And a Little Child Shall Lead Them

Peter, Apostle and Little Child

In a prior blog entitled "The Spider's Web", I began by presenting several doctrinal parodies such as "first is last" and "new is old". I concluded the blog by adding a third to the list--that "hot is cold". To this list, I add two more, that "lost is found" and "young is old".

If I leave a legacy to my posterity, it will be that I was distinguished as the first to devise a Dr. Seuss nursery rhyme possessinng deep spiritual roots:

First is last,

New is old,

Lost is found,

Hot is cold, and

Young is old!

The phrase "a little child" has diverse meanings and, depending upon the context of its usage, has both positive and negative connotations. For example, the phrase is sometimes spoken to identify or discourage certain behavior. "Quit acting like a little child" is a directive occassionally fired at some individual even though, physiologically, they might be quite old and look nothing like a "little child". The apostle Paul used it in this context when he wrote:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).

Again, juxtaposing childish with mature gospel attributes, the apostle Paul expressed:

For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil (Hebrews 5:13-14).

The use of this metaphor within the Scriptures, however, is most frequently an expression of what is desired of by him whom the phrase is spoken. Hence, the Savior taught that except we "become as little children, [we] shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). He further taught that "blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (3 Nephi 12:9). Such connotations are certainly something to be desired and should not carry the negative connotations attributed to the phrase. Thus, fact that the Lord called his disciples "children" (see John 21:5; Luke 5:34) on several occasions is no cause to conclude that he was doing so out of ridicule.

Child or childish: what am I?
The invitation to become as little children and yet, at the same time, possess the knowledge, faith, intellect, gifts, and faculties of a mature disciple of Jesus Christ suggests that we must look beyond the obvious for a proper understanding of what it means to become "as a little child". Certainly, becoming as little children cannot mean that we dispossess ourselves of all of that which we have acquired through a lifetime of worthy learning and experience in deferrence to the childish attributes of ignorance, crying, pouting, lying, stealing, yelling, selfishness, and incontinence! As the apostle Paul explained, "[b]rethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." (1 Corinthians 14:20). His counsel, first given to saints living in Corinth, likewise applies to saints living in the latter days. 

Because of the dichotomy caused by our perception of what is childlike in comparison to what is mature, we most often reconcile the scriptural invitation to become like little children by creating a facade--a mature individual with childlike behavioral attributes. Most often, we make a point of confirming that the individual created in our imagination renounces the natural tendency to desire power, prestige, wealth, and security in deference to embracing the less materialistic traits of humility, submission, patience, long-suffering, and temperence.

So . . . from a scriptural perspective . . . what does it really mean to "become as a little child"?

Lost or found: what am I?

The answer to this question is partially discovered in the Matthew 18 parable of the lost sheep. Matthew is the only one of the four gospel writers that gives us this particular version of the parable. However, in Luke 15:1-7, a similar parable concerning a lost sheep is also discovered. I have previously written about Luke's account, together with the reminder that if we are to understand the parables that Jesus taught, we must first inquire as to "the question that drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable?” (see Smith, J. (1976), Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (J. F. Smith, Ed.) Salt Lake City: Deseret Book., pp. 276).

The purpose of this blog is express my thoughts concerning the Matthew 18 account of the parable that was drawn out by the disciples' question "who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" and to discover, insofar as is possible, the indentity of the "little child" developed within the Lord's reply. Doing so will provide the basis for concluding that becoming as a "little child" presupposes that one must first experience a "new birth." Importantly, due to some significant alterations, I will be utilizing--for the most part--the Joseph Smith Translation of the gospel verses.

First--the Matthew account of the parable--and then I will return to the context in which it was given for a deeper understanding:

How think ye? If a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains and seeketh that which is gone astray?

