Matthew 21-23; John 12

Matthew 21-23; John 12:1-8

BURIAL ANOINTING
"Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.  There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.  (John 12:1-2)

When Matthew, Mark and Luke recorded their gospels, Lazarus was probably still living, and was in threat of being killed to remove the proof of Christ's miracle in his behalf.  This is likely why John, whose gospel was written much later, was the only one to record the miracle of Lazarus being raised from the dead.  (Farrar, p. 511, quoted in McConkie, p. 334).

"Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment."  (John 12:3)

According to Harper-Collins, the Roman pound was about 12 ounces or 340 grams.  The perfumed ointment mentioned was imported from the Himalayas.

"To anoint the head of a guest with ordinary oil was to do him honor; to anoint his feet also was to show unusual and signal regard; but the anointing of head and feet with spikenard, and in such abundance, was an act of reverential homage rarely rendered even to kings" (Talmadge, p. 512).

"The sense may be that this anointing of Jesus foreshadows his impending death.  Jewish burial customs included anointing the body with perfumed oil (Harper-Collins, p. 2037).Judas Iscariot complained about this "wastefulness."  I couldn't get any kind of consensus from all the sources I looked at as to how much money the oil really would cost today, or how it compared with the 30 pieces of silver for which Judas sold Jesus, but it is obvious that it was fairly expensive.  It was evidence that Mary recognized the great worth of Jesus and honored him, and he appreciated it as such.  Judas was the perfect example of a hypocrite, he who sold Jesus for the price of an injured slave (Harper-Collins).

NOTE ON THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY

Jesus came riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.  This was appropriate for a Hebrew king coming in peace.  A Hebrew king coming for battle would have ridden a horse.  In the Roman culture, a king would only have come riding a horse.  Since Jesus rode on a donkey, he presented himself as the King of the Jews, yet posed no threat to the Romans. 

"He came riding on an ass, in token of peace, acclaimed by the Hosanna shouts of multitudes; not on a caparisoned steed with the panoply of combat and the accompaniment of bugle blasts and fanfare of trumpets.  That the joyous occasion was in no sense suggestive of physical hostility or of seditious disturbance is sufficiently demonstrated by the indulgent unconcern with which it was viewed by the Roman officials, who were usually prompt to send their legionaries swooping down from the fortress of Antonia at the first evidence of an outbreak; and they were particularly vigilant in suppressing all Messianic pretenders, for false Messiahs had arisen already, and much blood had been shed in the forcible dispelling of their delusive claims...The ass has been designated in literature as 'the ancient symbol of Jewish royalty,' and one riding upon an ass as the type of peaceful progress" (Talmadge, p. 516-517).

"And the multitudes that went before and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest...and the children of the kingdom [cried] in the temple...saying, Hosanna to the Son of David..." (Matt. 21:9, 15).

"'Hosannah' is a Greek form of the Hebrew expression for 'Save us now,' or 'Save, we pray,' which occurs in the original of Psalm 118:25.  It occurs nowhere in the English Bible except in [the verses noted above]" (Talmadge, p. 523).  In the Jewish tradition, it was a cry meant only for Jehovah, the great God of the Old Testament.

THE CURSING OF THE FIG TREE

"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.  And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing theron, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away"  (Matt. 21:18-19).

Why did the God of Creation destroy a helpless little fig tree?

To teach through an unforgettable live-action parable.

The fig tree is deciduous, or in other words, has leaves that fall off in the winter.  In the spring, the fruit appears before the leaves.  Also, there is generally a little fruit left from the previous season that is still edible.  It was not time yet for either fruit or leaves, but this tree had leaves--an advertisement that it was bearing fruit.  Although the other trees had no figs, they had no leaves either.  This fig tree was cursed, not simply for being fruitless, but for being a hypocrite.

"The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which loudly proclaimed itself as the only true religion of the age, and condescendingly invited all the world to come and partake of its rich ripe fruit; when in truth it was but an unnatural growth of leaves, with no fruit of the season, not even an edible bulb held over from earlier years, for such as it had of former fruitage was dried to worthlessness and made repulsive in its worm-eaten decay...The fig tree was a favorite [symbol among the rabbis for] the Jewish race" (Talmadge, p. 527).

In addition, the cursing of the fig tree showed that Christ had power to destroy, as well as power to heal and save.  In a few days, as Christ suffered and died, those who saw the cursing of the fig tree would know that Christ could have destroyed the entire Roman legion and the Jewish leaders had he desired.  He went to his death, not helplessly, but willingly, exercising self-control as he suffered without retaliating.

He also used this miracle to demonstrate the power of faith to his disciples (verses 21-22).  Rather than simply show off his great power, he made it available to all who would develop their faith.

QUESTIONS FROM THE DELEGATIONS

As you go over the various trick questions that were asked of Christ, fill in the first four columns of the table below.  Save the last column ("Ask Yourself") for the end of the discussion.  Or you can cut and paste the chart into a Word document, and then stretch the borders of the chart to make it fit the page better, and give it as a handout.  You could leave the last column blank, and have class members fill in the questions to ask themselves.

One by one, delegations from four powerful groups asked Jesus a premeditated question, hoping to convict him by trickery.

The Chief Priests (Matt. 21:23-27)

"By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?"

Who were the chief priests?  The leaders of the church, those who, of all, should be hailing Christ as king, if they hadn't been leading the church for their own aggrandizement instead.  (Imagine Boyd K. Packer not recognizing Christ!)

Three years of miracles and teachings could answer their question and tell them Christ's authority.  It was obvious they were not seeking the real answer.  So Christ returned their answer with a question that absolutely stymied their attempts to trick him.  By asking what John the Baptist's authority was, they were completely flummoxed.  Everyone knew that John the Baptist had the appropriate authority from God.  He was fully "in the system" with the scribes and Pharisees.  His father had been a priest.  He held the priesthood.  To say that John the Baptist had no authority from God would be to say that they also had no authority from God.  Yet, to say that John the Baptist did have authority from God would be to admit that they had not believed one of known authority.  Therefore, they could not answer without convicting themselves one way or the other.

The church leadership was not schooled to ever say, "I don't know."  Obviously, they were completely desperate or they would not have given such a humiliating answer.

Jesus was a genius.

Herodians (Matt. 22:15-22)

"Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?"

Who were the Herodians?  They were the upper class, the well-to-do, those concerned with upholding the power of the Herod family in order to maintain their own privileged positions.  The Herods got their power from the Romans, so supporting the Herods meant supporting the Romans.  To the lower class and the practicing Jews, however, the paying of tribute to the Romans was the most offensive of the requirements placed upon them.

If Christ said it was lawful to pay taxes, he would be speaking in opposition to Jewish tradition and law.  If he said it was not lawful to pay taxes, he would be speaking in terms of sedition against the Romans.

