Stumbling blocks and Snares

These verses come from chapters of Isaiah that Nephi quotes.

13 Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

15 And many among them shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. (2 Nephi 18:13-16)

The chapter heading makes it clear this is talking about how Christ would be a stumbling block to Israel and Jerusalem. (He would be a different kind of Messiah than what they were expecting.)

I also think the same principle is relevant in the church today. If we aren’t careful, the words of the prophets and church policies can become stumbling blocks to us. Church history has stories of people who took issue with particular revelations and fell by the wayside—people who didn’t move to Kirtland, people who didn’t fulfill their callings, people who didn’t go west with the Saints, people who had troubles with this or that doctrine.

Each time there is a change of some sort, it becomes a test of discipleship to see if people will find sanctuary in the Lord or whether they will feel trapped and stumble and leave. We have a promise elsewhere that Christ will take away our stumbling blocks, but we each have to make the commitment to do whatever it takes to stay true.

Work revealed by fire

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. (1 Cor. 3:11-14)

I always kind of wondered about this scripture, but this time it made more sense to me. It’s saying everyone’s work is tested in a particular way to see if it can stand through trial.

Missionary work is tested through others’ indifference or persecution. Love is tested through separation, loss, common events of life, and differences of opinion. Faith is tested by seeming to be left unsupported by God. Our work is tested when it becomes difficult or thankless. Habits of scripture reading may be tested by a period when one seems to have gotten nothing from it. Good parenting is tested with difficult children or children going through difficult stages. Can it all endure the test? That is the question.

Paul says Christ is the foundation to build upon, so His way is the best way to do things. But then our motives matter as well. If we’re doing the right thing for the wrong reason, a difficult trial might stop us unless we can start doing it for the right reason. For instance, doing missionary work for praise or status would cease if one finds they lose status or are maligned, unless they can choose to do it anyway, to bring souls to God and try to help people.

The Test of Ease

The July 2017 Ensign had a really good article from Elder Bednar called “On the Lord’s Side: Lessons from Zion’s Camp” (p27) that had a big section in it that I want to comment on.

The leaders of the Lord’s Church clearly have identified some of the collective or generational tests we can expect to encounter in our day and generation. As the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1977, President Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994) raised a prophetic voice of warning in a meeting of regional representatives. I now quote extensively from President Benson’s message and invite your focused attention on his timely counsel:

“Every generation has its tests and its chance to stand and prove itself. Would you like to know of one of our toughest tests? Hear the warning words of Brigham Young, ‘The worst fear I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and His people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution and be true. But my greatest fear is that they cannot stand wealth.’”

President Benson continues: “Ours then seems to be the toughest test of all, for the evils are more subtle, more clever. It all seems less menacing and it is harder to detect. While every test of righteousness represents a struggle, this particular test seems like no test at all, no struggle and so could be the most deceiving of all tests.

“Do you know what peace and prosperity can do to a people—It can put them to sleep. The Book of Mormon warned us of how Satan, in the last days, would lead us away carefully down to hell. The Lord has on the earth some potential spiritual giants whom He saved for some six thousand years to help bear off the Kingdom triumphantly, and the devil is trying to put them to sleep. The adversary knows that he probably won’t be too successful in getting them to commit many great and malignant sins of commission. So he puts them into a deep sleep, like Gulliver, while he strands them with little sins of omission. And what good is a sleepy, neutralized, lukewarm giant as a leader?

“We have too many potential spiritual giants who should be more vigorously lifting their homes, the kingdom, and the country. We have many who feel they are good men and women, but they need to be good for something—strong patriarchs, courageous missionaries, valiant family history and temple workers, dedicated patriots, devoted quorum members. In short, we must be shaken and awakened from a spiritual snooze.”⁷

Consider that affluence, prosperity, and ease can be tests in our day equal to or greater in intensity than the persecution and physical hardships endured by the Saints who volunteered to march in Zion’s Camp. As the prophet Mormon described in his magnificent summary of the pride cycle contained in Helaman 12:

“And thus we can behold how false, and also the unsteadiness of the hearts of the children of men; yea, we can see that the Lord in his great infinite goodness doth bless and prosper those who put their trust in him.

