Text in Context

During the Priesthood meeting at the last General Conference, President Thomas S. Monson addressed the congregation. His talk was titled, To Learn, To Do, To Be. President Monson spoke of the size of the large assembly of LDS priesthood holders, their admirable desire to learn their duty, and their capacity to share the LDS gospel with others. To encourage his listeners in doing good, President Monson quoted a passage from the biblical book of Ezekiel and then followed up with a question:

“’A new heart…will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you…

“’And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

“’And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God’ [Ezekiel 36:26–28].

“How might we merit this promise? What will qualify us to receive this blessing? “

President Monson followed his question with an answer: “learn what we should learn…do what we should do…be what we should be.”

It’s really interesting that President Monson chose the scripture he did in order to support his teaching regarding personal worthiness and merit. The text he quoted, the revelation God gave through the prophet Ezekiel, pretty much teaches the opposite of what LDS Prophet and President Thomas Monson went on to instruct his audience.

If we look at the context of Ezekiel 36 we find that it follows on the pronouncement of God’s judgment against Israel’s false shepherds (chapter 34) and against Edom, the prototype of Israel’s enemies (chapter 35). In chapter 36 God promises Israel that He will restore His people to a place of profound blessing. In chapter 37 God illustrates and confirms the future fulfillment of His promise. What stands out in stark contrast to the way LDS President Monson used Ezekiel 36:26-28 is the fact that God makes it very clear in His Word that His promise to bless His people is dependent wholly on Himself, and not at all on what the people learn, do or be.

The house of Israel did not “merit” God’s blessings. In Ezekiel 36:16-19 God catalogs their sins:

“The word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity. So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name…'”

Like us, these people did not “qualify” to receive anything good from God’s hand. But God told them,

“It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.” (Ezekiel 36:22)

In the following words of God’s revelation through Ezekiel we see just what God proposed:

“And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 36:23-32, emphasis mine)

Twelve times in these ten verses God says He will act to bless His people. He promises blessings beyond measure. He will deliver them. He will cleanse them. He will give them the gift of a new heart and a new spirit, and He will “cause” them to care about His rules, and to obey. What have the people done to “merit” these things? Absolutely nothing. But they do respond. They remember their sin and mourn their evil ways; they are deeply ashamed.

Amazingly, Thomas Monson took the clear and powerful Word of God — a revelation wherein God declared His divine initiative in blessing His people — and misapplied it to teach his followers that God’s blessings are bestowed according to human attainment. What a shame.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Bible, General Conference and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Text in Context

  1. shematwater says:

    I think you are not reading these quite right.

    Acts 10: 34-35 “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no arespecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and WORKETH RIGHTEOUSNESS, is eaccepted with him.”

    You say this means “No one is more righteous or pure than anyone else” but that is not what is being said. Peter is saying that God does not disciminate on a basis of nationality or race, hense the phrase “but in every nation.” After stating that all men are treated equal, he than lists the two requirements to be accepted of God, which are “feareth him” or faith, and Working Righteousness. If all were equal as sinful than there would not be the unpardonable sin given in Matt 12: 31, Mark 3: 29, and Luke 12: 10. As there is a sin that cannot be forgiven than there are those who have sinned to a greater degree than others have. It is only logical.
    Yes, christ is the only one that is perfectly righteous, which is why we require his atonement to gain salvation. However, to say that all are equally sinful seems illogical concidering the blasphame of the Holy Ghost.

    From you comments on Peter and Revelations it seems that you are saying our sins can condemn us but our good works cannot help us. This would make God unjust, thus contradicting the Bible. If our sins can condemn us, than our righteousness can help us. While none of us can be righteous enough to gain salvation, our works have to count for something. Even if it is only choosing to Believe in Christ. Our faith then becomes a good work (which is only proven through other good works as James says in chapter 2).
    I refer you to Matthew 25. In this chapter are the parables of the Ten Virgins, the Talents, and the Sheep and Goats. I will only speak on the talents, as the other two have the same meaning.
    In this parable we (verses14-30) For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man…And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not…Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    Here we have three servants. All of them knew their master and all waited for his return. What does it all mean?
    The Master = Christ
    The Servants = The Saints (desiples of Christ) We can tell this because each was waiting for the master.
    The Talents = The mission or work each desiple is to do in this life (understood by the phrase “according to his several ability)
    So, Christ leaves, giving each man a job. Those who faithfully carry out this job, or do the work required of them, receive the blessing “Well done thou good and faithful servant, enter into the rest of thy Lord.” The one that does not faithfully carry out his job, does not do the work, loses what he has and is cast into outer darkness.
    From this we see that those who do good in their work will be blesses, while those who do not good in their work will be cast out.
    Whether you agree with this interpretation or not, it is still a very sound interpretation, thus proving this idea through the Bible.

    As to Ezekiel, yes he was given a specific task as watchmen, as he was a prophet. However, if you understand the doctrines of the church you would know that all those who hold the priesthood are given the task as watchmen in Isreal, so this verse applies. While President Monson, his counselors, and the twelve are watchmen over the entire world, we are all watchman over our own small portion. I am a watchman over my family, thus if I do not teach them correctly their sins will be on my hands. My Bishop is a watchman for our ward, thus carrying the responsible for many. The Stake President is over the stake. A missionary is called as a Temporary watchman over the air he serves in. When you understand that all those who hold the priestood are called to watch over some part of the church, the declaration that if we fail those under us will be held at our hands is perfectly sound and Biblical.
    Now, if it was our calling to bring the gospel to a certain person, and we fail to act in that calling, the Lord will find another way to reach that person. However, we will still be held accountable for not teaching them.

