LDS - Celestial Marriage

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
Here are the entire verses from the KJV:

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

In every case where the word “they” or “them” or “ye” is used in all of these verses, it is completely clear that there are specific people who are the subject that is being described by the pronoun. None of those instances presents a valid case where the reference back to the subject matter by the use of the word “they” has an inference to “the whole world” or to “all people.”

But did you, in an earlier post, say that you believed that YOU are bound by the give unto caesar what is caesar’s? I can look for that post if you don’t remember? Why would that one apply to, but not the one where Jesus is talking to the Sadducees? Do you see where the confusion comes in?

And to thecourt, if you insist on being part of this discussion, please offer more than “you’re wrong because I say so”. If you do not wish to have these discussions that is fine, but you are not accomplishing much with your tactics.

 

[Jea9]

Techno 2000,
You can decide whether that particular teaching applies to you, I suppose. I consider that I should render unto God the things that are God’s, so I would say that it definitely applies to me, and I appreciate the clarity of Christ’s language and the effectiveness with which He answered the question that was supposed to have been a “trick question”.

I went ahead and found the post. So, why can an individual decide if THIS ‘they/them’ applies to them or not, but in the one about the seven brothers and one wife you can say for sure, without a doubt Jesus was ONLY talking to those seven brothers?

 

[Techno2000]

`Parker how many times does Jesus use the word “they” in the Bible ?

 

[ParkerD]

But did you, in an earlier post, say that you believed that YOU are bound by the give unto caesar what is caesar’s? I can look for that post if you don’t remember? Why would that one apply to, but not the one where Jesus is talking to the Sadducees? Do you see where the confusion comes in?

Jea 9,
Sometimes I am a Sunday school teacher, and use the chalkboard. If we were having this kind of discussion, I would write the words “Commandments of God” on the upper left, and underline it. I would write the words “Government Laws” in the middle top, and underline that. On the right hand upper chalkboard, I would write “Specific Case for Specific People” and underline that, then draw an arrow to the word “Teaching Concept”.

“Render unto God the things that are God’s” is a commandment of God. It applies to all people, for their happiness and benefit. Jesus gave commandments and also reiterated commandments that had already been given in the Old Testament. I agreed that I should obey that commandment, because I want the benefits and the happiness that come from keeping these commandments.

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” is a government law. It applies only to those people who are subject to that government and its laws. I obey the laws of the government where I live.

If we began making a list of those scriptural instances where the words represent a “Specific Case for Specific People”, it would be a very long list. The case of the Sadducees and their hypothetical story was a specific case for specific people, as was the Savior’s response. But as I noted, if we want to learn about some teachings related to what He told the Sadducees, then the teachings are that (1) there is not marriage in heaven for people who have rejected the Savior’s redeeming grace, and (2) there is a resurrection for those kind of people and that resurrection is to a condition “like the angels.”

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
Sometimes I am a Sunday school teacher, and use the chalkboard. If we were having this kind of discussion, I would write the words “Commandments of God” on the upper left, and underline it. I would write the words “Government Laws” in the middle top, and underline that. On the right hand upper chalkboard, I would write “Specific Case for Specific People” and underline that, then draw an arrow to the word “Teaching Concept”.

“Render unto God the things that are God’s” is a commandment of God. It applies to all people, for their happiness and benefit. Jesus gave commandments and also reiterated commandments that had already been given in the Old Testament. I agreed that I should obey that commandment, because I want the benefits and the happiness that come from keeping these commandments.

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” is a government law. It applies only to those people who are subject to that government and its laws. I obey the laws of the government where I live.

If we began making a list of those scriptural instances where the words represent a “Specific Case for Specific People”, it would be a very long list. The case of the Sadducees and their hypothetical story was a specific case for specific people, as was the Savior’s response. But as I noted, if we want to learn about some teachings related to what He told the Sadducees, then the teachings are that (1) there is not marriage in heaven for people who have rejected the Savior’s redeeming grace, and (2) there is a resurrection for those kind of people and that resurrection is to a condition “like the angels.”

