Jacob as Temple Priest

[David Bokovoy]

My friend, Mfbukowski raised a very interesting point in the thread on communal sin in the Bible regarding the expression "blood and sins of this generation." Through I disagreed with his analysis, I was grateful for Zerinus' attempt to provide scriptural evidence that the expression did not refer to communal sin.

I offered a lengthy response that I believe provides some important insights into this concept that I felt some might wish to consider, but that would be lost in the messy nature of the aforementioned thread. I would love to read what others have to say on this issue, but I'm going to respectfully request that all posters refrain from any political commentary and/or bickering of any sort.

[WalkerW]

David has some excellent videos on this subject. See specifically"Ancient Temple Worship in the Book of Mormon."

[mfbukowski]

What I find incredible about all this is how it coheres with the supposedly "copied" "masonic" temple rites.

In the same way that the sins of the people can be transferred vicariously to the head of the animal (and it was literally done through the laying on of hands upon the head), the priest took upon himself the sins of the people if he did not teach them the word of God. Under this circumstance, their blood, i.e. the substance that had fully absorbed their impurity, would contaminate Jacob

[oMtonic]

Great stuff, guys.

[Bill Hamblin]

I've been working on a paper on Jacob's sermon as a Day of Atonement ritual. Here's the outline.

08 Jacob Day Atonement.pdf

[Calm]

Just about off to bed again, but wanted to mention it before sleep robbed me of the thought that the image of Christ's Red (Scarlet) Robe springs to my mind when reading "blood on their garments"....not necessarily equating it here, but seems to me likely linked.

[zerinus]

This post was already replied to in the other thread where you posted it first. However, since you have decided to start a new thread with it, here is that reply again, repeated here anew:

I don't mean to be offensive, but this reading provides an excellent example of what occurs when the scriptures are stripped from their proper historical context. Neither Jacob, nor the righteous king Benjamin, nor Moroni, for that matter, were suggesting that by failing to teach their people the ways of righteousness, they would have symbolically committed murder.

Note that the scriptural expression originates from Jacob, the man who had been consecrated as a priest to perform Old Testament temple rituals for the Nephites (see 2 Nephi 5:26; Jacob 1:18). As a temple priest, Jacob wore sacred garments that signified his stewardship (for a description of these garments see Exodus 28:1-43). From Jacob

[volgadon]

Again, for an understanding of the issue of communal sins in this context, see the opening post with the Ensign article I provided by Stephen Ricks. Since as Ricks illustrates, the effect of communal sins penetrated deeper into the holiness of the temple, communal sins are actually considered more serious than the sins committed by individuals.

Note the commentary provided by biblical scholar Frank H. Gorman, Jr:

In the Priestly traditions, sin creates impurity that is attracted to the sanctuary, the dwelling place of Yahweh. Also, certain situations or actions that are not understood to be sinful (see Lev. 11-15) generate impurity that defiles the tabernacle. The holy God of Israel cannot remain in a defiled place. Thus, a ritual means of purification is necessary to restore the integrity of the holy place when it has been disrupted. The sin of the anointed priest or the whole congregation is more severe than that of lay individuals and generates impurity that defiles the inner room of the tabernacle. Thus the blood of the sacrifice for the anointed priest or whole congregation must be taken inside the tent. A ruler or common person generates impurity that defiles the outer altar. Thus, the blood is placed only on the outer altar.

[zerinus]

Quite a bit of Ezekiel is dedicated to teaching that the temple would be destroyed because of communal sin, most of which was oppressing the poor and perverting justice. See 8:6,17 for an example.

Nobody denies that the house of Israel went into captivity because of their sins. If that is what David taught, there would be no argument. But that is not what he teaches. What he means by

[David Bokovoy]

I've been working on a paper on Jacob's sermon as a Day of Atonement ritual. Here's the outline.

08 Jacob Day Atonement.pdf

Bill that list is outstanding. What an incredible link! This is one of the most impressive observations on the Book of Mormon that I have read in quite sometime.

I'm convinced that when the Book of Mormon is interpreted through the lens of ancient Israelite temple motifs, the work real comes alive in new and exciting ways. As soon as I finish my dissertation, I'm going to write a book illustrating the ways in which Book of Mormon sermons draw upon Old Testament temple ritual and symbolism. My Sperry symposium this Fall shows that Nephi's encounter with the Spirit of the Lord on the exceedingly high mountain creates a Book of Mormon type scene reflective of ritual exchanges between Israelite priests and temple worshippers.

[USU78]

Quite a bit of Ezekiel is dedicated to teaching that the temple would be destroyed because of communal sin, most of which was oppressing the poor and perverting justice. See 8:6,17 for an example.

One of the OT themes that is getting short shrift here, as I understand it, is the role of the King/Aristocracy in all of this. I asked a question in the earlier thread (or perhaps it was its companion) about WHO is oppressing the poor/perverting justice. The poor, who end up the grunts in any war of retribution by Nebuchadnezzar, for example, are the ones who receive that retribution on their poor tender heads. Yet it is the King and the class of individuals from whom the King comes, who has a specialized role in both protecting the people as leader in war, but also in preserving their ritual purity by ensuring the safety of the temple, the righteousness of the priests, and the proper worship of G-d by the people generally.

I'd like to see how this theme develops in Jacob and later in the BoM, given the close relationship between the Priest-Kings of the Nephite nation, represented best by Nephi, Mosiah and Benjamin, and their Temple priests, represented by Jacob and the Almas.

