Sunday School Lesson 41: I Have Made Thee This Day...an Iron Pillar

Jeremiah is one of the major prophets of the Old Testament, and has a fairly miserable experience.  He gets beaten, imprisoned, stoned, and otherwise mistreated throughout the course of his ministry but somehow remains faithful. Over the course of his life, he will prophesy against Israel and Judah, act out several parables (he's got nothing on Hosea, who was instructed to marry a prostitute, or Ezekiel, who had to lie on his side for 390 days, but still, there definitely were some awkward moments when he probably felt like the only adult in a grade-school theatrical production), and eventually ends up in Egypt, at which point his writings stop. His preaching focuses on the need for repentance to avoid the decreed babylonian captivity. He was supported in the early part of his ministry by Josiah, the King of Judah, but not by the subsequent kings, Jehoikim or Zedekiah.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. I know this is a scripture mastery and somewhat trite through overusage, but I still think it is a powerful message.  God knew us before the formation of our physical bodies and ordained us to specific works.  Or, at least did so with some of his children.  I don't find it a stretch to assume that what he said to Jeremiah could be said to any of us with a different ordination.

Jeremiah 1:9 Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.  Isaiah had an encounter with the Lord that was focused on his mouth as well, in Isaiah 6:7, but his experience was more around the fact that he felt too sinful to see the Lord, so a seraphim took a live coal from the altar and put it on Isaiah's mouth and his iniquity was taken away and his sin purged. It reminds me of John, when he saw the angels coming at the end of the world and one of them had a little book that John was commanded to eat and once he ate it, his belly was bitter and he was commanded to prophesy.  The thing about all this that is interesting to me is the focus on the mouth.  I would think that if the Lord was to bless me with the ability to speak, I would expect the blessing to be upon my head, i.e. my intellect, rather than on my actual tongue.

Jeremiah 2:3 Israel was holiness to the Lord (emphasis added). This a sad to me. It is preceded by the statement that the Lord remembers when Israel was young and he led them through the wilderness but now they've forsaken him.

Jeremiah 2:9 Wherefore i will yet plead with you, saith the Lord, and with your children's children will I plead.  People often think of Jehovah in the Old Testament as a vengeful God, and I get that - he definitely seems to have been a little more decisive back then, swifter to take action both for and against people than we seem to experience today, but he was also a loving, tender, merciful God, who will plead with his children, and their children after them to please repent, return to him, and be happy, be healed.

Jeremiah 2:13 For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.  This one is commonly considered a Christ reference, and together with the reference in Zechariah, is the source for Christ's quotations about being the living water when he was alive.  The broken cisterns are a reference to false Gods who can provide no eternal benefit to their believers.

Jeremiah 2:19-28 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God...but in time of their trouble they will say, Arise and save us.  But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save the in time of thy trouble.  Arguably one of the greatest scriptures in all of the Old Testament.  How fitting and just is this?  Our own wickedness will be the executor of our punishment, we the authors, our choices the punishment.  The logic of bringing something upon yourself is not lost on the Lord, and the theme is repeated throughout this book. It is oddly divergent from the other message that is equally rampant, that of, repent and I will take you back right now.  This, to me, really strikes at the timing of our penitence.  Are we humble and seeking the Lord when we don't seem to need him  (temporally speaking) or do we wait until we are in some sort of trouble and realize how helpless we are without him?  To me, this is a statement of proximity.  If we gleefully ignore the teachings of the prophets until we're drowning and then cry out, save me, the Lord will likely say, you're nowhere near me, you've swum away from me.  If, on the other hand, we are striving daily to draw near unto him, he will likewise draw near unto us and when we cry out, as Peter did, that we are sinking, he will save us in accordance with his will and our faith.

Jeremiah 3:6-11 Has thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done?...And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw when for all the causes whereby backsliding israel committed adultery...yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also...And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned to me with her whole heart, but feignedly...the backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.  There's a lot that goes into that passage, but the essence is that the Lord is a lot more upset with hypocrisy than he is with up-and-up disobedience.  If  obedience is the first law of heaven, hypocrisy must be the first law of hell.  In the New Testament, Christ rarely got worked up but he seemed to take great issue with hypocrites. Revelation 3:15 talks about being either hot or cold.  Basically, pick a lane.  The Nephites were destroyed before the Lamanites in large part due to their hypocritical attitude toward the light and knowledge they had received.   What does that mean for the USA?  After being so blessed, are we going to fall the faster for our lack of commitment to being either wholly behind Christ or wholly behind Satan?  Will nations where it is acceptable to murder and steal as long as you are up front about it last longer than ours where we pretend to care but the reality is that we care only when it is politically expedient that we do so?

And, unfortunately, that's it.  I have to get this up and don't have time to go through the whole of Jeremiah.  I'll probably read it through without writing any notes about it just so I can keep on schedule. 

Sunday School Lesson 40: Enlarge the Place of thy Tent

Isaiah 54:7 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.  This is spoken to the "desolate." If taken in isolation, it could be messianic, speaking of Christ's suffering on the cross when he asked why God had forsaken him, but the preceding verses make it clear that he is speaking to Christ's betrothed.  So is that the Jews or the Church? Is the small moment the past couple thousand years, or is it the time that each of us suffers following sin when his spirit is withdrawn from us?

Isaiah 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children. Taken in context with the rest of the chapter, this would seem to be a societal teaching that applies to all the children in the community, but I've always looked at this one as though it could stand alone and refer to our individual families.  When we teach our children about the Lord, the peace of our children will be great.  Of course, in English, this verse could mean that All thy children will be taught BY the Lord, not ABOUT, thanks to the ambiguity of our sentence structure.  Either way, I like to think this one can apply to our children.  Being taught by the Lord might mean that they will be enlightened by his Spirit, so perhaps the ambiguous grammar is useful because it is both.  The Ukrainian says something like, All your children will become the Lord's students.  It didn't really help in understanding who would be doing the teaching the way I wanted to, because the word used for student is similar to the word used for disciple, and with disciples, the onus is on the disciple to learn and follow, not necessarily on the Lord to teach and lead.

Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.  I'm pretty sure the first time I heard this line and noticed it was in a reggae song, either the Fugees or Bob Marley.  It's a pretty generous promise.

Isaiah 55:2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.  This verse is a ponderer.  How frequently do we waste our efforts trying to acquire things that have no lasting significance? What do we focus on that is not going to bring us happiness?  If you could know beforehand that your efforts toward a particular thing were going to feel like a waste of time when you are finished, how seriously would you take it.  Yet, on the flipside, this may well refer to things like pursuing a career.  I doubt that my job is something that satisfies in a spiritual sense, but I still need to make money if I am going to support my family. Does the spiritual responsibility of supporting my family offset the spiritually unimportant elements of my job? Because at the end of the day, supplying overpriced athletic-wear to middle class citizens is probably not very spiritually important.
It could refer to our non-productive time, though, when we pursue entertainment that is the opposite of spiritually satisfying.  Even inoffensive movies and television shows are probably a complete waste of time.

Isaiah 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.  The sure mercies of David is an interesting turn of phrase, given that David sinned and lost significant portions of his blessings. Paul indicates in Acts 13:34 that it has reference to the resurrection.  I'm not quite sold on that, because in Isaiah he says he wants to make a covenant with us dependent on our choices, which the resurrection isn't: it comes to all men the same way death does.  However, if we use David as an archetype for Christ, we have a man who was despised and rejected of men in his own family; Christ's family was the Jews, David's family included his brothers, and later his children; David fought for Israel and overcame an enemy that no one else was willing or able to combat, just as Jesus overcame Lucifer for us; and lastly, David typifies Christ through the covenants God made with him.  Thus, if David and represents Christ in this section, it is possible that the sure mercies of David are more literally conveyed as the sure mercies of Christ, which would include forgiveness of our sins, joy in this life, and an eventual estate in our Father's Kingdom.  I think Isaiah sometimes forgot whether he was speaking of David or of David's eventual descendent, Jesus Christ.  In Isaiah 9:6-7, we have the famous verse that is in Handel's Messiah, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end; upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.  So I am now convinced that the sure mercies of David are synonymous with the sure mercies of Christ and that we receive them by the covenant of Baptism.