  2. shematwater says:

    Gundeck

    I believe it is implied. Let me explain.
    First we take the Geneologies withing Genesis. In Genesis 10 we get the desendants of Shem. First we get a list of Shem’s five son’s. However, the line is then traced through the third son, Arphadax, not the first, Elam. Arphadax has a son, Salah, who had a son, Eber, who had two sons. The first is Peleg, a man of note. In the following chapter we get the line down to Abraham.
    How does this show a Priesthood line? We must now go farther back, to the first Family. I think we can all agree that for a man to perform the sacrifice of a lamb to God he had to be worthy to do so. As it seemed no great occurance that Cain was doing a sacrifice I think it logical to say that he started out worthy. He fell from grace with his vegetable offering, and was completely condemned for the killing of Able, who was faithful. So now the Authority was passed to Seth, who is next in line in the list of Patriarchs which include the great men Enoch and Noah. As pointed out this line is traced after Noah from Shem to Abraham.
    Next thing to note is the Geneology of Christ himself. We are given two separate geneologies, one in Matthew and one in Luke. I believe this is done because one, that of Matthew, gives the literal ancestry of Christ, while Luke gives the Royal ancestry, as it was not always the same as the literal one. This is also why Luke gives the geneology back to Adam, because he is tracing not only the authority of the House of David, bu the authority of Priesthood. As his line extends through the same line as the book of Genesis does than we can believe that these were the men who held that authority at that time.
    The idea of the Priesthood line is again shown in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim. Abraham was given this presiding authority as part of the covenant. It was than renewed with Isaac, as he was the eldest of Abraham’s first wife, and was righteous. From Isaac it pasted to Jacob (prophesied of while Rebecca was still pregnant Genesis 25: 23) as he was the one worthy to receive it. From Jacob it past to Joseph after Reuben defiled his father’s bed. Then it past to Ephraim. This story is interesting (genesis 48: 15-22) as Mannasah was worthy, and was the eldest, but this blessing was given to the younger Emphraim.
    The Bible tells the story of the covenant line, in which the presiding authority of the Priesthood was passed. Many of Abraham’s seed had the Priesthood, including the midianites, as Moses’ father-in-law Jethro had it. Yet we do not have their record, because the presiding authority, which was given to Abraham, passed to Isaac and not Midian.
    I may have been wrong to say it was a part of the unique covenant known as the Abrahamic Covenant, but it was still a covenant made with Abraham.

  3. shematwater says:

    You do not understand what I said.

    In the Old Testiment the Law of Moses is recorded because it is new. There were ordinances that had been taught from the time of Adam, or Abraham. These did not need to be repeated as they were known. The basic sacrifice of the Lamb started with Adam. It is given in the Law of Moses only in that it was changed as to who could perform it, and where it was to be performed. Circomcission began with Abraham and was continued until the Apostolic church, but no where in the Law of Moses is the command repeated, because it was already known. Veriation are given, such as cerconcising the stranger before they eat the passover. Both these ordinances were also now performed in the Temple, though they had not been before.

    At to the New Testiment, you really did not get what I was saying. I never once said that the early church did not know these ordinances. Of course they new them. However, because they were sacred, and because they were reserved for those able to handle them (milk before meat) they were not put in public record. The Apostles never wrote them down, and when the Apostles were all dead and the persecution started, they were lost. As a certain amount of worthiness is required to enjoy the blessings of these ordinances God saw fit to wait 1500 years before restoring them to the Earth. Now, in modern Temples there are many ordinances that are performed, some are discussed, and some aren’t. However, none of them is a matter of public record, and in if the church was wiped out, like the early church was, then they would be lost again and all you would have in the record is the mention of marriage and of washing and annointing, just like you have in the New Testiment.

  4. faithoffathers says:

    McGermit and shematwater,

    You may be interested to know of some interesting finds in Egypt. Wilfred Griggs reported a stunning discovery in one of his digs wherein he found well preserved mummies dressed in clothing that appeared very much like the robes and clothing worn in the temple today. Because of the sacred nature, I will not go into great detail. But for those who have been through the temple, the similarities are extremely obvious. The find was in a burial site thought to be where early Christians were buried. I have seen photos of the clothing, and the connection is quite obvious. BYU Studies 33:2 (1993): 215-243

    There are several very interesting books and chapters on this topic. Hugh Nibley did some work in this area, comparing ancient temple rites to modern temples. Check out some of his work at the FARMS website.

    There is evidence that early Christians were persecuted, among other things, because of the secrecy of their practices and rites. One source of division in the early churches was the common claim that people made that they had the secret authority and rites that had been lost.

    There are ancient texts, the book of Enoch for example, with themes and descriptions that parallel the modern temple themes and rites in striking fashion. And he of course lived much earlier than Moses (I know the book of Enoch we have today was recorded much later). Shematwater makes a good point in asking what of ordinances and the law before Moses. There were ordinances and rites that existed before the Law of Moses and were and are practiced after the Law of Moses has been fulfilled.

    I have said before “you don’t know what you don’t know.” I believe we have but a very small portion of the sacred writings of the ancient prophets. How much do we really know about their worship? Although in the Bible there are references to the Messiah who would come later, we don’t have a lot of detail about their worship and doctrine. Modern revelation adds some helpful details and context and makes a lot of sense. Among other things, it reveals how much detail they had about the role of the Messiah and how His atonement was the center of their worship.

    Only one more post for the day.

    fof

  5. WJ says:

    Germit, you stated that my “two thots do not fit together,” which is a little unusual, because both thoughts focused on the same point: that Israel merited punishment. I’m not seeing the inconsistency, but I digress.

    You then noted: “merited PUNISHMENT does NOT necessarily mean merited BLESSING….these are not equal sides of some coin……” My question is, why are they not two sides of the same coin? Isn’t it illogical (not to mention highly arbitrary) to suppose that we merit punishment, but that we don’t also merit blessings?

    In any case, you seem to have ceded the point by stating that punishment does not *necessarily* mean merited blessing. So you agree, then, that while not necessarily, there may still be situations where we do merit God’s blessings? You, at least, failed to rule out the possibility.

    You then said: “God can grant FAVOR and MERCY to those (like myself) who deserve the exact OPPOSITE…..seems like that is the general tenor of the chapters (Exekiel 36,37) that Sharon and Mr.Monson were talking about.”

    The first part may be true, but just because God can grant favor and mercy to those who are undeserving, does not proscribe Him from also blessing those who have made good choices, or to use a dirty word, merited (surprised this word doesn’t violate the comment policy) those blessings. You can no more prove that the promised blessings enumerated in Ezekial 36, 37 will result from Heavenly fiat than they will from the Lord’s knowledge that Israel will merit those blessings by their attempts at positive living.