“Yea, and we may see at the very time when he doth prosper his people, yea, in the increase of their fields, their flocks and their herds, and in gold, and in silver, and in all manner of precious things of every kind and art; sparing their lives, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; softening the hearts of their enemies that they should not declare wars against them; yea, and in fine, doing all things for the welfare and happiness of his people; yea, then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trample under their feet the Holy One—yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity” (Helaman 12:1–2).

I invite you specifically to note the final phrase in the last verse: “and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity.”

President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) likewise taught about the collective test of ease that we face in our day: “We are tested, we are tried, we are going through some of the severest tests today and we don’t realize perhaps the severity of the tests we are going through. In those days there were murderings, there were mobbings, there were drivings. They were driven out into the desert, they were starving and they were unclad, and they were cold. They came here to this favored land. We are the inheritors of what they gave to us. But what are we doing with it? Today we are basking in the lap of luxury, the like of which we’ve never seen before in the history of the world. It would seem that probably this is the most severe test of any test that we’ve ever had in the history of this Church.”

So, Elder Bednar notes that affluence, prosperity, and ease can be tests in our day equal to or greater in intensity than the persecution and physical hardships endured by the Saints who volunteered to march in Zion’s camp.

Many of us might listen or read these words and like Tevye from “Fiddler on the Roof” we might say, “Well, if wealth is a curse, may God smite me with it! And may I never recover!”

But that just shows we don’t understand the danger. So many of us are driven and motivated to action by the needs of the moment, driven to acquire what will enable us to live, driven by the needs of those who depend on us.  But what happens when we reach a state when our needs are all met, when no one makes any demands? It sounds wonderful. But where will you find motivation if you have no need?

That is the test. The test is to create your motivation and stay anxiously engaged in a good cause day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year. The test is to keep it up, even though you don’t need to. The test is to sacrifice your comfort and ease to bring about righteous purposes. The test is to push out of ease willingly into a cause fraught with frustration, inconvenience, difficulty, challenge, persecution, pain, etc.  And it is a test.  The natural man and woman loves to loll about and will protest when you think about trying something know or doing something hard that you don’t have to do.  (At least mine does.)

It is true that ease puts people to sleep. When there’s no need, you feel like you don’t have to try too hard because the penalty for failure or laziness is low. That is how prosperity saps people of vigor.

Again, Elder Bednar points out the test of affluence, prosperity, and ease can be equal to or greater in intensity than the persecution and physical hardships of Zion’s Camp. Ponder that. Equal to or greater in intensity to mental and physical fatigue, bloody blisters, inadequate food, unclean water, disappointments, dissentions, rebellions, and threatening armies. In what way are they equal? The prophet Joseph Smith called these men to leave their comfortable homes and march to save others. In our day, the prophet will similarly call us to leave our comforts and ease and suffer inconvenience, difficulty, persecution, etc. to save others. In that way, the tests are equal.

That kind of sacrifice is the same that Moses made when he put aside his status as a prince of Egypt and chose to suffer privations with the enslaved children of Israel.

How to deal with this test? How to prepare for it? I think one way to prepare for it is to choose at least one good cause to engage in along with all the things we need to do, and keep at it. Keep at it even though there is nothing urgent about it because someday you’ll need that skill.  The labor of love will prepare you for the time when all your labors become non-urgent.

Another part of this test is that when needs are taken care of, one doesn’t quite know what to pray about. What to ask for? That puzzle may cause neglect of prayers. But if one is anxiously engaged in a good cause, then one finds more to pray about, and one realizes how much one needs help to fight the inertia of the natural man or woman.

Tried so as by fire

This is a part of a larger section of the JST about Melchizedek.

34 And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;

35 And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire. (JST Genesis 14:34-35)

I was struck in particular by v35. In what ways might the heavens and the earth come together, and how does this try the Sons of God?

The context makes me think of the day when Zion will come down out of heaven to Zion on the earth, but that seems like it would be a glorious day, not one that would try the Sons of God as by fire.

And trying “so as by fire” evokes mental imagery of the second coming of Christ, but that time should be a reward for faithfulness, not necessarily a trial. So somehow my assumptions must be off.

