The Pride of Ephraim and an Economic Lesson about Trust

-->

1 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.

3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet:

4 And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up.

5 ¶In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate. (Isaiah 28:1-6)

Reading verses 1-4, it is pretty clear to me that Isaiah must have been disgusted with the pride of Ephraim in his day. It seems the land of Ephraim was a beautiful land with beautiful people—“glorious beauty on the head of the fat valleys”—so much so that they were drunk with it. And you get the idea that they had a problem with wine and drunkenness as well.

Isaiah warned them that the Lord could humble them with disaster—hail, storm, flood—which would throw down their pride. He also said that their glorious beauty would fade like a withering flower and like the first-ripe fruit that is eaten immediately.

The way Isaiah calls Ephraim “fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine” makes me wonder what he was seeing.  What makes a valley “fat”?  And why call Ephraim drunkards at the same time he credits them with glorious beauty? Is he calling attention to how drunkenness is unattractive, or is there something deeper going on here?    

Reading this over and over, I wondered if there was a growing problem in Ephraim’s economy that Isaiah was very concerned about and calling attention to.  It is possible that the land of Ephraim was full of vineyards for wine. 

Isaiah may have looked at all those vineyards and wondered, “Who is going to drink all that wine that they make?”  If the place is booming with grapes, then the demand has to come from somewhere to absorb the supply, otherwise some of that supply was foolishly produced.  Isaiah must have reasoned that either Ephraim was drinking it all themselves (in which case they were drunkards), or they were going to try to sell it elsewhere, which meant that the people were chasing high profits, and everyone was piling into the business.  And you can kind of see there is a problem if there is only one crop in an area. The whole place depended upon the crop of grapes. If natural disaster hits and destroyed the crop, everyone there would be affected. 

In verses 5-6, Isaiah anticipates a future day when the people would depend on the Lord instead.

5 ¶In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.

Isaiah anticipated that some day, instead of pride, the people would be humble and give the Lord the glory for their success, instead of whatever cash crop made the money roll in.  He wanted the people to trust the Lord instead of their vineyards that were at the mercy of weather patterns that could be capricious and occasionally devastating.

It is instructive to see that ancient Israel seems to have had boom-and-bust periods somewhat like we do, when people would pile into a high-yielding industry.  Embedded in Isaiah’s warning to the Ephraimites is the implied principle that high-yielding industries can be destroyed and can’t be depended upon, but the Lord can be depended upon.

Jeremiah on the difference between trusting men and trusting God

5 ¶Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.

7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.

8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. (Jeremiah 17:5-8)

I ran across this block of verses recently and I was struck by them and how the imagery so well captures the sense of the principle of what life is like when you trust God versus trusting in man.

The first image is of the heath (or juniper tree) in the wilderness, in a salty land.  Of course, plants can’t survive in a salty land, so the juniper will die pretty quickly.

The second image is of a tree that is planted by a lake or a river, where the water table is high and constantly nourishing the roots without the need for rain (which can be chancy in arid places).  It stands to reason that if the tree always has water, a dry wind coming may wither other plants less advantageously placed, but will not affect this tree, therefore it won’t “see when heat cometh.”  To the tree with plenty of water, heat is not a problem.

What does it mean when it says the heath (or juniper) in the wilderness won’t see when good cometh?  The good in the image probably means rain.  Because of where the juniper is positioned, the rain doesn’t reach it and the runoff doesn’t reach it either, therefore it doesn’t know rain has even been there.  Similarly, those who trust in the arm of the flesh can only consider something good that everybody else around them considers good.  But in general, the things of God are higher than the world’s ways, so the good things of God actually look harsh (hard truths) or impossible to achieve.. or just unimportant to the world, so they don’t gain general acceptance.

How does this help me?  It reminds me how the daily practices of scripture study and prayer connect me to spiritual nourishment from the Lord.  I feel refreshed after studying and praying in a way that is different from anything the world can offer.

Paul’s Pleasure in Distress: Not a Masochistic Doctrine

9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (1 Cor. 12:9-10)

Pau doesn’t naturally like infirmities, reproaches, necessities, persecutions, and distresses, but he has learned how to immediately take refuge in Christ’s grace by calling on God for help. 

He could only say he takes pleasure in those unpleasant situations if he had learned he could always depend on God.  He had gotten to the point when he considered those times he’d been helped as something to enjoy, rather than dreading the hard times as something too much for his natural powers and resources.  Instead, he saw those times as opportunities.

