I've fallen behind here. It's sometimes hard to stay up to date on the writing despite the best intentions. There is that little thing about the spirit being willing but the flesh being weak.
The main thing that I remember about this these sections of the BKC is just how hard it is on Abraham. I mean apparently Abraham did nothing right except offer Isaac as a sacrifice. I went to lunch with a Christian friend John MacDonald, and I asked him what he thought about Abraham. Then I read this section from the BKC to him. This is from Gen 23. It's the story about Sarah being taken by Abimelech and the Lord warns Abimilech not to touch Sarah. Abraham again says that he didn't really lie that Sarah is his half-sister. Anyway here is what the BKC says
"God's promised blessings demands separation from worldly corruption. Sinfulness and weakness of faith created a threat to the promised blessing. It is a sad commentary on one's lack of faith if God had to deliver him again and again."
This is a bout Abraham. You know the "Friend of God", the Abraham that the Hebrews were reffering to when the said "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", the man who walked, talked and had picnics with God. He may not of been perfect, after all who is except the Savior of the World, but come on. John thought it was a little harsh as well. It sounds like they're going to take the same track with Jacob as well.
I was talking with John and I explained that the LDS people have extra scripture that talk about Abraham so we consider him a real hero. In our scriptures the Lord commands Abraham to say that Sarah is his sister. Our question that we discuss then is, "Why did the Lord command Abraham to lie." but after reading and thinking about this I now wonder if it was a lie in reality. Maybe it was just a shift in emphasis. Also, I've been reading Nibley's book "Abraham in Egypt" and he says that there are new apocryphal stories, that of fairly recent discovery, that says that Sarah in the pharaoh's house was Sarah test to see if she would stay with the promises made to her.
Anyway the real problem I've had, if I have one, it why would Abimilech be interested in an 80 year old women for his wife, or harem, or whatever anyway? I can think of some answers but I've never heard a really great explanation for that anyway. I think my answers are way better than the Lord needed to save the sinful Abraham once again.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Gen 15-18
Gen 15 is where the Lord makes the covenant with Abram. The BKC points out some interesting things that are going on here. When the Abram splits the animals and lays them out the birds come down and Abram chases them off, that is a bad sign. When Abram sleeps the the bad sign is confirmed by Abram having a dream and the Lord telling him that his descendants will be in Egypt for 400 years.
The BKC doesn’t really seem to think that highly of Abram. At least that is the feeling that I get. In Gen 16 when Saria gives Hagoth to Abram the BKC says that Abram was following custom and not the Lord by taking Hagoth. Here is what the BKC says “So Sarai’s suggestion was unobjectionable according to the customs of that time. But God often repudiates social customs.”
I don’t see that that is anywhere in the Bible. After Hagoth becomes pregnant and Sarai gets upset with the way she is acting Sarai tells Abram “May the Lord judge between you and me.” Hagoth was despising Sarai, and it seems to me that Abram must be doing something that helps with that. Why else would Sarai say this unless she thought she were in the right? Apparently Abram agrees and tells her she can do what she wants with Hagoth, so Hagoth runs away. While on the way home the Angel of the Lord finds her and asks her what she’s doing? She says that she’s running away, and the angel tells her to go back and tells her that she will have many descendants. Ishmael is going to be a wild man, but he will also be a father of nations. In what way is God repudiating this?
After the Lord finishes talking to her...
Apparently Hagoth was talking to the Lord face to face, and saw him.
For Gen 17 the BKC has some interesting points. This is the chapter where the Lord reiterates the promise that he made concerning his posterity, and changes his name to Abraham. The BKC points out that it was probably embarrasing to tell people to start calling him, Abraham or “Father of Nations” when he’d only had the one child, and none by his first wife, especially since he was so old.