His answer again showed his genius:  Money has Caesar's image on it--give it to him.  Give to God that which has God's image on it.  What has God's image and superscription?  The body and soul of man.

The Sadducees (Matt. 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-28)

Who were they?  The Sadducees were influenced by Greek philosophy.  They were the liberal Jewish scholars, in comparison to the conservative Pharisees.  They believed only in the here and now, and not in any afterlife, yet they did believe in God.

They tried to produce a complication that would be hard to sort out in the next life, to illustrate their belief that there was no next life, and to present Christ with a situation which would not work there.  This same problem was often debated by the rabbis, who said that the first husband got the wife.  The six younger brothers had only married her in keeping with Jewish tradition to take care of her, and to carry on the family name and line of the oldest brother.  Christ said, "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage" but in the next life, they are ministering angels (Luke 20:32).  (See D&C 132:15 where it says, "If a man marry a wife in this world...they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.")

Christ knew the question had nothing to do with marriage, eternal or otherwise, but with whether there was life after death, and he answered, "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 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" (Matt. 22:31-32).  All through their history, God had been known as the God of these great patriarchs now dead.  They must still be alive somewhere for him to be their God.

The Pharisees (Matt 22:34-40)

Who were the Pharisees?  They were the extremely conservative Jewish leaders, the "Diet Coke Police" of the day.  In order to preserve their religion when they were taken into exile, the Pharisees sprang up, itemizing details of the law that had not previously existed.  They eventually created a situation where there were rules and details for every act of man, and no one need rely upon the Spirit for guidance in what to do.  They had created 613 divisions and subdivisions of the law.  Which of all these could be the most important, they asked Jesus.

The answer had been given to them by Moses, long before the addition of all these rules.  "What doth the Lord require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul"  (Deut. 10:12).  Jesus merely restated the commandment he had already given them as Jehovah of the Old Testament.

GROUP	CONCERN	QUESTION	CHRIST’S ANSWER	ASK YOURSELF
Chief Priests (Matt. 21:23-27)	Power	Who has the authority—you or us?	You already know; you just don’t like the answer.	Who is in charge of my life—Christ or my own will?
Herodians (Matt. 22:15-22)	Wealth	How does money relate to religion?	Give Caesar what is his; give God what is God’s.	Whose image is in my heart—God’s or [whoever is on your country’s money]?
Sadducees (Luke 20:27-39)	Afterlife	How can there be a life after this one?	How could God have power if everything he made ended at death?  He is the God of the living.	Am I living my life with the next life in mind?
Pharisees (Matt. 22:34-40)	The Law	Which commandment is most important?	Love.	How well do I love God and every person I meet?

CHRIST'S REBUKE--THE WEDDING OF THE KING'S SON

Matt. 22:1-14.  The marriage feast was a favorite theme in both synagogue and school.  Only the children of Abraham were ever the guests.  Jesus took their very familiar parable and used it so that there was no mistaking his intent.  This parable, as well as the Parable of the Two Sons (Matt 21:28-32), and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-46), were not cloaked from understanding, but were specifically made to be very clear.

The bidden guests (bidden = had the invitation well in advance, just as the Jews had their invitation well in advanced through the Old Testament) turned away to their own material pursuits and personal affairs, valuing them above reverence or obedience to the king, showing a complete disdain of the son, the heir to the throne, their next king.  The king's job was to protect his subjects, but they didn't care for his protection.

When the "bidden" guests did not come, the king invited the outcasts and underdogs.  Because the king knew these guests were all poor and unprepared for a wedding, the doorman would have given them the proper attire to make them worthy of entrance.  The man without the wedding garment, therefore, had obviously come in through the back.  The Lord's kingdom is available to everyone, but there is only one entrance.  The Lord scrutinizes every countenance--the guests are not just a sea of faces to him.  There is no hiding in the crowd at the supper of the Lord.

CHRIST'S LAMENT

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (Matt. 23:37-38).

The chicks huddled under the hen's wing are protected from the view of the hawk.  But Jerusalem would not receive that blessing.  She insisted on foolishly endangering herself, and despite the shelter available to her through Christ, there was no doubt that she would shortly meet her demise.

APPLICATION

All of these various factions--the priests, the Herodians, the Saduccees, the Pharisees--were Jews.  We could say they were "members of the Church."  Church membership alone did not save them; in fact, not behaving in accord with their membership cursed them as hypocrites, just like the fig tree.  We must be careful we do not make the same mistakes.  We also have been invited to the wedding, promised shelter under Christ's wing.  Let's not disregard the invitation.

Return to the chart, and discuss what may be found in the fourth column, "Questions to ask yourself."

Rather than being POWER HUNGRY like the chief priests, let's GIVE OUR WILL OVER TO GOD.

Rather than worrying about WEALTH like the Herodians, let's focus on INTERNALIZING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRIST.

Rather than LIVING ONLY FOR TODAY like the Saduccees, let's KEEP AN ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE.

Rather than JUDGING OTHERS ON THE DETAILS OF WHAT THEY DO OR DON'T DO like the Pharisees, let's just concern ourselves with ALWAYS ACTING IN LOVE.

Rather than having Christ look on us from a distance, lamenting that we will not allow him to help and protect us, let's be nestled safely like a child in his lap, saying, as did the "children of the kingdom," "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."


SOURCES:

F.W. Farrar, The Life of Christ
Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Book 3
The Harper-Collins Study Bible
James E. Talmadge, Jesus The Christ

Luke 18, 19; John 11

Luke 18:1-8, 35-43; 19:1-10; John 11

Preparation: 

Enlist the help of one or two Primary children or Deacons to act out the modern-day parable.  If you're in a Young Single Adult ward, you can probably still find a fairly child-like Elder.  Ask them to listen at the door of the classroom and begin their act as soon as the prayer has been said.  Do not let the class know that they are part of a skit.  It will fool the class even more if the actors are your own family members, or if they are known by the ward or branch to be a little impish or obnoxious. 

You will need a plate of cookies or a bowl of treats--enough for the class members and a few extra.

INTRODUCTION:  TWO PARABLES ON PERSISTENCE

Skit (Modern-day Parable)
Place the plate of cookies on the table in the classroom.  After the prayer is said, the child or children (or obnoxious Elder) enter the classroom and ask you for some of the cookies.  You tell them no; the cookies are for your class.  You begin to write the reading assignment on the blackboard.  The children continue to pester you for cookies.  You tell them no, they must go to their own class.  You walk them to the door and send them out into the hall.  Back in the classroom, you say, "Now, where were we?"  But the children reenter the room and continue to plead.  You ignore them.  You begin to personally pass the cookies around the room to the class members, and the children follow you.  They are even so dramatic as to get on their knees and clasp their hands, crawling behind you and begging for cookies.  You continue to tell them no.  Finally, one of the children wraps his arms around your ankle and hangs on tight so that you must drag him along with you as you pass the cookies.  At this point, you finally give in and let the children have some cookies.  They happily say, "Thank you," and leave the class in peace. 