It may be that heaven and the earth coming together describes the test of the latter days to live side by side among people of the world and still live God’s laws. So many times in history the Lord has separated the righteous from the wicked in order to preserve His people. But when the church is mixed among everybody else, living true to our faith is a challenge. It’s a test of our integrity and our charity. The more wicked the world is, the more it tests us. In order to stay faithful, we have to be fully committed to following the Lord. In the experience of living out that decision and letting the consequence follow, the wrong desires have to be consumed, almost as if it were burned out of us.

And too, the heaven and the earth coming together could just as easily describe continuing revelation.  Continuing revelation tests us as more of heaven’s ways are revealed to us. Can we meet the challenge to keep the commandments given? Can we choose the ways of heaven over that of the world? Will we choose to attain to more than the modicum of social niceness that the world calls goodness?

And it also may be that I still don't really know what this is talking about. But the above is what I think until I learn more.

Meantime, each of us has some aspect of our lives that is trying our faith. Let’s choose heaven’s ways over the world’s.

Job’s friends as absurd self-contradictors

--> -->

I recently went back to the Book of Job and was struck by how the Lord chastised Job’s friends at the end:

7 ¶And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job. (Job 42:7-8)

The Lord doesn’t just say that they’ve spoken wrong things against the Lord, but that if He were to deal with them according to their folly (which has to be according to what they said of Him) it would be a major calamity to them that they must avert with contrition and sacrifice, with Job to intercede for them in prayer.

So I went back through Job to see if I could discover what wrong things his friends had said about God.  A lot of it sounds good, but I started to catch hints of contradictions, things that I wouldn’t have caught without knowledge of the restored gospel and wouldn’t have caught without looking very carefully.

(A big help to me was a summary of the dialogue posted on executableoutlines.com/job/job_sg.pdf. )

For example, try out this from Elihu:

13 Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters.

14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;

16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

17 That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. (Job 33:13-17)

Elihu asserts first that God doesn’t tell man what He is doing, but very soon after, Elihu says God speaks once, even twice, and man doesn’t get it.  Either say God doesn’t speak, or God does speak, but you can’t say both, otherwise you contradict yourself.

But pass on that, and you run into another contradiction.  God speaks multiple times, but man doesn’t perceive it, says Elihu. But then later, Elihu says God opens the ears of men to withdraw them from their purpose (of from the course they choose to a better one), but in order for men to change course, that implies men can listen and understand God’s words and can change.  Elihu, either man can perceive God talking to them, or they can’t and God can have no influence on any humans anywhere.  But you can’t say both, otherwise you contradict yourself.  There are no hedging words in this discussion.  They speak generally and expect to set down general rules.  But their rules contradict.

What I’ve pointed out above is just a small sample of the contradictory claptrap that Job’s friends say to him, especially Elihu.

Let’s look at another contradiction – Job 35:24-27.

24 Remember that thou magnify his work, which men behold.

25 Every man may see it; man may behold it afar off.

26 Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.

27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: (Job 36:24-27)

In this section, Elihu says first that man can behold and know the work of God, that every man can see it even from far away because it is supposedly so obvious.  Then, in the very next breath, he says God is great, that He can’t be known, nor can His years be searched out.  Look, either God can be known, or He can’t, but you can’t say both.  And if you say God is great, then that means you know something about Him, which means He can be known, so you can’t say He’s a mystery!  Even saying He can’t be known means you know something about Him.

The truth is, God can be known, but only by revelation.  He must reveal Himself, and we must search and pray and obey to show we want to know Him.  Even learning about Him through the marvels of the natural world requires revelation.

Even funnier, in the verses after this, Elihu says, “Can any understand the spreading of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?” (Job 36:29), which sounds like a rhetorical question conveying no one can know that stuff  Except he then proceeds to give a big discourse of all he has observed and known about how the weather words, clouds, thunder, rain, whirlwinds, and all.

Let’s look at another of Job’s friends to see how they go off the rails.  Here’s Eliphaz:

3 Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?

4 Will he reprove thee for fear of thee? will he enter with thee into judgment?

5 Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite? (Job 22:3-5)

Eliphaz’s series of questions sounds like they are meant to exalt God outside the realms of human concerns, but in his questions he actually goes so far as to give voice to the same thoughts Satan uses to try to make us think we are of no significance to God.  Restored doctrine and scripture must be used to detect it.

“Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous?” (v3) – Actually, God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  And the worth of a soul is great in the sight of God.

“or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?” (v3) – Maybe we are all unprofitable servants, but all heaven rejoices when one sinner repents, and repentance is the only way we can make our ways perfect.

“Will he reprove thee for fear of thee?” (v4) – Even the pre-mortal Christ as Jehovah acknowledged that Israel wearied Him with their sins and made him to bow under their iniquities.  We also know that He wished the cup to pass from Him and not drink it, and he shrunk from it, but partook anyway.  Yes, God will reprove man, and yes, every sin we commit causes Christ pain.

“will he enter with thee into judgment?” (v4) – This should be a no-brainer.  Of course, God will bring us to judgment!  Our whole life is a preparation for that.

“Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite?” (v5) – This is clearly hyperbole.  Based on our limited time on earth, our sins can’t be infinite.  Further, our repentance and the atonement of Christ takes the wickedness we have away.

Clearly Eliphaz hoped to make Job question himself and whether he was really as blameless as he claimed.  He thought there had to be something Job had done to warrant all of his suffering and he only needed to remember what it was and repent and he’d be fine.  The problem was, Job wasn’t the kind of person to let sins go neglected.  If he sinned, he repented immediately.  So while he wasn’t perfect, he was quick to purify himself.

Let’s look at what Zophar says:

6 And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth. (Job 11:6)

If Job were wicked and never repented, this would be a denial of the full justice of God.  Justice demands the full price for sin be paid.

How about for a repentant person, like Job?  Then the demands of justice fall on Christ instead through Job’s faith.  And Job's sacrifice and repentance and obedience would be sufficient with his faith for Christ’s demands of him.  But… Job's suffering continues, so this statement of Zophar’s doesn’t help at all.

Here’s something else Eliphaz says:

Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off? (Job 4:7)

Let’s talk about martyrs.  The nature of martyrs is that they witness to the truth to a wicked generation and are killed for their testimony.  And who hasn’t heard the saying “Only the good die young”?  Accidents happen both to good and bad people.

How about another one.

17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?

18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: (Job 4:17-18)

If God puts no trust in his servants, why does He even have servants?  Why does He give anyone church callings?  Obviously, He knows His servants make mistakes, but He trusts them anyway for their good.  As for charging the angels with folly, that sounds more like Satan than God.  John in Revelation speaks of Satan as the accuser of our brethren, one who accused them before God day and night.

Once you notice this stuff, you start to find it all over the place and you realize that Job’s friends didn’t know what they were talking about.  It almost seems like the more extravagant their attempts to exalt God, the more likely they are to also say something ridiculous soon after.  While they might have aspired to Job’s level of wisdom and righteousness, they didn’t have a foundational grasp of so many things.  This is why Job tells them, "How then comfort ye me in vain, seeing in your answers there remaineth falsehood?" (Job 21:34)

Jonathan tests Saul at David’s request

When David goes to Jonathan in 1 Sam. 20, he has one major question, which is, “What have I done?...and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?”   Jonathan has to be convinced with an oath that this really is a problem, and David requests that Jonathan do a test to determine Saul’s disposition toward David.

It is actually a very clever test.

5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.

6 If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Beth-lehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.

7 If he say thus, It is well; thy servant shall have peace: but if he be very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him. (1 Sam. 20:5-7)

In essence, the test is to see if Saul will react well or badly to David’s absence with Jonathan’s leave.  If Saul reacts badly out of all proportion to the “offense” of David’s absence, then that is a clear sign that he is determined to harm David any way he can.

It so happens that this test can also be seen as a red flag for any abusive person – do they react with rage out of all proportion to the “offense” committed against them, even when the “offense” is innocuous or even permitted by another authority figure?

The occasion from which David absents himself is that of the feast of the new moon.  Saul seems to have continued to observe the religious holidays, even though his disobedience and impenitence prevented him from deriving spiritual benefit from it.  It is rather ironic that Saul didn’t question David’s absence the first day on the grounds it was possible David was ritually unclean, but then he goes into a rage when he learns David was given permission to celebrate it with his family elsewhere.  (What?  Being gone for uncleanness is okay, but being gone by permission is not?)  Saul may be ritually clean enough to participate in the feast, but you can see his murderous heart is spiritually unclean.

