NoCoolName Blog

Greek: 55 ὑπάρχων δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ἀτενίσας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶδεν δόξαν θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦν ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, 56 καὶ εἶπεν, ἰδοὺ θεωρῶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς διηνοιγμένους καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ θεοῦ.

My Translation: 55 But being filled with the Holy Spirit, he looked earnestly into the sky, he saw the glory of God and Jesus set by the right side of God, 56 and he said, “Look! I see the heavens drawn apart [some manuscripts “opened wide”] and the son of man set by the right side of God.”

KJV: 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing > on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

Update May 2013

This scripture has been removed by the Church Educational System from the Scripture Mastery list. However, it had remained within this list for over two decades and as such is still familiar to many graduates of the LDS Church's Seminary program. So I'm keeping this exploration of it online, but it is no longer applicable to CES.

A Quick Note

It's a lot of fun to write these posts, but I want to do even better. So I'm slowing down the pace in order to give each individual post some time to hopefully spread through the Internet. A new Scripture Mastery post should appear every Monday and every Thursday. I'm asking anyone who has been enjoying this series to please comment, share/post links, ask questions, post rebuttals, and what have you. I'm relatively confident in what I'm doing, but I've already been able to find and fix some problems in previous posts due to people getting involved. Share you experiences in Seminary or Sunday School about these scriptures. Ask questions about other areas and scriptures (I can only really answer translation questions about the New Testament personally, though I feel rather confident in my knowledge of the “Old Testament”, better called the Hebrew Bible, too). And if you're enjoying this, please just drop a quick note to say so. Just a quick “Thanks” or “Cool beans” really makes my day. Thanks! Now onto the post!

The Context: Stephen's Martyrdom in Acts

We're back to an author we've seen before! The book of Acts is unique in the New Testament: it is the only sequel. The author of Acts is the same person as the author of the Gospel of Luke. Luke is often the favorite evangelist of people to read: he likes to focus on people and stories instead of on dense sermons and dialogs. And here in Acts it is no different. The verses in question are not part of a sermon delivered on the nature of God, but are in fact the last words of a long, emotional exposition on Jewish history, delivered by the movement's (apparently) first martyr (not counting Jesus).

In the Book of Acts, the main character is no longer Jesus, who has ascended into heaven, but is rather the Holy Spirit, who is the main mover and motivator of the many stories. The entire book is about how the good news of Jesus the Messiah's death spreads from a small group of followers in Jerusalem and Galilee to many cities in Greece and Asia minor (modern-day Turkey). It's split up into two parts, the first is the story of Peter and how the “way” (Luke's name for the movement that seems to be the original Christian term for their diverse movement) endured through the initial growing pains of being led by human beings into new areas of the world both physically and theologically (though there's some good evidence that Luke is cleaning up the complexities of the real history he's covering and simplifying the story considerably), and the second is how the conversion of a bitter enemy, Saul of Tarsus, leads the movement to the Gentiles and eventually to the whole world. The verses in question comes from the first part of the work. Peter and the other apostles have elected seven men to help them administer the needs to the young movement so that they can be free to preach as missionaries. However, these seven men quickly become preachers and missionaries themselves, so it's unclear to me how well this plan was thought out.

The martyr is Stephen (a Greek name, perhaps a glimpse of an early Gentile convert to the movement before the traditional start as related by Luke where Peter is given a vision of unclean animals he is told to eat), who has just finished telling the Jewish leaders how wicked they are and how they are following a pattern of wickedness throughout their history that has led up to their crucifying Jesus even though he fits into this pattern of their history as well and that they are murderers and lawbreakers because of it. (The sermons that Luke gives to his main characters in much of Acts are really quite inflammatory texts, so it's little wonder that the speakers keep having trouble with their audience.) He then proclaims that he sees Jesus in vision with God, and the crowd are so incensed that they decide to stone Stephen to death on the spot.

Jewish leaders did not have the authority to kill Judeans without Roman approval. This is usually given in Sunday School as the explanation for why Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea, was involved in the sentencing and execution of Jesus (and indeed that was probably why the Romans were involved, but if so, we've lost record of what Jesus's crime against Rome actually was). But here in this story we have the Jews killing someone without any apparent legal problems. Perhaps one of the executions, of Jesus and of Stephen, didn't occur as written, then? Perhaps in the case of Stephen's death this story of the leaders of the Jews executing Stephen for blasphemy is based on early traditions of Christ followers being beaten up and killed by vigilante mobs or other, less authoritative groups than the Sanhedrin of the Jews. Perhaps Luke wants to express the violent trouble that early Jesus followers were having and so he takes the historical martyr Stephen and turns his story into an somewhat mythologized, exemplary tale of early Christian martyrdom and persecution that many unnamed people faced. There's no way to know, of course. It's all supposition, but Luke is not what we in the 21st Century would consider a “historian,” but is more of a propagandist. He's using history as a tool to express his message.

Also note that we are given a glimpse into the last, inner moments of Stephen. We aren't just told what he said he saw before the crowd decides to kill him, we are told what he saw before he died. Of course, it's the exact same thing that he said he saw, but Luke as narrator gives us a view of Stephen's vision that nobody else could have seen. Since the author of Luke-Acts, whoever he (or possibly she) was, never claims to divine revelation as one of their sources, we can assume that this vision of Stephen's has some artistic perspective applied to it (and even if the historical Luke who is traditionally viewed as author wrote it, he was an ancient doctor and convert to the movement and not an apostle or other source with divine authority, just a historian). Did Stephen really say what he thought he saw at the end of his sermon? Were his words accurately conveyed through the intervening decades between his death and the writing of Acts? Who kept the tradition alive all of those years, and how much did the story grow or change during that time? And above all, how strongly should we view Stephen's vision as we have it in Acts 7 as a statement of doctrinal importance?

LDS Views

But anyways, enough of the context and questions (though I could literally go on for a thousand more words about the book of Acts, which is without a doubt one of my favorite New Testament works as even the author can't scrub out the messiness of humanity evident in the small group of Jesus followers he is chronicling). Why was this scripture chosen by CES for LDS youth to study and memorize to help them throughout the rest of their lives? Well, on the surface, this appears to be a scripture that fully supports the idea of the now-risen Jesus as a divine figure. Stephen proclaims to the Jews around him that his spiritual leader, the executed Rabbi Jesus, is now set next to God himself. Stephen is proclaiming the power and authority of Jesus in the coming Kingdom of God, which, more than anything it seems, incenses Luke's villains who then agree to kill him. So it seems to be a scripture supporting Jesus as God's divine messenger, and would thus be a perfectly appropriate scripture in Christian and LDS theology, except that we've already covered other scriptures that would say as much and there are other more-famous New Testament scriptures that are not part of the scripture mastery list that also say as much.

So it seems that for Mormons, again, this scripture says so much more. Mormons in Seminary and Institute usually interpret Stephen's proclamation literally: Stephen actually saw Jesus standing on the right side of God. In other words, Stephen saw two people: Jesus and God, and they were next to each other. Jesus is even identified as standing on the right-hand side of God. So Stephen saw two people, just like Joseph Smith claimed to see in (one of the accounts of) his First Vision. And God must have been visible, and not some mysterious spirit, because Stephen saw him enough to know that it was God and that Jesus was standing next to him. Ergo, this is a vision that confirms the rather non-traditional LDS idea of an embodied God the Father and speaks against the (again, completely mistaken) idea of the Trinity being a Modalist God. This popular narrative that the LDS viewpoint helps illuminate aspects of the Bible that have confused regular Christians for millennia arises yet again (I'd love to talk about this rather arrogant viewpoint when it comes to the baptism of Jesus, where it usually reaches it's most appalling mockery, and will perhaps do some once I am finished with this Scripture Mastery series). Because obviously, if more Christians just read their Bible they'd see this stuff, right? (The same could be said of hyper-patriotic American Mormons reading their Book of Mormon, though, to be fair. If they read it closer they'd see that it's not nearly the pro-American, pro-Democracy work they often purport it to be.)

Other Perspectives

So what are we to make of the common LDS perspective? Is it valid? Yes, it is valid. From a literal perspective, much (though not all) of this view holds. Of course, this scripture says nothing about whether the Father (or even the Son) has a body, and as we've discussed before, the usual Mormon idea of the Christian Trinity is actually heretical itself, and is called Modalism and while many average Christians might subconsciously adhere to it or even teach it, it was denounced as a heresy even before the Arian controversy in the 4th Century. But you can validly read it as a statement of Stephen seeing two individuals next to each other in vision.

But should this scripture be taken literally? I'd argue against it. First of all, the questions surrounding the context bother me. If there is a doctrinal point to be made, there are better places to make it than from the mouth of a person who is about to die and be thus unable to further explain the importance of what he has seen, and there are better people to relate it than an anonymous historian who enjoys creating sermons and speeches for his characters to say some thirty to forty years after the fact. So off the bat, I already have serious doubts about the importance that the author meant to place behind this statement.

