© 2009, Mike Parker For personal use only. Not a Church publication.Hurricane West Stake Adult Religion Class Doctrine and Covenants Sections 71, 73–75, 77, 86, 91, 113 Week 15, Page 9

D&C 77 a) This section is a prophetic explanation some of symbolism in the Revelation of John in the New Testament.

i) This book is an example of a type of Biblical literature known as an apocalypse. This word is borrowed almost directly from Greek (apocalupsis), where it means “revelation” in the sense of uncovering or unveiling something that is hidden.

(1) Other apocalypses in the scriptures include portions of Ezekiel and Daniel, as well as the visions of Lehi and Nephi.

(2) Apocalypses use symbolism and imagery, rather than literal description, to convey their message. D&C 77 is a question-and-answer session about some of the symbols used in the book of Revelation.

b) For example,in reference to the description of beasts in front of the throne of God in Revelation 4:6–9, this revelation explains that their multitude of eyes represent their knowledge (via the ability to see everything in front and behind), and their wings represent power to move and act.

i) Ultimately these point to the truth that God and his angels have all knowledge and all power.

c) One of the most interesting—and for some, difficult—passages is D&C77:6–7. i) This is the only passage in all of scripture that directly identifies the age of the earth:

[The sealed book which John saw contains] the hidden things of [God’s] economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

ii) Let’s start by defining some of the words as they were used when this revelation was given:

(1) From Daniel Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language: (a) Economy—Primarily, the management, regulation and government of a family or the concerns of a household.22

(b) Continuance—A holding on or remaining in a particular state, or in a course or series. Applied to time, duration; a state of lasting; as the continuance of rain or fair weather for a day or week.23

(c) Temporal—Pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular; as temporal concerns; temporal affairs. In this sense, it is opposed to spiritual.24

(2) So the sealed book contained the hidden things of God’s management, regulation, and government of his kingdom on earth during the seven thousand years of its being in this particular state, or pertaining to this period of time only.

(3) There are several ways to interpret this:

(a) The literal interpretation would be that mankind began only 6,000 years ago, meaning that Adam and Eve walked out of the Garden of Eden about 4000 B.C.

(i) This follows the chronology created by Anglican Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th century.25

1. Bishop Ussher calculated that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 B.C.

2. His calculations were based on the prevalent Christian belief that God created the earth in six days, therefore the earth must have a 6,000- year existence from that point, with each day being 1,000 years (2 Peter 3:8).

(ii) This has been widely accepted among traditional Christians and Latter- day Saints, but it’s not the only way to interpret the scriptures.

(b) A figurative or symbolic interpretation of D&C 77:6–7 could include the following:

(i) That the time periods of the seven seals are not strict 1,000-year periods, but are dispensations of great length, some longer than 1,000 years, some shorter.

1. For example, the dispensation of the gospel by Jesus Christ in the flesh lasted nearly 1,800 years, from his birth and death, through the apostasy of the early Church, until the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith.

22 Daniel Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 ed., s.v. “Economy,” def. 1; http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,economy

23 Webster, Dictionary, s.v. “Continuance,” def. 1; http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,continuance 24 Webster, Dictionary, s.v. “Temporal,” def. 1; http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,temporal 25 For more information on Ussher’s chronology, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

2. This is strengthened by the understanding that the number 1,000,as used anciently in the Bible, didn’t represent a strict, exact amount, but simply a very large number.26

a. Similarly, many Latter-day Saints accept that the six days of creation were not six 24-hour days, or even six 1,000-year “days,” but could be long periods of time, perhaps even millions of years each.27

3. Finally,there is also this passage in the Book of Mormon:

Yea, and behold I say unto you, that Abraham not only knew of these things, but there were many before the days of Abraham who were called by the order of God; yea, even after the order of his Son; and this that it should be shown unto the people, a great many thousand years before his coming, that even redemption should come unto them.” (Helaman 8:18; italics added.)

a. Question: Would four thousand years (as in 4000 B.C.) constitute “a great many thousand years” before his coming? Or does this imply something longer?

(ii) That the information in the sealed book only contained information about the world in this particular state or period of time, and that there was a time before the first dispensation of the gospel to Adam, during which the earth and the Lord’s creations upon it existed.

(c) The point here is not to force a specific interpretation upon anyone in this room, but to open up different possibilities that are acceptable to those who believe the earth is relative young and to those who believe it is very old.

© 2009, Mike Parker For personal use only. Not a Church publication.

Kerry A. Shirts MM, 32°, CM, RAM, KT

Eagle Rock Lodge #19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

January 2, 2011

After healing the ten lepers, Luke then presents (17:20-21) the Pharisees as questioning Jesus about when the Kingdom of God would come. Jesus’ response is interesting because he tries to show them their expectations are inaccurate in how they perceive what is to happen. The discussion of the meaning of the Greek statement βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν – ‘‘The Kingdom of God is within you,’’ in biblical scholarship circles is fascinating. It is ambiguous and various interpretations give shades of meanings that teach us a very important lesson. Based on syntactical, linguistic, and grammatical considerations, there is simply no one single correct way to interpret this statement. Dogmatism has to be laid aside with the realization that the Bible itself is never clearly one sided and simple in its meaning. Nor is there always a single correct interpretation and meaning. It isn’t the fault of the scholars, it is the very nature of the way Greek is constructed (and recorded as well as written by the ancient authors styles and choices of expression!) and how it can legitimately be translated into various ways, perfectly logic and coherent, and yet sometimes arriving at contradictory readings and meanings. ‘‘Ernst Kasemann argues that such theological variety in the early church is ‘so wide even in the New Testament that we are compelled to admit the existence not merely of significant tensions, but, not infrequently, of irreconciliable theological contradictions.’ Krister Stendahl agrees that such differences cannot and should not be resolved through clever exegesis because ‘when they are overcome by harmonization, the very points intended by the writers are dulled and distorted.’’’[1]

James H. Charlesworth perhaps presents the summary of the scholarly position in relation to what Luke does with the records. First, it is interesting to recognize that ‘‘unlike any other book in the New Testament, the Gospel of Luke specifically claims to be a carefully crafted text based on meticulous research.’’[2] Here then we have Luke the historian, researching and using the records which were available to him. Charlesworth, based on the evidence of the Gospels themselves, noted, ‘‘The evangelists were not mere compilers of tradition; They were editors of tradition. Each shaped his own work according to certain easily recognized tendencies.’’[3] The great Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown noted ‘‘each evangelist has ordered the material according to his understanding of Jesus and his desire to portray Jesus in a way that would meet the spiritual needs of the community to which he was addressing the Gospel. Thus the individual evangelists emerge as full authors of the Gospels, shaping, developing, pruning the tradition, and as full theologians, orienting that tradition to a particular goal.’’[4] According to one recent author, the eschatalogical apocalyptic hopes of the Jewish/Christians of Jesus’ day that the Kingdom of God would come, and hence save them from their enemies, are the hopes which Luke precisely here at 17:20-21, ‘‘counters the whole idea... tossing a wet blanket over eager eschatalogical hopes [which] is part of Luke’s agenda.’’[5] Let’s take a closer look at what Luke may have been driving at.