  6. WJ says:

    Germit,

    You then cited the parable of the Prodigal Son (which you encouraged me to read slowly and carefully, because apparently, without such caution, I won’t get near the same profound understanding that you have obtained from it). But your use of that parable suffers the same flaws. To you, apparently, the parable is a message of God’s arbitrariness, where He blesses without regard to people’s actions, whereas I see the parable as a message of God’s forgiveness of His son after sincere repentance (a good work, as noted elsewhere in this thread).

    You then complimented Sharon, stating that “[her] topic and content are on the money…..[her] style and approach is gracious……great job per usual.”

    I have seen a few posts now by Sharon (this one and the Hofmann one), and I can’t help but notice how petty they are. In both cases Sharon has taken what was ultimately a benign issue, and tried to make it into a big deal. I fail to see how that style is either “on the money” or “gracious.”

  7. gundeck says:

    shematwater,

    The problem is that in all of the genealogies you mentioned there is no connection with a priesthood either. A hierarchical priesthood is not established until the Covenant at Sinai. If we followed your logic then all of the tribes of Israel would have been able to be priests but the priesthood is limited by Pentateuchal law to the Levites. Nowhere does the Bible claim that offering sacrifices or “Calling upon the name of the Lord” prior to Sinai required a hierarchical priesthood. I have heard many reasons why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected by God, some better than others, but to imply that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because he did not have the priesthood requires a stretch of the imagination.

    We do see genealogies proving priesthood authority shown to us in Ezra (Ezra 2:36-58 and again showing a concern for legitimacy of belonging to the tribe of Levi Ezra 2:59-63) after the Israelite return from the Babylonian exile. But in Ezekiel and Nehemiah the concern is focused on priests being descended from the Tribe of Levi ensuring proper staffing of the newly reconstructed Temple. Furthermore Ezra and the returning exiles were still bound by the Law covenant of Sinai as seen in Nehemiah 10:28-29.

    I would also note that the neither of the genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament show a priesthood connection. To be honest his authority comes from being the second person of the Trinity and not his ancestry, but in fulfillment of prophesy these connections are important. I agree that in Matthew you have the “Royal Genealogy” as you pointed out. David was from the tribe of Judah there can be no priesthood connection. David was the King not the priest, Samuel was the priest. The Luke genealogy goes back to Adam, and shows his humanity, but once again Jesus is shown to be from the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and there is no priesthood connection. Now there is an Old Testament connection in both genealogies, the Davidic Covenant (shown in 2 Sam 7:16 but you should read all of chapter 7 to see how this is a covenant of promise to David from God) was fulfilled in Christ. The Abrahamic covenant of promise is also fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

  8. mrgermit says:

    WJ: thanks for your posts, I hope you find this OK (the ol’ selective “reply” thing….)

    you seem insistent on joining MERIT with BLESSING, and even though this can sometimes be the case , at least in part, it’s a huge mistake (your inconsistency ) to ASSUME some kind of merit or worthiness when we see blessing. this is apparently the mistake that Monson made with Ez. 36,37 As AARON and Sharon and others have pointed out, even though the Bible is full of some kind of “if you do this, God will do that…..” scenario THESE CHAPTERS ARE ABOUT A DIFFERENT KIND OF BLESSING ALTOGETHER.

    there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about it, since “our God is in the heavens, HE does whatever HE pleases…PS 115:3 and the simple matter is that sometimes….no, OFTEN, what pleases HIM is to bless our socks off, TOTALLY NOT COMMENSURATE with what we’ve done, or deserve, or merit….. again, the message of Luke 15, the guts of it is NOT how repentant the younger son is (if you want to hold onto this as the punchline, I will just agree to disagree…..the real message is how RIDICULOUSLY GENEROUS the Father is, WAY out of proportion to what little the son has shown him.

    you have done little to show me from the text of Ez.36,37 how Israel gained GOD’s favor thru some kind of merit, even if in part; lets do a quick run-down of why I say this is much more a case of GOD blessing IN SPITE OF Israel, and as an expression of WHO HE IS, not what they (ISRAEL) have done.

    36:21 But I had concern for MY HOLY NAME which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations where they had went.

    I mention God’s concern over HIS NAME in v.21 first, now we can make sense of HIS references to HIS jealousy (see v.5-7) GOD”s big concern is that the NATIONS understand who HE really is…….Israel, chosen to be a light to the nations has (again) messed it up and given GOD a “black eye”, people will think that the GOD of Israel is just like Israel….. that’s why GOD says

    v.22 IT IS NOT FOR YOUR SAKE, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL, that I am about to act, but for MY holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.

    Isn’t this GOD being GOD (gracious, merciful, giving and forgiving) IN SPITE of Israel and there terrible track record ??? (reminds me of me, by the way……)

    you’ll say, “well, yeah, but they get none of it, unless they turn back to GOD…..” and you may have a point, BUT, is THAT the message of these chapters and LUKE 15 and I could add many others….. our puny efforts at repentance don’t seem to be getting much of the stage here……isn’t that what an honest reading of Ez 36 produces ??

    what is GOD”S big motivation in v.23: “then I will vindicate the holiness of MY great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you(Israel) have profaned in their midst” the only mention of Israel is how they done their best to ruin everything and spoil GOD”s good reputation. where do you , WJ, see MERIT in any of these verses ??

  9. mrgermit says:

    WJ; this is ‘part II’ to the ez.36,37 post

    In Ez.37 , I’d suggest that GOD’s big plan and motivation is NOT some kind of reward OR punishment, it’s to show the whole world WHO HE IS……it’s not really about Israel, as much as GOD and HIS proclamation of HIMSELF. This sounds egoistic to anyone who doesn’t understan that GOD does NOT mind, no , is COMPELLED to toot HIS own horn because HE is worthy of that , and more.

    v.13 then you (Israel) will know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves , My people.

    v28. And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when MY sanctuary is in their midst forever.

    make a big deal of puny little Israel and whatever they did to play a part in GOD’s plan (including sanctification) here in Ez.37 and elsewhere, but you would be giving the wrong party the parade……the show is entirely GOD’s in these two chapters, and our contention is that Mr.Monson, as sometimes preachers do, just picked the wrong Scripture for his lesson. He is not the only one , or the last one, to do that, but his obvious blunder puts his “special revelation” status up to question……all the more so because he did not catch or admit (as far as I know ,, at least) his blunder.

