Covenants, part 7

5.  Covenant Marks and Tokens

Remnants of ancient covenanting practices can still be found in our modern world.  Some believe our handshake used in greeting or upon reaching a deal evolved from the practice of two blood-covenant partners grasping one another by the forearm as they touched their wrists together allowing their blood to mingle from incisions made on their wrists.  (It may also have descended from tokens of gospel covenants given to Adam.)  Either way it seems to be a custom derived from covenant practices.

Some cultures rubbed an abrasive substance into these wounds thereby leaving a permanent mark on the body as a token of the covenant made.  Hands and arms were raised in greeting to display these covenant marks on the wrist.  It may be that our modern practice of waving in greeting came from this tradition.

In other cases, something stained by the blood and kept as a record in a leather case was worn as an arm band or as a necklace as a token of the blood-covenant made.  In other instances, for example in a covenant between a man and a woman, blood was not shared but a bracelet was given and worn as a reminder of being bound or fettered in a covenant bond with “bracelet-binding” being similar to a “blood-bond” (Turnbull 65).  This seems to be the idea behind the gift of two bracelets to Rebekah on behalf of Isaac by Abraham’s steward (Genesis 24:22).  He had asked God for a sign indicating the right girl.  When Rebekah met the sign, he offered her the symbolic gifts even before meeting her father and arranging the terms of the marriage. Rebekah would have understood the significance of accepting these gifts

Among the North American Indian tribes, wampum belts [as encircling and binding token of a covenant] were exchanged to confirm and finalize a formal covenant or treaty.  Beads woven into these belts in various patterns and colors recorded and memorialized the covenant and often showed hands-clasped or figures with arms clasped.  These belts were exchanged with the words “we join the two bodies into one” (Turnbull 327).  

 Lafitau, traveling among the Canadian Indians in the early years of the eighteenth century, recorded: “They do not believe that any transaction can be conducted without these belts.” He observed that “everything of moment transacted at solemn councils, is ratified and made valid by strings and belts of wampum.  The strings are used for affairs of little consequence, or as a preparation for other more considerable presents” but the binding “belts” were as the bond of the covenant itself” (Turnbull 328).  When these belts represented the tribe, they were not worn by an individual but guarded in a sacred tribal repository.

“There is still preserved, in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the wampum belt which is supposed to have sealed the treaty of peace and friendship between William Penn and the Indians.  It contains two figures, wrought in dark colored beads, representing ‘an Indian grasping with the hand of friendship the hand of a man evidently intended to be represented in the European costume, wearing a hat’” (Turnbull 328).

As an aside, there is a beautiful story of love and sacrifice depicted in the movie Last of the Mohicans (starring Daniel Day-Lewis; filmed in 1992.  This is one of the rare cases where a movie is much better than the original book. I recommend it.).  In one of the final scenes, the main character Nathaniel Hawkeye displays such a belt to a hostile tribe as testimony to the truth of the words he speaks.

The binding of an entire tribe or group has biblical precedent as well.  An interesting incident is recorded in Joshua chapters 9 & 10.  Here the Israelites are finally entering the promised land and are destroying the inhabitants as commanded by the Lord.  After hearing of the annihilation of Jericho and Ai, the people of Gibeon are deathly afraid of the Israelites.  They resolve upon a strategy to save their hides.

The Gibeonites sent an embassy, dressed in old garments and old shoes with provisions that looked to be the remains of a long journey, to the Israelites.  Meeting with Joshua, they stated they were from a far country and sought to make a treaty with the Israelites.  Joshua and the others were fooled by their appearance and made a grave error.  They failed to ask the Lord (Josh. 9:14) and proceeded to enter into a covenant. 

Later Joshua and the Israelites learn the truth and are very angry at having been duped. They are left in a dilemma.  Do they honor God’s command to destroy all the inhabitants of the land or do they honor their covenant even though it was entered into under false pretenses?  The Israelites honor the covenant and refrain from destroying Gibeon, opting to make them servants instead.  The Lord supports them in their decision.  Not only does Israel refrain from destroying Gibeon but almost immediately they are called upon to defend Gibeon against a host that has assembled against her.  The Israelites defeat Gibeon’s enemies with assistance from the Lord (Josh. 10). 

Israel honored this agreement from generation to generation for about 500 years until an over-zealous King Saul broke it by slaying some of the Gibeonites.  The Lord punished Israel for this offense by sending a famine lasting three years.  King David inquired and was told by the Lord that the famine was a result of Saul’s breaking of the covenant with Gibeon (one that was established 500 years earlier by Joshua).  David makes restitution by delivering, as demanded by the Gibeonites, seven of Saul’s sons into their hands for hanging. King David spared Mephibosheth of this fate for the sake of his oath with Jonathan (2 Sam. 21:1-7).

The whole incident is another profound example of how seriously the Lord views covenantal obligations.

  

Throughout various times and cultures objects such as amulets, bracelets, frontlets (phylacteries) or rings have symbolized covenantal commitments and relationships.  Our modern practice of exchanging wedding rings as a symbol of binding together and the marriage covenant descends from these older traditions.

Marks have also been used to identify groups who have been separated from other people. The Lord set a mark upon Cain (Gen. 4:15).  Was this partially a mark indicating his covenant with Satan?  The Lord cursed the Lamanites and as token of this curse set a mark upon them to keep them separated from his people (Alma 3:6-10).  The Amlicites, likewise, marked themselves with red upon their foreheads to set themselves apart (Alma 3:13-10).  During the final winding up days those who follow Satan will also receive his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands. (Rev. 20:4).  It is interesting to me to see how many want to separate themselves today by tattooing their bodies.  (In my book, tattoos are “tramp stamps”.)

