Modern Temples Teach We are ALL Children of God
Ancient Jews sometimes argued amongst themselves about who was most closely related to the ancient prophets Moses & Abraham. Regarding such unproductive debates, Paul warned about becoming prideful over genealogy (see also, 1 Timothy 1:4):
Titus 3:9
9 ¶ But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Modern Latter-day Saints do genealogies, but NOT because of some flawed desire to demonstrate the superiority of one's family lines over others. Instead, we recognize the importance of ALL humans as part of God's family. As such, ALL family lines are equally important. Yet, ancient peoples sometimes had opposite views.
The Pharisees and Sadducees became prideful of their Abrahamic ancestry by thinking they had special status before the eyes of God. John the Baptist corrected them:
Matthew 3:6-9 [italics and brackets mine]
6 And [the faithful] were baptized of [John the Baptist] in Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [for our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
James E. Talmage gave this interpretation of the above verses:
James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.10, p.115 - 116
John's forceful assertion that God could raise up, from the stones on the river bank, children to Abraham, meant to those who heard that even the lowest of the human family might be preferred before themselves unless they repented and reformed.
Jesus also was unimpressed by mere claims to special heritage. He said the following to his Jewish believers:
John 8:37 - 40
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 ¶ I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Some of the more antagonistic Jews wondered out loud about the ancestral heritage of Jesus.
Bible in Basic English: John 8: 48
48 The Jews said to him in answer, Are we not right in saying that you are of Samaria and have an evil spirit?
Jesus may have had some ancestors outside of Judaism!! So, in the following verse Jesus only denied that he had an evil spirit:
Bible in Basic English: John 8: 49
49 And this was the answer of Jesus: I have not an evil spirit; but I give honour to my Father and you do not give honour to me.
But, then Jesus said:
John 8:56 - 59
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself … .
Jesus was saying, to paraphrase, “It matters not how I derive from Abraham, because before Abraham was, I am.”
The genealogy of Jesus through his step-father Joseph is complex and interesting. His royal descent from King David was a Messianic necessity. The Messiah needed to be a scion of David (e.g., 1 Chron. 17:12-13), but how was Jesus connected to David? The genealogical details are given in Matthew 1, which goes back to king David and the prophet Abraham. This genealogy is predominantly patrilineal (father to son), but there are a few women named who appear to be non-Jewish ancestors of Jesus (see: Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women , Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, May 2002, chapter 2, especially p. 42). These women are:
1) Tamar or Thamar, daughter-in-law of Judah (1 Chron. 2:4; Matt. 1:3): She had an ethnicity that was ambiguous at best (Bauckham, p. 33). The sordid story of Tamar and Judah (see Genesis 38) appears to take place in a Canaanite town, Adullam. Therefore, the best guess to her ethnicity is Canaanite.
2) Rahab or Rachab (Matthew 1:5): She was a repentant harlot (Joshua 2:1) who helped two Israeli spies escape from Jericho. Some traditions (but NOT the Old Testament) relate one of the spies as being Salmon (an ancestor of David and Jesus), who Rahab is said to have married (see: Bauckham, p. 37). (Other traditions indicate Rahab was married to Joshua). Because Rahab was from Jericho, she is often referred to as a Canaanite.
3) Ruth (Matthew 1:5): She clearly is identified as a Moabite (e.g., Ruth 1:3).
4) Bathsheba (Matthew 1:6): She is presumed to be a Hittite, since she is identified as being the wife of Uriah the Hittite (e.g., 2 Samuel 11:3).
From the details given above, it is likely that Jesus had some non-Jewish ancestors at least through his stepfather Joseph. Of the four possibilities mentioned above, it was Ruth who had the most unambiguous ethnicity.
Jesus was a descendant of Ruth. Ruth married the wealthy Boaz, and they had a son Obed, who was the father of Jesse, and Jesse was the father of King David (LDS Bible Dictionary: "Jesse," p. 713; "Obed," p. 739; "Ruth," p. 764). Boaz was a prince of the House of Judah through his father, Salmon (or Salma). His mother was presumably was the Old Testament character of Rahab (or Rachab in Matthew 1).
As alluded above, Rahab had her own interesting story (see Joshua 2 and 6). In the battle for Jericho, Rahab saved two of Joshua’s spies. When the city fell, Rahab and her family were saved (see Joshua 6:17).
The Apostle Paul recounted the story of Rahab:
Hebrews 11:30 - 31
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
Rahab and her family were then incorporated into the tribe of Judah, where she may have married Salmon to give birth to Boaz (Ruth 4:21; 1 Chron. 2:11; Matt. 1:5). To put things bluntly, Boaz, a prince and a possible son of a former prostitute, married Ruth, a despised Moabite foreigner.
The stories of "Judah and Tamar" (Genesis 38) and "David and Bathsheba" (2 Samuel 11) are Bible classics, primarily because of their "soap opera-like" details. To keep this essay's PG-13 rating, these stories will not be summarized.
These were the ancestors of Jesus. The lesson to be derived is that all people have the capacity to become part of God. Further, Jesus was an heir of David through his stepfather Joseph.
Jesus had no concern for social status. Jesus stood for getting rid of prejudices, especially those based in race and heritage:
Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, p.294 - p.295
The Lord would have eliminated bigotry and class distinction. He talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, healed the centurion's kin, and blessed the child of the Canaanitish woman. And though he personally came to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" and sent his apostles first to them rather than to the Samaritans and other gentiles, yet he later sent Paul to bring the gospel to the gentiles and revealed to Peter that the gospel was for all. The prejudices were deep rooted in Peter, and it took a vision from heaven to help him cast off his bias.