And if it so be that he find it, verily, I say unto you, he rejoiceth more over that which was lost, than over the ninety and nine which went not astray. (Matthew 18:12-13)

Disciples or pharisees: why am I?
The differences between the Matthew and Luke accounts of the parable are substantial; so much so that it is obvious that these are distinct parables given at separate times. Foremost of the differences is the audience to whom the parables were uttered. In one, his audience comprised Pharisees and scribes who murmurred "this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them" (Luke 15:2). In the other parable, the audience comprised his disciples who, in a spirit of contention, dared to deliberate "who was greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" The answer to this question was obvious; it was the man to whom the question was asked! However, for the first time, Jesus Christ had just finished explaining to them that he was going to die, thereby, leaving the senior apostle's chair vacant (see Matthew 16:21-28). Thus, the context of the question infers that these disciples were specifically asking who was going to fill the vacancy that would be made by their Lord's departure.

Hence, although addressing audiences that, on surface, appeared to live on opposite sides of the gospel tracks, it seems appropriate to suggest that the disciples' hearts were not so very different from those of the "ninety-and-nine" Pharisees and scribes who, in the words of Joseph Smith, were "so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them" (Jan. 29, 1843., DHC 5:260-262, TPJS 277-278). Thus, Matthew's account of the Lost Sheep may have been similarly given as a caustic rebuke of the ninety-and-nine who, although disciples, unrighteously sought to obtain dominion. These "ninety-and-nine" who sought reputation and "desired to be first in the kingdom of God" (see Mark 9:35) were, thereby, convicted by their Lord's question, "What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?" Hence, Mark recorded that, in shame, "they held their peace" (see Mark 9:33-34). [At this juncture, it will benefit the reader of this blog to review two prior blogs concerning the Luke 15 account of the ninety-and-nine and the lost sheep, respectively.]

Greatest or publicans and sinners: who am I?

Aside from a shift in the congregation being addressed, the two accounts can be further dinstinguished by the precise question that prompted each. In Luke 15, the Pharisees and Scribes inquired why He "ate with publicans and sinners, whereas, in Matthew 18, His disciples asked "who was greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Although obviously different questions, the ill motives behind the two questions appear to bring together the two parables to teach a single principle: Neither education nor position will ensure one's place in the Church or Kingdom of Heaven. Rather, in the final analysis, the litmus test that determined who is to be called and chosen by faith in His name to sit with Him in His throne is "clean hands and a pure heart."

Based on the foregoing conclusion, a blazing irony surfaces from the two parables--"unlike what is commonly thought and taught, the parables are not so much about one lost sheep as they are about the greater number who find themselves asking the self-centered questions that prompted the Lord, at first, to rehearse each parable to its unique audience." Despite seemingly different questions that were posed, the Savior's message to the distinctly different audiences was the same: "I am not sent but unto the LOST SHEEP of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24) and, when found, I shall rejoice more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine that went not astray! (see Matthew 18:13 and Luke 15:7). And being thus sent by His Father to the LOST SHEEP, He likewise sent his apostles to "the LOST SHEEP of the house of Israel", and instructed them to forbear proselyting among Gentiles and Samaritans, alike (see Matthew 10:5-6), until it was made abundantly clear by the Lost Sheeps' unbelief that they were not, at that time, prepared to enter into a covenant with their Shepherd (see Matthew 22:1-14, Acts 11:18, and Romans 11:11-32). Thus after this chosen family had rejected Christ and His proposals, the heralds of salvation said to them, "Lo, we turn unto the Gentiles;" and the Gentiles received the covenant, and were grafted in from whence the chosen family were broken off (see letter written by Joseph Smith).

Mountains or wilderness: where am I?
A final noteworthy difference between the two accounts of the parable is the precise locale that the Shepherd seeks to recover his lost sheep. In the Luke account, he goes "into the wilderness after that which is lost" whereas, in the Matthew account, he "goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray." From the two accounts, however, exact parallels emerge. Although mountains and wilderness seem to be different places, they generally are not. The Greek for wilderness is érēmos. It has various meanings including "solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited" and "deprived of the aid and protection of others, especially of friends, acquaintances, or kindred." But the definition that is of most interest is "a flock deserted by the shepherd" or "a woman neglected by her husband, from whom the husband withholds himself." The Holy Place of the tabernacle was, at times, referred to as a wilderness; the Garden prepared of God into which the woman flees (see JST Revelation 12:5-6, compare JST Matthew 4:1 wherein it is recorded that Jesus was "led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be with God"). Thus, the wilderness can be descriptive of the place where the Husband and his bride are scheduled to sit at meat.

