Trying to be like Jesus - knowing God

Another part in the New Testament that kind of bothered me was in Matthew 25, when Jesus speaks of separating the sheep from the goats. I thought it was down on goats, and I felt sorry for them as an animal lover.

Maybe this is a good time to write about it because I have recently seen some of each.

 Mentally I have one picture of goats and one of sheep, and they are pretty easy to tell apart. Some varieties are more similar.

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/12/21/371714463/is-this-a-goat-or-a-sheep-its-harder-than-you-think

In context, someone who has to separate the two is clearly keeping both. That part is just that there is a sorting into two groups that are different; it is not a judgment on goats.

It is a judgment on those who withhold service.

There are things to be done: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and welcoming the stranger. Some do them, some don't, and the interesting thing is that many of them don't seem to have thought much about the significance of doing it. The Lord tells them that whether they give this kindness or withhold it, it is as if it is to him, but both sides seem surprised.

If serving people because you want to go to Heaven is how you start, I think that's okay. I suspect that more frequently things are done because of love, or not done due to a lack of love. I also do not expect that to be a stagnant thing.

The chapter has two other parables, dealing with the ten virgins and the talents. The foolish virgins are turned away as not being known by the bridegroom (despite being invited guests). With the talents, the servant who squandered his makes the excuse that based on his knowledge of his lord, he was afraid of losing it. The lord replies that if the servant knew him, then he should have known to invest it and create an increase with it.

Perhaps of these three parables told together, the last one contains the key: we will get to know our Lord by serving others.

I have written about how sometimes there were lessons built into healing, and time advised to ponder it after, but this is a good time to focus again on how freely given the healing was.

He healed those who asked him and some where others asked on their behalf. He healed people whose affliction was not due to sin (like the man blind from birth) and some where it is strongly implied that sin was a factor (the man lowered through the roof). He healed one who does not even seem to have been particularly repentant (John 5:14).

We may not be able to heal miraculously or turn a few loaves and fishes into food for a multitude, but we can give what we have. We can choose to let more people have access to health care and food and clothing. We can visit those in prison and work for their good, which would probably lead us to see that there should be far fewer people in prison in the first place.

As we work for his children - focusing on their needs rather than their worthiness - we will come to know him by becoming like him. Rather than imagining (mentally creating) a God who is as petty and spiteful as our worst selves, we will be re-creating ourselves in his image. He gave us a good start, but the only way to complete that process is by becoming filled with love, and that love will overflow into works.

It cannot be more clear.

Trying to be like Jesus - what we're listening for

Mark 11 and Matthew 21 both give accounts of Jesus coming upon a fig tree while hungry. Based on its appearance from a distance it should have been full of figs, but there were none. He cursed the fig tree and the next day it was withered away.

I have read two divergent sets of thought about this incident.

One was in Michel, Michel,  a novel by Robert Lewis. A young Jewish boy is raised by a Catholic French woman during the Holocaust, and shortly after his baptism as Catholic an aunt steps forward who wants to take him to Israel. The novel deals with the custody battled and the stress of the religious differences.

The aunt's lawyer is a Jewish man with some unique ideas about Jesus who has named his son Judas. He thought that Jesus was letting the power go to his head, that destroying the tree was a sign of petulance, and that's why Judas betrayed him, though he felt guilty later. While not accepting the divinity of Jesus, the lawyer apparently did believe in the miracles (and I don't remember if there was any explanation of that).

In Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, there is a very different explanation. He had shown his power to heal, to multiply food, to exert power over the elements by calming a storm and walking on water, and to raise the dead. He also had power to destroy, and to demonstrate that he chose a tree that was symbolic of hypocrisy with its show of leaves without fruit.

https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-30?lang=eng

Although Talmage does not mention it, I can't help but wonder if the tree was diseased; something was wrong with it. Regardless, for the power that Jesus had available to him, the fig tree is a fairly merciful use.

