The Horns of Mosheh

I AM THAT I AM

In Exodus chapter 3 Moses tells the story of when the Lord appeared to him in the burning bush and called him to deliver Israel from Egypt. In verse 13 Moses asks an interesting question.

He asks:

"when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"

The Lord gives his answer in verses 14 and 15:

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

In a lecture given at the BYU Kennedy Center on 8 March 2007 Gary A. Rendsburg, chair of Jewish Studies, Rutgers University gave a fascinating lecture in which he talked about a possible reason for Moses' question (lecture can be watched here). Professor Rendsburg mentioned an Egyptian myth (found on Papyrus Turin 1993) called the Unknown Name of Ra in which Isis tricks Ra into revealing his secret name.

Isis does this by taking some dirt into which Ra had spit and then fashoning it into a venomous snake. The serpent then bites Ra who is tormented by the poison coursing through his body. He asks for Isis's help who in turn asks for his secret name by explaining "Tell me your name, my divine father. A man lives when called by his name". Eventually Ra gives in and tells her his secret name and is then healed. This story illustrates that the Egyptians believed that there is power to be had by knowing a god's secret name. When Moses came to the Israelites (who by this time had been in Egypt for generations and were steeped in Egyptian myth) he presumed that they would want to know the secret name of God.

In the KJV the name the Lord gave to Moses has been translated into English as "I AM THAT I AM". The phrase "I AM THAT I AM" can be confusing to modern English speakers because it's meaning isn't very clear. The phrase comes from the Hebrew "Ehyiah asher Ehyiah" which can be translated various ways. According to John Gill's Exposition of the Bible the English rendering of this phrase from the Targum Jonathan is "I am he that is, and that shall be" which makes more sense than the phrase "I AM THAT I AM". The Targum Jonathan translation sounds very similar to the Lord's introduction to the apostle John in Revelation chapter 1 verse 8:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty

In these verses Jehovah seems to be teaching Moses and John important truths regarding his mission and Eternal nature. The Greek letters alpha and omega are, respectively, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. During John's time Greek was the lingua franca of the Hellenistic world and was the original language of the New Testament. John's audience would have understood what the Lord meant when he described himself as "Alpha and Omega". At the time of Moses the Israelites were unfamiliar with the Greek alphabet of John's day so, of course, this phrase is not used but in both instances the Lord seems to be communicating similar ideas.

Circumcision and Redemption

In Margaret Barker's book Christmas: The Original Story there is an interesting insight about the life of the Savior from the time when he was an infant. This post is a quick summary of this insight which I thought might be interesting to anyone reading this blog.

For any male infant born in ancient Israel the well known rite of circumcision was performed eight days following the birth as commanded by the Lord. As far as we know this ordinance was first practiced by Abraham when Jehovah established his covenant with him. We read about this in Genesis 17:9-13 :

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

For every firstborn son born into an Israelite family another important but less well known ordinance was performed. This was the redemption of the child performed by the parents with a payment of five shekels of silver. In the Law of Moses the Lord claimed the firstborn of every animal and the first fruits of each harvest to be used as a sacrifice. Likewise he also claimed every firstborn male infant as a sacrifice. However, the parents could make a payment of five shekels to the temple priests in order to redeem their child from the sacrifice. This practice is set forth in Numbers 18:8-19. Below are verses fifteen and sixteen which tell of the provision allowing redemption of each firstborn male son:

15 Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the Lord, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.
16 And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs.

Luke in chapter two of his gospel gives an account of the birth of the Savior and mentions Jesus Christ being circumcised at eight days old, as required by the Lord, in verse 21:

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Even though the circumcision of Jesus is mentioned there is no mention of his being redeemed by the five shekels of silver. This is a very conspicuous omission. Any Jew of Jesus' day reading this most likely would have noticed right away because this was such a major component of their religious practices. Why the omission? Margaret Barker suggests that perhaps this is because Luke was trying to teach an important principle. Whether or not Mary and Joseph made the payment is irrelevant. Luke left out this important detail because, unlike every other firstborn male Israelite, Jesus Christ was not redeemed. He was sacrificed on behalf of all mankind so everyone could be redeemed from sin and death. He made it possible for every man, woman and child to become the redeemed firstborn and this is what Luke was trying to teach his readers.