ParkerD,
Think of me as one of those difficult children who only come to church every so often and thus are VERY hard to teach. (I’ve been a Sunday school teacher with kids in the Mormon church too, so I think you know which kiddos I’m talking about!) You’re still not really answering the “why” on this. At least not to me. Can you please tell me how you know which verse applies to which groups of people? WHY are some commandments for all and others not? Where is the authority? I think that’s what it all boils down to anyway.

Thanks again!

PS
Thanks for continuing to answer in a respectful way, it is appreciated very much!

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
Think of me as one of those difficult children who only come to church every so often and thus are VERY hard to teach. (I’ve been a Sunday school teacher with kids in the Mormon church too, so I think you know which kiddos I’m talking about!) You’re still not really answering the “why” on this. At least not to me. Can you please tell me how you know which verse applies to which groups of people? WHY are some commandments for all and others not? Where is the authority? I think that’s what it all boils down to anyway.

Thanks again!

PS
Thanks for continuing to answer in a respectful way, it is appreciated very much!

Jea 9,
I don’t think of this situation as an authority issue at all. Christ taught “with authority,” “not as the scribes”, because He knew the scriptures having both studied them and having a thorough understanding, of course.

A person can find commandments all through the Bible. The house of Israel received commandments that applied to them, and Jesus and the apostles taught that those commandments also apply to the Gentiles. Jesus also gave new teachings that were new commandments. We don’t have to have “authority” to read those teachings or those commandments and understand them and apply them to our lives, for our direct immediate benefit. Christ said that by living the commandments, we will be showing our love to Him and to God and will also “know of the doctrine”, “whether it be of God.” That applies to all people–house of Israel and Gentiles.

I guess your question refers to the concept of a “teaching” or a “doctrinal idea.” I don’t think in this particular case of the Sadducees, that “authority” is needed by anyone to read and understand the teaching that one can glean from the passage. (Or one could just say to themselves, “He was talking to the Sadducees about some people who had died who were also Sadducees, and so nothing He said in that particular case applies to me since I am neither a Sadducee nor am I dead.”)

The teaching is simple and clear. It can stand by itself as a teaching idea.

1. The Sadducees didn’t believe in Christ nor in the resurrection, but some Jews who were not Sadducees believed that there is marriage in heaven.
2. The brothers who had died would not have marriage in heaven. (Knowing Jesus’ teachings about needing to believe in Him in order to be “saved”, any reader can figure out that the Sadducees are not reflective of believing disciples of Christ.)
3. Christ said those dead Sadducee brothers would be “as the angels of God in heaven.”

By saying what He said in response, Christ had “put the Sadducees to silence.” We can figure out why. (He had told them there is a resurrection; He had told them that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive in the spirit world; and He had answered their question about the dead brothers by saying those brothers would have no marriage in heaven.)

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
I don’t think of this situation as an authority issue at all. Christ taught “with authority,” “not as the scribes”, because He knew the scriptures having both studied them and having a thorough understanding, of course.

A person can find commandments all through the Bible. The house of Israel received commandments that applied to them, and Jesus and the apostles taught that those commandments also apply to the Gentiles. Jesus also gave new teachings that were new commandments. We don’t have to have “authority” to read those teachings or those commandments and understand them and apply them to our lives, for our direct immediate benefit. Christ said that by living the commandments, we will be showing our love to Him and to God and will also “know of the doctrine”, “whether it be of God.” That applies to all people–house of Israel and Gentiles.

I guess your question refers to the concept of a “teaching” or a “doctrinal idea.” I don’t think in this particular case of the Sadducees, that “authority” is needed by anyone to read and understand the teaching that one can glean from the passage. (Or one could just say to themselves, “He was talking to the Sadducees about some people who had died who were also Sadducees, and so nothing He said in that particular case applies to me since I am neither a Sadducee nor am I dead.”)

The teaching is simple and clear. It can stand by itself as a teaching idea.

