It is Given unto Thee

 

 

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Moses 3:17)

 

I am intrigued by that phrase “It is given unto thee,” specifically because of that IT. What does “it” refer to?

 

The meaning that I originally ascribed to that “it” was that it referred to agency, as though it were saying, “thou mayest choose for thyself, for choice is given unto thee.” This reading reinforces the principle that the Lord gives us our agency to choose, even to choose things that He forbids.

 

Another different meaning has come to me in the last year, one that says, “thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for the tree [of knowledge of good and evil] is given unto thee.”  This reading shows us that Heavenly Father provides us with circumstances where both good and evil are present, and He warns us where the evil is so that we can make informed choices that have real consequences. Our God is a God of good gifts, powerful gifts, sometimes dangerous gifts. There is righteousness not just in choosing good, but refraining from the bad.

 

Do you see any additional ways to read it that you can share?

Meditations on the Creation of the Sun and the Moon

16 And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word.

17 And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; (Moses 2:16-18)

I read this recently and I found myself asking what it meant for a light to rule over a particular portion of the 24-hours—day or night. On the surface it means that one of those lights will be the dominant light over that particular 12-hour period.

And yet the astronomical reality is a lot more complex than this. Happily, we can say that the sun always rules over the day. Where the sun shines, there is light, there is day.

But the moon is different. In some parts of the month the moon does shine at night, but there are other parts of the month—during new moons—when there is no light from the moon. Does the moon really rule then? Not really. It is as if the moon temporarily abdicates its authority and takes a vacation. And only on full moons is its light all the way there. At other times it’s waxing or waning.

It may be this gives us a little insight as to the differences between celestial and terrestial obedience. (I’ve probably talked about this before, but I’m going to talk about it again.) Celestial obedience is like the sun—always there doing its duty, shining at full strength, radiating the light within. But terrestial obedience is rarely at its brightest, shines only reflected light from others more bright, and periodically abdicates its duty.

Something else caught my attention here too. It was this idea of dividing the light from the darkness. What is it that really divides the light from the dark astronomically?  Because if you have light, there is no dark. Light chases the dark away. 

Astronomically, darkness comes from distance from the light, if you’re Pluto out on the margins of the solar system.  And we have darkness on earth because of the earth itself. The earth gets in the way and creates shadow.  If we’re on the part of the earth turned away from the sun, we’re in the darkness.  Applying that to spiritual things, that teaches that in a certain sense we create spiritual darkness in our lives either by our distance from the light, or by turning away from it.

The idea of a lesser or greater light also makes me think of the quality of leader we choose to follow and the type of example we choose for ourselves. If we didn’t have the sun, we might be happy with the moon’s light. But having the sun, we see the moon is not so great after all. Do we choose the best examples to follow? Do we seek for greater light? If we don’t we may be one of those people the Lord describes as “walking in darkness at noonday,” which would be tragic.

What do you think? Are there any additional principles you draw from these verses about the creation of the sun and the moon?

An unexpected indication of religious freedom and respect in Genesis

In the story of Joseph in Egypt, there’s a place where Joseph’s brothers return for food for the second time to Egypt, bringing Benjamin and double money because their money had been mysteriously returned to them before and they thought it was an oversight. They are invited to Joseph’s house, and they worry they are about to be taken advantage of and fear the returned money will be used as the pretext, so they explain their situation to Joseph’s steward before going into Joseph’s house.

The steward’s answer is curious:

And he said, Peace be to you, fear not: your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks: I had your money. And he brought Simeon out unto them. (Genesis 43:23)

The steward’s answer is curious because by speaking of “your God” we see he speaks to Joseph’s brothers as one who does not share that belief.  It hints that Joseph did not require those who worked for him to share his beliefs and that he let them be free about it too.  It also hints that the steward has not only been told who Joseph’s brothers are, but he knows they believe in the same God Joseph does.

