Solomon the Wise

As I read about Solomon, I must admit I didn't have any really great "ahah!" moments (well, maybe one) There were a few translation things I thought were interesting.  

Solomon's name in Hebrew is שׁלמה which is basically the same word as "Shalom" meaning peace.  The name given to him at birth by the prophet Nathan, is Jedidiah, יְדִידְיָה, which means "beloved of God." These are both fitting names for Solomon, because; 1. the reason Solomon was allowed to build the temple and David was not was because David had "shed much blood" in warfare during his reign. (1 Chronicles 22:7) 2. He was so beloved of God that God told him he could have any gift he asked. Of course, he asked for wisdom, or an understanding heart. (1 Kings 3:9)

So what is the meaning of the word translated in these verses as "An understanding Heart?" (1 Kings 3-9)  In a different translation I read, they said "a discerning heart."  What the Hebrew says is לב שׁמע. The second word, שׁמע. means to "hear" or "head."  It is the first word in the Shema prayer "Hear, oh Israel, our god is one God."  (Deut 6:4)  So what Solomon is asking for is a heart, לב, which will heed, or "שׁמע" the Lord. It is interesting in the vast supply of ready knowledge that we have in the world today, the source of true wisdom is still obedience to God. 

I found it a little strange however, when the writer of 1 Kings says, "And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.”  After reading this I thought, "wait, wait, wait, didn't David mess up big time by sleeping with Bathsheba, and having Uriah killed?  Why is the Lord holding David up as an example to Solomon, especially because he, Solomon, is the offspring of this illicit relationship?" How could the Lord consider David as a role model? The only thing I can come up with, is that even after David messed around with Bathsheba, he felt sorry and mourned his bad choice for the rest of his life.  Even though he faltered in his actions, his heart was always turned toward the Lord. 

David in the Book of Mormon

This week in 1 Samuel we read about the rise of King David. Many of my thoughts today come from the Come Follow Me Insights from Book of Mormon Central.  King David is the most revered king in the history of Ancient Israel.  He is tied to prophecies about the coming Messiah who is supposed to be the Son of King David (Matt 22:42).  He is mentioned over 1,100 times in the Old Testament. Yet he is barely mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and when he is mentioned, it is a negative reference to him having many wives (e.g. Jacob 2:23-24) It almost seems like he fell out of grace in the eyes of the Nephites because of his late-life poor decisions. He certainly isn't idealized in the Book of Mormon like he is in the Bible.

Even though David isn't mentioned as a great king in the Book of Mormon, there are hints and references to his life in several stories.  Tyler Griffith wrote a paper that found many parallels between David's slaying of Goliath and Nephi's slaying of Laban.  Here are a few of the most obvious.  Both David and Nephi were the youngest brothers who had the courage to do God's will when their brothers didn't.  Both Goliath and Laban had threatened to kill their opponents.  Both men were beheaded with their own swords.  In both cases, those swords were retained by the victors and became a symbol of leadership. 

There is also echoes of David's experience with Goliath in the story of Ammon. When Ammon met Lamoni, he was given the chance to marry Lamoni's daughter but agreed to be his servant instead. Saul offered to let anyone who killed Goliath marry his daughter, but David considered himself as unworthy.  Ammon instead served as a shepherd, like David, and like David, killed the leader of the King's enemy with a sword. 

These may just be coincidences, but maybe not.  David's experience with Goliath lead to him becoming the leader of the people, and Nephi's experience with Laban did the same.  Ammon, too, became the leader of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites through his encounters with those who wanted to scatter the flocks.  So it seems that there was a recognized path to righteous glory, and the editor of the Book of Mormon wanted to show how Nephi and Ammon followed that path.

One more thought: I have blogged before about how the New Testament writers consciously evoke stories from the Old Testament to confirm Jesus' legitimacy.  This week I was struck by the many ways they try to show Jesus as the "Son of David."  David's biological son who became his heir was Solomon, who was born of someone else's wife. Jesus was born with a different biological father than the man his mother was married to, and his mother probably endured judgement from her neighbors because of it. The one that really whacked me over the head was that David's best friend was Jonathan, and Jesus forerunner was John.  John and Johnathan share more in common than the similarity of their first names.  Jonathan was the son of the king and rightful heir, but acknowledged David as the rightful king. John was son of a high priest, and jobs like that were passed down father to son, but he acknowledged Jesus as the true high priest. John was killed for staying true to his beliefs, and so was Johnathan. Jesus mourned John's death as David mourned Jonathan's. 

