of the robe and the width of the sleeves made it almost impossible for the wearer to do any kind of vigorous work. This was clearly a garment for those who were able to have others do the work for them.

What difference would this robe make? First, the son had asked to be accepted as one of the servants. The son had been working as a servant of the lowest kind. It would be expected that he would be wearing servants' garb as he returned home. The robe would make it clear that the father was not accepting the request that his wandering son be accepted as a servant. It was not only a way to bring him into the house, but he was being brought back as part of the family and with honor.

Secondly, by placing the robe on the son, the father was making an announcement. He was honoring his returning son and thus all of his servants would know to do the same. It was also a message to the community that this man was to be treated with respect.

Thirdly, this was a visual way, which no one could miss, for the father to say that his son was forgiven and restored. It is as though the son had never done the wrong. Everyone would understand that this son, despite his previous conduct, was forgiven and welcomed home. More importantly, every time the son saw his coat, he would be reminded that he was forgiven.

There are several scholars who believe that the "best robe" was more than a fine garment. They believe that it was a special garment that was reserved for the eldest son, the heir of the family, and that this was the meaning of the coat of many colors that was worn by Joseph and caused the furor among his brothers. We cannot be sure if this is true or not. If it is true, think of what this says to the rebellious son! Can you imagine the impact this would have on the elder brother who had been anticipating his place of leadership in the family for a lifetime?

Still other scholars believe that this was a ceremonial robe to identify the wearer as an honored guest, the mark of high distinction. Jeremias, a modern, German biblical scholar, makes this suggestion and uses the story of Joseph, in Genesis 41:42, to illustrate the point.

_When Joseph was appointed chief vizier (minister of state) he received from Pharoah a ring, a robe of fine linen and a golden chain. First comes the ceremonial robe, which in the East is a mark of high distinction... When the king wishes to honor a deserving official he presents him with a costly robe. 21_

Whatever the precise symbol, the father is trying to convey a message to his son and the whole community. He wants everyone to know of his great joy that the wandering son has returned home. He wants everyone to know that the son has been forgiven, that no matter what the boy has done, it is as though he had never left home.

This is part of a parable, an earthly story which sheds light on a spiritual reality. This rags-to-riches story deals with the lost state of humankind. The erring son had lost everything in his debauched lifestyle. The son was lost; he had been considered dead by the father, the family and the community. He deserved only his servant rags, the consequences of his evil choices. The father shocked his wandering son by giving him a robe of honor and distinction when he was only asked for a place as a servant.

It is entirely possible that the "best robe" does not refer to the quality of the merchandise so much as it does to the symbol of the garment. Many scholars believe that this is the kind of robe that was given to Joseph, in the book of Genesis. His brothers were not angry because he received a robe of better quality than their own. Their anger was over the fact that though he was, at that time, the youngest son in the family, he had received the coat of many colors, the symbol of the inheritor in the family. This gift from their father identified Joseph as the one who would rule the family when father was gone. This was almost more than the other brothers could handle. It is entirely possible that this was Jesus' intention when He spoke of the "best robe".

The real message of this parable has to do with God. When we come to Him, as undeserving as the younger son, God does not grudgingly receive us. He prepares such a celebration that the whole world knows that we are absolutely forgiven. That is the kind of God He is, and that is the message Jesus was trying to convey in this entire parable.

# A RING FOR HIS FINGER

But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger.' Luke 15:22

For many years I read the story Jesus told and completely missed the meaning of some of these words.

As I had previously thought that the "best robe" was just an expensive replacement for the son's tattered servant clothes, so I thought that the ring was just a piece of jewelry. It seemed like a way to do something nice for a son who had been rebellious and needed something to show him that he was not rejected.

A ring was more than just jewelry.

_Excavations have shown that the ring is to be regarded as a signet-ring; the gift of a ring signified the bestowal of authority. (cf. I Macc. 6:15) 22_

This symbol then makes it clear that the father was trying to help the son see that his forgiveness completely disregarded the son's former misguided ways. This father not only forgave his son, he also gave him the signet, the sign of authority and control in the family.

If you go to almost any museum where there is a Middle East display, you may find a series of these rings. Two kinds of rings were used in Palestine: A ring worn on the finger, and a decorated cylinder which was worn on a chain around the neck.

Into the surface of the ring or cylinder a delicate design was carved. This design was the signet of the entire family. The ring would be pressed or the cylinder would be rolled through the soft wax or clay, and the design carved into the stone would then be embossed into the wax or soft clay. A wealthy person, who owned a ring or cylinder, signed the bill for purchases made by pressing his ring into some soft wax that was placed on the bill, and everyone in the community would know whose signature it was. The design was as distinctive as the person's name. The ring or cylinder can be thought of as the first-century plastic money - the credit card of the day.

In the book of Esther is a very obvious use of the signet ring. Mordecai, whose life had been threatened by Haman, was ultimately elevated by the king to the second position in the realm. Mordecai was placed in authority over Haman's house. This is how the author of Esther described the promotion.

The king took off his signet ring, which he had reclaimed from Haman, and presented it to Mordecai. And Esther appointed him over Haman's estate. Esther 8:2

Somewhat later, Mordecai used the ring to sign the king's name on a royal document which was being sent to the leaders in all 127 provinces of the land. The author of Esther described it in these terms:

Mordecai wrote in the name of King Xerxes, sealed the dispatches with the king's signet ring, and sent them by mounted couriers, who rode fast horses especially bred for the king. Esther 8:10

Obviously this ring was the symbol of the king's purse and power which had been bestowed upon Mordecai because of the way he had been so loyal to the king. This is precisely the kind of ring being described in the parable Jesus told.

Think for a minute about this prodigal son receiving the ring. Here was a young man who took his part of the inheritance and wasted in a short time what his father had worked a lifetime to accumulate. The young man came home penniless and his father accepted him and gave him the family checkbook. Can you imagine the shock and horror experienced by those who heard the story Jesus was telling? Nothing like that would ever have happened in any village of which they knew. Jesus was not trying to tell a plausible story. He wanted to tell a story which they would never forget in order to convey a message which they had not been able to understand before.

Put yourself in the son's position. You have squandered your father's fortune and have nothing to show for it. You come home prepared for rejection and your father not only welcomes you, but to your shock and amazement, he gives you the family checkbook! What would you think? Wouldn't you be so overwhelmed you couldn't speak? Wouldn't you be so excited that you couldn't find words to express your joy?

This is precisely the message Jesus was trying to convey about what happens when lost people return to God. They come expecting rejection, but He welcomes them back into His family. Most of us are keenly aware of the extent of our sin. What we need to discover is just how forgiving and merciful God really is. A significant witness to new-found forgiveness is not a stress on how bad one was, but on just how great the forgiveness of God is by restoring us to the family again.

# THE FATTED CALF

Bring the fatted calf and kill it. Luke 15:23a

In our country, people usually have meat almost every day, so the intense meaning of this instruction of Luke 15 can easily elude us. The Jewish people were mostly vegetarian. It was not because they had anything against eating meat; it just was not possible, because of the expense and the fact that it was not usually available. This is a surprise to some people because they know that many of the Jews, like David's family, had herds of sheep. That is true, but the sheep were not so much a source for meat as they were the family bank account. Even among the Arabs today, the sheep provide wool for their tents and clothes while the goats provide milk for their food. However, they eat very little of the meat from the flock.