Secondly, the less-literal interpretation is just as valid. Stephen has finished a long exploration of Jewish history, covering how God has given his people laws and prophets to guide them and how the people often reject them. He then accuses the people of having broken the Torah by killing God's latest messenger of Jesus, and finishes by proclaiming that Jesus is a messenger of God because he sees him in vision with God. The vision as described could mean that Jesus is standing on the right-hand side of God literally, or it could be that Jesus is set (also a valid interpretation of the verb) in a position of authority in relation to God. Jesus is God's “right-hand man,” in other words.

“To sit at the 'right hand' of the king was an honor (see 1 Kgs 2:19). In Ugaritic myth* the artisan god Kothar-and Khasis is described as sitting at the right hand of the storm god Baal. See G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 61-62.” (Net Bible, Psalm 110:1, Footnote 4)
*Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabetiques 4 v. 108-10

So it could be less a statement of their separateness and more a statement that Jesus is indeed who Stephen said he was: a divine messenger approved of and sent by God. And, in the context of Stephen's sermon on Jewish history leading up to the wrongful death of Jesus, it seems that this is the emotional climx where Stephen gets to say that Jesus's position in God's plan is supreme. In context, it seems to be a very odd place to put any sort of statement on the nature of God, and appears to be merely a statement on the authority of Jesus. Saying that God is embodied would have bothered 1st Century Jews far less than saying that the radical preacher that had been executed a few years before was God's messenger and that they are thus murderers and sinners against God. Which implication would have led to Stephen's death? That the executed Jesus was now in a position of authority.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

To me, it seems we've already covered the authority and position of Jesus enough in previous scriptures as given (“Jesus Christ, whom [God] has sent”). Thus, I see little reason to pluck this relatively innocuous verse from its obscurity in Acts and elevate it to the status of one of only 25 scriptures to memorize from the New Testament. There are so many other things that could have been pulled from Acts, but this one made the cut. I think the biggest reason is again because it is viewed as an anti-Trinitarian scripture (which it is not; it is at most an anti-Modalist scripture). It adds very little else to an understanding of Jesus in LDS theology apart from this stance. Again, I would not be surprised to see this scripture dropped from any future reformulation of the Scripture Mastery list. It is used to argue against an incorrect conception of what the debate over Mormon-Christian theology is about.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

My Translation: But everlasting life is this, that they all might come to know you, the one true god, and that you sent Jesus Christ.

KJV: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

A Quick Note”

It's a lot of fun to write these posts, but I want to do even better. So I'm slowing down the pace in order to give each individual post some time to hopefully spread through the Internet. A new Scripture Mastery post should appear every Monday and every Thursday. I'm asking anyone who has been enjoying this series to please comment, share/post links, ask questions, post rebuttals, and what have you. I'm relatively confident in what I'm doing, but I've already been able to find and fix some problems in previous posts due to people getting involved. Share your experiences in Seminary or Sunday School about these scriptures. Ask questions about other areas and scriptures (I can only really answer translation questions about the New Testament personally, though I feel rather confident in my knowledge of the “Old Testament”, better called the Hebrew Bible, too). And if you're enjoying this but don't really want to do anything grand, please just drop a quick note to say so. Just a quick “Thanks” or “Cool beans” really makes my day. Thanks! Now onto the post!

The Death of Jesus in John's Gospel

This is a popular one throughout Christianity. It's from John 17, which is a long prayer given by Jesus to God at the Last Supper, sometimes called the “Intercessory Prayer”. One reason it's popular is that this prayer occupies the place of the Garden of Gethsemane in Matthew, Mark, and especially Luke. Whereas in those gospels Jesus is portrayed as suffering in prayer, as in Mark, or perhaps a little ambivalent such as asking God to “remove the cup” before his upcoming death in Luke, in John Jesus is fully in command of the situation, and this prayer to God is a plea not to remove the cup but rather for God to honor and uplift Jesus's disciples. In John's gospel, Jesus does not approach his death with apprehension; in fact, for John, the death of Jesus is not portrayed as a possibly-unexpected event, but is the climax of the book with John working in symbolism of a emperor's coronation into the narrative. For John, the death of Jesus is the crowning achievement of Jesus's work and the event that heralds the full arrival of the kingdom of God upon the world (John's gospel, while still containing some apocalyptic elements, seems to have been written long enough after the death of Jesus for much of the apocalyptic warnings of the coming kingdom of God to be replaced with the spiritual arrival of the kingdom as the gospel of Jesus being accepted and spread by his followers; this tends to happen when people who feel that they were promised they'd live to see the coming kingdom of God begin to die and you need an explanation). (See my post about the differences of the Gospels if you want to know more about these four very different and non-coordinating works.)

Jesus Sent By God

One of the main reasons for the inclusion of this verse, I feel, is the honorable and correct use of it as a pro-Christ verse. This is a verse that is central to Christian and Mormon theology: God sent Jesus Christ, and that eternal life is wrapped up in developing a relationship with God and Christ. So much is wrapped up in this concept for both Mormons and Christians, so I approve of its inclusion for this reason. But I'd argue that there's another less honorable and pretty much incorrect reason for this verse to be included in a list of the most important scriptures from the New Testament for LDS youth, and it has to do with Jesus's statement that life eternal is to know, or understand God. In other words, it's commonly assumed that having a correct understanding of the nature of God is part of attaining eternal life, which for Mormons means living the same kind of life as God the Father: life as a god.

The Only True God

One interesting aspect of this verse is the phrase ton mónon alāthinón theón, the only true god. Monon should be recognizable to English speakers in the numerical prefix “mono”: monorail, monocle, monogram, monotheism, etc. It means “one”, “single”, “only”. This is a verse that seems to have been used during the debates of the Nicene Council of 325 CE, part of the Arian heresy that divided much of the Christian movements during the early Fourth Century. To try and simply summarize what was actually a very complex debate, the Arians felt that only God the Father was an eternal God, and that Jesus, while still divine and unique, was a being created by the Father in the distant past before the creation of the world. In explanation of their viewpoint, the Arians pointed out that the terms “Father” and “Son” were without meaning if applied to multiple beings who had always existed alongside each other and who were equal in all power and glory. Countered by the proto-orthodox viewpoint (which only later developed into the strong Trinitarianism, but was an idea around long before Nicea and wasn't invented there, merely promoted as correct) that this resulted in a worldview of three gods, which was polythesim and was soundly denounced many times in the Bible (such as in the 10 commandments), the Arians responded by using this verse to imply that while Jesus was a god, he was not a True God. Jesus himself in this verse acknowledges that the Father is the only “true” God. Thus, they argued, the commandments for only worshiping God the Father alone were still upheld, because there was only one “true” God in the universe. Jesus was a different kind of god because he had been created by the one “true” God. Needless to say, the nuance in such a view didn't last in Christian thought, but Arianism itself held out for hundreds of years after the Nicene Council as one of the most popular strands of Christianity in the world.

The Modalist Heresy

Mormons have a viewpoint that is similar to the Arians, but it should not be confused as being the same viewpoint (and for those familiar with the homoiousios/homoousios debate of Nicea, go ahead and laugh). Mormons began in a period of American history where many traditional aspects of Christianity were being examined, doubted, and experimented with. One aspect of traditional Christianity that many original converts had trouble with was Trinitarianism. The basic idea of Trinitarianism is that God is composed of three beings: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now, as to whether God is a title for all three, an aspect of the three that arises through their mutual love and unity, or whatever, is a subject of much debate and thought. The basic idea is simply that there is one God and three persons. Unfortunately, it is rather easy for many Christians to unwittingly slip into another heretical belief when trying to understand how a singular God is composed of three persons: modalism. Modalism is the belief that there is only one God who appears to be three different people at different times and in different places. To over-simplify, it's the belief that God has a “Father” mask that he wears when he needs to be the Father, a “Son” mask that he wears when he needs to be the Son, and a “Holy Ghost” mask for when the Holy Ghost is working in the world, but it's the same person behind all three masks. Most Mormons are surprised to find that this view is a heresy, because it tends to be the viewpoint we are taught growing up in the Church of what “other Christians” believe. Modalist thought can be found throughout Christian history, but it is always regarded by Christian theologians as heretical and is corrected when found. That doesn't mean that it doesn't continue pop up all over the place even in congregations nowadays, and it was commonly said to be an issue for many early seekers in America's Second Great Awakening. Even Thomas Paine, the writer of the revolutionary tract Common Sense, discussed the oddity of the Trinity in his Age of Reason. It's bound to happen when people continue to use analogies to try and explain the mystery of the Trinity such as “It's like water: it can be solid, liquid, or gas but it's all water,” or “It's like an egg: you have the shell, the whites, and the yolk, but it's only an egg when all three are united together.”