(This skit was a huge hit in my class years ago when my impish son and his like-wise impish friend acted it out--my class was incensed by the time they left, and then greatly entertained when they discovered it was a part of the lesson.)

Announce to the class:  That was "The Parable of the Irritated Mother" (or Roommate, or Teacher, or whatever your relationship is to the children who participated in the skit), otherwise known as "Whining Pays Off."

There is a parable just like this in the New Testament.

The Parable of the Unjust Judge
"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:  And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 

"And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 

"And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.  And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?" (Luke 18:1-8).

When we know that even an unkind, unrighteous person in authority will aid us eventually if we continually beg, so much more will Heavenly Father, who loves us greatly, be willing to help us, but sometimes he requires us to persist in asking, in order to strengthen our faith.

A MAN HEALED PHYSICALLY BECAUSE HE PERSISTED

Blind Bartimaeus (his name is mentioned in Mark 10:46), sitting by the roadside, asks why a multitude is coming (Luke 18:35-36).  When he is told that is is a group following Jesus, he immediately begins to cry out, "Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me" (v. 38).  Although people try to quiet him, he only gets louder and more obnoxious until finally Jesus hears him and asks that he be brought to him (v. 39-40).  Jesus asks Bartimaeus what he would like him to do (v. 41), to which the blind man answers, "Lord, that I may receive my sight" (v. 42).  Jesus then restores his sight, telling him, "Thy faith hath made thee whole," (v. 42), and Bartimaeus joins the crowd following Jesus, and rejoices.

 A MAN HEALED SPIRITUALLY BECAUSE HE PERSISTED

Zacchaeus, a tax-collector and therefore a sort of traitor in the Jews' eyes, wanted to see who Jesus was (Luke 19:1-2), but because he was short, he couldn't see over the others, and because nobody particularly liked him, he could not get through the crowd (v. 3).  He didn't give up, though:  He ran ahead and climbed up into a large tree where he could look over the heads of Jesus' followers and see Jesus himself (v. 4).  This also allowed him to look over (or overlook) the way the disciples of Christ were treating him.

When Jesus came near to the tree, he looked up and saw Zacchaeus, called him by name, and invited himself to Zacchaeus' house (v. 5).  Zacchaeus received him joyfully (v. 6).  The crowd was amazed because their perception of Zacchaeus was that he was a sinner (v. 7).  But Zaccheaus knew his own worth and came before the Lord confident to report his standing--that he gave 50% of his salary in fast offerings (so to speak) and any time he made an error in tax-collecting, he returned 4 times what he should in order to make it right (v. 8).  Jesus affirmed that Zaccheaus was a good man and that now that he had found Christ, salvation had come to his household.  He told the crowd, Zacchaeus "also is a son of Abraham," or in our modern-day verbage, "Zaccheaus is a child of God, too."

OUR FAITH IS STRENGTHENED THROUGH PERSISTENCE AT ANY STAGE

Zacchaeus did not know much about Jesus.  "He sought to see Jesus who he was" (Luke 19:3).  His faith was at a beginner stage.  He had only the desire to believe. 

Bartimaeus was further along.  he knew Christ and already had a testmony of him (Luke 19:38).  He called Christ by his title as the Son of David.  Both of these men, at their own levels, had their faith strengthened through their persistence.

Do you think that Jesus did not know that Bartimaeus was there beside the road until he called?  Do you think that Jesus did not know that Zacchaeus was on the outside of the crowd until he climbed up the tree?  He did, but Jesus requires us to exercise our faith in order that it be strengthened.  Faith is a principle of action. (Bible Dictionary)

CHRIST REQUIRES PERSISTENCE EVEN FROM THOSE OF GREAT FAITH

Even those with great faith are required to stretch it even further, as exemplified by the experience of sisters Mary and Martha and their brother Lazarus.  All three were dear friends of Jesus' and had great faith.

Lazarus fell deathly ill (John 11:1-2).  Mary and Martha had no doubt that Jesus could heal him, so they immediately sent for Jesus who was in another town (v. 3).  Jesus immediately knew the gravity of the situation.  He could have healed him without even going to Bethany.  He had done that before for the nobleman's son in John 4:43-54.  Why did he choose not to do that?  He gave the answer to that question before he even started his journey:  "for the glory of God" (v. 4).

Now, before the story progresses any further, the Apostle John, the narrator, assures us that "Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus" (v. 5).  Why does he make a point to tell us that?  Because very shortly it is going to appear that he doesn't care about them much at all. 

Purposely, Jesus took his time.  He waited for two more days and then headed to Judea (v. 6-7).

His apostles thought that he didn't go to Lazarus immediately because the Jews in that area had tried to kill him and surely would again, and when he did go, they questioned his wisdom (v. 8). A beautiful note from The Harper-Collins Study Bible:  "Having spoken of himself as the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, Jesus now risks his life to give life to his friend Lazarus.  The result of this life giving is Jesus' own death." (p. 2034-35)

But Jesus was so filled with light and knowledge in his role as the Savior that he told them, "I do not err, because I am walking in the perfect light of the Spirit.  Someone else without any light in him might stumble and wonder what to do or whether to go, but I know exactly what will happen and at what time" (v. 9-10).  In fact, he stated that he knew already that Lazarus was dead (v. 11-14).  Then once again he stated that this was for a purpose; that Lazarus' death will cause their faith to grow: "And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe" (v. 15).

Now here is another story of great faith:  The apostles did not have a perfect understanding of what Jesus had just said to them.  In their experience, there was great cause to fear.  In fact, they were certain Jesus would be killed.  Even so, they had enough faith that they were willing to go with him, to what they were certain would be their death.  Thomas did not play the part of a "doubter" here! (v. 16)  He was willing to die for his faith.