Notice that this was a fatted calf. It means that the animal was quite young. It was also kept in a special place so that it would not run so much. This accomplished two things: first, the animal would gain weight. Second, the meat of this animal would not be as tough as that of an animal that had run free.

With the above facts in mind, the killing of a fatted calf would be reserved for a very special occasion. Passover was one such event and a wedding was another. The text does not say so, but it may well have been that this animal was being reserved for the wedding feast of the elder son. If that were the case, the fury of the elder son could be better understood. There were few other events so important that such an extravagance could be justified.

We must also remember, as is mentioned on page 22, that this meal was not just the celebration of joy when the lost was found. It was also a symbol of the forgiveness offered to the younger son by his father. The father wanted his son and the whole community to know that the son had been forgiven and welcomed back into the family.

Just think of what this would say to the son who had returned. He had thought of himself as a failure and an outcast. His father, on the other hand, treated him as someone important. The wandering son was so important to his father that he joyfully killed one of his prize animals in order to celebrate his son's return. That was certainly a symbol which had to carry both great joy and a flood of tears for the wanderer who had returned.

In each of the three parables of Luke 15, the lost was found and a celebration ensued. You will remember that these three parables followed a complaint by the Pharisees that Jesus was spending His time with tax collectors and other sinners. To the shock and horror of these religious leaders, Jesus was saying that He spent time with such people because they were lost and because they were so important to Him and to His father that He wanted them to be restored and forgiven. Remember, the Pharisees considered tax-collectors to be unpardonable.

If you have ever sinned grievously, and most of us have, you understand just how the younger son felt. You know the shock of realizing that you do not deserve a place in the family, but you feel the great tension and severe pain of sins unforgiven. Something within us desperately wants to know that our family understands and forgives.

If your family has stood by you during those times when you were not at your best, you also know what it was like to be welcomed back, not as a tragic outcast, but as a member of the family. You feel like an honored guest.

This picture of restoration gives us some insight into just what the younger son felt. It gives us an inkling of just how great the forgiveness of God is in our lives. The truth is that this parable tells us a great deal more about the Father than it does about the exhilaration of the son. Jesus was trying to focus our attention on just how loving and forgiving the Father is, not on how sinful we are. The parable answers the question of the Pharisees concerning the reason Jesus spent time with the outcasts \-- the publicans and sinners.

# LET'S HAVE A FEAST

Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. So they began to celebrate. Luke 15:23, 24

As you pondered these verses in the past, what did you think? Did you think that this feast was a way of expressing great joy? Did you think it was a Jewish way of expressing positive emotions? I must confess, that is what I thought. There is some reason to think this way, for the text plainly says, "let's have a feast and celebrate." But there is much more than a celebration in these words.

This is a parable. Vine, a more modern language scholar, defines a parable as,

_A narrative or saying, dealing with earthly things with a spiritual meaning. 23_

This being the case, it is necessary to not only discover what the parable itself says, but to also discover the spiritual meaning which is conveyed by the earthly story. If you look in Luke 15:1-5, you will note that there was a specific reason why Jesus told three parables in succession in this passage.

In Luke 15:1, the writer gives us this insight:

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and theTeachers of the Law muttered, 'This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.' Luke 15:1, 2

As the text indicates, there are two reasons why Jesus told the three parables about lostness:

1. Because the tax collectors and sinners where gathering to listen to Him, and

2. because the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law were muttering about His welcoming of and dining with publicans and sinners.

In view of these facts, Jesus proceeded to tell three earthly narratives about lostness: The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin and The Lost Sons. Each of these three parables conveys a specific teaching about God's relationship to those who are lost.

You may remember, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which might be more appropriately called the parable of the Merciful Father, the youngest son did some shocking things. These were things that the people of that culture thought of as unacceptable and worthy of severe punishment, both by the father and the community. The younger son made some tragic mistakes:

1. He demanded his inheritance before his father died.

2. He wasted the family inheritance in a very short time and in evil ways. Both of these situations were most unacceptable to the devout Jews.

3. He had the nerve to come back penniless after he had humiliated his family before the whole community.

In the parable, the father instructed his servants to prepare a feast. It is important to remember that a feast was a rarity even for the rich. In most instances these people ate meat on two occasions. One was the regular observance of Passover, the other occasion was at a wedding feast. Otherwise, these people were usually vegetarian. This was not because they were against eating meat or had religious scruples against it. It was because they did not have the meat to eat.

In the minds of the Jewish people there were at least three basic meanings for a feast:

1. A celebration of unusual joy as you would experience at a wedding.

2. A feast, or at least a meal, was used as a way to finalize a covenant made between two people. In our time when heads of state have met to sign a treaty, they inevitably follow this procedure with a banquet. This tradition comes out of this Near Eastern custom.

3. A feast was also prepared when there was healing between two enemies and this needed to be demonstrated to the community.

This feast was one of several ways with which Jewish people indicate that forgiveness had been extended. It was part of the following:

1. Share the kiss of forgiveness

2. Welcome a person to receive the hospitality of your home and carry them into the house.

3. Eat a meal with the person. The people of the area would only eat with people with whom they were on friendly terms.

4. At the meal of forgiveness the former enemy would be offered to share the host's salt.

All of these symbols said, in graphic ways, that the sins of the past had been forgiven and they were no longer enemies.

In the parable, the father commanded his servants to prepare a feast so that they could celebrate. More than this, the father gave the instructions for the feast because he wanted people to understand what had happened. He wanted his son to know that though he had done a terrible thing, all was forgiven. In the family it was as though the boy had done nothing wrong.

The father also wanted his neighbors to know that the boy had been forgiven, lest they shun the boy and do him harm. Now they would know that the sin was forgiven and the boy had been restored. People of that day would shake their heads if this happened in their community. It is not how they would deal with their own children or neighbors. Jesus was talking about His Father and that is precisely the way He treats sinners who have done indescribable wrongs, but are still His children, the objects of His endless love.

# DEAD AND ALIVE

Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again, he was lost and is found. Luke 15:23b, 24

Some have taken this to mean that the son was gone and not heard from in such a long time that he was considered dead. This is not what the father was talking about at all.

In that culture, if a child brought shame upon the family in any way, the father would announce that his child was considered dead and literally a funeral would be held. Following the service and the time of mourning, the father would announce to the family that he did not have a child by that name and that this child's name may never be mentioned again to him or within his household.

You may remember the story of the Fiddler On The Roof. When the daughter, Hodel, married a Gentile, Tusca held a time of mourning and declared that he had no daughter by that name and forbade the mention of her name in his household again. Even today, if a child of an Orthodox Jewish family becomes a Christian, a funeral is held. Many times these new Jewish Christians attend their own funeral, but when the service is over, the family will brush past them and are not able to speak to them and their name will never be mentioned within the family again.