It is also interesting that the steward speaks to Joseph’s brothers in terms of their beliefs (instead of his own) in order to reassure them.  That shows a rather astonishing respect for them and their religion, even though he doesn’t share it.  All of these factors combined together paint a picture of a very sophisticated kind of freedom and respect. It may be that he learned this from Joseph’s example.

We get another hint that Joseph was sensitive to the particular sensibilities of the Egyptians when we are told about Joseph’s eating arrangements for himself, his brothers, and the Egyptians in his household:

And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians. (Genesis 43:32)

It seems peculiar that the Egyptians wouldn’t eat with Hebrews. Some commentaries think this was because the Hebrews ate and herded around animals the Egyptians worshiped, which is understandable, even if peculiar.  But Joseph didn’t force the Egyptians of his household to do what they considered abominable, even if they served him. 

Joseph seems to have been one who allowed freedom of conscience and religion among those around him. It is probable he learned to value it while he was a slave in Potiphar’s house.  It is also possible that his example of forbearance was a positive recommendation for his religion to the Egyptians.

Lessons from the Lord’s curse upon Satan in the Garden of Eden

And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: (Genesis 3:14)

I was thinking about this recently and I started to wonder, “If Satan was already cursed because of being cast out of heaven, why curse him again?” and “How does it help us to know this curse?”

If we think this is just about a serpent, it seems like the curse is obvious. It’s implied that the serpent used to have legs and here has them taken away. It’s also implied that it used to eat something better, but is now relegated to only eating dust.  Our view of snakes today is perfectly in line with the seemingly physical conditions God describes.  Serpents have to slither everywhere. And they’re always sticking their tongues out, so it looks like they are licking the ground. (Of course, today we know that the tongue action is the way snakes sense things.)

As I thought about it, I wondered if maybe the Lord was making a statement about the curses that come to those who tempt like Satan does.  Satan is already cursed, but it is us who must be warned from becoming his servants and tempting others.  Eve briefly became Satan’s servant when tempting Adam to eat the fruit, so the warning is appropriate.

“upon thy belly shalt thou go” – This curse is about how faster travel has been somehow taken away. I think the larger theme is about progression.  It teaches that those who tempt others will have their own spiritual progress substantially slowed to the point that everyone goes much faster.  Not a pleasant prospect.  Not only that, but any movement would happen on the belly instead of on legs.  That may refer to how a tempter’s core motivation for acting would become satisfying their appetites.  One might even say that a tempter would be enslaved by their appetites.

“dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” –  This curse seems to be about what a tempter finds nourishing.  A tempter feeds not on something sweet, but on gross stuff. If they want to eat dirt all their life instead of something that tastes better, their taste has become corrupted.  They call evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Who wants to eat dirt?  Not me.  I’d rather eat tasty fruit from the tree of life than dirt.

So, I think this bit of knowledge can help us when we are being tempted. It helps us discern the consequences.  We don’t want our progression slowed, we don’t want our appetites to be our motivation, and we don’t want to be have our moral and aesthetic tastes corrupted.  

It can also help us think about what we have to offer others when we are trying to persuade them to try something.  Will it stop their progression, enslave them to an appetite or corrupt them in some way?  If so, then we shouldn’t try to pull them in, and we shouldn’t be in it either!

New Lessons from the Genesis 39 Story of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife

The story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife is easily boiled down to the lesson of resisting temptation of immorality with immediate flight. Sometimes it is easy to think Joseph had an easy choice or that Potiphar’s wife was completely evil from beginning to end.

However, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that the story holds insight not just from examining Joseph’s perspective, but also the perspective of Potiphar’s wife.  I think that by seeing her as an ordinary woman in need of love, we can gain additional insights about vulnerabilities to temptation.   

