"Bitter" + "Cup"

I've been thinking about the words “bitter cup.” (A more detailed version of this post is available here.)

How is the word “cup” used in the scriptures? A search of the KJV for the word yielded 57 references, which I divided into eight categories:

1) ACTUAL CUP – though additional symbolism is (at least sometimes) implied

2) SACRAMENTAL CUP

3) CUP OF FURY/TREMBLING/JUDGMENT

4) CUP OF THE ATONEMENT/MARTYRDOM/DISCIPLESHIP

5) CUP OF REWARD OR INHERITANCE

6) CUP OF SALVATION

7) CUP OF CONSOLATION

8 ) CUP OF ABOMINATIONS/INIQUITY

SYNTHESIS

What, if anything, do all of these verses have to with each other? First: that our discipleship is sometimes bitter in the same way (though to a lesser degree) as the Lord’s atonement. Bringing in the verses from Group 2, we see another important point: the sacramental cup is inseparably connected to that bitter cup Jesus hoped to avoid. Nevertheless, trembling, he took the cup and drank it completely. There’s something to be said about quantity and quality here: Groups 3 and 8 talk about God’s wrath and our iniquity reaching a maximum—that’s the “quantity” part. But Group 3 also refers to “the dregs,” which forces us to consider the quality of Christ’s suffering and the full meaning of his words on the cross, “It is finished.”

Lastly, the connection between Jesus’ bitter cup and our sacramental cup is both beautiful and overwhelming. That cup, which for Jesus was the bitterest, made possible the sacramental cup, which for us is the sweetest.

Read More...

Summary only...

Passover Symbolism During the Last Supper

(Yes, this is the same thing I posted at Feast Upon the Word. Why did I double-post? Because I've learned that some people who read this blog---or used to; it's been a while---don't read FUTW. So this is for you.)

As I studied the reading for Sunday School Lesson 23 (Luke 22:1-38; John 13-15), I kept coming back to the thought, "How did Jesus use the Passover feast to instruct his disciples?"

I'm going to try to present this sequentially, even though the Gospel authors don't agree in this respect. The sequence I am following is patterned after a typical Passover feast from the time period (I am relying on many sources for Passover ritual, but the one I should definitely mention is The Temple, by Alfred Edersheim). I don't know that Jesus' party followed the same schedule, but I assume that his Apostles would have been familiar with the "norm" and noticed any deviations from it.

Passover as Introduction and Conclusion

I found it particularly interesting that Jesus used the Passover, as opposed to any of the other feasts. What makes Passover such an appropriate time for his atonement? One could argue that other feasts are also rich in atonement-related symbolism; why not choose one of those dates? (Yes, I am assuming that God had some choice in the matter.) For example, why not choose Yom Kippur which, after all, means "Day of Atonement"? Or perhaps Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles/Booths), which commemorates Israel's forty years in the desert and is also one of the most joyful Jewish holidays. I could think of ways to relate that to the Atonement of Christ, if the two shared the same date.

I'm beginning to think that the reason that Passover was chosen has as much to do with the timing of the feast as it does with the symbolism of the feast itself---or, more precisely, the timing of the institution of the feast. Moses' instructions concerning the Passover occurred at a unique time in comparison to the other feasts: the Passover precedes the Law from Sinai, whereas the other feasts are part of that Law (Cf. Exodus 12 for Passover; Leviticus for other feasts). This one feature seems important because Jesus' Atonement fulfilled the "Old" Law and instituted a "new" one: Passover was before the Law and was the end of the Law.

First Cup of Wine: Rejoicing in Jehovah's Goodness

There were three to four cups of wine---mixed with water---used in the Passover feast. The first cup marked the beginning of the feast and was accompanied with a blessing of praise for Jehovah's goodness toward Israel. This is probably the cup the Apostles drank as Jesus said,

Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. (Luke 22:17-18)

Why did Jesus promise abstinence? One could say he was referring to his impending death, and using the wine as just one example of food he would not have time to enjoy; i.e. "I will not drink wine, because my death comes too soon," except that there is a reasonable expectation that Jesus partook of other foods at the Supper. The wine stands out as something uniquely refused. The reason may have to do with the purpose of this cup: the disciples could drink and rejoice in Jehovah's goodness, but Jehovah himself was too burdened by the thought of his ultimate act of goodness (Cf. D&C 19) to delight in that particular celebration. That juxtaposition is troubling for me: my greatest joy is Jesus' greatest agony.

Washing the Feet

After the first cup of wine, participants washed their hands. Obviously there was a practical aspect to washing one's hands before eating, but the ritual cleansing also symbolized making oneself spiritually clean. The account in John 13 isn't exactly clear on when Jesus "[rose] from supper...and began to wash the disciples' feet," but I suppose it was immediately following the first cup of wine.