This is what the father is talking about. His son was considered dead because the family had been shamed by the boy's actions and had held a funeral for him. He was considered dead to them.

Now that the boy had returned, the father had forgiven him. The father held a feast to announce the boy's forgiveness. Because of that, the father could officially consider his son alive again and thus he could re-enter the home and be considered a part of the family again.

Notice how the father describes the son's situation:

For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. Luke 15:24

The first thing to remember is that the boy had not died. The younger son had been considered dead because of his shameful conduct, but because of the events of this day, he was forgiven and restored again. The son had been morally and socially lost, but because of his return and the forgiveness offered by the father, he was found.

Imagine the shock of the Pharisees and others who listened to the story Jesus was telling. Certainly, they had never heard of a father being so merciful when a son had shamed the family. This was a form of mercy that they had never experienced before. As Jesus answered the probing questions of the Pharisees, he was telling them something about the limitless love of the Father that they found almost impossible to comprehend. God loved the rebel so much that He would accept him back no matter what he had done; no matter how much shame he had brought upon the family. The mercy of God was always greater than the shame the sinner had brought upon the family.

The parable was told in response to a question about why Jesus spent time with publicans and sinners. As you can see, Jesus' answer was that the lost were so important He couldn't afford not to be with the people about whom the Father cares so deeply.

# THE KISS

But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. Luke 15:20b

The idea of a man kissing another man may sound strange for the modern Western reader. This is in part because a man kissing a man has some very unfortunate social connotations in our culture today.

First, we must remember that in the story of the Prodigal Son, it was a man kissing his son. Secondly, the kiss was a form of greeting. In the Near East there were at least four basic kinds of greetings, and they differed in relation to the closeness of the people involved:

1. A face-to-face greeting - It required no personal contact. It sometimes required only the wave of a hand or the shout of "hello." We might express this with "hello", "good morning" or a general handshake.

2. The formal kiss - "phileo" - in Greek. This is reserved for those to whom one reserves a deeper friendship and relationship. This would be expressed by placing your hands on the other person's shoulders and drawing them closer to you. You would then kiss the person on one cheek and then on the other. This is practiced in Eastern cultures today. This is also what Jesus referred to in Luke 7:45 when Simon the Pharisee failed to greet him in the appropriate fashion. A woman of the street, however, came in and began kissing His feet and did not stop. She was expressing just what Jesus meant to her changed life. This, too, was Paul's intent when he told the Christians to greet each other with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16).

3. The intimate kiss - "kataphileo" in Greek. This greeting was a mouth-to-mouth kiss intended to indicate deep affection. Apparently this was the kind of kiss that Judas gave to Jesus. The Greek, in Luke 22:48, tells us that Judas kissed Jesus repeatedly. Jesus expressed shock that Judas would betray him with this kind of intimate greeting.

4. The bow - This greeting was usually reserved for a person who was unusually honored. It was done in three ways:

a. A bow of the head recognized the honor of the person.

b. A bow from the waist honored a person of even greater stature.

c. To fall prostrate before a person's feet was the ultimate greeting of respect and honor.

Jesus spoke of the father's kiss using the word "kataphileo", which is the very intimate, fervent kiss. At the very least, Jesus used this word to convey the idea of acceptance. When a tragedy of this magnitude, i.e., the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, fractured a family, there would usually be some unfortunate words and some form of rejection shared on both sides. The intimate kiss would make it very clear that these feelings either were not real or had been drastically changed. Jeremias, in his book, The Parables Of Jesus, speaks of this situation as a "Kiss of Forgiveness." He mentions II Samuel 14:33 as evidence. This is the story of David receiving his alienated son Absalom back. The text reads:

Then the king summoned Absalom and he came in and bowed down with his face to the ground before the king. And the king kissed Absalom. II Samuel 14:33

When David kissed Absalom, it was the intimate kiss which said to Absalom that there was a change in David's attitude toward him.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father kissed the son before the boy had a chance to say anything. He did not kiss the son because he came to a certain level of repentance. He kissed the boy because he had come home; because he wanted the boy to know that he was forgiven.

Again, if you were that son, what would you feel? You certainly would be amazed at the indescribable mercy of your father. You would sense a depth of love that would be shocking because you anticipated only rejection and rebuff. There would be an astonishing discovery that such an unusual forgiveness could possibly be yours. There would be a sense of release; a sense of value and direction in life after all.

Jesus was responding to a question about why He spent time with the publicans, the prostitutes, the sinners, the seeming unpardonables. They were thought to be unpardonable because the prostitutes violated one of the ten commandments and should have been stoned to death. The publicans were thought unpardonable because they were in league with a pagan, conquering nation. This made them guilty, in the minds of the Jews, of both idolatry and treason. Both of these crimes were punishable by being stoned to death. Jesus described a situation which was about as repulsive as a Hebrew could imagine. For a son to act as the Prodigal did would be a violation of the commandment to honor one's father and mother. It was extremely repulsive to the cultural mores of the Jewish people. Jesus painted a picture of the father forgiving what most Jews would consider an unpardonable sin. Jesus was telling them that in the eyes of God there was no one who was unpardonable, no one beyond the limitless love of the Father. (The crucifixion of Jesus was to pardon every form of every sin. There were some, however, who placed themselves outside the realm of forgiveness by rejecting the sacrifice of Jesus and the ministry of the Holy Spirit whereby this sacrifice was mediated for their forgiveness. Without the sacrifice of Jesus there was no other possible means of forgiveness. God still wanted to forgive them, but they rejected the only means possible for that to be accomplished.) Think about it for a minute -- how much clearer could Jesus make the boundless love of the Father?!

# SANDALS

Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Luke 15:22b

In our country, where few people have less than two pairs of shoes and many people have dozens of pairs, it is difficult to grasp the significance of this portion of the story of the Prodigal Son. Jesus' words suggest the possibility that the younger son came home walking barefooted. He came to his father as a slave would come.

Shoes were a very symbolic item of clothing. There was special meaning both to being barefooted and wearing shoes.

The meaning of being barefooted:

a. It was a sign of respect for a holy place. When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, He said to him,

'Do not come any closer,' God said, 'Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.' Exodus 3:5

b. There is no mention of priests ever wearing shoes when they attended the temple or tabernacle. To this day, Moslem people remove their shoes upon entering their place of worship.

c. Being barefooted was a sign of mourning. When Ezekiel's wife died, God instructed him, in Ezekiel 24:7, not to mourn; not to remove his sandals.

d. The removal of the sandal was also a sign of reproach. In Deuteronomy 25:9, if a widow's brother-in-law refused to fulfill the levirate responsibility to his brother, she could remove his shoe publicly and spit in his face to disgrace him.

e. The removal and transfer of a sandal was also part of a legal transaction. This is explained in the book of Ruth:

(Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel. ) Ruth 4:7

The origin of this legal custom is a source of conjecture. It is one way to symbolize an action that had been taken so that others would become aware of it without having to be told.

f. The removal of shoes was required of slaves and captives, a necessity of the extremely poor. It was a symbol of captivity in Isaiah 20:2.

g. In Psalms 60:8 it is a symbol of God taking possession of a land and meting out punishment. David described it this way:

Moab is my washbasin, upon Edom I toss my sandal; over Philistia I shout in triumph. Psalm 60:8

Kiel and Delitzsch, outstanding Biblical scholars of an earlier generation, speak of the sandal in this manner:

_The sandal or the shoe, is an object of treading down, oppressing, and signifies metaphorically, (1) a man that is weak and incapable of defending himself against oppression... 27_

The removal, carrying and fastening of shoes was the task of the lowest slave in the rich household. This does not explain Psalms 60:8, but it does give an impression of just how low that servant was thought to be.

