Preliminaries for Confirming or Ordaining

And [Jesus] called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles. (Moroni 2:2)

2 After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, they laid their hands upon them, and said:

3 In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest (or if he be a teacher, I ordain you to be a teacher) to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen. (Moroni 3:2-3)

I notice these both say that priesthood holders were to prepare for exercising the priesthood of God by praying first. We see that Jesus instructed His disciples to do this, advising “mighty prayer,” promising that then they would have power.

What is the principle behind Jesus’s commandments to pray mightily first? I think it is this: A man must prepare spiritually and put himself in harmony with the Lord in order to speak for the Lord to one of God’s children. Obedience and submission through prayer is the first step, and praying as commanded does that. Secondly, putting oneself in communication with the Father is necessary before one can have confidence to speak for Him, and prayer is the way that we align our will with His.

Do priesthood holders do this today? I haven’t seen it, but then it may go on in the heart, which I can’t see. But I am sure that if those scriptural practices are followed, greater blessings will result while the priesthood is being used.

Binding and Loosing, Differences in Translation

I was looking at Matt 18:18 about the sealing power Christ promised to His disciples.  It seems like there are two different ways this scripture has been translated. They have great implications for doctrine.

Reading #1

King James Bible
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

New International Version
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

New Living Translation
"I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.   [My thought: Forbidden?  Permitted? What? Authority to make new commandments?]

GOD'S WORD® Translation
I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you imprison, God will imprison. And whatever you set free, God will set free.

New American Standard 1977
“Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Reading #2

Berean Literal Bible
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.

NET Bible
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And truly I say to you, everything whatsoever you will bind in the earth will have been bound in Heaven, and anything that you will release in the earth will have been released in Heaven.

King James 2000 Bible
Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.

World English Bible
Most certainly I tell you, whatever things you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever things you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

International Standard Version
"I tell all of you with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven.                   [Prohibit? Permitted?  Already?]

Note that half of these translations say that people on earth are binding what has already been bound in heaven.  If this were the case, then all a priesthood holder would need would be simply revelation to know what was bound or loosed and then communicate it.

But the interpretation that we believe in is the one in which the priesthood holder declares the binding or loosing, and the heavens ratify the action and honor it.  This power is much greater, and also requires great holiness, doing what the heavens and God would do anyway if they were here.

We read this as referring not only to church discipline, but also to the joining of a man and woman in matrimony for eternity and for the sealing of their children to them. When the sealing power was given to Joseph Smith, the meaning and significance of binding and loosing expanded. It no longer can be seen as only having to do with a person’s individual relationship with God, but also as a medium of creating and cementing eternal family bonds and ultimately a more ordered and stable society, not just here, but beyond the grave.

Some thoughts from teaching Old Testament Lesson 24 “Create in Me a Clean Heart”

It has been some weeks since I taught this lesson, but I thought it might be a good idea to share some things from it.

Old Testament Lesson 24 “Create in Me a Clean Heart” covers the sad story in 2 Samuel 11-12 of David’s adultery with Bath-sheba, his conspiracy to have her husband murdered on the front lines, and then the exposure of his crimes by the prophet Nathan, and Psalm 51, which expresses his deep contrition and repentance.

I decided to approach the lesson a little bit differently by widening the scope a bit. We usually focus on just David and Bath-sheba, but I decided to compare his story with other stories in the scriptures of people who suffered similar temptation or who were in similar precarious circumstances. At first, I started thinking about the comparisons simply for my own learning, but after doing it (making a chart and making observations), I learned enough that I decided it would be worth it to have the class think these things through too.

So who are we comparing?

David & Bath-sheba in 2 Samuel 11

Amnon & Tamar in 2 Samuel 13

Corianton & Isabel in Alma 39 :2-4

Sarah/Abraham & Pharaoh in Genesis 12:11-20

Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (who I’ll call Mrs. Potiphar) in Genesis 39: 4-21

If you’re not familiar with any of these stories, I encourage you to take some time to go read them so you’ll have it fresh in your mind.