Sunday School Lesson 29: He Took Up … the Mantle of Elijah

2 Kings 2: 1-6 Elijah seems intent on leaving Elisha for some reason. He tries to go to three different towns without him, but Elisha apparently knew what was up and wouldn't let him.

They go from Gilgal to Beth-El to Jericho to Jordan.

Gilgal was the site of the first encampment after the children of Israel crossed the Jordan river. this is where Joshu aset up 12 stones, one for each tribe of Israel to remind them forever that they had crossed the river on dry ground, as they had crossed the red sea on dry ground (Joshua 4). Gilgal further represents a new beginning because the word itself means "Roll away," and it was here that the Lord re-instituted circumcision as a requirement for all the men of Israel, saying, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of hte place is called Gilgal unto this day (Joshua 5).  You could say he went to Gilgal to remind Elisha of the beginning of Israel's separation from the rest of the world.

Stop #2: Beth-El. (If you could walk straight, this is probably 15-20 miles) This is the same Beth-El where Jacob, while running away from home and from Esau spent the night dreaming of the ladder leading up to Heaven, representing the covenants we are to make to return to God's presence.  You'll recall that in the morning, Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place and I knew it not...this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of Heaven...And he called the name of the place Beth-el. He also placed stones there to signify the importance of the place. This is also where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, and where the leaders of Israel would commonly go to inquire after the will of the Lord. Remember Psalm 27:4, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord (Beth-El) all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple. I think he may have taken Elisha to Beth-el to remind him of the importance of seeking the Lord.

Stop #3: Jericho. (very close to Gilgal, so about 15-20 miles back from Beth-el) Jericho was the site of the first major battle and victory that the Israelites had after crossing the Jordan river. Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out and none came in. And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho. I love that.  Joshua was looking at a city that is unassailable and the Lord says, See? I have given it to you.  All they had to do was walk and have faith. We've heard the phrase, I walk by faith, thanks to Paul but I think that here the Israelites really had to for 6 days before the walls came tumbling down.

Stope #4: Jordan. (about 2-3 miles from Jericho) Not a specific city, but the river.  The river Jordan signifies in my mind the covenants the Lord has made with Israel, and could probably be likened to baptism or temple covenants.  Christ would be baptized here, the Israelites crossed here to enter the land promised in covenants to their fathers.

To summarize, the prophet Elijah takes his successor from place to place to remind him of being separate from the world, seeking God's presence in God's house, trusting in the Lord, and the eventual fulfillment of all covenants.

Some people feel that these four places represent our own journey toward God: Gilgal represents our arrival at the doors of faith and our baptism.  Beth-El represents powerful spiritual experiences.  Jericho represents those times in our life when we have to walk by faith. And Jordan represents our death and resurrection.

Also, it was quite convenient to go to the the various schools of the prophets and I would bet they got special instruction from Elijah prior to his translation.

There's quite a bit more in this lesson, I love the she-bears, the Shunamite woman, Namaan, and the whole, They that be with us are greater than they that be with them story, but I'm out of time.

Sunday School Lesson 27: The Influence of Wicked and Righteous Leaders

1 Kings 12:7 And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.

This is interesting advise and I wonder how true it is for new leaders in other situations.  Serve the people, speak good words to them, and they will be loyal forever.  In the case of Rehoboam, he decided that he didn't want to listen to old men, and sought out the counsel of his spoiled peers, who told him to do the opposite.

1 Kings 12:16 So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel adeparted unto their tents.

Here, you can see how this was written long enough after the fact that the author feels comfortable saying that Israel departed to their tents.  He expects you to be familiar and comfortable with the terminology Israel and Judah as descriptive of disparate kingdoms, despite the fact that literarily, this is the first we hear of it. 

The kingdom splits, 10 northern tribes proclaim Jeroboam their ruler (it's mildly irritating to me that they have such similarly spelled names, both unfamiliar to us, making casual discussion about what happened more complicated).  A little background on Jeroboam is worth covering.  

Jeroboam was an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow woman…28 And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valour: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph. He is the fellow who asked Rehoboam in the beginning of chapter 12 whether he would ease the tax burden his father had imposed, and when Rehoboam said no, the northern 10 tribes make him their king.  If you think he should have found some loyalty, let's turn back to chapter 11 and read more about him. 

He was walking along when he met the prophet, Ahijah, who was wearing a new robe.  The prophet tore the robe into 12 pieces 31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee.  So Jeroboam wasn't just being an ambitious usurper - he was given the Kingdom by God.  The prophet further explains to Jeroboam that the kingdom will not be torn apart until after Solomon's death, and that it will be taken from Solomon's son.  Surprisingly, the prophet says that God will rend the kingdom, not because of Solomon's wickedness, but because of the people's wickedness. Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped [other gods] and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. (Here is an example of the mercy of the lord, and an illustration of the level of repentance that David achieved. This seems to really illustrate the scripture Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

I've used to think it was slightly odd that throughout the Old Testament, David is commonly referred to by the Lord as a man who walked uprightly before me, or whose heart was right before me.  Commonly those statements are qualified by the statement, except in the matter of Uriah, the Hittite. I used to think to myself, you mean, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite AND HIS WIFE. But in recent years I have changed my mind. I think the Lord may have been showing us the depths of his mercy by saying David walked uprightly, except in the matter of Uriah, because of the thoroughness of his repentance.  If it is true that the Lord will not hold our sins against us, I like the idea that when talking about us, he doesn't bring them up. It's a model the rest of us could well follow.  If someone repents, asks our forgiveness, and makes it as right as they can, we shouldn't go around telling people about all the bad things they used to do when they were younger. 

Rehoboam, understandably wants the 10 tribes back, if for no other reason than pride, but it was likely that he wanted them back more for the tax revenue they had previously generated than for any other reason.  (I wonder how the young men who counseled him fared after the split.  Were they arrogant and he insecure enough that they gave him a hard time for blowing it? Or did they recognize what their counsel had cost both him and them? Or did they perhaps lose their lives?) Consequently, Rehob calls up 180,000 men to go fight the newly broken away kingdom of Israel but a man of God, Shemaiah, says don't bother and all the people went back home.  The scripture doesn't say how Rehob took the message, or how he handled his people going home, but I bet he was pretty dejected that night.

Jeroboam, on the other hand, decides that he is in real danger of losing the heart of his people because of religion.  If they keep needing to go across the border every time they feel the Spirit and want to go to the temple, he's concerned they will also start to believe that kings are divinely appointed and he'll have a schism in his own country between those who want to go back to the original kingdom of David and those who don't.  So, after taking counsel, he decides to remove religion from the equation by making them some idols, ordaining some priests, and copying the religious celebrations.  Sound familiar?  Christianity did much the same thing when it invaded Europe.  Replace pagan icons with crosses and saints, copy holidays, and build bigger temples.  Combine that with some sharp swords and spears and you've essentially got religion.