One thing that is interesting to me is that in both accounts, between the cursing of the fig tree and the discovery of the results they tell of the cleansing of the temple, and they both contain this line.

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Mark 11:15
And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;

The doves were intended for sacrifice, and they were the substitute for poor people, but even these inexpensive birds marked for death were taken into consideration. He would not hurt them or frighten them by overturning their cages or the tables they rested on.

I believe on my first reading - many years ago - I did feel sorry for the fig tree, because I care about plants and my sympathy is stirred pretty easily. It never occurred to me that it could be petulance, because I at least trusted him enough for that. He was too good for that. (And it was years before I noticed the part about the doves.)

There are many different possible views to have on the things that we read about in the Gospels. How we come to the material influences what we will get from it. There can be a benefit in questioning, because that can lead us to find deeper meanings and reasoning, but an attitude of scorn will do no good either.

Related posts:
http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2017/05/trying-to-be-like-jesus-inspiring.html
http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2017/07/trying-to-be-like-jesus-missing-point.html

Trying to be like Jesus - missing the point

Generally when I am thinking of the perfection of the answers that Jesus gives, I focus on Matthew 22, which we have covered a lot the past two weeks. While I had that in mind, in family scripture study we read another one that I had forgotten: "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?" (Matthew 12:10)

This question came up more than once, and his answers gave concrete examples. Even on the sabbath you would let your animals out to water, you would pull an ox from the mire or a sheep from a pit, and you still do circumcisions on the sabbath when the appropriate day falls there.

Beyond the example, he added that extra part to try and get their minds to a higher plane:

Matthew 12:12 - "How much then is a man better than a sheep?"

Luke 13:16 - "And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?"

John 7:23 - "If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?"

It reminds me of the Savior's great love and wisdom. One can hope that those asking the questions would see the point, but if they had thought a little before asking, they could have guessed. There was an unwillingness to see the point, because they did not want to accept him.

It is easy for us looking back to see their rebellion, but I am not sure they always felt rebellious. Toward the end, when there are people plotting to kill Lazarus to hide the miracle, and cover up things that they know happened, at that point I think they had to have known that what he said was true and still not want it. Before that, though, there could be room for being wrongheadedly pious.

The verse that first started me thinking about that this time around was Matthew 18:10 -

"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

Mormons believe that, and we have modern revelation to support it, but it's right there in the New Testament written pretty plainly. Despite that, I remember reading a Puritan verse about unbaptized children getting "the easiest seat in Hell", and some literature influenced by the tragedy of children being doomed for dying before baptism.

I can easily see room for confusion on the age of accountability, and how the salvation of those not given the opportunity to know Christ in their mortal life works out - that's why the modern revelation is so helpful - but it should be pretty unequivocal that little children and therefore certainly babies do not go to Hell. Not only is there a clear statement, but it is in harmony with everything else we know about God being love, and everything we would want in a Heavenly Father who is worthy of our worship. How does that get mixed up?

In high school I had a friend who had "Who created whom?" written on one of her folders. I know she found it clever and provocative. I didn't like it, because I knew, and there was no question. Except, regardless of my belief in God creating us, and us being created in the image of God, I have come to see that his children then often create their concept of God in their own image. If we perfectly reflected that starting image, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, what happens is that we often end up petty, spiteful, and cruel, and then perceive God that way.

Clearly there is a lot of room for thought there, and much of that should probably first be sought in personal reflection. To search and find our better qualities, and to build our relationship with God and feel those qualities, is an important and valuable process.

I do still think it is helpful to point out that a lot of people use religion - specifically Christianity - to condemn the poor and shore up those driven by selfishness and greed.

I don't know how often I have been through the Bible, but it's been a few times, with some parts more than others. I find no Biblical justification for vilifying the poor. There is some for condemning the rich. That is very pertinent today.

Therefore, if you do have a goal to be Christ-like, reflecting upon how we perceive the rich and the poor could be an excellent starting place.