(Just as a quick note about a relationship, Amnon was a son of David through one wife, and Tamar was a daughter of David through a different wife. They were half-siblings, and a marriage between them would have been forbidden by the Law of Moses.)

Let’s make some charts!

	David & Bath-sheba	Amnon & Tamar	Corianton & Isabel	Sarah/Abe. & Pharaoh	Joseph & Mrs. Potiphar
Who is the aggressor-pursuer?	David	Amnon	Corianton (went after Isabel) (But also, Alma observes that Isabel did “steal away the hearts of many” so it could have been both were at fault in some way.	Pharaoh	Mrs. Potiphar

Something we learn really quick from looking at this information here is that in 4 cases out of 5, the men were the aggressor. However, it must be noted that Isabel and Mrs. Potiphar show us that women may be predatory on occasion too.

	David & Bath-sheba	Amnon & Tamar	Corianton & Isabel	Sarah/Abe. & Pharaoh	Joseph & Mrs. Potiphar
Who had the power in the interactions?	David (he’s king)	They were about equal (they both were children of David) Amnon had more physical strength.	This is unclear. However, Corianton was a missionary, and he had spiritual authority.	Pharaoh (he’s king)	Mrs. Potiphar (she’s mistress of the household, while Joseph is a slave)

Looking at these comparisons, we can see that in 3 of the 5 interactions, there was a massive power imbalance in terms of social status and authority. The power that kings have over their subjects and that masters have over slaves contributes to temptation to misuse that power (which we in the church would label “unrighteous dominion”).  In the case of Corianton and Isabel, I note that he was a missionary (lots of moral authority) and she was a harlot (very little moral authority), so there was a great spiritual power-imbalance there that he may have taken advantage of. (I don’t say that he did; I just surmise that it is possible. People with very low self-esteem are easily taken advantage of.)

In short, power imbalances contribute to sexual temptation; Satan whispers to the person with the power that they can escape consequences or retaliation from the one they sin against or that their status isolates them from wider social consequences. Satan also tries to break down the resistance of the person without power by telling them they will be punished if they resist to keep their virtue.

We can see that Sarah and Joseph both still resisted, which shows us it is possible to resist even if you don’t have power.

	David & Bath-sheba	Amnon & Tamar	Corianton & Isabel	Sarah/Abe. & Pharaoh	Joseph & Mrs. Potiphar
Who had knowledge of the commandments?	Both	Both	Corianton	Sarah (both??)	Joseph

A sad observation we make here is that just because both people know the commandments (like “Do not commit adultery”) does not necessarily make it easier. 1) It may lull both into a false sense of security as they both think, “Oh, I don’t need to worry about that because they know it’s wrong.” 2) The angst when trapped in a forbidden relationship can be even greater.

(Pharaoh is kind of a weird case. The fact that he had to be kept from knowing of Sarah’s marriage indicates that he knew he shouldn’t commit adultery…and he would kept the letter of it by arranging for Sarah to become single. But that meant he had a problem with other commandments…namely, murder.)

We can also observe something reassuring—if even just one person in the duo is committed to keeping the commandments, that commitment can save them both. Yes, even if the one committed to the commandments is not in a position of power.    But the case of Corianton shows us that being the only one who knows the commandments is not enough, if you’re not fully committed to keeping them.

	David & Bath-sheba	Amnon & Tamar	Corianton & Isabel	Sarah/Abe. & Pharaoh	Joseph & Mrs. Potiphar
Where did the temptation start?	David was at home, on the roof, looking out on the city at night.	At home, in the palace. This was a long term thing.	Among the Zoramites, on the mission. (following the lusts of his eyes)	As Abe and Sarah came into Egypt. Pharaoh heard a report from his servants about Sarah. (curiosity)	In Mrs. Potiphar’s house. Over time as Joseph works for Potiphar.

In the cases of David, Amnon, and Mrs. Potiphar, the temptation came at home. (Note: Be careful who you let close to you.)