Mormons and Their “Trinitarian” Straw Men

I still have more research to do on this point, so from here on out it's my own supposition (though I'm rather confident in this hypothesis), but I think it can be shown that the great divide between Mormons as non-Trinitarians and other Christians as Trinitarians has its roots in Mormon rhetoric and not in anti- Mormon rhetoric. In other words, I think Mormons started self-identifying as non-Trinitarians decades before other Christians even cared about the issue. I would argue that issues that are related to that divide, such as Mormons believing in an embodied God or in human deification and theosis, can and occasionally do live side by side with traditional Trinitarian thought. I think that eventually as Christians in general turned against Mormonism during the 19th Century it was originally because of polygamy and the strong control exerted upon members by Church leadership. Eventually, some Christians heard that Mormons also identified themselves as anti-Trinitarianists and so came to agree that this was an issue, and today the argument that Mormons cannot be Christians because of the Council of Nicea has been ongoing for so long that everyone on both sides of the divide has forgotten who first started saying it and everyone simply believes it is true because it's been said for so long by both sides. However, I'm still doing my own research into what the earliest Mormon narratives on Nicea and the Trinity were and when and if they changed.

Anyways, all of this is a very long way of saying that I think this scripture is present because it's one of the main anti-Modalist scriptures (the Arians in particular loved to use anti-Modalism scriptures and arguments because it helped force their opponents into the uncomfortable position of possibly having to argue against Arian ideas using heretical terms and ideas from earlier Modalist thinkers). Jesus is talking to God and mentions himself as being separate. Mormons (incorrectly) assume that this scripture is thus speaking against Trinitarianism. For Mormons, this rejection of Trinitarianism is, oddly, one of the most important differences between Mormonism and Christianity. In the First Vision account, where God and Jesus visit Joseph Smith as a young boy to start him on the road to becoming a prophet, Mormons routinely will point out that Joseph saw two “personages” in the grove where was praying and not one. But remember, this is because they've been perpetuating the idea of a modalist Trinity for so long that today it is simply an accepted point among Mormons that Christians are Modalists. However, this isn't true, and unfortunately the elevation of this scripture to be included in a list of the most important scriptures for LDS youth almost certainly involves this scripture being used to combat this false view of what other Christians “believe”.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

For two reasons, one good and one bad. The first, good reason is because it is a scripture that speaks to one of the central doctrines of Christian and Mormon theology: God sent Jesus Christ. However, the second bad reason focuses on the idea that life eternal is to “know God”: for most Mormons this knowledge includes a true understanding of the nature of God as “non-Trinitarian,” placed against a straw-man conception of “orthodox Christianity” that is actually heretical for traditional Christians.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Just a quick thought: sometimes when I read different blogs in the Bloggernacle and Outer Blogness I enjoy knowing about the individuals who write what I'm reading. These posts don't just appear on the Internet fully formed from chaos, but are written by real people living real lives.

The posts I've been writing recently on the LDS New Testament Scripture Mastery have been written riding the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transport, better known as the BART, on my way to and from work. It's a little odd to be sitting here in the midst of a crowd of people writing about biblical scholarship and Mormonism. It's usually dark this time of year, so during the times when the Bart is above ground, I usually take a moment to look at the lights of Oakland as they pass by outside, or admire the fog of the morning that smothers everything west of the hills. It's a relaxing way to spend what would otherwise be a boring ride. We're moving soon, hopefully somewhere closer to my job in San Francisco. (If you know of any place to rent in Berkeley or in western San Francisco let me know!)

It's always amazing to me how many different people I spend nearly two hours with every day. So many people, each with their own lives, their own stories. And all of us just rolling along, all of us rocking slightly as the train hits little bumps and jolts, all of us on our way to wherever it is we're off to.

Anyways, these are the thoughts I often think of as I'm writing entries for my blog (including this one).

There are four gospels. Everyone knows that: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, most people have never stepped back to ask, “Why?” Why are there four gospels? Why these four? What's going on here?

Maybe you've heard of other gospels: the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter. Maybe you read or used a complicated harmonization and been struck by the need for such a harmonization between four books. Or maybe (hopefully!) you've been reading a blog like this one by a Greek geek talking about the formation of the New Testament and the early Jesus Movement. Either way, I want to take a walk through the four canonical gospels (and some other non-canonical ones) to hopefully resolve some questions you may have had while I've been discussing Scripture Mastery, the Christmas Story, and who knows what else.

Not Histories

Let's get one firm statement out of the way: the gospels are not histories. Perhaps I should say it again, just to emphasize it: the gospels are not histories.

What do I mean by that? In our modern day, we learn history in school, write historical papers, and assume a lot about the historical process. We assume that historians are trying their best to stay out of the process. We allow that all history requires a certain amount of interpretation (otherwise, history would only be a recitation of dates and events, but historians attempt to tell true stories), but we expect historians to tell the truth according to their sources.

The evangelists (a fancy word for gospel-authors) are not writing history: they are relating stories with a point and a purpose. That purpose is not to simply relate historical events but is to present the main character of their works, Jesus of Nazareth, as the Messiah. Facts are stretched, invented, and changed to suit each author's stories.

One example would be the day when Jesus died. Matthew, Mark, and Luke (known as the synoptics because they are so similar that they “See together”) relate that the Last Supper occurred in place of the Passover feast. For Jews celebrating Passover in Jerusalem, a lamb was killed at the Temple and was consumed that evening in a ritual feat commemoration God's liberation of Israel of Egypt. In the Gospel of John, however, the Last Supper occurs the evening before the Passover meal. As a result, because Jesus dies the day after the Last Supper, in John's Gospel Jesus is killed at the same time of day that priests at the Temple would be slaughtering Passover lambs. This matches up with the declaration of John the Baptist at the beginning of John's Gospel (read that again if the multiple “Johns” are confusing you) that Jesus was the “Lamb of God”. So three of the Gospels say that Jesus died the day after the lambs were killed, and one of the them says that Jesus died the same day that the lambs were killed. They can't both be right: at least one of these days must be wrong. And frankly, John's use of the lamb symbolism leads most scholars to think that John is, in this case, sacrificing historical accuracy in favor of teaching a point about the role of Jesus's death.

And if history can be sacrificed once to make the story better fit the author's purpose, how many other times does it occur? As the old adage goes, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. When we read the gospels critically, we need to assume that what we are reading may have been altered or even invented by the author in support of their purposes. The word usually have very negative connotations, but it would be much mor accurate to call the gospels “propaganda” instead of “histories”.

Traditions

Today there are four canonical gospels. But obviously these works have not always existed. Long ago, somebody wrote each one. Let's first look at the traditional story, and then move on to how modern scholars approach them.

Traditionally, the four gospels were authored by:

• Matthew, also known as Levi, one of Jesus's 12 Apostles, wrote the first gospel to be written, and it was based on his own eyewitness experience. Originally written in Hebrew for Jewish converts, it was later translated into Greek, unlike the other gospels which were all Greek compositions. Written around 50 CE.

• Mark, also known as John Mark, he is a later convert to the Jesus movement. He was a missionary companion to Paul until they had a bad fight. Later tradition said that Mark took care of Peter the Apostle in the years before Peter died. Traditionally, Mark used Matthew's Gospel, edited it according to the stories that Peter told him. It's purpose was to explain Jesus to Gentile converts. Written around 60 CE.

• Luke, a Greek convert to the Jesus movement. Luke was a physician, and was a friend of Paul's. Luke approached the task of putting together an orderly history of Jesus, using Matthew and Mark as his sources, supplemented by what Paul, acting as an Apostle, had told him. He also wrote the only sequel to any of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, about the troubles and growth of the Church after Jesus ascended into heaven. Written before 63 CE.

• John, one of Jesus's 12 Apostles, wrote the last gospel. His gospel was meant to fill in the gaps left behind by other gospels and to be a much stronger testimony of Jesus's divinity. Written around 80-90 CE.

That's what tradition tells us. Note the lack of strong dates. But now let's look at what most modern scholars think, and we'll discuss why there's such a difference.

Modern Chronology

The chronology runs thus:

• The Gospel of Mark, written by an anonymous author, roughly 60-65 CE. Originally written in Greek.

• The Gospel of Matthew, written by an anonymous author, roughly 75 CE. Based heavily on Mark, but with extensive rewrites and expansions. Also made use of other sources. Originally written in Greek. Written for a group of Christians who kept the Jewish Torah.

• The Gospel of Luke (and Acts of the Apostles), written by an anonymous author, roughly 80 CE. Used many different sources, including Mark and some of the same sources used by the author Matthew (or possibly used Matthew, but most scholars think the author of Luke was unaware of the existence of Matthew's Gospel). Originally written in Greek. Written for a group of Greek Christians.

• The Gospel of John, written by an author who possibly claims to be John the disciple (though this might actually be a source used by the anonymous author). Written in Greek anywhere from 90CE-110 CE. Scholars are divided on whether the author was aware of the other Gospels already written. Written for a group of Christians more concerned with a spiritual relationship with God than in a relationship of covenantal obedience.