Georg Braumann described the apocalyptic feeling and situation in the second half of the first century. This apocalyptic fever ‘‘is documented in both Christian sources and other writings (cf. Josephus, War 6,5,4; Tacitus, History 5,13; Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Vespasian 4; 2 Thessalonians 2:2). It is against this background that Luke records 17:20-21... the Lucan eschatology is set within the context of a two-stage manifestation of the Kingdom of God as present and future.’’[6] And from here on, there are various divergent interpretations as to what Luke meant. Lets take a look at some of them.

Rudolf Bultmann warned against the ‘‘spiritualizing’’ of the meaning away in Luke so that Luke is saying ‘‘when the Kingdom comes, no one will ask and search for it anymore, but it will be there on a sudden in the midst of the foolish ones who will still want to calculate its arrival.’’[7]

The prolific Catholic scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer noted that Jesus’ response to the Pharisees is ‘polemical’ and that ‘‘it does not so much tell them when the kingdom will come as imply that they are misunderstanding what it is all about... his answer clearly tells them that they are not to look for the time of its coming or the place of its arrival. Jesus rejects all useless speculation about the coming of the kingdom. Rather, the kingdom of God is among you. This affirmation repeats in effect what he had said in 11:20. The sense of the phrase entos hymon has been much discussed, but one of two senses of it is likely in the Lucan Gospel: Either ‘among you,’ i.e. in the midst of you, in the presence of the person of Jesus himself and his ministry of preaching and healing; Or ‘among you.’ i.e. within your grasp, reach... in effect, Jesus would be putting his inquirers on the spot: Either they have not recognized what is in their presence or they have not allowed themselves to be accosted by his Kingdom-preaching.’’[8]

H. Meyer likwise noted that the person of Jesus in their midst was what was understood by the phrase ‘‘the kingdom of God is within you.’’[9] Beale and Carson note in favor of the idea ‘in your midst’ ‘‘possibly echoes Isaiah 45:14 – ‘God is among you,’ if Jesus indeed enphasizes that the kingdom of God is closely related to his person, message, and activity.’’[10] M. R. Vincent agreed with Meyer in acutely remarking that ‘‘‘you refers to the Pharisees, in whose hearts nothing certainly found a place less than did the ethical kingdom of God.’ Moreover, Jesus is not speaking of the inwardness of the kingdom, but of its presence. The whole language of the kingdom of heaven being within men, rather than men being within the kingdom is modern.’’[11]

Frederick Field described the various uses of the Greek for ‘‘within you,’’ in some of the classical Greeks’ use, and concluded that if the kingdom was not within the Pharisees hearts, that is precisely where it should be in the hearts of Christians. ‘‘Theophylact said let every man retire into himself, and see if he can find this kingdom in his heart; For if he find it not there, in vain will he find it in all the world besides.’’[12] Robert Hanna noted that of the two interpretations, the majority favor the meaning ‘within you,’ meaning in a person’s heart, rather than ‘among you,’ in the person of Jesus.[13] A. B. Bruce said the expression ἐντὸς ὑμῶν – ‘within you’ meaning ‘in your spirit’ is ‘‘the rendering [that] best corresponds with the non-visibility of the kingdom. The thought would be very appropriate one in discourse with disciples. Not so in discourse with Pharisees. To them it would be most natural to say ‘among you,’ = look around and see my works: devils cast out (Luke 11:20) and learn that the kingdom is already here.’’[14]

Ceslas Spicq noted the teaching of Jesus at Mark 1:15 that the kingdom of God was drawn near (engiken) and hence the verb being in the perfect indicative means an extreme closeness and immediate imminence, even a presence (‘it is here’). The reason for this is because of the ministry of Jesus himself. The ‘‘curious link between coming, being close, and being present occurs in John 4:23; 5:25 – ‘the hour is coming and now is.’ Finally the basileia entos hymon estin (Luke 17:20-21) which can be taken either as ‘among you, in your midst,’ meaning that the reign of God is present in Israel: or, ‘in you,’ meaning in each person who acts spiritually.’’[15]

The saying in Luke has a powerful parallel in one of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, as Helmut Koester noted. The Gospel of Thomas reads: ‘‘The disciples said to him, ‘When will the kingdom come?’ Jesus said, It will not come by looking for it. It will not be a matter of saying here it is, or there it is. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it.’’ Koester notes that ‘‘Thomas sees this coming of the kingdom primarily as an event that takes place as the disciples gain a new understanding of themselves.’’[16]

In this respect, the Gnostic view and understanding would be similar to what Jean-Yves LeLoup has written concerning this parallel with saying 113 and Luke. ‘‘ It is a matter not of searching here or there for some special manifestation, but of opening our eyes to what is already before us, here and now and caring for all that is. Yet one place where God is prevented from manifesting is in the heart that is closed to love, the heart that refuses forgiveness and revels in betterness. Hell is truly the incapacity to love. Another place from which God is banished is the intellect that closes itself off from the light of its source, the mind that no longer seeks true understanding and indulges in doubt that is only a defense of its ignorance.’’[17] Interestingly, regarding Elaine Pagels discussing Luke’s passage and Thomas’s interpretation of it shows that this personal ‘‘voice within us all,’’ this kingdom of God, which sometimes is interpreted as within and sometimes among us, is actually taken by John and Thomas, with echoes in Luke, not as the end but back to the beginning with the Logos! The kingdom begins with the light, and is the focus of John and Thomas, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, en arche en ho Logos – ‘In the beginning was the word.’ This is the true light that enlightens everyone who comes into the world. ‘‘According to Thomas, Jesus says this primordial light not only brought the entire universe into being but still shines through everything we see and touch. For this primordial light is not simply impersonal energy but a being that speaks with a human voice – with Jesus’ voice.’’[18]