In the case of David in particular, in the evening he arose off his bed and walked on his roof. He was restless. Satan tries to take advantage of that. Also, this was at night, so after a long day, his resistance would have been lower. Satan will try to hit us with temptation at night when we’re tired. We also need to watch out for times when we’re hungry, thirsty, anxious, sad, bored, or lonely.

In the cases of Amnon and Mrs. Potiphar, there was a long time of association before the temptation hit. These can be really difficult to deal with because the person is already so embedded in one’s life that it’s hard to see how one can get free of them.  How would Amnon have gotten distance from his half-sister?  How would Mrs. Potiphar have gotten away from Joseph if he was such a good servant? (She couldn’t very well ask for him to be sold without a good reason.)

In the cases of David and Corianton, we see there is a temptation to go after the lusts of one’s eyes. Looking to lust creates problems.

In the case of Pharaoh, just hearing a report of Sarah’s beauty was enough to stimulate his curiosity. The way he acted and the way the Lord warned Abraham to say Sarah was his sister makes you think that maybe Pharaoh had a habit of picking up women like this. (Of course, this is speculation about this story, but the lesson is still important and still valid: there are people who are habitually predatory, and the Lord has to give us extra help to escape them.)

	David & Bath-sheba	Amnon & Tamar	Corianton & Isabel	Sarah/Abe. & Pharaoh	Joseph & Mrs. Potiphar
Any spiritual problems beforehand?	David was not at battle when he should have been. (neglecting duty) (Idleness)	Vexed with Tamar to the point of sickness (obsessed) (not enough to do to keep his mind off her. Idle.)	Had been boasting in his own strength	Pharoah apparently always takes what he wants. (selfish) Time on his hands? (idleness)	Idleness (since she had servants)

Here we infer that in at least 4 out of 5 cases, idleness was a major contributor to temptation. The saying seems to hold true that “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop,” so it is important to make sure to stay anxiously engaged in a good cause.

Now, let me be understood—we need moments of downtime to rest and re-create our strength. We have a day of rest every week, which is a big blessing.   But long-term idleness is not healthy. Satan will try to fill that long empty space any way he can, like throwing a bunch of burrs in an empty wool bag. To extend the metaphor, it’s easier to keep the burrs out if the wool bag is filled with pretty marbles. (I hope you get my crazy metaphor...)

I think it is also important to point out that while it might seem like boasting wouldn’t create a problem for Corianton, it is actually very serious. “For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.” (D&C 3:4) Boasting is a manifestation of pride, which of course takes a person out of the protection of the Spirit of the Lord.  This means that not only is it not wise to boast of spiritual strength, it also isn’t wise to assume one is out of reach of these temptations. Anyone is vulnerable.

	David & Bath-sheba	Amnon & Tamar	Corianton & Isabel	Sarah/Abe. & Pharaoh	Joseph & Mrs. Potiphar
What factors would have contributed to the difficulties for the one pursued?	Bath-sheba’s husband was not around. (He was at war.)	Tamar was not physically strong enough keep Amnon away.	Isabel probably had low self-esteem from previously lost virtue.	Sarah was a foreigner in a strange land. She has to pretend she’s not married (but not by choice)	Joseph is a slave, has to obey orders. He’s a foreigner.

Some lessons we can learn here is that there are various factors that contribute to vulnerability for the ones who are pursued. 1) When the spouse isn’t around. 2) Lack of physical strength to defend oneself. 3) Low self-esteem. 4) Anything that makes you look unmarried. 5) Being a foreigner. (Means you’re more dependent upon the kindness of others and that not understanding customs may cause you to not realize that personal boundaries are being intruded upon for nefarious purposes.)

The irony with Sarah was that having to pretend she wasn’t married was actually a measure given by revelation to keep her husband alive (see Abraham 2:22-25). However, as a rule, signaling that you are happily married is a great protection.