So, right off the bat we have some major differences, the greatest being the anonymity of the authors. None of the gospels (apart from a possible claim at the end of John) claim an author. This doesn't preclude their actually being written by their traditional authors, of course, but some of the authorship claims don't line up very well with authorship by Jewish authors who would have been more familiar with Aramaic than Greek.

For the remainder of this piece, and in the future, when I say “Mark/Luke/etc”, unless I specify the “historical” Mark/Luke/etc please assume that I mean the unknown author of the book called Mark/Luke/etc. It's just easier to use the traditional names of the books without always saying “the author of” all the time.

Also, note which gospel is assumed to be the oldest: Mark. There's a number of reasons for this, but the largest reason is that Mark is obviously a source used by Matthew. Matthew has a number of stories unique between itself and Mark, but where they overlap that overlap is very strong. Matthew follow's Mark's ordering of his stories closely, and even used many of the same wording when telling those stories. However, Matthew often has “softer” readings than Matthew. For instance, whereas in Mark Jesus might ask his disciples “Why do you have no faith?” the same story in Matthew will often say something similar to “Why are you of so little faith?” SImilar, but softer.

Basically, scholars feel it's much easier to accept that Matthew rewrote Mark and, in so doing, attempted to improve the perspective of Jesus's disciples. Going the other way hits some difficult questions, such as why would Mark drop many of the unique stories found in Matthew, and why would he rewrite the stories of Matthew to be harsher against the disciples? It works much better going the other way.

Similarly, Luke makes extensive use of Mark as a source, mixing Mark's gospel among Luke's other sources.

Together, this viewpoint explains why these three gospels all tell very similar stories (again, why these three are called the “synoptics”, meaning that they “see together”). The traditional viewpoint says that the stories are similar because they are three accounts independently verifying the history. But the modern viewpoint says that they are similar because the later authors used the earlier authors in composing their works.

John stands as the odd gospel out. His gospel only tells a few of the same stories, but instead of focusing on stories, John focuses on sermons. The Jesus as presented in John's Gospels is very long-winded and complicated in how he delivers his message. John's Gospel has no parables and no birth stories.

Implications

So what? Who cares if these books weren't composed the way we think?

Here's the problem: the traditional viewpoint assumes a harmony exists among the four gospels, because each are based in different ways upon the same events. But if Matthew is basically a rewrite and an expansion of Mark, what does Matthew think about the usefulness of reading Mark? And the same question goes for Luke: if Luke basically incorporates much of Mark into his own gospel as just another source, is Mark actually meant to be read alongside Luke? And what about the relationship between Matthew and Luke? Are they meant to be read together? It doesn't actually appear so. It appears that these three gospels exist somewhat in opposition to each other. They each have a relationship to each other through their various sources, but that relationship is indifferent at bets, and hostile at worst.

Hostile?

Sure. The following is just a short list of where these gospels don't play well together:

• In Mark, while Jesus is presented as an inspired figure and as the messiah, and is even called the “son of God”, he is not presented as divine. Many figures in the Hebrew scriptures have been called the son of god, including some of Israel's ancient kings and rulers. Mark's Jesus, while send by God, is not himself God. Much of Jesus's message is about the kingdom of God, presented by Mark's Jesus as an actual place rapidly approaching this world.

• In Matthew, the Jewish Torah is presented as supreme in importance to Jesus's ministry. Only in Matthew does Jesus say that “not one stroke or dot of the law will be done away with” and that he has come to “fulfill” the Torah. In Matthew, Jesus is concerned about association with Gentiles and avoids ministering to and among non-Jews. Only Matthew depicts Jesus as founding a “church”, and only Matthew deals with rules of how this “church” should be run. In Matthew, one's righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees to find salvation in the coming Kingdom of God.

• In Luke, Jesus is not very concerned with the Jewish Torah, instead focusing mostly on a message of helping the poor. Jesus's message is about compassion and assistance. More of a focus on parables and on miraculous events than Mark or Matthew.

• In John, Jesus is presented as God himself. No parables, just long sermons. Some signs, but few miracles. The actual history depicted by John matches up very poorly with the Synoptic Gospels. The Kingdom of God is said by Jesus to be “among” his followers, and is represented more as a relationship with Jesus and God than as a physical place coming soon to the world.

• In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus spends most of his time in Northern Judea, only going to Jerusalem at the end of his ministry, which seems to have lasted only around a year. John mentions numerous trips to Jerusalem and multiple Passovers, pulling Jesus's ministry in length anywhere from 2 to 3 years.

Reading Them Wrong, Reading Them Right

The four gospels were written by four very different authors for four very different audiences of Christians. When we try to read them in harmony, or when we try to supplement one account with details found in another account we are not reading them the way the original authors would have them be read.

However, when we read them independently of each other and on their own terms, we are engaging with the texts as the authors intended. The author of John was not thinking, “Well, everyone has been reading these three other gospels, so I'll just fill in the blanks.” He seems to have been thinking, “There are other accounts of the life of Jesus out in the world now, but this one is the correct account.” You may agree, you may not, but the author doesn't care. His account is the only one that matters.

Sometimes this assumption of cooperation among the writers is used to explain the discrepancies, which what are called “conspicuous silences”. When we assume that one author not saying something another author says, that event takes on increased significance. However, when a position of ignorance, or of supremacy, is assumed of an author we can see that these conspicuous silences arise out of differing purposes, different sources, or even disdain for a previous source.

In the end, how one reads the New Testament Gospels is a personal decision. Reading them traditionally as four different, but complimentary, accounts that depict historical events is possible, but in doing so we blunt the impact of each gospel's peculiarities and uniqueness to their detriment.

Any questions or comments? There's tons more that can be said about this topic, and I'm not sure I've covered it completely. Have something to say in support of traditional authorship? Please let me know.

#NewTestament #AcademicBiblical

Greek: Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσετε·

My Translation: If y'all love me, y'all will observe my commandments.

KJV: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

When I mentioned that the Jesus of John's gospel likes to talk, I'm not kidding! John 14 begins a discourse from Jesus to his disciples that lasts for several chapters without any real interruption. The context is the famous Last Supper, mentioned in all four gospels and also in the genuine letters of Paul. Jesus is here giving his last sermon to his disciples, preparing them for his death and (in the Gospel of John, at least) for how his death will bring the Kingdom of God fully to them. The broader context is difficult to summarize; I'd recommend that you go and read John 14 for yourself. The best I can say is that Jesus is talking about his commandments and about love.

Frankly, I'm going to commit a huge blasphemy here and say that I don't really find this scripture to be engaging at all. I'm dreading this write-up because of the boredom this verse inspires to me. I'm wanting to talk about how it is emblematic of the Mormon doctrine of the importance of works, but frankly I think the case for this to be made is weak. Jesus is here making a command that his disciples show their love of Jesus by following what he had told them to do. He is not saying that they must do so or else they will not enter the kingdom of God. He is not saying they must do so or suffer wrath. He's saying that their love of him should lead to their doing what he said to do. A little later, in verse 21, he indicates that the way to show love for Jesus is by keeping his commandments. They're not two things that lead from one to another, they're equivalent things. So does this really have much to do with salvation by either grace or by works? Not really, I'd argue, without reading a lot into the text.

A better question here would be, “What are the commandments of Jesus?” The typical LDS answer (indeed, the answer of most biblical inerrantists as well) would be that anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says to do something, then that is one of his commandments. Is this the case?

John's Jesus is remarkably ambivalent about the Jewish law (unlike Matthew's Jesus, with whom we've spent the most time so far). If we look through this chapters-long discourse, the answer becomes clear when we look at the next chapter (remember that there are no real chapter divisions in John's original work; this is all the same thing). John 15:10-14 says,

If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commandments and remain in his love. I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy maybe complete. My commandment is this—-to love one another just as I have love you. No one has greater love than this—-that one lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.

And just a bit later in verse 17:

This I command you – to love one another.