The meaning of wearing sandals:

a. It was a symbol of preparedness. In Exodus 12:11, the people of Israel were instructed to eat the Passover with their shoes on, to be ready to travel at a moment's notice.

b. It was considered a source of beauty for women in the Song of Solomon. The author said it this way,

How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels the work of a craftsman's hands. Song Of Solomon 7:1

c. In Luke 15:22 it is a symbol of being free rather than being a slave; a symbol of a high degree of wealth as opposed to a very low level of poverty.

In the story Jesus told, the Prodigal Son asked to be accepted as a servant, to be without shoes. The father paid no attention to that part of the request. He instructed his servants to put sandals on his son's feet, to identify him as rich, not poor; free, not slave; family, not outcast. In fact, the father was giving his son more than a covering for his feet. He was granting him family membership again, for that privilege had been removed when he left home.

Just think of what this brief conversation among the father, son and servants meant to the returning boy. It changed his whole idea about what life was expected to be when he returned. It gave him all that he requested and a whole lot more. It gave him restoration to the family when there was nothing he could do, no matter how wealthy he might become, to reclaim this family status. He was the knowing recipient of grace far beyond the punishment he really deserved.

This is just one more picture which Jesus gave to the inquiring Pharisees of the limitless, astounding love and forgiveness of the Father. It described a level of mercy for which the ambitious religious leaders were ill-prepared. The good news Jesus was trying to live and preach took the Pharisees by surprise. They were dealing with the unforgivable, while Jesus was dealing with forgiveness without boundaries.

# FATHER

The Prodigal Son said,

Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. Luke 15:21

The elder son said,

Look, all these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Luke 15:29

People sometimes overlook the fact that there is a serious difference in the way the two brothers, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, spoke to their father.

Notice that the Prodigal Son addressed him as "father." The elder brother, however, did not address him at all, but simply began his critical, judgmental statement.

To speak as the elder son did was a very serious infraction for a Jew. One of the Ten Commandments was to "honor your father and your mother." The New Testament speaks of this as the only commandment with promise. To omit the address of respect was a serious offense against his father and the commandment.

If you read carefully the cutting remarks of the elder brother, you notice that he thinks of his obedience as a burden, not a joy. He thought of his efforts as slave labor, not a partnership with his father.

There is irony here. The son who had not committed the grievous, malicious acts was the one who violated the commandment and spoke disrespectfully to his father. You will remember that the whole parable was Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' challenge about why He spoke with tax collectors and sinners. In effect, Jesus was quietly making a comparison between the Pharisees and the elder brother on the one hand and the tax collectors and the Prodigal Son on the other hand. In the process Jesus placed the tax collectors in a better light than the highly respected Pharisees. Certainly that subtle attack did not go unnoticed by the boastful Pharisees.

It may be that Jesus was trying to teach the Pharisees that it is as bad or worse for the self-righteous to gloat over their superiority as it was for the very guilty to behave in an unacceptable manner. The Pharisee was at least as bad as the Prodigal, and perhaps, far worse. Unfortunately, the Pharisee seemed to be the only one who did not know it.

# THE PLEADING FATHER

So his father went out and pleaded with him. Luke 15:28b

Often, when people read the story of the Prodigal Son, they think of the older son as just plain stubborn and hard-headed. He was, but there was much more to it than that.

A father pleading with his son is not an unheard-of phenomenon in our culture. Go to any supermarket or restaurant and you are very apt to hear one or more parents pleading with their son or daughter to eat, or stop tearing packages open on the shelves, or running up and down the aisles. That was not the case in Israel during the first century. A father was to be treated with awesome respect. Anything less than this would expose a person to the wrath of the father, that of the family, even the community. The father whom Jesus portrayed was clearly worthy of the deepest respect. A father should only need to send word to his son and it would be obeyed. In this instance, the father left the party, which he should not have had to do, to plead with his son, which was even more unthinkable in that culture. If this was not humiliation enough, the father returned without gaining his desire that the older son enter the feast and thus forgive the younger brother. To plead with his son was an unthinkable, scandalous disgrace. To have his belligerent son refuse his pleading request would be the epitome of shame.

The father was saying that he had forgiven the prodigal and the feast was to inform the entire community so that they would also receive him. The father was saying, "I have forgiven your brother and I expect you to do the same." The eldest son was refusing the instructions of his father.

The father knew that he was risking everything in order to reach out to his wayward elder son. The community would probably fail to understand this expression of mercy. They would want justice and they would want the boy punished severely. There were at least two reasons for this feeling:

1. The father could expect that his sons would obey his wishes as long as he lived. In this instance, neither son offered that to their father. This would cause the people to think of him as an incompetent father.

2. Because the father had forgiven the younger son and welcomed him back into the family, the older brother was guilty of disobedience of his own by refusing to offer the same forgiveness which his father had extended to the younger brother.

Jesus' portrayal of the elder son also being wrong would confuse the people of that day. In their eyes, the younger son would not have been obeying the rules set forth in the culture concerning the inheritance. They had rules and customs that must be observed. They would tend to agree with the elder brother that he had been slighted in favor of an errant younger brother. These people had little compassion on those who would violate their code.

Repeatedly, throughout the whole parable, the life of the father is spotlighted because he expressed great love in the face of abuse, and that by his own son.

The words with which the father pleaded with his elder son are very important:

'My son' the father said, 'You are always with me, and everything I have is yours, but we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' Luke 15:31, 32

A willingness on the part of the elder brother to forgive his erring brother and attend the celebration of forgiveness, which the father had decided to give his younger son, would in no way do harm to the elder brother's prestige or position in the family. He would not be impoverished by his father's generosity to the wayward younger brother.

Quickly, the father explained his actions to his son - a move that should not have been necessary; one that would have been frowned upon by the community. He expressed the mood of his actions when he said, "...but we had to..." Why did he have to celebrate? It was because this was the way they could express the kind of forgiveness that welcomed an errant son back into the family; this was the way a child considered dead came to be accepted as alive again.

By the same token, the respect for parents was a legal requirement of the Jews, especially the Pharisees. In a very subtle way, Jesus points out the lack of respect on the part of the elder son.

Notice in Luke 15:18, that when the younger, erring son approached his father, he used the respectful address, "father," which every decent son used. Notice in Luke 15:31, the father addresses his elder son and heir, as "my son." Both the errant son and the father took the time, in the midst of the heated situation, to be respectful when they spoke. The elder son, however, was too angry for respect. He did not address his father with the respect the wandering son afforded his father. He simply started to challenge his father without the respectful address, "father."