Marvin Meyer, the Gnostic scholar, noted that ‘‘similar expressions [like Luke’s Kingdom of God is within you] are known from the Manichaean Psalm Book, particularly 160, 20-21: ‘Heaven’s Kingdom, look, it is inside us, look, it is outside us. If we believe in it, we shall live in it forever.’’’[19] Another analysis that sheds a bit more light on this is Culy, Parsons, Stigall, who note ἐντὸς ὑμῶν is ‘‘spatial. This expression cold either mean (1) ‘within you,’ or (2) ‘in your presence,’ presumably as a self-reference. Option (2) is supported by the fact that ἐν ἡμῖν (LXX), ἐντὸς ὑμῶν (Aquila) and ἐν μεσῷ (Symmachus) are apparently all viewed as synonymous renderings of Exodus 17:7. Option (1), on the other hand, has considerable support from ancient commentators (e.g., Origen, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Jerome. The fact that Luke uses only ἐντὸς here and concsistently uses ἐν μεσῷ to refer to ‘among’ also favors the former view. If (1) is adopted ὑμῶν must be taken as a general reference to ‘people’ rather than as a reference to the Pharisees.’’[20]

A close analysis was performed by F. Godet wherein he noted:

‘‘The words ἐντὸς ὑμῶν [within you] are explained by almost all modern interpreters in the sense of, in the midst of you. Philologically this is possible; It may be harmonized with the γὰρ. But the verb ἐστιν would in this casenecessarily be required to be put before the regimen; For this verb is would have the emphasis. ‘it is really present.’ The idea ‘among you’ would be secondary. If the regimen ἐντὸς ὑμῶν has the emphasis (and its place proves that it has), it can only be because these words contain the reason introduced by ‘for.’ They should therefore serve to prove that the kingdom of God may have come without its coming being remarked; And this is what follows from its internal, spiritual nature. The meaning of this regimen is therefore, ‘within you.’ Besides, the preposition ἐντὸς [within] always includes a contrast to the idea without. If, therefore, we give to it here the meaning of ‘among,’ we must still suppose an understood contrast, that between the Jews as people within, and the Gentiles as people without. There is nothing in the context giving rise to such an antithesis. In giving to ἐντὸς the meaning ‘within,’ we are led back to the idea expressed in the answer of Jesus to Nicodemus: Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, which confirms our explanation. It is the presence of essence.’’[21]

So what we see here in some biblical scholarship analysis is that there is no one correct way to interpret aspects of the Bible. The grammar aspects can help us out in many respects, but it is not the solve all panacaea we think. The grammar as well as the philology and syntax can be contradictory and quirky as well. What is important to realize is that by understanding the different aspects of what something might mean, we are free to choose what for us works best, without ever having to damn and condemn others if they understand things differently than we do. They may very well have very good reasons, evidence, and contexts to defend their own understanding, exactly as we do. There may very well be no final correct interpretation, just different interpretations. There may be no right and wrong, righteous and evil ways of understanding things in the Bible, just seeing that there can be ambiguity, and we are all striving our best to gain some light and knowledge, while allowing others to have theirs also.

Endnotes

1. Lee Martin McDonald, ‘‘Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question,’’ in Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, Hendrickson Publishers, 2002: 429.
2. Martin M. Culy, Mikeal C. Parsons, Joshua J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor University Press, 2010: xix.
3. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries, Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday & Co., 1988:18.
4. Raymond E. Brown, Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible, Paulist Press, 1990: 57.
5. Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prometheus Books, 2003: 277.
6. Georg Baumann, ‘‘Present,’’ in Colin Brown, Gen Editor, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 vols., Zondervan Publishing, 1971: quote in Vol. 2: 921.
7. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, Hendrickson Publishers, Revised edition, 1963: 121.
8. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV,  The Anchor Bible, Doubleday and Co., 1985: 1159.
9. H. A. W. Meyer, Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Handbook of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, Alpha Greek Library, reprint of 1884 edition, in 1979: 490-491.

10.  G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Baker Academic, 2007: 346.

11.  M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, MacDonald Publishing, 1888: 203.

12.  Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, reprint, 1994 of the 1899 Cambridge University edition, p. 71.

13.  Robert Hanna, A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament, Baker House Books, 1983: 132-133.

14.  A. B. Bruce, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Eerdmans reprint, 1976: The Synoptics, Vol. 1:594, note on vs. 20, 21.

15.  Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, 3 vols., Hendrickson Publishers, 1994, quote in Vol. 1:266-267.

16.  Arthur Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development, Trinity Press International, 1990: 83.

17.  Jean-Yves LeLoup, The Gospel of Thomas: The Gnostic Wisdom of Jesus, Inner Traditions, 2005: 220-221.

18.  Elain Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Random House, 2003: 31-32.

19.  Marvin Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, HarperSanFransisco, 1992: 69.

20.  Martin M. Culy, Mikeal C. Parsons, Joshua J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor University Press, 2010: 552.

21.  F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, The Foreign Theological Library, 2 vols., 5th edition translated from the French by M. D. Cusin, T & T Clark, latest impression, 1976, Vol. 2: 194.

Kerry A. Shirts, MM, 32°, CM, RAM, KT

Eagle Rock Lodge #19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

January 1, 2011

When we begin reading the Gospel of Mark, we soon run into the story of Jesus healing the leper (after he had healed many at Simon Peter’s Mother-in-law’s house – vss. 30-34), and Jesus says to him after he heals him -  Και εμβριμησαμενος αυτω ευθεως εξεβαλεν αυτον – “And having strictly charge him, immediately he sent him away. ”

 The Greek brings up something that is not grasped at all in the English translations. Kenneth Wuest noted the verb in the phrase “He straightly charged him,” “is embrimaomai (ἐμβριμαομαι) from brimaomai (βριμαομαι) “to be moved with anger.” The word Mark uses means “to snort,” and was used of horses. In the classics it meant “to be very angry, to be moved with indignation.”[1] Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer described this scene, based on the Greek as “After he had been angry at him, wrathfully addressing him… we are to conceive of a vehement begone now! Away hence! With this is connected also the forcible εξεβαλεν (exebalen – [KAS notes – from the verb ἐκβάλλω (ekballō) meaning “to throw out,”

 The anomaly arises because in verse 41 Jesus was said to have been moved with compassion for the leper’s plight! Here is how Wuest so beautifully expresses it:

 Jesus, moved with compassion, splagchnizomai (σπλαγχνιζομαι), passive voice. The pitiful state of the leper aroused in our Lord’s heart the feeling of pity and love. Expositors says, “Watch carefully the portraiture of Christ’s personality in this Gospel, Mark’s specialty.” Luke, describing the same incident, does not have the words “moved with compassion,” but has the same construction that Mark uses “having stretched out His hand,” an aorist participle, and “touched him,” an aorist verb, but instead of using the finite verb “saith” of Mark, he uses the present participle “saying.” This gives us a wonderful truth. The rule of Greek grammar that governs this construction is that the action of the present tense participle goes on simultaneously with the action of the leading verb. That is, Jesus was saying “I will” at the time He was touching the leper. But the thought “I will,” the determination to follow out His desire to cleanse the leper, and the act of cleansing him, all preceded the spoken words and the outstretched hand. All of which means that our Lord did not touch the leper in order to cleanse him, but to show him and the people around, that he was cleansed of his leprosy. The Levitical law forbad a Jew to touch a leper. Our Lord lived under that law and obeyed it. The first kind touch of a human hand that leper ever experienced, was the gentle touch of the Son of God.