On the surface, Mrs. Potiphar seems like she has a wandering eye. We’ve read her this way so many times. She’s forward and vocal about what she wants, and eventually she becomes physically aggressive as well, taking hold of Joseph’s clothes to the point that he has to slide out of them to escape her.   But…at the beginning, when you read the account closely, you might see that she doesn’t even notice Joseph until after some time that he is made overseer in Potiphar’s house.  It takes time for him to even appear on her radar at all.  Potiphar notices Joseph’s abilities and virtues much faster than Mrs. Potiphar does.  Joseph finds grace in Potiphar’s sight much faster than with Mrs. Potiphar.

1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither.

2 And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.

3 And his master saw that the Lord was with him, and that the Lord made all that he did to prosper in his hand.

4 And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.

5 And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.

6 And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured.

7 ¶And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. (Genesis 39:1-7)

So what is it that draws Mrs. Potiphar’s notice?  It’s probably a combination of factors.

First, Joseph is a goodly person and well-favoured. Some commentators point out this is similar language to how Rachel, David, and Absalom were described and say this means Joseph was good-looking.  Probably he was.  Second, he must have been pretty likable, both to the other servants and to Potiphar. (A slave certainly isn’t going to want to make enemies.) Third, he was trustworthy and successful in his work.  I also think it very likely he gave everyone an impression of care and consideration as he worked with them. 

I suspect that Mrs. Potiphar noticed his care and consideration along with all his other good traits and then by imperceptible degrees began to feel that some of that was directed specifically at her.  And how could it not be? If everything in the house had been made Joseph’s responsibility, then he probably had to do things for Mrs. Potiphar as well as her husband.  He probably served her in his usual superior fashion. For some women, service is a major love language, and it may have been Mrs. Potiphar’s. Soo.. she may have reasoned that Joseph’s exemplary service was done because he loved her.   I don’t think the trouble between them erupted in a short period of time. It could have built up over months and maybe even years. 

Further, at the same time Joseph is daily demonstrating his competence and running the household in every respect, Potiphar is doing less and less around the house until he is doing nothing. Potiphar may have been focusing more on work for Pharaoh, but to Mrs. Potiphar it would appear as though her husband had turned lazy at home.  At home, Joseph showed to greater advantage than Potiphar. It would be really hard for Mrs. Potiphar to not make comparisons between Joseph and her husband.

I notice that our record is pretty clear about Mrs. Potiphar’s feelings for Joseph, but it says nothing about how Joseph felt about her. We assume that he was completely indifferent to her. But…is anyone ever completely indifferent to someone they see every day, someone they serve, someone they try to please, someone whose material interests they are bound to do all they can to promote?

7 ¶And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.

8 But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;

9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? (Genesis 39:7-9)

If this were a simple case of sexual harassment—if she liked him and he didn’t—after his first refusal, Mrs. Potiphar could simply have lowered the boom and made Joseph’s life heck with some sort of physical punishment.   I personally wonder if Joseph did at least like her, and maybe she made that first invitation because she thought he would accept easily. Maybe she thought he felt some sort of constraint and she wanted to remove it.

Incidentally, we interpret her request “Lie with me” as a direct demand for sex, but compared to “come in unto me” it seems less direct. She may have been asking him to lie next to her, but Joseph would not even do that, probably seeing it as a gateway act to the sin.  The point is, however the way she phrased her request/demand, the intention was transparent.

It is interesting that Joseph’s refusal emphasizes 1) the trust put in him by Potiphar, 2) his status in Potiphar’s household, 3) how nothing had been kept back from him except her because she was already married, and 4) the sin it would be against God. He recognizes his privileged place and doesn’t want to ruin it.  He’s full of reasons. It’s like he was ready. Like he’d already had to start convincing himself. Like he’d already had practice talking to himself about it.

Also interesting is that he sees Mrs. Potiphar as one who has been “kept back” from him.  I have to wonder if he would say she had been “kept back” from him unless he had wanted her on some level and pondered the situation deeply.  There is something here that reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve who could eat any fruit except that which had been forbidden, while Satan tried to make the forbidden fruit seem the most attractive.  