The Lord tells Abraham that he’s going to have a son by Sarai and he falls on his face and starts to laugh. Now that’s a pretty good relationship to have with the Lord, when you think that what he’s saying could be a joke. This hit me for the first time. In the LDS KJV it says that Hebrew for the word could also be “rejoiced” but the name “Issac” means “One who laughs.” I didn’t know that until the BKC pointed it out. It also said the the name would be a constant reminder to Abraham that he laughed when the Lord gave him a promise.
When the Lord renews the promise, Abraham assumes that it will be though Ishmael. The Lord hears Abraham’s concern “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you (Gen 17:20) and blesses him to be the father of many nations as well. Again I’m not seeing the repudiation here.
In Gen 18 the Lord again appears to Abraham with two other angels and says that the birth is eminent, within the year, and this time Sarah thinks it’s funny and laughs, and when the Lord asks her about it she says she didn’t laugh. So the name Isaac is going to have some meaning to her as well. When the Lord and the other angels appear to Abraham, he hastens to cook them the best meal that he can, and eats with them. How’s that for anthropomorphism? After the meal is over the two angels leave and the Lord looks at Sodom, and says that he’s going to go down and see if it’s as evil as the rumors say it is. The BKC points out that since the Lord in omniscience he must know the answer to this question. I agree with that, and so I’ve come to think that whenever the Lord asks these questions, or makes these statements, like when He asked the Brother of Jaren what he’d seen, the Lord is using the Socratic method on the reciepient. In this case I think it’s to see how the Abraham will react to learning that the Cities on the Plain are about to be destroyed. I think Abraham does well in this test since he argues that the wicked should not be slain for the righteous sake. The Lord agrees that that’s true, but the problem here is there are very few righteous in the Cities of the Plain.
The BKC doesn’t really seem to think that highly of Abram. At least that is the feeling that I get. In Gen 16 when Saria gives Hagoth to Abram the BKC says that Abram was following custom and not the Lord by taking Hagoth. Here is what the BKC says “So Sarai’s suggestion was unobjectionable according to the customs of that time. But God often repudiates social customs.”
I don’t see that that is anywhere in the Bible. After Hagoth becomes pregnant and Sarai gets upset with the way she is acting Sarai tells Abram “May the Lord judge between you and me.” Hagoth was despising Sarai, and it seems to me that Abram must be doing something that helps with that. Why else would Sarai say this unless she thought she were in the right? Apparently Abram agrees and tells her she can do what she wants with Hagoth, so Hagoth runs away. While on the way home the Angel of the Lord finds her and asks her what she’s doing? She says that she’s running away, and the angel tells her to go back and tells her that she will have many descendants. Ishmael is going to be a wild man, but he will also be a father of nations. In what way is God repudiating this?
After the Lord finishes talking to her...
13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” (Gen 17:13 NIV)
Apparently Hagoth was talking to the Lord face to face, and saw him.
For Gen 17 the BKC has some interesting points. This is the chapter where the Lord reiterates the promise that he made concerning his posterity, and changes his name to Abraham. The BKC points out that it was probably embarrasing to tell people to start calling him, Abraham or “Father of Nations” when he’d only had the one child, and none by his first wife, especially since he was so old.
The Lord tells Abraham that he’s going to have a son by Sarai and he falls on his face and starts to laugh. Now that’s a pretty good relationship to have with the Lord, when you think that what he’s saying could be a joke. This hit me for the first time. In the LDS KJV it says that Hebrew for the word could also be “rejoiced” but the name “Issac” means “One who laughs.” I didn’t know that until the BKC pointed it out. It also said the the name would be a constant reminder to Abraham that he laughed when the Lord gave him a promise.
When the Lord renews the promise, Abraham assumes that it will be though Ishmael. The Lord hears Abraham’s concern “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you (Gen 17:20) and blesses him to be the father of many nations as well. Again I’m not seeing the repudiation here.