1. The Sadducees didn’t believe in Christ nor in the resurrection, but some Jews who were not Sadducees believed that there is marriage in heaven.
2. The brothers who had died would not have marriage in heaven. (Knowing Jesus’ teachings about needing to believe in Him in order to be “saved”, any reader can figure out that the Sadducees are not reflective of believing disciples of Christ.)
3. Christ said those dead Sadducee brothers would be “as the angels of God in heaven.”

By saying what He said in response, Christ had “put the Sadducees to silence.” We can figure out why. (He had told them there is a resurrection; He had told them that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive in the spirit world; and He had answered their question about the dead brothers by saying those brothers would have no marriage in heaven.)

Bold mine. I could just as easily say I am not a Pharisee and thus I do not need to be bound to giving to caesar what is caesar’s. You keep saying “anyone can see”, but the fact is that ONLY Mormons see that in this passage. No protestants, no Catholics. You think it is clear, you are not seeing the discrepancy in what you’re saying, but no other religion sees that in this passage. So, it’s NOT “clear” or obvious.

One of the many problems in LDS faith (that I see, and I know others here do as well) is the complete disregard for constancy. And authority is important here, for you (individually) to interpret that passage that way, you were taught that somewhere. You said you read about it in Jesus the Christ, but that you could have figured it out on your own. OK, well, what if you had read something else into that passage? Would you change your mind on that because there are church teachings that say otherwise? Or would you say, “well, he’s not right, I am. I can interpret this how I want.” Do you not see the problem there? Everyone can just pick any passage they want and say it means whatever suits them at that time, it doesn’t make it true.

 

[ParkerD]

Bold mine. I could just as easily say I am not a Pharisee and thus I do not need to be bound to giving to caesar what is caesar’s. You keep saying “anyone can see”, but the fact is that ONLY Mormons see that in this passage. No protestants, no Catholics. You think it is clear, you are not seeing the discrepancy in what you’re saying, but no other religion sees that in this passage. So, it’s NOT “clear” or obvious.

One of the many problems in LDS faith (that I see, and I know others here do as well) is the complete disregard for constancy. And authority is important here, for you (individually) to interpret that passage that way, you were taught that somewhere. You said you read about it in Jesus the Christ, but that you could have figured it out on your own. OK, well, what if you had read something else into that passage? Would you change your mind on that because there are church teachings that say otherwise? Or would you say, “well, he’s not right, I am. I can interpret this how I want.” Do you not see the problem there? Everyone can just pick any passage they want and say it means whatever suits them at that time, it doesn’t make it true.

Jea 9,
Just because some important people have said what they think the passage we are talking about means, does not mean I have any obligation whatsoever to believe their thinking. Christ gave an immediate connection between doctrine and our personal, individual knowledge. We can “know the doctrine” by “doing His will.”

John 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

That is all-inclusive of men and women.

If we were in a class and I had a chalkboard, I would write “Jesus trusts us with the Bible, to be able to read it and understand His teachings. He also promised the Holy Spirit to help us learn.”

I even differ slightly with James E Talmage. If I remember correctly, he inferred that the first brother would be married and the others not. I simply think the Sadducees did not qualify for eternal marriage due to their rejection of Christ. But some Jews of the time definitely believed in eternal marriage, and Christ did not say nor infer that that was a misconception.

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
Just because some important people have said what they think the passage we are talking about means, does not mean I have any obligation whatsoever to believe their thinking. Christ gave an immediate connection between doctrine and our personal, individual knowledge. We can “know the doctrine” by “doing His will.”

John 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

That is all-inclusive of men and women.

If we were in a class and I had a chalkboard, I would write “Jesus trusts us with the Bible, to be able to read it and understand His teachings. He also promised the Holy Spirit to help us learn.”

I even differ slightly with James E Talmage. If I remember correctly, he inferred that the first brother would be married and the others not. I simply think the Sadducees did not qualify for eternal marriage due to their rejection of Christ. But some Jews of the time definitely believed in eternal marriage, and Christ did not say nor infer that that was a misconception.

