I believe it was because of my interest in John's story of the healing of the man blind from birth that eventually caused me to notice the differences in stories of healing the blind.
There are basically four that I think of, though two of them seem to get mixed together.
The man blind from birth (John 9) - Also notable for being on the Sabbath, Jesus made a mix of clay and spittle and applied it to the man's eyes, then instructed him to go wash in the pool of Siloam.
Blind man healed by stages (Mark 8:22-26) - Jesus spit on his hands before touching the man's eyes, and while partial vision was restored on the first touch, it took two for complete healing.
The two blind men (Matthew 9:27-31) - Jesus asked about their faith and touched their eyes.
Bartimaeus (Matthew 20, Mark 10, and Luke 18) - In some accounts there are two men; Mark's only has one. I suspect that some details got confused with the story of the two blind men in Matthew 9 and this one because of similarities in what happened. Matthew mentions touching, but in Mark and Luke the healing appears to occur simply by a verbal command.
Looking at one more healing from Acts, with the scales falling off of Saul's eyes, I have heard many people say that clearly those were cataracts. I cannot rule out that each of the blind people healed by Jesus had different types of blindness, and that is why there were different healing methods. That was not my first thought.
At some point I got the idea that the methods of healing were for those being healed: to teach them, to reinforce their faith, to make it have spiritual as well as a physical impact.
The man blind from birth had to go do something, and then he was not even sure who had healed him until he encountered Jesus later, after having been cast out for defending Jesus. In the cases of the two blind men and Bartimaeus, they had asked to be healed, and cried mightily for it. They already had faith that healing was possible.
There is no indication that this other man had any idea of that possibility. Perhaps giving him steps to take, and having that period of waiting and uncertainty, did something for him. It is clear that his belief grew quickly.
That's where I started to get the idea of how personalized everything is with Jesus. To heal you have to diagnose, and for the Savior of the World that means more than physical.
The next few posts will give some illustrations of that.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Trying to be like Jesus - now I see
The next three things I want to talk about will all relate to Jesus seeing the individual (yes, right up my alley), but they got started with the story in the 9th chapter of John, when Jesus healed a man blind from birth.
This is again one that I did not really catch in my own reading, possibly because it is a remarkably repetitive chapter. We hear about the healing as it happened, then as he relates it to the people who see him, then the Pharisees, then we get some repetition from his parents confirming he was always blind. Even he gets to a point where he objects to relaying the story again.
27. He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
The story became important to me when someone else pointed it out. It was a speaker at a church meeting, marveling over the strength and logic of this newly healed man standing up to the Pharisees. He may have gotten his inspiration from Talmage, but yes, now I see it too.
The no longer blind man would not have been well-regarded in his society. One thing we get at the beginning of a chapter is a reminder that afflictions were taken to be a sign of sin. He certainly would have had less scholarly training than the Pharisees.
Also, he was at a stage where there was some real fear that anything that you said in favor of Jesus could get you excommunicated. His parents were scared, and maybe as someone sidelined by a disability he would not have been as aware of that risk or its ramifications, but as their tone grew angrier the underlying threats could probably be inferred.
None of that mattered, because he knew.
He may not have had thorough scriptural training, but he had a deep faith in God's goodness.
31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
That can be both a sign of a lack of knowledge and an unwitting self affirmation. His congenital blindness did not make him a sinner. Also, God does hear sinners, though theirs requests can't always be granted.
But he is learning, and he knows he needs to.
35 - 38
...Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
He has been cast out, but he has also been healed. There is a new path open before him, and he knows it is worth it.
That is very beautiful.
This is again one that I did not really catch in my own reading, possibly because it is a remarkably repetitive chapter. We hear about the healing as it happened, then as he relates it to the people who see him, then the Pharisees, then we get some repetition from his parents confirming he was always blind. Even he gets to a point where he objects to relaying the story again.
27. He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
The story became important to me when someone else pointed it out. It was a speaker at a church meeting, marveling over the strength and logic of this newly healed man standing up to the Pharisees. He may have gotten his inspiration from Talmage, but yes, now I see it too.