Mountain or Wilderness of the LORD

Mountains can be similarly described as solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited, and deprived of the aid and protection of others. Just as the wilderness was a place wherein the children of Israel were tried as gold and silver to determine who was worthy to enter the promised land, mountains are places where prophets and kings are sanctified and made holy that they may, likewise, prepare to meet their God. Thus, when the Lord returns to seek out his bride to make a covenant of marriage with her (see Ezekiel 16:1-14), she must go out of Babylon (see D&C 133:1-10), into the wilderness (see Ezekiel 20:33-38), and ascend the hill of the Lord to find him (see Ezekiel 20:40-43).

The Little Ones

Now. . . to the context in which the parable was given. In the verses immediately preceeding the parable, the Savior declared:

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

FOR the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost, and to call sinners to repentance; but these little ones have no need of repentance, and I will save them (Matthew 18:10-11).

The conjugation "FOR" clearly places the context of the parable into a discussion concerning "little ones"; little ones who have no need for repentance. Who are these little ones who have no need of repentance, and what is their relationship to the lost sheep that are likewise saved as they are. Surely they are not the same as those "ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance," (Luke 15:7) of whom, the prophet Joseph Smith said, "are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow--you cannot save them" (Jan. 29, 1843., DHC 5:260-262). To the contrary, Jesus plainly declared that he will save "these little ones"!

Ye are clean, every whit!

Until several months ago, I considered that these "little ones" must be infant children who are described by Mormon as "whole" and not "capable of committing sin" because they "are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world" (Moroni 8:8). However, I have changed my mind and have since discovered another identity of the "little ones" to whom Christ referred. To understand, we must go back even further into the context of events surrounding this parable and we must also keep in mind that the gospel ideal of little children makes no distinction based on age; little children are whole and not capable of committing sin regardless of whether they are 9 months or 99 years old.

Converted as this little child: how am I?

In Matthew 16, the Lord asked his disciples a question of great import: "Who say the people that I am?" The record states that "[t]hey answering said, Some say, John the Baptist; but others say, Elias; and others, That one of the old prophets is risen again." Continuing, the Lord asked his disciples, "[B]ut who say ye that I am?" Given that this question was privately posed to the apostles, I suggest the first question was really asked as an introduction to the question that was really on his mind--the question that, when asked and answered, would forever set Peter at the head. Despite the fact that the question was asked to all, it was Peter who "answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The Lord's reply to Peter's response provides this important connection between Peter's conversion and the keys he would hold:

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:17-19).

After having heard Peter's and the Lord's own testimony concerning his divinity, the record states that Jesus Christ "straitly charged [his disciples], and commanded them to tell no man of him, saying, the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes; and be slain, and be raised the third day." Eight days after these saying, Jesus "took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray" (Luke 9:28), the very same mountain into which the shepherd went to find his LOST SHEEP. There, Moses, John the Baptist (see JST Mark 9:4a), and possibly Elijah (see Bible Dictionary, Elias) appeared to them and, in fulfilment of his promise made in the previous week, Christ gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven (see Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, 158). Each of the reorganized First Presidency also received their first and second endowments on this occasion (see 2 Peter 1:8-20; see also ENDNOTE No. 1), saw Christ transfigured and a vision of the transfigured earth (see D&C 63:20-21), and an explanation of the Savior's crucifixion in Jerusalem (see Luke 9:31). Thus, as they descended the mount that day, Peter had been personally designated by the Lord as "greatest in the kingdom of heaven." The record notes that "on the next day, when they were come down from the hill, much people met him" (Luke 9:37). It was in this context that there arose a reasoning among the other disciples as to which of them should be greatest (Luke 9:46)?