    To me, by the way, the not admitting it, is a bigger deal, but that’s worth a thread all it’s own. HIs mistake is not so much PERSONAL, as INSTITUTIONAL; and I’m guessing that ‘s where Sharon was going withthis.

    ping back and give me your take,
    GERmIT

    as for Sharon being ‘petty’……did you mean “pretty????” maybe that was a typo….. I’d say let the fair minded reader decide for themselves, but this is a case where there isn’t much I can say, probably , that would sway you one way or another on that one….a little like George dubya/ Barack…..people believe what they will believe.

    blessings on you and yours

  10. faithoffathers says:

    McGermit,

    Hope you find this- no link under your post to respond.

    I understand the point you are making regarding Ezekial 36 and 37. But I suggest the context in a little different than what you are thinking. Yes, God is saying He will bless Israel once again, after their falling away. But He is speaking of the distant future- the last days, when Israel will be gathered for the last time before the second coming of Christ. President Monson’s use of this scripture is right on. I really don’t see the controversy many are seeing in these chapters- I don’t see the faith vs. works or meritting (?sp) blessings/punishment. The folks of that particular generation back then would receive their due reward- good or bad, like any other generation. God was speaking of a later generation whom He would work through to gather the elect from the four quarters of the earth.

    This topic of Israel is deeper and more nuanced and symbolic and beautiful than we are giving it credit here.

    If all the promises to Israel were essentially that the Savior would be a descendent of Israel, why all the language about other things. Why not just say, the Messiah will come through your lineage? That certainly was a huge deal, but there was more!

    fof

  11. mrgermit says:

    FoF; i’m still getting up to speed with the ‘both now AND not yet” aspects of eschatology; you may be right on that there is a futuristic application (beyond the NT era, looking to the return of Christ, etc) of these verses but I would still maintain:

    1)the predominant application has already happened, or IS happening as GOD gives the new Israel (us) new hearts and new minds; so even if there is an eventual fulfillment of these things, the primary focus was pointed to fulfillment in Christ’s 1st appearing and the church age. Obviously, this is grounds for lots of debate (where would we be if we didn’;t have 7 dozen things to debate ???)

    2) even if these passages are predominantly “end of the ages” focused, your guy STiLL swung and missed, because the gist is STILL what GOD has promised to do either NOW in the ‘church age’, OR in the “fulness of times”, or BOTH; as an aside, the eschatology that I’m leaning toward is not the “now” OR “in the future” kind but a blend of both (see George Eldon Ladd, F F Bruce, and R C Sproul)
    to recap this point: the big deal in these chapters is CLEARLY (to me) NOT what WE DO to put ourselves in the path of greater blessing (a la Mr.Monson’s well intended but off the mark sermon) but what GOD will do (and to some degree, now HAS DONE) for HIS own names’ sake……our part to play in all this is just not a theme here, although in OTHER parts of scripture, our choices get a lot of airplay (rightfully: see JAMES or even HEBREWS)

    hope this helps
    let me know whose end times explanations are making sense to you

    GERMIT

    to understand my point: ask yourself how Israel is described and depicted in these chapters…..anything to brag about, hold up as an example, or anything like that??? AS AARON has pointed out, quite the reverse, if anything there great “whoring around” has been held up……and yet GOD still goes forward with HIS great plans…..in spite of all that…..again the connection for me to Luke 15 is great, what an awesome Father !!!!

  12. WJ says:

    Germit,

    You said “you seem insistent on joining MERIT with BLESSING, and even though this can sometimes be the case , at least in part, it’s a huge mistake (your inconsistency ) to ASSUME some kind of merit or worthiness when we see blessing…. even though the Bible is full of some kind of “if you do this, God will do that…..” scenario THESE CHAPTERS ARE ABOUT A DIFFERENT KIND OF BLESSING ALTOGETHER.”

    The easy rebuttal to your argument is that it is the Lord, not simply I or President Monson, who is insistent on linking merit with blessing, as this connection is indicated time and time again in the Bible (and other scriptures), as you already admitted.

    While you claim it is a huge mistake to link the two, its not clear to me why, exactly, you think this is such a huge mistake. My guess is you are concerned that by claiming we “merit” a blessing, we are being prideful, and aren’t being humble before God in acknowledging our unworthiness and smallness before Him. This is, I think, a problem of semantics more than it is of doctrine. It depends what one means by merit, or worthiness, deserving, etc. But you needn’t think that when we say someone has merited a blessing that we mean they are perfect or have achieved parity with God. Take King Benjamin’s following statements in the Book of Mormon, for instance:

    “I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another–I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.”

    “And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.

    “And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?”

    “And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay.” (Mosiah 2:21, 23-25).

    I agree with your argument that it pleases God to bless us. But another point that needs to be clarified is that there is no requirement that God’s blessings need to be “commensurate” with our actions, which is a point you seem to believe I am advocating. For this would no doubt limit the extent and magnitude of His blessings. Thus, the prodigal son was blessed abundantly for a small act, but an act that he *chose* to undertake nonetheless. And you’ll notice that God didn’t appear to be pouring blessings upon the prodigal’s head while he was engaged in riotous living.

  13. WJ says:

    Germit (part II),

    As to Ezekiel 36, I dispute your claim that this chapter is about “a different kind of blessing altogether,” and I’ll explain why (this is a point I already raised in my previous posts, and which has still not been fully addressed).

    You said: “you have done little to show me from the text of Ez.36,37 how Israel gained GOD’s favor thru some kind of merit.”

    I believe these scriptures contain an expectation on the part of the Lord that Israel will, at some future day, be worthy (resist the urge for semantical objections – recall King Benjamin’s words) of His promised blessings.

    You rightly point out that God is concerned about His name, and how Israel had defiled it by their bad works, and that He wants His name restored. But let me ask you this, would God provide His promised blessings to Israel if He knew they would continue to defile His name? How would this improve God’s reputation among the earth’s inhabitants? His name is only restored when Israel, His people, decide to live the right kind of way. Otherwise His blessings might simply encourage them to continue behaving badly, for what incentive do they have to change if they can act badly, and still receive the blessings.

    Indeed, the prodigal could have returned, enjoyed the party his father threw him, and then hit the road the next day to lie with the swine again. Would the father continue to throw parties for the prodigal at this point, or would it be counterproductive and unwarranted?