How all this illustrates the sweet old story of the gospel. Leprosy is a type of sin. The sinner comes crying, “Unclean, unclean, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” And the Lord Jesus, moved with compassion, stretches out His hand and touches him, saying, “I will, be thou clean.” And, as in the case of the leper, He cleanses us from sin before He touches us. In John 1:12, justification precedes regeneration in the divine economy. Mercy is only given on the basis of justice satisfied. So it is, “But as many as appropriated Him, to them gave He a legal right to become born ones of God, to those who put their trust in His name.” And so, as the sinner recognizes the Lord Jesus as the One who through His outpoured blood on the Cross, procured for sinful man a legal right to the mercy of God, he becomes the recipient of regeneration and of all the other parts of salvation.

Be thou clean. The verb is in the aorist passive imperative. That is, “be cleansed at once.” It was an immediate cure.[4]

 So what gives? How come Jesus became so angry all the sudden? Even Moulton and Milligan noted the papyri discovered at the turn of the last century in heaps of garbage dumps dating back to ancient times (the famous Oxyrinchus papyri, among others) that the Greek verb we are dealing with, ἐμβριμαομαι is “difficult… in the New Testament, but the LXX usage… is in favor of the meaning ‘am angry,’ ‘express violent displeasure,’ perhaps with the added idea of ‘within oneself.’ ”[5] John P. Meier noted that ἐμβριμαομαι gives us the impression of “snorting or puffing with sterness bordering on anger. ”[6] F. J. A. Hort said “it is used of the expression of various kinds of strong feeling here = ‘sternly charging.’”[7]

 All that being said, Swete noted what perhaps ἐμβριμαομαι means within the semantic range of meaning within the New Testament and the Jewish world’s understanding of the term. Word’s meanings change through time, and this one is no exception. “But the idea of anger is not inherent in the word; see John 11:33, 38 where it is used of our Lord’s attitude towards Himself; rather it indicates depth and strength of feeling expressed in tone and manner. A close parallel to the present passage is to be found in Matthew 9:30. In neither case can we discover any occasion for displeasure with the subject of the verb… (Wycliffe – ‘thretenyde hym’ [threatened him] is too harsh… we may paraphrase ‘He gave him a stern injunction.’”[8]

 Wuest once again noted that “Vincent says, ‘The reason for this charge and dismissal lay in the desire of Jesus not to thwart His ministry by awaking the premature violence of His enemies; who, if they should see the leper and hear his story before he had been officially pronounced clean by the priest, might deny either that he had been a leper or had been truly cleansed.’ Expositors says, ‘He (Mark) does not mean to impute real anger to Jesus, but only a masterful manner dictated by a desire that the benefit should be complete—, away, out of this, to the priest; do what the law requires, that you may be not only clean but recognized as such by the authorities, and so received by the people as a leper no longer.’[9] Robertson says that embrimaomai (ἐμβριμαομαι) ‘expresses powerful emotion as Jesus stood here face to face with leprosy, itself a symbol of sin and all its train of evils.’[10] Mark has been shown to be displaying his own “character sketch” of Jesus, as opposed to how Matthew or Luke tended to portray Jesus through the grammatical usage of narrative, the use of imperfects, and other such devices, which portrays a Jesus more in action, more in sympathy and compassion.[11] As C. S. Mann noted, “Mark’s version, with its vivid detail, may owe far more to an original oral reminiscence than to the other evangelists.”[12]

 Another interesting angle by Mann is simply that Jesus’ “indignation” may not be focused on the poor leper and his suffering at all, nor at his supposed “disregard of legal prescriptions for isolation of such sufferers… but more likely is an indignation at the Satanic disorder in God’s creation.”[13]

 One thing is certain. Jesus was a passionate person. He was a compassionate person. He also was a law abiding citizen of his society as in this particular instance, “In compliance with the law given to Moses (Lev 14:1), he charges the newly restored man to show himself to the priest…(cf. Lev. 13:49).”[14] He was not out for personal vain-glory which is reinforced by the Greek verb ὅρα in the imperative mood which Hanna shows “is only a sort of particle adding emphasis to the imperative, ‘see that you say nothing to anyone.’ ”[15]

Analyzing the lexical semantics, grammatical descriptions, and linguistic interpretations of the Greek has, however, given us a deeper appreciation for this story. It has gotten us “behind” the scenes of the English a little better, with a deeper understanding of the emotional, spiritual, and seriously personal significance of this event for both, the leper and the Lord.

 Endnotes

1. Wuest, K. S. (1997, c1984). Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament (Mk 1:43). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, Alpha Publications, reprint in 1979 of the 6^th edition of 1884: 24.
3. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament  : Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (1:435-436). New York: United Bible societies.
4. Wuest, K. S. (1997, c1984). Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament (Mk 1:41). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
5. J. H. Moulton, G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, 2^nd ed., 2004:206.
6. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2, Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday & Co., 1994: 700.
7. F. J. A. Hort, Expository and Exegetical Studies, Compendium of Works Formerly Published Separately, Including the Gospel According to Mark,  Kloch & Kloch Christian Publishers, Limited Classical Reprint Library, 1980: 67.
8. Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, Kregel Publications, 1977, reprint, 1981: 30.
9. Wuest is quoting [accurately I might add] The Expositor’s Greek Testament, The Synoptic Gospels, by Alexander Balmain Bruce, Eerdfmans reprint 1976: 349.

10.  Wuest, K. S. (1997, c1984). Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament (Mk 1:43). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

11.  See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Zondervan, 6^th edition, 1996: 502.

12.  C. S. Mann, Mark, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday and Co., 1986: 218-219.

13.  Mann, Ibid., p. 219.

14.  G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Baker Academic, 2007: 129.

15.  Robert Hanna, A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament, Baker Book House, 1983: 61.

Kerry A. Shirts. MM, 32°, CM, RAM, KT

Ritualist/Education Officer

Eagle Rock Lodge # 19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

December 28. 2010

By doing a little browsing through the Bible, we can find all sorts of ideas which sometimes take us by complete surprise. A popularized Atheist Credo I have been told by atheists is that we Bible believers are taught not to think, but simply accept what we are told. I simply do not find that concept in the Bible. The exact opposite intellectual paradigm is actually presented to us to consider.

πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε – Prove All Things, Hold Fast That Which is Good is found in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. This entire discourse is given by Paul to keep the people in readiness and not get caught off guard. The exhortation to be sober in vss. 6 and 8 is the Greek word νήφω nēphō having the sense of sober watchfulness, while at  2 Timothy 4:5 we read: σὺ δὲ νῆφε ἐν πᾶσιν, “you, however, show sound judgment in all things.” Actually, the verb is always found with exhortations. Verse 11 reads, in part, the necessity of “edifying” one another. The Greek verb here is οἰκοδομέω (oikodomeō) which is used of building houses, with the idea of “building up” or “to make more able.” Paul, when talking to the Ephesians declared they were to be δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν εὐάρεστον τῷ κυρίῳ - “proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” The verb δοκιμάζω (dokimazō) is in the present active meaning there is no assessment of the action’s completion. It means to regard something as genuine or worthy on the basis of testing—to judge to be genuine, to judge as good, to approve. δοκιμάζοντες is the plural because it is spoken to the entire group of the Ephesians. Larkin notes that “the participle could indicate the process of critical examination to determine genuineness, (Philippians 1:10) but more likely points to a response to the result of the investigation” – ‘to draw a conclusion about worth on the basis of testing, prove, approve.’[1]

The same verb at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 – δοκιμάζετε – here is the imperative (a command in other words, or a serious request) present, active 2^nd person plural. They are commanded to prove everything, accept nothing told them by anyone in any state, drunken or sober (vss 4-8). Don’t de evil to anyone, (vs. 15) don’t follow the ways of the world, (vss. 11-13) be patient, support the weak, (vss. 16-20) help out the feeble-minded (vs. 14) (ὀλιγόψυχος – oligopsychos - implies, of course, that they are not to be feeble-minded, but strong-minded to succor those in need of help. An alternative translation is ‘encourage those who are losing heart’ 1 Thess 5.14. The expression ‘those who are losing heart’ is semantically negative, but can be expressed in a more specifically negative form in some languages, for example, ‘those who do not have courage’ or ‘those whose hearts are not strong.’)

No matter how we look at it, there is just simply nothing here that says don’t think. There is nothing here that says don’t test or don’t prove but simply believe in blind faith. John absolutely declares with pure power and logic the proper mental attitude of believers: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” This is as plain as it gets form 1 John 1:4. He declares quite openly - μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε – “Do not believe every spirit.” (my emphasis) The negative particle μὴ (mē) is a marker of negative purpose. He continued clearly without equivocation or question - ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα – “but test the spirits…” Here, as in Paul’s commands to the people he was teaching, John gives an imperative command in the active present – δοκιμάζετε (dokimazete). “

Δόκιμος, (dokimos) used in Greek literature for “tested (by battle), proved, recognized, authentic” (of persons and things), is rare in the LXX and is used there to designate metals as authentic.”[2] Swanson also notes that “In accordance with the formation of the verb with -αζω one may say that δοκιμάζω refers to the thought and action in which one proves that he is δόκιμος; δοκιμή is the result of this active voice. The active voice corresponds to an existence which consists in its fundamental referent, in knowledge and understanding. It is expressed as critical discernment (examination) and in practical testing of the experience of knowing or of being known in relation to oneself and to others.”[3]

The Bible is refreshingly direct at telling people to think, to learn, to do, and use our brains, in a total engagement of heart, mind, soul, body, and brains, to enjoy our earth lives, and have hope for the eternal life to come.

Endnotes

1. William J. Larkin, Ephesians A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor University Press, 2009: 115-116.
2. James Swanson A Dictionary of Biblical Languages: Greek New Testament, Logos, 2007, Vol. 1, p. 341.
3. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages, Vol. 1, p. 341.

Kerry A. Shirts, MM, 32°, CM, RAM, KT

Ritualist/Education Officer

Eagle Rock Lodge # 19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

December 23, 2010

The texts which I will exercise rigorous hermeneutical, exegetical, historical, and theological analysis are, for the most part, going to be 1 Peter 1:13 (hence the title of my paper) and Philippians 1:9-11. Investigating the Greek grammar, semantic range of meanings for words, exegetical and hermeneutic interpretations shed a great amount of light on the meaning of many biblical verses that are either misunderstood, mistranslated, or simply ignored.

The popularized atheist credo which the title of my paper alludes to is the general idea that we Christians are basically too stupid to critically think. Our belief in the Bible is misguided because it teaches us, in a nutshell, to simply sit down, shut up and accept our beliefs with “blind faith”which have no evidence. Never think critically for ourselves, but simply accept what our pastors, bishops or other church leaders teach from the pulpit. We don’t have the intellectual capacity to be “objective,” “scientific,” or even “realistic,” because the Bible proclaims that we are to accept things using “blind faith.” We can’t prove anything we believe in because we are taught not to think, but only believe and be naïve, both intellectually and realistically. The Bible programs us for dumb belief and to live in blind faith, hence we are brain washed stupid.

Granted the charges against us are emotionally laden, however, a close look at what the Bible actually does teach demonstrates that the atheist paradigm concerning our Christian intellect is itself terribly naïve and subjective, and worse still, completely wrong. Lets take a more careful look at what the Bible actually does say and teach, not relying merely on English translations, which miss the force of the Greek, but exploring the Greek meaning itself. The question is, just what does the Bible teach us about how to use our brains? Are we truly to simply shut up, sit down, and accept everything that is told without ever thinking for ourselves? Are we taught in the Bible to ignore the intellect and simply believe? This is what I will investigate in this paper.

The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith taught “A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world…”[1] He also taught “the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts… stretch as high as the heavens. No short cuts or easy lessons here! Note well that the Prophet makes no distinction between the things of the spirit and the things of the intellect.”[2] And this is what gave me the impetus for the title of my paper. The Greek in the title - Διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν – translates as “girding up the loins of your mind. ” The image is a good one! An alternative translation gives us “Have your minds ready for action is literally ‘gird up the loins of your mind.’ To ‘gird the loin’ was an appropriate metaphor for people in the Middle East at that time. These people normally wore long gowns, and when someone prepared for any strenuous activity, he ‘girded’ his robe, that is, he tied his robe securely (by using a belt, for example), to make sure that his robe would not be in the way. The metaphor therefore came to mean ‘be ready for action.’ The area of readiness in this verse is the mind… The NIV reads ‘prepare your minds for action.’”[3] The Greek phrase declares this clearly - ἀναζώννυμαι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας (anazōnnymai tas osphuas tēs dianoias), be ready to learn, prepare for action, formally, gird (bind) the loins of the mind, culturally equal to “roll up your sleeves for mental action.” (1Peter 1:13)[4] Louw and Nida in their Lexicon of Semantic Domains show that ἀναζώννυμαι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας: (an idiom, literally ‘to bind up the loins  of the mind’) to prepare oneself for learning and thinking—‘to get one’s mind ready for action, to be ready to learn and to think, to be alert.’ διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν ‘so then, have your minds ready for action’ 1 Peter 1.13.[5] Cf. Proverbs 31:17 – “She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.”