The no longer blind man would not have been well-regarded in his society. One thing we get at the beginning of a chapter is a reminder that afflictions were taken to be a sign of sin. He certainly would have had less scholarly training than the Pharisees.
Also, he was at a stage where there was some real fear that anything that you said in favor of Jesus could get you excommunicated. His parents were scared, and maybe as someone sidelined by a disability he would not have been as aware of that risk or its ramifications, but as their tone grew angrier the underlying threats could probably be inferred.
None of that mattered, because he knew.
He may not have had thorough scriptural training, but he had a deep faith in God's goodness.
31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
That can be both a sign of a lack of knowledge and an unwitting self affirmation. His congenital blindness did not make him a sinner. Also, God does hear sinners, though theirs requests can't always be granted.
But he is learning, and he knows he needs to.
35 - 38
...Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
He has been cast out, but he has also been healed. There is a new path open before him, and he knows it is worth it.
That is very beautiful.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Trying to be like Jesus - in the flesh
I am currently almost finished reading John.
When I started this, I mentioned that I was in the Book of Mormon and I wanted to finish that before starting the Gospels again. Fortunately I found things to write about that way, and that has basically been continuing now.
After I finish John, my plan is to go through the entire Harmony of the Gospels.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/harmony?lang=eng
This is a study aid that attempts to put the events in a chronological order and gather all of the verses related to something together. I have been referring to it for the past few posts, but not methodically.
This will be interesting, because no matter how reasonable other study methods sound, reading straight through is the only thing that feels natural to me.
Other things that may help are that my family only has a few weeks left in the Old Testament for our study (after which I believe we will start the New Testament) and I will soon start reading Gesu il Cristo (James Talmadge's Jesus the Christ in Italian).
For now, while there are things that I know I want to write about, I did not want to get to them quite yet, and I was not sure what to write about today. That led me to the Harmony, and with Cana and the fasting and temptation having been covered, the early ministry makes sense, though there are only two versus on that, about teaching and baptizing. Kind of.
John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
So far so good, but there is also John 4:2 -
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
What I have heard explained about the parenthetical phrases is that they were insertions into the text that probably took some literary license. For example, in John 5:4, yes, the pool may have times when the water moves, and its healing properties may be greater at those times, but it is unlikely that it is an angel going down and setting off a contest where the first one in gets healed.
That made me think of two things, both of which I wanted to write, and thus we have all this prelude, which I hope at least provides some clarification.
Firstly, I read the King James Version translation. It is an LDS copy with LDS study guides (all of which can be found online which can make linking great), but that's traditional with my church. Even if there are better translations now, that's still what I do.
I have been thinking about that now partly because of reading a minor reference in something else about how you wouldn't expect the king's translators to put in something supporting rebelling against kings.
(It might have been an excerpt from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, in which case I will be reading that soon so I will find out.)
The other thing goes along with being able to have a life, as I wrote about regarding Cana. I think the reason you would add that is because it feels like too much to have been baptized by Jesus, because he's Jesus!. Or maybe it's too undignified to imagine him getting all wet, or maybe he should be holding back and let his disciples do all the work because he is the leader.
I can see how those mindsets would form, but there are too many other hints that it wasn't that way. Jesus stoops and draws in the dirt. He eats with publicans. He eats and drinks, period. He washes feet and girds himself appropriately to do so.
Bodily functions can be gross (especially in mortality), but being overly critical of flesh harms. That creates people who feel guilty for enjoying sex and food and warmth and all of those things that are pleasurable and intended to be so. Periods of fasting have value, but part of the value is surely the contrast.
When we despise those things, and divorce them from God, we distance ourselves from Him. This goes beyond Jesus to getting the idea of a God without parts and passions, everywhere and nowhere. How can we possibly relate to such a being? He is superior, but we are created in his image; there are parts of him in us and us in him.