1 Kings 13 has a fantastic story about Jeroboam being called out by another man of God who comes from Judah, delivers a stinging rebuke for building altars, idols, and consecrating priests.  When Jeroboam tries to have him arrested, the Lord makes his hand wither.  Then as proof that God is speaking through him, (the withering hand wasn't enough) the man of God says that the altar will split in half and the ashes pour out on the ground.  It happens and Jeroboam is doubly afraid.  Somehow he convinces the man to pray for the restoration of his hand, which he does, and it is restored.  Then, he offers the man rest and refreshment but he declines, explaining that he was very specifically told not to eat or drink and to go home by a different route than he came.  He bails and a local prophet chases him down and invites him home for rest and refreshment.  He declines again, restating the original instruction but this time the "prophet" says, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. So, after going with him, eating and drinking, the word of the Lord comes and declares that the man of God will die by the way because he didn't obey some very simple instructions. He bolts and gets attacked and killed by a lion. Oddly, there is no apparent punishment for the prophet who lied to him.  I guess that another's deception is no excuse for disobeying a plain commandment. I really like that lesson.

There's loads more in this lesson, but I'm out of time.

Sunday School Lesson 21: God Will Honor Those Who Honor Him

Elkenah and his family go to the temple every year. I wonder whether he was exceptionally diligent?  Was that outside the normal expectation for an Israelite at that time?

When he was born, she called him Samuel, because I have asked him of the Lord. Oddly enough, "Asked of God" is actually the meaning of the name Saul, not Samuel. Samuel means "Name of God" or "Son of God."  

Hannah promised the Lord that There shall no razor come upon his head, indicating that he would be a Nazarite.  The original vow is found in Numbers 6. A Nazarite is holy to the lord, separate from the rest of the population.  There are different kinds of Nazarites, and anyone who wants to become one may do so for any period lasting at least 30 days.  Interestingly, modern Judaism allows fathers but not mothers to declare for their unborn children that he/she will be a Nazarite.  A Nazarite has three main restrictions that are not required by non-Nazarites: They may not drink alcohol, they may not cut their hair, they are required to avoid corpses.  Lifetime Nazarites, however, are not required to avoid corpses.  Modern Judaism allows lifetime Nazarites to cut their hair once per year. 

The point of taking a vow of this nature is the same as fasting.  Fasting is choosing to abstain from a perfectly allowable behavior in order to remind yourself of an increased devotion to the Lord. We sacrifice something that we are permitted to have or do in order to express the greater value we place on the relationship with the Lord, or our greater desire to earn a specific blessing.  A Nazarite was expressing the same desire to strengthen his relationship with the Lord by limiting specific actions in the same way.  

Elkenah was an Ephrathite, of mount Ephraim. The books of Samuel don't give any further information about his genealogy other than this opening line.  However, he definitely officiated in ordinances at the temple, performing the duties of a priest--duties restricted to Aaron's sons and the Levites. There is a reference to a Shemuel who was the son of Elkenah in Chronicles 6, and that traces back to Levi, but there is some dispute about a) whether this is actually Samuel and b) whether it was written later to try to reconcile the seeming problem with his actual genealogy through the tribe of Ephraim.  There's a whole group of people who think he was adopted into the levitical line by Eli, on the basis of the promise his mother made before she conceived him.  I'm less inclined to think that.  I think that he simply was given the Melchezidick priesthood at some point, obviating the need for him to worry about lineage when he performed ordinances.  There are other Old Testament prophets who functioned after this manner, including Elijah, who was of the Tribe of Gad, possibly Isaiah, whose tribe is unknown, and possibly Elisha, whose tribe is also unknown, but who was living where Judah's land was.

Jokes about Pregnant Women

I read a blog where a pregnant woman was ranting about how everybody makes fun of her for being pregnant. She told stories of how her awful 13 year old son would try to walk like her, how, at family reunion, people joked about how much she ate, whether she wore shirts or parachutes, how she couldn’t tie her own shoes, stuff like that. She filled a goodly amount of writing about how she could not believe that anyone would think it was funny to make fun of her for her condition. The article itself mostly irritated me because she seemed like such a whiney b..., and I don’t believe that her own family would make those comments maliciously unless she talked to them the way she blogged, in which case, she probably deserved to be treated like that.


Every time I see a pregnant woman who walks funny, though, I think of that and wonder if it’s OK to make a joke about it. Who else in society walks awkwardly? Old people. Handicapped people. Injured people.

Old people and handicapped people are an obvious no-joke zone, mostly because their conditions are not theirs by choice. (Well, technically, old age is a choice if you consider suicide a reasonable alternative, but I do not.) It is inappropriate to make fun of people for things that are out of their control and that cause them difficulty, frustration, or pain. But what about conditions of choice? I know for sure people make fun of me whenever I have a broken bone, and I not only take it in stride, but also recognize it as a form of friendship. The people who make jokes about whether I am clumsy or luckless would never make those jokes about a stranger. In a world where it is becoming ever more difficult to express platonic love, good-natured ribbing among friends is one of the bastions of loving expression. The jokes are not hurtful, primarily because I recognize that my condition is not permanent and it was probably my fault, either because of my poor judgment or lack of skill in avoiding the accident.

Because of this logic, at first I was inclined to think that pregnancy is fair game. All the pregnant people I know made a conscious decision to participate in behaviors which resulted in the condition—quite similar to me choosing to snowboard and breaking my ribs. Choice + funny consequence = fair game for good natured joking. Couple that with the familiarity of family, and it would seem to be ok. How does one express affection for an aunt or sister-in-law, anyway?

The problem I came up with today was a mild shift in perspective. If you are going to joke about a pregnant woman, the problem is not that pregnancy is the subject; the problem is that a woman is the subject. Out of respect for women, it could be considered inappropriate subject matter for joking. Women and men are disparate creatures, and while I may be able to recognize a joke as an acknowledgement of affection, a woman may perceive the same thing through an entirely different lens. The subject is still under consideration.

Sunday School Lesson 20: All the City...Doth Know That Thou Art a Virtuous Woman

The book of Ruth is one of the irritating books in the Bible to me. I always hate it when people try to make scripture out of stories that don't necessarily discuss the will of God or the doctrine of Christ, both of which I find lacking in this book.  True, Ruth displays the Christlike attributes of love, charity, loyalty, faith, etc., and she has a great conversion story in a time of frequent defections, but in my mind, it lacks the meat to give it a full lesson when we used the same amount of time to cover the whole moses story from burning bush to plagues and liberation to passover to parting the Red Sea.  How is it that all that gets a grand total of 45 minutes and this story of a woman who says, "No, I don't want to go back to live with my mom and dad" gets the same?

The lesson manual says it is to give us a glimpse of what life was like for normal people during the reign of the Judges, but I'm not buying that.  The bible wasn't written as a history book, after all.  The book of Ruth was written well after the fact (the opening verse hints at it, but it is later made quite clear in chapter 4 when the author decides he needs to explain the custom involving the shoes when the kinsman failed to redeem Ruth).  When I began re-reading it this time through, I decided that I think it was written specifically to explain the genealogy of David. I think it's like the people who do genealogy now and don't want just names to take to the temple; they want stories that make them feel closer to their ancestors in a good way.

There are people who believe that the book was written shortly after David took the throne and people wanted to know more about his heritage. I'm with them.

There are other people who believe it was written much later, in response to Ezra's command to the Israelites to put away their foreign wives.  This group of people feel that the book was a rebuttal to the argument that "all non-jews lead you to idol worship."  Here was an example tied to the greatest of Israelite kings that demonstrated that there were times when a heathen could be a great addition.

Ruth 4:7 Ah, the custom of the shoe.  The reason for all this shoe business was the law given in Deuteronomy 25 that if a man died, his brother should go in unto his wife and have sex with her.  The child of this union was legally considered the son of the dead man, and inherited his property.  However, it sometimes happened that the brother didn't want to do his job--there was really not a lot in it for the man, since, if the woman didn't have any children, his brother's property would go to him once she was too old for child-bearing or got married to someone else anyway.  So they created the custom of the shoe, centered on public humiliation.  In Ruth, they make it out to be a fairly inconsequential thing, and perhaps by the time of Ruth, it really was.  It's clear that the custom was fading, because by the time of writing the book, it was so far out of practice that they had to explain what it was.  In the time of moses, however, it seems quite a bit more severe.