[Palerider]

My friend, Mfbukowski raised a very interesting point in the thread on communal sin in the Bible regarding the expression "blood and sins of this generation." Through I disagreed with his analysis, I was grateful for Zerinus' attempt to provide scriptural evidence that the expression did not refer to communal sin.

I offered a lengthy response that I believe provides some important insights into this concept that I felt some might wish to consider, but that would be lost in the messy nature of the aforementioned thread. I would love to read what others have to say on this issue, but I'm going to respectfully request that all posters refrain from any political commentary and/or bickering of any sort.

I don't mean to be offensive, but this reading provides an important example of what occurs when the scriptures are stripped from their proper historical context. Neither Jacob, nor the righteous king Benjamin, nor Moroni, for that matter, was suggesting that by failing to teach their people the ways of righteousness, they would have symbolically committed murder.

Note that the scriptural expression originates from Jacob, the man who had been consecrated as a priest to perform Old Testament temple rituals for the Nephites (see 2 Nephi 5:26; Jacob 1:18). As a temple priest, Jacob wore sacred garments that signified his stewardship (for a description of these garments see Exodus 28:1-43). From Jacob

[zerinus]

One of the OT themes that is getting short shrift here, as I understand it, is the role of the King/Aristocracy in all of this. I asked a question in the earlier thread (or perhaps it was its companion) about WHO is oppressing the poor/perverting justice. The poor, who end up the grunts in any war of retribution by Nebuchadnezzar, for example, are the ones who receive that retribution on their poor tender heads. Yet it is the King and the class of individuals from whom the King comes, who has a specialized role in both protecting the people as leader in war, but also in preserving their ritual purity by ensuring the safety of the temple, the righteousness of the priests, and the proper worship of G-d by the people generally.

When Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, he actually spared the poorer classes of the people, and showed them greater leniency, and allowed them to stay in the land of Israel (see 2 Kings 25:12; Jeremiah 39:10; 52:16). It is the king and his household, the aristocracy, and the wealthy people of the land that he punished the most. He meted out terrible retribution to them, killed many, and took the rest captive into Babylon (story in the same chapters quoted above).

I'd like to see how this theme develops in Jacob and later in the BoM, given the close relationship between the Priest-Kings of the Nephite nation, represented best by Nephi, Mosiah and Benjamin, and their Temple priests, represented by Jacob and the Almas.

No relevance whatsoever.

[David Bokovoy]

That is an absurd exegetical commentary.

It appears that much like beauty, absurdity lies in the eye of the beholder. I suspect the reason you feel this way is a result of the fact that you read ancient scripture through a modern 21st century lens.

A word can have many different meanings and connotations, both literal and metaphorical, and the context determines which meaning is to be applied.

So why do you assume that contextually, an ancient temple priest teaching the Old Testament concepts of holiness and atonement in connection with Nephite temple worship would be using blood as a symbol for murder rather than impurity? What makes spiritual murder a better context for Jacob

[zerinus]

A word can have many different meanings and connotations, both literal and metaphorical, and the context determines which meaning is to be applied.

So why do you assume that contextually, an ancient temple priest teaching the Old Testament concepts of holiness and atonement in connection with Nephite temple worship would be using blood as a symbol for murder rather than impurity? What makes spiritual murder a better context for Jacob

[mfbukowski]

I've been working on a paper on Jacob's sermon as a Day of Atonement ritual. Here's the outline.

08 Jacob Day Atonement.pdf

Wow! Amazing parallels- thanks!

[mfbukowski]

Because the context teaches us that he is doing what Ezekiel is doing, that is, warning people to repentance, not performing a sacrificial rite, nor teaching that doctrine. The scriptures make it unambiguously clear that

[volgadon]

I think you are engaging in semantics here, and missing the point. To say that the blood means life or symbolizes life means the same thing. In Genesis it says that after God had made man, He breathe into his nostrils the

[USU78]

No relevance whatsoever.

'fraid I disagree. Here's a bit of where my thinking is:

Corporate Personality as King. In ancient Israel the king spoke to the people for the people. The king was the representative of the community as a group. Thus, Bernard J. Lee declared,

[volgadon]

If you murdered someone by putting an knife into them or something, then their blood would be spattered on you, or on your garments, and that would be

[David Bokovoy]

Because the context teaches us that he is doing what Ezekiel is doing, that is, warning people to repentance, not performing a sacrificial rite, nor teaching that doctrine.

Have you looked at Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

Now contrast that whith these from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 3:

16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

How can anyone fail to understand that in the above verses too the word

[volgadon]

Nobody denies that the house of Israel went into captivity because of their sins. If that is what David taught, there would be no argument. But that is not what he teaches. What he means by

[oMtonic]

That is God placing a spirit (neshama) into Adam's body, which turns him into a soul (nefesh). The biblical conception was spirit + body = soul. Blood was still the vitality and life-force of man and beast.

This is interesting to me, volgadon. The spirit + body = soul concept is something I had to adjust to after joining the Church because I grew up with an understanding that spirit and soul were synonymous. I suppose I never thought to really dig and investigate about it.

Anyway, not to derail David's awesome thread.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Palerider,

Maybe some of you guys who are better at this than I can give me some insight here.

This is a fascinating passage that was addressed in the thread on "Social Justice." Here is how biblical scholars understand the issue:

The exilic prophet Ezekiel rejected the earlier biblical view of trans-generational punishment. So did Jeremiah (a fact which demonstrates the evolution of religious thought), but Jeremiah did so in a very interesting way.

In a near citation of Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah states that