Jesus' teaching: Many who are first shall be last. . . ., What does this mean? Options

[Meredith Van Woe...]

Dear Urantia Book Students,

In AD 29 Jesus and his Apostles went to the Magadan Camp where were gathered the evangelistic corps, the women's corps, and about 150 other true and tried disciples from all parts of Palestine. Jesus and the twelve began an intensive training course for this special group of believers. Jesus chose and ordained 70 from this group of teachers. He set them apart as gospel messengers and addressed them on the shore of the lake of Galilee in company of over 400 witnesses. (1800) Some who sought ordination and appointment were rejected:

Over fifty disciples who sought ordination and appointment to membership in the seventy were rejected by the committee appointed by Jesus to select these candidates. This committee consisted of Andrew, Abner, and the acting head of the evangelistic corps. In all cases where this committee of three were not unanimous in agreement, they brought the candidate to Jesus, and while the Master never rejected a single person who craved ordination as a gospel messenger, there were more than a dozen who, when they had talked with Jesus, no more desired to become gospel messengers. (1801)

To one disciple's remark, Jesus says: “If you would be ordained, you must be willing to forsake all. The gospel messengers cannot have divided affections. No man, having put his hand to the plough, if he turns back, is worthy to become a messenger of the kingdom.” (1801)

Later on when the Apostles and Jesus were off by themselves Peter on behalf of the twelve said:

“We are troubled by your words to the rich young man. Shall we require those who would follow you to give up all their worldly goods?” And Jesus said: “No, Peter, only those who would become apostles, and who desire to live with me as you do and as one family. But the Father requires that the affections of his children be pure and undivided. Whatever thing or person comes between you and the love of the truths of the kingdom, must be surrendered. If one’s wealth does not invade the precincts of the soul, it is of no consequence in the spiritual life of those who would enter the kingdom.” (1803)

I hope I've set the stage for the teaching Jesus imparted on this occasion to the Apostles and about which I am asking you. What does this mean: ". . . many who are first shall be last, while the last shall often be first"?

And then said Peter, “But, Master, we have left everything to follow you what then shall we have?” And Jesus spoke to all of the twelve: “Verily, verily, I say to you, there is no man who has left wealth, home, wife, brethren, parents, or children for my sake and for the sake of the kingdom of heaven who shall not receive manifold more in this world, perhaps with some persecutions, and in the world to come eternal life. But many who are first shall be last, while the last shall often be first. The Father deals with his creatures in accordance with their needs and in obedience to his just laws of merciful and loving consideration for the welfare of a universe. (1804)

We welcome your replies.

Meredith

[Bonita]

Meredith,

I'm inclined to believe that Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant.

He explained the meaning himself: "The Father deals with his creatures in accordance with their needs and in obedience to his just laws of merciful and loving consideration for the welfare of a universe."

He also explained this in the following parable. There's no need to allegorize.

163:3.5 "The kingdom of heaven is like a householder who was a large employer of men, and who went out early in the morning to hire laborers to work in his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers to pay them a denarius a day, he sent them into the vineyard. Then he went out about nine o'clock, and seeing others standing in the market place idle, he said to them: `Go you also to work in my vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will pay you.' And they went at once to work. Again he went out about twelve and about three and did likewise. And going to the market place about five in the afternoon, he found still others standing idle, and he inquired of them, `Why do you stand here idle all the day?' And the men answered, `Because nobody has hired us.' Then said the householder: `Go you also to work in my vineyard, and whatever is right I will pay you.'

163:3.6 "When evening came, this owner of the vineyard said to his steward: `Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last hired and ending with the first.' When those who were hired about five o'clock came, they received a denarius each, and so it was with each of the other laborers. When the men who were hired at the beginning of the day saw how the later comers were paid, they expected to receive more than the amount agreed upon. But like the others every man received only a denarius. And when each had received his pay, they complained to the householder, saying: `These men who were hired last worked only one hour, and yet you have paid them the same as us who have borne the burden of the day in the scorching sun.'

163:3.7 "Then answered the householder: `My friends, I do you no wrong. Did not each of you agree to work for a denarius a day? Take now that which is yours and go your way, for it is my desire to give to those who came last as much as I have given to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? or do you begrudge my generosity because I desire to be good and to show mercy?'"

[Bonita]

I'm guessing that no one is interested in this topic or that my reply was unsatisfactory in some way. I'd like to share the classic interpretation of the statement, "The last will be first, and the first will be last."

The Church traditionally explains this via the concept of grace which refers to the generous gifts God bestows on his children. These gifts of grace may appear to be unearned and undeserved which means they do not always follow the laws of cause and effect. This fact generally rubs against the standard notion of fairness and confuses people.

God is a good parent and knows what is fair and equitable. He loves each individually, yet he loves all equally. To the individual it may appear that he loves one more than another based upon the gifts they receive or the order in which they receive them. But it is for God to judge; he is no respecter of persons and gives grace to the saint and the sinner alike. His arms are open equally to those who come to him lately, or those with long-standing devotion. (The Prodigal Son)

From my own perspective, I view it as such. If our inheritance is all the same, what difference does it make when we get it? Time is inconsequential since God's gifts are, in reality, available to everyone all of the time and at any one particular time, according to one's need and capacity to receive. Being last or first is an erroneous, time-limited way of thinking, an illusion caused by our limited cosmic vision. First or last is irrelevant as is Peter's question, ". . . what then shall we have?" His question is based on his limited comprehension of cause and effect, and fairness. It's actually rather childish and selfish to worry about what you will get and when you will get it. It's all about giving, is it not?

[Meredith Van Woe...]

I'm guessing that no one is interested in this topic or that my reply was unsatisfactory in some way. I'd like to share the classic interpretation of the statement, "The last will be first, and the first will be last."

The Church traditionally explains this via the concept of grace which refers to the generous gifts God bestows on his children. These gifts of grace may appear to be unearned and undeserved which means they do not always follow the laws of cause and effect. This fact generally rubs against the standard notion of fairness and confuses people.

God is a good parent and knows what is fair and equitable. He loves each individually, yet he loves all equally. To the individual it may appear that he loves one more than another based upon the gifts they receive or the order in which they receive them. But it is for God to judge; he is no respecter of persons and gives grace to the saint and the sinner alike. His arms are open equally to those who come to him lately, or those with long-standing devotion. (The Prodigal Son)

From my own perspective, I view it as such. If our inheritance is all the same, what difference does it make when we get it? Time is inconsequential since God's gifts are, in reality, available to everyone all of the time and at any one particular time, according to one's need and capacity to receive. Being last or first is an erroneous, time-limited way of thinking, an illusion caused by our limited cosmic vision. First or last is irrelevant as is Peter's question, ". . . what then shall we have?" His question is based on his limited comprehension of cause and effect, and fairness. It's actually rather childish and selfish to worry about what you will get and when you will get it. It's all about giving, is it not?

Hi Bonita, all,

Lack of replies doesn't mean there is also a lack of interest. Nor does it indicate that your reply was unsatisfactory. And thanks for yours. Perhaps people are thinking about the question. Perhaps they are waiting to see what ideas develop from it. Many Forum guests read and do not reply to the various conversations going on here.