Jesus plays off of the meaning of this symbol in at least two significant ways:

1. He washes the disciples; they do not wash themselves---just as his atonement cleans them spiritually, which they cannot do for themselves.


2. Jesus does not wash his own hands. How then was he made clean so as to be able to participate in the rest of the meal? Jesus could be showing that by serving others one makes oneself clean.

It's possible Jesus had both meanings in mind when he said of his disciples---and Judas in particular---"ye are clean, but not all" (John 13:10). The eleven were clean because they lived worthy to receive the atonement (meaning #1) and because they served others (meaning #2), but Judas forfeited both, due to his treachery (meaning #1) and his selfishness (Cf. John 12:6).

(Yes, Jesus also makes a point about service and humility, but that does not play off the original meaning of the symbol. As an interesting side note, however, when the disciples later argue about "which of them should be accounted the greatest," Jesus replies, "he that is chief, [let him be] as he that doth serve" (Luke 22:24-30). Is Jesus teaching that the way to be the "greatest" is to serve others, or is he pointing out that because he (Jesus) serves others he is already the greatest? The former has a sort of job-opening feel---"Wanted: Great People; Qualifications: Serve Others"---whereas the later indicates that that position is already taken. In other words, Jesus is already the greatest, and compared to his glory, of what significance are the differences between the disciples?)

Bitter Herbs

After the first cup of wine and the ritual washing, the head of the dinner party (the father of the home, or Jesus in this case) took some bitter herbs sandwiched between pieces of unleavened bread, dipped them in salt water or vinegar, and ate them. He then gave some to everyone else at the feast. I've always thought it strange that Jesus identified Judas as his betrayer with this gesture, rather than simply pointing at him, but maybe the symbolism holds some answers.

The unleavened bread which formed part of the "sop" was meant to remind everyone of the haste with which they were freed from bondage, mirroring nicely the haste with which Jesus would be tried and crucified, and the haste with which we can be freed from sin by calling on his name (Cf. Helaman 5). Sandwiched in between this symbol of liberation were the bitter herbs, representing the trials endured in Egypt. But how did Israel get stuck in Egypt in the first place? Hadn't Joseph saved Egypt by feeding them through the famine? Didn't Pharaoh commit the land of Goshen to the Israelites? But, as we know, "there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph" (Exodus 1:8), who reneged on the promises between Joseph and the previous pharaoh. Thus, Egypt (and the bitter herbs) represents not only persecution, but also betrayal.

The "sop" of bitter herbs and unleavened bread would have been the last part of the feast Judas 'enjoyed,' for "having received the sop [Judas] went immediately out: and it was night" (John 13:30).

Paschal Lamb

The feast on the lamb was obviously a major part of the meal. Strange, then, that there is almost no mention of it in the Gospels. There is rich symbolism between the lamb and Jesus, but since this post is on how Jesus used Passover symbolism to teach his disciples, and there is no record of how Jesus may have done this, that is all I will say about this portion of the feast.

The Wine of Blessing and 'Extra' Bread

After feasting on the lamb, participants were not to eat anything more until dawn, although drink was permitted. Jesus, however, apparently 'broke' this rule by passing bread along with wine.

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.' Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.' (Luke 22:19-20)

What is the significance of 'breaking' the Passover rules with the institution of the sacrament? Possibly this was symbolic of the fact that once Jesus, the Lamb of God, had completed his Passover sacrifice, the 'rules' of the Passover no longer applied. In their place we find new rules and a new ordinance to remember them. Thus, the sacrament is an indication or remembrance that The Passover has been fulfilled.

It's also interesting to note that Jesus used the third cup---the cup of blessing---to institute the sacrament. This cup was drunk in thanks for a meal just enjoyed, whether at Passover or some other occasion. Just as this cup normally stood for thanks for the Passover meal, in the sacrament this cup shows thanks for The Passover sacrifice.

The Hallel

Matthew tells us that "when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives" (Matthew 26:30). I'm not going to go into detail on this, since it is merely mentioned by Matthew, but I felt I should at least mention the hymn. The full Hallel is essentially Psalms 113-118. I mention it because Psalm 118 in particular (especially verse 22) is such a meaningful way to end the Last Supper and frame the discourse that would become John 15-17.

Read More...

Summary only...

Resource for Sunday School Teachers

There is a new blog devoted to being a resource for teachers. It is called Feast Upon the Word Blog. Some may recognize the name as coming from the scripture study wiki Feast Upon the Word. Indeed, the creator of the wiki is also behind the blog, and I was lucky enough to be asked to participate (and flattered but mostly terribly intimidated by the invitation as well).