Here's Ruth:

And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it...redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things: a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel.

And here's the original in Deuteronomy 25: 5-10

And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife to up to the gate and unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; then shall his brother's wife come unto him in th presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, so shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. 

So she gets to spit in his face, take off his shoe and he has to change his name to the guy who didn't love his brother. I wonder if the custom of sleeping with your dead brother's wife is still done within the Jewish community?  I've asked Betsy to ask our neighbors who are practicing Jews.

In the case of the nameless kinsman (definitely would have been named if he had been a go-to guy for Ruth.  Bummer for him.), the obligation was not quite as firm, since he was not the actual brother of either Naomi's husband or Ruth's, so maybe that's part of why they didn't spit in his face or change his name.

Despite my frustrations with the book, Ruth is one of a very small number of women mentioned, and an even smaller number who get discussed at any length in the Bible, and she was very faithful and righteous, and became an ancestor of Christ: props to her.

Sunday School Lesson 17: Beware Lest Thou Forget

Deuteronomy 6 Moses addresses the entirety of Israel using "thou." Thou is second person singular. The Old Testament is interesting grammatically because they are operating on centuries old constructs, many of which have faded from everyday language.  Oddly, enough, once he hits verse three, he actually switches to "ye" for some reason.  "Ye" is the original objective tense of "you," "you" being at that time the direct object case of "ye." This happens all the time in scriptures (the random switch from 2nd person singular to 2nd person plural), and I always wonder, (particularly when it's the Lord speaking and it happens) whether it was intentional and we're supposed to get something out of it; or perhaps it was unintentional, meaning, Moses knows he's addressing an entire group of people, and subconsciously conjugates one pronoun in the plural, even though he's technically addressing them using a collective noun; or, perhaps a translator made a clerical mistake and should have been more thorough in verifying that his translation was consistent.  It happens a lot in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is untranslated, eliminating that as an option, but you can add to the list that Joseph Smith was using "thee," "ye," etc. with nothing more than a 3rd grade formal education and possibly didn't fully understand them either, considering they were well out of common usage by the 1800s.

Deut 6:5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. This is the source of Christ's answer to the Pharisees when they wanted to know which commandment was greatest.  Oddly enough, I was pretty mature before I realized this was here, and that he was not making up commandments on the spot when they asked him.

Deut 6:6-7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. I love this part.  The Israelites have become something unique in the world. As a group, they have been subjected to the most consistent application of discrimination and abuse that I can think of.  Millennia of shared mistreatment by the rest of the world has given them a strong sense of identity.  In the book, This is My God, the author talks about their identity.  He believes that it was not only the shared suffering that has created it, but their obedience to the law of Moses. I think this commandment is about families.  If we make it a point to talk about gospel truths in our homes, our children will grow up knowing them, and that will give them the basis for an identity that is not tied to what other sociopathic teenagers try to tell them when they are going through high school and struggling to figure out who and what they want to be.

Deut 6:17-18 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments...And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord.  This is interesting to me.  He says keep the commandments and then follows it up with an instruction to also do that which is right and good, indicating that keeping the commandments he has laid out is insufficient to cover all situations and possible actions.  You need to also make good judgements in order to always do the right thing.

Honoring Womanhood

I gave a talk to day on Honoring Womanhood.  Below is the transcript.  I had to wait till today to post it because I wanted Betsy to be able to hear it without having read it first.  It went pretty well.

I have been assigned the topic of Honoring Womanhood.  At first, I was just going to tell you all about Betsy, but then I realized that not everybody can live up to that standard and I didn’t want you to feel bad.

President Hinckley said,

Of all the creations of the Almighty, there is none more beautiful, none more inspiring than a lovely daughter of God who walks in virtue with an understanding of why she should do so, who honors and respects her body as a thing sacred and divine, who cultivates her mind and constantly enlarges the horizon of her understanding, who nurtures her spirit with everlasting truth (President Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, September 1988, p. 11).

Women are the pinnacle of God’s creation. When God created the earth, he pronounced it good. When he created the animals, the sun, moon, stars, plants, and all the other wonders, he pronounced them all good. The first time he said something was not good was when he created man; he said, It is not good that the man should be alone (Gen 2:18). He then created woman, and only after he had created woman did he look upon every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (Gen 1:31).

God joined man and woman in marriage and commanded that men should be faithful to their wives and that wives should be faithful to their husbands. One of the simplest ways we can honor womanhood is to keep our covenants regarding fidelity, chastity, and virtue. We have been commanded by God to do so and are under his condemnation if we fall short in this area.  When the Nephites neglected their wives, the Lord said, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people…because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands (Jacob 2:31).

We honor womanhood when we follow the law of chastity to the fullest, when we engage only in those behaviors and practices that build up our moral strength and avoid those behaviors which undermine our moral groundings and erode our testimonies. We honor women when we avoid those activities which demean and debase women, modesty, or virtue.

In the doctrine and covenants, the Lord said, 22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.  23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out. 

One of the greatest ills facing the world today is the propagation of pornography. In the scriptures, pornography is equal to adultery.  Christ said, Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matt  5:28) Notice that he says it is the eyes that offend.

Pornography is quite literally a deadly sin. King David said, 27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?  28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? … whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.  33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.( Proverbs 6:23-33)  There can be no room in our lives for this activity, and there is no room to justify it as harmless.

There was a young man who was hiking in the mountains; when he started at the bottom, it was a warm summer day. When he got to the top of the mountain, it was colder, and there were patches of snow. At the top, he came across a poisonous snake which was so chilled from the cold that it could not get back down to the warm.  The snake asked the boy to carry it to the bottom of the mountain, and the boy declined, saying, you are a poisonous snake and will surely bite me and I will die.  The snake, however, was eloquent and continued to speak to the boy pleasantly until the boy decided he could carry the snake on a stick.  He picked it up, holding the stick well away from his body but it was cumbersome, his arms grew tired, and the snake was so polite and pleasant to speak to that he slowly held the stick closer and closer to his own body and eventually dispensed with the stick altogether, and settled the snake inside his jacket.  As they descended, it became warmer and the snake was revived. It bit the boy and as he fell to the ground, he asked, how could you do this to me? I thought you would not hurt me. The snake replied, You knew what I was when you picked me up and slithered away.  

I want to read a scripture from proverbs that discusses adultery. In the original version, David is discussing how an adulterous woman can be a snare for a man. I have modified the pronouns slightly to give it a modern feeling.    21 With … fair [images it] caused him to yield, with the flattering of [lies it] forced him.  22 He goeth after [it] straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, … 24  Hearken unto me now therefore … 25 Let not thine heart decline to [its] ways, go not astray in [its] paths.  26 For [it] hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by [it].  27 [Its] house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.( Proverbs 7:21-27)

When we honor women, we avoid this evil.  Paul said that we should Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof( Romans 13:14). If you have a problem with pornography, make it inaccessible. There are products which can filter the internet, locks that can be applied to broadcast media that can, as Paul said, and eliminate the provision for the lust.

Job said, I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl (Job 31:1 NIV translation).  That imagery is powerful to me, and harks back to what Christ said about ensuring your eyes do not offend. 

Society’s movement toward moral listlessness is a result failing to honor our mothers. Our mothers teach us to speak kindly, to withhold negative comments, to use clean language, to remove our hats when we enter a building, to bow our heads when a prayer is offered.  They do not tolerate profanity or vulgarity. Crude jokes are not welcome in their presence.  Boys do not make comments about a girl’s body in front of their mothers.  Mothers teach us to serve, to express gratitude and to ask nicely.  They demonstrate modesty, restraint, and love. 