Wow ParkerD, I have to say you are the only Mormon I’ve come into contact with that has taken such liberties with personal interpretation. I was taught to just read what was the synopsis of the chapters in both the Bible and TBOM and that they would guide how I should interpret each passage. In my discussions with a Catholic friend when I was Mormon, when he would bring a passage to me that I didn’t know how Mormons were supposed to believe, I’d take it to those close to me from church and in fact that is exactly what they would do. Read the synopsis at the chapter and interpret from there. Or, again, they would refer to the D&C and the idea of public revelation and say that there was new revelation that told us something different than the Bible did.

 

[ParkerD]

Jea 9,
As a further note pertaining to your last question about “authority,” if someone said to me that they had “authority” and differed with me and said Christ was saying there is no marriage in heaven, then I would have the kind of discussion with them that we have had here. If they referred back to the “early fathers”, then I would say I don’t trust the “early fathers” because they had specific agendas reflecting their own biases.

You probably think I am bringing my biases to understanding these verses. Well, if having studied English and having studied the Bible thoroughly means that I am biased, then I guess that is true. But any “authoritarian” person cannot take the specific text of these verses and make it mean that “they” is a universal “all people” pronoun. They can protest, and be dramatic and insistent, but the words are there as plain as day, and the subject that matches the use of “they” is “the seven dead brothers.”

 

[Techno2000]

Jea 9,
I don’t think of this situation as an authority issue at all. Christ taught “with authority,” “not as the scribes”, because He knew the scriptures having both studied them and having a thorough understanding, of course.

A person can find commandments all through the Bible. The house of Israel received commandments that applied to them, and Jesus and the apostles taught that those commandments also apply to the Gentiles. Jesus also gave new teachings that were new commandments. We don’t have to have “authority” to read those teachings or those commandments and understand them and apply them to our lives, for our direct immediate benefit. Christ said that by living the commandments, we will be showing our love to Him and to God and will also “know of the doctrine”, “whether it be of God.” That applies to all people–house of Israel and Gentiles.

I guess your question refers to the concept of a “teaching” or a “doctrinal idea.” I don’t think in this particular case of the Sadducees, that “authority” is needed by anyone to read and understand the teaching that one can glean from the passage. (Or one could just say to themselves, “He was talking to the Sadducees about some people who had died who were also Sadducees, and so nothing He said in that particular case applies to me since I am neither a Sadducee nor am I dead.”)

The teaching is simple and clear. It can stand by itself as a teaching idea.

1. The Sadducees didn’t believe in Christ nor in the resurrection, but some Jews who were not Sadducees believed that there is marriage in heaven.
2. The brothers who had died would not have marriage in heaven. (Knowing Jesus’ teachings about needing to believe in Him in order to be “saved”, any reader can figure out that the Sadducees are not reflective of believing disciples of Christ.)
3. Christ said those dead Sadducee brothers would be “as the angels of God in heaven.”

By saying what He said in response, Christ had “put the Sadducees to silence.” We can figure out why. (He had told them there is a resurrection; He had told them that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive in the spirit world; and He had answered their question about the dead brothers by saying those brothers would have no marriage in heaven.)

Atheists don’t believe in the" resurrection" so Jesus could say to them “THEY” (would not have marriage in Heaven ) but would be “as the angels of God in Heaven” ?

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
As a further note pertaining to your last question about “authority,” if someone said to me that they had “authority” and differed with me and said Christ was saying there is no marriage in heaven, then I would have the kind of discussion with them that we have had here. If they referred back to the “early fathers”, then I would say I don’t trust the “early fathers” because they had specific agendas reflecting their own biases.

You probably think I am bringing my biases to understanding these verses. Well, if having studied English and having studied the Bible thoroughly means that I am biased, then I guess that is true. But any “authoritarian” person cannot take the specific text of these verses and make it mean that “they” is a universal “all people” pronoun. They can protest, and be dramatic and insistent, but the words are there as plain as day, and the subject that matches the use of “they” is “the seven dead brothers.”

Please stop using “English” as a background for your understanding of this passage. You have said that “they” at times means everyone and at other times means only specific people. You can’t have it both ways based on English alone.