M. R. Vincent noted that this metaphor is appropriate because the girding up of the clothes or loins is “preparatory to running or other exertion. Perhaps recalling the words of Christ (Luke 12:35 – “Be properly dressed and have your lamps be lit”). Christ’s call is a call to active service. There is a fitness in the figure as addressed to sojourners and pilgrims who must always be ready to move (and whom Peter addressed as such at 1 Peter 1:1 and 2:11).”[6]

Kenneth Wuest in his characteristic excellent style of exegesis noted:

The word “to gird up” is in the aorist tense which refers to a past once-for-all act. Bringing this oriental expression over to the occidental manner of thinking, enables us to translate, “Wherefore, having put out of the way, once for all, everything that would impede the free action of your mind.” Peter treats this as a God-expected obligation on the part of the believer. In 1:3 we learned that as the believer definitely subjected himself to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, He would produce in his life through the Word, that Christian optimism that always looks for the best and not for the worst, that always sees the silver lining on every cloud. By the power of the same Holy Spirit, he is able to exert his will in putting out of his mind those things that would impede its free action. Thus, the Christian has the privilege of enjoying the wholesome mental atmosphere called “Christian optimism and a care-free mind,” not a mind devoid of an appreciation of the seriousness of life and its responsibilities, but a mind not crippled and frozen by worry, fear, and their related mental attitudes. Living in this blessed mental state, the believer is ready and able to obey the exhortations to which the apostle now addresses himself.

The first one is, “be sober.” The Greek word means, “to be calm and collected in spirit, to be temperate, dispassionate, circumspect.” It speaks of the proper exercise of the mind, that state of mind in which the individual is self-controlled, and is able to see things without the distortion caused by worry, fear, and their related attitudes. The second admonition is, “hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The words, “hope to the end,” do not refer to the Christian living in a state of hopefulness to the end of his life. The word “end” is the translation of teleios (τελειος)  which means “perfectly, completely.” The root idea of the word refers to that which is in a state of completeness. Thus this adverb qualifies the verb “hope” and describes this hope. It is to be a hope that is complete, a perfect hope, wanting nothing, being in its character an assured expectation. One could translate, “set your hope perfectly, unchangeably, without doubt and despondency.”[7]

F. J. A. Hort noted that the Greek genitive noun τῆς διανοίας (the mind, disposition, or thought) partially limits the meaning of “disciplined promptness” being the opposite of “slackness and indolent heedlessness.” διάνοια is usually meant “mind, and includes all in man that thinks.”[8] The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains  : Greek (New Testament) notes that διάνοια  includes mind, reasoning, understanding, thinking (Ephesians 4:18); 2. way of thinking, disposition, manner of thought (Colossians 1:21); 3. thought, the content of what one is thinking (Luke 1:51); 4. To be ready to learn, prepare for action (1 Peter 1:13)[9] Hort further noted that in Hebrew the idea of mind was the heart. “The heart according to Hebrew speech [was] being treated as the centre of thought as well as of every other human energy. [Greek] καρδία is immeasurably oftener the rendering…”[10] In the Sefer Yetzirah, we learn that “It is in the heart that the action of the Mind is manifest in the body. As soon as the influence of the mind ceases, the heart ceases to function, this being the definition of death. The heart also provides the life-force to the brain and nervous system. When the heart stops pumping, the nervous system can no longer function, and the mind no longer exerts influence on the body. The heart therefore serves as a casual link between mind and body. It is for this reason that Sefer Yetzirah calls the heart – ‘the king over the soul.’ It also describes the mystical experience as a ‘running of the heart.’”[11]

J. H. A. Hart noted that νήφοντες τελείως (nēphōntes teleiōs - the verb and adverb saying to be “completely sober”) is a recognized equivilant of the Hebrew lev – “heart.” He notes that “in cases like this it is natural to take the adverb with the preceding verb. τελείως [“completely”] (only here in the N.T.) has much the same force as τῆς διανοίας (the mind)... sobriety is necessary for watchfulness.”[12] Compare the metaphor in Eccles. 10:2 – “’The heart of a wise man is on his right, but the heart of a fool on his left.’ The exact meaning of the proverb, however, is obscure. Heart is probably to be taken for the judgment or understanding, and the sentiment is that a wise man has his understanding and is always at ready and vigorous command, while the opposite is the case with the fool.”[13]

When we turn to Paul’s comments to the Philippians we find something extremely interesting. I will analyze this piece by piece from verse 9 through verse 11.

καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει 10 εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ διαφέροντα, ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀπρόσκοποι εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, 11 πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ.[14]

And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, ¹⁰ so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, ¹¹ filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.(ESV)

καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, ἵνα – “And I pray this...”

The syntactical force of the deponent finite verb for “pray,” the Greek προσεύχομαι (proseuchomai in the present tense), is in a subordinate conjunctive relation and is modified by ἵνα (hina, meaning “in order that, ” or “so that”), hence Paul is continually praying, showing concern and desire for the Philippians. The Greek τοῦτο indicates what comes after it in this sentence. This is understood because of the ἵνα that follows.[15] Gerald F. Hawthorne indicates that καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, ἵνα shows that Paul is not only praying for them, but that he reveals the content of his prayer, “and I pray this, namely, that.... ” “The ἵνα here is a conjunction that introduces a clause explaining or expounding on τοῦτο (“this”) which Moule advocates this ἵνα denoting content. The content of his prayer then, is that the Philippians love may increase.[16] The verb προσεύχομαι – “pray” has a basic meaning which is stative or linear and is thus found in the present tense – “and I pray this, that your love may abound yet more and more…”[17] The epexegetical or appositional ἵνα in the subjunctive mood expresses a possibility, or an uncertainty, which Paul expresses here as καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι... ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀπρόσκοποι εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ - “and I pray this… that you may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ…”[18]

ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον – “that your love may abound more and more…”