    You said: “you’ll say, ‘well, yeah, but they get none of it, unless they turn back to GOD…..’ and you may have a point, BUT, is THAT the message of these chapters and LUKE 15 and I could add many others….. our puny efforts at repentance don’t seem to be getting much of the stage here……isn’t that what an honest reading of Ez 36 produces ??”

    Yes, that is the message of Ezekiel 36, as taught by the living prophet. Ezekiel 36:26 says God will give Israel a new heart. Ezekiel 36:27 says God will put His spirit in them and cause them to walk in His statutes and keep His judgments. Thus, it is clear God expects a change of behavior on Israel’s part, for only by changed behavior will God’s name be vindicated. This changed behavior can come in one of two ways, Israel can either choose to change its behavior, or God can force them to do so. Which do you think is more likely?

    As I mentioned before, Prophet Monson’s interpretation of these scriptures is not only consistent with the text, in context, but it avoids the logical inconsistencies and apparent adoption of the predestination doctrine that your own position encounters.

    Cheers.

  14. mobaby says:

    Shematwater,

    Do you think that Mormon men have the ability to bring heaven closer by their own purity as your prophet asserts?? This is where he completely loses me in his speech. Ezekiel deals with the totally reprobate nature of Israel and God’s unmerited favor of His people, the Bible says my righteousness is as dirty rags, and no one is righteous, not one. If one was found to be truly righteous then their own righteousness and good works would save them, but we know from the Bible that NO ONE other than Jesus Christ is righteous. Which nation or group of people do you know of that love God and work righteousness?? Not one person is righteous. No one can bring heaven closer, other than the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the perfectly righteous, without blemish or sin. God is not unjust – He has every right to condemn a rebellious and sinful people – we have ALL gone astray, there is NO ONE who does not sin against a perfectly holy and righteous God. We cannot even come close to His perfection. What are we to do?? Yes, our sins condemn us, and that is our condition, universally man is condemned in his sin apart for the saving work of Christ. God is no respecter of persons, there is no nationality, no ethnicity, no gender, no person who is any closer to God than any other. We must all come to God through His final sacrificial lamb, and the final great High Priest, God come in the flesh – the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the solution to our depraved condition. God’s unmerited favor – just as He showed the Israelites in Ezekiel, He offers this amazing gift to each of us today. I pray that God will call your heart to trust fully in him, not putting one bit of faith in yourself, but completely in the Lord Jesus Christ and the one and only true God.

    The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know much about what this is, and cannot with certainty say it is any particular sin. Also, the Bible says the heart of a false prophet is seared as with a hot iron. This means that once a false teacher arises he is incapable of repentance – he is permanently in rebellion against God, claiming God’s divine instruction, while issuing prophecies that fail to occur and speaking forth destructive doctrines of demons. This would seem to be an unpardonable sin – I think in this case, they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit by claiming God’s direction while speaking out of their own hearts and being led by their own lusts to bring forth new doctrines which have nothing to do with God.

    In the parable of the talents, who is trusting in Christ. It is the ones who use their talents that show they have faith in God. They believe and put their faith in action. Is it their action that saves them? No. It is their faith. They know their master and have faith. Abraham had faith and it was counted as righteousness (Romans 4:9) – it was not Abraham’s works of faith that saved him, for these only served to demonstrate that he truly did trust in God. Just as these servants, the ones who consider their master, their works grow out of their faith – not vice/versa – the works leading them to righteousness and faith. Works can never save, only grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is saving.

  15. mrgermit says:

    FoF: hope you find this , it’s a “reply” to Arthur’s comment, which was a reply to yours

    Arthur wrote:

    What these Scriptures demonstrate is that the communion between the Christian and God is not bound by a physical location. The Spirit dwells in us, making us a dwelling place of God. The glory of God no longer rests in the temple, because Christ became flesh and tabernacled among men and sent the Spirit to indwell the believer, regenerating our hearts and sanctifying us.

    We abide in Him and He in us. We don’t go to a physical building to commune with God, but where two or three are gathered in His name He is among us. We no longer need a human priest to go before the Lord with the blood of beasts to make intercession for us because Christ has made that intercession on our behalf. The whole reason for the earthly temple has been eliminated at the cross. We don’t go to a building to commune with God, because we don’t need to. I would argue that adding human structures and organizations into the mix in many ways separates us from communion with God, it doesn’t enable or enhance it.

    this is the ev. christian position in a beautiful nutshell; it’s not that Christians need NO structure at all, it’s that GOD knows how to “major in the majors” and any ONE particular physical structure is just no big deal, the big deal is (as I understand it) what ARTHUR has captured in these two paragraphs. Think back over the content tof the New Testament and notice what is NOT in there regarding the structures of the church, temple stuff, etc……these things are NOT in there for a reason . I know you’ve said a few times “you don’t know what you don’t know”. this is entirely an argument from silence. A better argument is that, given the fact that people havent changed much over the years (as you’ve wisely noted) God knows what we need and what we don’t. What we see in the NT is what we need, and it’s precisely what Arthur has laid out: communion with GOD , through relationship with HIS only SON, irrespective of a place, a building, a particular temple ritual, because WE HAVE BECOME THAT TEMPLE. I would call that an upgrade.

    there ARE some other specifics in the NT about church government , church worship, church leadership… but not in the amounts that some would expect; our position is : that’s for a reason, the BIG DEAL is Christ and HIS ECCLESIA, and this ends up being much more organic than systems hungry types would prefer.

    I welcome any comments; this is “get out of jail week” isn’t it???

    GERMIT

    PS: great work , ARTHUR

  16. mrgermit says:

    WJ; I found the below at Internetmonk today and thought about our conversation of Ez 36 and 37. I am not trying to be “back door ” or “sneaky” in any way: let me bluntly say that you r religion in general, and Mr.Monson in particular, need to check their mail and GET THE PARTY INVITATION. Ez. 36 and 37 are big fat party invitations, and you guys are missing out.

    from dear Mike Spencer:
    We have too many people who have heard that there is good news about God, and then discovered that the good news was covered in 25 pages of fine print explaining why God is actually quite miserable and its your fault. If you fulfill the conditions of the contract–See “Faith is obedience, perfect surrender and a good witness,” pages 203-298–then you have a reasonable hope of avoiding God’s end-of-the-word temper tantrum.