	David & Bath-sheba	Amnon & Tamar	Corianton & Isabel	Sarah/Abe. & Pharaoh	Joseph & Mrs. Potiphar
What factors would have made it hard for the aggressor to avoid contact?	Could have avoided. David was king and could have ordered Bath-sheba and Uriah sent elsewhere.	Tamar was Amnon’s half-sister. He’d see her all the time unless he got his father to send him on some distant royal project.	Corianton’s mission was to the Zoramites. Perhaps he could have gotten himself transferred? Isabel stole the hearts of many, so she seems to have been deliberate about it.	Pharoah could avoid, but he takes Sarah into his house. Eventually he ends up sending them away out of Egypt.	Joseph had been given responsibility over the whole house.  Joseph helps by trying to avoid Mrs. Potiphar as best he can, but she also tries to defeat these measures. Joseph is a good servant, so Mrs. Potiphar can’t get rid of him without good reason.

Here we see that nearly every one of the aggressors in these relationships could have done something to send away the person they were too interested in or gone somewhere else themselves. The problem was, by that time they were too ensnared and no longer wanted to.

In the cases of Pharaoh and Mrs. Potiphar, they finally bit the bullet and took steps. (Mrs. Potiphar, unfortunately had to perpetrate an injustice to get rid of Joseph.)

Let’s sum up some of the lessons from this comparison:

·      Power and status imbalances often contribute to temptation. However, resistance is still possible.

·      You must stay completely committed to the keeping the commandments to resist temptation.

·      Temptation often arises from long associations, at times of physiological-emotional weakness, with people who are physically attractive. (Or any combination thereof) Curiosity can also contribute.

·      Idleness, pride, and selfishness makes us extra vulnerable to temptation.  On the opposite side, being anxiously engaged in a good cause, staying humble, and cultivating unselfishness can protect us.

·      Some other protections from sexual temptation are: the presence of one’s spouse, signaling one’s married status, and self-confidence through virtue.

·      Avoiding contact is an important way to quench temptation, and sometimes heroic, unusual measures are called for.

Many times, our warnings consist of “Don’t be alone with a person of the opposite sex,” and the above shows us that sometimes things aren’t that simple. Joseph’s case shows that sometimes even that fails and you have to be ready to run and leave your dignity behind.

I have a testimony that the Lord will help us to keep our covenants if we are truly committed. He will deliver us in various ways—with warnings, with grace (enabling power), and with miracles If necessary.  If we have been sinned against, we can access Christ’s healing power.

The Peculiar Succession Pattern in Ether

This time reading through Ether, I noticed an interesting pattern in the way the kings conferred the kingdom on their sons. It seems as though many times they do not give the kingdom to the oldest son. Instead, they tend to give it to one of their youngest sons.

The factors that make me think this are the following:

1)   In the record, the brother of Jared declares the people should constrain no man to be their king, and he refrains from conferring the kingdom on his eldest son, even though the people want him to. This sets a new precedent for the beginning of the Jaredite nation. 

2)   The record has many instances when we are told the king begat many sons and daughters and begat son X in their old age and conferred the kingdom on son X.     For the longest time, I was so influenced by the assumption of primogeniture (first son inherits all), that I thought somehow son X was the eldest and was listed last to emphasize the transition of power.  But now I think it was actually showing how kings were conferring their kingdoms on some of their very youngest sons, rather than the eldest.

How many instances are there of this particular practice?

1)   Jared >> Orihah (Ether 6:27)

2)   Orihah >> Kib (Ether 7:1-3)

3)   Kib >> Shule (Ether 7:7)

4)   Shule >> Omer (Ether 7:26, 8:1)

5)   Omer >> Emer (Ether 9:14)

6)   Emer >> Coriantum (Ether 9:21-22)

7)   Coriantum >> Com (Ether 9:24-25)

8)   Shez >> Riplakish (Ether 10:2-4)

9)   Kim >> Levi (Ether 10:14-15)

10)                  Levi >> Corom (Ether 10:16)

11)                  Lib >> Hearthom (Ether 10:29-30)

Most of these examples are pretty early in Jaredite history.  (The beginning for the end for this system was Shez choosing Riplakish, since Riplakish turned out to be a greedy, immoral person. After that, I wonder if the credibility of the practice was damaged.)