Thou Shalt Bruise His Heel

My friend, Eric Martineau, shared this with me several days ago.

The book of Genesis tells of the appearance of the Lord to Adam and Eve after they had partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Lord mentions some of the consequences of their action and pronounces a curse upon Satan who had taken it upon himself to convince Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. This is what the Lord said:

Genesis 3:14-15

"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

In verse 15 the pronoun "he" refers to the Savior. The Savior bruised the head of the serpent when he carried out the Atonement and freed all people from the bonds of physical death and made entrance into God's kingdom possible on conditions of repentance. The serpent bruised the heel of Jesus Christ when he induced the Jewish authorities of the day to have the Savior crucified.

An injury to the head is far more serious than an injury to one's heel. Implicit in verse 15 of Genesis 3 is that the Savior's wound would be temporary and relatively minor while the wound inflicted upon Satan would be severe and permanent.

Additionally, it is possible that this story alludes to the manner in which the Savior's heel would be bruised.

Jesus Christ is the most famous of all the victims of crucifixion. Crucifixion is known to have been practiced by numerous different cultures at numerous different times but the Romans have become the most famous practitioners of this horrific form of execution.

Most artwork of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ depicts the Savior hanging from the cross with nails driven through the palm of each hand and through the top of each foot. Unfortunately archaeological evidence of crucifixion is scarce and the manner in which it was carried out has been a matter of speculation.

In 1968, however, an ossuary was discovered in Jerusalem which contained the bones of a victim of crucifixion. The name of the person was Yehohanan ben Hagkol. Other than his name and manner of death not much else is known about this individual. Despite the relative anonymity of this man his remains hold great significance for students of the New Testament. His remains date to the approximate time of Jesus Christ so they provide clues about the methods the Romans used when they carried out the crucifixion of the Savior.

Typically the nails used in a crucifixion were extracted from the victim and re-used due to the scarcity of iron. However, it appears that when ben Hagkol was crucified one of the nails driven into his feet hit a knot in the wood which caused the tip of the nail to bend making it difficult to remove. When ben Hagkol was removed from the cross the crucifiers evidently cut out the portion of wood into which this nail was driven and buried him with the nail still embedded in his foot. When ben Hagkol's remains were discovered the nail was still firmly attached to his foot. Interestingly the nail was driven not through the top of the foot but perpendicularly through the heel. Pictured below is a photograph of the heel bone through which the nail can be seen.



In the figure below an artist's depiction illustrates how the feet were attached to the cross.


It is possible, therefore, that when Jesus Christ was crucified the Romans drove the nails through his heel bones as they did when crucifying Yehohanan ben Hagkol. If this was the case then perhaps the passage in Genesis chapter 3 referring to the Atonement of Jesus Christ also refers to the manner in which the Savior was to be sacrificed.

Of course there is no way to know this for certain and the exact method used to crucify Jesus Christ is not the central message of Genesis 3:15. The central message is that the Messiah would come to earth, suffer and die on behalf of all mankind and be resurrected so that we can all be resurrected and enjoy the blessings of Eternal Life through repentance.

The Father, Mother and the Son

About 50 years before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians around 586 B.C. King Josiah implemented sweeping reforms to the religion of the Israelites which radically affected their religious practices and doctrines. Among these changes a more stringent form of monotheism was introduced.

Biblical scholar Margaret Barker has written about Josiah's reforms in her book entitled: "Temple Theology: An Introduction". On page seven of this fascinating book she talks about the old religion of Israel prior to the reforms of Josiah:

"The most important result of Josiah's reforms was the introduction of monotheism. The earlier religion had known of God Most High - the deity worshipped by Melchizedek (Gen. 14.19) - El Shaddai, the deity of the patriarchs (Exod. 6.3), and Yahweh [anglicized as Jehovah], who appeared in human form...There is no proof that these were one and the same deity. Only later were all these ancient forms said to be identical...