In Gen 18 the Lord again appears to Abraham with two other angels and says that the birth is eminent, within the year, and this time Sarah thinks it’s funny and laughs, and when the Lord asks her about it she says she didn’t laugh. So the name Isaac is going to have some meaning to her as well. When the Lord and the other angels appear to Abraham, he hastens to cook them the best meal that he can, and eats with them. How’s that for anthropomorphism? After the meal is over the two angels leave and the Lord looks at Sodom, and says that he’s going to go down and see if it’s as evil as the rumors say it is. The BKC points out that since the Lord in omniscience he must know the answer to this question. I agree with that, and so I’ve come to think that whenever the Lord asks these questions, or makes these statements, like when He asked the Brother of Jaren what he’d seen, the Lord is using the Socratic method on the reciepient. In this case I think it’s to see how the Abraham will react to learning that the Cities on the Plain are about to be destroyed. I think Abraham does well in this test since he argues that the wicked should not be slain for the righteous sake. The Lord agrees that that’s true, but the problem here is there are very few righteous in the Cities of the Plain.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
A Cool Juxtaposition
When I was reading in Genesis 14 where the account is given of Abram meeting with Melchizedek. As I pointed out in a previous posting, this is one of those chapters in the OT where the light on new revelation has given us further insights.
The BKC is limited to just the Bible, so it is somewhat perplexing to try and explain how Jesus can be a “High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” They attempt to do it by linking Jesus back to David who set up Jerusalem as his capitol which is where Melchizedek was also king. The also say that the the order of Melchizedek must be "superior" to the order of Levi because Abraham paid tithes to him. Lets just say that I’m glad for modern revelation in the case of Melchizededk.
I was reading a book about the Book of Revelation, called “The Opening of the Seven Seals.” It was a pretty good book. I’ve been thinking a lot about the signs of the times lately, and actually bought two other books about it, but I didn’t like them. Then I found this book which I knew I had, and had started reading, then stopped for whatever reason. I started reading it again. I got to the part that talks about the Seventh Angel rising, and the section in the D&C that talks about this angel being an Elias “if you will receive it” (D&C 77:9). I’ve never really understood this before. The book on Revelation quotes classic paragraph by Eld. Bruce R. McConkie (at least I've read it in a couple different places) talking about John the Baptist being an Elias, this angel being an Elias, Joseph Smith is an Elias, and Elias is supposed to return to the temple before the Second
Coming. What’s going on here?
After reading that and thinking about how the BKC handles Melchizedek in the Bible, I thought “Am I a Melchizedek?” Well yes in a way I am a Melchizedek. I hold an office in the Priesthood that is named after him. Why couldn’t it be the same with Elias. The office could be called the Elias office like a Bishop. Anyway it all came clear to me and I seemed to understand it a lot better.
The BKC is limited to just the Bible, so it is somewhat perplexing to try and explain how Jesus can be a “High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” They attempt to do it by linking Jesus back to David who set up Jerusalem as his capitol which is where Melchizedek was also king. The also say that the the order of Melchizedek must be "superior" to the order of Levi because Abraham paid tithes to him. Lets just say that I’m glad for modern revelation in the case of Melchizededk.
I was reading a book about the Book of Revelation, called “The Opening of the Seven Seals.” It was a pretty good book. I’ve been thinking a lot about the signs of the times lately, and actually bought two other books about it, but I didn’t like them. Then I found this book which I knew I had, and had started reading, then stopped for whatever reason. I started reading it again. I got to the part that talks about the Seventh Angel rising, and the section in the D&C that talks about this angel being an Elias “if you will receive it” (D&C 77:9). I’ve never really understood this before. The book on Revelation quotes classic paragraph by Eld. Bruce R. McConkie (at least I've read it in a couple different places) talking about John the Baptist being an Elias, this angel being an Elias, Joseph Smith is an Elias, and Elias is supposed to return to the temple before the Second
Coming. What’s going on here?
After reading that and thinking about how the BKC handles Melchizedek in the Bible, I thought “Am I a Melchizedek?” Well yes in a way I am a Melchizedek. I hold an office in the Priesthood that is named after him. Why couldn’t it be the same with Elias. The office could be called the Elias office like a Bishop. Anyway it all came clear to me and I seemed to understand it a lot better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)