You mention the more commonly known statement "The last will be first, and the first will be last." Seems counter-intuitive doesn't it? I looked it up in the New Testament to read the context, as given in Matthew (19:30), Mark (10:31), and Luke. Both Matthew and Mark are mostly consistent with the UB account of giving up all for the sake of getting eternal life. In Luke (13:20) the context is about Jesus' answer to the question, "will only a few be saved?" He says, "Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will try to enter and not be able." He speaks of evildoers and gnashing of teeth and so on and concludes with, "Then people will come from east and west, north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some who are first will be last." So this context is a bit different.

Jesus doesn't say those who are first will be first; those who are last will be last. Nor does he say,""The last will be first, and the first will be last." He does say, "But many who are first shall be last, while the last shall often be first." This implies that some who are first will, indeed, be first, while some who are last will in fact be last, though we're not in some kind of race to get to the finish line.

Part of the price of admission to the kingdom of heaven is to give up some one pet evil which is held on to (1802) either now or later. Might be envy, jealousy, preferment. In Mark (20:16 ) we can read the story about the laborers in the vineyard who received the same pay for the day no matter when they started work, early or late. The first first who were hired complained about it. Here's part of Jesus' reply according to Mark, “I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”


Cheers,
Meredith

[Bonita]

Let me see if I'm understanding you Meredith, because I see several issues being brought up here. First, there's the timing issue, whether it's first or last, first first, last last . . . etc., etc.. I don't think we should read this literally in that there is a particular order in which God grants his gifts of grace and mercy. The point is that there is no humanly comprehensible order for these things. God does what he wants, when he wants to; it's really none of our business which order he chooses. We have to have faith that his choices are for the benefit of all. Also, there is the issue of human free-will which I will address below.

Second is the notion of having to give up something in order to get something, the old bartering for God's favor idea. And, perhaps we can add that those who give up the greater thing get the better prize as part of this type of thinking. Incidentally, that is what motivated many an ascetic over the years. But, this is all finite thinking.

Consider the following quote:

148.4.8 “Men are, indeed, by nature evil, but not necessarily sinful. The new birth — the baptism of the spirit — is essential to deliverance from evil and necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven, but none of this detracts from the fact that man is the son of God. Neither does this inherent presence of potential evil mean that man is in some mysterious way estranged from the Father in heaven so that, as an alien, foreigner, or stepchild, he must in some manner seek for legal adoption by the Father. All such notions are born, first, of your misunderstanding of the Father and, second, of your ignorance of the origin, nature, and destiny of man.

Let's not forget that Jesus asked Matadormus to give up his wealth because the "Master wanted to deliver him from the love of wealth, not necessarily from the wealth." TUB tells us that he actually would not have had to give it up, but would have had it given back to him to manage as treasurer of the seventy. It was a lesson in misplaced loyalty. And that is precisely what is meant by "pet evil".

The Old Testament caricature of a jealous God is meant to portray a God who demands loyalty. But look again at what TUB tells us about this:

89:10.2-3 Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals . . . There is no real sin in the absence of conscious disloyalty to Deity.

Once Matadormus had spoken to Jesus about becoming more than a disciple, his choice to not dispense of his wealth became a conscious disloyalty to Deity. However, he was no less loved by God; nor was he removed from the Kingdom on account of this. His status of last or first was never an issue. For him, the door of opportunity was opened and he decided not to walk through it. That same door never opened again, but another similar one did later when he became a member of the Jerusalem church. First, last or just different degrees of loyalty? TUB tells us that had he walked through the first door, he ultimately would have become the leader of the seventy. (Not Abner, incidentally.) Who knows what would have happened to the world had things gone that way. But, I digress.

Matadormus' pet evil was his love of wealth. He loved wealth because he was taught to love it. Jews at that time believed that wealth was a sign of one's righteousness, evidence of God's love. By not giving up his wealth, he was holding onto his self-righteousness without realizing it. He felt as though he had earned his righteousness and Jesus wanted him to learn that one's status (first or last-ness) with God the Father cannot be earned; only a righteous character can be earned, and that is done through loyalty to higher values which Jesus was wanting to teach him.

Matadormus was unconsciously disloyal, which is evil not sin; that is, until Jesus showed him otherwise. By giving up his wealth in obedience to Jesus, Matadormus would have shown his willingness to be reeducated, like a faithful, trusting child; which is the only true requirement for entrance into the Kingdom. He would have shown willingness to give up his preconceived ideas about the Kingdom, his erroneous thinking, and move with faith to a higher understanding of God's love. His free-will choice determined his functioning status within the family, his "first or last-ness" in the Kingdom; but, God's love for him was completely unaffected by his decision. He still got his full denarius even though he came to the vineyard in the afternoon rather than the morning.

13.4.4The differing factor in spiritual presence, or reaction, is the fluctuating differential in its recognition and reception by will creatures. Whereas the spiritual presence of absolute and existential Deity is in no manner whatever influenced by attitudes of loyalty or disloyalty on the part of created beings, at the same time it is true that the functioning presence of subabsolute and experiential Deity is definitely and directly influenced by the decisions, choices, and will-attitudes of such finite creature beings--by the loyalty and devotion of the individual being, planet, system, constellation, or universe. But this spiritual presence of divinity is not whimsical nor arbitrary; its experiential variance is inherent in the freewill endowment of personal creatures.

144.4.3 In all praying, remember that sonship is a gift. No child has aught to do with earning the status of son or daughter. The earth child comes into being by the will of its parents. Even so, the child of God comes into grace and the new life of the spirit by the will of the Father in heaven. Therefore must the kingdom of heaven — divine sonship — be received as by a little child. You earn righteousness — progressive character development — but you receive sonship by grace and through faith.

[Meredith Van Woe...]

Let me see if I'm understanding you Meredith, because I see several issues being brought up here. First, there's the timing issue, whether it's first or last, first first, last last . . . etc., etc.. I don't think we should read this literally in that there is a particular order in which God grants his gifts of grace and mercy. The point is that there is no humanly comprehensible order for these things. God does what he wants, when he wants to; it's really none of our business which order he chooses. We have to have faith that his choices are for the benefit of all. Also, there is the issue of human free-will which I will address below.

Hi Bonita, all,

For the purpose of discussion, there is the factor of time involved, as Jesus’ teaching does conclude with reference to sequentially - those who will be first and those who will be last. Jesus had a reason for saying this. I got a laugh out of someone last night at study group when I asked this question: If many who are first will be last, and those who are last will many times be first, what’s wrong with being last? At least one will get there. Right? because one has so very many mercy credits given by God. So, in the meantime if one were so inclined, one could choose to go out and live an outrageous life, like the prodigal son did. But perhaps the choice to procrastinate takes the forefront in mind of one who does not want to deal with the issue of eternal life at this time. It's a postponment or delay of decision.