    We have far too few Christians who are overwhelmed at the news that God has fired the bookkeepers, sent home the bean counters, dismissed the religion cops and bought party hats for the grumpy old people. The big announcement is this: In Jesus, we discover that God is just sloppy with his amazing grace and completely beyond common sense when it comes to his love. Just to enhance his reputation as the God who know how to throw a party, he’s inviting all of us back home, no tickets necessary, no dress code, for a party that will last, literally, forever. With open bar, and all on him. (Oh calm down Baptists. You can go to another room.)
    (end of quote)

    Dont get lost in the fine print….yes repentance is necessary……yes our obedience is necessary…….but think about it….could someone accurately describe your religion as a big fat PARTY ?? Remember Luke 15…… and read it at any speed you want, you are probably a better reader than I……

    Grace, Peace, and party hats to you and yours GERMIT

  17. shematwater says:

    You really do not understand the doctrine. You are set on the idea that a person can do no good, no matter what. This is simply not true. People can to many good things. When Paul says we have all sinned, he is right, but he does not mean that everything we do is a sin. He means that mixed in with the good we do there is also wickedness. When we do the good, or at least try to, we live a pure life, or as pure as we can. We we do this God and Heaven draw a little closer and the Grace of God rests on us, giving us the strength and power to live a little purer. Then it draws a little closer, thus we gain maore strength, and so on until heaven and God dwell within us and we have been purifies by the Atonement of Christ.
    No, by ourselves we cannot be saved, nor can we be truly pure. But it is through our willingness to try that God is then willing to grant us his grace. For those who are willing to try God will not grant his grace, as to do so would be unjust to those who do.
    God’s grace empowers us to live better, and purify our lives when we act on this gift.

    You said: “The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know much about what this is, and cannot with certainty say it is any particular sin.”
    The Blasmaphey of the Holy Ghost is to deny that spirit after he has worked in you. Cain, who killed Abel, is the first to fall to this sin. I believe a gave three references, on in Matthew, one in Mark, and one in Luke. In Matthew it gives the illustration of a man who throughs a devil out of his house. The devil wonders around a while, then returns to the house and it let in, so he brings seven more with him.

    You said: “Also, the Bible says the heart of a false prophet is seared as with a hot iron.” Reference plaese.
    Your description is fairly accurate as to what constitutes the Unpardinable Sin, though you do not have to be a false Prophet to commit it, and it generally includes a thirst to kill the righteous. However, your reasoning, that it is because they take on the name of God, is not quite true, as many simply reject God completely.

    You said: “In the parable of the talents, who is trusting in Christ. It is the ones who use their talents that show they have faith in God.”
    Yes, it is those two who show they have faith, but the third obviously had faith, as he waited and gave his reasons for his actions. He was obvioulsy looking for the approval of his Lord just as the other two were, but his actioned failed to show this.

    As to the rest of what you said, I would direct you to James chapter 2, verses 14-26.
    14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
    15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
    16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
    17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
    18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
    20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
    22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
    23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
    24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
    25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

    Yes, Abraham’s faith “was imputed unto him for righteousness” but only after he had shown his faith through his works. As it says in verse 21, Abraham was justified through works. The two cannot be separated. Fatih, without the works to prove it, means nothing. However, works with a faith in God mean nothing.

    You are focusing solely on faith (saved by grace through faith) but I am taking both parts and joining them as James has said we must do. The Grace of God is given only to the faithful. Who are the Faithful? They that know the will of God and do accordingly. As we have all sinned and need his grace, we all must be faithful, thus we all must do as commanded, just as Abraham did what he was commanded, and Rahab the harlet.

  18. shematwater says:

    To Gundeck

    You said: “A hierarchical priesthood is not established until the Covenant at Sinai. If we followed your logic then all of the tribes of Israel would have been able to be priests but the priesthood is limited by Pentateuchal law to the Levites.”

    Read the story again. From the beginning the Lord had planned to give his priesthood to all the tribes. However, In Numbers 8: 16 we read that the Tribe of Levi was given in exchange for the firstborn. This was because of the Unbelief of Israel, to make things easier for them (which was the basic Idea of the Law of Moses). I think we can all agree that Moses had the Prieststood, as he was the leader of Israel. In Numbers 27: 18 he confers this authority of the priesthood on Joshua, who is of the Tribe of Ephraim (Numbers 13: 8). In this we can see that there are two priesthoods, one higher than the other. The lesser was given to the Levites, but the Greater was passed on through the Prophets. This greater Priesthood, the priesthood of Authority is what is shown in the Genesis, illustrated by what is known as the Birthright. Esau lost it when he married the caananite women, thus it passed to Jacob. Reuben lost it when he defiled his father’s bed, thus it passed to Joseph. It is again shown in the story of Jacob crossing his arms to give the Birthright to Ephraim.

    You said: “but to imply that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because he did not have the priesthood requires a stretch of the imagination. ”

    This is not what I meant, nor what I said. I said he had the Priesthood, thus he was able to make the sacrifice. However, in making a bad sacrifice, and later killing his brother, he lost the Priesthood and the Birthright, which then went to Seth.

    You said: “I would also note that the neither of the genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament show a priesthood connection.”

    I said that because of what I consider to be allusions to the Priesthood, Luke put the geneology in to show that Christ’s lineage was always part of the chosen line, the line that held the Authorty. If you don’t see the allusion than infering this would seem illogical.

    You said: “Samuel was the priest.”

    Samuel was not a Priest, he was a Prophet. This goes back to the two Priesthoods. Samuel had the Greater, or higher Priesthood, thus he had the authority to lead Israel as well as act in Priestly offices. Before him the Priest was Eli, who did not have the leadership authority. Also, while Samuel was a Levite, he was not a desendant of Aaron, and thus could not be a priest by the Law of Moses, as only Aaron’s desendants had that authority.

    You said: “The Abrahamic covenant of promise is also fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”

    While I will agree that the priesthood is not neccessarily part of the Abrahamic covenant, this covenant was not all fulfilled in Christ. You still have the promise that the Land of Caanan, the land itself, would be the inheritance of the literal seed, or decendants of Abraham.

  19. WJ says:

    Germit, yes I can accurately describe my religion as a big fat party (though probably not in the way you would define the term), and one doesn’t even need to be inebriated in order to have a good time (so its also cost effective, and does away with the bad judgment and hangover). The fact that you think otherwise is evidence enough, for me, that you insufficiently understand Mormon culture.