All of these Christ-like behaviors are under attack. Elder Richard G Scott said, Satan has unleashed a seductive campaign to undermine the sanctity of womanhood… He well knows women are the compassionate, self-sacrificing, loving power that binds together the human family. (Elder Richard G. Scott, Ensign, May 2000, p. 36).

In our efforts to honor womanhood, we need to do all in our power to avoid those behaviors which debase women, and pay attention to whether we are acting on the lessons that our mothers so lovingly and patiently imparted, most particularly in our relationships to our own wives and mothers.  Are we courteous?  Do we express our gratitude?  Betsy and I had been married for at least 5 years when I found out that whenever I changed a diaper, she heard, “I love you, Betsy,” and every time she changed a diaper, she was saying, “I love you, Russell.”  This is an interesting insight into her mind, and I’m pretty sure she’s not alone in this mindset.  Somehow she is able to express love in the daily actions she performs.  I am confident that her way of doing things that need to be done around the house is much closer to God’s way of doing them than mine is. When I do something that needs to be done, I’m saying, “That needed to be done, so I did it,” when I should be saying, “I love you, Betsy.”   

Honoring women, chastity, and virtue is so more than simply avoiding inappropriate media.  It is a mindset that praises modesty, that pays sincere compliments, and that expresses gratitude for small acts of service.  As we honor chastity, virtue, and womanhood, we will find that our hearts become purified.  We will become like the people of Mosiah who had no disposition to do evil.  To those who delight in their covenants and honor their wives and mothers, sin becomes something you are simply not attracted to. Instead, your love and attraction for your eternal companion will grow.  I know that my heart fills with love for my wife more constantly when I am living in accordance with the will of the father.  I find that my frustrations at home are more frequent when I have been less diligent about my personal prayers and scripture study.  As you honor your covenants, and honor your wives, mothers, and daughters you will be richly blessed. 

Plants and Animals in God's Plan

I've been thinking more and more about the donkey talking to Balaam and what that means for animal intelligence and how we ought to treat them.

It really seems to indicate that we need to increase the respect we have for all of God's creations. I'm not advocating we all become vegans or anything; I think it is important to note that the donkey does not express any resentment over her position as beast of burden, but rather specifically criticizes his thoughtless treatment in the one instance. God said in D&C 89 that he had created both the plants and the animals for the use of man but cautions that they are to be used with prudence, judgement and thanksgiving.

Still, what would our pets say to us if they could speak? "Stop kicking me"? "Your son keeps shooting me with a BB gun"? Or would they say, "you've been a responsible owner who has treated me with the
dignity of a creation of God"? What would our yards say? One of the first commandments given to Adam was to tend the garden of Eden, to take care of it, and he was given dominion over all the animals, and responsibility for the earth. Those commands pass to us as his progeny. What will the resources of the earth tell God about our personal comportment towards them when we stand to be judged? I am not speaking of the treatment of mankind collectively, I am referring to our individual behavior.

There are people who blame mankind for the documentable increase in global temperature over the past century or so. There are others who deny that mankind is the culprit; some go so far as to deny that the world is experiencing climate change at all. I find the debate interesting to watch.

Scientists document increases in temperature and say it is due to the rise in use of this or that technology with a harmful side effect. They invest heavily in alternative technologies and push for a shift to the new stuff. Politicians respond to lobbyist pressure to impose changes to the product or a shift to the new product. Whether the activists invested because they believed in the new stuff or they pushed for the new stuff because they had invested in it is a moot point. The interesting
part to me is that nothing seems to impact the climate change. It still happens.

The scandals that surround those trying to prove the changes, the willful ignorance of those who refuse to acknowledge that there used to be a glacier covering most of Ohio, the retrofitted models, the Hollywood fervor created with movies about the end of the world caused by human mistreatment of the planet--none of this is relevant to the fact that we have an individual responsibility imposed by divine command to take good care of this world and to have stewardship over the animals on it.

I'm not talking about joining the Al Gore sensationalist bandwagon; I'm talking about pruning our trees, mowing and watering our lawn, and planting flowers, gardens, and other things to beautify and give variety to the face of the earth. I do not mean joining the vegan movement; I mean taking our dogs for a walk, avoiding over-eating or over purchasing, causing waste, not abandoning animals for which we have assumed responsibility.

We need to feel and express gratitude for all these things. Feeling it is something internal, but the expression is demonstrated in whether or not we litter when no one is looking, hurt an animal because it is funny or consume more than we need.

Sunday School Lesson 16: I cannot Go Beyond the Word of the Lord

Numbers 22:3 And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many.  How the tables have turned.  When the Israelites were here previously, they were terrified of the inhabitants of the land.

Numbers 22:6 For I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed and he whom thou cursest is cursed.  This is a really interesting way to describe Balaam.  He was a man who had the ability to bless and curse.  What do we know about him, really, though?  Apparently he actually spoke with God. Several versions of the old testament apparently translate his people as Ammon. Apparently in Hebrew literature, he is one of seven Gentile prophets (others included Job and his friends, and Balaam's father, Beor). They also have a folklore story about him that indicates that when God gave the 10 Commandments to Moses, the earth shook and the kings asked Balaam what it was and he told them that it was God's voice giving the law to the Israelites.

I like the story of Balaam. He is invited twice to go curse someone and the Lord says, "no" both times, but on the second time, indicates that a third invitation should be answered.  Perhaps he was too eager, perhaps he just assumed it would come, perhaps he was just greedy, but he went before the third invitation was issued.

On the way, the angel stands before him with a drawn sword and his donkey saves his life 3 times and is yelled and and beaten for it.  Then comes the exciting part of the story.  The donkey starts talking.  Oddly, the donkey has great logic, and what he says reminds me of the professor in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. He asks Balaam if he has been a bad donkey up to this point in his life, to which Balaam is forced to answer, "Um, no. In fact, this is completely out of character for you." And the donkey is thinking, "No, saving your sorry neck is completely in character for me, so why don't you stop beating me for being a good donkey?"

Most people seem to think that the donkey probably didn't actually speak, but rather, Balaam had some kind of spiritually guided internal dialogue where he or the spirit filled in the voice of the donkey.  I like the idea that the donkey is perfectly capable of frustration, logical reason, and a clear understanding of loyalty, and that if God permits, he is also perfectly capable of expressing that verbally.  It makes me consider the role of animals in creation, and my own treatment of them.

So, Balaam goes up and from 3 different locations is instructed to curse the Israelites but from all three, he blesses them.  Balak (the king who called him) gets more and more frustrated with him, and finally they both just go home.  However, at some point in their conversation, he apparently advised him that the way to overcome the Israelites is not to fight them, but to seduce them away from Jehovah (see Numbers 31:16 and Revelation 2:14). It is for that piece of advice that he is listed among the false prophets and teachers by Peter, John, and Jude in the new Testament, who was motivated by greed.

It's still an odd story, though, and if you didn't continue on to chapter 31 or the New Testament, you might be left wondering what was wrong with Balaam.  The thing that I don't get, is if he was doing the wrong things, why was he receptive to the word of the Lord anyway?  What exactly was his authority and how was he receiving revelation regarding the inhabitants of the promised land if he was a false teacher?  Can a person enjoy a spiritual gift like revelation or prophesy if they are using it to amass personal wealth? If they can't, why did the Lord clearly speak to Balaam repeatedly in this story?

I read an interesting article comparing Balaam's interaction with his donkey to marriage: Balaam to the husband and the donkey to the wife.  You have an impatient, greedy inconsiderate husband who jumps to conclusions about the wife--assumptions completely inconsistent with his interaction with his wife, saying that when we do not understand why our wives are doing or saying something, we should immediately jump to the conclusion that they have a really great and solid reason for doing or saying what they did, rather than assume they are suddenly acting out of character with all the loyalty and love they have demonstrated in the past.