The father was indeed the head of the house. This had a much deeper meaning and attendant implications for them than it does for us. The father identified for his elder son that a decision had been made to welcome the erring boy back into the family. The father made this announcement in at least two ways:

1. He celebrated a feast which symbolized forgiveness on behalf of the wandering boy.

2. In Luke 15:27, the father said, "your brother." Since the younger brother had asked for his inheritance and left home, the father would not have allowed anyone to speak of this young man as his "son." Now the father announces that the boy is his older son's "brother."

The elder son did not want to hear about the unpopular decision that his father had made. He acted as though the father had not spoken. Notice the sequence of their statements:

1. Luke 15:27 - The father said, " **Your brother** has come."

2. Luke 15:30 - The elder son said, "When **this son of yours**..."

3. Luke 15:32 - the father said, "Because **this brother of yours**..."

Without rancor or hostility, the father quietly corrects the angry, elder son in such a way that he would hear him, but would not be publicly humiliated.

Jesus' message was twofold:

1. As in the other two parables in this chapter, Jesus is portraying the limitlessness of the mercy of God. This is awesome!

2. In very subtle, but very forceful terms, Jesus is describing the anger and rigidity of the Pharisees who wanted to seem so pious when in reality they were as sinful as anyone else.

The vividness of Jesus' picture is so strong that once you begin to feel with the people in the story, you can never again feel superior to those who fail.

The emphasis, in this instance, is on the pleading of the father. This is a very graphic picture of the deep desire of God to have His erring, wandering children return to His home. This prevenient grace is the gift which God's Spirit searches after us to offer to those who will receive it. This is grace which God extends to all who rebel against Him and deserve only punishment. Again, Jesus was answering questions about why He spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes. His answer was that the mercy and prevenient grace of God demanded it.

# THE SON'S REFUSAL

The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! all these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him.' Luke 15:28-30

This is also part of the parable of the Prodigal Son. In this instance, the parable might be better named "the prodigal sons".

Many sermons have been preached about the stubborn, pouting, angry, elder brother. To be certain, there is an element of truth in these suggestions. There is far more, however, in this part of the parable than the emotional immaturity of the elder son.

As Jesus told the story, the people who listened would have been outraged. Their anger would have bordered on being out of control. This is just a story, but even in stories they observed the rules of decency. In that culture, the father of the household had ultimate power and control in the family. Jews were particularly fond of the commandment to honor their father and mother. It meant to give them respect. It meant to obey the father's command without failure or hesitation. To disobey one's father, and publicly at that, was to jeopardize one's relationship with God, embarrass and humiliate the father publicly and expose one's self to public scorn and possible injury.

The elder son refused to go in and take part in the feast celebrating the return of his brother. The father humiliated himself by pleading with his elder son to come and take part in the celebration of restoration, but to no avail. The heir of the man's household refused to enter the feast.

It was not just rebellion that kept the son from entering the feast, though it is obvious that he was rebellious. The elder son's seething anger was not the only thing prohibiting him from going into the house to celebrate his brother's return, though he was obviously angry and the text states as much. He refused to even call the boy his brother, choosing to refer defiantly to him as "your son." There was some obvious selfishness present when the elder brother bitterly reminded his father that though he had killed the fattened calf for his disowned brother, the father had never even given him a baby goat, which was worth much less, to celebrate with his friends. But it was not his selfishness that kept the elder son from entering the house to share in the celebration. It was his integrity. You will remember that there are at least four ways for Jews to show their forgiveness:

1. Some say that "the kiss" is a sign of forgiveness and acceptance.

2. One could express forgiveness by sharing salt with the guilty.

3. One could offer forgiveness by carrying the guilty into your home.

4. Finally one could offer forgiveness most vividly by eating with the guilty party.

This is the reason why the Pharisees got upset when Jesus accepted Zacchaeus' hospitality and ate with him. The Pharisees thought that publicans or tax collectors were unforgivable. Jesus gave Zacchaeus the sign of forgiveness. Just to touch this tax collector or anything that he touched made a person unclean, but Jesus forgave Zacchaeus what the Pharisees considered both treason and immorality.

If you reflect on the parable, the father offered his returning son every one of the symbols of forgiveness! He wanted his son to understand that there was absolutely no doubt about his forgiveness and restoration to the family.

The elder son was different. He did not forgive his wayward brother. He had disowned his younger brother and his use of the designation "your son" rather than "my brother," as the father insisted, made it clear that he was not going to forgive and restore his brother.

If the elder brother had gone into the house, everyone, including his father and disowned brother, would have understood that he was forgiving and restoring his brother. That was not true and he was not about to give that impression.

If the elder brother had entered his father's house, decency would require that he eat some of the food or publicly shame his father, because as the elder son he was supposed to be the leader of such a celebration. The elder brother refused that responsibility and even refused to attend. This was yet another public humiliation for the father. But if the elder brother ate one bite of the food at this celebration, he would be demonstrating two symbols of forgiveness:

1. Eating food with the guilty person.

2. Sharing salt with the rejected one.

For the elder brother, neither of these ideas were true. He wanted it to be clear that he was not forgiving his brother.

Finally, if the elder son had entered his father's house, he would have been required to greet the honored guest, his wayward brother, with a kiss. This too would have symbolized acceptance and he was not about to give any hint of forgiveness or restoration.

Remember, these three parables were given in response to the question asked of Jesus concerning His spending time with the filth, the outcasts of society. In three parables, Jesus was responding that He spent time with the outcasts because they were ultimately important to and forgivable by the Father.

In the parable of the Prodigal Sons, Jesus was clearly describing the attitude and actions of the arrogant Pharisees rather than the publicans and sinners with whom He associated.

Reflect again on this parable. Have you ever, in your life, seen such a description of the love and forgiveness of God as you find here?

# DID DAVID DANCE NAKED BEFORE THE ARK?

David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the Lord with all his might. II Samuel 6:14

When David returned home to bless his household, Michal, daughter of Saul, came out to meet him and said,'How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!' II Samuel 6:20

Do you remember the first time you read this passage? Do you remember your reaction? I remember mine! I couldn't believe my eyes. I read it again. Sure enough, that is what it said. That can't be true!

Later I read II Samuel again. My reaction was a bit different - less disbelief, but a bit of cynicism. So who is surprised when royalty behaves like a two-year-old running out of the house in the altogether?! History is speckled with instances of that kind of royal misbehavior.

In more recent years, I have attempted to discover exactly what the author was trying to say. In my search, I translated the verses from the Hebrew. In II Samuel 6:14 the author identifies David's attire as a "linen ephod":

It was a sacred garment originally made for the High Priest (Ex. 28:4; 39:2). It was made of gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, fastened by two shoulder pieces and woven band for a girdle for the ephod...The ephod may have extended below the hips or only to the waist. Under the ephod was the blue robe of the ephod reaching to the feet of the priest.

_In times of crisis, the will of the Lord was sought through the ephod (cf. David in I Samuel 23:9; 30:7). In Israel both prophecy and the ephod were authorized means of ascertaining the will of God. 30_

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reminds us that others, beside priests, wore the ephod.