Before we learn to depend on God, we go through life dreading what might happen because we fear running into a situation that would be too much for us, whether temptation or need or persecution or stress or demands from others dependent upon us.

Paul’s statement here, counterintuitive and disturbing as it is, gives us a vision of the kind of trust in God’s enabling power that we can attain in this life, if only we can learn to turn to God.  It is possible we may come to see those times of grace as better than the times we were enough on our own.

David flees the Manhunt

Reading through 1 Samuel 19-31 this year, it struck me as never before how difficult life must have been for David to have Saul irrationally and jealously seeking his death. 

David was the focus of a concerted national manhunt.  Think what it would be like to have the police, the FBI, and the military called out to track you down because the president decided he was jealous of you and feared you would lead a coup against him.

You can see that David (and his friend Jonathan) do his best to deal with it and each step of the way he is kept safe.  Think about what you would do and where you would go if you were being chased like him.

First Jonathan speaks for David to King Saul and manages to talk King Saul down from the tree, so to speak.  King Saul makes an oath that David won’t be killed.  Jonathan is completely satisfied by this oath (and it requires David to do some hard oath-swearing himself later before Jonathan believes David is really in danger), but sadly Saul’s word isn’t worth much any more.

Next, David is home with his wife Michal when he first has to start running.  He has to escape out a window to avoid the soldiers coming to get him.  So he’s not safe with his wife; where can he go?

He goes down to Ramah and stays with the prophet Samuel and the company of the school of the prophets.  The Spirit of the Lord effectively softens the hearts of all who are sent to arrest him so that they prophesy and refrain from taking him.  Even Saul, when he tries to take David himself, is affected, though it is only temporary.

After this, David goes to Jonathan to try to get Jonathan to find out from King Saul why he is being hunted and chased like a villain instead of treated like a loyal servant.  Jonathan has to see Saul’s murderousness first hand, so they set up a test to demonstrate Saul really does want David dead.  And the test does show it is true.  And it seems no reconciliation is going to happen.  David really can’t stay around.  Where is he to go?  He doesn’t have food or weapons and he doesn’t know who he can trust.

David goes to Ahimelech the priest and Ahimelech gives him the shewbread and Goliath’s sword.  David pretends he’s been sent on a secret mission, probably in order to protect Ahimelech from having to decide whether to lie or tell the truth if he’s called on the carpet for helping.  I think he’s trying to give Ahimelech deniability, but Saul does not accept that, nor does he listen to Ahimelech’s very just arguments.   Now where does David go?

He tries going to the Philistines for refuge.  Unfortunately, they realize who he is and even think David might be Israel’s king, so he pretends to be crazy to get himself thrown out of Philistine Gath.

At this point his family comes to him, probably realizing that if Saul hates David they aren’t safe either.  David finds them refuge in Moab, but the prophet Gad won’t let him stay there too, and tells him to go back to Judah.

At this point, the prophetic direction seems absolutely CRAZY.  Why does the Lord want David to go back to living like a fugitive?  (We’ll have to see if we can understand why as we look through.)

Next David saved the town of Keilah from the Philistines, but discovers by revelation that he can’t stay there because the men of Keilah will betray him to Saul, who is about to come hunting him again.  So where does he go next?

He stays in the wilderness and caves.  But the men of Ziph tell Saul where he is and promise to spy out all his secret place, and David does some pretty desperate maneuvering and even gets trapped, but Saul is distracted at the last moment by news of a Philistine attack that he has to beat back.   So now where does David go?

David goes to the strong holds of En-gedi, probably more caves in difficult-to-reach places.  It is here he gets a chance to prove to Saul by not killing him that he means Saul no harm.  So Saul goes home.  But what does David do?  He goes back to his strong hold.  Saul was full of gratitude, but nothing about forgiving and forgetting is mentioned.

Next David goes to the wilderness of Paran and is kept from killing Nabal for Nabal’s rudeness by Abigail’s timely intervention.

Then David hides in the hill Hachilah and his position is betrayed to Saul by the Ziphites.  Saul chases David and David gets another chance to prove he’s not really trying to kill Saul, which causes Saul to leave him alone for a while again.