Sunday School Lesson 15: Look to God and Live

Numbers 11:5-6 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers and the melons, and the leeks , and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all beside this manna, before our eyes. First of all, what odd things to remember - two different kinds of onions and garlic? Wow.

Side note: I heard a public radio broadcast about marketing once that talked about how sometimes a product comes along and is marketed so well that it creates a need for itself by inventing a problem that it solves.  Listerine was one of the examples.  The report claimed that Listerine didn't invent fresh breath, but rather, it defined halitosis. Prior to Listerine's marketing, halitosis was as normal a part of life as rain--sometimes it happens, and there's nothing you can really do about it.

Back to their weariness of manna. I can't say I really blame them.  I've thought this.  If you had to pick one food that would magically be imbued with all the nutrients you need to survive, what would you choose?  You might say something like chocolate for the flavor but I would pick something like carrots.  You are going to get sick of whatever you choose, so I would go for convenience, knowing that no matter what, you'll hate eating it after a while.  I'm considering things like packing it around, needing to worry about it melting or spilling, bruising, rotting, preparation, etc.  Regardless, I came to the same conclusion the poor children of Israel did: eating the same thing every day sucks.  And they had to eat nearly a gallon of the stuff every day.  Yuck.  imagine dumping over a quart of bread-crumbs in a bowl three times a day. I can't say I blame them for getting sick of it.  Still, go hunting or something. Whining isn't going to get you any cucumbers.

Numbers 11:7 And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium. The picture of coriander seed on wikipedia indicates coriander seed is about 4-5 mm in diameter.  Bdellium is either resin used to make myrrh or a round gem-stone, and the color is apparently indeterminate, with supposition including white, light yellow or resin, and gray.

Numbers 11:2 vs. 11:11-15.  Moses and the Lord seem to go back and forth on who wants to kill the children of Israel the most.  In verse 2, the Lord is sending fire among them to consume them for their sins and in 11-15, Moses is crying because it's too much to take.

Numbers 11:19-20 Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; but even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the Lord which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt? That seems a little petty. However, pettiness is not a godly attribute. So, how is this merciful?

Numbers 11:31 Speaking of the quail the Lord sent so they could eat "flesh." And he that gathered least gathered 10 homers. 10 homers is 3644 liters or ~965 gallons.   Here's a picture of a 1000 gallon tank with a man standing beside it and a pickup truck in front of it for reference.

Numbers 12:3 Now the man moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the Earth. Wow.  That's a statement, and on that I don't typically think of with Moses. I should probably reevaluate my thoughts on Moses.  He just seems to whine a lot, and that irritates me, but I should probably remember that he was extremely quick to forgive, and apparently very meek. The Lord makes a clear distinction between him and a normal prophet in verse 6-8.

Numbers 14:18 The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression. I love it when I find verses in the Old Testament that reaffirm the New Testament version of the Lord.  It often seems that there are two different Gods--the vengeful, angry, and sometimes petty God of the Old Testament and the kind, forgiving, turn the other cheek God of the New Testament. The thing to remember, is the Gospels run for 3 years, while the Old Testament is highlighting a couple thousand years of interaction. 

Numbers 14:15-16 as contrasted with 45.  When the Lord is about to kill all the children of Israel, Moses asks him not to, saying that all the nations are aware of how the Lord brought them out of Egypt and promised them the land of Canaan. He says that if the Lord kills them there, the people will all assume that the Lord killed them because he couldn't come through on his promise to give them the land.  And yet, in verse 45, you have them getting beat down as they tried to enter the land and then they turn around and head back into the wilderness. How did Moses miss that the people will think the same thing after beating them back as they would have if they had all been killed?  Nobody's going to believe they're all bad if they can't even cross the border, regardless of whether they run away scared or were killed by their god.  Either way, he didn't bring them into the land. 

Sunday School Lesson 14: Ye Shall be a Peculiar Treasure Unto Me

Genesis 15:1-19 Moses and Israel sing a new song unto the Lord, praising him for delivering them from Egypt.  Who wrote it?  Moses has previously claimed he isn't good with words, making him unlikely, and how did all the Israelites know the words? It's not as though most of them could read.

Genesis 16:7 Then ye shall see the glory of the Lord; for that he heareth your murmerings against the Lord.   This seems backward to me.  We frequently talk about how the Lord wants to bless us and help us but that we need to demonstrate faith and obedience first, yet here, we have the Lord responding to a group of whiners.  Would we get faster answers to our prayers if we just whined all the time? Probably only if we could whine directly to a prophet.

Genesis 16:24 And they laid it up till the morning...and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. I love the strength of the Sabbath throughout the Old Testament.  Throughout the Old Testament, the Sabbath is the defining difference between the Lord's covenant people and everybody else, and when they stop observing it, that's when they seem to get in the most trouble.

Genesis 17:2 Wherefore the people did chide with Moses. and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? Wherefore do ye tempt the Lord? Sometimes I am on Moses's side, and sometimes on the Israelites' side.  Here, for example, what did Moses expect them to do for water? They don't start murmering until after they "chide" with him (whatever that means) and he blows them off.  What did he think a million plus people are going to do when there's no water and he's telling them where to put their tents?

Manna rejects capitalist philosophy.


16:17-18 And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack
As I understand Capitalism, the premise is that you work hard at something you are good at, thereby producing more than someone who is either not as good at it or not as hard-working. By producing more, you accumulate more and your affluence increases. Success is measured by the relative degree of accumulation, as compared to others in a given aggregation of people, most frequently, a geographic proximity.

Manna, on the other hand, required no hard work to gather. It required simply that you go out each day and gather. It didn’t matter how much you gathered, or how little, and the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack (Exodus 16:17-18). Basically, if you went out and gathered, you came back with a full portion. If you worked harder, organized labor gangs, got up early, it didn’t matter. You still came back with only an omer, and if you tried to save some for tomorrow, it rotted, destroying the principle of accumulation and private ownership. You didn’t own Manna, you ate it.

Manna was symbolic of spiritual strength. It requires simple daily actions. You can not work hard at spirituality for 10 or 15 years and then retire from spiritual effort. It’s not a job where efficiency is valued, or accumulation compared and used as a measure of success. If there is a measure of success with Manna, it is that you are fed today or not. If you gathered Manna and ate, you have succeeded.

The double portion on the Sabbath came as a surprise
 
16:22 And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, "Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord.
 
As mentioned previously, they all came in with whatever they had gathered, and measured it, and no matter what, it was an omer (almost a gallon). Suddenly, on the sixth day, they're looking down at 2 omers and saying, Uh, hey, Mo! Looks like something funny's going on!

Sunday School Lesson 12: Fruitful in the Land of My Affliction

Joseph: Prophet or Charlatan?

The story of Joseph, as with so many of the prophets, requires us to make a choice to accept the Christian version.  Joseph, in the traditional view, is blessed by God with dreams of his role as the leader of his elder brethren (and their families), the inheritor of the birthright blessing and the priesthood.  He alone remains righteous and faithful.  As a young man, he shared some divinely inspired dreams with his elder brothers who, rather than be happy with his spiritual insights, become angry with him and sell him to Egypt. Rather than complaining about it, he works hard, and is blessed, only to be brought low through the guile and lust of his master’s wife.  In prison, he again works hard, doesn’t complain, and is elevated. Inspired by God, he interprets 2 dreams that will later work to bring him before Pharaoh.  Again, inspired by God, he interprets the dream and is blessed for his diligence and obedience.  When his brothers come, he forgives them and saves the whole family. His example to us is that out of trials come blessings and our approach to dealing with our hardships is the key to both success and happiness in this life. He humbly serves in every capacity, and is blessed for his obedience, diligence, and humility.