What if someone who has authority in YOUR church disagreed with you on something? Who would win the argument then? Your bishop, stake president, apostle, or the prophet said something that went against how you read into a passage. Who’s authority would trump?

 

[ParkerD]

Atheists don’t believe in the" resurrection" so Jesus could say to them “THEY” (would not have marriage in Heaven ) but would be “as the angels of God in Heaven” ?

Techno 2000,
It may take you by surprise, but the answer is “yes”. Atheists will have their chance to figure out that the Bible really was true and that Christ really does rescue from spirit prison. There will be teaching going on in spirit prison, and just as Isaiah noted and Christ said by quoting Isaiah 61:1, He proclaims liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.

Once they figure out that the Bible really was true and they accept Christ and His atoning grace, they can be resurrected to the condition of being “as the angels of God”. Christ holds the keys to the gates of hell, and He will indeed use them.

 

[ParkerD]

Please stop using “English” as a background for your understanding of this passage. You have said that “they” at times means everyone and at other times means only specific people. You can’t have it both ways based on English alone.

What if someone who has authority in YOUR church disagreed with you on something? Who would win the argument then? Your bishop, stake president, apostle, or the prophet said something that went against how you read into a passage. Who’s authority would trump?

Jea 9,

I said “they” is always specific to the subject to which the sentence refers.

I also said commandments are given for our general benefit by living them. If some people ("they’) were reminded by the Savior to keep the commandments, then by saying that I agree that I should keep the commandments also does not mean I have changed the meaning of the specific text. I have merely said that the commandments apply to me also.

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,

I said “they” is always specific to the subject to which the sentence refers.

I also said commandments are given for our general benefit by living them. If some people ("they’) were reminded by the Savior to keep the commandments, then by saying that I agree that I should keep the commandments also does not mean I have changed the meaning of the specific text. I have merely said that the commandments apply to me also.

You’re right, I’m sorry. You’re just picking and choosing which “they” applies to you. Got it. I’m not trying to be rude, I just don’t see how you can justify this. I guess you need a bigger chalkboard for me ParkerD

 

[Techno2000]

Techno 2000,
It may take you by surprise, but the answer is “yes”. Atheists will have their chance to figure out that the Bible really was true and that Christ really does rescue from spirit prison. There will be teaching going on in spirit prison, and just as Isaiah noted and Christ said by quoting Isaiah 61:1, He proclaims liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.

Once they figure out that the Bible really was true and they accept Christ and His atoning grace, they can be resurrected to the condition of being “as the angels of God”. Christ holds the keys to the gates of hell, and He will indeed use them.

Ok , thanks now I finally see where you are coming from… you really opened the Pandora’s Box Now !

 

[ParkerD]

You’re right, I’m sorry. You’re just picking and choosing which “they” applies to you. Got it. I’m not trying to be rude, I just don’t see how you can justify this. I guess you need a bigger chalkboard for me ParkerD

Jea 9,
No. Anyone can differentiate between a “commandment” and a “doctrinal belief” or a “doctrinal teaching that tells a result or tells what heaven is like.”

I said I or anyone can identify when the Savior is reminding about commandments. If He uses “they” in the context of a passage reminding about commandments, then it is still a reminder about the commandments that anyone can apply for their own benefit. (I suppose they could also say, “He wasn’t talking to me so I won’t listen to that.” But that just means they may lose out on a blessing in their life that would come to them if they kept that particular commandment.)

That is why I tried to use the chalkboard approach with headings for different types of Biblical scripture. I don’t know how else to explain this to have it make sense to you.

As to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” I would consider that the Savior was giving advice, not a commandment, in that clause. A person could choose not to do that, and would not be breaking a commandment except in the case of LDS since we believe in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” meaning the law established by legitimate governments.

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
No. Anyone can differentiate between a “commandment” and a “doctrinal belief” or a “doctrinal teaching that tells a result or tells what heaven is like.”