Ultimately, Joseph’s deepest commitment was to God, and that gave him the motivation to resist.

Once Mrs. Potiphar speaks and he refuses, Joseph seems to have realized that he needed to guard himself.

And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her. (Gen. 39:10)

Mrs. Potiphar was thoroughly infatuated. She couldn’t leave him alone, but indulged herself by speaking to him day by day, which would be very wearing over time for him. We don’t know whether she kept repeating the request that he lie with her or whether she merely made herself as charming as possible.

  

Joseph, on his part, seems to have used his status in the household to manufacture safety measures for himself. It is hard to imagine how he could get away with straight ignoring her to her face, but he had other options. It is likely he gave himself lots of things to do to keep out of her way, that he took other servants with him so he was never alone with her, and he sent messengers to her instead of talking to her himself. He was a slave, so he couldn’t just change jobs to a different household. So he had to find creative ways to isolate himself from her.

Sadly, she seems to have misunderstood.  (And I have to wonder if she had nothing meaningful to occupy her time and attention to keep her from thinking so much about him.)  It is possible she thought that the people always with him and the constant work kept him from expressing his true feelings for her.  So she set up what she thought was the perfect situation.

And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. (v11)

Hmmm. No one is there in the house except Joseph and Mrs. Potiphar for some reason. Astonishing coincidence. All the servants are off skylarking except for Joseph, who is intent on his task list.  It sounds like Mrs. Potiphar has sent everyone away.

And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out. (v12)

This time she is more forceful in her invitation, grabbing onto his clothes, perhaps hoping some violent passion would get the message across that she was ready and willing.

Joseph would not have felt he needed to guard himself if he didn’t feel vulnerable, and without those precautions, he must have been suddenly afraid, maybe not of her, but of himself. So in the heat of the moment of ambush, he doesn’t say anything—he already said his say earlier.  If he was unsure of his strength to resist, touching her would be last thing he’d want to do for any reason, so grappling with her to get his clothes out of her clutches would be out of the question.   Better to forget his dignity, leave them behind, and run.

I have to wonder where he went or how long he stayed away or what he thought would happen afterward.

Mrs. Potiphar, for her part, starts spreading lies about Joseph and gets him in trouble. For the longest time, I thought it was very peculiar that she accuses him of rape and then Potiphar only threw him in jail. Joseph is a slave. A high status slave, yes, but still a slave. It would be more believable for him to be executed. And perhaps the Lord protected him that way.

But recently, I noticed something peculiar in Mrs. Potiphar’s story she tells about Joseph. She tells things one way to the men of her house, and another way to Potiphar.

To the men of her house she says, “See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out.” (v14-15)

To Potiphar, she says, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. (v17-18)

Notice that not only does she make Joseph the bad guy, but also Potiphar for bringing Joseph into the household. This is another indication that she’s become distanced from Potiphar over this time. Also, when she talks to the men of the household, she makes it out that Joseph has not just mocked her, but mocked them too. (She’s trying to turn the men of the house against Joseph first and Potiphar secondarily.) Then when she talks to Potiphar, she only says that Joseph mocked her.  

Another thing that is peculiar, is that Mrs. Potiphar places emphasis in a peculiar place in her accusation. There’s the rape part, but then there’s the detail that she cried and then Joseph left his clothes and fled.  It almost seems like she is making a bigger deal over the lie that he left her crying than the lie that he raped her. But why? What is going on here?

Mrs. Potiphar is accusing Joseph of being unfeeling and uncaring. “He did it to mock me,” she says to her husband. “He saw me crying and he just left.”