"Then when Jesus came, he found that [Lazarus] had lain in the grave four days already" (v. 17).  Jesus had waited two days, and then taken his two-day journey purposely so that Lazarus would have been dead for four days.  Why did it matter that Lazarus be dead for four days?  Twice before, Jesus had raised someone from the dead.  In Matt. 9:18-25, he raised the nobleman's daughter.  In Luke 7:11-17 he raised the widow's son.  The nobleman's daughter had still been in her bed, just recently dead.  The son was being carried on the funeral bier, only dead two days.  In a common tradition of the day, the Jews believed that the spirit lingered near the body, hoping for a chance to re-enter it for three days.  Then it left forever and the body began to decay.  Lazarus therefore, being dead four days, was dead beyond all hope of revival in their eyes.  He was dead and gone.  (Harper-Collins, p. 2035)

Mary and Martha heard from their home that Jesus was coming.  Martha, always the woman of action (she was the dish-doer in Luke 10:38-42), got up and went out of the town to meet him (v. 20).  Her first words to Jesus were an expression of her faith:  "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died" and she added, "even now, I am sure that you could raise him, if you will" (v. 21-22).  She had not given up!  She was still asking, like the children after the cookies at the beginning of class, but with the spiritually mature clause, "if thou wilt."  She knew that Christ could raise him from the dead; she was just not sure if it was his will. 

Jesus told her that she was right; he did have the power.  "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live."  He asked Martha if she believed, and she answered that, Yes, she knew he was the Christ, the Messiah (v. 23-27).

Martha then went to get Mary, while Jesus stayed outside town, apparently hiding.  Knowing that there were enemies to Christ in the home, "mourning" with them (see v. 45-46), she whispered to Mary that Jesus was come (v. 28).  immediately Mary arose and went to meet him.  The Jews assembled in the home noticed Mary leaving and followed her, assuming she was going to the grave once more.  She met Jesus outside of town and said the exact same thing her sister did, obviously the lament they had been repeating to each other, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died" (v. 28-32).

Here follows the part of the story that most impresses us, the shortest and yet possibly most poignant of all scriptures:  "Jesus wept."  This verse is so important, we will come back to it in a moment.

Jesus then asked them to lead him to the grave and roll away the stone.  He knew where the grave was, and he could have rolled away the stone with a wave of his hand, just as he could have healed Lazarus without ever entering Judea.  But he required the exercise of their faith.  He wanted them to be participants.  Faith is a principle of action.

He thanked God out loud, and then called Lazarus to come forth.  He did not even remove the burial clothing from Lazarus and allow him to come out fresh and smiling, but asked for that one last action of unwrapping the cloth.  He wanted them to be a part of freeing Lazarus from the tomb.

In front of friends and enemies, disciples and unbelievers, Jesus presented Lazarus as an undeniable proof, demonstrating beyond any doubt that he had power over death:  "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (v. 25).

JESUS SHARES OUR SORROW, EVEN AS HE STRETCHES OUR FAITH

Jesus had great love.  He loved Mary and Martha enough to stretch their faith, even though it was extremely painful to them.  Even though he knew he was doing the best thing for them, and it would all come out beautifully in the end, and they would be grateful to him, he felt terribly sorry that they had to go through the pain.

When I was a young mother, I took each one of my innocent, trusting, happy little infants into the health clinic to get them immunized.  It was always such a traumatic thing for me to have a little baby sitting on my lap, smiling up at me and cooing, obviously feeling total confidence that in my care he or she was completely safe...and then came the vaccination!  I can remember as plain as day the look of disbelief, of horror, that always spread over my babies' faces as they looked up at me, incredulous that I would allow this pain in my presence!  I always felt so awful I wanted to cry myself, because I had wilfully hurt my precious baby, even though I knew it was for their safety and health.  I always tried to make it up to them the rest of the day, holding them, and rocking them, and rubbing their little legs where the needle had gone in.  It was a painful and sad experience, but I knew it was necessary for their healthy growth and development.  I loved them enough that I allowed the essential pain.

I think that is something like how Jesus felt when he saw Mary and Martha asking in their innocence why they had to have this pain and sorrow.  Why, when they knew Jesus had the power to prevent it?  Why, when they had the faith for Lazarus to be healed?  He had sent a message to them on the day of Lazarus' death, trying to let them in on the whole story, telling the messenger who brought him the news and would surely be reporting back, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God" (v. 4).  But like a baby being immunized, they had not understood and had only felt the pain.

Jesus feels the same pain for us when our faith is tested almost beyond its strength.  He is always sending us messages, like he did to Mary and Martha, through the scriptures, through the prophets and apostles, through Sacrament meeting speakers, through visiting teachers or Ensign articles.  He tries to fill us in on the whole plan; he tries to help us see the whole picture so that we will not have so much pain, but in the end, he knows that we may have to go through pain in order for our faith to grow.  It was even a part of his role as the Savior of the world to "bear our griefs and carry our sorrows" (Isaiah 53:4), going forth "suffering pains and afflictions...that he might know how to succor his children" (Alma 7:11-12).

He knows that our faith is more important than our pain.  But he knows it still hurts.  And if we can realize that he loves us much more than a mother loves her baby, we can know that as we go through our trials, he sheds his own tears for our suffering.  And once we've gone through the worst of the pain, his arms will be around us, assuring us of his love, comforting us all the more.

New Testament Lesson #18 "He Was Lost, and is Found"

Luke 15; 17

Jesus sits with sinners and publicans and the Pharisees question why (v. 1-3).  By relating three parables, Jesus explains that he is finding what is his, but which has been lost:

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP (Luke 15:4-7)

Chalkboard Diagram:

Lost Item	How Lost	How Found	Result
Sheep	Unintentionally wandered	Shepherd sought out & led back	Rejoicing!

This parable used symbols that Jewish men would relate to:  everyone understood the role of a shepherd, and the importance of sheep.  (See "The Good Shepherd" in a previous post.)

How does this parable relate to us today?  (Some answers may be that a person drifts into inactivity in the Church, and a home or visiting teacher, neighbor, or leader goes out of his/her way to visit often, to invite to socials, to coax back to activity.  Someone in the class may be able to tell a personal story that reflects this parable in his or her life.)

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST COIN (Luke 15:8-10)

Chalkboard Diagram:

Lost Item	How Lost	How Found	Result
Sheep	Unintentionally wandered	Shepherd sought out & led back	Rejoicing!
Coin	Neglect of the woman	Woman swept floor to remove dirt & debris covering coin	Rejoicing!

This parable used symbols that Jewish women would easily relate to.  Every woman, of course, had to sweep her floor frequently.  Money was vital to everyone in their culture.

How does this parable relate to us today?  (Some answers may include a person feeling unappreciated or overlooked by the congregation, especially as a new member, and staying away from church.  Then a bishop and his correlation committee taking careful stock of the ward and noticing the person has been missing.  Ward members then taking extra effort to sweep away the offences that may be keeping the person away, or overcoming the cultural misunderstandings, or the shyness of the individual, or the feeling of being undervalued.  All of these may be dust, dirt or garbage that is preventing a coin from shining and revealing its value.  Again, someone in the class may have a personal experience to share.)