Here is the other context of first v. last (Luke 18:30 re: will only a few be saved?) regarding the straight and narrow way in which Jesus teaches:

“You also have another saying among you, and one that contains much truth: That the way which leads to eternal life is straight and narrow, that the door which leads thereto is likewise narrow so that, of those who seek salvation, few can find entrance through this door. You also have a teaching that the way which leads to destruction is broad, that the entrance thereto is wide, and that there are many who choose to go this way. And this proverb is not without its meaning. But I declare that salvation is first a matter of your personal choosing. Even if the door to the way of life is narrow, it is wide enough to admit all who sincerely seek to enter, for I am that door. And the Son will never refuse entrance to any child of the universe who, by faith, seeks to find the Father through the Son.

“But herein is the danger to all who would postpone their entrance into the kingdom while they continue to pursue the pleasures of immaturity and indulge the satisfactions of selfishness: Having refused to enter the kingdom as a spiritual experience, they may subsequently seek entrance thereto when the glory of the better way becomes revealed in the age to come. And when, therefore, those who spurned the kingdom when I came in the likeness of humanity seek to find an entrance when it is revealed in the likeness of divinity, then will I say to all such selfish ones: I know not whence you are. You had your chance to prepare for this heavenly citizenship, but you refused all such proffers of mercy; you rejected all invitations to come while the door was open. Now, to you who have refused salvation, the door is shut. This door is not open to those who would enter the kingdom for selfish glory. Salvation is not for those who are unwilling to pay the price of wholehearted dedication to doing my Father’s will. When in spirit and soul you have turned your backs upon the Father’s kingdom, it is useless in mind and body to stand before this door and knock, saying, ‘Lord, open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom.’ Then will I declare that you are not of my fold. I will not receive you to be among those who have fought the good fight of faith and won the reward of unselfish service in the kingdom on earth. And when you say, ‘Did we not eat and drink with you, and did you not teach in our streets?’ then shall I again declare that you are spiritual strangers; that we were not fellow servants in the Father’s ministry of mercy on earth; that I do not know you; and then shall the Judge of all the earth say to you: ‘Depart from us, all you who have taken delight in the works of iniquity.’

“But fear not; every one who sincerely desires to find eternal life by entrance into the kingdom of God shall certainly find such everlasting salvation. But you who refuse this salvation will some day see the prophets of the seed of Abraham sit down with the believers of the gentile nations in this glorified kingdom to partake of the bread of life and to refresh themselves with the water thereof. And they who shall thus take the kingdom in spiritual power and by the persistent assaults of living faith will come from the north and the south and from the east and the west. And, behold, many who are first will be last, and those who are last will many times be first.”

This was indeed a new and strange version of the old and familiar proverb of the straight and narrow way." (1828)

Does this refer to the individual or to nations or groups of people?

Meredith

This post has been edited by Meredith Van Woert: Jan 8 2010, 04:52 PM

[Bonita]

For the purpose of discussion, there is the factor of time involved, as Jesus’ teaching does conclude with reference to sequentially - those who will be first and those who will be last. Jesus had a reason for saying this. I got a laugh out of someone last night at study group when I asked this question: If many who are first will be last, and those who are last will many times be first, what’s wrong with being last? At least one will get there. Right? because one has so very many mercy credits given by God.

Although I'm finally getting the drift of your thinking, I have to respectfully disagree about the time issue. As I see it, Jesus makes the statement, "And, behold, many who are first will be last, and those who are last will many times be first,” for the express purpose of revealing the fact that the timing and order of spiritual things do not follow human ideas of logic, fairness and equity. He turns the conventional thinking about order and timing on its head with that statement. Everything is topsy turvy with the purpose of shaking loose those rooted thoughts of how things should happen, the traditional and literal interpretation of cause and effect by maturing minds. In choosing, by faith, the narrow way, one is able to partially escape the finite dependence upon time. Being last or first is of no consequence.

118.6.6 In the mortal life, paths of differential conduct are continually opening and closing, and during the times when choice is possible the human personality is constantly deciding between these many courses of action. Temporal volition is linked to time, and it must await the passing of time to find opportunity for expression. Spiritual volition has begun to taste liberation from the fetters of time, having achieved partial escape from time sequence, and that is because spiritual volition is self-identifying with the will of God.

118:6.7 Volition, the act of choosing, must function within the universe frame which has actualized in response to higher and prior choosing. The entire range of human will is strictly finite-limited except in one particular: When man chooses to find God and to be like him, such a choice is superfinite; only eternity can disclose whether this choice is also superabsonite.

Another reason to relate the parable of the workers as a means to explain the first/last statement was to highlight the fact that works are not the criteria for entrance into the kingdom. How much good work one does or how long one does it has little or no bearing on the reception of the denarius, or reward. It is the good faith contract with the Master and the actual experience of working for him that matters. It is a lesson about free-will choice, the decision to labor in the Master's field is what is valued, not the amount of time spent doing it.

39.4.13   It is not so much what you learn in this first life; it is the experience of living this life that is important. Even the work of this world, paramount though it is, is not nearly so important as the way in which you do this work. There is no material reward for righteous living, but there is profound satisfaction — consciousness of achievement — and this transcends any conceivable material reward.

The narrow door is faith and it is always open.

138.8.8  Jesus made plain to his apostles the difference between the repentance of so-called good works as taught by the Jews and the change of mind by faith—the new birth—which he required as the price of admission to the kingdom. He taught his apostles that faith was the only requisite to entering the Father’s kingdom. John had taught them “repentance—to flee from the wrath to come.” Jesus taught, “Faith is the open door for entering into the present, perfect, and eternal love of God.”

139.12.7 The door of eternal life is wide open to all; “whosoever will may come”; there are no restrictions or qualifications save the faith of the one who comes.

147.5.6 And I declare to all of you that the Father has opened the doors of the heavenly kingdom to all who have the faith to enter, and no man or association of men can close those doors even to the most humble soul or supposedly most flagrant sinner on earth if such sincerely seek an entrance.”

On the other hand, it is often our doors that are closed because of false allegiance and divided loyalties which prevent us from hearing the good shepherd.

159.3.2 Remember that I have said: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock, and if any man will open, I will come in.”

The door is closed to those who are self-centered rather than God-centered, those completely unwilling to do consecrate their loyalty to God. But, I believe this must be a conscious, whole-hearted, free-will decision. God has mercy on stupidity and ignorance, as well as patience with the immaturity of indecision, or partial loyalty. But why try his patience with procrastination and indolence?

166.3.4 This door is not open to those who would enter the kingdom for selfish glory. Salvation is not for those who are unwilling to pay the price of wholehearted dedication to doing my Father’s will.

The door is also narrow because it opens only in recognition of the voice of the true shepherd and no one else.

165.2.7  “And now, lest some of you too easily comprehend this parable, I will declare that I am both the door to the Father’s sheepfold and at the same time the true shepherd of my Father’s flocks. Every shepherd who seeks to enter the fold without me shall fail, and the sheep will not hear his voice. I, with those who minister with me, am the door. Every soul who enters upon the eternal way by the means I have created and ordained shall be saved and will be able to go on to the attainment of the eternal pastures of Paradise.

.

So, in the meantime if one were so inclined, one could choose to go out and live an outrageous life, like the prodigal son did. But perhaps the choice to procrastinate takes the forefront in mind of one who does not want to deal with the issue of eternal life at this time. It's a postponment or delay of decision.