What this practice seems to have done is cause the sons of kings to think carefully about whether they were both willing and capable of ruling.  Another advantage it would have was that the son inheriting the throne would have more youth and vigor while ruling.  And at the beginning of the Jaredite nation, it seems to have worked well. But only when there were righteous kings.

The disadvantage to the system was that the older sons, if ambitious, had far too much time to get impatient, leading to coups and rebellions.

Another interesting thing I noticed was that in Ether 10 there are three different instances of rebellions against the king starting after a king ruled for 42 years. It happens in verse 8, 15, and 32.    It made me wonder if there was anything significant about that particular length of time, so I emailed Book of Mormon Central about it.  They suggested some associations for the number 42 in Egyptian mythology, but nothing that sounded like it had much bearing on kingship. I shall quote their answer:

It is possible that the number 42 was a symbolic number for the Jaredites, although it is difficult to say at this point. If there is an ancient Egyptian connection to the earliest culture of the Jaredites, as Nibley seemed to think, then it is possible that the number 42 is related to the Book of the Dead. In this book, there are 42 questions asked of people making their journey through the underworld. If the departed reasonably can give answers to the 42 questions, they have the potential to be reincarnated. If they fail, bad things happen to them. It is possible that the number 42 is included to show a symbolic judgement against the king. However, I should stress that we really have no idea. (Answer given by Jonathon Riley)

That being said, it occurred to me that rebellions 42 years into a king’s reign might be related to longevity and aging issues. For a king to reign 42 years, the older they were when they took the throne, the older they would be when 42 years of ruling came around. It might represent a time in the king’s reign when the king was less able to govern, when they may not have settled on who was to succeed them, and maybe when they were not yet ready to let go of power.   That might have been an ideal time for an ambitious usurper to foment a rebellion and get away with it, especially if they hoped to get out from under an oppressive king.  But for an aging, righteous king it would cause a lot of damage.

A third observation I have on the Jaredite monarchy is that it is interesting that the brother of Jared says kingship will lead into captivity (Ether 6:23), and the fulfillment of this is highlighted when the kings are brought into captivity, rather than the people. I’m not quite sure what to make of this, considering the strong lessons of King Noah’s reign of how a wicked king makes righteous people less free. In our democratized age, we are much more used to thinking about the consequences in terms of whether it is good for the people instead of the king, so I have to wonder how this message might find applicability in our time.

But maybe it is still worth looking at. The stories of the kings in Ether seem to shine a spotlight very strongly on how ambition and envious subjects would seek to constrain and capture the king.   It may be that the heyday of the usefulness of this message was in Nephite times and so it is less emphasized for our day.

One thing is for sure: after the inauguration of our new president, I think considering the stories of the Jaredite kings makes me glad we have a pretty peaceful transition of power between presidents elected by the people.

The Lord making bare His arm

10 And I would, my brethren, that ye should know that all the kindreds of the earth cannot be blessed unless he shall make bare his arm in the eyes of the nations.

11 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to make bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations, in bringing about his covenants and his gospel unto those who are of the house of Israel. (1 Nephi 22:10-11)

When it speaks of the Lord making bare His arm in the eyes of all the nations, it means that the Lord will make His power obvious.

Making bare an arm is a great image to describe how someone shows their power. We visualize a strong man rolling up their sleeves and flexing their muscles and maybe doing some heavy lifting to emphasize the strength they have.

When the Lord makes His arm bare, or shows His power, it will be done through the power of the Holy Ghost that will work upon the hearts of men when they hear the truth of the gospel. It will attract those of the house of Israel to the covenants of the Lord. When they enter covenants, they will also experience the power of the Lord through the priesthood and receive blessings promised to Abraham and his seed.

What “heavy lifting” does the Lord do that we can see? He changes people’s lives. The older we get, the more we understand how difficult change can be without God. People are stubborn. Habit is a deep rut to get out of. But God has the power to change lives, and He shows that to everyone, one by one. He shows people through the Spirit a hint of how they could be blessed, and then they get to choose to respond or not.