Saul’s angry words to Jonathan are curious –

30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. (1 Sam. 20:30-31)

Just about any way you look at Saul’s works, they are a shocking insult to his wife, as he alleges that Jonathan’s mother must have been unfaithful for Jonathan to turn out so contrary to Saul.

Saul’s pronouncement that Jonathan’s kingdom would not be established as long as David remained alive could be taken two different ways.

It might be an appeal to Jonathan’s self-interest to try to show him that David wasn’t just a threat to Saul’s kingdom, but a threat to Jonathan’s as well.  Happily, in the same chapter, there is recorded that Jonathan and David renewed their covenant of friendship that David would not cut off Jonathan’s house, so Saul’s argument would not be convincing at all.  Jonathan’s covenant kept him safe from the fear that Saul tried to inspire in him.  I like that—covenants can keep us safe from fear.

Or, Saul’s pronouncement also might have been a command that unless Jonathan helped kill David, Saul would not confirm the kingdom upon him, in effect making Jonathan’s inheritance of the crown conditional upon the death of David.  This meant that if Jonathan were to keep his covenant with David, he had be willing to give up his kingdom. 

Happily, Jonathan did not fear the threats or insinuations of his father.  Instead, he asks a simple question about David.  “Wherefore shall he be slain?  What hath he done?” (1 Sam. 20:32)   This is the big question that David wanted to know too, and Jonathan serves both David and himself by asking if there is any justice behind Saul’s anger.

But Saul doesn’t answer.  He can’t answer since he has no just grounds.  And his frustration with having nothing to say against David finds vent in throwing a spear at Jonathan. 

I think David and Jonathan take a healthy approach to the problem.  David essentially asks, “What did I do?” and Jonathan asks “What did David do?”   Sometimes as we go through life we find we have made enemies and the best thing to do is to ask, “What did I do?”   If we have really offended, then we’ll find out what it is and be able to make peace.   And if we haven’t, then..  obviously we’ll have to forgive and we’ll know how David (and Christ) felt, being hated without a cause.

How Lord Tests Gideon’s Ranks to Choose the Few

-->

1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.

2 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.

3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.

4 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.

5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the Lord said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.

7 And the Lord said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

8 So the people took victuals in their hand, and their trumpets: and he sent all the rest of Israel every man unto his tent, and retained those three hundred men: and the host of Midian was beneath him in the valley.

(Judges 7:1-8)

In these verses, we see that the Lord considers the 32,000 Israelite soldiers to be too many and wants Israel to know by their miraculous deliverance that it was God that saved them and not their own strength.

The Lord has Gideon put the Israelite army through two tests to eliminate the majority of the people.  Gideon could perfectly well have asked to know how many he should keep at the beginning and then he could have asked for help to pick those men out of the army, but the Lord uses a series of tests to make clear who should be chosen.  Not only that, but we see these are self-administered tests and the men eliminate themselves.

This suggests a preliminary lesson about life and its purpose of testing—we are the ones who eliminate ourselves from being chosen for eternal life.

That Gideon is to test the Israelite armies to find the men who are best suited to help him deliver Israel suggests that he will be selecting according to desirable qualities.  The first test—selecting those who are not fearful or afraid and sending the others back home seems pretty fitting.  It requires courage and valor to deliver Israel.  (We must give credit to the ones who leave, though, for being honest about how they felt.)

The second test seems odd though, and it doesn’t quite make sense why the Lord would want men who drank water one way over those who drank another way.  It seems arbitrary, as if he just separated into two groups and chose the smallest group.  Not only this, but choosing men by how they drink water doesn’t make logical sense for fighting.  Today, armies would put cadets through rigorous physical challenges and choose those who succeeded, so how would choosing by drinking method be helpful at all?

Because it is the Lord who declares the conditions of the test, we must make the assumption that the test is not a pretext for arbitrary choice, but a designed test that in some way relates to qualities the men will need to deliver Israel.

So let’s look at this second test.

…the Lord said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.  And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.  And the Lord said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you…

This bit about how people drink has always been kind of confusing to me because it sounds like there are three ways of drinking, not just two.  I have a hard time seeing how lapping with the tongue like a dog is the considered the same as putting one’s hand to their mouth.  I also have a hard time seeing how that might be done without kneeling.