Children and the tribute money
In the next chapter, Jesus and Peter came to Capernaum. As they arrived, those of the city "that received tribute came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?" Without taking the time to ask the master whether or not he paid tribute, Peter affirmatively answered these tax collectors. This, however, was not the answer the Savior desired and when Peter was come into the house, Jesus rebuked him, saying,

What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom, or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers?

Peter said unto him, Of strangers. Jesus said unto him, Then are the children free.

NOTWITHSTANDING, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish, that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; that take and give unto them for me and thee (JST Matthew 17:23-27).

Note that the tribute money was given for Christ AND for Peter. This is instructive inasmuch as the LORD's comments centered on a child's right to be pardoned from paying tribute. Thus, the word "NOTWITHSTANDING" of verse 27 is an important conjunction. Simplified, it meant "EVEN THOUGH WE ARE CHILDREN FROM WHOM THE TRIBUTE SHOULD NOT BE COLLECTED, GO AHEAD AND PAY THEM THE TRIBUTE IN ORDER TO AVOID A DISPUTE."

Whoso receiveth one such little child
Immediately following this event wherein Christ identified himself and Peter as children, the events recorded in Matthew 18 regarding a little child transpired:

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:1-5).

From this account, several relevant and obvious questions arise--

First, who was this child whose maturity was sufficient to respond to the LORD when "called." Who was this child who so boldly stood in the midst of "twelve scary men" whilst his attributes were used in a comparative example? Quite honestly, most, if not all, "little children" placed in such circumstances would be screaming, "Mommy! I want my Mommy!" Does the fact that this little child was willing to cheerfully submit to such scrutiny give us reason to wonder why?

Second, why does the LORD, without warning or explanation, move the focus of his discourse from an individual child to "little ones which believe in me?"

Third, why it is better to have a millstone tied about one's neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea than to offend one of these little ones; and

Finally, and most important, why are the blessings that were promised to one who "received one such little child" identical to the blessings that are promised to those who receive the Lord's servants pursuant to the Oath and Covenant of the Holy Priesthood? 

Answering this fourth, and final question, answers the prior three and provides irrefutable evidence as to the identity of the "little child." In a revelation that associated "little children" to the blessings that grow out of obedience to the Oath and Covenant of the Holy Priesthood, the Lord explained to John Murdock--a devout missionary for the Church and faithful member of Zion's Camp--that "who receiveth you receiveth me; and you shall have power to declare my word in the demonstration of my Holy Spirit. And who receiveth you AS A LITTLE CHILD, receiveth my kingdom; and blessed are they, for they shall obtain mercy" (D&C 99:2-3). 

This revelation precludes any misunderstanding about "little children" and who they are, for "he that receiveth [the LORD's little children] receiveth [the LORD]; and he that receiveth [the LORD] receiveth [His] Father; and he that receiveth [His] Father receiveth [His] Father’s kingdom; therefore all that the Father hath shall be given unto him" (see D&C 84:36-37). In this context, Luke's account of the events that transpired between Christ and his apostles is also noteworthy, for the same blessings given to one by obedience to the Oath and Covenant of the Holy Priesthood were likewise extended to one who received "this little child" that was set in the midst (see Luke 9:47-48). 