Also, everyone will see the power of God at the resurrection.

The Brother of Jared’s Observation of how Men Perceive the Power of God

-->

When the brother of Jared is praying to ask the Lord to touch the stones to make them glow so they can have light in their barges, he says some things about the power of God that are very perceptive.

4 And I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man; therefore touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness; and they shall shine forth unto us in the vessels which we have prepared, that we may have light while we shall cross the sea.

5 Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men. (Ether 3:4-5)

The brother of Jared notes that God is able to use great power, which can look small to men. He probably was thinking about his request to make the stones glow and realized that he might think it was a small and simple thing because he didn’t know what was required to do that, and maybe the thing he was asking for was more complex and required more power than he thought it would.

It shows us that we really don’t have much of an idea of how much power or effort it takes for God to do anything. We just know He has all power, and we just hope He will do for us the thing we ask. But maybe spending a little time thinking about what goes into granting us our petitions will help us appreciate the power of God more.

Another thing that comes to me is how easy it is to dismiss God when His power looks small to us. Yet we should know appearances are deceiving, and we are simply ignorant of His ways and means.  It’s like people who have never programmed a computer saying, “Yeah, programming that operating system should be no big deal.”

On a slightly different note, I like the type that is suggested in the brother of Jared’s request, “touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness.” It’s very much what we should be asking for ourselves. Touch me, Lord, with thy finger and prepare me so I can shine forth in the darkness of this world.  Or, if we are going into a place in our lives where we can’t see the way, we can pray for the Lord to touch someone and prepare them so they can shine forth in our darkness so we can have light.

Ordinations to help us look to Christ

In these verses Alma the younger explains the priesthood or the need for the priesthood to the people of Ammonihah, who have denied he (as high priest) has authority over them, on the grounds they are not of his faith.

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. (Alma 13:1-2)

That bit about ordination as way for the people to know how to look forward to the Son for redemption has always made me wonder.  How is ordination to the priesthood supposed to help build my faith in Christ?  It must be that there is a type of Christ in it that we haven’t recognized, but Alma did.

The only think I can think of is this—ordination takes one of the men among us in the church and gives him a holy office by which he is to serve the people, teach them, and bestow ordinances.  That process must be similar to how Christ was to be raised up among Israel.  The grace of God that attends the ordinances done by the priests we know is to help people believe that Christ could save them, once He was raised up.

What do you think?  Do you think that’s it, or do you have additional ideas?

KJV versus JST: The Lamb Slain in Revelation 5

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (Revelation 5:6)

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having twelve horns and twelve eyes, which are the twelve servants of God, sent forth into all the earth.

KJV Revelation 5:6	Joseph Smith Translation
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (Revelation 5:6)	And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having twelve horns and twelve eyes, which are the twelve servants of God, sent forth into all the earth.

The number twelve used for the horns and eyes of the Lamb makes us think immediately of the twelve apostles.  It also reinforces they are servants of God, not multiple Holy Ghosts.

The fact they are represented as being a part of the Lamb (horns and eyes) shows us how close to Christ they are, how dependent on Him they are, how close to his thoughts and purposes they are.  It also gives us a sense of how indispensible the office of apostle is to the organization of the church. 

Horns are sharp and pokey and they are used in the scriptures as symbols of power.  Any time the apostles share their witness, they are being used as a power for the Lord.  (Prod, prod)

It is also interesting this verse tells us the Lamb is standing (and presumably alive), but as it had been slain, with wounds testifying to its death.  This represents the resurrected Christ, not the pre-crucifixion Christ.  I don’t know exactly what to say about this, but it fascinates me.  Maybe it is because the wounds are visible, so they can be witnessed by others, but they are no longer a source of trauma to the Lamb.  He overcame it all for us.   This isn’t a zombie Lamb; it’s a resurrected Lamb.  Death has no more power.