More Thoughts on Job

 Back in 2022, I did a long post about the Book of Job.  It contains many of the same ideas I have been thinking of this week as we have studied Job again.  Job really is a masterful work, and so intriguing. There are so many unanswered questions: When was it written? Who wrote it and why? Why was it specifically preserved in the cannon?  I think that the fact it is included in the Jewish Bible shows something about the Jewish psyche. 

None of the stories of the Old Testament are simplistic.  Each one involves layers of philosophical questions and ethical issues.  The contrast with other philosophical writings is remarkable. The Buddhist writings, for example, have clear directions in list form that if you follow, you will have a good life and draw closer to enlightenment. The stories in the Jewish Bible are messy, and often contradict each other's doctrines. None of the heroes are perfect, and none of the victories are without controversy.  The Jewish culture seems to embrace the idea that the only way to learn how to wrestle with complicated life questions is to watch others wrestle with complicated life questions. 

I think that one way to look at the Book of Job, then, (and I got this idea from one of the podcasts I listened to this week, though I can't remember which one) is to see it as an example of developmental states of a testimony. 

Innocent Enthusiasm

When the story begins, Job is a zealous follower of God. He faithfully observes religious obligation, and even does extra sacrifices for his children, just in case they have sinned. (Job 1:5).  God calls him a "perfect and an upright man, one who feareth God, and escheweth evil." (1:8)

Endurance of initial trials

When Job loses his possessions and his children, he still clings to his simple faith. "The Lord giveth and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." (1:21)

Questioning

When Job is then cursed with physical pain, in addition to his loss, he begins to question, not the existence of God, but his motivations. "Why died I not in the womb? shy did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?" (2: 11) During this period he is confronted by the philosophies of men that try to convince him that he is unworthy, and that he should give up. His friends tell him "Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished being innocent? or where are the righteous cut off?" (4:7)  Job still clings to his belief in God, but begins to question his worthiness, "If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me; if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse." (9:20)

Submission coupled with mature faith

During his trials, Job finally submits to the will of God by admitting that he doesn't understand his ways. "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee,..I have heard thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eyes seeth thee. Therefore, I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (42: 2, 5-6)

The story of Job seems to communicate that path to mature faith is not easy. There will never be a time when we understand the reasons why terrible things happen to us or to those we love. Once we acknowledge God's supremacy in our lives--that he oversees both the good and the bad with infinite wisdom--we can find peace. 

Esther the "Hidden" Heroine

 Four years ago I made a blog post about the book of Esther that used the four fold interpretation method.  In it I explored the literal, symbolic, contextual, and secret/sacred interpretations of the story.  This time I would like to delve more into the contextual interpretation.

What I learned this year was that the name "Esther" in Hebrew אסתר,  has as its root the word that means "hidden."  As is often the case in the Hebrew Bible, the meaning of the name is the meaning of the story.  Esther's true cultural identity is hidden from the king. He does not know that she is a Jewess until the big reveal at the end of the story.  I think there is an additional significance to her name as well. 

In my original blog, I stated that the story of Esther occurs during the time of the Jewish captivity. That is not strictly true.  Instead, she is a member of the diaspora.  In other words, she is living in Persia about 75 years after the time of Cyrus the Great freed Jews to return to Jerusalem.  The majority of the Jews taken into captivity did not return, but chose to stay in Babylon or other areas. Esther is one of these. 

Esther is therefore "hidden" from the center of Jewish worship, i.e. the Temple. As a result, God's power and influence, which is centered in Jerusalem once more, is "hidden" from those in the diaspora. In fact, although the story talks about Esther fasting and praying for deliverance, none of the words for "God" appear in the entire book. He is not overtly credited for helping Esther or saving the people. 

Yet, the people were saved. God's help is implied throughout the story. When Esther is chosen as queen, when Mordecai thwarts the assassination attempt, when the king can't sleep and asks to be read the history of his reign, all these elements of the story that lead to the salvation of the Jews are understood to be divine intervention, without being outwardly identified as such.