What is going on in her head? Mrs. Potiphar, having been previously convinced that Joseph loved her, was shocked to learn by his hasty departure that he actually did not want to have sex with her. (He’d told her before, but she had believed his caring acts of service more than his verbal denial.) So, after his speedy exit, she would think back on all the things she remembered him doing for her and say to herself, Soo…that nice thing he did for me wasn’t love? This other thing wasn’t love? And that? And that? And that? (ad nauseum) and she’d ask herself, Then why did he do all that stuff at all? She’d conclude, He must have been messing with me, trying to make a fool of me for his own amusement.  (Of course, Joseph hadn’t been doing that. She had just allowed her own heart to deceive her.)

But then, she would reason, If his care for me was an act, then what about his care for anyone else in the household? Is that an act too? It made her doubt Joseph’s care for all the other servants as well.  When she told the servants, “He’s mocking us,” she meant, “He messed with me, and he’s been messing with you too.  He just pretends to love us.” Along with rape, she represents Joseph to the other servants and to Potiphar as a manipulator and a sociopath, someone who acts like they care, but doesn’t. And rapist sociopaths are dangerous, even if they are good estate managers, so Potiphar would think taking Joseph out of society (putting him in jail) would prevent him from “using” other people.

But why would she claim Joseph raped her if he didn’t? She’s been infatuated with him for so long, so why accuse him of something like that? She may have reasoned, If he doesn’t really care about me the way I do about him, then keeping him around is going to be torture. I can’t see him day after day. I can’t do this any more.  I have to get rid of him somehow.  But Joseph hadn’t done anything wrong to justify his removal, and everyone knew he was a great manager, so she couldn’t accuse him of mismanagement. Thus, she had to make up something awful enough to get him out of the way, but I can’t see her wanting to get him killed.  Yes, the false accusation was very wrong, but she probably felt she couldn’t explain the real problem to her husband, having already emotionally distanced herself from him.

Joseph may have seen the imprisonment as a welcome separation and a relief. We have no record that he fought the accusation.

So with this view of the story, it is no longer about the exceptionally virtuous man who dares to defy the power of the EVIL WOMAN.  With a sympathetic view of both Joseph and Mrs. Potiphar, assuming that both were trying to do the best they could to meet their needs and live according to their respective lights, we can learn a lot about the real vulnerabilities of men and women, about the conditions of close association that can create temptation over time, about misunderstandings and assumptions that make things worse, and even about the kind of drastic measures that might be taken to keep oneself safe.

We see that both Joseph and Mrs. Potiphar were vulnerable, and their close proximity over a long period of time put them in a pressure-cooker of temptation. 

Joseph would be tempted by the way Mrs. Potiphar respected him and the way she tried to make herself so sexually available. Mrs. Potiphar would be tempted by Joseph’s good looks, competence, caring, and attention.  The happy thing is that Joseph had the integrity to keep both himself and Mrs. Potiphar from sinning. And for all the awful injustice Mrs. Potiphar perpetrated upon Joseph, it’s possible she deserves at least a small bit of credit for having the guts to effect their final separation. (If she didn’t call for some sort of change, who would? Joseph couldn’t; he was a slave. Potiphar wouldn’t; he profited from Joseph’s management.)

It is possible that the Lord allowed Joseph to be tested this way as preparation for making him Pharaoh’s right hand man. That power as second-to-Pharah would have such great privileges and opportunities to indulge any kind of appetite that it could destroy anyone who wielded it unless they were committed to living a moral life. Joseph was undeniably faithful in management, but could he keep his integrity and purity even in a position of power, even in a foreign country, even if propositioned directly? 

Yes he could. He proved it in this refiner’s fire that was not of his choosing.

Lessons from Joseph for men:

·      Your exemplary service may be mistaken by women for secret love and admiration. (Serve well anyway. You only have control over yourself, not how people interpret your actions.)

·      When inappropriate interest arises in you, remind yourself of all the reasons you have to resist.  Remember the trust others have in you, and commit that you will never let them down. Give your love of God your highest allegiance.

·      If a married woman expresses blatant interest, give a firm “No” with all your reasons.