"In the more ancient names for the deities, however, we glimpse the Father (God Most High), the Son (Yahweh, the One who appeared in human form), and the Mother (El Shaddai, whose name means the God with breasts)."

This resonates with Latter-Day Saints who have similar theology. For example, Apostle Neal A. Maxwell taught:

"Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Red Sea and of Sinai, the Resurrected Lord, the spokesman for the Father in the theophany at Palmyra".
(Neal A. Maxwell, Even As I Am [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 120)

Additionally, Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

"We know that Jesus had a Father and that he had a mother, for the scriptures tell us so...

"In Genesis we read:

"'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.' (Genesis 1:26-27.)

"Is it not feasible to believe that female spirits were created in the image of a 'Mother in Heaven'?"
(Joseph Fielding Smith Answers to Gospel Questions 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966] 3:143-44)

In transliterated Hebrew Genesis 1:1 reads: "Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets". The word "Elohim" refers to God and talks about him bringing forth the heavens and the earth. In Hebrew to make a masculine noun plural an "im" is added. The singular of Elohim is El. There is much confusion surrounding the fact that one of the names for God is a plural word.

Perhaps Margaret Barker has provided an explanation for this anomaly. The word Elohim could refer to both God the Father or God Most High (El Elyon) and God the Mother (El Shaddai), hence El Elyon + El Shaddai = Elohim. If this is true it teaches us of the exalted role of women in "the great plan of the Eternal God" (Alma 34:9) and of their inherent sacred nature.

Words of Joseph Smith

This is another quote from Joseph Smith that I have always really liked:

Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand and watch over them with tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what pow'r it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind.

- Words of Joseph Smith p. 123

Origin of the Brass Plates

A few years ago I attended a presentation by Dann Hone who is connected with BYU and was involved in the building of the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. The title of his lecture was "Possible Origin, History and Destiny of the Brass Plates from an Ancient Language."

His remarks about the origin of the Brass Plates were the most interesting part of the presentation for me. He began by talking about Moses. We know Moses spent the first forty years of his life in Egypt and was connected with the royal family (Ex. 2:10). Eventually Moses had to flee for his life into the Sinai deseret after taking the life of an Egyptian in self defense (Ex. 2:11-15). Moses joined a family of Midianites and spent the next forty years of his life among them.

This group of Midianites were led by a High Priest named Jethro (aka Hobab, Reuel or Raguel). Moses received the priesthood from Jethro (see D&C 84:6) and married one of his daughters (see Exodus 2:21).

There is some evidence to suggest that the Midianites were also known as the Kenites (compare Num. 10:29 with Judges 1:16). The name Kenite means "smith" or "metal smith". The Kenites are famous for working the copper mines of Timna and were particularly active there during Moses's time (see here for more information).

We learn from the story of the brass serpent found in Numbers 21 that Moses knew how to work metal(Num. 21:9). Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc and presumably Moses learned metal working from the Midianites with whom he had been living for at least forty years. It seems likely then that Moses had made numerous other objects from brass prior to this time.

Exodus chapter 2 tells us that Moses was a Levite. When it came time for the children of Israel to enter the promised land Moses was taken to Heaven and Joshua took Moses's place. Joshua was from the tribe of Ephraim (Num. 13).

Following the departure of Lehi's family from Jerusalem, the Lord commanded him to send his sons back to the city to retrieve the Brass Plates (1 Ne 3:2). At this time the Brass Plates were in possession of Laban who was a descendant of Joseph (1 Ne 5:16). The Book of Mormon does not give us any additional information about the origin of the Brass Plates. Later in the Book of Mormon we learn that the Brass Plates were written in the language of the Egyptians (Mosiah 1:4). Moses undoubtedly was very familiar with the Egyptian language from his time there.

Because of his skill in metal working it is possible Moses chose brass as a medium upon which to write the Torah. Perhaps this is the origin of the Brass Plates mentioned in the Book of Mormon. If Moses was the original author of the Brass Plates then they surely would have been passed to Joshua when Moses was translated. From Joshua they could have been passed down through the tribe of Ephraim until they came to be in the possession of Laban.

We have been promised that at some future time the Brass Plates will be translated and made available to the people of the earth (1 Ne 5:17-19). The possibility of the Brass Plates being the original record of Moses makes the prospect all the more exciting.

Helaman 14

"Knowing that the God they worship is a being in whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning from that course which he has and shall pursue everlastingly, it is no surprise to spiritually literate souls to learn that the prophecies of the First Coming are but types and shadows of similar revelations relative to the Second Coming."

-Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Promised Messiah p.31

Choose ye this day

I came across a great talk by Elder Maxwell on Templestudy.com that I think has alot of relevence to today. It was given at a BYU devotional 30 years ago on October 10, 1978. Here are a few excerpts:

"Discipleship includes good citizenship; and in this connection, if you are careful students of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions–especially when the First Presidency has spoken out–the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people, and causes, not candidates. On occasions, at other levels in the Church, a few have not been so discreet, so wise, or so inspired.

"But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).

"President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life” (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.

"We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage. . . .

"Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities–when faced with clear alternatives–would make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.

"Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

"In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play–especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat’s burden, you see.

"Am I saying that the voting rights of the people of religion are in danger? Of course not! Am I saying, “It’s back to the catacombs?” No! But there is occurring a discounting of religiously-based opinions. There may even be a covert and subtle disqualification of some for certain offices in some situations, in an ironic “irreligious test” for office.

"However, if people are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would they be, anyway? Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go? . . ."

Revelation of His Secret

Orson Pratt:
The day is at hand, the morning has broken, the sun of the Gospel has arisen in the eastern horizon, and is beginning to shine with a degree of splendour. The time is near—how near, no man knoweth: the day and the hour when the Son of Man shall come is a secret. In a revelation given to this Church, it is said that no man shall know until he comes; therefore we cannot expect to know the day nor the hour; but we know it is near at hand, and what a consolation it is. There may be men that will know within a year—that will have revelation to say within one or two years when the Lord shall appear. I do not know that there is anything against this.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 8: 49.)


Joseph Smith:
Christ says, "No man knoweth the day or the hour when the Son of Man cometh." . . . Did Christ speak this as a general principle throughout all generations? Oh no; he spoke in the present tense. No man that was then living upon the footstool of God knew the day or the hour. But he did not say that there was no man throughout all generations that should know the day or the hour. No, for this would be in flat contradiction with other scripture, for the prophet says that God will do nothing but what he will reveal unto his servants the prophets [ Amos 3:7]. Consequently, if it is not made known to the prophets it will not come to pass.

Kent P. Jackson, comp. and ed., Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994], 112.)

Sealed in their foreheads

At work I'm listening to the audiobook "Prophecies" by Matthew B. Brown. He talks about Revelation 7:3 which reads:

"Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads."

He quotes a statement by Joseph Smith which explains what it means for someone to be sealed in their forehead:

“SEALING OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD.—August 13, 1843. "Four destroying angels holding power over the four quarters of the earth until the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads, which signifies sealing the blessing upon their heads, meaning the everlasting covenant, thereby making their calling and election sure. When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother."

It means that those servants will have their calling and election made sure by the laying on of hands.

Chapter 7 then goes on to mention that there will be 144,000 of these servants who will have this privilege. The Israelites, to give a number a superlative quality, squared it, hence 12 tribes, 12x12=144. to exaggerate it further they multiplied it by 1000. John's audience would not have taken this number literally. They would have understood it to be describing a fullness of individuals taken from each of the twelve tribes who will enjoy the privilege of having their calling and election made sure and who will serve the Lord in the last days. Verse 9 describes these people as being: "a great multitude, which no man could number".

Update - 1/16/11 - This sealing in the forehead refers to the gold plate bearing the inscription כדש יהוה (Holy to Jehovah) which was attached to the mitre which the high priest wore. This plate was located just above the forehead.

Harold Bloom on Joseph Smith

Harold Bloom, a Sterling Professor of the Humanities at Yale University, once said this about Joseph Smith:

"I can only attribute to his genius or daemons his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly." (Harold Bloom, The American Religion. Page number?)

Courtesy of TempleStudy.com