J. B. Lightfoot says ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον (eti mallon kai mallon) is “an accumulation of words to denote superabundance...”[19] “The comparative adverb μᾶλλον is repeated for emphasis, and the emphasis is heightened by the ἔτι - “yet more and more.”[20] But in Philippians 1:23 note πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον (“a very much better thing”) where all this emphasis is due to Paul’s struggling emotion. The ancient Greek used all these devices very often.[21]

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει - “with knowledge and all discernment”

With that background, we arrive at the 2^nd crux of the matter for this paper. What appears in English translations however is lost from the Greek. This is saying something different than is translated, the same in some respects, but truly different. Sumney says this entire prepositional phrase can be understood to indicate the sphere of which the love of the Philippians is to abound. Hence the word ἐν denotes place (locative). Another angle to see this is ἐν may be instrumental, that is, indicating the means by which love is to grow. And here is what caused me to write this paper. What we lose in the English translations is powerfully in the Greek. Knowledge and insight are the causes of the growing love which will also help the Philippians discern what matters. The Greek καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει (“perception, discernment”) is a hapax legomenon, which means this word - αἰσθήσει -  occurs only once in the entire New Testament. The broad meaning gives us the idea of perception, “but in the proper context it signifies intellectual, especially moral perception or insight.”[22] This carries forward into the next phrase of verse 10 as well.

εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ διαφέροντα – This phrase is one of those rare instances where the articular infinitive with εἰς signifies result. It “expresses the goal or purpose pf the Philippians abounding in love through knowledge and (intellectual and moral) insight. The accusative articular infinitive τὸ δοκιμάζειν [δοκιμάζω - the verb dokimazō – means  “examine, try to out, test” (Luke 14:19; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 11:28; 2 Corinthians 8:8; Galatians 6:4; 1 Timothy 3:10); 2. regard as worthwhile (Romans 1:28), judge as good, regard something as genuine or worthy (Romans 1:28; 14:22][23] establishes the idea of proving something, to examine it, work it in our intellects and minds. This is the actual object of εἰς, which means ὑμᾶς is the subject and τὰ διαφέροντα (“to be worth more than, or be superior to”) is the object of “you” (the Philippians. In other words, The Philippians are to use their minds, turn on their brains, examine things, prove truths, and gain insights which increases love for each other.)[24]

The entire point of Paul encouraging the Philippian Saints to “use your brains” and improve the intellect, is the subjunctive desire and hope of Paul that the Philippians be found “blameless,” and “spotless.” The Greek shows this with the ἵνα clause which “expresses the purpose of their being able to properly discern.”[25] It is through the intellectual powers of our minds, the focus, the concentration, which gives us the power of discerning what truly matters, as Paul properly taught the ancient Philippians. Dr. Nicoll puts it this way: “Apparently an eager and enthusiastic spirit prevailed in this church. As so commonly it might be accompanied by a slight want of discernment. That would lead, on the one hand, to misunderstandings over trifling matters (cf. chap 4. 2?), on the other, to give heed to plausible teachers. As the Galatians combined enthusiasm and fickleness, perhaps at Philippi, enthusiasm was apt to prevail over spiritual common sense… a firm conception of those spiritual principles which would guide them in their relations with one another and the world - αἰσθήσει – a moral sensibility, quickness of ethical tact. Originally of sense-perception, but applicable to the inner world of sensibilities.”[26]

Notice, the spiritual principles are understood and able to be used because of, not in spite of intellectual efforts and moral thinking. The mind is every bit as engaged as the heart and soul is to be. Lightfoot mentions that αἰσθήσει (being the capacity to understand, the faculty for distinguishing the real nature of something, hence the idea of perception) “is concerned with practical applications.”[27] Robert Hanna described the Greek τὰ διαφέροντα (the idea of making a difference, to be able to surpass, carry about or differ) as the ability to make moral distinctions and understand inferior from superior values. “Paul’s deep concern for the Philippian believers is that they continue to grow toward maturity.” [28] That maturity process was an intellectual one as well as spiritual one. The same theme of Paul was taught to the Ephesians when he was there.

At Ephesians 3:18-19 we find Paul saying “…that you, being rooted and grounded in love, ¹⁸ may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, ¹⁹ and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”

The Greek for having the strength to comprehend is κατα-λαβέσθαι the aorist infinitive middle voice -λαμβάνω seize, apprehend; also mentally, grasp.[29] Larkin says that the middle voice here “reinforces the subject’s role in ‘grasping, finding, understanding.’”[30] Like his desire to the Philippians, the Ephesians are also very seriously strongly encouraged to use their intellect. Engage your brain, learn, and gain the strength, ability, and power to grasp truth, in the Ephesians instance, the truth of God’s love through Jesus Christ. Markus S. Barth says “Paul points out that knowledge of the full dimensions of God’s secret cannot be easily mastered…” He further noted that this theme of grasping belongs to the vocabulary of fighting against an opponent, since strength is required to seize an opponent or to sack an acropolis. The verb “to grasp” at 3:18 however, is used metaphorically. This is at least as common as the physical says Barth: “Here it means to comprehend, to acknowledge a fact.”[31] Clearly Paul puts knowing God’s love, learning to differentiate significant from insignificant things, and basically gaining for oneself the knowledge of God in the intellectual realm of the mind, which includes a spiritual, ethical element of belief and action as well. As Ellicott so properly noted, the entire purpose of Paul’s concern was to teach, to encourage the saints to “discriminate,” learn and use our brains in “proving or approving of what is excellent…”[32] Or as another scholar wrote, “discern what is vital. Frequently in Stoicism the verb dokimazo here means to examine, hold an inquiry, or make a test in order to evaluate and judge and finally to retain what is of value. The present participle diapheronia was also current in Greek and Hellenistic philosophy to denote what was important or essential.”[33] This is achieved through “a discriminating love. It is to be accompanied by knowledge (ἐπιγνώσει) and understanding (αἰσθήσει), intellectual and moral insight... Paul is not averse to taking up ideas and traditions from the intellectual world around him to put them to good use...”[34]

This cursory look into a few of the ideas of the Bible from the Apostle Paul indicates that he was very concerned, enough concerned to seriously advocate, indicate, and inculcate the idea of using our brains, testing things for ourselves, proving, and then using that knowledge to good effect in our lives. It is indeed an intellectual, spiritual, and practical necessity and possibility as Paul well taught. And we admit, this teaching was first given anciently, and yes, we incorporate it into our own lives. There is nothing here which indicates a propounding of a doctrine of “shut up, sit down, and belief with blind faith.” The generalized atheist attitude against Christians on this score is simply not sustainable from looking at the foundation text of Christian doctrine and practice, the Bible. Unless the atheists are simply just too subjectively biased against the Bible, or else they are simply misreading and misunderstanding what it teaches. Imagine that. An “objective scientific thinking” atheist misreading the Bible! Who woulda thunk it?