Ruth

 After reading Judges, the book of Ruth is like a breath of fresh air.  We leave the warfare and political strife, and take a peak into the lives of normal people who are trying to do what is right. 

Why do we have the Book of Ruth?  

After the Babylonian captivity, Josiah was zealous to set temple and religious observance back on course.  Since they were in captivity for about 70 years, or two generations more or less, Josiah wanted a way to verify who were true Isrealites, and who were legally able to serve in the Temple. He, therefore, required people to produce geneologies that showed that each was:

     1. of Israel, and/or 

    2. eligible to serve in the Temple, i.e. Levite or Aaronic descendency. 

 The right to work as a priest was handed down father to son, but the identity of being a Israelite was determined through the mother.  So far in the Old Testament, all the stories where non-Hebrew women play a primary role are included because those women are ancestors of prominant Israeli leaders. This is the case here.  Ruth was the great grandmother of David, so we need a story to show how she, born a Moabite, was adopted into the house of Israel. 

Symbolism in Ruth. 

Some of the podcasts I listened to tried to see a lot of symbolism in the book of Ruth.  I must admit that their arguements are not as compelling as some of those in favor of symbolism elsewhere.  There is some symbolism in their names.  Naomi נﬠמי means "pleasant" and Ruth רוּת means friendship. After Naomi's husband and sons die, she wants people to call her "Mara" which means, "bitter".  beyond that  I really think this is just a sweet story about good people being kind to each other. 

Culture.

This book gives a lot of insight into how the Law of Moses was enacted in people's lives.  We see the rule from Leviticus 9:19 that farmers were to leave the grain in the corners of their fields for the poor. It also shows how an extended family unit was supposed to run.  There was a family chief who had the responsibility to take care of any woman who was widowed, or of anyone who was having financial problems. It was often the eldest son of the eldest son.  Later this role was called the Father of the Family, but here it is called "Near Kinsman." Below that person, there were leaders of smaller family units.  In this story Boaz was not the highest "kinsman" in charge of taking care of the widow, Naomi, but he was a second tier "kinsman," so that is why he had to check with the chief kinsman to see if it was OK to marry Ruth. This family structure is a reason why it would not be odd for a Jew to call Jesus both a father and a son.  He was the Son of God, but had the role of Father of the family, or the eldest brother who was in charge of redeming other family members. 

Story Line.

The story is about how Ruth becomes converted, but it is also a story about how Naomi leaves home, becomes bereft, returns to home, and is redemed.  It is also, I think, a romance.  Even though Boaz was older, he seems to have really fallen for Ruth as soon as he saw her.  It is cute when she proposes to him, that he is so pleased that a young beautiful woman would choose him over  a younger man.  But why not?  He was very nice to Ruth, and she knew she could trust him to treat her right.  When Boaz marries Ruth, Naomi's future is secured.  She takes up the role of nursemaid to her grandchildren, and is called blessed. 

Samson

 I am so grateful for perspectives I have gained this year reading through the Old Testament, especially concerning Judges.  In previous times I have read through Judges, I wondered why these characters were considered Bible heroes, when they were not really very righteous or even moral.  This time, through, I have come to realize that they are not supposed to be heroes, they are supposed to be examples of what happens when people don't keep their covenants.  My favorite podcast about this this week was Talking Scriptures with Mike Day and Bryce Dunford. Bryce points out that each of the "judges" were actually clan leaders who were called upon to save different houses of Israel when they were in captivity. Each of them were in some way non-standard, showing that Israel, though still God's covenant people, were not living up to their covenants.  Ehud was non-standard because he was a Benjaminite (Benjamin means son of the right hand) who was left-handed.  Deborah was non-standard because she was a woman leading an army in a male dominated society. Jephthah makes a rash vow, and ends of sacrificing his daughter.  The best example of being a righteous judge is Gideon, but even he inadvertantly starts a idolitrous cult in the end.  The worst example of a covenant keeping was Samson. 