On that note....

https://www.thisappalachialife.com/single-post/2017/05/10/My-Mother-Wasnt-Trash

Trying to be like Jesus - context

Sometimes it is easy to misinterpret answers.

Right after "Render unto Caesar" Matthew gives us another example of a question asked.

Matthew 22
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

On my mission a woman used this a proof that Mormons were crazy to believe in eternal marriage. I remember it so strongly because she expressed relief that there wasn't eternal marriage, as sometimes it was hard enough putting up with her husband until death, which I found a little appalling.

I can see why she read it that way, but it did not shake my faith. There have been enough hands on the Bible that there can be things that were captured wrong, things that were translated wrong, and things that modern revelation supersedes. However, I think there is something different going on here, based on right before and right after the text.

Before:
23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

After:
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

That's a lot of focus on the resurrection. We know it is a big issue, because Paul once used that point of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees to get out of a jam (Acts 23).

We also know that based on their traditions, the question doesn't make any sense. In Levirate marriage, the marriage to the brothers was all for the purpose of producing an heir for the deceased brother. The failure to produce heirs through multiple marriages could create some complex inheritance issues, and having the practice at all could create some difficult marital situations and complicated feelings, but it would not really call into question which was the preeminent marriage.

Jesus doesn't waste a lot of time on that. He tells them they are wrong, but quickly goes into testifying of the power of God. He quickly points out that even by their logic, when they reference the God of Abraham that this is not just a reference to the past, and to someone who is no more, but a testimony of God's power over death. That does more to silence them than a legal treatise on marriage and inheritance law.

Taken together, Matthew 22 gives us one easily applicable lesson, one that provides context, and one where hedging about a simple answer gives us a parable, but it starts with a parable too: the marriage of the king's son.

In that parable we find invited and committed guests making excuses, and then others attending but one refusing to follow the bare minimum required of dressing appropriately and answering. That can serve as a reminder that in the end everyone is invited, but we still have to accept that invitation, by our actions and in our hearts.

We see examples of people trying to quibble and test and wiggle their way out of it, and Jesus continually providing more wisdom, more examples, and more opportunities.

At some point we should quit testing his patience.

Trying to be like Jesus - logic

In A Spell for Chameleon by Piers Anthony, one character encounters a manticore who is serving the Good Magician Humphrey for a year in return for having a question answered. The question was whether the manticore had a soul. The magician's response was "Only those who have souls worry about them."

Questioned about the value of the answer, the manticore insisted that it was perfect. A simple "yes" or "no" could have been a guess, and a long complicated answer could have been confusing. The answer given was simple, but its truth was also self-evident in the way it was given.

I am always impressed with the answer to the tribute question in Matthew 22: "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?"

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Not only is the logic self-evident, but beyond that there is a more important answer as it directs them to think about whether or not they are rendering God his due.

Something similar happens with the account of the woman taken in adultery.

John 8
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Yes, the Mosaic law called for stoning, but the Roman rule they were under did not allow them to impose the death penalty on their own. More to the point, Jesus was there fulfilling the Mosaic law and bringing them to a higher law that had more room for compassion. There is room for several sermons in there, but the most effective sermon was the single sentence that directed them to look inward.

Last week was about how parables can be such effective teaching tools, because they can be understood at different levels, but sometimes that is not needed. There is also room for combinations; the parable of the Good Samaritan follows a direct and self-evident answer that got a follow-up question. Also sometimes it is not automatically clear how important context is, which I may spend some time on next week.

I see three components to the effectiveness of Jesus as a teacher.

One is his understanding of the law and doctrine. He has studied and pondered and is full of wisdom, ready for whatever question will be asked.

The second is his investment in the uplifting of the hearer. Not only does he want them to understand at an appropriate level, but he leaves room for growth: there are hints to what questions should be asked instead, and directions given on what questions should be asked.

Finally - and in harmony with the overall theme of this series - there is an understanding of the needs of the listener, and an evaluation there.

I'm not done with the series yet, but one of the key takeaways should be that He knows you.

What will you do with that?