THE PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON (v. 11-32)

Chalkboard Diagram:

Lost Item	How Lost	How Found	Result
Sheep	Unintentionally wandered	Shepherd sought out & led back	Rejoicing!
Coin	Neglect of the woman	Woman swept floor to remove dirt & debris covering coin	Rejoicing!
Son	Willful rebellion	Father watched, waited, never gave up	Rejoicing & Resentment

What is different in this story?  The mixed result:  rejoicing & resentment.  Something is wrong in this story, and that is the important part we need to understand in order to be true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Characters (Luke 15:11)
In the previous two parables, there were only two principal characters:  the shepherd/woman, and the lost sheep/coin.  In this third parable, there are three: the father, the "lost" younger son, and the faithful elder son.

The Younger Son (Luke 15:12-13)
The story begins with the younger son rebelling, begging to have his inheritance prematurely given, taking the inheritance and leaving the family.

The word "prodigal" means "wasteful."  This son had something of great value and he threw it away--not only the wealth of his inheritance, but the love and companionship of his family.  In fact, requesting his inheritance early was an extreme humiliation to his family.  It indicated that he wished his father was dead so he could have his money now, that he wanted his inheritance without working for it over the years as a family member, and of course, that he had no desire to be a member of this good family.  (Kenneth E. Bailey, former New Testament professor at Israel's Tantur Ecumenical Institute, "The Pursuing Father," Christianity Today, 10-26-1998, quoted in an AP article in The Herald Journal, 11-26-1998, and online at NationalCatholicRegister.com.)

The Father (Luke 15:12)
Nothing is said about how the father raised this son.  This is important to note: What the father did or didn't do prior to this point is not relevant; the son chose to leave. 

We will see how the character of the father is revealed throughout the story to be completely different than the character of an ordinary human Jewish father.

The first deviation from the traditional Jewish father is found in his response to the son's request.  Despite the ingratitude and rudeness of the son, despite the fact that transferring the inheritance before the father's death violated Jewish law, despite the cultural expectation that such a son should be driven from the home and family, despite the obvious embarassment of "a horrendous family breakdown...the father grants the inheritance and the right to sell, knowing that this right will shame the family before the community." (Bailey)

The Turning Point (Luke 15:14-19)
The prodigal son got just exactly what he deserved.  He wasted everything he had, and then an act of God, "a famine in that land," brought him to the point of absolute poverty.  He was so selfish, and so unattached to others, that when he was starving, there was not a soul who cared to give him food.  He had to steal it from the pigs he was hired to feed. 

A Jewish man would have been doubly shamed.

But then...these beautiful words:  "He came to himself."  It's always good to remember that when someone is acting the part of a prodigal son, he is not himself, he is not permanently defined by those willful and wayward acts, and his own divine nature is always still hidden inside somewhere, ready for him to "come back to himself".

In this case, that divine intelligence inside this desperate man realized there was a light at the end of his deep, dark tunnel, and that light was his father.  "I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants" (Luke 15:17-19). 

It is remarkable that the son had hope in his father's response, considering the tough Jewish customs that prevailed at the time.  “From the Jerusalem Talmud it is known that the Jews of the time of Jesus had a method of punishing any Jewish boy who lost the family inheritance to Gentiles. It was called the ‘qetsatsah ceremony.’ … The villagers would bring a large earthenware jar, fill it with burned nuts and burned corn, and break it in front of the guilty individual. While doing this, the community would shout, ‘So-and-so is cut off from his people.’ From that point on, the village would have nothing to do with the wayward lad.”  (Bailey)

The son, however, was counting on mercy.  That showed a remarkable, if small, faith in and knowledge of his father.

The Father Ran
"When he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." (Luke 15:20)  Here is another major deviation from the expected behavior of a Jewish father in Christ's day:  "Traditional Middle Easterners, wearing long robes, do not run in public. To do so is deeply humiliating. This father runs." (Bailey)


The father had been watching, waiting, hoping!  Did he wait until the son was "all the way back home" to rejoice and accept him?  No!  At the first sign, "when he was yet a great way off," his grateful celebration began, and he bridged the gap between himself and his son at the first possible opportunity.

Instead of instigating the public ritual of cutting his son off from the Jewish community for his humiliating behavior, the father bore the embarassment of a disobedient son in front of the whole village.  He was much more concerned about his son than about his social standing.  He never said, "I told you so!"  It was only, "Welcome home!  I love you!"  No punishment was meted out upon the son.  He was frankly forgiven without having the means to make up what he had destroyed.  And in a complete upset of tradition, the father hosted a public celebration honoring the return of his lost son.

The Father Cares for Both (Luke 15:28-29)
In the midst of the celebration, the father noticed his elder son was absent.  He sent an inquiry as to why.  The older son answered that he was angry and would not go in.  Here adds another blow to the father. 

“For a son to be present and to refuse participation in such a banquet is an unspeakable public insult to the father. … [Again] the father goes beyond what a traditional patriarch would do. … In painful public humiliation, the father goes down and out to find yet one more lost sheep/coin/son.” (Bailey)

The father listens to his older son's complaint.  He is concerned about both sons' feelings and both sons' growth on their own levels.  He treats each as he needs to be treated.  Never is a comparison made.

The "Good" Son (Luke 15:25-27,31)
Nothing is said about how the younger brother treated his older brother previous to the family break-up, therefore we can assume that this is also irrelevant to the point of the story. 

When the prodigal brother returned, the older brother was out doing his work, keeping at his duty.  Undoubtedly he had had to do extra work because of his brother's absence.  He had been faithful.  He had never left his father.  He was doing everything "right."  In fact, he was so busy working, he had not known his brother was back until the feast was in full swing. 

Unlike his father, he had not been watching.

His relationship with his brother had been distanced; when complaining to his father, he referred to his brother not as "my brother", but as "thy son." (verse 30).  What had caused this rift?  Competition!  Comparing!  "Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends" (verse 29). 

The elder son had the greater blessings all along, but was ungrateful and unforgiving as soon as his brother had something he didn't.  The father tells him, "You misunderstand that what you already have is of much more value than a fatted calf."  "Thou art ever with me."  "You didn't have to suffer the consequences your brother suffered from his mistakes.  You were never starving, desperate, alone."  Furthermore, "All that I have is thine." "You still have your full inheritance.  You have not lost one thing because of his return."  (Although the prodigal son was forgiven, the money was gone and was not replaced.  His place in the household was restored, but there was a part of his life that he missed and which cannot be recovered.)

The older son had forgotten his real relationship to his younger brother!  In Jewish custom, the oldest son was the birthright son and received double the inheritance that the rest of the sons did.  This was to give him the means to fulfill his responsibility to take care of anyone in the family who might need help--a widow, an orphan, a disabled brother.  He was basically considered a sub-parent, and at the death of the father would assume the role of patriarch.