So here we have the issue of procrastination or doubt and indecision getting in the way of making the decision to enter the kingdom. The image of the narrow door is given in order to illustrate the fact that there is only one way to enter the kingdom and that is through faith. One may offer a host of other excuses why they should be allowed to enter, all the good works they've done and all the time they've spent doing those good works, but God will say, "Sorry, I want your allegiance, your loyalty or your faith in me and nothing else. Keep all your excuses, delaying tactics, arguments of fairness and bargaining good-will practices for yourself and give me your loyalty, your faith".

102.6.1  To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. And this is just why the God of worship claims all allegiance or none.

One must be righteous before one can do righteous deeds. Righteous deeds are only accomplished with faith in God, where one defers to God's will rather than one's own. But since God is gracious, he accepts even the slightest flicker of faith, which assures that the narrow door is wide enough to allow all those who desire to enter, safe passage. But he is a jealous God and will not accept entrance through any other door but the one of complete allegiance. One cannot serve two masters; divided loyalties result in conflict and confusion.

So, do we have to leave all our baggage behind in order to fit through the narrow door? Do we have to rid ourselves of our wealth like Matadormus as the price of admission? I would say no unless one wishes to be an apostle. Jesus taught that faith is all that is necessary and that once one is safely within the kingdom, ". . . the great and living truths of the kingdom will presently drive out all serious error." ( p1592)

As to procrastination and postponement of dealing with the decision to enter the kingdom, to be born of the spirit, TUB has plenty to say. Of course God will wait; but, indecision is evidence of partial loyalty and is therefore evil. Evil is immaturity. If you want to stay in training pants all the way to adulthood . . . well . . . it's kinda perverse wouldn't ya say?

We are meant to begin our morontia experience here on earth and one of the primary goals of the morontia experience is to: ". . . effect the permanent eradication from the mortal survivors of such animal vestigial traits as procrastination, equivocation, insincerity, problem avoidance, unfairness, and ease seeking." (p551:03) In our relationship with Deity, we are admonished to, ". . . make a wholehearted choice of the divine will. You must obliterate the dead center of indecision. (91.9.5)

Why do we have to obliterate the partial loyalty of indecision? Because it's not just about me or you; every decision we make affects the whole. While the procrastinator sits and waits until the last minute to decide, certain opportunities to serve pass him/her by forever, which is what happened to Matadormus.

p1285:2 117:4.13 And so the decision awaits each of you as it once awaited each of us: Will you fail the God of time, who is so dependent upon the decisions of the finite mind? will you fail the Supreme personality of the universes by the slothfulness of animalistic retrogression? will you fail the great brother of all creatures, who is so dependent on each creature? can you allow yourself to pass into the realm of the unrealized when before you lies the enchanting vista of the universe career—the divine discovery of the Paradise Father and the divine participation in the search for, and the evolution of, the God of Supremacy?

[Meredith Van Woe...]

Hi Bonita, all,

In essence I think we’re talking about the same thing, though each of us sees it from a different angle.

The choice to do the will of God can can take place any time, any place. One can do the will of God in relation to a particular situation, but in another and different situation, one can choose to do something else. I know this because of my own experience. I think such fluctuations in choice are normal for people. The supreme commitment to consecrate one’s will to the living of God’s will for all time does take time to finalize in the experience of Adjuster fusion at the third jubilee. (305)

Mortal man may draw near God and may repeatedly forsake the divine will so long as the power of choice remains. Man’s final doom is not sealed until he has lost the power to choose the Father’s will. There is never a closure of the Father’s heart to the need and the petition of his children. Only do his offspring close their hearts forever to the Father’s drawing power when they finally and forever lose the desire to do his divine will — to know him and to be like him. Likewise is man’s eternal destiny assured when Adjuster fusion proclaims to the universe that such an ascender has made the final and irrevocable choice to live the Father’s will. (64)

The rich young man Matadormus did pass up an opportunity for appointment to membership of the seventy who were ordained as gospel messengers, due to his love of wealth. Several years later Matadormus did sell all that he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor and his brethren. (1802) Matadormus did deprive himself of an experience to have a personal experience with Jesus. Though nearly 2000 years of time have passed since then, people are on-again-off-again as regards God’s will, because we are finite human beings, though in our finiteness we can taste liberation from the fetters of time and partial escape from time sequence. We live in an evolving universe of time and space. Time is required to pass through the educational training systems of the universes.

Temporal volition is linked to time, and it must await the passing of time to find opportunity for expression. (1300)

The great God makes direct contact with mortal man and gives a part of his infinite and eternal and incomprehensible self to live and dwell within him. God has embarked upon the eternal adventure with man. If you yield to the leadings of the spiritual forces in you and around you, you cannot fail to attain the high destiny established by a loving God as the universe goal of his ascendant creatures from the evolutionary worlds of space. (64)

God has established a high destiny for us to attain in our ascendant career. This takes time and along the way and we will learn much. Each one of us is a work-in-progress. While God does see the end from the beginning, we see very little, due to the limited range of our vision and spiritual comprehension. (269) We can’t choose beyond the range of that which, to us, is choosable. (1300)

Error in finite choosing is time bound and time limited. It can exist only in time and within the evolving presence of the Supreme Being. Such mistaken choosing is time possible and indicates (besides the incompleteness of the Supreme) that certain range of choice with which immature creatures must be endowed in order to enjoy universe progression by making freewill contact with reality. (1300)

We get a pretty good idea about our status as mortals in the lower levels of existence, as regards choice, and as progress is made in the educational spheres on high to finally identify with the will and way of God.

Therefore is there increased safety in narrowing the limits of personality choice throughout the lower levels of existence. Choice becomes increasingly liberated as the universes are ascended; choice eventually approximates divine freedom when the ascending personality achieves divinity of status, supremacy of consecration to the purposes of the universe, completion of cosmic-wisdom attainment, and finality of creature identification with the will and the way of God. (1301)

Time and space operate to limit the range of finite action.

Time and space are a conjoined mechanism of the master universe. They are the devices whereby finite creatures are enabled to coexist in the cosmos with the Infinite. Finite creatures are effectively insulated from the absolute levels by time and space. But these insulating media, without which no mortal could exist, operate directly to limit the range of finite action. Without them no creature could act, but by them the acts of every creature are definitely limited. (1303)

Time is a factor in ascension attainment. As I think about these matters, I remind myself abut the fallacy of abstraction, as follows:

Philosophers commit their gravest error when they are misled into the fallacy of abstraction, the practice of focusing the attention upon one aspect of reality and then of pronouncing such an isolated aspect to be the whole truth. (42)

I make no pronouncement that anything I write is the whole truth, for it certainly is not. In time I expect all deficiencies in my understanding to be vitamin enriched.

All the best,
Meredith

[Bonita]

Greetings Meredith,

I'm not certain that we are talking about the same thing at all. In terms of time, I am speaking in relation to the phrase, "But many who are first shall be last, while the last shall often be first," which is timeless. I'm talking about receiving God's grace and entrance into the kingdom, not about what happens once in the kingdom, one's growth in grace, (ascension career) which takes time.