In gospel covenants, marks and tokens are important.  The mark of circumcision was a physical reminder of the covenant between God, Abraham and Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 17:10).  Although this was a physical token, it was intended to represent something spiritual—a commitment on the part of the individual thus marked (see Jeremiah 4:4).  It was the individual’s heart that was to be circumcised and was what concerned the Lord (Deut. 10:16, Romans 2:27-28, Col. 2:11).  The heart represents our desires and motives.  Circumcising one’s heart therefore indicates bringing our will into alignment with God’s and keeping our appetites and desires within the Lord’s bounds.  We discussed this in detail under the Sin & Iniquity blog entry.  Without this circumcision of the heart, the physical rite of circumcision ultimately meant nothing (Jeremiah 9:25).

The Savior bears covenantal marks on his body.  One of my favorite scriptures is found in Isaiah 49:15 -16, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.  Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.”

We also bear covenantal marks.  Not in our flesh, but nevertheless upon our person as we wear our garments.  In the Nauvoo temple these marks were cut into the fabric rather than being sewn in.  This cutting of the marks occurred at the end of the endowment ceremony in front of the veil.  The cut marks were later hemmed around the edges at home to make them permanent.  This continued until 1894 when the marking of the garment was moved to the washing room and was no longer done at the veil (99).  In 1918, another change was made to mark the garments before they are put on the body in the temple (178).  At this point the marks were still cut into the garment and were to be marked by someone having authority.  By 1938 the cut marks were no longer left open, but stitched closed to “keep them neat and less conspicuous” (249).  As for different styles of garments being introduced:  “It is in reality the sacred markings and the intention of the wearer that convert underwear into garments.  It is therefore of the utmost importance that the marks be understood and sacredly regarded” (249).  In 1979, garments were being produced and marked through automation and the cuts were eliminated (436). [All pages numbers listed in this paragraph refer to the book, The Development of LDS Temple Worship 1846 – 2000: A Documentary History by Devery S. Anderson, Signature Books, 2011]

While there may have been valid, practical considerations and purpose in these changes, have they changed the symbolic teaching or meaning of the marks?  In light of our discussion of covenants is there anything here that has been lost to us?

Covenants, part 6

4.  Blessings and Cursings

In conjunction with a covenant certain blessings were promised for keeping it and certain penalties affixed for breaking it.

We read in Genesis 15 (JST version cited) of a covenant the Lord made with Abram:

7 - And the Lord said unto him, I the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 - And Abram said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? Yet he believed God.

Abraham’s question here doesn’t appear to be motivated by doubt.  (In fact, verse 6 points to Abraham’s great faith in the Lord’s promise for a yet unborn heir.  The JST confirms this.)  His question is most likely prompted by the Spirit.   The Lord is using the occasion to teach Abraham something.

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

At three years old, these animals were considered fully grown and in their prime.  It is interesting that every animal allowed or commanded to be sacrificed under the future Mosaic law can be found on this list.   Hebrew meshullash (“three years old”) may also mean “threefold”, referring to three of each species.  In either case, three seems to be symbolic of the Godhead.

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

Abraham takes the animals, kills them, and cuts them in half along the spine from the head to the rump.  He then arranges the pieces opposite each other in pairs forming a pathway down the center.  As the pieces drained, blood pooled in this path.

The biblical text doesn’t say whether Abraham was specifically commanded to do this by the Lord, or if he was already familiar with it and knew what was coming because of local practice.  In which case, he didn’t need to be told what to do. 

There is evidence in other early texts, that this was a well establish ratification of a covenant at the time.  Once a covenant and its terms were agreed to, the two parties walked through the blood path as a way of agreeing to keep their terms of the covenant and accepting the penalty if they failed.  It essence, they said, “may what was done to these animals be done to me if I fail to keep this covenant”. 

This blood-path rite was also found in arranging marriages in the Middle East desert communities. The father of the groom as the greater of the two parties would walk barefoot between the animal parts promising that his son would be a good husband.  He would be followed by the father of the bride walking the path and promising that his daughter was a virgin and would be a good wife.  The walk through the blood-path represented the penalty if either party proved false to these promises.

Clear biblical example of this is found in Jeremiah 34:18-20 in which the Lord states “And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof…all of the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf; I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth.”

This imagery also gives added meaning to scriptures mentioning being cut or divided asunder (Hebrews 4:12; Matt. 24:51).

Finally, in the well known story of Ruth and her mother-in-law, in Ruth’s response there is an interesting phrase “the Lord do so to me (presumably Ruth makes a gesture at this point), and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.” (Ruth 1:17)

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

The events of this time are so sparsely recorded in the Bible, it seems safe to assume that this verse has something of significance and isn’t merely a passing comment.  Biblical scholars have surmised that the root Hebrew ‘ayit, here “birds of prey,” is likely the carrion-eating falcon. In Egyptian art this bird represents the god Horus with whom the Pharoah was identified. It may be that these fowls symbolically foreshadow the captivity of the Abram’s future posterity at the hands of the Egyptians and their subsequent return through the merits of the Patriarch and his covenant from the Lord. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the prophecy in verses 13-16.