I said I or anyone can identify when the Savior is reminding about commandments. If He uses “they” in the context of a passage reminding about commandments, then it is still a reminder about the commandments that anyone can apply for their own benefit. (I suppose they could also say, “He wasn’t talking to me so I won’t listen to that.” But that just means they may lose out on a blessing in their life that would come to them if they kept that particular commandment.)

That is why I tried to use the chalkboard approach with headings for different types of Biblical scripture. I don’t know how else to explain this to have it make sense to you.

As to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” I would consider that the Savior was giving advice, not a commandment, in that clause. A person could choose not to do that, and would not be breaking a commandment except in the case of LDS since we believe in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” meaning the law established by legitimate governments.

ParkerD,
I feel that we’re going in circles here.

1. you keep saying “anyone” can “clearly” see when Jesus is speaking of “they” in a specific manner or involving everyone (i.e., a commandment), but actually the only "anyone"s that see this is Mormons. So it’s obviously NOT clear, and I don’t think that you’re explaining WHY it’s so clear very well.
2. I am certain that earlier you said that the “rendering unto Caesar…” WAS a commandment, I will try to look for that post as well, and that is exactly WHY that passage was meant for everyone and not the “they” specifically cited.

 

[Jea9]

“Render unto God the things that are God’s” is a commandment of God. It applies to all people, for their happiness and benefit. Jesus gave commandments and also reiterated commandments that had already been given in the Old Testament. I agreed that I should obey that commandment, because I want the benefits and the happiness that come from keeping these commandments.

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” is a government law. It applies only to those people who are subject to that government and its laws. I obey the laws of the government where I live.

ParkerD,
I see that you didn’t actually say the whole portion of what Jesus told the Pharisees was “commandment”, but an important part of it was. So, the rest of us could say that since we are not Pharisees and under Caesar’s law we do not need to follow the laws of our land? Or do not need to render to God what is God’s? I know that’s being nit-picky, but I’m asking this because it seems that there needs to be some specific requirement of knowing when Jesus was talking ONLY to specific groups or if His message was important for us all.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
I see that you didn’t actually say the whole portion of what Jesus told the Pharisees was “commandment”, but an important part of it was. So, the rest of us could say that since we are not Pharisees and under Caesar’s law we do not need to follow the laws of our land? Or do not need to render to God what is God’s? I know that’s being nit-picky, but I’m asking this because it seems that there needs to be some specific requirement of knowing when Jesus was talking ONLY to specific groups or if His message was important for us all.

Jea 9,
As I said before, I would consider that “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” is not a commandment, but rather is advice from Jesus to the Pharisees. “Render unto God the things that are God’s” is not a new commandment that was just being given for the first time. It was a reiteration of an already existing commandment from God.

I said a person should keep the commandments for their own benefit and blessing. One can make a list of commandments using the Old and New Testaments. The commandments may begin with the words “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not” or some other text. The words “thou shalt” may also be inferred such as is the case with the text of “render unto God the things that are God’s.” One could easily bring to mind the words “thou shalt render unto God the things that are God’s,” and that would give the same kind of reminder to keep that commandment. They may begin with the active verb, such as in the commandment “Judge not, that ye be not judged” or “Love one another as I have loved you.”

I haven’t said Jesus’ message wasn’t important for us all. I noted that we can learn from His teachings in that instance with the Sadducees, but those teachings are different than “commandments”. Isaiah wrote about learning “precept upon precept, line upon line.” That is an important process, but it requires taking the context of a passage of scripture and figuring out what are the relevant teachings that might apply to more than just the people with whom the event happened.

If one runs across the word “they”, it will always have a subject to which that pronoun refers in the specific instance where it is used. One who is a student of the Bible would want to identify the subject to which the word “they” was referring in every case where the word “they” is used, and not make a generalization nor trust some person in authority who makes a generalization if the generalization is not within the context of the passage. After identifying the specific subject, a person can seek to find the relevant “precept upon precept, line upon line” ideas and learn from those teachings. In some cases, “they” refers to a group with specific qualities that define the group. That is what I’ve been trying to illustrate with Matthew 21:23-33. Jesus was not making a generalization in verse 30. He was being specific in referring directly back to the subject of the question He had been asked.