102:2.4    Time is an invariable element in the attainment of knowledge; religion makes its endowments immediately available, albeit there is the important factor of growth in grace, definite advancement in all phases of religious experience. Knowledge is an eternal quest; always are you learning, but never are you able to arrive at the full knowledge of absolute truth. In knowledge alone there can never be absolute certainty, only increasing probability of approximation; but the religious soul of spiritual illumination knows, and knows now. And yet this profound and positive certitude does not lead such a sound-minded religionist to take any less interest in the ups and downs of the progress of human wisdom, which is bound up on its material end with the developments of slow-moving science.

[Meredith Van Woe...]

Greetings Meredith,

I'm not certain that we are talking about the same thing at all. In terms of time, I am speaking in relation to the phrase, "But many who are first shall be last, while the last shall often be first," which is timeless. I'm talking about receiving God's grace and entrance into the kingdom, not about what happens once in the kingdom, one's growth in grace, (ascension career) which takes time.

Hi Bonita, all,

I think we are talking about the same thing. If it were possible to freeze-frame the instant one entered the kingdom, you would only have one instant of experience - the realization of the reality of the meeting of the human upreach and the divne and saving downreach. (1125) Time is a succession of instants (1297), a continuum so to speak, upon which one can repeatedly chose or forsake the divine life.

In Matadormus' case: he was a believer, a follower, a disciple of the Master. He had entered the kingdom, but not fully, due to his love of wealth (materialistic mammon). (1803) But Matadormus was not satisfied with his status. He wanted to be a special person - a chosen gospel messenger. (As an aside, it is interesting to me that those who were chosen to be one, were selected by a committee of three - Andrew, Abner and the acting head of the evangelistic corps.) Matadormus was rejected, because he had not fully entered the kingdom. His love of wealth was his pet evil at that point in time. He might be called a halfhearted believer, one with divided loves.

Man's eterrnal destiny is assured when adjuster fusion proclaims to the universe that such an ascender has made the final and irrevocable choice to live the Father's will. (64) Until this happens, Matadormus and any one of us is a work in progress. One's ascencion career cannot be divorced from one's evolutionary growth in the kingdom.

All the best,
Meredith

[Bonita]

I think we are talking about the same thing. If it were possible to freeze-frame the instant one entered the kingdom, you would only have one instant of experience - the realization of the reality of the meeting of the human upreach and the divne and saving downreach. (1125) Time is a succession of instants (1297), a continuum so to speak, upon which one can repeatedly chose or forsake the divine life.

No, I'm positive we're not talking about the same thing but that's probably because I'm not explaining myself very well. We were talking about the first/last situation, correct? Anyway, no need to belabor it.

In Matadormus' case: he was a believer, a follower, a disciple of the Master. He had entered the kingdom, but not fully, due to his love of wealth (materialistic mammon). (1803) But Matadormus was not satisfied with his status. He wanted to be a special person - a chosen gospel messenger. (As an aside, it is interesting to me that those who were chosen to be one, were selected by a committee of three - Andrew, Abner and the acting head of the evangelistic corps.) Matadormus was rejected, because he had not fully entered the kingdom. His love of wealth was his pet evil at that point in time. He might be called a halfhearted believer, one with divided loves.

I differ with you here too. Matadormus was indeed a disciple, but the seventy evangelists corp were to be ordained as apostles, ambassadors of the kingdom. The requirement for apostleship is much different than discipleship, apostleship being more rigorous. Matadormus wanted to become an apostle but was unwilling to fulfill the requirements for such. It had nothing at all to do with how fully he had entered the kingdom; it was about his role within the kingdom.

"From this day on the term apostle was employed to distinguish the chosen family of Jesus' advisers from the vast multitude of believing disciples who subsequently followed him." 1525:4

“If you find the requirements of apostleship too hard, you may return to the less rigorous pathway of discipleship.” 1577:03

"And when they had walked down by the lake, they sat there beside the water, and Peter, speaking for the twelve (who were all present by this time), said: "We are troubled by your words to the rich young man. Shall we require those who would follow you to give up all their worldly goods?" And Jesus said: "No, Peter, only those who would become apostles, and who desire to live with me as you do and as one family." 1803:05

"Yes, Andrew, I will speak to you about these matters of wealth and self-support, but my words to you, the apostles, must be somewhat different from those spoken to the disciples and the multitude since you have forsaken everything, not only to follow me, but to be ordained as ambassadors of the kingdom.
"O you of little faith! When you wholeheartedly devote yourselves to the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom, you should not be of doubtful minds concerning the support of yourselves or the families you have forsaken. If you give your lives truly to the gospel, you shall live by the gospel. If you are only believing disciples, you must earn your own bread and contribute to the sustenance of all who teach and preach and heal." 1823:2-3

Man's eterrnal destiny is assured when adjuster fusion proclaims to the universe that such an ascender has made the final and irrevocable choice to live the Father's will. (64) Until this happens, Matadormus and any one of us is a work in progress. One's ascencion career cannot be divorced from one's evolutionary growth in the kingdom.

Here again I differ with your opinion. We continue to be a work in progress even after Adjuster fusion. Rumor has it that we will continue to be a work in progress even after becoming finaliters, possibly into eternity.

When mortal man fuses with an actual fragment of the existential Cause of the total cosmos, no limit can ever be placed upon the destiny of such an unprecedented and unimaginable partnership. In eternity, man will be discovering not only the infinity of the objective Deity but also the unending potentiality of the subjective fragment of this same God. Always will the Adjuster be revealing to the mortal personality the wonder of God, and never can this supernal revelation come to an end, for the Adjuster is of God and as God to mortal man. p1181:3 107:4.7

So, are you saying that if one is not fully in the kingdom, one is half-way or partially in the kingdom? What does that mean? How does that work? I always thought that to enter the kingdom, one had to have a "birth day". Either one is in, or one is out. It would be a bummer to be only half-born.

p1130:6 103:2.1 But the "birth" of religion is not sudden; it is rather a gradual emergence. Nevertheless, sooner or later there is a "birth day." You do not enter the kingdom of heaven unless you have been "born again"—born of the Spirit.

[Meredith Van Woe...]

So, are you saying that if one is not fully in the kingdom, one is half-way or partially in the kingdom? What does that mean? How does that work? I always thought that to enter the kingdom, one had to have a "birth day". Either one is in, or one is out. It would be a bummer to be only half-born.

Hi Bonita, all,

Yes, we are talking about the first/last situation. And the story of Matadormus is a life example of an individual who thought he could serve two masters - the Master and his pet evil. This story demonstrates the first /last situation, in that his attachment to wealth set him back, until he chose otherwise. It demonstrates Matadormus' immaturity in understanding the way of the kingdom and Jesus used his situation to later give further instruction to the Apostles about being first and/or being last. Jesus does confirm that Matadormus is his disciple and is a child of the kingdom, and he tells this to Matadormus.

Jesus talked with Matadormus concerning the requirements of ordination and requested that he defer decision until after he had thought more fully about the matter. Early the next morning, as Jesus was going for a walk, this young man accosted him and said: “Master, I would know from you the assurances of eternal life. Seeing that I have observed all the commandments from my youth, I would like to know what more I must do to gain eternal life?” In answer to this question Jesus said: “If you keep all the commandments — do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your parents — you do well, but salvation is the reward of faith, not merely of works. Do you believe this gospel of the kingdom?” And Matadormus answered: “Yes, Master, I do believe everything you and your apostles have taught me.” And Jesus said, “Then are you indeed my disciple and a child of the kingdom.” (1801)

Matadormus is a child of the kingdom. This informs me that people, and Matadormus is one such example, can choose to grow or not grow up in the kingdom. Another choice might be to stay put and not give up one’s pet evil which seems to me to be a sort of postponement of commitment eternity-wise. These are the ones who will be last, as suggested in the following excerpt:

The great problem of life is the adjustment of the ancestral tendencies of living to the demands of the spiritual urges initiated by the divine presence of the Mystery Monitor. While in the universe and superuniverse careers no man can serve two masters, in the life you now live on Urantia every man must perforce serve two masters. He must become adept in the art of a continuous human temporal compromise while he yields spiritual allegiance to but one master; and this is why so many falter and fail, grow weary and succumb to the stress of the evolutionary struggle. (1199)

God responds to even the faintest flicker of faith, and this informs me that there is a relativity of faith, an ebb and flow of faith, in persons - more faith over here in this person, less faith over there in that person. Some people are halfhearted. They may have their foot in the kingdom door, but they have not fully entered through the doorway.

Now, mistake not, my Father will ever respond to the faintest flicker of faith. He takes note of the physical and superstitious emotions of the primitive man. And with those honest but fearful souls whose faith is so weak that it amounts to little more than an intellectual conformity to a passive attitude of assent to religions of authority, the Father is ever alert to honor and foster even all such feeble attempts to reach out for him. But you who have been called out of darkness into the light are expected to believe with a whole heart; your faith shall dominate the combined attitudes of body, mind, and spirit. (1733)

Faith will get one in. Both before and after that, one is still faced with opportunities to make decision after decision. One must grow in the kingdom and bear much divine fruit of the spirit. Or, if one is so inclined, one is free to turn around and leave for a while. Those people will be last.

We finite mortal beings don't know who will be first or last. It is a matter between the individual and God. Even halfheartedness isn't of any concern of ours, except that one finds these propensities within oneself.

All the best,
Meredith

[Bonita]

Okay Meredith, I think I understand what you are trying to do here, but let me flesh it out. Are you saying that the first/last statement has something to do with people passing in and out of the "narrow way", or the "door"? If so, we are not talking about the same thing. But let me try again to explain myself.

In the following two paragraphs, you describe the people who will be last.

Matadormus is a child of the kingdom. This informs me that people, and Matadormus is one such example, can choose to grow or not grow up in the kingdom. Another choice might be to stay put and not give up one’s pet evil which seems to me to be a sort of postponement of commitment eternity-wise. These are the ones who will be last, as suggested in the following excerpt: . . .

Faith will get one in. Both before and after that, one is still faced with opportunities to make decision after decision. One must grow in the kingdom and bear much divine fruit of the spirit. Or, if one is so inclined, one is free to turn around and leave for a while. Those people will be last.

The people you say who will be last are those who pass through the door but do nothing on the other side, and those who go in and out of the door. Right?

Then you go on to say:

We finite mortal beings don't know who will be first or last. It is a matter between the individual and God. Even halfheartedness isn't of any concern of ours, except that one finds these propensities within oneself.

This confuses me, that you can determine who will be last and then go on to say that humans can't make that determination. However, your last statement is more in line with what I'm thinking. The first/last statement has to do with God's prerogatives, which are not anything we humans could possibly understand. He chooses the firstness and lastness, according to his divine purposes. I can't see where it has anything at all to do with people going in and out of the door or what they do on the other side of it. Whether someone enters through the door in the morning and works hard all the time or enters at night and does hardly anything, God gives what he wants to give to whom he wants to give it and when he wants to give it.

Furthermore, firstness and lastness has nothing to do with those who make the free-will choice to give up and go home, those who decide the ascension career is not for them and turn against God altogether. There is no firstness or lastness for these people. There's just nothing.

When one is reborn into the light, it then becomes a matter of growth and that has nothing to do with firstness or lastness. It has to do with pruning and digging about the roots. Those who don't grow are the ones God works the hardest on, as TUB says: "The less of love in any creature's nature, the greater the love need, and the more does divine love seek to satisfy such need." (p1739:06) So, does that mean that the sluggish ones are first? Firstness and lastness, as you describe it, doesn't make sense to me in this context.

If one refuses to grow and continues to forsake the light, walks away and takes up the darkness again, then it is as I said above, there is nothing, not firstness or lastness, until the prodigal son should return again. But then again, it is God's prerogative to give what he chooses, to whom he chooses and when he chooses, even if it angers his other sons and daughters. He gives according to needs, not according to deeds.

And I guess that is the best I can explain what I'm trying to say about the first/last statement. What God sees as needs does not always line up with what we might see as deeds, the coming and going, the working or not working.

Even so, a discussion on pet evils and other requirements for entrance into the kingdom as well as requirements for living within the kingdom would be interesting. Especially in light of the following quotes and the statement that the keys to the kingdom are sincerity, sincerity and more sincerity:

p1782:1 160:5.10 I see in the teachings of Jesus, religion at its best. This gospel enables us to seek for the true God and to find him. But are we willing to pay the price of this entrance into the kingdom of heaven? Are we willing to be born again? to be remade? Are we willing to be subject to this terrible and testing process of self-destruction and soul reconstruction? Has not the Master said: "Whoso would save his life must lose it. Think not that I have come to bring peace but rather a soul struggle"? True, after we pay the price of dedication to the Father's will, we do experience great peace provided we continue to walk in these spiritual paths of consecrated living.

On this afternoon the Master distinctly taught a new concept of the double nature of the kingdom in that he portrayed the following two phases:
"First. The kingdom of God in this world, the supreme desire to do the will of God, the unselfish love of man which yields the good fruits of improved ethical and moral conduct.
"Second. The kingdom of God in heaven, the goal of mortal believers, the estate wherein the love for God is perfected, and wherein the will of God is done more divinely."

Jesus taught that, by faith, the believer enters the kingdom now. In the various discourses he taught that two things are essential to faith-entrance into the kingdom:
1. Faith, sincerity. To come as a little child, to receive the bestowal of sonship as a gift; to submit to the doing of the Father's will without questioning and in the full confidence and genuine trustfulness of the Father's wisdom; to come into the kingdom free from prejudice and preconception; to be open-minded and teachable like an unspoiled child.
2. Truth hunger. The thirst for righteousness, a change of mind, the acquirement of the motive to be like God and to find God. 1860:12-1861:04

The children of this world fight for the establishment and enlargement of the kingdoms of this world, but my disciples shall enter the kingdom of heaven by their moral decisions and by their spirit victories; and when they once enter therein, they shall find joy, righteousness, and eternal life.
"Those who first seek to enter the kingdom, thus beginning to strive for a nobility of character like that of my Father, shall presently possess all else that is needful. But I say to you in all sincerity: Unless you seek entrance into the kingdom with the faith and trusting dependence of a little child, you shall in no wise gain admission.
"Be not deceived by those who come saying here is the kingdom or there is the kingdom, for my Father's kingdom concerns not things visible and material. And this kingdom is even now among you, for where the spirit of God teaches and leads the soul of man, there in reality is the kingdom of heaven. And this kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.1536:04-06

This post has been edited by Bonita: Jan 12 2010, 09:02 AM

[Meredith Van Woe...]

Hi Bonita, all,

Sorry about the confusion. My guess is that those who are reading our discussion understand it is the prerogative of God to know who is likely to be first v. last. Our conversation is a friendly back and forth discussion on the subject and I think readers know we are making an honest effort to understand what the book says. It behooves us to converse until we run out of something to say. “The realization of religion never has been, and never will be, dependent on great learning or clever logic.” (1107) As our discussions go forward, we might recall that:

The religion of the spirit means effort, struggle, conflict, faith, determination, love, loyalty, and progress. The religion of the mind — the theology of authority — requires little or none of these exertions from its formal believers. Tradition is a safe refuge and an easy path for those fearful and halfhearted souls who instinctively shun the spirit struggles and mental uncertainties associated with those faith voyages of daring adventure out upon the high seas of unexplored truth in search for the farther shores of spiritual realities as they may be discovered by the progressive human mind and experienced by the evolving human soul. (1729)

It’s a faith adventure I’m on. It is daring of me to say that those who are halfhearted or wishy-washy in their faith will be last. I think this is what Jesus is talking about. The prodigal son is also a good example. It does defy logic, doesn’t it?

We are speculating about the meaning of one of Jesus’ teachings, regarding the gospel of the kingdom. The following paragraphs shed some light on this:

Modern, civilized men dread the thought of falling under the dominance of strong religious convictions. Thinking man has always feared to be held by a religion. When a strong and moving religion threatens to dominate him, he invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it, thereby hoping to gain control of it. By such procedure, even a revealed religion becomes man-made and man-dominated. Modern men and women of intelligence evade the religion of Jesus because of their fears of what it will do to them — and with them. And all such fears are well founded. The religion of Jesus does, indeed, dominate and transform its believers, demanding that men dedicate their lives to seeking for a knowledge of the will of the Father in heaven and requiring that the energies of living be consecrated to the unselfish service of the brotherhood of man. (2083)

Selfish men and women simply will not pay such a price for even the greatest spiritual treasure ever offered mortal man. Only when man has become sufficiently disillusioned by the sorrowful disappointments attendant upon the foolish and deceptive pursuits of selfishness, and subsequent to the discovery of the barrenness of formalized religion, will he be disposed to turn wholeheartedly to the gospel of the kingdom, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth. (2083)

Those who are first are those who are willing to pay such a price for the greatest spiritual treasure ever offered to mortal man. To anyone reading along, please know that no one is in competition to get to Paradise first, and no one is worrying about getting there last.

All the best,
Meredith

[Bonita]

Those who are first are those who are willing to pay such a price for the greatest spiritual treasure ever offered to mortal man.

But this interpretation of firstness defies the teaching, "He who would be greatest among you, let him become server of all."

That is, of course, unless you are interpreting the word "first" literally, meaning the first to be reborn. But the first/last phrase is not supposed to be interpreted literally, which goes back to my statement that it is not really about the timing or order of things, even though everything has its time and place in the universe according to God's will.

Jesus said: "I declare that the kingdom of heaven is the realization and acknowledgment of God’s rule within the hearts of men." (141.2.1 ) And when God rules one's heart, the desire is to be the last, the one who lingers behind to serve, especially those needy of all things spiritual.

Jesus' bestowal was essentially over at his baptism. He chose to stay in order to serve, and he died the least of men. He chose to allow himself to be last, not first, and went on to teach his apostles the importance of not always wanting to be the first among men or to vie over one's standing in God's kingdom.

Being first has nothing to do with obtaining perfection, nor does the first/last phrase have anything to do with the desire for perfection. It's about the free-will of God. God has free-will too, and we have no right to attempt to influence his decisions in terms of granting firstness or lastness. It's actually so simple that one can't help but want to complicate it. The whole purpose of the first/last phrase is to convince people to stop thinking and dwelling on their standing in the kingdom, their firstness and lastness, and to leave those issues to God. Our concern should be about working and serving in the Master's field and not about the reward of first or last.

[Meredith Van Woe...]

But this interpretation of firstness defies the teaching, "He who would be greatest among you, let him become server of all."

That is, of course, unless you are interpreting the word "first" literally, meaning the first to be reborn. But the first/last phrase is not supposed to be interpreted literally, which goes back to my statement that it is not really about the timing or order of things, even though everything has its time and place in the universe according to God's will.

Jesus said: "I declare that the kingdom of heaven is the realization and acknowledgment of God’s rule within the hearts of men." (141.2.1 ) And when God rules one's heart, the desire is to be the last, the one who lingers behind to serve, especially those needy of all things spiritual.

Jesus' bestowal was essentially over at his baptism. He chose to stay in order to serve, and he died the least of men. He chose to allow himself to be last, not first, and went on to teach his apostles the importance of not always wanting to be the first among men or to vie over one's standing in God's kingdom.

Being first has nothing to do with obtaining perfection, nor does the first/last phrase have anything to do with the desire for perfection. It's about the free-will of God. God has free-will too, and we have no right to attempt to influence his decisions in terms of granting firstness or lastness. It's actually so simple that one can't help but want to complicate it. The whole purpose of the first/last phrase is to convince people to stop thinking and dwelling on their standing in the kingdom, their firstness and lastness, and to leave those issues to God. Our concern should be about working and serving in the Master's field and not about the reward of first or last.

Hi Bonita, all,

I wonder if there is a correlation between “first-ness” and “least-ness”? Perhaps so. Humility is likely to be in the equation too. Perhaps one whose aim is “great-ness” will be one who experiences “last-ness,” if the aspiration for greatness happens to concern the self and the desire for recognition of one’s accomplishments and/or aquisitions. The self clamors for recognition, doesn’t it? But, “Greatness is synonymous with divinity” and “To be great is to be Godlike.” (317) None of us are great. “And the manifestation of greatness on a world like Urantia is the exhibition of self-control. The great man is not he who ‘takes a city’ or overthrows a nation,’ but rather ‘he who subdues his own tongue.’” (317)

But Jesus put large meanings into small expressions. He compared the minute to the infinite:

He habitually put large meanings into small expressions. For purposes of illustration Jesus reversed the current meanings of many terms, such as salt, leaven, fishing, and little children. He most effectively employed the antithesis, comparing the minute to the infinite and so on. His pictures were striking, such as, “The blind leading the blind.” But the greatest strength to be found in his illustrative teaching was its naturalness. Jesus brought the philosophy of religion from heaven down to earth. (1771)

Of his parables Jesus would say to the crowd, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” His parable pictures are striking. He makes us think. Or maybe I should say, he makes it possible for us to think. Whether or not one actually works up some brain-sweat is entirely up to individual choice.

The way I see it, it always comes back to the individual person - one's choices.

All the best,
Meredith

[Bill Martin]

I remember when Jesus decided to stop the incessant posturing for position by his apostles. I think they all received a lesson when he washed their feet. Now THAT was great!