So what are we to think of Samson?  He starts out like other great Israelite leaders, in that he has a miraculous birth foretold by an angel, and is designated a Nazarite from birth. When he becomes an adult he has super-human strength, but uses it for his own gain and systematically breaks all the Nazarite vows.  Nazarites are not supposed to touch anything that is dead, but Samson scoops honey from a dead lion's carcus and eats it.  Nazarites are not supposed to drink wine, but when Samson is to marry the daughter of a Philistine he throws a drinking party (Judges 14:10, the word is translated "feast" but suggests a drinking party). The last vow of a Nazarite is that he not cut his hair.  When he has an affair with Delilah he tells her about his hair and she cuts it while he sleeps.  This leads to his capture, blindness, and death. 

As with the stories of the Pentateuch, the most useful question to ask is not if they happened the way they were written, but why they were  written that way.  I believe the story of Samson is a commentary on the fall of the House of Israel. Like Samson, Israel is "born" miraculously by being lead through the Red Sea.  Like him, they make a covenant, the ten commandments, early on in their history. Then as they reach their maturity by crossing into the promised land, they begin to break each one of their covenants. They break the first three commandments by worshiping other Gods and forgetting the Lord.  As they do, bad things befall them.  They, too, fall into captivity, are blinded to the knowledge of the true god, and are often destroyed by their enemies. 

Yet there is a hopeful side to the story of Samson, too.  Even though Samson breaks all of his covenants, whenever he remembers to call on God for help, the Lord sends help.  That is the message of the whole book of Judges. Even though Israel has turned from God and broken their covenants, whenever they are in captivity and need help, God sends a deliverer, however imperfect, to help them.

  

Jericho

 As we pass out of Deuteronomy, we leave the Pentateuch and enter what is known as the "Historical" books of the Old Testament which continue through Nehemiah.  It is important to note, however, that they were not written as a history in the way that modern people think of a history, scrupulously researched and attempting to be non-bias.  They are still a religious text, written to teach religious principles.  The question modern scholars have is how much of the Historical books are actually historical in the modern sense.  I had wondered this question about the story of the capture of Jericho.  Did the Israelites really circle the walled city for six days and then on the seventh day all shout and blow horns until and the walls of the city fell down?  Or is this some kind of symbol or type?  In one of the podcasts I listened to this week they mentioned that, according to archaeology, Jericho was not a walled city during the time that the Israelites entered Canaan. Other sources I read said that Jericho is considered by some to have been the first ever walled city, having been built about 8000 BCE, but by the time the Israelites arrived, around 1300 BCE it had fallen into ruin. All the scientific sources I read said there was no thriving walled city at Jericho at the time of Joshua.  Could they all be wrong? Certainly, but I think the archeological evidence invites us to ask ourselves, if the story is not based on history, why was it written as it was and what symbolic meaning might it hold. 

First of all, why Jericho?  It was located in one of the lowest spots, geographically, of the area that was to be conquered by the Israelites. They were starting at the bottom and working their way up.  Also, by the time that the story of Joshua was edited and canonized by Josiah, it was probably again a thriving and impressive walled city.  It would have represented to that group a significant first hurdle for the success of the Israelite conquest. 

The first we hear of Jericho is when Joshua sends in two spies who are sheltered by Rahab, a prostitute, of the city.  In return for her help, the spies promise to save her and her family when the rest of the city is destroyed.  This story is significant because Rahab is later listed as an ancestor to King David.  Since Jewish identity is passed through the mother, there needed to be a story the explained how and when this Canaanite woman converted to Yaweh worship.  

The instructions given to Joshua about how the city was to be breached is full of symbolism.  The army was given very exact instructions on what they were to do. They carried the Ark of the Covenant, which represented the throne of God, before them. They circled the city seven times.  In the Pentateuch the number seven is connected to the creation of the world, and to covenant making.  In Exodus 20:8 the Lord tells his people "but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.  For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." By circling the city seven times the people are reminded both that the LORD is the god who created everything, and that He was the one who would be doing the work that they were not supposed to do, i.e. bringing the walls of the city down.  The whole story gives the message that Israel will only prevail if they carefully follow the commandments of the Lord and trust him to fight their battles for them.