So much of scripture is asking us to know God, that we should not work to make him unknowable.
When I started this, I mentioned that I was in the Book of Mormon and I wanted to finish that before starting the Gospels again. Fortunately I found things to write about that way, and that has basically been continuing now.
After I finish John, my plan is to go through the entire Harmony of the Gospels.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/harmony?lang=eng
This is a study aid that attempts to put the events in a chronological order and gather all of the verses related to something together. I have been referring to it for the past few posts, but not methodically.
This will be interesting, because no matter how reasonable other study methods sound, reading straight through is the only thing that feels natural to me.
Other things that may help are that my family only has a few weeks left in the Old Testament for our study (after which I believe we will start the New Testament) and I will soon start reading Gesu il Cristo (James Talmadge's Jesus the Christ in Italian).
For now, while there are things that I know I want to write about, I did not want to get to them quite yet, and I was not sure what to write about today. That led me to the Harmony, and with Cana and the fasting and temptation having been covered, the early ministry makes sense, though there are only two versus on that, about teaching and baptizing. Kind of.
John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
So far so good, but there is also John 4:2 -
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
What I have heard explained about the parenthetical phrases is that they were insertions into the text that probably took some literary license. For example, in John 5:4, yes, the pool may have times when the water moves, and its healing properties may be greater at those times, but it is unlikely that it is an angel going down and setting off a contest where the first one in gets healed.
That made me think of two things, both of which I wanted to write, and thus we have all this prelude, which I hope at least provides some clarification.
Firstly, I read the King James Version translation. It is an LDS copy with LDS study guides (all of which can be found online which can make linking great), but that's traditional with my church. Even if there are better translations now, that's still what I do.
I have been thinking about that now partly because of reading a minor reference in something else about how you wouldn't expect the king's translators to put in something supporting rebelling against kings.
(It might have been an excerpt from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, in which case I will be reading that soon so I will find out.)
The other thing goes along with being able to have a life, as I wrote about regarding Cana. I think the reason you would add that is because it feels like too much to have been baptized by Jesus, because he's Jesus!. Or maybe it's too undignified to imagine him getting all wet, or maybe he should be holding back and let his disciples do all the work because he is the leader.
I can see how those mindsets would form, but there are too many other hints that it wasn't that way. Jesus stoops and draws in the dirt. He eats with publicans. He eats and drinks, period. He washes feet and girds himself appropriately to do so.
Bodily functions can be gross (especially in mortality), but being overly critical of flesh harms. That creates people who feel guilty for enjoying sex and food and warmth and all of those things that are pleasurable and intended to be so. Periods of fasting have value, but part of the value is surely the contrast.
When we despise those things, and divorce them from God, we distance ourselves from Him. This goes beyond Jesus to getting the idea of a God without parts and passions, everywhere and nowhere. How can we possibly relate to such a being? He is superior, but we are created in his image; there are parts of him in us and us in him.
So much of scripture is asking us to know God, that we should not work to make him unknowable.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Trying to be like Jesus - prepared
Shortly after coming down from the Transfiguration, Jesus healed a child whom the disciples had been unable to heal, with accounts in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9.
In both Matthew and Mark he tells us that "this kind" only comes out by fasting and prayer. One could assume that he was referring to that kind of demon (often assumed to be epilepsy). There are enough references to unbelief that I wonder if he means that. Jesus gives the unbelief of the disciples as a primary reason for their failure before adding the part about fasting and prayer, he talks about faith to both the disciples and the child's father - who asks for help with his unbelief - and in all three accounts he exclaims on the "faithless generation".
I do not doubt that some healings requires greater faith, and it is logical that casting out one's unbelief would be key to greater power. The other thought that I have had though, is that he was not fasting right then.
We often combine fasting with prayer for things we desire, and I know people who - if possible - take time to fast before being called on to give a blessing. What I also take from this account is that a long pattern of fasting and prayer was a key part of his preparation and power.