·      Guard yourself. Keep busy and keep people around you. Don’t be alone with that woman.

·      The measures you take to guard yourself may not be appreciated or even understood by that woman. If she is not as committed to purity as you, she may come to the point of deliberately trying to defeat your safety measures. You must be prepared to run. And dignity be hanged.

·      If you can do anything to move out of her range of influence, do so.

Lessons for women from Mrs. Potiphar’s mistakes:

·      If a man periodically in your service seems to be extra helpful, don’t jump to the conclusion that means he likes/loves you. (Today media is so sexualized that to avoid the assumption is counter-cultural, but it can be done. Hang on to humility, and don’t flatter yourself.)

·      Even if you get a pretty strong like/love vibe from that man, don’t say anything to him about it or do anything that might show you notice.

·      Don’t compare that man to your husband; it’s unfair. Chances are you’ll be comparing one man’s strengths with another man’s weaknesses.

·      Don’t seek out more opportunities to be with that man. 

·      Don’t create opportunities for physical or emotional closeness with him.

·      Don’t allow yourself to be alone with him.

·      If you can do anything fair to move out of his range of influence, do so.

Universally helpful principles:

Do not betray the trust others have put in you.

Love the Lord the most.

Why a Serpent in the Garden of Eden?

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Genesis 3:1)

I have wondered for a while why the writer of Genesis used a serpent to represent Satan in the story of the Fall.

Lately, because of some experiences I’ve had, I’ve realized why. As Genesis says, the serpent was more subtle than any beast, and Satan is also subtle.  Satan will slither into our thoughts just like a snake when we don’t notice and he will try to plant some lie there. If we’re not aware, we will believe it, and then we’ll make choices based on the lie, which will get us into trouble.

So what do we do? We have to do our best to club him to death when we are presented with his lies or notice them sneaking in.

When God confronts Satan for tempting Adam and Eve, He says this:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)

That bruising the serpent’s head expresses beating down the lies and not listening to them. Satan keeps trying to tempt us though, so we have to kill the lies over and over again.

In the temple narrative, however, God says something slightly different. Instead of saying that the seed of the woman would bruise Satan’s head, God says the woman’s seed will crush the serpent’s head.  To me that prophesies of several things: 1) how Christ would resist every temptation presented to Him, 2) that Christ would defeat spiritual death with the atonement, 3) that Christ would overcome physical death so we would not be endlessly dead and subject to the devil, and 4) that with Christ’s help we will be able to resist temptation.

I take great comfort in that bit about crushing the serpent’s head. If I can keep beating down the lies as they are presented, by the grace of God, someday they will be crushed, never more to rise again.

A new lesson from Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac

This week I taught the 12-13 year-olds the Sunday school lesson about the atonement from the “Come Follow Me” manual, specifically the lesson “What can the scriptures teach me about the atonement of Jesus Christ?”

The manual suggested using the story of Abraham offering his son Isaac as a sacrifice in similitude of Christ’s sacrifice.  Now, you and I have probably been very familiar with the idea that in this story Abraham plays the part of Heavenly Father, and Isaac plays the part of Christ, symbolizing how Heavenly Father gave his Only Begotten Son as a sacrifice.

My question as I read this story was, “How does this story as a type help me have faith in Christ’s atonement?” 

In pondering it, it seems to me that Abraham’s willingness to offer his son and not withhold him teaches us about Heavenly Father’s willingness to sacrifice His Only Begotten Son for us.  Even with all the pain involved, He was willing.  And Isaac’s willingness to go along when Abraham asked him to be the sacrifice teaches us about Christ’s obedience and willingness to be sacrificed.

And knowing the sacrifice was not given grudgingly helps us know the love Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ both have for us, and that gives us extra reason to trust the atonement and desire to make use of it. 