This interpretation is reinforced when you consider the next story in the narrative.  In Chapter  8 of Joshua, the Israelites, flush with their victory in Jericho, go to invade the city of Ai.  They are surprised when they are easily defeated, and 32 warriors killed.  Joshua inquires of the Lord why they lost the battle, and the Lord tells Joshua that somebody disobeyed the command to turn over all the booty from Jericho, and this disobedience was the cause of the loss in Ai.  Joshua does a careful search and finds the man who has hoarded booty from Jericho and has him executed by stoning.  Once Israel is free from the "abomination" of the hoarded booty, they are able to return to Ai and conquer.  The story of the battle of the city of Ai stands as a foil to the story of the Battle of Jericho.  In Jericho, they do everything right and they win a battle with little effort of their own.  In the battle of Ai, they do everything wrong at first, and lose a battle they should have been able to win.  When they repent and rid the army of the one who was disobedient, they are able to be victorious once more. 

If you think of this "History" as part of the religious works commissioned by Josiah during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity, you can see that Josiah is including (or maybe manufacturing) these two stories to teach his people what he considered a valuable lesson.  The only way they could reclaim their homeland (i.e. the promised land) was to be as obedient as Joshua's army was at Jericho, and rely on the Lord to fight their battles.

Deuteronomy

This week in the Come Follow Me curriculum we focused on the book of Deuteronomy.  I don't know if this is anyone's favorite book in the Old Testament.  It contains a lot of detail about specific aspects of the Mosaic Law.  It is surprising, therefore, to realize that it is often quoted by Jesus in the New Testament. One website I saw found 34 references. There were two things I want to discuss this week that I think are important for the study of Deuteronomy. 

The first was best addressed in the podcast Talking Scripture with Mike Day and Bryce Dunford.  They talk about the theory that Deuteronomy was the "Book of the Law" discovered during Josiah's reign, just before the Babylonian captivity.  Josiah embraced the then ancient practices it described, and made a major religious reformation.  Mike and Bryce quote scholars that argue that as part of the reformation some principles that are now part of Mormon theology were removed.  They claim that the doctrines Lehi was professing were contrary to the reformation, and that is why he was threatened and driven from the city.  Some of the changes were a belief in a single God, instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Another was a denial of a corporial God.  Earlier stories talk of Moses seeing God face to face, but in Deuteronomy is says noone can see God.  Deuteronomy also focuses religious practice exclusively on the Tabernacle (and later the Temple by association).  But earlier accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob show them setting up memorials, pillars or wells, wherever they had a spiritual manifestation. They take the fact that Lehi set up an altar in the wilderness as evidence that he opposed the Deuteronomistic reforms of Josiah.  They acknowledged that Josiah was generally a better king than many of the past kings of Israel because he was a least trying to worship the Lord, but that he didn't get everything right.

The second question I want to address is whether the Lord ever commanded his people to commit genocide. Repeatedly throughout Deuteronomy, the Lord tells Israel to "Utterly Destroy" the people of the land (e.g. Deuteronomy 13:15-16).  This will happen again in Joshua as the Israelites cross the river Jordan and start conquering one city after another.  It seems like there are two possible answers to this question, both of which have complicated implications. I will investigate them here and give my opinions on their strengths and weakness.

1. The Lord did command his people to destroy the other cities.  

Strengths: That is what the text says. If you are a literalist, then you are compelled to believe that the Lord did command the people to kill thousands of prior residents of the land.  People who believe it justify it in a couple of ways.  They say that it is not as big of deal to the Lord for people to die, because the Lord knows they are just being moved from one kind of living to another.  So it isn't as bad as it sounds.  Other people say that is was so important to wipe out pegan worship, the Lord was willing to let some people die to save the souls of his chosen people. 

Issues: I personally have serious issues with both of these arguments.  Even if it isn't a big deal to the Lord to move someone from this life to the next, what affect does it have on the person doing the slaying?  When you violently kill someone, it damages your soul.  If you are commanded to kill women and children, it damages your soul even more.  If it was important to clear the land of wicked people the Lord could have sent a plague or flood of pestilence and done the job without making his chosen people do the dirty work.  Also, this is a dangerous kind of argument, that was probably employed by all those who have in more recent history committed atrocities in the name of God. Mike and Bryce also pointed out that this kind of warfare goes against the doctrine of divinely sanctioned warfare as described in the Book of Mormon, e.g. that you should not wage war for gain but only to defend your rights and your families. 