We know that Jesus fasted and prayed for an extended period of time before starting his ministry. We don't know if he had a regular practice of fasting before that time, though it is certainly possible. We do know that he was not constantly fasting during his ministry, because the Pharisees complained about him being gluttonous and a winebibber, comparing him negatively to John the Baptist (whom they also disregarded, and I suspect they were exaggerating about the gluttony).
It is possible that the 40 days of fasting was an extended time period because there would not be that option for solitude once things had started. We read of times he tried to get away, but his ministry was a consuming one.
I do know one other thing about his preparation before, and that is that it included a thorough study of scripture. He was well versed in the law and the prophets, using them to counter arguments from men and Satan.
I have often been impressed at how things that you studied once can come back, but also after studying multiple times it goes beyond something you recollect to something that is a part of you.
In a time of crisis we may turn to prayer and scriptures to give us strength, and that's reasonable. The reading and pondering and praying that we do when things are normal may be even more important. We build up strength and understanding that prepares us for what will come.
Writing this now, it also occurs to me that if we can see ahead to something that we know will be taxing, or where we will want extra preparation, then perhaps we can plan for that. Perhaps we can take some time to fast or retreat to the woods or read a passage that seems relevant. Sometimes we will get that guidance - perhaps an urge to read a certain passage or to go for a long walk alone. It is great that this can happen. Living our lives in a manner where we are doing basic things to be spiritually prepared makes that more possible.
In both Matthew and Mark he tells us that "this kind" only comes out by fasting and prayer. One could assume that he was referring to that kind of demon (often assumed to be epilepsy). There are enough references to unbelief that I wonder if he means that. Jesus gives the unbelief of the disciples as a primary reason for their failure before adding the part about fasting and prayer, he talks about faith to both the disciples and the child's father - who asks for help with his unbelief - and in all three accounts he exclaims on the "faithless generation".
I do not doubt that some healings requires greater faith, and it is logical that casting out one's unbelief would be key to greater power. The other thought that I have had though, is that he was not fasting right then.
We often combine fasting with prayer for things we desire, and I know people who - if possible - take time to fast before being called on to give a blessing. What I also take from this account is that a long pattern of fasting and prayer was a key part of his preparation and power.
We know that Jesus fasted and prayed for an extended period of time before starting his ministry. We don't know if he had a regular practice of fasting before that time, though it is certainly possible. We do know that he was not constantly fasting during his ministry, because the Pharisees complained about him being gluttonous and a winebibber, comparing him negatively to John the Baptist (whom they also disregarded, and I suspect they were exaggerating about the gluttony).
It is possible that the 40 days of fasting was an extended time period because there would not be that option for solitude once things had started. We read of times he tried to get away, but his ministry was a consuming one.
I do know one other thing about his preparation before, and that is that it included a thorough study of scripture. He was well versed in the law and the prophets, using them to counter arguments from men and Satan.
I have often been impressed at how things that you studied once can come back, but also after studying multiple times it goes beyond something you recollect to something that is a part of you.
In a time of crisis we may turn to prayer and scriptures to give us strength, and that's reasonable. The reading and pondering and praying that we do when things are normal may be even more important. We build up strength and understanding that prepares us for what will come.
Writing this now, it also occurs to me that if we can see ahead to something that we know will be taxing, or where we will want extra preparation, then perhaps we can plan for that. Perhaps we can take some time to fast or retreat to the woods or read a passage that seems relevant. Sometimes we will get that guidance - perhaps an urge to read a certain passage or to go for a long walk alone. It is great that this can happen. Living our lives in a manner where we are doing basic things to be spiritually prepared makes that more possible.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Trying to be like Jesus - a member of the wedding
Back in the '90s, between school terms, I was the go-to substitute for teaching Gospel Doctrine in my singles ward. One of those lessons was on the wedding at Cana, and I was asked if it was Jesus's wedding.
I have a vivid mental picture of it, where I can see the room, and Jill raising her hand and who she was sitting next to and how annoyed I was. I believe that the level of detail in the memory was proportional to my annoyance, which may not have been fair. I assumed she was asking as a way of showing off and being provocative, but maybe she really wanted to know - not that we really can know.