_Typical of such attire as worn by ordinary priests (I Samuel 2:28; 14:3; 22:18) was the linen ephod that young Samuel wore as he assisted the aged priest Eli in ministering before the Lord. 31_

As you may know, Gideon made an ephod for himself of the gold that was given to him (Judges 8:26, 27). The issue which David's wife Michal seems to be raising is that of public nakedness. In the Old Testament nakedness was considered shameful, if not immoral. In Genesis 3:10, Adam and Eve hid themselves when they discovered that they were naked. In Genesis 3:21, God made a covering of animal skins in order to cover the nakedness of our first parents.

In Genesis 9:22, Ham saw his father's nakedness and Ham's son Canaan was cursed because of it. This was very serious. We should remember that pagan cultures, like Rome, did not share the moral scruples of the strict, discrete Jews.

_There is little further information about dress until the coming of the Greeks. They had fewer inhibitions about nakedness than the Jews, and this led to conflict between the two races. When Jason, a High Priest, cooperated with the occupying Greek forces in building a gymnasium near Jerusalem, there, Greek games could be played by Jewish boys who wore, like all Greek athletes, little or nothing. 32_

So what happened in Jerusalem when David brought the Ark of the Covenant back into the city? II Samuel 6:14 states that David wore a "linen ephod." What is an "ephod"?

The word "ephod" means a covering. It is really composed of two parts:

_The robe of the ephod was a garment different from the ephod itself. The robe was blue, sleeveless and fringed at the bottom with bells of gold and pomegranates of blue, gold, purple, and scarlet (Exodus 28:31-35; 39:22-26). 33_

In other words, the person wore a robe from head to foot. Over this robe was the lighter ephod. Kiel and Delitzsch speak of the ephod in these terms:

_The white ephod was, strictly speaking, a priestly costume, although in the law it is not prescribed as the dress to be worn by them when performing their official duties, but rather as the dress which denotes the priestly character of the wearer (see at I Samuel 22:18); and for this reason it was worn by David in connection with these festivities in honor of the Lord, as the head of the priestly nation of Israel (I Samuel 2:18). 34_

David received the disdain of his wife Michal because of his conduct at the ceremony welcoming the Ark back into Jerusalem. She made it sound as though he danced naked in the streets like a scantily-clad dancer. The truth of the matter is that David was quite well covered. He had on an ankle length blue robe and the ephod over it, as the priests dressed. The thing he did not have on was his kingly robes. That appears to be the source of Michal's anger.

We must understand Michal's situation. The text identifies her as Saul's daughter, not David's wife, although she was indeed David's wife (I Samuel 18:27; 19:11; II Samuel 3:14). During Saul's reign, the Ark was not very important to him. It appears that in her childhood, Michal experienced little reverence for Jehovah, but probably saw some amount of idol worship. It is not surprising that she was distressed at David's exuberance over the return of the Ark.

Michal's ire was not over David's nakedness, but over the fact that David did three things:

1. He laid aside his royal robes, which identified him as the most honored person in the realm.

2. He put on the priestly robe and ephod by which he identified himself as the first priest of a priestly people.

3. David danced joyfully and energetically before the Ark -- the visible symbol of the location of God's presence. In Michal's mind, kings did not dance in public; rather, dancers performed for the king's delight.

David, the person of highest honor in the realm, assumed his rightful place before Jehovah, whom he dearly loved.

Think of David's conduct. He was a king and deserved royal respect. Rejoicing, however, at the entry of the Ark into the city, he felt that leading his people in praise to God was far more important than insisting on royal respect. Thus he lay aside his royal robes in favor of his servant role before God. It was greater, in his thinking, to be the priest leading people in worship, than to be the king.

It appears that God approved of David's conduct, but disapproved of Michal's. David was known as a "man after God's own heart" (I Kings 15:4, 5), but Michal remained childless, a great shame, all her days (II Samuel 6:23).

# THE PROTECTION OF MY ROOF

'You are welcome at my house,' the old man said. 'Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square.' So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink...The owner of the house went outside and said to them, 'No my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing.' Judges 19:20, 21, 23

The progressive development of the hotel, boarding house and motel, and the appearance of thousands of restaurants and fast-food establishments all make the idea of hospitality of the sojourner a bit difficult for us to grasp. Nevertheless, it was an absolute necessity in the Near East, and is still practiced among desert people. Indeed, during the War in the Persian Gulf, servicemen were filmed receiving the courteous hospitality of Arab families in the desert.

This law of hospitality was commonly referred to as "under my roof."

In Judges 19, the Levite and his concubine were traveling and it was late in the day. As was the custom, Judges 19:15, they sat down in the street in the center of town. This was the announcement that they needed hospitality. An old man saw them and inquired concerning their need. He then accepted the responsibility for them and their needs.

The men of the city had been drinking and came beating on the old man's door. They demanded that he bring out the sojourner for sexual reasons. The man interceded because of his need to defend his guest. This was not a unique experience. If you remember the story of Lot, you know that the men of Sodom determined to tear down Lot's door and take the men who were under his roof in order to satisfy their perverted sexual desires.

In Psalms 94:6, the author pleads with God to judge and punish the wicked who "slay the widow and sojourner." These are helpless people. In Genesis 18:6-8, Abraham was the host to three angelic beings. He gave them a feast, not just the necessary provisions.

In Deuteronomy, the Law of Hospitality was restated:

Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge...When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. Deuteronomy 24:17, 19

Moses has placed the sojourner on a par with the helpless widow and orphan. You will also find reference to this in Leviticus 19.

If you study Jesus' instructions to the 70 whom He sent out to witness throughout the land, you find, in Luke 10:1-12, that He makes it clear that these people are to use the Law of Hospitality to find food and shelter for the time they are to be gone. Jesus also gave them instructions as to their conduct while guests:

1. You are to give your peace to the home of your host.

2. You are to stay in the home that first receives you.

3. You are to eat and drink what the host gives you. You deserve your needs.

4. Do not go from house to house trying to upgrade your accommodation.

5. You are to eat what is given to you without defense, trauma or complaint.

6. You are to heal the sick.

This must have been quite a shock for the 70 people. Jesus was talking about being a gracious guest, when the Law of the Desert did not require the recipient to even say "thank you." The hospitality was his due. It was not usually viewed as a kindness, but as an obligation. The Jews, Arabs, Romans and Greeks all dealt with this hospitality as a sacred obligation, not as the choice of a gracious host.

Hoffman, a Hebrew scholar of another era, comments on the situation with Lot's guest in these terms. He speaks of Lot saying:

_Even today... an Easterner regards the duty of protecting his guest as sacred and above all other considerations. 35_

Because Lot had invited the angelic beings to accept his hospitality, he was under an oath to defend their safety and comfort with his very life.