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

The deep sleep referred to here indicates a visionary experience, not slumber.  (see Daniel 8:18, also 10:9)  The horror of great darkness, I believe, was a vision to Abraham of the torment of the sons of perdition (D&C 76:47). 

13 - And the Lord spake, and he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land which shall not be theirs, and shall serve strangers; and they shall be afflicted and serve them four hundred years;

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

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

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

Abraham’s posterity won’t be given this promised land until the inhabitants thereof are ripe in their wickedness and merit destruction (Lev. 18:20-25).

17 - And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces which Abram had divided.

The smoking furnace and the burning lamp both represent the Lord (Exodus 13:21; 14:24; 19:18; 20:18; Isaiah 6:4; Hebrews 12:29; Rev. 15:8).  Notice that the smoking furnace representing the Lord passes first through the blood path.  Then at the point in which Abram would normally walk the path as the lesser of the two parties, the Lord as a burning lamp again passes through the path.  This is a unilateral covenant.  The Lord is making this covenant to Abram and will hold himself to it.  Abram is not responsible for its fulfillment.  It is solely up to God to implement the promise of descendants and land.  The penalty is also significant.

Obviously God cannot be torn asunder as the beasts that were sacrificed.  However, the horror of great darkness, which the Lord showed Abraham in verse 12, is the Lord’s penalty if He doesn’t fulfill this covenant to Abraham.  God would cease to be God (Alma 42:22-25).  He would become perdition.  God’s word cannot return void (unfulfilled) (Moses 4:30).  He is placing his godhood on the line, if he doesn’t fulfill this oath to Abram.  What greater witness can he give Abram? (vs. 8)

18 – And in that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. (JST Genesis 15: 7 – 18).

From this incident and the Lord’s instruction to Abram, we gain a sense of the gravity of the Lord’s covenants to us and ours with him.  They are not to be taken lightly.  In this sense, I regret that the penalties were removed from our endowment ceremony.  I feel we have lost something of significance.

In this context, the reminder in D&C 109 that the Lord not only keeps his covenants but is merciful unto us is reassuring.  We don’t walk perfectly as He does.  He holds himself to an exacting standard and will fulfill every whit.  We fall short.  But our efforts are sufficient if we repent and walk uprightly with all our hearts (D&C 109:1)

I take comfort in this statement by Elder Packer:

“When you come to the temple and receive your endowment, and kneel at the altar and [are] sealed, you can live an ordinary life and be an ordinary soul—struggling against temptation, failing and repenting, and failing again and repenting, but always determined to keep your covenants…Then the day will come when you will receive the benediction: ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou has been faithful over a few thing, I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord; (Matt. 25:21)” (Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled [1991], 257 emphasis added).

Notice that the covenant the Lord makes is not only for Abraham but for the benefit of his posterity as well.  In blood-covenants between two mortal parties, the covenant often extended beyond the original parties to include their posterity as well.

Following the death of Saul and Jonathan and a prolonged war with the house of Saul, David searches for and finds Jonathan’s lame son, Mephibosheth. 

Mephibosheth, born Merib-baal, was five years old when his father Jonathan was killed.  His nurse fearing for his life fled with the young boy.  In their haste, an accident left Merib-baal, whose name was later changed to Mephibosheth (meaning shameful thing), lame in both feet. 

As the war concludes, David laments “Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” (2 Sam. 9:1).  When the King learns of Jonathan’s lame son, Mephibosheth, he causes him to be brought forth.  This must have been terrifying to Mephibosheth who likely esteemed David as an enemy due to the long war with the house of Saul and his being too young to understand the relationship and covenant between David and Jonathan.

When he arrives in Jerusalem, David greets him saying “Fear not: for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake” (2 Sam. 9:7).  David brings Mephibosheth to his own table to eat as one of his own sons and restores to him all of the lands of Saul.  (2 Sam. 9:9-13)  He does this for Jonathan’s sake, not for any merit on Mephibosheth’s part.

As Jonathan’s love for David was a beautiful type of the Savior’s love.  Now David’s actions become a type of the Father’s love for His Beloved Son and the grace extended towards us (as Mephibosheth) as a result of the Savior’s sacrifice and His covenant with us.

In the temple, not only do we receive an opportunity to bless our ancestors, but through faithfulness to our temple covenants, we bless our posterity as well. 

While extending covenant blessings to our posterity is real and the Jews understood this concept, they missed the point.  Some of them believed that they were chosen and would be saved because they were the blood descendants of Abraham and heirs to God’s covenant with him.  They missed the point that they needed to do the works of Abraham.  John the Baptist admonished them to “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Luke 3:8).

Covenants, part 5

3.  Shedding of Blood

The Hebrew word, be’rith, translated as covenant refers to something “cut” but also refers to something eaten (Trumbull 264).  The Old Testament phrase for making a covenant is karat be’rith meaning literally to “cut a covenant” or “to cut a bond” (Ludlow).   Blood must be shed for a covenant to be binding.

As we previously discussed, sometimes this was the blood of the two parties involved.  The earliest biblical covenant between individuals is mentioned in Genesis 14:13 where Mamre, Eschol, and Aner were in covenant with Abram.  (Trumbull 265).  Abram calls upon these three to help him battle to free his nephew Lot when Lot is captured (Gen. 14:24). 