On the other hand, if you do not accept that his actions were guided by God, the story appears otherwise. We see a power-hungry man who tries to dominate his brothers by sucking up to his father and claiming to have divinely inspired dreams of authority. They don’t go for it and sell him to Egypt where his divine authority is less important. He attains power in Pharaoh’s house but tries to violate his boss’s wife; she has physical evidence that he was the aggressor.  (His kids wrote the history, though, so they put down his version.)  He lands in prison, but by kissing up to the warden, is again elevated.  He has an opportunity to tell the butler and the baker their eventual ends (something that he probably heard through his association with the warden), and all he wants in return is to get out of prison. When he meets with the Pharaoh, I’d lay odds that Egypt was on the up-tick from an economic downturn, and thanks to his work at Potipher’s house, he probably had recognized that economics run in cyclical patterns.  He advises the king on sound fiscal policy (levy taxes when the economy is booming, balance your budgets, save for the future, etc.), and makes a big bet that there will be a recession after the growth.  He picks seven years because the Pharaoh dreamed of seven cows and corn, but if the dream had been about five, he would have picked five. It’s even possible that in his elevated position as chairman of the Federal Reserve, he was uniquely placed to bring about an economic downturn at the appropriate time.  He then basically rapes the Egyptian people as they give him everything they own in exchange for food and the famine conveniently ends when they run out of stuff to give the government. When his brothers show up, he tricks them and scares the crap out of them just for fun and so that they will finally acknowledge that he has complete control over their lives.  The end result of his actions is bondage in Egypt for all his descendents for 400 years. 

I won’t tell you which to believe, but it’s definitely true that the victors write the history books, and in their version, they were always in the right. I wonder what Reuben’s children would have written if Joseph had died and they had just bought the food from Egypt and gone back to Jacob’s house and stayed living in Canaan.

The odd thing is, all the prophets have issues.  Abraham went out to kill his own son, for crying out loud. Isaac was duped into blessing his younger son with the blessings he intended to give to his older son, Noah cursed his son and grandchildren because Ham laughed when he saw his dad passed out drunk; how is that fair? 

I suppose I ought to end on some kind of positive note, but I don’t feel like it. If you can be distracted by the problems you find with ancient prophets, there is no way you are going to get past the imperfections your own bishop has; I guarantee he has issues.  Faith in God cannot be dependent on faith in people.  If it is, you will be disappointed every time.

Animal Eating Habits Before the Flood

Is there actually biblical support for the idea that animals did not eat each other until after the flood?

I heard a fellow on the radio today talking about the covenant which God made with Noah in Genesis chapter 9, after the flood. In it, God says he gives the animals to Noah for to be "meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." The radio pastor reads on to the part where God says he makes his covenant with Noah and with every living creature, and takes these two statements together to indicate that nothing ate meat before this point - no lions, tigers, or bears.

Is that argument scripturally supportable? I went ahead and reread the preceding chapters of the bible, and true enough, there is no reference to animals eating each other, and other than the coats of skins, which God made for them as they were evicted from the Garden, there does not seem to be any reference to men either hunting or eating animals either. It certainly runs contrary to a thousand years or so of European artistic symbolism, which I find to be a fantastic reference for theological interpretation. The Church controlled so much, that you can see details of how the church viewed religion in a lot of the paintings of the middle ages. One very common theme was the fall and subsequent casting out of Adam and Eve. Commonly featured are small carnivores preying on innocent animals as an indication that sin had entered the world. In paintings where Eve is about to partake, there is often a fox looking slightly sinister in the fringes of the painting, eyeballing a fluffy oblivious rabbit or helpless chipmunk. He never eats one until after Eve eats the fruit, though.

Is absence of reference enough to infer absence of act? My answer is no. We have insufficient data to make a claim of this scope. Remember, we're getting about 1,600 years of history between Fall and Flood, all summed up in Genesis chapters 3-9. If you were summarizing God's interaction with man over the course of 1,600 years, would you reference how animals treated each other? I might, if it changed at a later date, and was different for some reason, but I doubt I would take the time to mention something that did not change, and I do not read the reference in Chapter 9 to indicate any kind of change in the relationship the animals had with each other, but rather, to indicate a grant of stewardship and rank over the animals to mankind. I read the covenant with Moses to be mostly a restatement of the covenant God made with Adam, with a promise not to flood the Earth again as an added bonus.

On an unrelated note, I did think it was interesting to note that God mentions that Noah should take "clean and unclean" beasts with him into the ark. Prior to today, I would have said that the distinction between clean and unclean arose with Moses, but I was mistaken. I'll have to do some more research on that one. It may simply be that Moses felt the need to state it that way because he was receiving it and passing it out to post Egypt Israelites.

Sunday School Lesson 10: Birthright Blessings; Marriage in the Covenant

Genesis 24:3 - Swear by the Lord...that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell. The lesson manual indicates that this is a demonstration of the importance of marrying in the covenant. But really? What covenants had Abraham's family made that they had not discarded? His own admission is that they had turned from following God to the worship of idols. He may have been concerned about the ramifications of the curse that Canaan bore, and it's impact on his posterity.

Genesis 24:6 - Beware that thou bring not my son thither again. After making his servant swear that he would go find a wife for Isaac from among his own kindred, Abraham freaks out when the servant suggests that he might have to take Isaac back. If it was so important that he marry someone from there, why would it be so bad for him to go there? Is it just because he is trying to act on the covenant that the Lord would give him the land of Canaan? Because don't forget, his grandkids are all going to walk away from the land of Canaan and go to Egypt for 430 years.

Genesis 24:17 - And the servant ran to meet her. After praying to the Lord, and proposing his sign - whoever he asked for water, if she also offered to get some for his camels, she was the one for Isaac, he hangs out far enough away that he has to run (in the desert) to the well to ask her for water. Wouldn't she think that was a bit odd? Some guy has all his camels kneeling down within sight of a well, and himself hanging out with them, but not close enough to get a convenient drink? And would he have ran to ask her if she was not fair?

Genesis 24:30-31 - When he saw the earring and the bracelets...he said, come in, thou blessed of the Lord. Was Laban motivated by a true conviction that the servant was on the Lord's errand or by greed when he noticed the gold? Remember, this is the same Laban who would screw Isaac's son, Jacob, over when he would come to work for him later; he tricked him into marrying Leah first, and he also changed his wages multiple times.

Sunday School Lesson 9: God Will Provide Himself a Lamb

Abraham 1 - This chapter serves as background to the story of Abraham and Isaac. We learn here that Abraham was an ordained High Priest; that his own parents had departed from the ways of God to follow the heathen gods, particularly the Egyptian gods, Elkenah and Pharaoh; that his father gave him to be offered as a sacrifice to the god of Pharaoh; and that he was saved at the last instant by an angel.

Abraham 1:21 - Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. A few weeks ago, there was a comment in Sunday School that equated Adam's son with Noah's grandson. I wanted to make a clear distinction between Canaan, the son of Ham, and Cain, the son of Adam. Both were cursed, but Canaan and his subsequent generations was not Cain, and any supposition that the dark skin of the Africans were related to Cain is faulty logic. Canaan was cursed to be a servant to his brethren due to his father's disrespect of Noah. He had a granddaughter (or possibly a great granddaughter, the genealogy can get a little confusing at times) who discovered Egypt and was its first queen. Cain was cursed to wander the Earth and that the Earth would not yield to him its fulness. I can find no scriptural support for him not being dead, and no promise that any of his seed would survive in perpetuity. Though the scriptures do not talk about it, there are apocryphal references to his death by the hand of Lamech, and even if Lamech did not do it, the timing would be right for him to have been an extremely old man at that time.