There are three main categories of posts on the blog:
1) Sunday School lessons: these will cover specific reading assignments in the New Testament (this year) and will include notes, questions, handouts, and lesson plans.
2) Study guides: these will address study methods, including (for examples) how to study a specific chapter or how to deal with Greek translation.
3) Teaching topics: these will include both generally applicable and specific topics. By general, I mean topics that apply to any lesson, regardless of the reading assignment, such as how to ask questions, how to involve shy students, what to do differently with large vs. small classes. By specific, I mean topics dealing with a specific lesson, such as how to introduce the Joseph Smith Translation or how to make sense of Paul's epistles.

Note that the blog has just begun and so these categories are not firmly established and there may be more added.

I'll still be posting here, though the themes will change a bit since most of what I've done here in the past has been Sunday School-oriented. (I'm thinking of making this more of my daily scripture reading blog.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Malachi, Horeb, and the New Old Testament

"Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:4-6)

As long as I can remember, it's been pretty clear to me why Elijah is mentioned at the end of Malachi: the appearance of Elijah (and others) to Joseph Smith is pretty central to my religion. But what does Moses and Mount Horeb have to do with that?

"Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children." (Deuteronomy 4:10)

Moses and Horeb are like Joseph and the Grove: the prophet and the place where religion originated. We could view Horeb as the place where the "Old" Testament began, in the sense that it is where the LORD establishes his covenant (in writing) with Israel (Deuteronomy 5:2).

But another prophet also went to Horeb:

"And [Elijah] arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.

"And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him.... And he said, 'Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.' And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice." (1 Kings 19:8-12)

Elijah's experience on Horeb was different from his forebear's: Moses received the Law, establishing a covenant with a nation; Elijah's was a personal manifestation of the LORD, renewing his prophetic calling---or, in a way, his personal covenants.

(How fitting that both prophets were translated and would later appear together on another mount.)

Read More...

Summary only...

What Is My God?

I've been thinking about a common theme in the Old Testament: The Israelites are constantly straying to other gods. The common application to us today is to ask, "Who/what is your god?"
But how should I understand the question? How do I know whether something has become my god, replacing the true God?

The Book of Hosea gives one definition: My god is whatever I trust:

"For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, 'I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.'

"Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, 'I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.'" (Hosea 2:5-7)

Some verses in Isaiah may give a slightly different definition: My god is whatever I credit:

"Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, 'He made me not?' or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, 'He had no understanding'?" (Isaiah 29:16)

There is also the popular definition: My god is whatever I focus on:

"And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions...they will not remember him. O how foolish...are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world!" (Helaman 12:3-4)

Any additional definitions (with accompanying scriptures) would be appreciated.

Mocking the False Gods
However we define our false god(s), Isaiah has something quite humorous to say about it:

"Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.

"He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, 'Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire': And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, 'Deliver me; for thou art my god.'

"And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, 'I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?'" (Isaiah 44:15-19)

In other words: "Wake up, you fool! The thing you reverence so deeply is the very thing you yourself created. It should be serving you!"

(And some people think that only Elijah knows how to irreverently mock.)

Speaking of Elijah...
There is an interesting difference between what Elijah teaches and what Joshua demanded. Joshua famously demands a choice:

"Choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

Elijah, on the other hand, shows that there is no choice:

"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.'" (1 Kings 18:21)

Now that may sound a lot like what Joshua said, but look at how Elijah follows up on his question:

"And they...called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, 'O Baal, hear us.' But there was no voice, nor any that answered.

"And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, 'Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.'

"And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

"And it came to pass...that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, 'LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.' Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

"And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, 'The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.'" (1 Kings 18:26-39, emphasis added)

Read More...

Summary only...

God’s Promises

The Book of Job offers many lessons, and one is that conventional wisdom about God is often wrong. As an example, read Eliphaz’ claim:

"Call to mind now: Who, being innocent, ever perished? And where were upright people ever destroyed? Even as I have seen, those who plow iniquity and those who sow trouble reap the same." (4:7-8)

This may sound good, unless one reads the first and last chapter of Job. In the first, we learn that "[Job] was pure and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil" (1:1), so hardly one deserving of destruction. In the last, we read God’s own rejection of Eliphaz: "My anger is stirred up against you and your two friends, because you have not spoken about me what is right" (42:7). The Book of Job leaves us with a God who blesses and curses whomever he pleases.