The welding together of the blessings that grow from obedience to the Oath and Covenant of the Holy Priesthood, with those that come to one who receives "this" (I emphasize "this") little child, make the identity of "this little child" unmistakable. The little child that was placed in the midst of the Savior's apostles was His senior apostle, Peter! Following the LORD's departure, who else but one holding all priesthood keys could be greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Infant children lack the spiritual, physical, and emotional capacity to lead the kingdom of God. Who else, but Peter, could the LORD present as greatest to clarify and set in order the doctrine of apostolic succession following His imminent death? And the "little ones", towards whom none were to give offense, were Peter's two counselors who were also with him on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Confirming that the Lord's servants, or apostles, are also called "little children," the Lord expressed to the prophet Joseph Smith that "ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth" (D&C 50:40; compare D&C 78:17; 61:36). Pursuant to this same revelation, he who is "appointed to be the greatest"--as was the "little child" who was taken in the arms of Jesus--is also "ordained of God", is "possessor of all things", and is "sent forth" to be "the least and servant of all." Importantly, he that is appointed to be greatest is also "purified and cleansed from all sin" (D&C 50:26-29) and, thus, like little children, has "no need of repentance" (Matthew 18:10-11). Thus, as similarly promised to the "little ones" in Matthew 18:11 that He would save them, the LORD promised the elders to whom this revelation was given that "you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me; And none of them that my Father hath given me shall be lost" (D&C 50:41-42).

The child of the house

The Mark and Luke accounts of this event, when juxtaposed with the Matthew account, readily point out some specific attributes of the little child that further point to Peter as the child:

And he came to Capernaum; and being in the house, he asked them, Why was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?

But they held their peace, being afraid, for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who was the greatest among them (Mark 9:30-31).

And Jesus perceiving the thoughts of their hearts, took a child and set him in the midst;

And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him who sent me; for he who is least among you all, the same shall be great (Luke 9:47-48).

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matthew 18:1-5).

From these three accounts, the following should be noted:

First, the child was male and lived in a house at Capernaum; not just any house, but "the house".

Second, the child was called unto Christ and set in the midst of the Twelve Apostles and declared to be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Third, this child was converted to the Lord, believed in him, and in his teachings. Infant children, and even those who arrive at the age of accountability, rarely possess the knowledge or experience "to be converted".

Fourth, this child was humble. Humilty is a gift of the Spirit that is obtained through years of being tested. In fact, humility is second to last in the list of spiritual gifts that are to be "added" that one may be "fruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (see D&C 4:6; compare 2 Peter 1:5-8).

Fifth, this child was to be received "in the name of the Lord". The name of the LORD is Holy Priesthood (see Abraham 1:17-18) and to be received in this name suggests that those so received have been ordained to His priesthood power and possess His priesthoood keys.

Sixth, whosoever received this child in the name of the LORD, would likewise receive the LORD, and whosoever received the LORD, would likewise receive the LORD's Father. Again, the same promises that are guaranteed in the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood for "receiving his servants" are enumerated as the blessings that attend one who receives this child.

Finally, it would be better to be drowned in the midst of the sea than to offend one of these little ones.

Who else, but Peter, satisfied each of these seven criteria? 

FIRST, Capernaum was Peter's hometown (see Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:40–42; Matt. 8:14; Mark 1:29; Luke 4:38) and it was undoubtedly in Peter's home that these events unfolded. Mark's identication of the place as "the house" suggests is was a place a familiarity to all present. Jesus was not a stranger to Peter's home and had, in fact, previously healed Peter's mother-in-law there of a fever (see Mark 1:29-31).

SECOND, the fact that a child was called unto the Lord in Peter's home, that the child affirmatively responded to the Savior's request, and that the child stood in the midst of the Twelve Apostles and was there declared as "greatest in the kingdom of heaven" unequivocally pointed to Peter as "this child".

THIRD, of those asked the question "who say ye that I am?", Peter alone answered: "Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God". Peter's demonstration of his conversion was to be an example to all who would thereafter be greatest in the kingdom of heaven--they must likewise be converted.

FOURTH, the LORD's open reprimand and private rebuke of his senior apostle were fundamental tests of Peter's humility. First, when Christ said he was going to die and Peter rejected that notion, Christ rebuked Peter saying, "Get thee behind me Satan" (see Matthew 16:21-23). Such a rebuke might cause, even the most humble servant, to draw back and immediately question the genuine. But not Peter! Rather, he accepted the Lord's reprimand. Peter demonstrated that even the most shocking of rebukes could not breed pride or enmity in his soul. 