The Book of Job

I gave a talk in church today. Below is the transcript.

Job, his life and example

The scriptural reference for our talks is Job 19:25 – “For I know that my redeemer liveth.” I flipped to the book of Job and re-read the story of a man who demonstrated faith in Christ, and I was surprised at how inaccurately I had remembered the story. I would like to take a few minutes to review the story of Job. I’m sure we all remember both the beginning and the end, but the part that I had misremembered was the middle. I was surprised at how applicable I found the story to be and what guidance I believe we can gain for our lives from reviewing his example.

Job was a righteous man who had about a half dozen or so kids and sufficient income to support them comfortably. He was respected by his peers, regarded as wise, righteous, and appropriately religious. He prayed for the wellbeing of his children, kept the commandments, and was duly blessed of the Lord for it with both material and spiritual abundance. How many of us fall into this group of people? I am confident that many of us do our best to keep the commandments, raise our children righteously, work hard to support our families, and feel blessed of the Lord for our efforts.

For whatever reason, the Lord decides to test Job. He loses his material possessions and his beloved children. What a blow. On Friday I attended a funeral for a 21 year old girl whose mother works with me. The pain and grief were palpable. I do not know how my coworker will be able to bear it. I know there are many in this congregation who have had to bear similar losses. At this important point in his eternal development, when he could well have looked at the heavens and said, “What the heck?!”, Job instead looks at the heavens and says, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away;” and he might have stopped there, but somehow he manages to continue, “Blessed be the name of the Lord.”[1] What faith he must have had to praise the Lord in the midst of his calamity.

Then he is afflicted with physical ailments and his own wife implies that he has been forsaken by the Lord, and that his assertions of righteousness are clearly overlooking some great sin that the Lord has chosen to punish him for. Job answers her accusations calmly, asking, “What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil?”[2], echoing what Christ said in the sermon on the mount, that our Father in Heaven “maketh the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.”[3] God never promised that evil people would have horrible lives or that good people would have easy, happy lives. He promised us that we would have lives. An opportunity to come to earth, gain a physical body, be tested, and an opportunity to repent so that we could return to live with him. In the preface to Ivanhoe, Sir Walter Scott says that he got a lot of grief for not letting the most virtuous heroine, Rebecca, marry the noblest hero, Ivanhoe. He says that he did not join her to Ivanhoe because it was a dangerous idea to teach young people that the reward for virtue was a life of bliss. Virtuous living has other rewards than earthly ease, and both Job and Christ affirm this here. I do not wish to imply that virtuous people do not receive blessings from God for their actions. Indeed they do, and often, those blessings take the form of material abundance, but it is not a gospel principle that righteousness frees you from trials, indeed, the opposite may be true. Consider the examples of Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail, Alma the Younger and Amulek in the city of Ammonihah, and ultimately, Jesus Christ, our savior, had to bear his burdens that caused him to cry out to God, and ask if there was not another way.

Back to the story of Job. He takes this all pretty hard, to the point that he wonders why he didn’t die in the womb, what is the purpose of his life and his suffering, but through it all, he refuses to allow his sorrow and grief to become resentment or anger toward God. There are a couple of chapters where he whines a little bit, and who wouldn’t. He has 4 friends, whose names are odd enough to not be worth mentioning, who believe that if a man is suffering serious trials and tribulations, he is being punished by God for something he has done. For about 30 chapters, they do not waver from the belief that Job must have sinned to incite God’s wrath. There seems to be no room in their understanding of God for tribulation for any reason other than retribution.

Throughout their speeches, Job maintains his innocence and his righteousness. He shares his powerful testimony of Christ with his friends. He has some great lines about trusting in God despite trials. He says, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him; but I will maintain mine own ways before him.”[4] We’ll come back to that “I will maintain mine own ways before him” comment in a bit. He also says, “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh will I see God.”[5] He also spends nearly an entire chapter explaining to his friends that sometimes “The wicked live, become old, yea are mighty in power … Their houses are safe from fear … their children dance …” and even, “They spend their days in wealth.”[6] Job goes so far as to say, You know what? If I’ve done wrong, show me where. He directs this challenge, as it were, to the Lord.

We see Job, holding up a list of things that would make him wicked: not helping the poor, being dishonest, stealing, using authority unjustly, etc. and saying, “let’s ask the Lord where I’ve fallen short,” as though he had a yardstick and he measured himself by this list and used it to know that he was righteous.

At this point, Job’s wisest friend, Elihu, jumps in and really lets Job have it for his attitude. He spends 6 chapters telling Job, you can’t hold up a yardstick to determine if you are righteous! He explains that Job has missed the boat on understanding morality. Job has misrepresented God’s version of righteousness, completely neglecting God’s compassionate nature. God is mighty, yet just, quick to warn and equally quick to forgive, he is the source of redemption and salvation, and above all, he is not a man and can not be measured by man’s standards, and for that matter, man can not measure himself by man’s standards. Job’s first three friends thought that Job’s repentance would entail making a list of specific infractions and then asking for forgiveness for those specific actions. Elihu says that his repentance needs to include throwing away the idea that he can possibly use a yardstick to measure righteousness. In many ways, Elihu’s comments remind me of President Ezra Taft Benson’s talk on Pride. Pride is thinking you know better than God, and that you can hold yourself up to God and say, “See?”, believing that once you explain it to him, he’ll have to see it from your point of view. Real repentance entails renouncing your own idea of moral authority, which is God’s alone. He rebukes Job for thinking that he can make his own case before God for his righteousness. In Alma 22, Aaron explains this for us, “And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins…”[7] Nephi tells us that “No flesh can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah.”[8]

Elihu’s statements were confirmed by the voice of God himself (and I can’t believe that I forgot that God actually spoke to them in this story). God speaks to Job in a narrative that I find surprisingly similar to God’s response to Joseph in liberty jail. Remember that there, he listed off a set of trials and then reminded Joseph that “The son of man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?”[9] Here, the Lord recounts to Job a portion of the measure of his creation, and asks Job whether he has done anything similar that would give him the commensurate experience and exaltation to be a judge of morality.

Job was correct in his belief that the trials were not the punishment of God for temporal infractions, and he was firm in his testimony of Christ, the resurrection, and the reality of God’s existence. But he was wrong to believe that he was innocent of any fault, or that his righteousness could be measured by a list of physical actions, or that he was in a position to decide that he did not need repentance. Remember his comment when he was bearing his testimony, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” Good. But he continues, “But I will maintain mine own ways before him,” effectively saying, “I’ve decided that I’m righteous, regardless of what God thinks” or “I trust God in everything but whether or not I need to repent.” After hearing God’s voice, Job is truly humbled, fully repents, and is blessed to see the Lord. Without the trial, Job might have continued to believe that he did not need repentance and might have continued to measure himself by the yardstick of physical actinos. The trial was the catalyst that brought him closer to God. We all remember the rest about how his lucky wife got to bear him another 10 kids, he became rich, and died a righteous old humble man after another 140 years.

I want to bear my testimony that God loves us. He does indeed cause the sun to shine on the good and the wicked both. Good people often have lives full of trials and wicked people often live lives of ease, but just as often, good people have seemingly easy lives and wicked people have very short and difficult lives. The ease of our lives is not an indicator of righteousness. The fact that we have lives is an indication that God loves us. And, unfortunately, so is the fact that we have trials. Every one of us has something to repent for; we can merit nothing of ourselves. Our goal to find joy and happiness is reached only as we “press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men”, “relying wholly on upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.”

---

[1] Job 1:21

[2] Job 2:19

[3] Matthew 5:45

[4] Job 13:15

[5] Job 19:25-26

[6] Job 21: 7-13

[7] Alma 22:14

[8] 2 Nephi 2:8

[9] D&C 122:8