The story of Esther answers a few questions: Does God still watch over his people when they are away from the center of worship?  What does that aid look like?  What does it look like to be a worshiper of Jehovah in the diaspora?  The answer the story gives is that God still loves and watches out for his people, but in subtle, yet powerful ways as long as they live standards of high moral character and religious devotion.

Ezra and Nehemiah: the Influence of Empire.

 We studied books of Ezra and Nehemiah in Come Follow Me this week.  I did a pretty good (and long) post about it four years ago and I don't have a lot to add here.  

The main thing that I noticed as I read (beside what I wrote in my earlier post) is how the rise of empires stabilized the region.  Before the captivity, all disputes seemed to be solved through warfare. This or that tribe would attack a different tribe, and then that tribe would unite with their neighbors to rebuff the attack. It is hard for a small tribe like Judah to experience prosperity when their resources are constantly being used for military campaigns.

In the stories in Ezra and Nehemiah, when there is a dispute, the lawyers send letters to the central government to mediate.  Once the authoritative ruling comes back, the question is basically settled. There is none of the tribal inter-fighting that you see earlier. In Nehemiah, the workers felt some peril from their neighbors, (Nehemiah 4:7) but it was nothing like the long sieges and massive attacks we hear about in Kings and Chronicles. 

After the Assyrians took over the whole region in the 700 BCE, there were a series of "superpowers" that dominated the levant. As one conquered the previous ruler, they took over control of the whole region.  Israel was never again an independent state, Here is a very rough timeline (remember that the BC numbers are counting backwards down to zero)

700's BC Assyria

600's BC Babylonians

500-400 BC Persians (Cyrus was the first Persian)

300-100 BC Greeks (Think Alexander the Great)

100 BC -300 AD Romans (Julius Caesar and his successors)

Even though the Jews were not independent, the stability of the imperial system allowed the Jewish culture to grow. The empires after Assyria did not try to do away with regional cultures and allowed for easier trade and a general growth of wealth and prosperity.  This was especially true of the Greek and Roman empires. Herod the Great who built the massive temple complex that existed in Jesus' time was able to do so because he was a vassal ruler under Rome. The Jewish hierarchy of Priests, Scribes and Pharisees developed in this period, underneath their Greek and then Roman overlords.

It all led up to the perfect conditions for Christianity to spread throughout Europe. Even though Rome is seen as the "bad guy" in most of the New Testament, the Pax Romana allowed Paul and other early church leaders to travel safely and extensively around the Mediterranean to spread the "good news." 

It is easy to draw a comparison between these events to the events leading up to the restoration of the gospel in the 1800's. Just as the Reformation and founding of America allowed the religious freedom needed as an incubator of the Gospel in the latter days, the stability of the Roman empire enabled the rise and spread of Christianity throughout Europe. Both show God's hand and foreknowledge in accomplishing his work.

Hezekiah and the Siege of Jerusalem: A Pivot Point in History

 Last week I failed to post anything about Elisha. That was mostly because I did a good post about Elisha four years ago and didn't really have any fresh insights.

This week, though, I had quite an epiphany about the importance of Hezekiah and the siege of Jerusalem found in 2 Kings 18 and 19.  

Background

Hezekiah was one of the kings of Judah that tried to follow Jehovah.  He took down the places of idol worship and followed the current prophet, Isaiah (2 Kings 18:3-6).  During his reign, a terrible force, the Assyrians lead by Sennacherib, swept through the Levant destroying every town they came to, and leading their inhabitants into captivity. This is one part of Biblical history that is well attested by archaeology because the Assyrians left inscriptions of their deeds throughout their conquered territories. 

The Assyrians are the civilization that carried the northern 10 tribes into captivity in 721 BCE.  One of their methods of conquer was to try to neutralize the culture of the conquered peoples.  They would split them up and send them into different areas to work as vassals. They would even split up couples, sending the man to be a soldier, and settling the wife and children far away. They did this so that they wouldn't rally, gather support among their own people, and try to overthrow their oppressors. It is this policy of cultural destruction that caused the 10 northern tribes of Israel to become "lost".  They are called "lost" not so much because their physical location became unknown, but because they lost their identity as Israelites and were absorbed into other cultures. 