Abraham also made a covenant with Abimelech at the wells of Beer-sheba (meaning the Well of the Seven or the Well of the Oath).  “Herodutus, who goes back well-nigh two-thirds of the way to Abraham, says, that when the Arabians would covenant together, a third man, standing between the two, cuts with a sharp stone the inside of the hands of both, and lets the blood therefrom drop on seven stones which are between the two parties.  Phicol, the captain of Abimelech’s host, was present, as a third man, when the covenant was cut between Abimelech and Abraham” (Turnbull 266).  While Dr. Turnbull infers that such a practice occurred between Abraham and Abimelech the biblical record is unclear as to whether this was the case.  Dr. Turnbull argues that the biblical record doesn’t clarify in greater detail because the practice was widely known and implicitly understood at the time the record was made.

What is clear, however, is that for a covenant to be binding and complete blood (life) was spilt.  In many cases, this was done vicariously with a sacrificial animal.  The animal’s throat was cut and the blood spilled out finalizing the agreement. The animal was then used as the main dish in a celebratory meal. (Ludlow)  A covenantal meal or feast also is found in the Hebrew be’rith, which, in addition to something cut, can also signify something eaten.

Another meaning of be’rith is a “bond” or a “joining together” deriving from the Akkadian root biritu meaning to “fetter” or “chain”.  So to “cut a covenant” is to bind or “chain” yourself in an absolute, binding compact. (Ludlow)

Covenants are established by sacrifice (Psalms 50:5). 

Blood is shed in gospel covenants as well.  When God established a covenant with Abraham concerning his seed, God required some of Abraham’s blood at the very source of his paternity through the rite of circumcision, symbolizing, among other things, that his posterity would be dedicated or surrendered to the Lord.  God required this of Abraham’s seed as well (Gen. 17). 

Moses revealed more fully, God’s intent for Abraham’s posterity.   “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:  And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation.” (Exo. 19:5-6). Of all the families of the earth, only Israel will be saved. They alone become Christ’s sons and daughters--his family (Mosiah 5:7-8).  This is a matter of a covenantal relationship, however, and not an issue of bloodlines.  The Jews got this confused.  So serious was the Lord about this that any who were not circumcised were cut off from the Lord’s people and were considered to have broken the covenant (Gen. 17:14).

Christ’s establishes His covenant with us by His own blood.  It is His “blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11).  It was not, however, merely a cut on the palm of his hand or his wrist, though his hands and wrists were pierced.  Nor was it a quick slitting of the throat as in the case of the sacrificial animals.  The burden placed upon Him was so great that blood was wrung from His every pore (Mosiah 3:7).  “Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit.” (D&C 19:18).

We were not purchased with something perishable like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish or spot (1 Peter 1:18-19).

From Adam until Christ, men offered up sacrifices from their flocks.  This was in similitude of the Savior’s great atoning sacrifice (Moses 5:7).  It served to teach and remind the participant of God’s covenant and relationship with them, His love, and His sacrifice for them.

In an environment where livelihood depended upon animals, offering up of an unblemished, male bullock or ram represented a very real sacrifice on the part of the one making the sacrifice.  In a smaller way, the animal sacrificed may also have been symbolic of the surrendering and devotion of the life of the one making the sacrifice unto God.  For those who understood, offering such a sacrifice was not just a gift offered unto the Lord, it was a token of the Lord’s total commitment to the individual and the individual’s total commitment in return to the Lord.

Following the Savior’s great sacrifice, He discontinued the shedding of blood.  We are commanded to offer a sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit (3 Nephi 9:19-20).  It is our pride, our rebellion, our stubbornness, our will that is to be sacrificed.  It is not to be a symbolic gift, but a very real and very personal offering.  How much more difficult is this than the sacrifice of an animal?  We are to be circumcised in our hearts (2 Nephi 9:33).  Our garments are to be washed white through His blood (Alma 5:21). We are to surrender ourselves unto the Savior. Only then can His sacrifice bring about our at-one-ment with the Father.

Joseph Smith taught, “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things.  It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life.” (Lectures on Faith 6:7)

Covenants, part 4

2. Exchange of weapons – Next the parties often exchanged weapons.  This represented a pledge of strength and protection, a promise to safeguard and protect the other, along with an exchange of enemies.  When Jonathan gave his sword and his bow to David, he is pledging his strength to David’s protection.  David’s enemies are Jonathan’s enemies—even when that enemy turned out to be Jonathan’s own father.

We see evidence of this aspect of their covenant, when Jonathan protects David’s life on several occasions. He saved David’s life by warning David that his father wanted to kill him and helping him to hide (1 Sam. 19:2).  He defended David verbally and for a time turned his father’s heart back to David. (1 Sam. 19:4-6). 

Later, when Saul again turns against David, Jonathan risked his own life by sticking up for David and, in the process, angering his father to the point that Saul cast a javelin at Jonathan.  He then warned David of the danger with the pre-arranged sign of the arrows. (1 Sam. 20:18-42).  Jonathan kept his covenant to David.

Both young men understood this aspect of their covenants with God as well.  David demonstrated it in his response to Goliath’s challenge.  As you know, Goliath was so formidable he held the entire army of Israel at bay.  The Bible states, “And all the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid.” (1 Sam. 17:24)  David’s response is different.  He asks, “who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (1 Sam. 17:26; emphasis added)  Circumcision was the mark of the covenant between God and his people, Israel.  David understood what it means to be in a covenant relationship with God.  It is not just the armies of Israel that Goliath defies, he is defying God as well.  (Goliath may also have understood this. He may have believed that he had the favor of whatever pagan deity he worshiped and that he was also defying Israel’s God.  He finds out that Israel’s God is God indeed.)