If she was trying to be shocking, I didn't take the bait. I just stated matter-of-factly that Jesus probably already would have been married for quite a while by then. I think our church has always said that we believed that Jesus was married, and that he would have to be to enter into the highest, even if we don't spend a lot of time on it.
Besides that, I believe I'd already had an institute teacher point out that it was very unacceptable for a Jewish man to not marry at that time, and for all the things they criticized on record, that didn't come up. Even his going into the synagogues and teaching indicated that he was married. Those were things that I was told and believed, though I am not sure how accurate they are. I believe that I had also picked up that the traditional marriage age was around 18 for a boy (14 for girls), and he was about 30 at Cana, so all of that makes it very unlikely that it was his wedding.
My intention is not that the lesson we should take from this is that we should get married, though I think that is a good thing to do if you do it right (with lots of not so great ways of doing it too). It's more that the memory kept coming back to me, and it reminded me that even the Savior of the World had time for his own life.
We know a little about his birth and a few location moves (Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth). We know that he presented himself at the temple at an age that was appropriate for being examined by the elders - another sign that he respected local traditions and customs, despite focusing on the more needful parts and at the right times being able to overturn conventions and tables. Then we know of his ministry. There is a lot of time in between that we don't know, and I am glad for him.
This goes along with the last post's insistence on our right to party, but it is more than that. We can talk about losing our lives to find them, but still, we can have our lives. Certainly that life has to be compatible with what is right, and something that we can be okay sharing with God (and I know there is a lot to explore there), but there can still be things we do for us, with not everything being service.
There are reasonable questions about balance, or when to give something up, or quibbling over whether the things you do for yourself can count as service anyway because it makes you better able to help others, but what strikes me most is the value of earthly satisfactions.
Some people find a lot of different pleasures trivial and unimportant, perhaps for no other reason than it's something they wouldn't miss. I believe there is a lot of space for us to be us.
One of my pet peeves is people finding it necessary to mention their disapproval of something every time it is mentioned. They hate that food or TV show, or maybe they think that band used to be punk but isn't anymore. It's even more obnoxious when it happens in a context where clearly the pleasure in question was brought up by someone who likes it. It is quite likely that you like things that other people don't, unless you don't like anything at all, in which case the problem is clearly you.
One brilliant thing about not knowing much about the private life of Jesus is that we only have his teachings to focus on. He told us what he knew was important, we should be able to figure out the rest, and we can do that graciously, without needing everyone else to be the same. Look at all of the variety in nature; how could it possibly be any other way?
I will do one more bit of speculation. That the wine shortage was brought to Mary's attention, and then to Jesus - well that could just be friendship or good guests, but it could also be a family connection.
Speaking of getting to have a life of your own, I know that there are traditions that Mary stayed a virgin forever, and acrobatic ways of explaining how that worked out and how the siblings that are mentioned could have fit in, but I have no reason to believe that. It does seem pretty possible that Joseph died not long after Jesus presented himself at the temple - I imagine that would be rather like a bar mitzvah, so becoming a man - and then Jesus as Mary's oldest child and son would have had a lot of responsibility for the family.
It seems possible to me that perhaps the marriage could have been for one of those siblings. Maybe it was the last of the siblings. Maybe that made it a good time to start his ministry, when everyone was in a pretty settled place.
That is pure speculation, but it is a reminder that even though you get that time of your own, it may be time where you are poor, and have a lot of family responsibility that you need to meet righteously.
That sounds like life. There are downsides to it, but it is still precious. It still comes with satisfaction and joy, as well as heartbreak and difficulty. I know it can happen in a way where it is ours, but something that we can share with God. We can follow Him and still have our own choices for things that are not matters of right and wrong but merely preferences.
Embrace life in all of its beautiful, messy complexity.
I have a vivid mental picture of it, where I can see the room, and Jill raising her hand and who she was sitting next to and how annoyed I was. I believe that the level of detail in the memory was proportional to my annoyance, which may not have been fair. I assumed she was asking as a way of showing off and being provocative, but maybe she really wanted to know - not that we really can know.
If she was trying to be shocking, I didn't take the bait. I just stated matter-of-factly that Jesus probably already would have been married for quite a while by then. I think our church has always said that we believed that Jesus was married, and that he would have to be to enter into the highest, even if we don't spend a lot of time on it.
Besides that, I believe I'd already had an institute teacher point out that it was very unacceptable for a Jewish man to not marry at that time, and for all the things they criticized on record, that didn't come up. Even his going into the synagogues and teaching indicated that he was married. Those were things that I was told and believed, though I am not sure how accurate they are. I believe that I had also picked up that the traditional marriage age was around 18 for a boy (14 for girls), and he was about 30 at Cana, so all of that makes it very unlikely that it was his wedding.
My intention is not that the lesson we should take from this is that we should get married, though I think that is a good thing to do if you do it right (with lots of not so great ways of doing it too). It's more that the memory kept coming back to me, and it reminded me that even the Savior of the World had time for his own life.
We know a little about his birth and a few location moves (Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth). We know that he presented himself at the temple at an age that was appropriate for being examined by the elders - another sign that he respected local traditions and customs, despite focusing on the more needful parts and at the right times being able to overturn conventions and tables. Then we know of his ministry. There is a lot of time in between that we don't know, and I am glad for him.
This goes along with the last post's insistence on our right to party, but it is more than that. We can talk about losing our lives to find them, but still, we can have our lives. Certainly that life has to be compatible with what is right, and something that we can be okay sharing with God (and I know there is a lot to explore there), but there can still be things we do for us, with not everything being service.
There are reasonable questions about balance, or when to give something up, or quibbling over whether the things you do for yourself can count as service anyway because it makes you better able to help others, but what strikes me most is the value of earthly satisfactions.
Some people find a lot of different pleasures trivial and unimportant, perhaps for no other reason than it's something they wouldn't miss. I believe there is a lot of space for us to be us.
One of my pet peeves is people finding it necessary to mention their disapproval of something every time it is mentioned. They hate that food or TV show, or maybe they think that band used to be punk but isn't anymore. It's even more obnoxious when it happens in a context where clearly the pleasure in question was brought up by someone who likes it. It is quite likely that you like things that other people don't, unless you don't like anything at all, in which case the problem is clearly you.
One brilliant thing about not knowing much about the private life of Jesus is that we only have his teachings to focus on. He told us what he knew was important, we should be able to figure out the rest, and we can do that graciously, without needing everyone else to be the same. Look at all of the variety in nature; how could it possibly be any other way?
I will do one more bit of speculation. That the wine shortage was brought to Mary's attention, and then to Jesus - well that could just be friendship or good guests, but it could also be a family connection.
Speaking of getting to have a life of your own, I know that there are traditions that Mary stayed a virgin forever, and acrobatic ways of explaining how that worked out and how the siblings that are mentioned could have fit in, but I have no reason to believe that. It does seem pretty possible that Joseph died not long after Jesus presented himself at the temple - I imagine that would be rather like a bar mitzvah, so becoming a man - and then Jesus as Mary's oldest child and son would have had a lot of responsibility for the family.
It seems possible to me that perhaps the marriage could have been for one of those siblings. Maybe it was the last of the siblings. Maybe that made it a good time to start his ministry, when everyone was in a pretty settled place.
That is pure speculation, but it is a reminder that even though you get that time of your own, it may be time where you are poor, and have a lot of family responsibility that you need to meet righteously.
That sounds like life. There are downsides to it, but it is still precious. It still comes with satisfaction and joy, as well as heartbreak and difficulty. I know it can happen in a way where it is ours, but something that we can share with God. We can follow Him and still have our own choices for things that are not matters of right and wrong but merely preferences.
Embrace life in all of its beautiful, messy complexity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)