So what should we make of these verses:

"And keep the charge of the LORD thy God...that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest" (1 Kings 2:3)

"The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy" (Psalms 145:20)

"He that is righteous is favored of God" (1 Nephi 17:33-35)

"Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?" (D&C 58:31)

"I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say" (D&C 82:10)

With the Book of Job under our arm, we might be reluctant to enter into any agreement with the Lord, fearing that we are either mistaken in our theology (God does not strike bargains) or misplacing our trust (God is too unpredictable). In regard to the latter, we turn to Alma’s words:

"For he will fulfil all his promises which he shall make unto you, for he has fulfilled his promises which he has made unto our fathers" (Alma 37:17)

Alma makes something very clear: God will fulfill the promises he makes to you, the individual. By including this phrase, Alma reminds us that promises are non-transferable; a promise made to one person or group does not necessarily apply to another.

Numerous examples support this idea. One is found in the Book of Mosiah. King Mosiah’s sons decided on missions in hostile Lamanite lands, and their father understandably feared for their lives. The Lord comforts Mosiah with a promise that he would "deliver [Mosiah's] sons out of the hands of the Lamanites" (Mosiah 28:7). While parents today would like to have that same promise as they send their sons and daughters around the world, tragically some missionaries in recent years were not brought home safely.

While this may seem like "harsh doctrine," it is important to understand. The alternative incorrectly assumes participation in certain promises, only to be discouraged or disbelieving when results fall short of expectations.

It is far better to identify which promises have actually been made. Many promises found in the scriptures are available to anyone who complies with the requirements—we could call these "opt-in promises." Notice the inclusive terms "all" and "every":

"For every one that asketh receiveth" (Matthew 7:8)

"sanctification...to all those who love and serve God" (D&C 20:31)

Additionally, modern prophets extend promises on behalf of the Lord:

"Without reservation I promise you that if each of you will...[read the Book of Mormon]..." (GBH, A Testimony Vibrant and True, Ensign, August 2005)

Lastly, while the promises made to King Mosiah may not be ours, we can certainly follow his example. He sought and received a promise specific to his need, and so can we. Patriarchal blessings are one source of these "personalized promises," as are personal prayer and priesthood blessings. Furthermore, King Mosiah brings out an important point often lost in discussions of Job: God is open to ideas. We see this with Abraham, Alma the Younger, and John, among others.

The bottom line is that God is a God of promises. He retains complete control over the terms and the participants, but once he makes a promise he is bound. So why include all those stories in the scriptures if the promises only apply to the people in the stories? Because they demonstrate that God has a habit of making and delivering on his promises:

"For he will fulfil all his promises which he shall make unto you, for he has fulfilled his promises which he has made unto our fathers." (Alma 37:17)

Read More...

Summary only...

God as a Woman (Isaiah 49:15)

The Bible likens the Lord to many different things in order to illustrate his relationship with us. In those comparisons, the Lord is usually represented in a masculine form: bridegroom, king, husband, warrior, father, tradesman. (Each of these is used often enough that I don't feel that they need citations.)

As far as I know, there are only two* scriptures that cast the Lord in a feminine form:

"Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee." (Isaiah 49:15)

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37)

Nevermind any speculation on what this might mean concerning the nature of God, Heavenly Mother, etc. I want to point out three things:

1. In both cases, the relationship is Mother:Child, with the Lord in the dominant role.
2. Both use very tender imagery, but illustrate two different aspects of our relationship with God.
3. The comparisons are beautiful.

___________________________

* The following is an addition after posting made in response to Julie M. Smith's comment:

Deuteronomy 32:11:

"As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:"

The problem with this example is that the eagle in many translations is neuter; ie. "its wings" instead of "her wings." (My Israeli friend confirms that the Hebrew reads as either "him" or "it.") Perhaps KJV translators erroneously assumed that an eagle hen is abandoned by the cock and alone must care for the young?

Deuteronomy 32:18:

"Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee."

I read this as a masculine reference. Compare Isaiah 51:1-2, where Abraham is a rock and Sarah is a quarry.

Job 38:29:

"Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?"

Thanks for the addition.

Psalms 22:9-10:

"But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly."

The way I read this verse, the speaker (David?) is referring to his actual mother, not comparing God to a woman. He is saying, "I have had faith in you since the day I was born."

Psalms 91:4:

"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."

This is an example of God as a bird, but not as a hen. It reads "his feathers."

Isaiah 42:14:

"I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once."

Good example. Thanks!

Isaiah 66:9:

"Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God."

I am intrigued by this one. Is the LORD giving birth or is he acting as midwife? The verse on its own reads as the former, but the context points to the latter. Either way, it is a female role.

Isaiah 66:13:

"As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

Beautiful! Thanks for the addition.