When I envision a dog lapping with their tongue, I initially visualize someone with their mouth in the water, but after some thought, it came to me that the text wants us to think of a dog standing up as they lap, not kneeling.  So for a man to stand up and drink, they would have to bend over and carry the water to their mouths with a hand, whereas if a person kneels down to drink, they can stick their mouth in the water and suck in all they want.

Now, what does it mean?

I have read other people’s views that the 300 who lapped demonstrated vigilance because they kept their heads up.

I have also read that those who knelt to drink demonstrated too much love of luxury and a lack of self-restraint.  I’m not sure what I think about this.  Too much water is harmful and people generally drink the amount of water they need at the time. 

So what was the quality the Lord wanted in the men?  We might look at what Gideon did with the men and see if we can detect something in them that the water-drinking test might select for.

Gideon didn’t actually need them to fight in that first foray.  They didn’t carry weapons; instead they carried a trumpet and a pot with a burning lamp in it.  They were to follow his lead in shouting, they were to break the pots, they were to blow the trumpets, they were to let their lamps be seen, and they were to just stand still and let things happen.  

What qualities would that require?  Fearlessness, especially with their outnumbered group and being without weapons.  They’d have to be obedient.  They’d have to be really comfortable with being a different kind of army.  They’d have to be comfortable with not being exactly sure what would happen, and they’d have to be really comfortable with being seen (being a clear target) with all those lamps in the dark.

Now let’s look again at that water-drinking test.  The ten thousand men have already seen a separation occur and now they are led to the water and told to drink.  They must have seen that they were being watched and separated by how they drank.  Do they know what the purpose is?  They might guess from the previous separation, but there is no way to be sure.  Do they know what quality is considered desirable?  No, and will they make assumptions anyway?  Probably.

Notice that the final count is 300 men who lapped and 9,700 who knelt to drink.  1 out of every 32 men had that way of lapping to drink.  How might they have felt about being separated from everyone else and so few of them? 

How many men coming to drink made the assumption that the biggest group was going to be the main army and thought it was a safe decision to drink like those in that group, by kneeling down?

How many people lapped because they just had a different way of doing things?

How many lapped because they weren’t bothered by the strange scrutiny or the unaccountable separation?

At the beginning of the test it may have been difficult to see that there was that ratio of different ways of drinking, but as more men were tested, it would become more and more tempting to do what everyone else was doing, for lack of any other clue about what the desired criteria was, especially on something that seemed so trivial and didn’t seem to matter.

The 300 men the Lord chose ultimately were men who did one thing differently.  They were not afraid of scrutiny.  They weren’t bothered by being outnumbered.  They may have felt they would be targeted next for removal from the army, but they still did their thing.   These qualities were what was needed for Gideon’s army.  They had to be unafraid of being a different kind of army with trumpets, lamps, and pots in their hands instead of a sword and shield.  They had to be unafraid of scrutiny to hold lamps up outside an enemy camp where they were outnumbered 450 to 1.

These qualities are instructive and we still need them today in order to be valiant members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We have to be comfortable with being different (in good ways) and doing things differently than the people around us, even in the simple things, like what we drink, what we watch, how we talk, what we talk about, what we wear, etc.  A majority of us live in places where we are clearly outnumbered and we have to be comfortable with that.  We have to be unafraid and undeterred by scrutiny from others, especially when we may be targets of persecution.  We are asked to be lights to the world and to spread the gospel, to lift up our voices, to make a joyful noise, instead of hiding.

Perhaps the Lord hoped that the Israelites could learn from this sifting process that He wanted Israel to be different from the world and to not be afraid of being watched by others.

We learn something too from this strange but simple assurance the Lord gave Gideon.  “I will try them for thee.”  This one test seems so simple, so illogical, and yet it was effective. 

We are still being tested today, not just in the big things, but in the small things.  Commandments large and small test us.

Isaac Says Rebekah is His Sister

6 ¶And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:

7 And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon.

8 And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.

9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her.

10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.