Ancestry does not count as righteousness. All are equal before God. This having been said, there are elements of the priesthood that have an ancestral element. Consider the following:
Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5: 216 - 217, September 6, 1856
Now, I will refer to brother Brigham, brother Heber, brother Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Bishop N. K. Whitney, and lots of other men. Brother Joseph actually saw those men in vision; he saw us in a day when we were all together. We have been separated by marriage and thrown apart; but he saw the day when we all came out of one stock, and that was out of the aristocracy. Yes, we came directly down through the Prophets, and not only us, but lots of others--the whole Smith race. I could remember probably twenty or thirty that Joseph mentioned came down through that channel. …
There is another thing that brother Joseph said--viz., that we were positively heirs of the Priesthood; for he had seen us as such in his vision; yes, just as much so as my children are that have been born since I received my endowment. Our fathers were heirs to that Priesthood, which was handed down from father to son, and we came through that lineage.
The importance of bloodline (at least in this initial stage of Church history) parallels the significance of Davidic lineage necessary for the Messiah. The use of specific lineages as a source of leadership may be difficult for modern readers to understand, but the principle is taught in the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 3:6, 15
6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins. …
15 And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me;
Further, the Levitical priesthood has an inherited element.
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.88 BIRTHRIGHT
From Aaron to the coming of John the Baptist, the high priests in Israel served in their presiding offices (of the Aaronic order) because they were descendants of Aaron. The office of Presiding Bishop in the Church today is of comparable hereditary nature, although the Lord has not so far designated the lineage in which the right to such office rests. (D. & C. 68:14-24.) The right to hold the Levitical Priesthood anciently was limited to the sons of Levi, who thus gained their priesthood prerogatives by birth. In the meridian of time our Lord altered this system and spread this Aaronic order of authority among worthy male members of the Church generally. (1 Tim. 3:1-13.)
To be sure, family relationships in the Church have generated a royal priesthood:
1 Peter 2:9
9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Foreordained individuals often may come from a particular heritage. Is this something to brag about? No! Is lineage a necessary or sufficient qualification for modern leadership? No! Besides, Church leaders are servants, not dictators.
Paul was clear that genealogy afforded no special privilege in the eternal scheme of things, because God’s grace extended to all who are faithful:
Romans 4:1
1 ¶ WHAT shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
The verses above contain a quotation from the Old Testament given below:
Genesis 15:6
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
We need to always remember that mere acts of faith are the first steps in righteousness. But, Paul was saying even more than this. He was saying even non-Jews should inherit the blessings of Abraham:
Galatians 3:6 - 9
6 ¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Now days, we refer to being “adopted into the House of Israel.” I am sure Paul would have agreed with that language, at least in principle.
No matter how we are related to Abraham, literally or by adoption, we must do the same thing that Abraham did:
Hebrews 11:8
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Even though it is pretty clear that there was a “grace versus works” debate among the original Twelve Apostles, Paul, based on the verse above, might have partially agreed with James’ argument below:
James 2:21 - 24
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
The following two verses, ending the chapter, are as follows from a modern translation:
New Century Version : James 2:25-26
25 Another example is Rahab, a prostitute, who was made right with God by something she did. She welcomed the spies into her home and helped them escape by a different road.
26 Just as a person's body that does not have a spirit is dead, so faith that does nothing is dead!
Faith (meaning confidence in the LORD, grace, and atonement) mixed with human works transcends all earthly lineages, because such a formula transforms everyone into children of Christ (Mosiah 5:7).
NOTE: In any Christian church we are taught the two great commandments: 1) Love God; and 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself (Matthew 22:36-37). Those specific ties are strengthened and sealed (made eternal) in modern operating Latter-day Saint temples, in which ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood are performed.
Such ordinances include eternal marriage (a man to a woman); sealings (offspring to parents for eternity); and initiatory work on behalf of the dead. Such work builds love of families and neighbors, but there is a SINGLE overarching theme no matter where one is working in the temple: LOVE OF GOD.
For further information about temples, please see this official LDS site: The House of the Lord.
"Nauvoo Temple" photo by C. Faux, Copyright 2005, used by permission. All Rights Reserved.
Scripture taken from the New Century Version®. Copyright © 2005 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
1949/1964 Bible in Basic English -- Public Domain.
The Bible In Basic English was printed in 1965 by Cambridge Press in England.
Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] com; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
5 comments:
I love your essays. They are so well-written. I referred to this on on my blog. I hope that is ok.
Nicely done! I think this is what Jesus had to teach when the Jews were more interested in their status as "chosen people" than in doing good works that confirm the chosen-ness.
Mormon Heretic: I have no problem with your citation. I like the comment and you do cite me. Thanks for the compliments.
Michaela: I love your blog. Keep thinking. And, oh, yes, keep commenting here.
I do take pride in my ancestors. Ok not really, only a couple of them.
http://backandthen.wordpress.com/?s=Virginie
Thanks for your comment on my blog. I intended to be only slightly funny but this post seemed to have had more success than I thought ;o)
backandthen:
It is a GOOD thing to love our ancestors; genealogy only becomes bad when we come to believe we are superior because of our ancestors.
There is ONLY one ancestor that raises us -- God, and we are ALL His children, and that means all humans without exception.
Post a Comment