    And can I just note the comic irony of one of your last lines: “Dont get lost in the fine print….” That is a priceless one liner. Here Sharon’s entire blog is about how President Monson “supposedly” missed the fine print in his interpretation of Ezekiel, and then suddenly you turn around and tell me to not make such a big deal about it. Ha ha, what a fantastic way to end this thread for me. For that I thank you.

  20. gundeck says:

    Shematwater,

    It is interesting how concerned you are with authority and the existence of a priesthood beginning with Adam. How (if it does) does Gen 3:15 play into this for your Church? Let’s take this chronologically.

    Cain lost much, but there was no hierarchical priesthood for him to loose. I can agree that he lost his birthright but this has nothing to do with priesthood passed by heredity. In the same way there was no hierarchical priesthood transfer to Jacob and none for Reuben to loose. The bible does not speak of hierarchical priesthood until Moses and tracing every genealogy of the Old Testament is not going to add something that is not there.

    I am not sure where you got that the tribe of Levi is chosen because of unbelief or that God was going to give the priesthood to all of Israel. Read in context God is telling Moses that he has the right to claim the first born of all of Israel (Numbers 8:17). Instead he will take the tribe of Levi (Numbers 8:18) and will set them apart and make them holy and use them for the atonement sacrifices.

    Joshua was the leader (warlord/general/political) of the Children of Israel; Eleazar was the priest (Num 27:22). Never is Joshua identified as a priest, he is often identified separate from the priests (Num 34:17; Joshua 4:15-17; 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1 etc). The text of Numbers 27:20 suggests that only “some” of Moses’ authority/honor (Strong’s H1935 הֹוד / howd) was given to Joshua. Any contention that this shows two priesthoods goes far beyond what the text will allow. There was a Joshua the priest (Haggai 1:1; Zech 3:1) but that is not the same man as Joshua from the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.

    Samuel was a prophet (1 Sam 3:20) and a priest (Psalm 99:6) the two are not mutually exclusive. Take a look at 1 Sam 13:8-16 where Saul makes the unlawful sacrifice. Who was he waiting for to make the sacrifice? Saul was waiting for Samuel the prophet to carry out his priestly duties and execute the sacrifice.

    While we do disagree on all of this thank you for taking the time to show me how you come to your conclusions.

  21. mrgermit says:

    WJ; thanks for the response

    of course neither eating or drinking means much, but the KINGDOM consists in righteousness , peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17)

    I don’t remember Sharon describing the themes that Monson missed as “the fine print”….I know I’d claim that the big ideas I mentioned were, and are , quite apparent. I was referring to the fine print that Spencer talked about (rule keeping). I was pretty sure Mr. Spencers work would jazz me more than you, but you know us party animals….always sharing…… I thoroughly respect partying without alcohol, I can go either way on that , depending on who I’m with: there are two recovering alcoholics in my immediate family, so your point about having a good time without it is well taken.

    It’s been fun looking at Ezekiel with you, I appreciate the dialogue.

    GERmIT

    PS; glad to know that you are able to party…..life is WAY too short to not be celebrating something….

  22. shematwater says:

    “How (if it does) does Gen 3:15 play into this for your Church?”
    This verse is a prophecy of the Atonement. While verse 14 is a curse upon the serpant, this verse is a pronouncement on Satan, who commanded the serpant. Satan and the righteous have always been at odds, and the seed of Eve, in Christ, bruised Satan, or defeated him. Christ’s heel was bruised on the cross. It has nothing to do with the Priesthood.

    “Cain lost much, but there was no hierarchical priesthood for him to loose. I can agree that he lost his birthright but this has nothing to do with priesthood passed by heredity. In the same way there was no hierarchical priesthood transfer to Jacob and none for Reuben to loose. The bible does not speak of hierarchical priesthood until Moses and tracing every genealogy of the Old Testament is not going to add something that is not there.”
    This all comes down interpretation. I see the fact that the blessing was confered by the oldest worthy male, and that it was passed from father to son, a perfect example of a heirarchy. I believe it was the Priesthood. It is what is known as the order of the Patriarchs. If this heirarchy was not present than who held the priesthood and how did they get it?

    “I am not sure where you got that the tribe of Levi is chosen because of unbelief or that God was going to give the priesthood to all of Israel. Read in context God is telling Moses that he has the right to claim the first born of all of Israel (Numbers 8:17). Instead he will take the tribe of Levi (Numbers 8:18) and will set them apart and make them holy and use them for the atonement sacrifices.”
    I get it from the rest of the story. Moses had two different sets of stone tablets. One was written by God, and contained the ancient law in its entirety. When Isreal sinned with the Golden caff those plates were destroyed and Moses carved new ones. These second ones were the Ten Commandments, a much simplefied version of the higher law they were supposed to receive. The Law of Moses was not even put into the Arc of the Covenant, but beside it, because it was an inferior law to the one originally give. In this inferior law the Levites were given instead of the first born. I see this as clear as day.

    “Joshua was the leader (warlord/general/political) of the Children of Israel; Eleazar was the priest (Num 27:22). Never is Joshua identified as a priest, he is often identified separate from the priests (Num 34:17; Joshua 4:15-17; 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1 etc). The text of Numbers 27:20 suggests that only “some” of Moses’ authority/honor (Strong’s H1935 הֹוד / howd) was given to Joshua. Any contention that this shows two priesthoods goes far beyond what the text will allow. There was a Joshua the priest (Haggai 1:1; Zech 3:1) but that is not the same man as Joshua from the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.”
    I never said Joshua was a priest, I said he was a prophet. He was given some of Moses’ “honor” because Moses was the head of that dispensation. He restored the Gospel to wayward Israel. Joshua was not called to restore and free Israel, but to lead them. So, all the authority as leader of Israel, including the authority to act in God’s name, fell on Joshua. But the authority to restore the Gospel, to free Israel, did not. He still had the priesthood, which was different from that of Eleazer because Eleazer could not lead Israel.