I think it's very difficult to argue that the commandments referred to in this scripture mastery verse are anything more than directly linked with the explicit commands that Jesus gives to his disciples in the next chapter: that they love each other enough to die for each other. Sure, we can find many more commandments of Jesus in the other gospels, but the gospels were not written to be read together. They are not friendly sources towards each other. Each gospel is a unique piece of literature that attempts to stand alone in their depiction of who Jesus was and what his message was. To honestly discern what the author of the gospel was referring to beyond the command to love one another would best require going through the gospel of John from the beginning up to chapter 14 and try and decide what commandments he gives. If you'll go ahead and do that, you'll find a very different Jesus with a very different focus than the one we've been looking at in Matthew.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

I think this verse was chosen to try and impress upon LDS youth the importance of keeping the commandments taught to them by Church leaders. Since they hope that their students love Jesus, this is Jesus telling them, from an LDS point of view, that this love should be expressed through such things as avoiding coffee, tea, and alcohol, keeping chaste, being honest with others, paying tithing, and preparing for missions and temple rituals. However, I'd argue that this interpretation relies upon approaching the New Testament as a coherent whole where all of the books within it are designed to complement each other. The truth is not so nice and simple, and if we read the statement from John within the context of the Gospel of John, the commandments in question seem to be related to loving Jesus and loving each other. I cannot get behind the first interpretation as it creates a situation ripe for abuse by Church leaders, both local and at the top, who might exercise “unrighteous dominion”. The second interpretation is one that I whole-heartily can get behind. The world needs more love between humans.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: καὶ ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω, ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης· κἀκεῖνα δεῖ με ἀγαγεῖν, καὶ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούσουσιν, καὶ γενήσεται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν.

My Translation: And other sheep I have, which are not of this court; I should lead them too, and they will hear my voice, and one flock will happen, one shepherd.

KJV: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

Update May 2013

This scripture has been removed by the Church Educational System from the Scripture Mastery list. However, it had remained within this list for over two decades and as such is still familiar to many graduates of the LDS Church's Seminary program. So I'm keeping this exploration of it online, but it is no longer applicable to CES.

Let's discuss the general non-Mormon view on this scripture first, and then we'll get to how this scripture is usually applied in the LDS Church.

This verse is in the context of a much longer discourse by Jesus about how he is the good shepherd willing to die for the sheep. Don't forget this context because it's important to how everyone else reads this verse.

In verse 10 onwards, Jesus explains what he means by the term “good shepherd.” He's not a hired hand, who would run away when danger appears and would leave the sheep to be destroyed. No, he's a good shepherd, who is willing to die in defense of his sheep. And Jesus says that God knows that Jesus dies for his sheep. And Jesus has other sheep, not of this enclosure, and he plans to bring them into the enclosure and have one herd. And the Father loves Jesus because he will die for the sheep, and Jesus is fully in command of the circumstances of his death. He has the power to die, and the power to take death back.

So, with that context surrounding the verse, it shouldn't surprise you that most people, believers and non-believers alike, feel that the author is describing how Jesus's death is for both the Jews as well as the Gentiles. The rest of the context in the sermon is describing how Jesus's willingness and ability to die for his sheep is what sets him apart from a hired hand as a good shepherd.

In Matthew's Gospel (which, I cannot stress this enough, is written from a Jewish perspective for what appears to be a Jewish group of Jesus followers), Jesus tells a Syrophonecian woman that he was sent only to the “lost sheep of Israel”; Jesus also himself avoids and tells his followers to avoid Samaria during his ministry. However, in John's Gospel, one of the first declarations by Jesus about being the Messiah is made to a Samaritan woman, and Jesus does not seem to share the same concerns. Also, while Matthew was written while there was still much uncertainty about the place and role of Greek believers, John was written a few decades later when the balance between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians was beginning to swing decisively in favor of Greek Christians having the greater numbers. So from this perspective it makes sense that the author of John would choose to mention that Jesus's mission to die for his sheep also extends to more sheep than just his original Jewish followers. Certainly by the time John was written it would have been obvious that the Christian message was seeing much more success in the world outside of Judea than within it.

The unique Mormon interpretation, on the other hand, is demanded by the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon narrative, a group of Israelites have been led by God to the Americas. After Jesus's death and resurrection, he descends to the civilization of these Israelites and spends a few chapters in 3 Nephi talking to them and setting up an ecclesiastical organization among them before leaving. It's the theological climax of the book, featuring John's Jesus giving quotations from Matthew's gospel, and setting up his Church according to patterns recorded by Paul. Which is totally fine if you feel that the New Testament is a coherent whole (as most Mormons do). However, if you view the New Testament as a group of disparate works that do not make any attempt for agreement with each other, the appearance and behavior of Jesus in 3 Nephi is immensely troubling. (I've written more about the differences between the four New Testament gospels here.)

Anyways, the anachronisms and New Testament jumble are not the main point here. As part of his American discourses in the Book of Mormon, Jesus reveals to the people gathered around him, in 3 Nephi 15:16-24 that they are the “lost sheep” referred to in John 10:16. From 3 Nephi 15:21-24:

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. 23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—-that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. 24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

Jesus even acknowledges that many of his followers thought he was referring to the Gentiles, but he then alludes to Matthew's declaration (Matthew 15:24) that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel (which in the Book of Mormon allusion becomes a reference to the lost tribes of Israel, referring to the lost remnants of the northern kingdom of Israel, destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BCE). Because Jesus wasn't allowed to preach to non-Jews, then how could the Gentiles have “heard his voice”? The Book of Mormon demands that Mormons view the phrase “and they shall hear my voice” as a literal pronouncement about people hearing the actual voice of Jesus.

But Mormons do so by basically downplaying the second phrase: “them also I should bring, there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” In what way did Jesus bring the American civilizations (or, as the Book of Mormon implies, other lost pockets of Israelites worldwide) into a single flock (ποίμνη poímnā) with his Jewish followers in the fold (αὐλή aulā) of Jerusalem? The only way to keep this is to jump from a literal interpretation to a spiritual interpretation in the same sentence: they're brought into the same flock because they now all have the same gospel from Jesus's voice. So the interpretation says that in the midst of a long segment where Jesus, a Jewish itinerant rabbi, compares himself to a shepherd and his followers to sheep—-all of which I think everyone agrees should be read symbolically and not literally—-Jesus chooses to throw out a cryptic clue to his Judean followers about far-distant cousins living elsewhere in the world, followed by yet more symbolic language about bringing them together somehow. And the only reason for this interpretation seems to be because of a statement made in a fully separate gospel, Matthew, about Jesus not going to the Gentiles, a statement invalidated by other events in the gospel of John.

Obviously, I feel that the identification of the “other sheep” as Gentiles is completely correct, but that is because I feel that the Book of Mormon is a 19th Century creation. I do not feel that I am limited or forced in my perspective by what it has to say, and I'd even encourage believing Mormons to adopt a viewpoint of a 19th Century Book of Mormon to deal with issues like this. The narrators of the Book of Mormons apologize more than once for errors that may be in the book, so perhaps Mormons should adopt this verse in 3 Nephi as one of those errors. However, without a more flexible interpretation Mormons will continue to confuse other Christians when they point to John 10:16 as though it is biblical evidence for the Book of Mormon. It isn't.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

This scripture is kept because it is quoted by Jesus in 3 Nephi as biblical evidence for the existence of Book of Mormon peoples. However, this quotation introduces unnecessary complexity and really only stands as a valid interpretation after the Book of Mormon is already accepted as divine scripture. Without the interpretation provided by the Book of Mormon it is a scripture where Jesus prophesies how his gospel will go forth to the Gentiles (which, considering that the gospel of John was written nearly a century after the historical Jesus probably died and many Greeks were already believing in him as a divine figure, isn't really that impressive of a prophecy), and is a statement of how Jesus's death has meaning to both Jews and Gentiles together. John's main message is that Jesus died for the sins of the entire world, and this scripture stands fully in line with his main perspective and purpose.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς πότερον ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστὶν ἢ ἐγὼ ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ λαλῶ.

My Translation: If anyone would desire his desire to do, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or whether I speak from myself.

KJV: If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

Update May 2013

This scripture has been removed by the Church Educational System from the Scripture Mastery list. However, it had remained within this list for over two decades and as such is still familiar to many graduates of the LDS Church's Seminary program. So I'm keeping this exploration of it online, but it is no longer applicable to CES.

Well, it's been a wild previous few posts, so let's calm down a bit with this relatively normal and innocuous one. The context for this chapter is Jesus yet again speaking (seriously, he barely does anything else in John's gospel), this time in the Temple at Jerusalem during the Feast of Sukkōt. Previously his brothers had encouraged him to go down to Jerusalem during this very public feast, but he told them to go instead. Then he went secretly down after them. The authorities were looking for him, but couldn't find him. Then Jesus begins teaching in the Temple, and everyone is amazed at how much Jesus knows (John cares a lot more about portraying Jesus as awesome than he does about creating a logical narrative, so if you're a bit confused as to the context of how Jesus arrives in Jerusalem it's not meant to be historical, but to show that Jesus doesn't ever take advice or suggestions from someone else, but is always firmly in control of himself and his own ministry). The statement given in the Scripture Mastery verse comes at the beginning of Jesus's response about what he is teaching, right after he begins, “My teaching is not from me, but from the one who sent me.”

From a translation point of view, the only interesting thing about the verse is the first part, where Jesus says that if anyone *thélā to do his thélāma,* he will know whether Jesus's doctrine is divine or not. See how the two words are similar? They come from the same root, except that one is a verb, thélā (from *thélō),* and one is a noun, thélāma. The meaning is within the range of will, wish, desire, want, purpose, or even hunger (though usually the English word “will” covers most usages, including in this scripture where it's the best choice and the one the King James Version has). So, the first phrase, in a sense, means that if an individual works to make their desires or their purpose to be the same as God's desires or purpose, then they'll know.

For Mormons, this scripture has more application than just to Jesus's teachings in the Gospel of John. For Mormons, this is a promise applied to the entire restored gospel, and a similar scripture is found near the end of the Book of Mormon where readers are promised an answer to prayers about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

However, this scripture introduces an important, and personally troubling, aspect to the Mormon formula for finding truth. If this scripture is inverted, then it provides a ready answer to objections about those who do not find truth in Mormonism.

I have a dear friend who was in a position where they wished to become a member of the Church and were taking the missionary discussions. Their family was relatively tolerant and open to other beliefs, and in sum it would have worked out well for them to receive revelation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and, by extension somehow, the LDS Church). And yet the answer didn't come. They read, they prayed, they attended meetings, they studied, they kept the uniquely Mormon dietary rules, and the result was still nothing. At the time I personally found the experience extremely troubling. I was a few years home from my mission, and I'd spent those two years not just telling people they'd get answers to the Book of Mormon, but promising those answers and believing my promises. While on my mission similar experiences had occurred, but I, like most Mormons, had an answer for those previous situations: the individuals had not truly desired the message. They had not, as Jesus here says, been willing to do God's will. And so since they did not provide the needed effort on their part, God did not answer them.

Of course, this experience with my friend rocked me because I knew this individual well enough to know of their sincerity. I knew that there really wouldn't be anything substantial to hold them back from a message, and I knew that they had more to gain and very little to lose. And yet the answer didn't come.

This scripture was used by some friends who knew about the lack of an answer. This individual must have had something in the way, some personal blockage, some personal failing or fear or willful refusal to listen or obey, that had kept the answer from them. Because Jesus had promised in John 7:17 that if anyone “walked the walk” then they'd know.

But let's be honest here: how much is Jesus here referring to things like the Word of Wisdom, to baptism by immersion by LDS authority, or all of the things that Mormons believe must be done? Obviously, few Christians are going to agree with that. Many Christians like this verse as well, and the idea that it relates directly to Mormonism would be ludicrous to them. The common application outside of the LDS faith is that Jesus is speaking about himself and his message in John: the kingdom of God has already come (John is not very apocalyptic), Jesus is the Lamb of God sent by God to die for the sins of the world (John even rewrites history so that Jesus is crucified the day before Passover when the paschal lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple to reinforce this imagery), and belief in Jesus and his message brings salvation in God's spiritual kingdom. If you want to know this, then you need to align yourself with the followers of Jesus and do what they do (what Jesus followers are actually doing when John's Gospel was written is more than a little confusing, however).

But, in the end, if you feel that the good news of Jesus described in John is the same thing as the Restored Church brought about by Joseph Smith, then interpreting this scripture to be about the whole enchilada of the LDS Church makes sense and isn't wrong. While few would argue that it's a promise by Jesus about how one can know the divinity of Jesus's teaching, I think there's still a lot to be said as to whether or not it is also an explanation for why some people can't seem to receive an answer about the divinity. You know, does “If A, then B” also mean “If not B, then not A”? [I don't think so][], and I think it's dangerous and presumptuous to assume so.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

This scripture is included as a New Testament equivalent to Moroni's Promise in the Book of Mormon. It is also included to give an explanation to LDS youth as to why their peers may not agree with LDS beliefs even after giving them what appears to be an honest go.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.

My Translation: Jesus answered, “Amen Amen I say to you, if a man is not born from water and wind, he cannot enter into the kingdom of the heavens.”

KJV: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

I love this story from the third chapter of John. The author has done a superb job of making an engaging dialog based upon irony and misunderstanding. It's like a biblical sitcom piece, and it's funny. Not accidentally, either. The author has quite purposefully approached it in a way that would have been both entertaining as well as educational.

I'm guessing most of you reading didn't know this. The problem is that it's difficult to appreciate in any language other than Greek.

Let's start with the context: this verse is from a larger dialog between Jesus and a certain Nicodemus, identified as one of the leaders of the Jews. Nicodemus approaches Jesus at night to meet with Jesus in secret. He comes because the miracles of Jesus have convinced him that there's something to Jesus.

Then Jesus begins “teaching” Nicodemus, except when he tells Nicodemus something he uses words that are ambiguous in meaning, and every time Nicodemus mishears or is confused by Jesus. The irony for a listening Christian audience, who know the insider language being used, would have been immense.

First off, Jesus tell him that unless a man is born ἄνωθεν (ánōthen), he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Ánōthen is a Greek adverb modifying the verb “born”, and it can either mean “again” or “from above”. The Greek is ambiguous (purposefully so in this case), and Nicodemus thinks it means “again”, so he asks Jesus if it's possible to be born a second time. Then Jesus explains what he meant, showing that the meaning Nicodemus should have used was “from above,” which is what the above verse is explaining. A man must have a spiritual rebirth, a birth “from above,” if he wishes to enter God's kingdom.

The rest of the story is like this. Jesus then begins talking about the spirit and wind in the worship of God, utterly confusing poor Nicodemus, because in Greek Jesus is using the same word for both “spirit” and “wind”, flitting back and forth in meaning in a way where you can't quite tell where he might mean “spirit” in this phrase or were he might mean “wind” in this other phrase. And then, in classic style for Jesus in the gospel of John, he begins talking in a long monologue (only in John's gospel does Jesus usually begin talking to people for a few bits of dialog before launching into long-winded sermons that last for multiple verses or even multiple chapters).

This use of purposefully ambiguous Greek is one of the reasons that most scholars feel that this section of John's Gospel cannot be historically accurate. The phrasing and ambiguity only work in Greek (that's why in English the chapter feels odd, because a translator must choose a meaning for the words being used), but Jesus and Nicodemus would have been speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic there is no equivalent to ánōthen, and so there is no way that John's Gospel, written in Greek, could be a record of a similar Aramaic discussion. Perhaps there was a similar dialog/sermon spoken by the historical Jesus, but if so then it was not the one we have recorded in John's gospel.

A few things about what is said here in this verse: Greek has a definite article (like the English word “the”: “the apple”), but not an indefinite article (like the English word “a” or “an”: “an apple”). The definite article is often used in places where it wouldn't be in English, such as with proper names or people (so in Greek, the scriptures often refer to God as “The God”). There is no definite article in front of the word “spirit” in this verse, and only a few verses later, Jesus begins a discussion of the spirit and wind. So is Jesus speaking about what Mormons would call “the Gift of the Holy Ghost” here? Possibly, but an equally valid reading would be the translation that I provided: “wind”. Is Jesus saying that entrance to the kingdom of God is predicated upon baptism and confirmation? Possibly, but he could also simply be referring to the elements that come from the air, where the heavens are: wind and water. So he could be saying that we must be born from heaven, or born spiritually, to enter God's kingdom. It's not a cut and dried issue to simply say, “This scripture says that baptism is required.” And to say that the scripture says that “confirmation” or “the gift of the Holy Ghost” is required goes way beyond the verse itself.

Of course, there's been a long tradition in Christianity of baptism and of the need for baptism. The Catholics viewed baptism as so essential that eventually they provided the means and the practice to extend baptism to all humans by infant baptism (though they still accept baptism by immersion for those who wish for it). Many Protestants also have had periods in their history where the importance of baptism by water was paramount.

Of course, nowadays there are very few denominations that view baptism as completely essential to salvation. And it's not like they arrived at this conclusion by ignoring their Bibles. There are perfectly valid ways to interpret ambiguities such as those found in John 3:3-5 that do not create a requirement of water baptism for salvation.

For Mormons, baptism is still of paramount importance. The Book of Mormon has the pre-Christian prophet Nephi writing in the 6th Century BCE that baptism by water is the only way to start on the road towards eternal life. The Doctrine and Covenants repeatedly presses this point, and the doctrinal position that not only is baptism essential, but the proper authority must be present means that Mormons believe only their baptisms can start people on the road to eternal life. This leads to such things as baptism for the dead and the worldwide missionary program. And, of course, scriptures like John 3:5 as found in the English King James Bible seem, at first glance, to support their viewpoint. However, there are many other Biblically-literate Christians who have read and are very familiar with the Gospel of John who recognize that the underlying scripture is based on the ambiguity of certain words and that it would be incorrect to state that only one interpretation can be valid.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

This scripture was probably chosen to give LDS youth a way to answer the question, “Why do you think that I have to be baptized into your Church to be saved?” Or to explain why baptism is important. Since nearly all youth who would be attending Seminary were probably baptized years before when they turned 8, I doubt that CES would feel the need to impress upon them the importance of baptism without it being from a proselytizing viewpoint.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: 36 Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτῶν λαλούντων αὐτὸς ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν. 37 πτοηθέντες δὲ καὶ ἔμφοβοι γενόμενοι ἐδόκουν πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν. 38 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστέ, καὶ διατί διαλογισμοὶ ἀναβαίνουσιν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν; 39 ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας μου, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός· ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεῦμα σάρκας καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.

My Translation: 36 Now they themselves talking, he stood in the middle of them [some manuscripts add “and he said, “Peace to y'all'”]. 37 But they were terrified and became afraid, seeming to see a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Y'all are troubled? And why do thoughts rise up in the heart of y'all? 39 Y'all look at my hands and my feet, for I am myself; y'all handle me and look, for a spirit doesn't have fleshes and bones even as y'all see I have.”

KJV: 36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the original Greek text and the English.

Usually my process on these posts is to step back in time, in my head, to my own days in Seminary about fifteen years ago. Of course, this can't take into account any change in LDS culture or doctrine since then (and some LDS doctrines and cultural assumptions have shifted dramatically in the past twenty years), but it tends to provide a good starting off point for what I want to talk about.

However, in this case I remember distinctly being taught that this set of verses was Important (with a capital “I”) because it taught something that other Christians didn't believe. My hazy memory seemed to pull up a sense that other Christians didn't believe in the resurrection of the body, or that perhaps they felt that Jesus himself wasn't resurrected but was a spirit. However, in the intervening years I've made it my business to learn the general Christian viewpoints (mostly the main Protestant viewpoints) on the Godhead; I've made it my business to try and understand the theological underpinnings of basic Trinitarian doctrine. And I can't think of many Christians who actually deny the resurrection of the body (though most simply view it as an odd side doctrine of Christianity without much importance), and I can't think of any Christians who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus as described in some of the Gospels. I must have been mistaken.

So I asked my wife, who did not grow up in Utah, what she remembers about this scripture from her Seminary days. “Hmm,” she said, thinking back, “I seem to remember being told that this scripture specifically refutes the idea that Jesus doesn't have a body. But that can't be right, can it? Because I don't think most Christians have any idea whether or not Jesus kept his body after he was resurrected and I think even less care about the idea.”

So, on the basis of a memory of Seminary from both Utah and Colorado during the late 90s, I'm going to assume that this idea was common in CES at the time: Luke's depiction of Christ's physical resurrection was important to Mormons in context of the beliefs of other Christians.

Turning to other sources, it seems that this idea may have its genesis with Elder LeGrand Richard's book A Marvelous Work and a Wonder which was in the missionary library before and while I was on my mission (but has since been dropped from the recommended books for all missionaries). Elder Richards uses this verse to combat an idea he feels is found in traditional Christianity, namely that God is “everywhere and nowhere, without body, parts, or passions.” Of course, this is a conception of God believed by *some, *but nowhere near all, Christians towards God the Father, and not Jesus. I think the only reason that Elder Richards felt that this verse was a correct refutation of this idea of God being without a body is because Elder Richards also seems to think that a Trinitarian viewpoint of God and Jesus has them being the same person, which it does not. Believing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are merely three expression of a single being is actually a Christian heresy called Modalism or Sabelleanism. The Trinity occupies a mentally difficult place between the heresy of Modalism and the heresy of polytheism, walking the knife's edge between the two. Many Christians feel a deep sense of holy mystery about how the nature of God is both expressed in three persons perfectly united in one Godhood. This sense of holy mystery is not absent from Mormonism; I've found its best example is applied towards the exact mechanics of how Christ's Atonement, localized to a specific few hours in time and a single spot in space, can have an impact that is universal in both time and space. Mormons don't just accept that as a mystery: they feel a deep sense of profundity at how it's incomprehensible to them. There are few things that bother me more than hearing Mormons mocking the mystery of Trinity and mere minutes later expressing their wonder and amazement at how the Atonement surpasses understanding.

So I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of traditional Christian theology and Trinitarianism that makes Elder Richards feel that this verse is well-suited to be used against such beliefs. After all, if the Father and the Son are the same being, then how can God be without “body, parts, or passions” and yet Christ obviously has a body here in this verse? Q.E.D., right?

But that's all in the past: part of my childhood. Perhaps we've moved on from this sort of thinking, right? Let's see what the current manuals have to say on this subject.

The “current” Institute manual (which is woefully out of date in its biblical scholarship, its quotations of old LDS general authorities, and its social applications) is actually, somewhat surprisingly, rather silent on this particular section, preferring instead to focus on issues of the authority and priesthood of the apostles through what are apparently “meaningful silences” in the text by the authors in this story of Jesus appearing to them after his resurrection.

The Seminary materials, on the other hand, focus much more on how students should learn about the doctrine of resurrection in general from this passage and its context (yay for context! Student are actually encouraged to read further after this scripture to see that Luke's resurrected Jesus eats and drinks food). Of course, other scriptures on this subject are also brought up which might muddy the waters and imply more about this verse than what it says on its own. But I am glad to report that the official manuals only use these scriptures to further discussion of resurrection and what resurrected bodies “are like”.

Now, from my post-Mormon perspective, I'm glad that it appears that the scripture is no longer seen as useful in defending Mormon beliefs. Frankly, this scripture is actually rather useless in upholding any of the rather distinct doctrines of Mormonism, either those doctrines about resurrection or about an embodied God. Mormon believe that resurrection is *forever, *and that it is impossible for a resurrected person to “put off” their body. Except when some of them make exceptions against this permanence in the 19th Century and beyond in trying to account for Brigham Young's bizarre conception of Adam as the re-embodiment of God the Father. These ideas of physical bodies being “taken up” and “put aside” continue to pop up in hushed conversation and private gatherings as part of the “meat” of the Gospel and some of the “deep doctrines” that “everyone” knows about (I speak from experience, having heard some of this from multiple individuals as various times). Frankly, I think most Christians feel that Jesus, being God, cannot and should not be viewed as limited in any of his power and actions and that if Jesus wishes to have a body, then he can have a body, and if he wishes to put that body aside for a while, then he can do so. Because HE'S GOD, right?

And it's even more bizarre that this scripture, about the resurrected Jesus, would have anything to do with the nature of God the Father. Mormons believe that the Father is embodied just as the Son is embodied (though they have just as much confusion and lack of interest in the Holy Ghost as many Christians do), and while this doctrine provides much religious angst between some Mormons and some Christians, the nature of the Father is not illuminated in any way, shape, or form by this verse. Luke's Jesus never says, “Oh, and by the way, my body looks like my father's. Just FYI.” John's Jesus may make such statements, but John's Gospel is, as they say, a horse of an entirely different color.

Moving on to another issue, Jesus's statement that “a spirit” doesn't have flesh and bone should be analyzed. From a Mormon point of view, this statement has sometimes gained a particular importance in light of things said by Brigham Young and other 19th Century leaders. Supposedly, it's noteworthy that Luke doesn't have Jesus say that he doesn't have “flesh and blood”, because resurrected bodies don't have blood. Well, let me here and now state: I sincerely doubt that Luke would have made such a nuanced theological statement in the middle of his passion narrative, and that's assuming that the historical Luke is even the actual author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (which has numerous reasons to be unlikely; the same author wrote both books, but it's doubtful that his name, or even possibly her name, was “Luke”). Also, the words in question are literally “fleshes” and “bones”. Flesh in this context means the squishy, meaty, bloody stuff that a body is made of. Blood is very much included in the sense of the word. Basically, the verse is stating quite clearly just how very physical the body of Jesus is: it has bones and squishy stuff. It doesn't just look physical, it is physical. The lack of mentioning blood isn't an oversight, but rather just a perfectly valid way of saying that Jesus's body is make of flesh and bone (and, by negation, a spirit is not made of such things).

For some Christians who feel that the Bible must be viewed as an inerrant whole (including Mormons, who tend to be inerrantists except where the Bible is either obviously wrong or where it conflicts with LDS theology), the use by Luke of “flesh and bone” instead of “flesh and blood” helps resolve a number of issues found outside of Luke's gospel. In Matthew 16:17, a previous scripture mastery scripture for instance, Jesus says that Simon was told that Jesus is the Christ by Jesus's Father and not by flesh and blood. And Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:50 says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god.” All of which would imply that God, and all in the kingdom of God, are without flesh and blood. But Christians in general believe in the resurrection of the body, and Mormons particularly believe that physical resurrection is permanent and that even God the Father has a resurrected body (except when they don't, as we've said). So the resolution is that resurrected bodies do not have blood. This is an explanation found outside of Mormonism, too (though it is relatively uncommon).

My solution? Paul is not the author of Luke-Acts, and the author of Luke-Acts is not the author of Matthew, and it took centuries for a coherent and consistent theology to develop among the followers of Jesus. I think using Luke's account to imply some sort of scientific theory of the bloodless state of resurrected bodies is more than a little bizarre, and makes about as much sense as explaining how Leia told Luke she remembered her mother's face being sad in Return of the Jedi, when her mother died during childbirth in Revenge of the Sith, though an appeal to the Star Wars trilogy of books written by Timothy Zahn. Are they all about Star Wars? Yes, but you're just going to have problems if you view all of them as being consistent with themselves and each other, even though they're all “official” Lucasfilm stories because while the authors might have been aware of each other they weren't working together. The biblical Luke's statement here simply has a particular dramatic flair that isn't found in other similar works, but to assume that his statement must be read in concert with other, separate writers is unfair to both Luke and those other writers.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

I think this verse's presence in the Scripture Mastery list is a relic of history that has been left behind officially (although I have no idea if it's been left behind in practice by most Seminary and Institute teachers and wouldn't be surprised to see if it's still very much alive in a continuing oral tradition). I think that from the perspective of the 2010's seminary program, this particular verse has lost its purpose. I would not be surprised in the least to see it dropped from any future re-assembling of “Scripture Mastery” lists that might be proposed. When the current Scripture Mastery list was first created, somebody felt, based on ideas popular at the time among Church leaders such as LeGrand Richards, that this was a great scripture to use against the general strawman conception of Trinitarianism and against the idea of God the Father being a spirit. In the intervening years, this usage has become increasingly obvious as a mistaken interpretation of both the scripture itself and of general Christian views, and so focus has instead focused on the physicality of Jesus's resurrection to try and impress upon LDS youth how the doctrine of resurrection is a physical one (though I doubt most LDS youth would know that physical resurrection is believed in by Christians but is usually just viewed as a curiosity and not of much attention).

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical

Greek: Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει· οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.

My Translation: No one can serve two masters; for either one he will hate and another he will love, or he will hold to one and despise another; y'all cannot be a slave to both God and mammon. [Mammon is the Aramaic word “mmôn” copied directly into the Greek as “mamonas” and means “riches”.]

KJV: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

My translations are purposefully stretched and should not be viewed as more accurate than the KJV translation unless I say so in the post. I'm trying to show the range lying between the] original Greek text and the English.

Update May 2013

This scripture has been removed by the Church Educational System from the Scripture Mastery list. However, it had remained within this list for over two decades and as such is still familiar to many graduates of the LDS Church's Seminary program. So I'm keeping this exploration of it online, but it is no longer applicable to CES.

Ah yes, God and Mammon. Can't serve both. It's a very Matthean approach, as the author of Matthew is very much concerned with issues of serving God and keeping the Torah and thus emphasizing the stories and teachings of Jesus that further this goal. Very much in line with the issues of 1st Century Judaism, Matthew presents the message of Jesus and service to God in opposition to the pursuit of wealth. Judaism and early Christianity were very focused on the needs of the poor and lower classes of society (indeed, for the first few centuries of the Christian movement, most Jesus followers were themselves poor and members of the lower classes of classical society). Matthew's very Jewish perspective is thus very much in line with this verse.

What is interesting about this scripture is how it usually gets applied with Latter-day Saints. Latter-day Saints are an apocalyptic Church. That's not a slur or a smear (indeed, Christianity itself grew out of apocalyptic Judaism and many strands of Christianity today are still apocalyptic in their viewpoint), but rather just a short-hand way of saying that their theological point of view is one of apocalypticism: the idea that God's justice upon an unjust world is quickly approaching and that soon all inequalities, the result of sin and evil, will be forcefully righted by the arrival of God's justice upon the world. For most apocalyptic societies, being on the very cusp of the approach of God's kingdom is associated with that kingdom beginning to “break through” into the world with visions, healings, and miracles. And since part of the message of the coming kingdom of God is that the arrival will be heralded by great violence upon the unjust world, the only way to escape that violence is to join with the kingdom before it arrives. This can produce a worldview of those who belong to the kingdom, the insiders, and everyone else, the outsiders, with an accompanying binary worldview of the world divided into those things that either are with God and his coming kingdom or with the world that stands ready to be destroyed.

This binary worldview produces the uncomfortable problem, however, of what are followers of God supposed to do before the Kingdom of God arrives? How are followers of God supposed to live in the midst of a world living on borrowed time? Scriptures like this scripture mastery scripture serve to help believers have the moral courage to stand with the apocalyptic society in those places where the needs of the society conflict with the fallen world. Whether or not we, as 21st Century people, should agree with this morality is a tough question.

From this point of view it should be plainly obvious why the original point of the scripture, that the pursuit of wealth and power is in opposition to being a follower of Jesus, has been extended for Mormons to mean more than just wealth. The following are three examples provided in the Seminary manual for youth to illustrate how Mormon youth are expected to view this scripture:

1. Michael (age 18) chose to have a job that requires him to work every Sunday so he can save money for his mission.
2. Donna (age 16) says she is doing missionary work by having a steady boyfriend who is not a member of the Church.
3. Brother Smith (age 35) pays tithing and extra fast offerings on the money he makes selling products in which he is not entirely honest with his customers.

Apart from the oddity of having to specify the ages of these fictional characters, the “mammon” in question is not always money. For the first two examples, the “mammon” in question are actions not in keeping with the expectations of the religious community: working a job on Sunday and having meaningful associations with those outside of the community. It's obvious that “mammon” as defined for Mormon youth is far more than the “riches” meant by the author of Matthew originally two thousand years ago. Of course, part of the reason for an apocalypticist like Matthew's Jesus to avoid riches is because riches belong to the rulers of the world, and the current rulers of the world are evil and will be overturned when the kingdom of God arrives. This is part of the reason why Jesus tells some people to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and their treasures will be in heaven. To find salvation, followers of Jesus need to reject this sinful and evil world that rules without justice. So this viewpoint of “Mammon” being the world, while technically incorrect, is not entirely without merit. However, for the apocalyptic Jesus this rejection of the world is far stronger than just not working on Sunday or dating a non- Mormon (seriously, this is a real issue for Seminary manual writers?!?), but in fact represents a complete rejection of the present world. The message of Jesus in Matthew is not usually “be in the world but not of the world” but is usually “reject the world entirely in preparation for the approaching kingdom of God”: indeed, you should even “take no thought what you should eat or drink.” Give up this world entirely and let your life be run fully upon God's mercy until he arrives and you are given a position of power and authority in his kingdom.

I personally think that a verse like this is a great example of how problematic the New Testament can be. It is an ancient book, written from a very different point of view than how we generally read it in the 21 Century. Unless you agree that the end of the world is fast approaching and that your behavior must include a rejection of wealth, power, influence, and the injustice of this evil world in order to receive a place in the coming Kingdom of God (you know, instead of just being a good person), then this verse can obviously provide some very damaging perspectives on life. We usually view the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, as books full of ethical statements on how to treat our fellow humans. It is, but the reasons for such treatment are usually very different from what we might expect. If we assume that the teachings of the New Testament are meant for the 21st Century, we'll have a lot of difficulty resolving statements like God and Mammon, or how one must reject family to merit salvation in the Kingdom of God, or how Jesus is said to come to set father against son, mother against daughter. To me, this scripture is a good example of how I view the New Testament: like a pet python. Pythons are beautiful, exotic, fascinating, and a lot of fun. Yet they can also be dangerous if they are approached without any care for what they truly are. You don't play with and treat a python like a puppy. The New Testament is an artifact of history, and to ignore the context and apply it without serious thought can be dangerous. Do I agree that one cannot serve God and mammon? Personally, no, but to me the more problematic aspect is what these apocalyptic black and white scriptures can do to people who simply accept them uncritically and how they then interact with others in the world around them. The examples from the Seminary manual illustrate to me just how this sort of scripture can get in the way of just being a good, ethical person.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the Church itself, as a corporate entity and not as individual members, has a huge problem in following this verse. As an incredibly large organization that charges itself with serving millions of active members worldwide and handling hundreds of millions of dollars of donated tithing for its operations, the LDS Church has adopted a corporate character similar to many large corporate companies. Producing manuals, videos, pamphlets, programs, and countless other goods and services requires paid employees, budgets, contracts, and all of the countless headaches that go along with it. The Church is in the uncomfortable position of often having to figure out how to serve God through the use of mammon, and frankly it doesn't always do a very good job at walking that line. Perhaps the statement of Matthew's Jesus is applicable today to the modern Church Office Building, but if so one wonders what the solution could be.

Why Do I Think This Is Part of Scripture Mastery?

To help enforce a binary view of life as a choice between obedience to God (represented in all examples as obedience to and activity in the Church) and the “world” (a word often used colloquially by Mormons to mean everything either non-Mormon or anti-Mormon, sometimes without distinction). By expanding the meaning of “mammon” beyond riches, youth are encouraged to keep all aspirations, employment, relationships, and choices within the bounds defined by the Church; because of this verse, they could easily be taught that doing so is the only way to honestly serve God.

#Mormon #ScriptureMasteryNT #AcademicBiblical