The Arabs are under obligation to receive the "stranger" for three days. After that time the visitor is under suspicion:

_The emphasis upon entertaining guests probably originated in nomadic life. Travel was seldom, if ever, for pleasure but rather because of necessity. One never knew when he would be dependent upon the hospitality of others. Therefore a stranger had the right to expect hospitable treatment. A visitor had no need even to thank his host, since he was only receiving what was due him. The host would provide for his guest housing, protection and food, if he arrived in time for the evening meal. (Many times, however, even if the visitor arrived too late and was not entitled to food, the host sought to provide for him cf. Lu. 11:5 f.].) A murderer would find protection in the tent of his host even if the host were the victim's son. No expense or labor was too great for the traveler, who was treated as master of the house.[ 36_

The old man in Judges 19, and Lot in Genesis 19, were not just being noble. They were obeying the Law of Hospitality, sometimes called the Law of the Desert.

This law, given by God, is just one more expression of the concern of God for those in precarious situations. It reveals again the great compassion of God for those who are so vulnerable. It says more about God than it does about the people involved.

# AN EARNEST

...Who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession - to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:14

The word translated "deposit" in the New International Version is translated "earnest" in the King James Version and a number of others. For some Christians, "the earnest of our inheritance" was just a first-century way of saying something, an embellishment of the Biblical author's idea. If someone were to ask, "What is an earnest?" many Christians could not explain it. As happens so often, what many Christians take as poetic expression was really the author's carefully chosen figure of speech. Until you discover the meaning of that figure of speech, you can never grasp the fullness of the author's intended message.

Among Biblical authors, only the Apostle Paul uses the image of "an earnest." He uses it three times - Ephesians 1:14; II Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5 - and in each instance, it is a reference to the Holy Spirit.

The Greek word that Paul used for "earnest" was "arrabon." Vine, in his expository dictionary, speaks of the "earnest" in these terms:

_Originally, earnest-money deposited by the purchaser and forfeited if the purchase was not completed, was probably a Phoenician word, introduced into Greek. In general usage it came to denote a pledge or earnest of any sort; in the N.T. it is used only of that which is assured by God to believers; it is said of the Holy Spirit as the Divine pledge of all their future blessedness. 37_

In modern business transactions, the word "earnest" is still used. We might say that it is a bit like an "option to buy".

Charles R. Erdman describes an "earnest" in this manner:

_Now, an earnest was a portion of the purchase money given as the seal of a contract and so was a pledge of full payment. It was not only the seal, however. It was an installment, a part of the price, the same in kind as the full payment. 38_

Barclay said of an "arrabon":

_It is an installment paid down in advance which is the proof and the pledge that the whole sum will in due course be forthcoming. 39_

It is one thing to discover the literal definition of a term. It is another to discover what that word meant to the people to whom it was written.

As we said earlier, each of the three references to the "earnest" has to do with the Holy Spirit. Paul is saying that the Holy Spirit is the "earnest;" He is the installment paid in advance to affirm that the entire balance will be paid -- and paid in full. The Holy Spirit is that which the Father gives us in order to enable us to comprehend, to some small degree, the full extent of the eternal glory that will one day be ours; to assure us that our inheritance is secure and that this small part of the real thing will be ours in full measure when the time of closing comes. Because the Holy Spirit is the "earnest," it means that what we grasp of His presence is a small token of the reality which is thereby pledged to us and made certain of delivery to all those who are in Christ Jesus. As Erdman says, the Holy Spirit, as the earnest of our inheritance, indicates the nature of the future life that we will live in glory.

Vine reminds us that the word "arrabon" in modern Greek is used to describe an engagement ring. The ring is not the promise. It is the assurance; the visible evidence that the promise will be fully kept.

In II Corinthians and Ephesians, Paul uses the word "earnest" to speak about the Holy Spirit:

1. **Ephesians 1:14** \- The Holy Spirit is the deposit, a taste of the real thing, it assures us; it guarantees our inheritance which is in heaven and is eternal.

2. **II Corinthians 1:22** \- The Holy Spirit is God's seal of ownership on us and God put His Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, an earnest, an assurance that the future is as secure as the Spirit of God who dwells within; as rich as His indwelling presence.

3. **II Corinthians 5:5** \- God has given us His Holy Spirit as a deposit, an assurance that all will be paid and that what has been given is only a taste of the reality that the future holds for us.

The presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit is only a down payment; an assurance in kind of what the full beauty of glory will be like. If the presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit is merely an earnest, a down payment guaranteeing the nature and extent of what glory will be, imagine what heaven, our eternal presence with God will be like?

We must also be aware of the fact that though the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, the earnest is as real as the inheritance it represents, just not yet in full measure. That being the case, one can hardly wait!

# JUST SAY THE WORD

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: 'Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'go,' and he goes; and that one 'come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'do this,' and he does it.' Luke 7:6b-8

Most of us have wondered why the centurion would not want every opportunity to be as close to Jesus as possible. Why wouldn't he want Jesus to do any miracle He was willing to do. Teachers have said that this was an example of the great faith of the centurion. There is absolutely no doubt that the centurion was a man of great faith. That is not, however, enough to cause him to deal with such a crisis in this seemingly casual way.

We have also heard teachers and preachers say that the centurion did this because as a leader he knew just how busy a leader can be and that he was just being considerate of Jesus. It is true that a centurion would be very sensitive to just how busy a leader can be. By the same token, the centurion felt the pressure of a desperate situation. All of this does not account for the way the centurion dealt with a time of great crisis.

In each of these scenarios I was left with an uncomfortable feeling. It just seemed that there had to be a better answer. As I pondered the situation, I noticed some hints that might prove to be helpful.

The centurion had built a synagogue for the Jews. That was totally out of character for the Romans. They were in the habit of taking, not giving. It could be that he was a most considerate man. If so, he would probably be the only Roman official who felt that way. This idea of consideration is possible, but not probable.

Some would say that the centurion was a secret convert to Judaism. This is the more probable of the two possibilities. The hint here is that this centurion was a man who was probably deeply religious.

The second hint came as I realized that this high Roman official was deeply concerned about a sick slave. Slaves were considered property, like disposable furniture. His demise would not create impossible financial strain for anyone. The hint here is that this centurion was a compassionate man. This would be a shock to everyone in Palestine. Neither station nor position mattered to him when a man, even a slave, experienced pain and danger to life. This commitment was quite a statement about a man whose training and business was death.

The third hint I noticed was that the centurion, who cared so much, sent Jewish Elders to request Jesus' help for his ailing servant. What other Roman official would take that chance? In his position, the centurion could expect anyone to receive him and honor his request. Still he chose to send Jewish Elders to make the request. The hint, in this instance, was the fact that this man had earned the love and approbation of people of whom he would otherwise have been considered an enemy.

No amount of reflecting on these hints was sufficient to make one feel comfortable that the keys to this passage had been found.

Only after many years did I discover that there was some additional information, which I had known but had never applied to this situation.

1. It is common knowledge that Jews were to have no dealings with Gentiles. It is reasonable to assume that the centurion was aware of the problem he would have caused Jesus by going to Him personally to request His help for his servant. This would never have been a problem for Jesus, but we have no way to be certain that the centurion had personal knowledge of Jesus' openness in this direction. Jewish Elders, however, were required, because of their position, to have dealings with the Roman officials. The centurion knew he could save Jesus an awkward situation by sending Jewish friends to request that Jesus minister to his servant. This is in keeping with what we have already seen of his compassion and consideration.