    “Samuel was a prophet (1 Sam 3:20) and a priest (Psalm 99:6) the two are not mutually exclusive. Take a look at 1 Sam 13:8-16 where Saul makes the unlawful sacrifice. Who was he waiting for to make the sacrifice? Saul was waiting for Samuel the prophet to carry out his priestly duties and execute the sacrifice.”
    They are not exclusive, I agree. One who is a prophet is also a priest, but not all priests are prophets, and that is the distinction that I am making. If one has the higher priesthood they have also the lower, but not the other way around. (also, Psalms does not say Samuel is a priest, only that he was among those who heard and followed God’s commands.)

    “While we do disagree on all of this thank you for taking the time to show me how you come to your conclusions. ”
    It is my pleasure. I will say that it is very difficult to explain one doctrine, or one belief by itself. I will say that I believe the way I do because when you take all the doctrine of the LDS church together there is nothing that doesn’t make sense, nothing that contradicts another.

  23. shematwater says:

    I agree with you, and that is what I actually meant. In uses my story I may have mislead, and I could have said a great deal more, but I was told to be brief.

    In another post, concerning the purity of our lives bringing Heaven closer to us, I give a better explanation. I give it again.

    When we do what we can, and work to be as pure as possible, God and heaven draw closer. When they do they lend to us the Grace of God which gives us added energy and will to work a little better, which then brings them even closer. Through this cycle, us doing what we can and God giving his grace so we can do more than we could before, we are brought into Gods presence.

    If you look at this closely you will see that every time we do something we are rewarded, or repayed for it. So we cannot repay all that God has done for us, because he in constantly doing more. For this reason none of us can do the quantity of work required for salvation, thus God must give his grace to raise the quality of our work.

    What do you think?

  24. gundeck says:

    Shematwater,

    It is good to hear from you. I see that you have gone point for point with me so I’ll try to keep up.

    You asked, “If this hierarchy was not present than who held the priesthood and how did they get it?” with regard to a priesthood prior to Moses. I would answer that we are not shown an institutional priesthood prior to Moses. We are going to have to disagree on this. You see blessings and birthrights related to a institutional priesthood and I cannot find that in the text.

    I don’t follow your chronology of the giving of the Law. For instance we know that God had a hand at writing the Law both times and that Moses took part in the second set(Ex 24:12; 34:1, 27, 28 Deut 4:13; 9:10; 10:4). EX 34:1 and Deut 10:4 seem to suggest that the law was the same both times. I also do not see where the second set of the was not kept in the Arch of the Covenant (Ex 25:16, 21; 40:20). Can you show me where the second set of the law was easier than the first?

    I think we use the term Gospel differently. Moses was the mediator with God for the establishment of the covenant of Sinai. While the Exodus typologicly points to our salvation it is not the Gospel as defined by historic Christianity.

    I am also afraid we will have to disagree about Joshua. I have not seen anything that would show me that there is another priesthood beside the Levitical. I cannot find anywhere in the text that the authority to lead Israel, given to Joshua, in any way was attached to the priesthood higher than the priesthood held by Eleazar.

    Samuel was a priest in that he was conducting the worship and sacrifices for Israel after the establishment of the Law.

    If all prophets have the priest hood what about Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. These woman are all prophets according to Judaism. What about Daniel? The Jews do not regard him as a prophet, Does he have the priesthood?

  25. shematwater says:

    “We are going to have to disagree on this. You see blessings and birthrights related to a institutional priesthood and I cannot find that in the text.”
    Yes, but if you will permit me I will, a little later, give one more example to illustrate the higher priesthood as leading Israel. My intent is not to convince you, but to help you understand where I see this.

    “EX 34:1 and Deut 10:4 seem to suggest that the law was the same both times.”
    In Exodus 24: 12 it makes it clear that the tablets and the law are separate. The tablets remained the same, but the law was changed.

    “I also do not see where the second set of the was not kept in the Arch of the Covenant (Ex 25:16, 21; 40:20).”
    These all talk about the tablets. As shown in Exodus 24: 12 the law is separate from the tablets. In Deuteronomy 31: 25-27 Moses commands the Levites to put the Book of the Law in the side of the Arc as a witness against Israel. They are not in the arc with the rest of the holy relics, but in the side. As it is a witness against Israel for their rebellion, I see this as a lesser law (a higher law would have been in the arc with the rest of them).

    “Can you show me where the second set of the law was easier than the first?”

    “While the Exodus typologicly points to our salvation it is not the Gospel as defined by historic Christianity.”
    I agree, and that is how it should be, because it is a lesser law for a people of lesser faith. As to the two different laws, I will refer you to Hebrews 4: 2 where it states – For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. As it is to the Hebrews I assume he is speaking of the ancestors of the people, ancient Israel. He is telling them that the Gospel that Jesus taught, and that the Apostles where then teaching, had been offered to the ancient people, but because of a lack of faith it could not profit them. If this same gospel was preached, why then did they have the Law of Moses instead? It is because the Law of Moses was given as lesser law, one more easily followed. The evidence that it was easier is that it only dealt with actions, while the higher law taught by Christ dealt with thoughts. It is easier to refrain from actually committing adultery than it is to not even think of other women.

    Concerning the rest of what you said, I will refer you to Numbers 12. In this chapter Aaron and Miriam are seeking to be recognized as equal to Moses. (Has not God spoken also by them). They are seeking the authority that he has. They are both chastised severely, Miriam being stricken with Leprosy. Why was it so severe if Moses did not have a greater authority e when dealing with God? I will agree that we seem to lose track of this authority after Joshua, until Samuel came. However, even in the time of Samuel, he had more authority in Israel than the King, but the King was over the priests, thus showing a greater priesthood power. (though it can get difficult to track through the entire Bible)

    Concerning prophets. This is a very specific service that few men are called too. They are to teach about God, call men to repentance, and keep the holy record. To the Jews the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, and 1 & 2 Kings were known as the former prophets. (Note that Joshua was included) To prophecy was only a small part of being a prophet. So, those who had the gift of prophecy, but were not called to these other labors would not have been Prophets. (In a more general sense a Prophet is anyone with a testimony of Christ, but when dealing with the Priesthood it is very specific in it’s function and meaning.) Those you listed had teh gift of Prophecy, but were not prophets.

    I understand that you do not agree with me, but if you can understand where I am coming from than I have accomplished my goal. I will say that relying solely on the Bible it would be very difficult to see most of this. As I do believe in other scripture I find it easier.

Leave a Reply