His father reminded him of this role when he said, "It was meet [necessary] that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother"--notice he says "thy brother," not "my son"--"was dead, and is alive again: and was lost, and is found" (verse 32).  In effect, the father said, "Aren't you and I on the same side?  Don't we share the same role?  Shouldn't we both be rejoicing?"

The Missing Conclusion
The response of the elder son is not given in order that Jesus may draw the listener up onto the stage to finish the drama, and give an answer for himself.  What will the birthright son (the Pharisee, the Jew, the active Latter-day Saint, the obedient "white sheep" family member) do?  Will he stay away from the feast and punish himself and his father with his bitterness, or will he remember his role as a sub-parent or under-shepherd and follow the example of love and acceptance his father has set?

The Role of a Birthright Son, Member of the House of Israel, Latter-day Saint
The ideal relationship hoped for by the father of the parable, and the Father of us all is this:

It's very important that we be able to answer the question posed by this parable correctly, because the alternative to joining the Father in welcoming and forgiving the prodigals in our lives is not good:  It means cutting ourselves off from the joy of feasting with the Lord in His Kingdom.  And if we do that, there remains in us the greater sin, the great condemnation, and the greater suffering.  (D&C 64:9)


Note:  The Church has a very thought-provoking 30-minute video depicting the parable of the prodigal son in a modern-day setting.  It doesn't appear to be available online, but it should be in most meetinghouse libraries.

Mark 10, 12; Luke 12, 14, 16

Mark 10:17-30; 12:41-44; Luke 12:13-21; 14; 16

REAL RICHES

A young man ran up to Jesus and asked him what he could do to inherit eternal life.  Clearly he expected to hear, "You're already doing it all; don't worry."  But, just like many of us who get answers to prayers that we don't like, he found out that there was more required (Mark 10:17-20).

"Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.  And he was sad at that saying and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.  And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!  And the disciples were asonished at his words.  But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10:21-24)

So, those of us who are not wealthy are off the hook, right?  C.S. Lewis begs to differ:

"Christ said it was difficult for 'the rich' to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, refering, no doubt, to 'riches' in the ordinary sense.  But I think it really covers riches in every sense--good fortune, health, popularity, and all the things one wants to have.  All these things tend--just as money tends--to make you feel independent of God, because if you have them you are happy already and contented in this life.  You don't want to turn away to anything more, and so you try to rest in a shadowy happiness as if it could last for ever.  But God wants to give you a real and eternal happiness.  Consequently He may have to take all these 'riches' away from you: if he doesn't, you will go on relying on them.  It sounds cruel, doesn't it?  But I am beginning to find out that what people call the cruel doctrines are really the kindest ones in the long run...If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it's not so bad"  (C.S. Lewis, The C.S. Lewis Bible, p. 1123).

Notice Christ's reaction to the rich young man:  "Beholding him, [He] loved him."  It was out of this love that He requested the young man to give up his goods.  Why?  Because he wanted to open up a space in the young man's life in which He could give him more.

The Lord said that what we are required to give up will be rewarded "a hundredfold now in this time...and in the world to come eternal life" (Mark 10:29-30).  The reward will be much greater than the sacrifice.  "And if ye seek the riches which it is the will of the Father to give unto you, ye shall be the richest of all people, for ye shall have the riches of eternity..." (D&C 38:39) 

You might have heard the little parable of the child whose father asks her to give him her most beloved toy necklace to prove her love for him.  He asks repeatedly while she debates, but when she finally gives up the beads, the father gives her a real pearl necklace as his return gift.  This is a little bit like what we can expect from our Father in Heaven when he asks us to give up that one thing, be it riches or whatever else, that we cling to and hold dear.  As Elder Melvin J. Ballard said, "A person cannot give a crust to the Lord without receiving a loaf in return" (Ensign, November 1980).  We can be sure that the widow, who cast in her mites (Mark 12:41-44), received such a reward, eventually, because the Lord was there to observe her sacrifice, and He is there to observe ours. 

Besides, as Jesus pointed out in the parable in Luke 12:13-21, what earthly goods we give up for the kingdom, might just as well disappear tomorrow on their own.

THE PARABLE OF THE GREAT SUPPER

So a man made a great feast and invited many people to it.  But each of them made an excuse, and didn't come.

Why would anyone refuse an invitation to such a wonderful event?

Because they are like many people today, who are "so busy being self-sufficient or fulfilling their life programs that they spurn salvation" (David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 128).  Also, it's not quite as easy as walking into a banquet hall for a couple of hours.

"We often must make significant changes in our lives in order to attend the feast at the table of the Lord. Too many of us put those changes off, thinking there is no urgency.  Perhaps this parable could be called the “don’t bother me now, Lord” parable. We try to excuse ourselves in various ways. Each rationalization comes from selfishness and almost always relates to something temporal. For some it is the Word of Wisdom. For others it is the law of tithing. Perhaps it is a reluctance to live the law of chastity. Whatever the reason, we who reject or delay our response to the Savior’s invitation show our lack of love for Him who is our King" ("Parables of Jesus: The Great Supper," F. Melvin Hammond, Ensign, April 2003).

"The Lord explained to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the elders of the Church were sent to earth so that “a feast of fat things might be prepared … ; Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited. First, the rich and the learned, the wise and the noble” (D&C 58:8–10). If the Lord is providing his own commentary [here] on the parable of the great supper—and it seems that he is—then it is frightening to note that those who declined the invitation were those more concerned with temporal problems—for example, a piece of ground, a yoke of oxen, or a wife who did not understand the significance of the supper. As we look at the part riches play in this parable, we can see that there is great risk in them—risk that concern for material things may cloud our view of what is eternally important" (F. Burton Howard, "Overcoming the World," Ensign, Sept. 1996).

WHAT ABOUT THE SERVANTS?

From his perspective as a Seventy and a mission president, Elder Hammond wrote a companion parable.  "The role of the man’s servants in the parable of the great supper is an aspect of the story we seldom think about. Contemplating this, I wrote the following parable: A certain man possessing many riches and desiring to share them with all his friends planned a feast with food and drink. His servants were given instructions, and preparations were made. In the evening the guests arrived hungry, looking forward to being fed. The hall was spacious and the tables beautifully set. But the cups were empty and only crumbs were spread upon the plates. The guests left hungering and thirsting, their loyalty shaken, not anxious to return. And the king wept because his servants, they who had professed total allegiance and obedience to him, did not perform their duties as expected.