[Bonita]

I agree with you Bill. As Meredith says, Jesus had a way of teaching that was indisputable. He had the ability to arrest peoples' thoughts and shift their attention to the spiritual significance of any and all aspects of living. He continues to do this today, within the heart of every man and woman who has answered his knock at their door.

Jesus taught and continues to teach on multiple levels, by being the character of the Father's personality. We admire his personality, as it was then in the first century, and as it is now in our lives. We are charmed by its beauty to the best of our ability to experience it. He teaches also by doing, by the example of how to actually do God's will. He teaches us how to serve by changing the definition of what it means to serve, from duty to love. He lived and continues to live a life of perfection and encourages us to live it as well. He also taught through his word. In fact, the Greeks called him "the Word ". Jesus was a master at using words to impart meaning and value, and for some he continues to do that today; but for most, scripture is the primary source, not only for his words, but sadly for his actions and personality as well.

The problem with solely using Jesus' words in scripture is that one is wont to either take them literally, or engage in wild speculation as to what they mean. The art of allowing the words to speak to the heart of the mind (the spirit), rather than just the intellect, is not easily taught. Jesus used parables in order to avoid arousing prejudice and self-defensive attitudes of the non-spirit mind; however, the temptation remains to literalize or allegorize parables with the intellect alone. The intellect needs to be arrested (grabbed hold of) and focused on the heart of the mind where the Spirit of Truth is able to teach true meanings. Jesus did this by turning words topsy turvy, by reversing meanings through antithesis. He does the same today, within the mind, if given the opportunity, which is why he said that we must become like teachable children, willing to relinquish our hold on what the world has taught us and focus on what he is teaching us.

152.6.4 Jesus taught the appeal to the emotions as the technique of arresting and focusing the intellectual attention. He designated the mind thus aroused and quickened as the gateway to the soul, where there resides that spiritual nature of man which must recognize truth and respond to the spiritual appeal of the gospel in order to afford the permanent results of true character transformations.

Human emotions of fairness are aroused with the parable of the workers in the vineyard and the first/last statement. One has to ask, what does it mean? It was clearly said in order to focus the attention of the mind on the spirit meaning, yet even in doing that, so many are tempted to interject purely intellectual meaning into the spiritual meaning. I have a book on the interpretation of parables by a twentieth century physician. It's painful to read because of the author's incessant mental manipulations in an attempt to glean deeper meanings, but from the wrong part of the mind. For instance, his interpretation of the first/last statement was to compare it to quantum physics and wormholes which change the perspective of time. Creative? Yes. Spiritual? No.

[Meredith Van Woe...]

Jesus taught and continues to teach on multiple levels, by being the character of the Father's personality. We admire his personality, as it was then in the first century, and as it is now in our lives. We are charmed by its beauty to the best of our ability to experience it. He teaches also by doing, by the example of how to actually do God's will. He teaches us how to serve by changing the definition of what it means to serve, from duty to love. He lived and continues to live a life of perfection and encourages us to live it as well. He also taught through his word. In fact, the Greeks called him "the Word ". Jesus was a master at using words to impart meaning and value, and for some he continues to do that today; but for most, scripture is the primary source, not only for his words, but sadly for his actions and personality as well.

Hi Bonita, all,

It amazes me that in 2000 years of world history we have come as far as we have come with the New Testament. These writings were not available to ordinary people until after the invention of the printing press 570 years ago. Disseminations and translations from the Latin vulgate began after that. What was the literacy rate of those times? And who could afford to buy a printed copy? The text survived a rough history and yet it did survive and continues to uplift people in spite of shortcomings and errors. Said Jesus:

If the story of Jonah should not be a fact, even if Jonah had never lived, still would the profound truth of this narrative, the love of God for Nineveh and the so-called heathen, be none the less precious in the eyes of all those who love their fellow men. The Scriptures are sacred because they present the thoughts and acts of men who were searching for God, and who in these writings left on record their highest concepts of righteousness, truth, and holiness. The Scriptures contain much that is true, very much, but in the light of your present teaching, you know that these writings also contain much that is misrepresentative of the Father in heaven, the loving God I have come to reveal to all the worlds. (1767)

Jesus uses scripture to impart teachings - the story of Jonah, the story of David and the showbread, the story of Job - and many times he refers to scripture passages in which he uses the positive parts while rejecting the negative. I did not find his teaching “Many who are first shall be last. . . .” in the Old Testament. In the UB I did find this about Jesus as the first and the last, and he declares of himself:

He was actually a Creator Son of the Paradise Father. When once he had espoused his public career, subsequent to the technical completion of his purely mortal experience of sovereignty acquirement, he did not hesitate publicly to admit that he was the Son of God. He did not hesitate to declare, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” He made no protest in later years when he was called Lord of Glory, Ruler of a Universe, the Lord God of all creation, the Holy One of Israel, the Lord of all, our Lord and our God, God with us, having a name above every name and on all worlds, the Omnipotence of a universe, the Universe Mind of this creation, the One in whom are hid all treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the fullness of Him who fills all things, the eternal Word of the eternal God, the One who was before all things and in whom all things consist, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Upholder of a universe, the Judge of all the earth, the Giver of life eternal, the True Shepherd, the Deliverer of the worlds, and the Captain of our salvation. (1407)

Have a lovely day,
Meredith

This post has been edited by Meredith Van Woert: Jan 15 2010, 04:30 PM

[Bonita]

It amazes me that in 2000 years of world history we have come as far as we have come with the New Testament. These writings were not available to ordinary people until after the invention of the printing press 570 years ago. Disseminations and translations from the Latin vulgate began after that. What was the literacy rate of those times? And who could afford to buy a printed copy? The text survived a rough history and yet it did survive and continues to uplift people in spite of shortcomings and errors.

And how about the Old Testament and thousands and thousands of writings from all over the world which survived for a long time at Alexandria? We know that the idea of an alphabet preceded Adam and Eve, having been established by Fad in Dalamatia. The written word has been around for a very long time as have libraries, evidenced by the "House of Fad". It's only been during the retrogressive periods of our history that the written word struggled to prevent being vanquished.

Jesus arrived at the most opportune time in history for many reasons, but one was the high level of education and communication at the time. The Jews were dispersed throughout most of the world and with them they brought the synagogue. Every synagogue had a library and every Jewish male had to learn Torah. Reading and writing was brought back to every Jewish family, the seat of social learning. The Greek culture was also spread throughout the region, and the Greeks had a high level of education as well.

It was only during the retrogressive medieval times known as the "Dark Ages", that education and literacy suffered so deeply. Literature, which scripture is a form of, survived only in monasteries where religious ascetics had the leisure to devote to study and the reproduction of manuscripts. For the most part, in that regressive caste-like society, there was no time and no social pressure for literacy. It had to wait for the renaissance, when learning was valued, and the industrial revolution, when man had more leisure time.

Jesus uses scripture to impart teachings - the story of Jonah, the story of David and the showbread, the story of Job - and many times he refers to scripture passages in which he uses the positive parts while rejecting the negative. I did not find his teaching “Many who are first shall be last. . . .” in the Old Testament.

All references in the Old Testament to the first and the last are in Isaiah, but they do not develop the teaching quite like Jesus did. He is the Master.