2. We also know that if a Jew entered the home of a Gentile, he would thereby become unclean. This would help to explain why the centurion sent some more friends to intercept Jesus before He got close enough to enter the centurion's home in order to heal the servant. Again, this fits what we already know about the centurion's concern and compassion. It also matches his sensitivity to the limitations which applied to the lives of devout Jews.

It is not surprising that Jesus could say, with so much strength and conviction,

I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel. Luke 7:9b

This was a phenomenal compliment on the part of Jesus. This Gentile, who had been trained to worship his emperor, had clearly made some stands on behalf of his own commitment to the God of Israel. His compassion was so intense that he was able to be concerned for Jesus in the midst of his own tension and potential for loss.

One of the telling ideas that has stayed with me in recent days has to do with how I would respond if I were the centurion. Would I be able to be sensitive to the needs of the healer when my servant needed healing so badly? Would I have the time to show compassion when I was all excited about my own needs? This has a way of putting life in perspective for us.

# CONCLUSION

When theologians talk about the inspiration of Scripture, they are usually speaking of the action by which the Holy Spirit works through the skill and personality of the writer to convey God's revelation of Himself to people. This is a vital part of that understanding. You can see this in the logic of Paul that is so obvious in the epistle to the Romans. It is also obvious in the immediacy of the Gospel of Mark, which is evident in none of the other three Gospel records. What other Gospel record has the human and medical sensitivity that you find in the Gospel of Luke?

When we talk about inspiration, we also mean that God, by the Holy Spirit, reveals Himself and His will through the facility and characteristics of the language in which it was conveyed. The romantic, emotional Hebrew language is a perfect vehicle by which to describe the character of God as He revealed Himself in the historical record of the lives of Old Testament personages. Likewise, God revealed the intricate detail of His personality and His will for our lives through the deft precision of the Greek language. This is most obvious in the epistles.

We are beginning to realize that we are only scratching the surface in our understanding of what is involved in the inspiration of the Scripture. God, by the Holy Spirit, used the cultural mores and understandings as a means to reveal Himself and His will for the lives of His people. This book is a series of illustrations of this truth.

The church has been documenting a regression in the understanding of Scripture. Over a century ago, the church struggled because the people outside the church were Biblically illiterate. In the early part of this century there was a gradual drift away from Biblical preaching and teaching in some segments of the church. In more recent times this decline has pervaded an increasing segment of the church until, in some places, a pastor cannot use a Biblical illustration without explaining it. This is because major segments of the congregation would not know what the pastor was talking about.

We need to change directions in the church. We need to gain a deeper grasp of the basic understandings of the Bible. We need to teach the Scriptures to many who have been a part of the church all their lives. We must also teach the Scriptures to the people who have recently become followers of Jesus.

As we discover the meaning of Scripture and the additional clarity which these cultural details provide, it must make a measurable difference in our Christian lives. As we increase our knowledge of Scripture, we also seriously increase our potential for knowing God more completely. Catching a clearer glimpse of God, we open ourselves to a dramatic discovery of His will for our lives. Again, as we discover God's will more clearly, we can become open to the possibility of becoming both useful in His kingdom, and also of growing as obedient disciples.

An understanding of the words and phrases highlighted in this book can clarify our grasp of God's revelation of Himself and His will for our lives.

We hope that you will continue to delve more deeply into the Word of God. We also hope you will discover even more of the intricate detail of God's revelation of Himself and His will.

###

# ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Bill's books and Bible Studies are available in print format and can be ordered on his website:

http://billcooperlogos.org

Bill Cooper was a pastor for 29 years and has made ten trips to Israel. He is the president and founder of Logos Ministries, Incorporated. Bill has taught in six different countries for 10 years and then for 8 years he directed and taught in the Emmaus Biblical Seminary in Vaudreuil, Haiti.

He is active in his local church in Fort Collins, Colorado and he also conducts Spiritual Life Retreats for church conferences and congregations. He and his wife, Ruth, an internationally known porcelain artist, have two grown children: a daughter, Ruth, and a son, Kiel.

Bill presently devotes full time to teaching Inductive Bible Study and writing books on Bible study for the laity.

Bill holds the following degrees:

B. Th. - Nyack College

B. A. - Wayne State University

M. Div. - Biblical Seminary in N. Y. C.

D. Min. - Ashbury Theological Seminary

# ENDNOTES

1 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Ed., Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, VI (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 196, p. 302

2 The Chafetz Chayim,The Concise Book of Mitzvoth, (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1990) p. 173

3 Merrill F. Unger,Op. Cit., p. 950

4 James Fleming, Geography Of The Bible: Right And Left Stage, Jerusalem: Biblical Resources, 1984) Tape

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 John R. Kohlenberger III, Ed., The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984) p. 418

8 Ibid.

9 John R. Kohlenberger III, Ed., The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984) p. 591

10 Alfred J. Kolatch, The Second Jewish Book of Why, (Middle Village: Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 11379) p. 258

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Jean McKechnie, Ed., Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Of The English Language Unabridged, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983) p. 2053

15 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Gen. Ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988) p. 702

16 Op. cit., Bromiley, Volume III, p. 874

17 Op. cit., Bromiley, Vol. I, p. 702

18 Ibid., p. 702

19 Ibid., p. 702

20 John R. Kohlenberger III, Ed., Op. Cit., p. 191

21 Joachim Jeremias, The Parables Of Jesus, (New York: Charles Scribner's Press, 1972) p. 130

22 Jeremias, op. cit., p. 130

23 John R. Kohlenberger III, Ed., Op. Cit., p. 830

24 Ralph Gower, The Manners And Customs of Bible Times, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987) p. 242, 243

25 Joachim Jeremias, Op. Cit., p. 130

26 If a man died and left no offspring, his oldest brother was required, by the leverite law, to impregnate his dead brother's wife to raise up seed to his dead brother. This was to protect the dead brother from being disgraced because of being childless.

27 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary On The Old Testament In Ten Volumes,Volume 5, Psalms (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980) p. 199

28 Geoffery W. Bromiley, ed.,The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,Vol 4, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988) pp. 491, 492

29 Prevenient grace is that grace by which God searches after us, by His Spirit, from before the time of our birth until we ultimately respond to His overtures of mercy and seek His forgiveness. At this point, the Prodigal has come home and father has received his son who had been considered dead.

30 R. Laird Harris, Ed., Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament, Volume 1, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) p. 143

31 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Gen. Ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 2, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982) p. 117

32 J. A. Thompson, Handbook Of Life In Bible Times, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1986) p. 104

33 Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary , (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957) p.317

34 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary On The Old Testament In Ten Volumes, Volume 2, II Samuel, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982) p. 336

35 Rabbi Nosson Scherman, Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz, Genesis, Volume 1, (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1988) p. 684

36 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Gen. Ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 2, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988) p. 105

37 John R. Kohlenberger III, Ed., The Expanded Vine's Dictionary Of New Testament Words, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984) p. 299

38 Charles R. Erdman, The Epistle Of Paul To The Ephesians, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1929) p. 34

39 William Barclay, New Testament Words, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974) p. 58