Read More...

Summary only...

Forcing Peace (Isaiah 2:4)

In the past, whenever I have read Isaiah 2:4, I have read it as a time when the Lord would live on this earth and "fix all its problems," specifically that he would bring about world peace:

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

As I read it this year, something stood out to me: the verse doesn't say anything about the Lord establishing peace. He will "judge" and he will "rebuke," but it is the people that will abandon war, thus ushering in a time of unprecedented peace.

(Of course, the Lord's judgments and reproofs will undoubtedly play an important role in bringing about the necessary changes of heart.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Abraham Part VII: A Strange Definition of Rest

Found:

"...finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me..."

We end how Abraham began—a phrase I have always found humorous. What could Abraham possibly mean by "greater...rest"? If we look at Abraham’s life, we see that this is both an understatement and a very strange definition.

As an understatement, we have to look at the context of the verse: Abraham has chosen to leave his father’s house in Ur and pursue a path that will lead him to Jehovah. If we remember that Abraham had narrowly escaped being sacrificed to his own father’s gods—a fate that apparently Abraham’s brother suffered—then we might say that for Abraham, things could only get easier. So "greater happiness and peace and rest" might simply mean "getting away from my filicidal dad."

But this is not how Abraham is thinking. First, he takes his father with him. Second, he is clearly not referring to getting away from a rotten former life but instead he is describing how he views the life that lay ahead. What I find so interesting is that Abraham makes this statement after living the post-Ur life; i.e. this is Abraham looking back over his life and calling it happy, peaceful, and restful.

A reminder of some of the events in Abraham’s life will show why this is noteworthy. During Abraham's life he:

• Flees from drought
• Wanders as a stranger in Canaan
• Fears he will be killed in Egypt
• Goes to battle against a huge army
• Sees his son-in-law’s family get nearly destroyed
• Goes without children until he is well over 60 years old
• Is told to sacrifice his own son
• Toils to make a living where he owns no land
• Expels one of his own sons from his household

Abraham’s life was filled with events that we would normally call hardships, trials, or challenges, yet he remembers the walk up the mount with Isaac and the expulsion of Ishmael as "happy"; he looks back on the conflicts with Pharaoh, Abimelech, and the conquerors of Sodom and calls it "peace"; he recalls the miles and miles of travel, travel, travel in search of the land of his inheritance and he calls it "rest." Was Abraham crazy, or was he just blessed with wisdom to see the good in the bad he had experienced?

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid" (John 14:27).

Incidentally, there is only one other verse in the scriptures that uses this combination of words (Alma 40: 12):

"And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow."

This concludes my series on Abraham 1:2. If you followed the series and liked the way it was published, please let me know. If you found it annoying (ie. you would have preferred to have it all at once) let me know as well. Thanks.

Read More...

Summary only...

Abraham Part VI: Defining the Priesthood

Sought:

"...sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same..."

Abraham states what he desires, but it is not the same as what he seeks. This is not a foreign concept for those who have read Matthew 6:23:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

In this manner, Abraham does not seek learning so that he can "possess a greater knowledge," he does not seek personal enrichment so that he can be a "greater follower of righteousness," and so on. In order to obtain the blessings he desires, he seeks the priesthood.

This gives us interesting insight into how Abraham viewed the priesthood and its effect on those who exercise it. If asked to define the priesthood, Abraham might agree with some of the answers we commonly hear: The power of God, An eternal principle, A form of government, An opportunity to serve. But this verse suggests that Abraham might give a different definition: The means by which God’s blessings are realized.

Thinking of the priesthood in this way brings new understanding to the promise made to Abraham in the following chapter (Abraham 2:9,11):

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal."

Read More...

Summary only...

Abraham Part V: Commandments as Rewards

...continued from Part IV:

4) Abraham understands the purpose of commandments: Many people mistakenly think that a relationship with God should progress in the same way as a relationship with parents; ie. in childhood there are numerous rules to follow, but as one grows older and proves oneself more responsible, fewer and fewer rules are imposed as they eventually become unnecessary. Abraham, however, desires to more "instructions." Rather than view commandments as restrictions, Abraham sees them as rewards for good behavior.
Adam and Eve exemplify this pattern (Moses 5:1-11):

"And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him. And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth."

They were obedient to the commandments they had been given (Moses 4:22, 25, 28) and then pray to God:

"And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord..."

And what did they pray for? We do not know, but we see how they were rewarded for their obedience:

"...And he gave unto them commandments..."

Once again, Adam and Eve were obedient:

"...that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord."

And how were they rewarded this time? With knowledge:

"And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam…saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth."