Then David goes back to Philistine Gath and works with his mind as mercenaries for Achish the king there.  He’s able to settle his people in a little town of Ziklag and make raids against Amalekites secretly.  However, right when the Philistines decide to go on a campaign against Israel, David is sent back to Ziklag, where he discovers their families were not as safe as they thought; the Amalekites raided Ziklag while they were gone so he has to go track them down and win everybody back.  And it turns out he doesn’t have to be in the Philistine army when the Philistines fight Israel and kill Saul’s sons or be part of Saul’s despair and suicide.

Amazing that he manages to thrive under this constant pressure of danger and having no certain dwelling.

Okay.  So now I have to ask, how does going back to Judah at Gad’s direction turn out to be the right thing for David to do? 

1.     David becomes a rallying point for those who suffer under Saul’s increasingly erratic and immoral reign.

2.     With people to take care of, he learns to lead and to care for large groups of men and their families, even with no certain homes or means of survival.  (It sounds a lot like the children of Israel living in the desert after leaving Egypt..)

3.     He begins to use his following to protect Israel from its enemies, building goodwill that will a) encourage people to help feed him and his army in the short term, b) help people better accept him as a good candidate for king in the long term.  His following, who start out as fearful, become an army of brave soldiers.

4.     He is given choices to respond mercifully when he could have avenged insult.  This clearly separates him as a different leader than Saul, who tends to be extra harsh in response to insult or seeming disregard for his authority.

5.     David goes on campaigns to destroy theAmalekites without needing prophetic prodding.   He also goes on campaign to save his own people who have been carried off, and he chooses to distribute spoils widely and generously.

6.     He tests and proves the Lord’s promises of protection and deliverance to the righteous.

7.     David becomes a person who people come to and choose as a leader, rather than someone merely appointed by authority.  He is chosen because the powers that be leave no alternative to those who want to keep their integrity.

Can we imagine that David would have been as good a king if he hadn’t had the painful experience of being hunted unjustly?  Would he have been as good as he was if the kingdom had just been handed to him like it had been to Saul?  Probably not.

That gives me hope because it shows me that my most difficult trials may be the very ones that teach me my most valuable lessons and skills. 

If I feel adrift in a sea of uncertainty, if I can trust the Lord like David did, I will be alright in the long run and the things I learn during my struggles may be instrumental in my later success, even if I’m not sure what that will be. 

And happily, even if I can’t see where my difficult experience will help me toward a temporal success, I can at least see somewhat how it is helping me toward an eternal success in the celestial kingdom.

King’s Saul’s first attempt to kill David

-->

9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.

10 ¶And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit which was not of God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.

11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.

12 ¶And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul. (1 Sam. 18:9-12, JST emphasized)

This is the beginning of Saul’s attempts to kill David.  This is kind of a disturbing story, but you’ll bear with me, we’ll see if we can learn some good things from it besides the obvious “don’t murder people.”

It is easy to think that Saul wasn’t really responsible for his actions here if he was under the influence of an evil spirit, but Saul knew what he was doing.  He was using his past history of disordered thinking as a cover for his attempt on David’s life, both to get David to come within range of his spear and for exoneration once the deed was done.  If any of us ever have troubles with mental illness, I hope we never try to use it as an excuse or cover to hurt someone deliberately. 

If a spirit which was not of God was upon Saul, what are we to think when it says he prophesied in the midst of the house?  What kind of prophesying is the evil spirit going to induce?  Probably not the good kind.  This reminds me of some verses from the D&C:

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God….

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. (D&C 50:17-18, 23)

I’ll bet if we could have heard what Saul said, we would be able to tell that he didn’t have the right spirit with him.

David was in a precarious position. Unless he was one of those amazing musicians who could play without looking at his instrument, he would be paying attention to getting his fingers in the right place, which would give him only the briefest of moments to look up and notice Saul aiming a spear at him.

It also says David avoided out of Saul’s presence twice.  It is hard to tell whether this means two separate incidents in which David got spears thrown at him or if there was just one incident and David preferred to avoid Saul at least one other time.  However, you have to give David credit for bravery (staying around) and restraint (not immediately avenging himself).  He had to rely on God. (After all, what human authority could he go to about what happened?  His trouble was with the king himself!)

I have to point out here another way Saul made a big mistake.  In the past, music helped Saul get free of the evil spirit tormenting him.  But this time, in choosing to try to kill David played, Saul resisted the calming influence in the music.  Do you think music is going to help Saul after this?  Probably not because he gave power to the evil spirit instead.  He’d have to repent and then make careful efforts to follow good impulses and resist bad ones.