At the time of the Northern captivity, Hezekiah had been a joint ruler with his father in Judea for six years. He was a firsthand witness to what Assyria planned to do if they ever captured Jerusalem. He was sole ruler of Judah for 20 years when Sennacherib laid siege of Jerusalem. The people of Jerusalem were able to withstand the siege longer than other cities in the region because Hezekiah had built an underground aqueduct that brought fresh water into the city, but eventually the food ran out.  They couldn't survive the siege much long when Sennacherib sent Rab-shakeh to demoralize Jerusalem with taunts.  Like any good propagandist, Rab-shakeh warned Judah that they had no hope of withstanding an attack, but if they would surrender, they would live. Logic seemed to be on the side of the Assyrians.  It did seem that Judea were grossly outnumbered and had no chance in their weakened state to survive a direct attack. 

Of course, Hezekiah did the brave and faithful thing.  Instead of giving in, he went to the temple and called for the prophet Isaiah to council him. Isaiah went to the Lord and the Lord told Hezekiah not be be afraid. (2 Kings 19:6-7)  The Lord would take care of Assyria. Hezekiah headed the prophet and Jerusalem was saved when the Angel of the Lord went into the hosts of Assyria and destroyed them.

Impact

The importance of this moment is what struck me this week.  If Jerusalem had fallen to the Assyrians, what would have happened? As far as scholars know, the Hebrew Bible, the Tanach, didn't exist yet.  Scholars believe it was compiled during or shortly after the Babylonian Captivity. If Jerusalem had fallen to the Assyrians at this time, and if they had scattered them among other peoples so that they lost their cultural identity like the Northern tribes, there would have been no Bible. Judaism with its monotheism would have been lost. If there was no Judaism, would there have been Christianity? Christianity grew from Judaism as did Islam. Think of the impact of these two major religions on the western world. What would Europe be like if there was no Christianity to turn it from its polytheism? What would the middle east and northern Africa be like without the stabilizing moral framework of Islam? What would America look like if it had been founded by polytheists instead of Christians?  Even though many in the Western culture are no longer practicing any religion, Western culture was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. 

And it all hung on the decision of one man on one day in one city.  Hezekiah's decision to consult the prophet and believe what he said, despite the fact that it seemed impossible, impacted the future of the whole world. It is astounding to contemplate how much rested on that one decision.

Because Hezekiah chose faith, the Lord destroyed the Assyrian army, and Judah persisted for another 100 years. This was enough time for Babylon to rise to power and overthrow Assyria. Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and took the Jews into captivity in about 587 BCE,  but Babylon treated its captives differently. It brought them to Babylon as a group and put Jewish leaders into positions of respect in the kingdom. The Jewish religious leaders, fearing the the people might lose their religious identity, compiled and wrote what was to become the Old Testament. They were in captivity for about 70 years, and then Cyrus the Great allowed all who wanted, to return to Jerusalem and even gave them money to rebuild the temple. Admittedly, the number who returned were only a small percent of the people who were led away, but it was enough that they were able to reestablish a national identity and restart traditional systems of worship. 

The Spirit of Elijah

 This week in Come Follow Me we studied about the ministry of Elijah.  I wrote a good blog about him in 2022 that discusses why Elijah was so downhearted after he defeated the priests of Baal. 

The question I was wondering about this week is why Elijah is associated with the keys to temple worship.  There are several references to this association in the Doctrine & Covenants. 

 (D&C 2) Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

2 And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.
3 If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming. (D&C  27:9 ,110:15, and others have similar language)

These all tie back to a scripture in Malachi 4: 5-6
5 ¶ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Both Jews and early church leaders associated Elijah to the linking of fathers to children, but why?  What event in the life of Elijah caused later believers believe he had to return in order to link families together?