David’s older brother is angry with David and thinks he is being a willful, proud and foolish young man (1 Sam. 17:28).  He see’s only the vast gap between the abilities and size of Goliath and that of David.  His response reminds me a little of Laman and Lemuel, who can’t believe that the Lord is mightier than Laban.

Even King Saul doubt’s David.  David has no experience in war, but he recounts how he has killed a lion, and a bear while tending sheep.  He testifies, “Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God…The Lord that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine.” (1 Sam. 17:36-37)  David again emphasizes Goliath’s lack of covenant status as contrasted with his own covenant with the Lord. 

Despite Goliath’s formidable strength and ability—it is the arm of flesh.  David understands what it means to go forth in the strength of the Lord (Mosiah 10:10-11).

Now a word of caution against taking this concept too far. David didn’t go around putting himself in foolish situations and expecting the Lord to save him from his own stupidity.  He was skilled and practiced with his sling.  He selected 5 stones—indicating he didn’t necessarily expect to be successful on the first try.  He most likely was prompted by the Holy Ghost and knew that what he was doing was the Lord’s will.  When we have the reassurance that the Lord is with us and we are doing his will, then our faithfulness to our covenants allows us to expect the Lord’s assistance even by miracles.  David demonstrates his understanding of his covenant with the Lord by word and deed.

In this Jonathan was not a whit behind David in courage, skill or understanding.  He and his armor bearer were alone when they came upon a garrison of 20 Philistines.  Jonathan stated, “Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the Lord will work for us: for there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few.” (1 Sam. 14:6).  Before proceeding, Jonathan sought and received a sign from the Lord that the Lord was indeed with them. (1 Sam. 14:9-10)  With this reassurance, Jonathan lead the way and the two proceeded to slay the twenty men single-handedly.

This understanding is important to our faith as well.

In further covenantal language, we are invited to take upon ourselves the “whole armor of God” including the “breastplate of righteousness”, the “shield of faith” and the “sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:13-17).  As covenant partners, God will be our strength. (1 Nephi 21:5, Psalm 27:1)  Our enemies, Satan, death and the natural man, becomes the Lord’s enemies as well.  In the strength of the Lord, we shall contend against our enemies (Words of Mormon 1:14).  Those not in covenant are left to their own strength. (Mosiah 10:11)  Indeed, Paul testified that the Lord’s covenant people “can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth [them]”. (Phil. 4:13)

Of course, the Lord permits us to be tried and tested.  He allows failure, setbacks, heart-aches, disappointments and opposition according as we need and as He sees fit.  Even the Savior was not exempt from these things.  But we have the assurance as we are faithful, that these will all be temporary.  The ultimate outcome is without doubt. (D&C 122:7-9)

Consider these words, and remember they are the Lord's, from the dedication of the Kirtland Temple:

            We ask thee, Holy Father, to establish the people that shall worship, and honorably hold a name and standing in this thy house, to all generations and for eternity;

            That no weapon formed against them shall prosper; that he who diggeth a pit for them shall fall into the same himself;

            That no combination of wickedness shall have power to rise up and prevail over thy people upon whom thy name shall be put in this house;

            And if any shall rise up against this people, that thine anger be kindled against them;

            And if they shall smite this people wilt thou smite them; thou wilt fight for thy people as thou didst in the day of battle, that they may be delivered from the hands of all their enemies. (D&C 109:24-28)

Covenants, part 3

In mortality, gospel covenants originated with God and Adam in the Garden of Eden (which functioned as the earth's first temple).  The earliest covenants recorded in the Bible between individuals are found in Genesis between Abraham and Mamre the Amorite (Gen 14:13) and later between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen 21:22-34).  God also made covenants with Abraham.  (Gen 15, 17:10-14).

Anciently, covenant ceremonies between individuals were often completed publicly in an open field and before a witness or witnesses.  The ceremony generally involved one or more of the following steps.

- An exchange of robes

- An exchange of weapons

- The shedding of blood (through sacrifice of an animal or blood covenant of the parties)

- Pronouncement of blessings and cursings for keeping or breaking the covenant
- Covenant Marks and Tokens

- A covenantal meal

- An exchange of names

- A monument or witness to the covenant

Let’s examine these elements individually and their application in the Biblical record.  At the same time, let’s consider their potential application to us as well.

1.  Exchange of robes– The two covenanting parties often exchanged robes and/or other garments.  Unlike today when clothing is mass produced and not unique to an individual, anciently robes often revealed the identity or status of the individual (see 2 Samuel 13:18 for example where Tamar’s robe indicated her status as royalty and as a virgin.)  Likewise, Joseph’s coat of many colors easily identified Joseph even from a distance and was likely a symbol of his favored status with his father.

This exchange of robes then in a covenant represented an exchange of identity between the two parties (or rather a merging of identities), similar to the idea behind a blood covenant.

We find example of this in the exchange between Jonathan and David. 

The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul … Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.  And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Here David and Jonathan make this exchange.  Jonathan is giving his identity and his status as the heir to the kingdom to David.  In part, this may have been Jonathan’s acceptance and recognition that God had anointed David to be the next King of Israel (if, in fact, Jonathan knew that at this point).  But whether he knew or not, what motivates this exchange is Jonathan’s love for David even as his own soul.  Here they symbolically merge their identities into one.