From that we learn we can’t resist the Spirit of the Lord in any of the number of ways he tries to reach us without consequences.  We can’t resist good without putting ourselves in the power of the devil.  On the positive end, we can’t resist the devil without putting ourselves more in the Lord’s power, which is where we want to be anyway..  The influence we list to obey will have power over us.

I think it is interesting that after this incident the one who is afraid isn’t David.  It’s Saul.  Acting on his suspicions didn’t make Saul feel any more secure, but actually less.

Okay, so let’s tally up what we’ve learned from this:

·      Don’t use mental illness as a cover for deliberately hurting people.

·      Evil spirits don’t bring good prophesying.

·      When in danger from a direct superior, you have to rely on God.

·      There are consequences for resisting the Holy Ghost when it is manifest in good influences.

David & Goliath: Factors in Goliath’s Vulnerability

When I read the story of David slaying Goliath recently I started asking myself some questions that I hadn’t thought of before:

--Was David the only slinger in the Israelite army?

--Why didn’t Goliath have anything to shield him?

--Why does Goliath so underestimate David?

I’ve read different things that say how slingers were an important part of ancient armies.  Judges 20:16 tells of 700 chosen men who could sling stones at a hairsbreadth and not miss, so they were a common part of armies.  So there would be slingers among Saul’s army already.

So why hadn’t some slinger already hit Goliath before David came?

The problem was Goliath had a shield bearer who went before him with a big shield.  The shield bearer wasn’t a glorified coat rack; he was supposed to keep Goliath safe from incoming sling stones.  And he was evidently very good at it because Goliath defied Israel for quite a while.

So how does Goliath go so wrong with David?  Why, if David goes to Goliath with his sling in his hand, does Goliath seem to completely underestimate him?  1 Samuel 17:41 tells us that as Goliath begins to come close to David, the shield bearer went before him, so his guard was still up at the beginning.  But Goliath makes a comment in v43 -- “Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves?”  This tells us that all Goliath could see at first that David had was David’s staff.   It is possible David had his sling in his hand all rolled up or folded up, or even just held in his hand with his staff, so that Goliath could only see the staff and not the sling.  To Goliath’s eyes, David looked inadequately armed, and maybe this is what gets Goliath out from behind his shield bearer so that David can get a nice clear shot.

The risk to David was that he might not be able to bring his sling into play in time before the Philistine got to him.  Nevertheless, he starts running toward Goliath and as he runs, he prepares his sling for action.  It seems that not only was David excellent with the sling, he was good at the “quick draw” and that too while on the run, with a moving target.

Thus, we can see where David’s courage and faith were.  He knew it was risky to get close to Goliath, but he trusted in God that he would be delivered.  He had previous experience because of the time he trusted in God to help him deliver a lamb out of the mouth of a lion and a bear in a close-up struggle.

Sometimes in our fight against evil we have to get up-close-and-personal in situations with great risk.   David’s story shows us that when we have to, we can depend on God to protect us and then use the skills and training we have. 

Thoughts on the story of Esther

I just want to share a few observations I’ve had while I was reading the Book of Esther.

It is rather ironic that King Ahasuerus gets rid of Vashti for refusing to come to his banquet when he commanded, and then he comes to two of Esther’s banquets when she asks him and allows her to come even when he hasn’t called her.  It gives us the impression that with God on her side, Esther is more powerful than even Vashti was.  We see that God softened King Ahasuerus’ heart when he could have been offended at Esther.

It strikes me that Mordecai, by his omitting to bow to Haman, is the provoking factor for Haman’s attempt to kill the Jews, and Mordecai’s niece Esther is providentially positioned to clean up the mess that results from it.  I have to wonder, did Mordecai consider bowing an act of idolatrous worship that he had to refrain from in order to keep the commandment to not have any gods besides Jehovah, or did he know something of Haman’s background that made him think Haman unworthy of a bow?  Such a little thing that led to such danger! 

Now here’s something I noticed that I didn’t realize before.  For the longest time I’ve had the idea that Haman saw Mordecai not bowing down and that made Haman angry and led to his vendetta against the Jews.  However, that is a simplification.  The real story comes before that.

 1 After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.

 2 And all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.

 3 Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?

 4 Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.

 5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. (Esther 3:1-5)

It seems Haman didn’t even notice Mordecai at first, and Mordecai’s coworkers are the ones who make Mordecai’s actions an issue.  They see him not bowing while everyone else is and they get after him about it.  They won’t let it go; they are after him every day about it.  He told them he was a Jew, and perhaps there was an explanation about the 10 commandments and not bowing down to anything but the true God, but they weren’t willing to let him get out of it.  This is peer pressure on the job, folks.  So, Mordecai’s coworkers are the ones who bring Mordecai’s actions to Haman’s attention, and when Haman notices, he gets really mad.

I think the conflict between Mordecai and Haman is very applicable for us because at bottom it is about how covenant people and their values clash with worldly priorities, but that the Lord prepares ways to protect His people when their zeal provokes opposition from others or when others make an issue of the standards He asks them to live.

Another thing I notice is that the king seem really comfortable with delegating his authority and approving new decrees, even when the real effects and implications are not known.  All Haman does to get the decree to kill the Jews passed is tell the king:

--There’s a people in your kingdom who have different laws from everybody else and don’t follow your laws.

--They don’t help you any.

--I’ll pay for it if you make a decree to destroy them.

The king doesn’t even know who these people are.  The information he is given is incredibly vague, while a critical thinker would start asking questions like, “Who are they?  What are their laws?  What laws of the king do they break?”  A critical thinker would also want to hear the accused people make a defense of their laws and justify their existence.  But then, I am judging by 21^st century standards.  King Ahasuerus no doubt made the assumption that since Haman was loyal to the king and a king favorite, he would bring up these concerns only if it were already demonstrated that the people in question were a problem.

The obstacles that Esther faces in pleading for herself and her people are significant.

·      To go see the king to make her petition she has to visit him without being called, which could lead to her death if the king didn’t hold out his scepter to her and pardon her life.

·      To reveal her nationality when the Jews had already been sentenced to destruction meant she could lose her life that way too, if her petition was unsuccessful.

·      She had to argue that the king’s favorite (Haman) had been behind this.  The king could easily take Haman’s side over hers.

·      To point out the king had been duped into making the law in the first place she would imply that the king’s judgment was bad, which would be a bit of a blow to a royal male ego.

·      She hadn’t been asked for by the king in 30 days, so her social currency wasn’t at the strongest right then.  She had to find a way to strengthen her ties to the king.

It must have made Esther very nervous to make such a big request after not having seen the king for 30 days.  I think she knew that one is not likely to grant large request even to family members one has not associated with for a while, but that one is more likely to do so after some quality family time.  Hence, requesting one banquet with the king and then another banquet before she brought up the topic, was an excellent tactic.   Dinner was important for families to bond even back in ancient times, yes?

It is interesting that when Esther comes into the king’s inner court, she just stands there waiting for him to notice.  She doesn’t go far in blatantly; she waits just inside.  It must have been a very tense moment for her.

When the king lowers his scepter to her, I just have to marvel at the two different views of the situation—Esther’s and the king’s.  The king may have thought, “Well, duh, I would definitely pardon my wife if she came to talk to me!” while Esther waited on pins and needles, as for her it was a matter of life and death.   It’s a pretty good lesson that we may see events one way, but to other people those events may have deadly significance and their whole lives hinge on the outcome.  It also makes me think it can’t be very healthy for a relationship if one partner has all the power like that.   Esther had to live in that and make it work.

She goes up and touches the scepter.  To me it is a playful gesture, like an attempt to try to maintain her human dignity and diffuse the tenseness in a situation where she had no control over the outcome.  It’s as if she says, “Yes, I pardon you too.  We will pardon each other and life will be beautiful.  Isn’t it rather silly that you have to pardon your own wife when she wants to talk to you?”

It is interesting to me that when Esther invites the king to come to her banquet she invites Haman too.  I don’t know how she was able to stand it.  If I had been her, I would not have wanted to invite an enemy to a dinner date with me and my husband.  But perhaps Esther is demonstrating greater forthrightness than Haman.  Haman accused the Jewish people without them there to defend themselves, but Esther will accuse Haman to his face.  And it could also be that she wanted to be able to judge whether her pull with the king could become greater than Haman’s.  If she could get the king more attentive to her than to Haman, she might feel more comfortable making her petition for herself and her people.   It may be that after the first banquet she saw she didn’t yet have it so she asked for another banquet so she could continue her bonding efforts.