The major accounts we have of Elijah are:
He caused a famine in the land because of wickedness (1 Kings 17:1)
He was fed by ravens (17:6)
He was sent to the widow of Zarephath (17:9)
Miraculously her food doesn't run out (17:16)
He raises her son from the dead (22)
He challenges the priests of Baal and Asherah. (1 Kings 18:18)
He calls fire down from heaven (18:38)
He runs away and hides under a juniper bush and an angel comes to urge him to eat. (18:4-5)
He travels to mount Horeb and talks with the Lord. (19:8)
He senses the Lord in the Still Small Voice (19:12) 

Which of these things ties him to temple work for the dead? I don't know but there are some possible clues.  

1. The way Joseph Smith quotes Malachi 4: 5-6 is different from how it appear in the Old Testament.  Joseph Smith's version says, "I will reveal unto you the priesthood by the hand of Elijah the Prophet." whereas the passage in Malachi says, "I will send you Elijah the Prophet."  So priesthood is a key.  The miracles Elijah did clearly suggest that he held the Melchizedek Priesthood with the power to command things on the earth (the famine) and in the heavens (the rain on the sacrifices). This is the same priesthood needed to officiate in modern temple ordinances. One of my podcasters even suggested that Elijah was the last Israelite prophet to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, (but what about Elisha?).

2. Elijah did a miracle to reunite a parent and a child and to exercise control over life and death when he raised the Widow of Zarephath's son from the dead. It is a temporal reunion, bringing the child back from death into life, but it might be seen as a type of a spiritual reunion enjoyed by families reunited in the spirit world. (that is a bit of a stretch I admit.)

3. Elijah definitely was trying to turn the hearts of the people back to their spiritual roots or "fathers" Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When he built his alter in the battle against the priests of Baal, he purposefully made it of 12 stones, "according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob." (18:31) This is hardly unique to Elijah.  Didn't all the Old Testament prophets try to remind Israel of their religious foundations?

I admit that the connection of Elijah to temple work and eternal families is not clear to me, yet Malachi associated Elijah with tying generations together, and in modern scripture, he is associated with keys to do temple work. Sometimes it is interesting to have an open question like this.  Someday I will be studying or listening to podcasts, and I will figure it out.  That is always a fun moment when a long standing question is finally resolved.  

The Hand of God

 I must admit that this week it was difficult for me to hear about the David and Bathsheba story over and over again during my different podcasts.  It was more clear than ever to me that Bathsheba was not a willing participant in the experience in any way and was brutally victimized by David. You have to give her credit, though, for ensuring that her offspring, Solomon, inherited the thrown. The story of David and Bathsheba reinforces the ideas that I covered in last week's post about the Old Testament writers including each hero's fatal flaw. 

Instead of dwelling on that and the doctrinal problems surrounding it I want to talk about something I noticed about Hebrew idioms that use the word for hand.  Hand, in Hebrew is yad, יד, and, as in English, it occurs in a lot of idioms. The first occurrence of the word is in the book of Genesis 3:22 when Adam has partaken of the forbidden fruit and God must guard the way to the tree of life "Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever". In Hebrew hands usually represent power and agency. In this passage, Adam reaching to take the fruit with his hand, would represent his choice to defy the commandment of God. 

In the reading for this week there are eight references to hands in 1 Kings 8 which contains Solomon's dedicatory prayer on the temple: 

15: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which spake with his mouth unto David my father, and hath with his hand fulfilled it,

22 And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven:

24 thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day

38-39 That prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house: Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, 

42  For they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched out arm;) when he shall come and pray toward this house

53 For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant

54 And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.

56 Blessed be the Lord, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.

Things that are interesting from these passages:

1. If hands represent agency, the priest, by lifting his hands toward God, expresses that he is bending his agency to God's will.  

2.  In 15 and 22, God's will is spoken by his mouth, and fulfilled by his hand, but when Moses is involved as in 53, and 56, things are promised, not by the mouth, but by the hand of Moses. This reinforces the idea that when we say, "by the hand of _____" it is not literally something he is doing with his physical hand.  It is an act of will, i.e. because Moses bent his will to God, God was able to act through him. 