...and more commandments:

"Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore."

Which ultimately leads to the greatest (in my opinion; because it was without precedent) moment of revelation in human history:

"And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam...saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.

"And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

Read More...

Summary only...

Abraham Part IV: Order One of Everything

...continued from Part III:

3) Abraham is ambitious: or some may say, "audacious." Abraham—without qualification (stipulation)—wants to be "a father of many nations" and "a prince of peace." Several questions come to mind, none of which I have answers to: Was this the standard dream for men in ancient times, or was Abraham really thinking big? Was Abraham the exception, or should all of us ask for truly great rewards? What does Abraham mean by "prince of peace"? Was Abraham promised this before or because he desired it?

Alma 29:3 seems relevant:

"But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me."

Read More...

Summary only...

Abraham Part III: Obedience & Righteousness

...continued from Part II:

2) Abraham seems repetitive (again): he wants to be a "follower of righteousness" and also “to keep the commandments”. This may not seem repetitive until one tries to define “righteousness”—which must include some mention of keeping the commandments. The difference between the two can be explained by Matthew 24:45-46:

“Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.”

...and D&C 58:26:

“For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.”

Abraham sees the difference between patiently serving by one’s actions (keeping the commandments) and taking the initiative to serve with one’s whole heart, mind, and body (following righteousness).

Read More...

Summary only...

Abraham Part II: Depth & Breadth of Knowledge

...continued from Part I:

Abraham tells us, in reverse order, what he desired, how he went about obtaining it, and what it brought him:

Desired:

"…desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God…"

There are several interesting points here:

1) Abraham seems repetitive: he mentions "great knowledge" and then "greater knowledge." The difference Abraham saw between these two gifts is possibly explained in D&C 42:61:

"If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal."

In other words, Abraham wanted to understand what was already understood by the prophets of God and the sages of the world, but he also wanted to extend his understanding beyond what was already known. (We see in Chapter 3-5 some of the fulfillment of this wish.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Abraham Part I: Desired -> Sought -> Found

The Book of Abraham begins with a personal statement from the patriarch himself. In a single verse, Abraham teaches an incredible amount:

“And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.”

The verse could be broken into three parts: what Abraham desired, what he sought, and what he found. What is the relationship of these three terms? I have hinted at my answer in the title of this post. “Desire” implies craving, yearning, or wishing, but does not necessitate any action on the desirer’s part to obtain the object of his attention. “Seeking” means that action is being taken to reach the goal. Finally, “found” means that the efforts were successful. Abraham tells us, in reverse order, what he desired, how he went about obtaining it, and what it brought him.

continue to Part II...



Over the next several days, I will post the remainder of my thoughts on this verse. Please feel free to jump ahead of me in your comments; if I don't want to discuss something "early" I will say so.

If this format seems a bit "Moggetish" (a la Faith-Promoting Rumor), that's not entirely accidental. Which is not to say that it was intentional or that it remotely approaches what Mogget would publish.

Read More...

Summary only...

Prostituting Oneself Before God

In another post, I wrote about the neurological basis for monogamy in animals. One of the findings of this research is that by producing strong sensations, sex sends powerful messages to the brain that, in species capable of monogamy, create a strong association between the good feelings and the mating partner; thus, a pair bond is formed.

We often think of sex between humans as serving at least two purposes: reproduction and strengthening the bond between husband and wife. In the book of Hosea we see another purpose: prostitutes use sex to get money (Hosea 2:5).

The difference between how a faithful spouse and a prostitute use sex is important for recognizing one of the messages in Hosea. Gomer, who works as a prostitute despite her marriage to Hosea, represents the Israelites, who were worshipping other gods in addition to Jehovah.

While this divided loyalty was itself a problem, it reveals an even more serious defect in the Israelites’ concept of God. To them, the acts of worship—prayer, sacrifice, temple rituals—were performed in order that God would give them such things as rain, abundant crops, or protection in war. Just as to a prostitute, for whom the consummating act of marriage does not serve to increase the “pair bond” but rather to get money, the Israelites viewed worship as a means of obtaining material blessings rather than bringing them closer to God. Gomer and the Israelites were not merely unfaithful, the way someone in an adulterous relationship looks for love from an illegitimate source, they were prostitutes, meaning it was not love they were after.

This attitude changes the purpose of religious worship and wrongly supposes that God wants this kind of relationship. If Israel is like a prostitute when they act this way, then any god who accepts such a proposition is a john—or, a prostitute’s client. A john wants gratification and pledges a financial reward; this kind of god wants sacrifice, supplication, etc. and pays with blessings.

Jehovah rejects being portrayed this way...