The second rebuke pertained to the tribute money that was to be paid by those who visited a city (see JST Matthew 17:24-26). Although less caustic, the fact that this rebuke occurred within days of the first, that Capernaum was Peter's home town, and Christ was his guest, certainly provided Peter with an occasion for unkind feelings to be kindled towards his Master. But again, nothing is recorded about any such response. Rather, Peter moves with haste to fulfil his LORD's strange request: "Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee." A particularly poignant aspect of the LORD's instruction to Peter is the statement "lest we should offend them." Christ gave not thought as to whether he would offend Peter because he knew that Peter would never take offense. But for those whose hearts can be easily turned to anger, Christ was willing to tippy-toe about their feelings so as to prevent offense from being taken.

FIFTH, at the time of this event, Peter held all of the keys of the priesthood and was designated by the LORD as the man who would lead the Church following His death. He, and two others, were most qualified to be received in his name.

SIXTH, it is those who lift their heel against these little ones, the servants of God, of whom the LORD was speaking when he said that it would be better that they be drowned in the depths. In Doctrine and Covenants 121:16-22, the prophet Joseph Smith penned:

Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinnedwhen they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despisedby those that flattered them.

They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.

Taking all things into account, one can only conclude that the little child was none other than PETER! PETER! PETER!

Indeed, everything points to Peter as the Little Child. If another little child was there, he was only used as a backdrop to show the disciples who Peter had become: a new born child of Christ. The ninety and nine were the other disciples (the proud ones) who disputed concerning who would step into first position after Christ's death. Indeed. Christ has come to save that which was lost and not to save the ninety and nine . . . unless they humble themselves, repent, and be converted as this little child called Peter.

Identifying how we may likewise become "little children", innocent and sinless, the apostle John wrote:

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God (i.e., the children); therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

He that continueth in sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Whosoever is born of God doth not continue in sin; for the Spirit of God remaineth in him; and he cannot continue in sin, because he is born of God, having received that holy Spirit of promise.

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (JST 1 John 3:1-3, 7-10).

The Holy Spirit of Promise--in this the little ones, the children of God, are manifest!

ENDNOTES

1. It appears that the remainder of the apostles were endowed following the crucifixion of the LORD (see Luke 24:49; compare D&C 95:8-9)

The Lost Sheep

NOTE: If you have not yet read the previous blog entitled The Ninety and Nine, I invite you to do so prior to reading this blog to provide you with the proper context of the following comments.

There are several details regarding the Parable of the Lost Sheep that I intentionally left out of my prior blog concerning the ninety and nine. This I did for two reasons. First, these details require me to navigate waters that are deeper than I will ordinarily risk with others aboard and, second, these details properly belong in a blog of their own. When included, however, they bring the parable to a whole new level and give it life far beyond its simple words. Keeping in mind that Christ spoke in parables so that his teachings would not be understood by those lacking ears to hear (see Matthew 13:10-13), it holds that the scathing rebuke of the ninety and nine was not the parable's true meaning; it was too obvious. Even the Pharisees, who thought of themselves as "just persons, which needed no repentance" (see Luke 15:7), could not have missed the Master's scathing rebuke. Rather, the unheard message pertained to the Shepherd and His relationship with the lost ewe and the wilderness into which He went that He might find her.

From a brief comment in the prior blog, it will be recalled that when Jesus came to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, a woman of Canaan came out unto him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." But "he answered her not a word." Consequently, the woman addressed the Lord's disciples who were also present. They, in turn, besought Jesus to "send her away; for she crieth after us." Breaking his silence to the woman, Jesus refused her request a second time explaining, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Drawing closer, she then worshipped him, saying, "Lord, help me." One could hardly imagine anyone refusing this poor soul. Yet, for a third time, the Lord dismissed her request and said, "It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs." Acknowledging the distinction the Lord had made between Jew and Gentile, she responded, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table." Relenting, Jesus granted her request and said, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt." And the record notes that "her daughter was made whole from that very hour" (Matthew 15:24).