3. In v 42, God is said to have a "great name" and a "strong hand."  These clearly represent respect and power. 

So why is all this hand imagery important?  I find it important because of the crucifixion.  When the resurrected Lord wanted to prove to his disciples that he had accomplished the atonement, he showed them his wounded hands. The exact things that represent power and agency, he allowed to be pierced for our sakes. I think Jesus carefully selected the form of his physical death before it happened. He could have chosen to be drowned, or beheaded, or clubbed, or stoned. Instead he chose to be crucified, the only form of death I know of that focuses on the hands. By showing his disciples his wounded hands one by one, it is as if he is saying, "Look. I voluntarily gave up my power by becoming mortal, and my agency by submitting to the will of my father. I who was above all things, put myself below all things.  And I did it for you." 

How the Great Have Fallen

This week in Come Follow Me we read about David's reign as king of united Israel, and his ultimate fall from grace when he commits adultery with Bathsheba and arranged the murder of her husband. I have always hated the fact that Israel's greatest king and the ancestor of Jesus ended his reign in such an unrighteous way. His whole life David tried to be faithful to the Lord, and then at the end he fell to temptation.  

This year as I read the story I kept wondering why the writers of the Old Testament included it at all. Yes, Bathsheba was the mother of Solomon, so she was pretty important in Jewish history. For Christians, Jesus was a descendant of this unholy union. I just wondered why they wanted to air their dirty laundry.  They could have said, "David married the widow of his general Uriah who was killed in battle," which would have been entirely factually true, even if incomplete. If they had, we would have all felt better about King David.  

Then I began to think of other prominent Biblical leaders who were generally revered, but also have one story where they behaved badly. The list is pretty long.  It starts with Adam and Eve.  They were pretty righteous except for the forbidden fruit thing.  Then there was Noah, who made the awesome ark, but then was found drunken in his tent. Abraham was the originator of the covenant, but kept telling people that his wife was his sister. Jacob tricked his brother Esau out of his birthright. Moses was kept from entering the promised land because he smote the rock without giving the credit to God, and there are more.

I began to wonder if Jewish writers actually want their religious leaders to appear to be flawed in some way. These stories were passed down as oral traditions for generations before they were written down in the Tanakh. It's hard to believe, after all the retellings, that some of the "warts" would have been rubbed away by time if they hadn't specifically prevented that from happening. But why?

I don't know the answer for sure, but here are a few ideas.

1.  Flawed leaders are more relatable. By making their founding patriarchs flawed it shows all the people that they can hope, even in their flaws. You can imagine a elderly Rabi saying, "What you did was not so bad. Look at David, our greatest king. Even he had problems."  

2. They believe that there is wisdom to be gained by wrestling with the messiness. If in the stories everything is black and white, with some good people and some evil people, then our understanding of life is superficial. Real life is not like that.  There is much that is grey and there is good and evil in everyone. Avoiding that truth is not helpful. It is only by wrestling with the way things are that someone gains insight and wisdom.

3. There is one more idea that isn't as obvious as 1 and 2, but I think there might be something to it. When my husband's parents traveled in the middle east they visited a carpet weaver.  They learned from the artisan that whenever they made a carpet, they intentionally introduced a flaw into the pattern.  They did this out of respect for God. Only God is perfect and nothing man-made should aspire to be perfect like God. Maybe something like that is going on here.  Maybe there is an idea that it would be an affront to a perfect God for the Jews to portray their leaders as perfect. Not only is it not true (for no one is perfect) but it would be blasphemous. Remember when a follower of Jesus said, "Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" and Jesus responded, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Matt 10: 17-18)  Even Jesus, who was the only perfect person, did not want to be called "good" out of respect for God. So maybe the writers of the Old Testament purposefully and carefully included at least one story about their revered leaders that showed their imperfections as a way to highlight the perfection of God.

In the Western culture we are raised on fairy tales.  In most of them there are clear heroes and villains.  In modern times we have stories of superheroes and supervillains.  Even when they have complicated personalities and backstories (think Batman) it is always clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.  Not so in the Old Testament and that makes Western readers uncomfortable. Sometimes we just have to sit in the discomfort and try to see if there is any wisdom to be found there.