2. The Lord didn't command his people to destroy the cities.

Strengths: This better fits with a New Testament view of God.  Jesus taught that if a man strike you on the right cheek, you should turn to him the left. He reached out with compassion to the sinners he met. It better matches the Book of Mormon account of God's views on war.  Mike and Bryce also point out that this matches the historical/archeological evidence.  Archaeology doesn't support the idea that whole civilizations were destroyed during the time period and replaced with Israelites.  There is evidence that Israelites started influencing preexisting groups, but not replacing them. 

Weakness: If the Lord didn't command them, why does the Bible say that he did.  Do we too often adopt the "merciful" view of the Lord and forget his "just" side.  If we are willing to bend the text to our view in this respect, is it a slippery slope to make all scriptures just mean what we want them to mean. 

What is my opinion?  I don't know.  I tend to lean toward the second option.  I think that Israel came into the land as conquerors and then later claimed that the Lord made them do it.  Or, perhaps, they didn't do much conquering at all, but later, during the Babylonian captivity, claimed that they did to boost cultural confidence and morale. But if, some day, I receive a strong spiritual confirmation that the Lord really did command the Israelites to commit genocide, I will accept it on faith that the Lord knew best. 

The Book of Numbers

By about last Tuesday, I was wondering what I might post about in this week's blog.  Nothing was really standing out to me. Then by Saturday, I had learned so many interesting things, I didn't know what to choose for my post. An obvious area of focus is the story of the brazen serpent.  It is a small side story in the Numbers narrative, but it is mentioned at least twice in the Book of Mormon.  Because of that story, I decided to pick Numbers 21 as my chapter to read in Hebrew this week, and made an interesting translation discovery.  I would also like to mention, briefly, a passage, Number 6: 24-26 which wasn't included in our readings.

The Firey Serpent:

As the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, they started to complain about the lack of food and water.  They had manah, but they were tired of it.  The Lord then sends "firey serpents" to bite them, and many died.  The people begged Moses to advocate for them before the Lord, asking him to take the serpents out of their midst.  The Lord did one better.  He removed the serpents, and asked Moses to make an image of a serpent and put it on a pole.  Anyone who would look at the serpent would live.  That is the end of the story in Old Testament.  In the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 17:41, Alma 33:18-22) we learn that some people refused to look, and died.  Alma saw the serpent as a type of Christ.  My questions were, why would a serpent be a symbol of both Satan (Genesis) and Christ.  So here is what I came up with.  

1. The serpent wasn't just a serpent, it was a "firey" serpent.  When I was reading in Hebrew I came to that term "firey serpents" and it was הנחשׂים  חשׂרפים, or the seraphim serpents. Of course, my mind went to Isaiah when in vision he saw Seraphim near the throne of God. (Isaiah 6:2). The word Seraph just means firey, so there may not be any association here to Isaiah's vision.  One commentator said the serpents were probably called firery because their bite caused a burning sensation.  But fire has been a symbol of the presence of God all through the narrative of the Exodus.  It was a pillar of fire that indicated that God was in the tabernacle, a Moses first met God in a burning bush.  In Egypt at the time of the captivity of Israel, Pharoah would wear a Ureus, or cobra, on his crown as a sign of his power and right to rule.  In later Egyptian iconography, the Ureus was displayed as having wings. I am not sure how or if these symbols relate, but one symbol was clearly mentioned in Alma, that the serpent being lifted up symbolized Jesus being lifted up on the Cross.  If a flying firey serpent was a symbol the Israelites would have associated with divine power and right to rule, and then that symbol was lifted on a cross, that is a strong Christian symbol. Some have claimed that a serpent could represent Jesus in another way as well, because just as a snake sheds its skin but emerges alive, Jesus shed his mortality but lives on in a renewed body.  It is all a bit muddy, but maybe a little bit interesting. 

The other thing I wanted to comment on is Number's 6:24-26.  This is known as the Aaronic Blessing or Priestly Blessing.  It is familiar to Christians, and a very important prayer to Jews, perhaps equivalent to the Lord's prayer to Christians.  I have heard that this is the ending prayer in a Jewish service each week. 

24The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

There is a lovely musical version of this on youtube that I have memorized.  So if you want to learn a passage in Hebrew, this song is a good way to do it.