I really love the Esther asked people to pray and fast for her before she made the attempt to talk to the king.  And actually, it is possible to see that the prayer and fasting had the effect of softening the king’s heart so that he acted with more love and concern than he otherwise would have.  For instance, instead of getting miffed at Esther’s visit to the inner court without being requested, he pardoned her interruption.  Also, his unusually sleepless night just afterward led to a perusal of the records and chronicles, and he realized he had to reward Mordecai for the loyalty shown in revealing the plot against the kings life, when previously he seems to have taken Mordecai’s loyalty for granted.

When Ahasuerus asks Haman what should be done for the man who the king wanted to honor, Haman’s answer seems to be to be particularly lame.  Haman’s answer is:

--to wear the king’s old clothes

--to wear the king’s crown

--to ride the king’s horse through the streets

--to be led by a high-ranking courtier who would proclaim, “This is what is done for the person the king wants to honor.”

What seems lame about it is that it is only temporary, and it is all a show to other people.  And too, the reward is bestowed on Mordecai and it isn’t of any real benefit; Mordecai goes back to being a gatekeeper after his ride through the city.   So why did Haman want this reward for himself?  After all, he was already promoted above everyone else in the court.

I think Haman was still insecure and wanted to demonstrate his status to everyone in the city, just in case it wasn’t known already.  He wanted to make himself the object of others’ complete envy.  It was probably to salve an inner nagging feeling that he didn’t have belonging or acceptance or status.  Certain people can’t be happy with being favored and fortunate; they have to make sure that everyone else knows it too and envies them.

When it comes to the point that Esther reveals Haman’s perfidious plot, it is interesting to notice the factors that influence the king to take her part and turn against Haman.

--Esther reveals that the queen herself is affected by Haman’s plot to kill the Jews.  She spins it in such a way as to portray it as a personal attack on her (and her people too), rather than an unintended consequence of a blanket threat.

--Haman throws himself at Esther’s feet to beg for mercy and somehow it looks to the king as if Haman is about to try to rape her.

--Harbonah, a chamberlain, mentions that Haman had built a gallows for the purpose of hanging Mordecai, whom the king had most recently determined to reward for loyalty.   This makes Haman’s personal animosity toward Mordecai appear in a much more sinister light.  (The king would reason thus--If Haman is trying to destroy loyal friends of the king and destroy the queen, Haman is clearly an enemy to the king.)

Thus, Haman is condemned by his appearance of evil, even if he never meant to be disloyal.  Before we start to pity him, it is worth remembering that Haman had condemned the Jews for appearance of disloyalty from just one of them (Mordecai).  He was getting a dose of retribution equal to his own prejudice.   I have to wonder if Haman’s rise to power with the king was built on a foundation of such underhanded tactics as he tried to use against Mordecai.

The overall meaning I get from this story comes from examining both roles of Mordecai and Esther.  From Mordecai we learn that our zeal to keep the commandments gets us into trouble when it conflicts with the laws, but we are to stay true and trust God.   From Esther we learn that we have a responsibility to use our influence to support and advocate for those whose zeal puts them under fire and trust God to magnify our influence.

When the Brother of Jared Notices Some Problems With the Barges, Ether 2:16-19

-->

Two Sundays ago our stake had stake conference, and Elder Roberts of the 70 shared a scripture insight about the brother of Jared that I hadn’t noticed before and which I thought it was definitely worth sharing.

16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did go to work, and also his brethren, and built barges after the manner which they had built, according to the instructions of the Lord. And they were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water.

17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.

18 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, I have performed the work which thou hast commanded me, and I have made the barges according as thou hast directed me.

19 And behold, O Lord, in them there is no light; whither shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish. (Ether 2:16-19)

After the brother of Jared built the barges as the Lord told him, he went to the Lord to report.  “I have performed the work which thou hast commanded me,” he says, and then he points out there are some problems with the barges.  No light, no way to steer, and no air! 

Elder Roberts asked us all, “When do you think the brother of Jared figured out those problems existed?”  Of course, we all thought to ourselves, As he was building them.  Elder Roberts then made the point that even though the brother of Jared noticed the problems as he was building, he didn’t stop building.  He kept going, finishing the work he had been commanded to do.

I was very much impressed by this because I am far too likely to quit when I notice problems with a plan, on account of thinking there is no point in continuing if there are major flaws.  Instead, the brother of Jared built the barges as he was told, and then took the problems to the Lord for help.  He didn’t give up.  

On a lighter note...