11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death. (Genesis 26:6-11)

I think this story gives us an interesting picture of how different Isaac and Rebekah’s morality was from the people around them in Gerar.  We may think that Isaac was just following the example of his father Abraham in Egypt by claiming his wife is his sister in order to keep from being killed.  That’s easy to say, but it may be more complicated than that.  It may be that Isaac observed that the people were so morally loose—making any excuse to justify fornication/adultery—that he worried they would think nothing of stooping to murder just so they could get Rebekah.  So he claimed to be her brother, and he lived there a long time that way.

The thing is, the longer Isaac lived there, the more people got to know who he was and what he stood for and the goodness of his character.  And the result was that when Abimelech saw Isaac sporting with Rebekah—and we have no idea what “sporting” means, but it instantly clued Abimelech in—Abimelech didn’t automatically think Isaac was doing something incestuous or ugly like that.  He knew Isaac would only have been doing what he did if Rebekah was his wife.  And he hastened to clarify this with Isaac.

Incidently, the way Abimelech “looked out at a window” and randomly saw Isaac and Rebekah seems very odd to me.  It makes it seem like Isaac and Rebekah were almost…exhibitionist about whatever they were doing.  But they don’t seem like the type that would do that.  (Can we imagine Rebekah doing something like that, the woman who covered herself with a veil when she was about to meet Isaac for the first time?)  But if they aren’t exhibitionist, then that makes Abimelech into Mr. Suspicious-Stalker-Peeping-Tom.  Who do we believe here?

Now, notice the reproach that Abimelech fires at Isaac: “What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.”  Abimelech is SO SHOCKED that Isaac lied him and said Rebekah was his sister.   He is absolutely outraged about it.   Commentators tend to dwell on this rebuke and say this shows just how low Isaac (and Abraham before him) was for their deception and their lack of trust in God.  “And look, they were justly rebuked by those rulers for their sin!” they say.  Yeah, you have to agree that Abimelech’s rebuke on the surface makes Abimelech look really good and Isaac look bad. 

But look very carefully again at Abimelech’s rebuke and you can see what he reveals about himself and his people.  “one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us”   His people were so casual about who they had sex with that Abimelech was worried they might have “lightly lien” with Rebekah!  His people don’t take chastity seriously.  And at the same time it is a subtle insult against Rebekah, implying that she was the type of woman who would “lightly” sleep around with random people in Gerar just because everybody thought she was single.  We Latter-day Saints know that Isaac would trust Rebekah to be chaste.   It is Abimelech who thinks Rebekah would have exploited the situation without social expectations to keep her in line.  (Maybe Isaac wasn’t that good looking and Abimelech thought Rebekah would have jumped at the chance to sleep with someone more attractive.)   We Latter-day Saints, with our perspective on chastity as a sacred covenant, understand that Rebekah’s situation was not license for looseness, but a test of her faithfulness.

It burns me up that people think the “she’s my sister” was done out of fear, first by Abraham and then by Isaac.  Consider that we have the modern revelation in Abraham 2:22-25 to show us that when Abraham first used this line, it was at the Lord’s command.  Not only that, but we get that Abraham told Sarah of this revelation and it is implied that she agreed to do it to save him. 

Abraham and Isaac were brave.  Consider this.  Latter-day Saints have the story of Abraham 1 in which Abraham would have been sacrificed on an Egyptian altar, presumably because he would not back down from his testimony in the living God.  Can we then imagine Abraham afraid to acknowledge his marriage to Sarah as he comes into Egypt?  No!  He would have died if the Lord had not commanded him to say what he did.    Then consider Isaac.  This is the man who did not protest earlier in his life when his father was about to sacrifice him!  He is no shrinking violet, even if the text does say in Genesis 26 that he feared to say Rebekah was his wife.  I think it more likely that he was commanded as well.

Now, here’s another thought.  Was the subterfuge only for Isaac and Rebekah’s sake?  What if the Lord meant it for Abimelech’s benefit as well?  It is likely that Abimelech was not nearly as good at the beginning of his acquaintance with Isaac as his rebuke makes him look, but by the end, he had become someone who was concerned about accidentally sinning.  At the end he uses his influence with his people to ensure the safety of Isaac and Rebekah.  Better late than never.

One of the things we learn from this story is that Rebekah was faithful to Isaac, social expectations and environment to the contrary.  She’s a great example to remember today, as morals are loosening and unraveling at an alarming rate.