"We who have the responsibility to serve, train, and teach in the home or at church sometimes come to our tasks unprepared. Our children or students want to be spiritually fed but frequently go away still hungering and thirsting for the things of the Spirit of God. Every parent and teacher in the Church—whether in Sunday School, Primary, Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, a priesthood quorum, or even on the music committee—who is not prepared to feed his or her 'guests' runs the risk of leaving the Lord’s children hungry. However, when adequate preparation is made and the Spirit is invited, everyone may leave the meeting edified and rejoicing in the Lord."  (Hammond)

Note on Luke 14:26, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother:" "Hate [here is] prophetic hyperbole [or exaggeration to make a point] for the uncompromising loyalty required toward Jesus and the true family of disciples" (Harper-Collins Study Bible).  "The theme of these verses is not alienation from one's family but the cost of discipleship: nothing, not love for father or mother or even one's own life, is to take precedence over loyalty to God and his Messiah" (Stern, p. 129).

THE CURIOUS PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD

Lest we take all the messages Jesus taught about not overvaluing money and worldly possessions to an extreme, we find a balancing parable following them in Luke 16.

"The parable of the unjust steward is about a business manager who manipulates his employer’s debts. I have wondered many times why the Savior ever gave it. Some people have even read it and wondered if He was justifying or excusing unethical behavior. It is a curious parable, but one that is also rich with truth, including teachings that show us how to make our way financially in this world" (Tsung-Ting Yang, "Parables of Jesus: The Unjust Steward," Ensign, July 2003). 

Elder Yang points out that this parable follows closely on the heels of the parable of the prodigal (or wasteful) son, and as we know, placement in the Bible is meant to enhance teachings.  In this parable of the unjust steward, the Savior pointed out that worldly people sometimes manage their finances better than do the spiritually-minded.  But it is necessary that we learn to be wise with the worldly blessings the Lord has given us.

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.  If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"  (Luke 16:10-11).

"How sound and penetrating this logic!  Does it not border on the preposterous for us to think that we might be entrusted with the endless resources of eternity and the full powers of the priesthood when we cannot even live within a budget?" (Dennis Deaton, Money-Wise and Spiritually Rich, p. 14).

So what are the specific lessons taught in money management by the parable of the unjust steward?

Elder Yang explains:  "In Jesus’ day owners sometimes overcharged debtors, so the discounts the steward gave could have simply returned the debts to their original amounts. This approach would have satisfied the rich man and gained the favor of the debtors. But whatever the steward did, the Savior described his actions as “unjust,” or morally wrong, for the Lord does not excuse sin for any reason. It is essential we realize that in the parable it was the rich man—not the Savior—who commended the steward.

"After telling the parable, Jesus explained some points that were important to Him.

1. Those who are spiritually strong need to give proper attention to the temporal affairs in their lives. “For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light” (Luke 16:8).
2. When possible the righteous should be friends, not enemies, with people in positions of authority or wealth, for someday those friends may assist the righteous and the kingdom of God. “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations” (Luke 16:9; see D&C 82:22).  A great example of this principle was carried out by Apostle Thomas S. Monson in the 1970s.  By repeatedly petitioning the Communist government of East Germany to allow the Latter-day Saints living there to attend General Conference or the temple, and then keeping his promise that each one would return to East Germany and not defect (even including the body of an elderly woman who died on her temple trip), President Monson gained the confidence of the government, which led not only to their suggestion that he build a temple in their country (the Freiberg Temple), but which favorably influenced the Church's dealings with many surrounding countries.  (See Heidi S. Swinton, To The Rescue: The Biography of Thomas S. Monson, p. 299-301.)
3. Those who wisely manage their temporal affairs are more likely to also wisely manage their spiritual affairs. “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. … And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?” (Luke 16:10,12; see D&C 51:19). 
4. Obedience to God is much more important than making money. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13; see D&C 56:16–17)." (Yang)

LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) circles us back to the beginning of this scripture chain, and the first principle taught:  that riches themselves are irrelevant to gaining eternal life, but if we have them, the way we use them does have an effect on our salvation. 

In this story Lazarus was a hideous begger lying in the street.  As we have seen from the story of Job and the healing of the blind man in the previous lesson, the Jews were accustomed to assuming that sin was always the cause of misfortune.  Therefore, Lazarus would have been the least in the kingdom of Heaven.  The only comfort he received on earth was being licked by the mangy street dogs.  Ugh!

The rich man saw Lazarus daily lying outside his gates, but like the priest and the Levite in the parable of the good Samaritan, he did nothing to help him, despite clearly having the means.

So in the next life, their roles were reversed.  The rich man suffered the pains of hell, while Lazarus "was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom" (v.22).  This is "a rare phrase in early Jewish writing, but not unknown...[It] suggests both being in [Paradise] and being present at the Messianic banquet" (Stern, p. 134). 

Hey!  Lazarus was one who went in to the feast prepared by the Lord after the invitation was rejected by the rich man!

It's interesting that the rich man is not given a name in this story, but the beggar is.  The rich man could be any or all of us, but the beggar's identity is specific:

1) The name Lazarus means "Helped of God" (Bible Dictionary).  It is the same as that of the brother of Mary and Martha who is later raised from the dead (John 11-12).  As the second Lazarus was raised from mortal death by Christ, the first Lazarus was raised from spiritual death by Christ.

2) We can't readily tell by their circumstances who has petitioned the Lord and received the saving and perfecting power of the Atonement in their lives.  The least among us may be at the head of the table in the next life.

John 9-10

John 9-10

"Miracles:  An important element in the work of Jesus Christ, being not only divine acts, but forming also a part of the divine teaching."  (Bible Dictionary, p. 732)

Of all of the miracles that Christ performed during his earthly ministry among the Jews, the healing of the man blind from birth is the only one that takes up an entire chapter.  There must be a lot we can learn from this singular story and apply to our own lives.

(You may want to ask the class to identify all the lessons they can find in this story.  They may come up with better stuff than I have.)

THE HEALING OF THE BLIND MAN

(This image is from the Church's online Gospel Art,

and therefore can be copied and printed up for classroom use.)

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.  And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (9:1-2)

Hmm.  Didn't we already get this question answered in the Book of Job?  Maybe these Jews had not read it...

"Jesus answered, neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."  (9:3)

Lesson #1:  Birth defects or illnesses are not necessarily anyone's fault.
Lesson #2:  Physical weakness does not automatically indicate spiritual weakness.
Lesson #3:  Without problems, there would be no need for miracles, the manifestation of God's power.

Jesus again proclaimed himself the Light of the World, sent to do the works of his Father, and then he made a little clay with his spit, and put it on the eyes of the blind man, "an act that was a well-known Jewish remedy for diseases of the eye" (McConkie, p. 29).  He then instructed him to go and wash in the pool of Siloam.  This pool is familiar to us:  the same place where the impotent man was trying to get in the water to be cleansed, it is at the end of Hezekiah's Tunnel.  Without any question, the blind man "went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing." (9:7)

Lesson #4:  Miracles can come from the most unlikely raw materials.
Lesson #5:  Sometimes we are expected to work for our miracles.  "Faith is a principle of action and of power" (Bible Dictionary, p. 670)  Although this man did not know who Christ was, his infant faith is shown in the fact that he immediately obeyed.