Jonathan also gives David his weapons and his girdle.  The girdle referred to was probably closer to what we would call a sash tied around his robe. Common girdles were made of leather (2 Kings 1:8). Finer ones made of linen (Jeremiah 13:1, Ezekiel 16:10).  It confined otherwise flowing robes as well as held a sword or dagger suspended from it. (Judges 3:16, 2 Sam 20:8, Psalm 45:3).  Girding up the loins denoted preparation for battle or active exertion. (The robes were drawn up under the girdle as an outward sign and to allow running or free movement).  The girdle was a symbol of strength and power (Isa. 22:21, Isa. 45:5).  Girdles were also used as pockets and as purses for coins. (see Easton’s or Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

By giving his girdle, Jonathan is symbolically pledging all of his assets to David as well.  What is mine is now yours.  All that rightly belonged to one, the other now has claim upon if needed.

When we accept the gospel and enter into covenant with the Savior, we likewise are invited to an exchange of robes.  We are offered a chance to exchange the filthiness and nakedness of the natural man and to be clothed with garments of salvation and with a robe of righteousness.  “And I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness” (Isaiah 61:10, see also 2 Nephi 9:14). 

This exchange for us also involves a merging of identities as the Savior through the atonement was clothed in my sinfulness.  “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

In addition to a robe of righteousness, we receive a girdle (sash).  Righteousness and faithfulness were the Savior’s girdle (Isaiah 11:5).  These traits should also become ours.

The Lord made a garment of skins for Adam and Eve to clothe their nakedness (Genesis 3:21). This wasn’t simply about covering a nude body.  Nakedness represented their vulnerability, their exposure to sin, death, and the fall.  We can surmise that the skins, which covered their nakedness, were made from an unblemished, male lamb.  These garments of salvation represent the Savior (see Hebrews 10:20).  He covers our nakedness as well.

Jonathan's unselfish love for David is a type of the Savior's love for us.

Covenants, part 2

In 1885 a theologian by the name of H. Clay Trumbull gave a series of lectures presenting his research into primitive rites of covenanting by biblical and non-biblical peoples.  Of particular interest to him was the practice of blood-covenanting.  (His work was eventually published in a book, The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and its Bearings on Scripture by H. Clay Trumbull, Impact Books Inc.  A seventh printing occurred in 2003.)

Blood represents life (Leviticus 17:11-14).   Among ancient peoples, a blood covenant created the most sacred, binding relationship possible.  It literally fused the lives of two separate individuals into one entity.  Despite variations “in all cases, the idea seems to be, that the life of the one covenanting is, by this covenant, devoted—surrendered as it were—to the one with whom he covenants” (Trumbull 9, emphasis added).  By commingling blood, the two commingled their very lives—forming thereafter one blood, one life, one nature—in two different organisms.  The transfer of blood represented the transfer of life itself. (Trumbull 203)

This covenant was accomplished in different ways, but a common element of the rite was an incision made in the wrist or arm of each person.  The cuts were then held together allowing the blood to mingle between the two friends.  Sometimes a quill was inserted and each drank the others blood.  Once completed such a covenant was considered to be such an unbreakable bond that neither party could be released from it.

Our saying that “blood is thicker than water” references this concept, that the “blood of the covenant” creates a stronger bond than “the waters of birth”.  In other words, the bond between blood brothers is closer than that of siblings from the same mother.  The Arabic culture has the same idea but state that blood is thicker than milk.  Children nourished by the same mother are referred to as “milk brothers” or “suckling brothers”.  Arabs hold that blood brothers are bound closer even than milk brothers. (Trumbull 10-11)

After tracing this rite through Egypt, Canaan and other ancient Semitic races, Dr. Trumbull points out that it is also found throughout Africa, Europe, China, India, among Polynesian races, in native races in North and South America, and in places as diverse as Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, and Russia.  He concludes, “proofs of the existence of this rite of blood-covenanting have been found among primitive peoples of all quarters of the globe; and its antiquity is carried back to a date long prior to the days of Abraham.  All of this outside of any indications of the rite in the text of the Bible itself.” (Trumbull 206)

The basic elements of blood-covenanting were so widespread throughout the world and through various religious traditions, that Dr. Trumbull concludes the practice likely originated from an earlier revelation given from God to man which was subsequently passed down, and altered into the various forms and religious traditions found around the world. (Trumbull 205)

Satan, never a creator but always the imitator, also covenanted with men beginning with Cain and extending through history down to the present.  It is also possible that these variations of blood-covenanting in many cultures were derivations of covenants made by secret combinations.  In some instances, the traditions may have had elements of both. 

Regardless of how this practice originated and why it became so widespread, the point is this:  anciently covenants were not entered into lightly.  In some cases, one surrendered ones life to the other party.  The profound seriousness these pacts held for the ancients has largely been lost to us.

Covenants, part 1

In the church we generally speak of covenants as being two way promises between God and man.  While this definition technically isn’t wrong it’s very, very incomplete.  Gospel covenants create sacred, binding relationships (see Mosiah 5:7).   

The ancient Israelites probably understood what it meant to be the Lord’s covenant people much better than we do today.  If there is anything that the Lord takes very seriously it is His covenants. 

D&C 109 contains the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland temple.  It isn’t Joseph’s prayer.  It is the Lord’s prayer and was given by revelation.  Its words have great significance.  Verse one states “Thanks be to thy name, O Lord God of Israel, who keepest covenant...”.  Of all God’s titles and of all of the ways He could properly be addressed, He chooses here to remind us and to be known as one who keeps his covenants.  This applies to both the Father and the Son.

He continues, “and showest mercy unto thy servants who walk uprightly before thee, with all their hearts“ (D&C 109:1).  He recognizes that we do not keep our covenants perfectly.  He does.  We don’t.  He shows mercy unto us, but in return he expects us to walk uprightly with all our hearts. 

His claim that he “showest mercy” is humbly understated.  He is full of patience and long-suffering.  The whole allegory of Zenos (Jacob 5) is primarily a testimony of the Lord’s patience and long suffering with the House of Israel (and with us individually as well).  Israel’s entire history and status as a covenant people is testimony not to their greatness or faithfulness (most often than not, they failed miserably) or of their favored status but rather stands as a testimony to how fully God intends to fulfill His covenants.  He tries over and over and over until he finally asks three times “what could I have done more?” (Jacob 5:41, 47, 49)  Jacob concludes his recital of Zenos’ allegory by admonishing us to repent and come to God with full purpose of heart and to “cleave unto God as he cleaveth unto you.” (Jacob 6:5)  The meaning and context that these types of statements held with the ancients has been lost to our modern western society.

Notice the similarity in the Kirtland prayer to the dedication of Solomon’s temple anciently:

And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven:

And he said, Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:  Who has kept with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him… (1 Kings 8:22-24, emphasis added)

Solomon acknowledges that the Lord keeps his covenants and that he fulfilled all of his promises to his father David.  Truly the Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever (Mormon 9:9).  And truly he keeps his covenants perfectly.

Things hid from before the foundation of the world

When Joseph Smith received the revelation to build a temple in Nauvoo, the Savior told him:

And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people; For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times.  D&C 124: 40-41

The word DEIGN in this scripture is an interesting choice.  I used to read this scripture and think the Savior was saying essentially – “I can’t wait, finally the time has come to reveal things which have been kept secret since the pre-existence”.

But then one day I looked up deign in the dictionary.  Deign actually means to do something that one considers to be beneath ones dignity; to condescend; to give reluctantly.  Deign actually meant the opposite of what I initially thought.  The savior gave these ordinances with great reluctance not with great eagerness.  Why?

I believe it is because of how very, very sacred they are to Him.  He knew that some would receive them without proper preparation or appreciation.  He knew that some would treat them lightly and not give them proper thought or respect.  Some would speak of them improperly and reveal them when they should not.  And in some ways, he would be casting “pearls” before “swine”.

With a spirit of reverence and respect and an appreciation for sacred ground, let’s begin our discussion of the temple and covenants.

Comments

I heard today that some are having trouble posting comments to the blog.  My apologies. I've tried adjusting the blog settings and hopefully that will correct the problem.  If not, please email me your comments, and I'll post them up for you.

Thank you.  I enjoy and appreciate hearing your thoughts and insights.

Haggai's Question

History confirms that following Lehi's departure in 600 BC, Jerusalem was in fact destroyed in 587 BC  by the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar.  Many of the inhabitants perished.  Others were carried captive into Babylon.  Some few were scattered.  These scattered Jews later returned to the ruins of Jerusalem and the regions round about.  They intermarried with the Assyrians and others.  Their descendants became the biblical Samaritans.


About 50 years later, Babylon fell to the Persians under Cyrus the Great in 538 BC.  Cyrus granted the Jews permission to return to Israel to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple (as prophesied by Isaiah, see Isaiah 45).  Many of the Jews chose to remain in Babylon, but about 40,000 returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel sometime between 538 and 520 BC.  Following their return, these Jews commenced the work of rebuilding the temple which had been destroyed.  


As work on the temple commenced, the Samaritans initially offered to help with the reconstruction.  Their offer, however, was refused by the Jews due to perceived corruptions in the Samaritan's religious practices. Once spurned, the Samaritans began to oppose and hinder the reconstruction effort.  This opposition, combined with the hardships of rebuilding the city and surviving in an area that had been abandoned for roughly 50 years and had become somewhat uninhabitable, effectively ground the temple effort to a halt.  


Roughly sixteen years later, Haggai enters the scene with a message from the Lord.  By this time the people had begun to prosper by degrees, but the temple still sat with no more than a foundation completed and the altar of sacrifice restored.  Haggai comes with a challenge from the Lord to "Consider your ways." (Haggai 1:5,7)


The Lord states that the people are now living in paneled homes but His house still lies in ruins.  He states the the people have sown much but reaped little in return.  They have earned wages only to put them in a bag with holes (Haggai 1:4-6).  (Anyone with teenagers can relate!)


Following his summary of their circumstances, the Lord again asks the people to consider their ways. 


Fortunately they did.  They repented and within a few years had completed and dedicated the temple to the Lord.  (This is the temple to which the Savior visited and cleansed during his lifetime.)


Haggai's question is still a good one for us today.  Consider our ways.  We don't have to make great sacrifices to construct temples as the Lord's people have done in the past.  Most of us have fairly convenient access to them.  But do we utilize them as we should?  Do we live in nice homes while the house of the Lord sits idle or vacant (at least as far as our presence there)?


Temple work is not just another "program" in the Church.  Elder Russell M. Nelson taught:  “The temple is the object of every activity, every lesson, every progressive step in the Church. All of our efforts in proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead lead to the holy temple. Ordinances of the temple are absolutely crucial. We cannot return to God's glory without them.” ("Prepare for the Blessings the Temple," Temple magazine, 41)


Brigham Young once stated, "We have a work to do just as important in its sphere as the Savior's work was in its sphere.  Our fathers cannot be made perfect without us; we cannot be made perfect without them.  They have done their work and now sleep.  We are now called upon to do ours; which is to be the greatest work man ever performed on the earth."


I heard once that the average recommend in the church is used 1 - 3 times a year with one of those times being a wedding or other family event.  I don't know if this statistic is accurate.  Hopefully, it is not for our family.  


Attending weekly has been one of the greatest blessings of my life.  I feel so fortunate to live less than 5 miles from a temple.  Some of the most sacred experiences of my life have occurred in the temple.  Though I still fall so short, it has made me a better person, a better husband, and a better father.  One of the great, and unexpected, blessings to me has been an increased sweetness and closeness in my marriage with Traci.  Others who attend weekly have noted this effect in their marriages as well.  Someone once asked a great question about our marriages.  If your wife (or husband) could still have her (or his) children but could chose whether or not to have you in their life, would they still want you there?  If the answer to that question is not a resounding yes, then perhaps we have some work to do.  One of the best ways I know to improve your marriage is to increase your temple attendance.


In saying this, I recognize that everyone's situation varies.  (Plus some people, like Mac and Rachel, chose to live in their own zip code for reasons only they understand.  They don't have convenient access.)  Traci and I attended weekly when we were first married.  Later when we had young children our attendance dropped to monthly and then quarterly. There were probably a few years when we only went once or twice in an entire year.  Everyone's situation is different and you alone can evaluate yours.  However, if you are in a position to do so, I encourage you to attend weekly.  It will impact your life in a different way than attending monthly or less frequently.


Don't worry if you don't understand it all.  It takes time and repetition. Start by learning the 5 main covenants we make in the endowment. Can you name them?   I feel like after all these years, I'm just starting to get it.  Adam offered sacrifice for many years before an angel appeared to him and explained what he was doing (Moses 5:5-7).  This is part of the process the Lord uses to test and try us.  Because of this price we pay as we gain answers and insights they have greater meaning and purpose to us when they come.  That which is easily earned is cheaply valued.  


In this respect, our current version of the Book of Mormon is the same.  The Lord could have given us much more, but we are told "and when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them." (3 Ne. 26:9).  We are all on trial with respect to the Book of Mormon.  The temple is no different.


President David O. McKay once spoke of his niece's first visit to the temple.  He stated:  "Brothers and sisters, she was disappointed in the temple.  Brothers and sisters, I was disappointed in the temple. . . .There are few, even temple workers, who comprehend the full meaning and power of the temple endowment.  Seen for what it is, it is the step-by-step ascent into the Eternal Presence.  If our young people could but glimpse it, it would be the most powerful spiritual motivation of their lives.  (Quoted in, The Temple where Heaven meets Earth; Truman G. Madsen, pages 10,11)


“No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand…The endowment is so richly symbolic that only a fool would attempt to describe it; it is so packed full of revelations to those who exercise their strength to seek and see, that no human words can explain or make clear the possibilities that reside in temple service.  The endowment which was given by revelation can best be understood by revelation; and to those who seek most vigorously, with pure hearts, will the revelation be greatest.”   John A Widstoe


This takes time.  We are given “line upon line, here a little and there a little”.  Go with a question in your heart.  Go in a spirit of reverence, regularly and patiently and it will begin to unfold to you.


We will return to the Book of Mormon later, but I want to leave it for a time to share a few things that have been helpful to me in understanding the temple.  We won't discuss anything inappropriate.  You may already know these things, but if not, I hope they will be helpful to you as well.  


Let's begin with a discussion of covenants.

So true...

This is a cute thought emailed into Dr. Laura's program a few days ago:

Dear Dr. Laura,

When I was 12, my dad, with whom I'm very close with, came to me, sat me down and said to me, "You are about to be a teenager soon. When you're a teenager, you will think you are the smartest person in the world. And when you think that, just keep in mind you will be at the dumbest period of your life."

My parents separated when I was 16 and my dad moved out. But thanks to my dad's lesson, I didn't do anything dumb (like get into drugs, alcohol, or sex). I graduated in the top 10 of my high school class, got a engineering degree, and was able to support myself right out of college. My dad has since gone back to his home country to take care of his aging parents.

When I have kids, I will give them the same lesson my dad gave me. Thank you, Dr. Laura for being a guiding light.

Sincerely,

Cindy

I think the corollary is also true.  You think you're a pretty good parent, and then you have teenagers.

We all go through it :-)

The Doctrine of Christ, part 3

Where does this path, outlined by Nephi, ultimately lead? To the tree of life.  It will lead us to the Savior.  

Joseph Smith taught:

After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins, and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted.

When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man [or woman] is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man [or woman] will find his [her] calling and election made sure, then it will be his [her] privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints....Now what is this other Comforter?  It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the Lord will teach him face to face.  (TPJS 150-151) 

In D&C 19, the Savior recounts his sufferings in accomplishing the atonement.  He then states that he has "finished [his] preparations unto the children of men." (D&C 19:19).  It is interesting that he categorizes his atonement as his "preparations".

The Savior's work with and for us is not finished.  He has a continuing ministry.  That ministry involves preparing us and introducing us to the Father.

If we heed the light of Christ it will eventually lead us to where we are prepared to receive the Holy Ghost.

If we receive the Holy Ghost, he will eventually lead us to where we are prepared to receive the Savior.

If we receive the Savior, he will prepare us to be introduced back to the Father.


The Doctrine of Christ is all about our return to Him.


And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God.  And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21)