14 Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.
16 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me [Husband]; and shalt call me no more [Master].
19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.

...just as elsewhere he rejects the notion that he gets any satisfaction from the actual acts of worship (1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:11; especially Psalms 40:6-8; 51:16-17). Instead, God hopes that our religious service will bring us closer to him.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Limit of God's Power

The closing chapters of Job contain God’s response to Job and his friends. In previous chapters, Job wishes he could sue God for justice, but doubts his ability to get the Almighty to appear in court. Chapter 38 opens with God granting Job’s wish:

“Then Jehovah answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

“Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; For I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who determined the measures thereof, if thou knowest?” (38:1-5)

It’s a terrifying challenge, made all the more unnerving due to the obvious taunt inherent in the doubt expressed: “if thou hast understanding; if thou knowest.”

The following chapters focus on God’s omnipotence and Job’s lack. (For an excellent breakdown, see Mogget’s post at FPR.) To summarize: God proclaims his power over the earth, sea, light, darkness, death, stars, and animals—even the supernatural beasts Behemoth and Leviathan:

“Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fishhook? Canst thou put a rope into his nose? Will he make many supplications unto thee? Or will he speak soft words unto thee? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird?” (40:1-5)

What is God’s motive? Before answering that question, I think there is an important detail that is often overlooked: Out of all the things that God mentions that he creates, controls, and destroys at his whim, there is one omission: God never mentions Job.

In this light, I think Job’s response is more meaningful:

“Then Job answered Jehovah, and said,

“I know that thou canst do all things, And that no purpose of thine can be restrained. Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not, Things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine eye seeth thee: Wherefore I abhor 'myself', And repent in dust and ashes.” (42:1-6)

Job gives up control to God, and in so doing, gives what God could not take for himself: Job’s faith, loyalty, and free will. When reprimanding Eliphaz, we see that God is pleased by Job’s sacrifice:

“[My] servant Job shall pray for you; for him will I accept, that I deal not with you after your folly; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.” (42:8)

God’s purpose in Ch. 38-41, therefore, is to evoke submission from Job. The question that remains is what was God’s tactic? To scare Job? To impress him? To humiliate him? Or was it a more loving approach: to reassure him? (Cf. Psalm 23)

Read More...

Summary only...

A Moment of Blindness

In 2 Kings 5, we read a story about Naaman (that I can't seem to get off my mind—see here and here). One question that is often raised about this story is if Naaman was exhibiting "blind obedience."

I think this story could be broken down into four parts. In only one of these is Naaman actually—albeit figuratively—"blind":

1. When Naaman first hears about Elisha and then goes to Israel to see him (verses 1-4, 9). Here he is hopeful.

2. When Naaman is angered by the simplicity of Elisha's command (verses 11-12). Here he is enraged—and "blind" as a result.

3. When Naaman's servant helps him to "see" the error of his anger (verses 13-14). Here he is reasonable.

4. When Naaman, by virtue of the miracle, proclaims his testimony of the living God (verse 15). Here he is enlightened.

When breaking the story into these four parts, it is interesting that the word taher—clean—is used exactly four times: in verses 10, 12, 13, and 14. Also interesting, is that three of the verses use the word in the context of "made whole," whereas in only one verse (12) is its meaning the more ordinary "free from dirt" (read correction below).

Correction, 11 Aug 2006: I want to correct the last sentence of the last paragraph, which I have now placed in italics.

The word "taher" is indeed used four times in this chapter, and corresponds to the four parts as mentioned. This verb is translated into English as "clean, "purify," etc. Since first posting, I have researched this word and found my statement about how Naaman uses it to be unsupportable.

"Taher" is a command form, so it is appropriate that Elisha use it to tell Naaman what to do. It also always implies purification, not just removing dirt. Thus, when Naaman used the word, he could not have misunderstood its meaning, contrary to what I stated in my original post.

I have left the statement in the original post so that anyone who read it will not be confused.

Read More...

Summary only...

Naaman's Test and Testimony

In his lesson notes posted at Times & Seasons, Jim F asks a question that strikes at the heart of the Naaman Story: "Why is it important that Naaman 'know that there is a prophet in Israel'?"

This story teaches one thing so clearly—namely, that we should obey prophets—that we often forget the larger point that Elisha tried (successfully) to make. In verse 8, Elisha predicts,

8 Let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.

The placement of this prophecy at the introduction sets it up as the theme of the entire story.

In this light, Elisha's decision to send a messenger in verse 10 makes much more sense. It might be argued that Elisha did this because he wanted to test Naaman’s faith, but I don’t think that is Elisha’s stated motive. Nevertheless, let’s briefly explore that issue.

Testing Naaman’s Faith
The test of faith is in what Naaman is instructed to do, not how the instruction came to him. Naaman cannot see how such a simple act—washing in a small river—could possibly cure him. Certainly he has tried many other things, including all of the magic of the religions of Syria, so it is no surprise that he seems to think he has wasted his time coming to Israel. Naaman expects something bigger than any remedy he has tried, not to mention bigger than this plan of Elisha's:

11 Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

From this complaint, we might suppose that Naaman has heard about Elijah’s magnificent triumph over the prophets of Baal, and he expects Elisha to put on a similar display.

Analogous Messengers
What cures Naaman in the end is his obedience. The question is: his obedience to ___________? Many would fill in the blank with, “the prophet,” but again, I do not think the story teaches this. Naaman doesn’t actually talk to Elisha, he just hears his message. So when Naaman assents to washing in Jordan, he is obeying the message, not the prophet directly.

This point is vital to the lesson that Naaman takes home with him. Just as most people do not hear from God directly, Naaman does not hear from Elisha directly; Elisha sends his orders via a messenger, just as Elisha himself is merely acting as the Lord’s messenger.

Naaman’s Testimony
Elisha makes the prediction that after this miracle, Naaman will know that there is a prophet in Israel. Let’s look at Naaman’s words, to see if that is actually what he takes away from his experience. Naaman said,

15 Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel.

The take-home (literally) message for Naaman—and indeed, what I think Elisha was really trying to teach all along—is that obedience to God means obedience to his words, be they receieved directly from God himself, from the mouth of a prophet, or even delivered by a messenger. Furthermore, Elisha teaches Naaman something far more important than knowing there is a prophet: he teaches whom a prophet represents.

Read More...

Summary only...

How to Refuse a Calling

Some callings in the Church are coveted; others are feared. Whether one accepts a calling or not is ultimately a private matter between one and the Lord. But to suggest that it is a matter of personal preference ignores two important facts:
1. The Lord rarely issues the calling himself. Instead, he goes through one of his servants on earth—be they a prophet, bishop, or Relief Society president.
2. The Lord has given examples in the scriptures of how to act when called to do something that seems impossible.

I believe there are many scriptures that address this issue, but none better than 1 Kings 17:9-16. Elijah has been sent to Zarephath, in modern-day Lebanon, to be cared for by a widow. The widow, whose name remains unknown, has been "commanded…to sustain [Elijah]" by the Lord (1 Kings 17:9). Unfortunately, we have no record of how or when she received this commandment.

As we follow the narrative, we immediately see a problem:

10 So he arose and went to Zarephath. And when he came to the gate of the city, behold, the widow woman was there gathering of sticks: and he called to her, and said,

Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.

11 And as she was going to fetch it, he called to her, and said,

Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thine hand.

Due to a curse on the land by the hand of Elijah, there was a severe drought, and we can assume that this contributed to the impoverished state of the widow and her son.

12 And she said,

As the LORD thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die.

What a heartbreaking reply from this poor widow! Not only would it be a sacrifice for her to feed Elijah, it would be the ultimate sacrifice. In her answer we find a noble example: she does not ask for pity, nor does she ask to be released from Elijah’s request. She simply and plainly tells the prophet the facts as she sees them.

This makes Elijah’s response seem all the more demanding:

13 And Elijah said unto her,

Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son.

With her heart already beaten down by her situation and her inability to provide for her son, we can only imagine how hard these words were to hear. "I have nothing," she said, only to hear the charge, "Then give even that." Elijah’s command, however, is not without hope: she said there was enough meal for one cake only, yet in saying, "after make for thee and for thy son," Elijah hints that there will be enough for at least three. Indeed, Elijah promises much more:

14 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth.

What an uplifting—and yet, seemingly impossible—promise in the face of such a demoralizing request! It is in this moment, in the way that she responds, that we learn the most from this faithful widow:

15 And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days.

Those three words—"went and did"—tell us everything we needed to know about this woman. Furthermore, they tell us everything we need to know about what the Lord expects when he issues a calling, "whether by [his] own voice or by the voice of [his] servants" (D&C 1:38). The widow did not refuse, but she did not immediately agree to something she felt incapable of doing either (see Mosiah 4:27 and D&C 10:4). Instead, she informed Elijah of her abilities and concerns, then left it up to him to retract or to repeat his demand.

The closing sentence does more than just give us a happy ending, it emphasizes the major themes of the story: first, that the Lord is faithful to those who are faithful, even to fulfilling all of his promises (Alma 37:17); and second, that those promises are made by the Lord through his servants.

16 And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah.

Read More...

Summary only...