The neighbors were understandably astonished.  Some thought it must be another person who simply looked like the blind man.  But he identified himself and they asked him how he was healed.  He said he was healed by "a man named Jesus," and told them how it was done.

The neighbors took him to report to the church leaders.  Wouldn't you?  Wouldn't everybody be delighted to hear about this miracle?  Joseph Smith did the same thing after seeing his great vision, and he got about the same flavor of response as this blind man did:  Indignation.  In this case, they criticized Jesus for "working" on the Sabbath.

There were 39 kinds of work forbidden on the Sabbath.  By building something of clay, and by kneading the clay, the Pharisees claimed Jesus broke Sabbath rules (Stern, p. 184).  Applying a healing remedy was also against the Sabbath, "and in addition there was a specific prohibition against the application of saliva to the eyes on the Sabbath," it being a well-known treatment (McConkie, p. 201).

Jesus purposely "broke" these Sabbath rules.  Of course he could have healed without making or applying mudpacks.  Of course he could have healed on another day.  His miracles were to teach, as well as to heal, and here he was teaching about the purpose of the Sabbath day.

The Pharisees falsely accused him in every case of Sabbath healing.  He defended his Sabbath healings perfectly in John 7:2.  According to the Rabbinic discussions recorded in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat, pgs. 128b-137b, which says that it is more important to circumsize a child on the correct day, the 8th day, even if it is the Sabbath day, than it is to keep the Sabbath rules of not carrying tools or doing cutting.  Jesus used what in Judaism is called a "light and heavy" argument:  If you can break the Sabbath to observe circumcision, how much more important it is to heal a person's whole body on the Sabbath (Stern, p. 177).

Lesson #6:  The Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8) made the Sabbath for the saving and healing of man (Mark 2:27).

When the rulers of the synagogue asked the formerly blind man who healed him, his answer reflected his growing testimony.  Where he told the neighbors it was simply a man named Jesus, he now said, "He is a prophet" (9:17).

The leaders called the parents of the man as witnesses.  They wanted proof that the man had really been blind from birth.  The parents said that he had been, but denied knowing how he had been healed, "For the Jews [meaning the church leaders] had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue" (9:22).  "The blind man's parents betray him to a fate they fear themselves" (Harper-Collins Study Bible, p. 2032). 

"Judaism has three degrees of excommunication, though none is common today...The most severe, cherem, was a ban of indefinite duration; and a person under cherem was treated like one dead.  For a family so poor as to allow their son to beg--begging charity was to be avoided as much as giving charity was to be practiced--being de-synagogued would have been a dreadful disaster.  For Messianic Jews today social ostracism by family and/or the Jewish community--that is, being treated as if under a cherem--can be a cost to be counted when committing one's life to Yeshua [Christ].  (Stern, p. 184.  An especially poignant comment, considering the author is himself a Messianic Jew.)  (You can also find this information in McConkie, p. 204-205.)

The healed man, however, knew where his allegiance lay.  They called him again and accused his healer of being a sinner.  (Note:  The phrase "Give God the praise" in v. 24 indicates a request for a solemn judicial statement, the ancient equivalent of "Swear to God you're telling the truth." [Stern, p. 184])  The man refused to place a judgment on Christ, but swore that he had healed him.  The leaders pressed him again and reviled him for telling the truth, and claimed they did not know where Christ came from (or got his authority).  I love the healed man's retort:

"Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.  Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.  Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind except he be of God.

"If this man were not of God, he could do nothing."  (9:30-33)

Lesson #7:  True miracles are worked only by followers of God.
Lesson #8:  People who don't want to see miracles won't; evidence will make no difference.
Lesson #9:  Testimonies grow in the bearing or defending of them.

At this, the authorities called him "born in sins," the equivalent of saying he had been born an illegitimate child (I decided I didn't want to put the actual word here--it's not a nice one), and cast him out (9:34).

Jesus, hearing about it, sought him out and asked if he believed on the Son of God.  Again, a wonderful response from the healed man:  "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?"  Jesus identified himself, and the man immediately said, "Lord, I believe.  And he worshipped him." (9:35-38).

Lesson #10:  Just because someone else calls you a bad name and ostracizes you, it doesn't lessen you in the eyes of Christ.
Lesson #11:  Jesus is always mindful of his believers and their trials and comes to their aid.
Lesson #12:  Christ will reveal who he is to those who want to believe.

The point of the entire story is encapsulated in these words of Jesus:  "For judgment [justice--or to make things fair] I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." (9:39).

Lesson #13:  Jesus will reveal himself to those who "see not" but desire to see, but not to those who are convinced they already see perfectly well without him.

THE GOOD SHEPHERD

(This image is from the Church's online Gospel Art,

and therefore can be copied and printed up for classroom use.)

"No figures of speech, no similitudes, no parables or allegories brought greater joy to Israelite hearts than those which led to the glorious pronouncement:  Jehovah is our Shepherd.

"Israel's very lives depended upon the safety and procreant powers of their sheep.  Physically and spiritually their interests centered in their flocks and herds.  From them came food for their tables, clothes for their bodies, sacrifices for their altars...Those who cared for the flocks were not sheepherders but shepherds; sheep were not driven, but led; they hearkened to him whose voice they came to know.  At night the flocks were commingled in one safe sheepfold where a single shepherd stood guard against the wolves and terrors of the night.  In the morning each shepherd called his own sheep out and they followed him to green pastures and still waters" (McConkie, p. 210). 

The allegory of Jesus as the Good Shepherd "is the closest thing to a parable in the Gospel of John.  It seems to present a highly realistic picture of Palestinian sheepherding in ancient times.  The 'parable' focuses first on the gate and then on the shepherd...The explanation, like the 'parable' itself, focuses first on Jesus as the gate and then on Jesus as the shepherd" (Harper-Collins, p. 2033).

I love The Harper-Collins Study Bible, because the commentators in it are honest.  If they don't understand something, if they don't have certain proof, they say so.  In this case, they say, in reference to 10:16:  "The other sheep are probably the Gentiles."  "Probably."  They're not sure.  We, of course, having the additional resource of the Book of Mormon, know these other sheep are the inhabitants of ancient America.  (See 3 Nephi 15:15-22.)


(See also a previous lesson, "The Shepherds of Israel".  Also check out this excellent article on sheep, shepherds, and Christ:  Homer S. Ellsworth, "Thoughts on the Good Shepherd", Ensign, Dec. 1985.)


SOURCES:

Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Book 3
David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary