There's a brief story tucked away in the reading for this week's lesson (#27) which is a bit confusing on the first time through. It's not really covered in the lesson, so I thought I'd go through it here.
As a brief preface, the end of Solomon's rule wasn't a happy one for the people, unless you were lucky enough to be of the tribe of Judah. King Solomon placed a heavy tax on the people and placed them in conditions similar to slavery. When Jeroboam took over, he made things worse instead of better. To keep people from going to Jerusalem to the temple, he made two golden calves for the people to worship from the comfort of their own land; one in Bethel and the other in Dan. He then appointed a feast day which coincided with the official feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem.
Imagine a state-sanctioned party which included a feast, lots of drinking, and ceremony consisting of offering sacrifice and some fertility rites. Sounds a bit like the Calgary Stampede, doesn't it? (Oops, that was my outside voice again, huh)
Anyhow, an unnamed man of God comes on the scene in 1 Kings 13. He comes in, tells Jeroboam another king will be raised who will overthrow the idol worship, splits the altar by the power of God. Jeroboam does a little bit of back-pedaling and invites this guy (who really needs a name) to come back for supper.
"...If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place:
"For so it was charged me by the word of the Lord..." (1 Kings 13:8-9)
Not only was he told not to eat or drink until he got home, he couldn't go back the same way he came. He tells the king there is no reward worth breaking a commandment from the Lord.
On his way home, he met up with "an old prophet" (1 Kings 13:11) who told him an angel came and said it was okay to come in and eat. The King James Version reads "...but he [the old prophet] lied unto him [the man of god]" (1 Kings 13:18). The Joseph Smith Translation offers a bit of help here: "...Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water, that I may prove him; and he lied not unto him." (footnote b)
Wait a minute, now I'm even more confused. It's easier to read this story as if the prophet had been a false prophet, but here he is acting under the Lord's direction and intentionally trying to trick the man of God. It almost seems a bit under-handed. But I guess it wouldn't be the first time the Lord has tested his prophet, remember Abraham?
So the man of God goes back with the prophet and has dinner, then on his way home is killed by a lion as a result of his disobedience (1 Kings 13:20-24). Ouch, that seems a bit harsh. But what can we learn from the story?
The man of God received his directions from the Lord Himself. Pretty straight-forward: 1) don't eat or drink until you get back, and 2) don't go home the same way you came. Fairly simple and direct personal revelation. So on his way home, someone else comes and says it's now okay (for whatever reason) to do contrary to the Lord's command, and he goes along with it. He received the original instructions through personal revelation, shouldn't any amendments or adjustments also come through the same channel?
The punishment of physical death seems to be a representation of the natural spiritual consequences we face when we are disobedient. There are many "spiritual lions" just laying in wait, ready to pounce on us when we step off the path.
Is the natural consequence of an action a punishment, or just how things work? For example, if we choose to disobey the law (in Alberta, anyway) by driving without wearing a seatbelt, when we get thrown through the windshield as the car hits something, is that our punishment or just the natural consequence? When we disobey a commandment, are we punished by being separated from the Spirit, or is that just natural cause and effect?
So, here's what I take from this story:
1. It is sometimes harder to be faithful under seemingly good circumstances than it is in the face of opposition. There wasn't anything Jeroboam could throw at this man to make him go against what the Lord had commanded. We see this many times in the Book of Mormon where the Nephites can stay faithful during times of war and hardship, but when things started getting easy for them they started to waiver.
2. Continuing personal revelation is vital, especially in our day. The directions we receive from the Lord through personal revelation are as binding as those which come to us from the prophet or other leaders.
3. There will be all kinds of convincing arguments on why we should disobey the commandments (usually just one or two at a time). In the end, the reasons and reasoning are irrelevent.
As a brief preface, the end of Solomon's rule wasn't a happy one for the people, unless you were lucky enough to be of the tribe of Judah. King Solomon placed a heavy tax on the people and placed them in conditions similar to slavery. When Jeroboam took over, he made things worse instead of better. To keep people from going to Jerusalem to the temple, he made two golden calves for the people to worship from the comfort of their own land; one in Bethel and the other in Dan. He then appointed a feast day which coincided with the official feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem.
Imagine a state-sanctioned party which included a feast, lots of drinking, and ceremony consisting of offering sacrifice and some fertility rites. Sounds a bit like the Calgary Stampede, doesn't it? (Oops, that was my outside voice again, huh)
Anyhow, an unnamed man of God comes on the scene in 1 Kings 13. He comes in, tells Jeroboam another king will be raised who will overthrow the idol worship, splits the altar by the power of God. Jeroboam does a little bit of back-pedaling and invites this guy (who really needs a name) to come back for supper.
"...If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place:
"For so it was charged me by the word of the Lord..." (1 Kings 13:8-9)
Not only was he told not to eat or drink until he got home, he couldn't go back the same way he came. He tells the king there is no reward worth breaking a commandment from the Lord.
On his way home, he met up with "an old prophet" (1 Kings 13:11) who told him an angel came and said it was okay to come in and eat. The King James Version reads "...but he [the old prophet] lied unto him [the man of god]" (1 Kings 13:18). The Joseph Smith Translation offers a bit of help here: "...Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water, that I may prove him; and he lied not unto him." (footnote b)
Wait a minute, now I'm even more confused. It's easier to read this story as if the prophet had been a false prophet, but here he is acting under the Lord's direction and intentionally trying to trick the man of God. It almost seems a bit under-handed. But I guess it wouldn't be the first time the Lord has tested his prophet, remember Abraham?
So the man of God goes back with the prophet and has dinner, then on his way home is killed by a lion as a result of his disobedience (1 Kings 13:20-24). Ouch, that seems a bit harsh. But what can we learn from the story?
The man of God received his directions from the Lord Himself. Pretty straight-forward: 1) don't eat or drink until you get back, and 2) don't go home the same way you came. Fairly simple and direct personal revelation. So on his way home, someone else comes and says it's now okay (for whatever reason) to do contrary to the Lord's command, and he goes along with it. He received the original instructions through personal revelation, shouldn't any amendments or adjustments also come through the same channel?
The punishment of physical death seems to be a representation of the natural spiritual consequences we face when we are disobedient. There are many "spiritual lions" just laying in wait, ready to pounce on us when we step off the path.
Is the natural consequence of an action a punishment, or just how things work? For example, if we choose to disobey the law (in Alberta, anyway) by driving without wearing a seatbelt, when we get thrown through the windshield as the car hits something, is that our punishment or just the natural consequence? When we disobey a commandment, are we punished by being separated from the Spirit, or is that just natural cause and effect?
So, here's what I take from this story:
1. It is sometimes harder to be faithful under seemingly good circumstances than it is in the face of opposition. There wasn't anything Jeroboam could throw at this man to make him go against what the Lord had commanded. We see this many times in the Book of Mormon where the Nephites can stay faithful during times of war and hardship, but when things started getting easy for them they started to waiver.
2. Continuing personal revelation is vital, especially in our day. The directions we receive from the Lord through personal revelation are as binding as those which come to us from the prophet or other leaders.
3. There will be all kinds of convincing arguments on why we should disobey the commandments (usually just one or two at a time). In the end, the reasons and reasoning are irrelevent.
No comments:
Post a Comment