This dialogue should, at a minimum, cause the reader to question why Jesus discriminated against this woman of Gentile descent; especially in light of the scriptural expression that "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Nephi 26:33). Today, Jesus would be dragged before Supreme Court of the United States for racial profiling. But Jesus was a nonconformist and expressed open resentment towards the Gentiles (see Matthew 10:16). This aversion towards them was not only seen in his mortal ministry, but continued to be witnessed following his resurrection. Speaking to a remnant of the House of Israel in America and explaining to them some remarks he had made to his twelve apostles regarding his visit to other sheep which were not of their fold (see John 10:16), Jesus said:

And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 15:21-23)

Why would the Shepherd permit the Gentiles to neither hear his voice nor see his face? Why did they have to be converted through the voice of the twelve? Why could they not be "other sheep" too? Thankfully, it is not my purpose here to discuss all the reasons why Jesus had a predilection towards Israel and ambivalence towards the Gentiles (see 2 Nephi 33:7-9, Ether 12:35-37, and D&C 135:5). This, I hope, to do in a future article. Rather, the foregoing illustration and verses are given to prove that the Lord's proclivity towards Israel is very real and has faithfully continued since the day she was born as a nation (see Deuteronomy 7:6-8). Although there may be numerous reasons for this predilection, they can condensed into one--Israel is the wife of Jesus Christ. This is a concept that has been largely lost to latter-day Israel. Could there be any better reason for Jesus Christ to love Israel! Is there any other fundamental reason why He left His Father and Mother? . . . that He might cleave unto His wife! (see Ephesians 5:30-32).

As taught throughout the scriptures, Israel's true relationship with the Lord is that of being his wife. Isaiah wrote: "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called" (Isaiah 54:5). The apostle Paul likewise noted this relationship in many of his letters (see 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 4:15-16, Ephesians 5:23-32, Colossians 1:18, and Colossians 2:19). But, in his second letter to the Corinthians, the apostle added that he, with a godly jealousy, was one who had arranged for the marriage and had "espoused [them] to one husband" (2 Corinthians 11:1-2). In his letter to the Romans, Paul mentions being married "to him who is raised from the dead" and further explains that the purpose of this joining together of head and body is so that they "should bring forth fruit unto God" (see Romans 7:4). In short, the purpose of the Husband and his wife is to bring forth a child (I will say very little about the child in this article). Indeed, the gospel is family-centered.

Thus being, the scriptures are nothing more than a record of the love-affair between the Husband and his wife. Her millennia of infidelity is, therefore, a principle topic addressed throughout the ancient records (see, in particular, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23, and the whole of Hosea). The prophet Ezekiel lived during an era of the wife's adultery, or turning to "strangers instead of her husband" (Ezekiel 16:32). Jeremiah likewise experienced Israel's departure from her Husband and described it as treachery. "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband," he wrote, "so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel" (Jeremiah 3:20). I found it of great interest that Jeremiah used this word to describe the wife's adulterous conduct inasmuch as the word treachery means "a violation of faith, betrayal of trust, an act of perfidy, faithlessness, or treason." How appropriate!

I wish that such descriptions of the Lord's wife were confined to Old Testament times. Nonetheless, in a revelation given to the prophet Joseph Smith in August 1831, the Lord declared that many in Israel (i.e., his wife) had "turned away from my commandments and have not kept them" (D&C 63:13). Continuing, the Lord explained to the prophet that "there were among you adulterers and adulteresses; some of whom have turned away from you, and others remain with you that hereafter shall be revealed" (D&C 63:14). For such treachery, the Lord afterwards outlined three penalties that shall come upon all saints who turn from their Husband and, thereby, commit adultery in their hearts: 1) fear, 2) judgment as the snare, and 3) the pit which burneth with fire and brimstone (see D&C 63:15-17). Even though it seems that there my be more penalties listed in these verses, I purposefully limited my observation to these three because they are the very ones enumerated by Isaiah as pertaining to the latter-days. As you read them, notee how Isaiah also uses the word treacherous to describe the woman of whom he is speaking:

From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.

Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth.

And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake (Isaiah 24:16-18).

In contrast to these instances of infidelity, all of the sacred records detail of the Husband's patience and long-suffering with His whorish wife (see Jacob 5). And, central to the gospel, the scriptures record the depths to which He was willing to descend (see D&C 88:6) that He might bring her out of the pit into which she had fallen to redeem her (see Alma 7:11-13). For so many years, it has seemed as though this relationship has been a one-sided love-affair. Is it any wonder that the Husband occasionally tired of His wife's infidelity and forsook her for awhile. Isaiah wrote of such a time, but also described the willingness of the Lord to return to His wife to encircle Her in the arms of His love:

For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.

In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer (Isaiah 54:6-8).

The earliest stages of this spousal-relationship between Christ and Israel is portrayed in the apostle John's panoramic view called the Book of Revelation. In Chapter 12 thereof, John recorded that "there appeared a great sign in heaven, in the likeness of things on the earth; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars" (JST, Revelation 12:1). He shortly, thereafter, identified this woman in heaven as "the church of God" (JST, Revelation 1:7). And because "the head of the woman is the man" (see 1 Corinthians 11:3, both the Husband and his wife are placed center-stage in this first verse . . . and upon Him rested the crown of twelve stars.

With the word, or seed, of her Husband planted in her womb, she fulfilled her divine role and brought forth her firstborn son, "who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron" (JST, Revelation 12:3). Because "every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness (see Alma 32:31), the child was defined by John as "the kingdom of our God and his Christ." (JST, Revelation 12:7). Joseph Smith more precisely identified this child as Zion, for "the kingdom of Zion," he wrote, "is in very deed the kingdom of our God and his Christ" (see D&C 105:32-33). The Husband, then a Father, was crowned "King of Zion" (see Moses 7:53) and his royal subjects were given a name . . . "the pure in heart" (see D&C 97:21).

On the other side of the spectrum, John also saw a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, stand "before the woman which was delivered, ready to devour her child after it was born" (JST, Revelation 12:4, compare D&C 76:25-29). It was then, that the "woman (or Church of God) fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years" (JST, Revelation 12:1–5).

By now, you may be wondering what does all the foregoing have to do with the parable of the lost sheep. You might have even forgotten that this blog was about that parable. Well, the connection between all of the foregoing and the parable is this found in a few words. The Greek for wilderness is érēmos. It has various meanings including "solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited" and "deprived of the aid and protection of others, especially of friends, acquaintances, kindred." But the definition that is of most interest is "a flock deserted by the shepherd" or "a woman neglected by her husband, from whom the husband withholds himself." I find these definitions to be spectacular in context of both the parable and John's revelation.

The wilderness into which the Shepherd went to recover his lost sheep in JST, Luke 15:2 is the very same wilderness into which the woman in Revelation 12:5 fled. Hence, the lost sheep is the Lord's bride. The characteristics between the lost sheep and the Church of God are identical. No wonder he didn't hesitate to leave the ninety and nine after that which was lost. No wonder he took her home to his friends and neighbors rejoicing. It is also of interest that the Greek for friends as used in JST, Luke 15:6 is phílos meaning “friend, to be friendly to one, wish him well, he who associates familiarly with one, or a companion." But, in context with the parable, it means "one of the bridegroom's friends who on his behalf asked the hand of the bride and rendered him various services in closing the marriage and celebrating the nuptials." Hence, similar to the apostle Paul who had arranged for the marriage of those to whom he had written and had "espoused [them] to one husband" (2 Corinthians 11:1-2), the friends to whom the Shepherd took his lost sheep were those who would arrange for the marriage of the lamb.

Indeed, this parable has great depth and meaning . . . some of which has yet to be mentioned. What began as a question concerning why Christ would eat with sinners concluded with a feast . . . the marriage supper of the Lamb.