Abraham cuts a covenant with the Lord and resists Satan

-->

7 And he [God] said unto him [Abram], I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. (Genesis 15:7-17)

In order to certify that His promises to Abram would be fulfilled, the Lord told Abram to take a heifer, a nanny goat, a ram, turtle dove, and a pigeon to cut a covenant with him.  The covenant of this sort was made by cutting the animals in half, and both parties to covenant walked between the two pieces.  It was to demonstrate the kind of death that would happen if either party broke the covenant.  It is interesting that the Lord doesn’t have Abram cut up just one animal, but three.  I suppose this is to make a point about how serious the Lord is about keeping this promise.

So Abram prepares the animals, but the Lord doesn’t show up right away, so Abram has to drive away the vultures from the animal parts.

In v12, something happens that is puzzling.  When the sun goes down a deep sleep falls on Abram along with a horror of great darkness.  What was this?

I suspect that was Satan trying to prevent Abram from going through with this covenant with the Lord.  Satan does not like people to make covenants with God, and tries to disrupt impending spiritual experiences in any way he can.   (This fits very well with the opposition Satan hit Joseph Smith with before the first vision, as well as the opposition Moses faced when having his vision.)  Satan could have attacked Abram with thoughts that the delay of waiting for the Lord meant that the Lord had changed His mind.  He could have also tried to scare Abram away by suggesting that once he made this covenant he’d be stuck and any little deviation would put him in Satan’s power. 

Even though we do not have the details recorded, Abram would have had to call on the Lord for strength to resist.  And in the process, he was filled with the Holy Ghost, which seems to have filled him with the spirit of prophecy and he was inspired to know what would happen to his posterity up to four hundred years in the future.

And finally the Lord came, like a smoking furnace and a burning lamp, and passed through the pieces to confirm the covenant.

Once I read between the lines, this story reinforces the principle that there is opposition in all things.  Satan was at work trying to disrupt Abram’s faith just as much as he is at work today.  The solution is to pray always.

Re-evaluating Esau

 This post by Rabbi Hoffman about Esau blew me away and made me think in a whole new way.

Enjoy.

Jacob considers how God is keeping the covenant

At the end of Jacob’s life, he talks to his son Joseph in Egypt and we see in the JST of Genesis 48 what his perspective is about the events of his life and how they fit with the covenant God made with him so long ago.

7  And Jacob said unto Joseph, When the God of my fathers appeared unto me in Luz, in the land of Canaan; he sware unto me, that he would give unto me, and unto my seed, the land for an everlasting possession.
8  Therefore, O my son, he hath blessed me in raising thee up to be a servant unto me, in saving my house from death;
9  In delivering my people, thy brethren, from famine which was sore in the land; wherefore the God of thy fathers shall bless thee, and the fruit of thy loins, that they shall be blessed above thy brethren, and above thy father’s house; (JST Genesis 48:7-9)

Jacob realized that in order for the Lord to keep the covenant to give the land Canaan to Jacob and his posterity, the Lord saved Jacob and his family from the famine.  (After all, if there are no people left to inherit, then the Lord can’t keep the covenant.) 

It must have given Jacob a good feeling to know that even if the Lord’s covenant hadn’t been fulfilled in his lifetime, he could still see how the Lord was working to prepare the way for it to be fulfilled in the future.  This gave him the hope that it would be fulfilled as the Lord said.  That’s a really faithful attitude—to not be angry that it wasn’t being fulfilled in his own lifetime.

Looking at it from another perspective, even though Jacob would die soon, his spirit would get to see over generations how the covenant would be fulfilled.  It would give a righteous spirit something to look forward to, wouldn’t it, seeing the culmination of all the promises and prophecies fulfilled little by little throughout the history of the world.

Both Jacob and Joseph had great spiritual maturity to see how their mutual suffering and grief was turned to the good of themselves and families.  I hope that at the end of my life I’ll be able to look back and see how my suffering 1) turned to my good and 2) helped prepare the way for the Lord to fulfill His covenant.