Endnotes

1. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book Co., 22^nd printing, 1973: 217.
2. Hugh Nibley, “Zeal Without Knowledge,” in Truman Madsen, editor, Nibley on the Timely and Timeless, BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978: 268.
3. Daniel C. Arichea, Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter From Peter, United Bible Societies, 1980: 33-34.
4. Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains  : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLG 350). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
5. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament  : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (1:332). New York: United Bible societies.
6. M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, MacDonald Publishing, 2^nd edition, 1888: 303.
7. Wuest, K. S. (1997, c1984). Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament  : For the English Reader (1 Peter 1:13). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
8. F. J. A. Hort, “The First Epistle of Saint Peter,” in Expository and Exegetical Studies: Compendium of Works Formerly Published Separately, Kloch and Kloch Christian Publishers, Limited Classical Reprint Library, 1980: 65.
9. Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains  : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLG 1379, #4). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

10.  Hort, Ibid., p. 65. Cf. Duncan Black MacDonald, The Hebrew Philosophical Genius, Russell & Russell, 1965:12-13.

11.  Aryeh Kaplan, Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation, Samuel Weiser, Inc., Revized, 1997: 9. See Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, Academie Books, n.d., p. 178 where the Greek word for heart – καρδία (kardia) is etymologically related to the English word “core.”

12.  J. H. A. Hart, “Petroh A,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, (Vol. 5), Wm. B. Eerdmans, reprint, 1976: 48.

13.  Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, Academie Books, n.d., p. 333.

14.  The Greek New Testament, Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Robinson, M., & Wikgren, A. (1993; 2006). Fourth Revised Edition (with Morphology) (Php 1:9-11). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

15.  Jerry L. Sumney, Philippians: A Greek Student’s Intermediate Reader, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007: 14.

16.  Gerald F. Hawthorne, Word Biblical Commentary Philippians, (Vol. 43), Word Books Publishers, 1983: 25.

17.  Wesley J. Perschbacher, New Testament Greek Syntax, Moody Press, 1995: 340.

18.  Perschbacher, New Testament Greek Syntax, p. 339.

19.  J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Hendrickson Publishers, 2^nd printing, 1982: 86.

20.  Sumney, Philippians, p. 14.

21.  Robertson, A. T. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (664). Logos.

22.  Sumney, Philippians, p. 15.

23.  Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains  : Greek (New Testament)  (DBLG 1507, #3).

24.  Sumney, Philippians, p. 15.

25.  Sumney, Philippians, p. 15.

26.  W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, (Vol. 3), “The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians,” Wm. B. Eerdmans, Reprint, 1979: 421, note on vv.9-11.

27.  Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 86, note 9.

28.  Robert Hanna, A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament, Baker Book House, reprint, 1983: 359.

29.  Zerwick, M., & Grosvenor, M. (1974). A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (584). Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

30.  William J. Larkin, Ephesians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor University Press, 2009: 63.

31.  Markus S. Barth, Ephesians 1-3, Anchor Bible, Doubleday and Co., 1974: 372.

32.  Rt. Rev. Chas. J. Ellicott, Ellicott’s Commentaries, Critical and Grammatical, on the Epistles of Saint Paul with Revised Translations, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, The James Family, Christian Publishers, reprint, 1978: 28.

33.  Jean-Francois Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians, translated from the French by A. W. Heathcote, London, Epworth Press, 1979: 49.

34.  Hawthorne, Word Bible Commentary, Philippians, p. 26-27.

My good friend and fellow LDS researcher/scholar Ben McGuire has yet again written a profound response to a very good question which we Christians run across from time to time. McGuire's response is seriously thoughtful, and powerfully discussed. Well worth the reading! Thanks Ben for allowing me to post this!

The Question is:

I recently came across a video presentation courtesy of my ex  wife 

called zietgiest (one and two) which talks// shows parallels of  saviour figures 

thru mythology and biblical parallels...quite convincing  figures that predate 

christ and the hidden symbology meanings..has  anyone come across this..quite 

sophisicated anti christian thing before  and is there any information that 

dicusses this on a scholarly level..i  understand this is meant to destroy faith 

and the position of christ as  the saviour<<

Ben McGuires' Response:

There are several things that go on with this kind of claim. I know one of the professors at BYU who teaches statistics. One of the things he introduces to his students is the notion that apparently weird stuff happens. His example that he likes to use is of the guy who wins a million dollar lottery twice in a seven year period. The probability seems tiny. After all, the odds of winning once (in this example) is about 1 in 13 million. So the probability of it happening twice would seem to be that number squared - or 1 in a half quintillion. That just couldn't happen - so this guy must have cheated right?

However, this is all done by identifying things after the fact. It would have been that way if we attempted to identify this guy before he played the first time. However, given the number of people who play the lottery over that same seven year period, the odds of it happening to someone, somewhere is over 90%. What seems like a coincidence so unlikely to be unbelievable is actually quite reasonable. The same kind of issue happens here. Religions in general share a language of the sacred. They often independently relate their messages in similar ways. The more you read about this kind of process of comparison, the more you realize that what seemed quite convincing at first isn't really convincing at all.

If you want a basic overview and an understanding of this notion from a scholarly perspective, the very best work on the subject (at a reasonable price even) is a book by Johnathon Z. Smith titled _Drudgery Divine_ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1994). You can get a copy from Amazon delivered for about $25.00.

Here are a couple of bits from that book -

"The most frequent use of the terminology of the ‘unique’ within religious studies is in relation to Christianity; the most frequent use of this term within Christianity is in relation to the so-called ‘Christ-event’. … The uniqueness of the ‘Christ-event’, which usually encodes the death and resurrection of Jesus, is a double claim. On the ontological level, it is a statement of the absolutely alien nature of the divine protagonist (monogenes) and the unprecedented (and paradoxical) character of his self-disclosure; on the historical level, it is an assertion of the radical incomparability of the Christian ‘proclamation’ with respect to the ‘environment’. For many scholars of early Christianity, the latter claim is often combined with the former so as to transfer the (proper, though problematic) theological affirmation of absolute uniqueness to an historical statement that, standing alone, could never assert more than relative uniqueness, that is to say, a quite ordinary postulation of difference. It is this illicit transfer from ontological to the historical that raises the question of the comparison of early Christianity and the religions of Late Antiquity." (p. 39)

Smith explains here that the notion of uniqueness in the context of early Christianity deals with two separate and distinct concerns. On the one hand, 

there is the claim within Christianity of a Jesus that is absolutely incomparable (the ontological and theological claim). This is Jesus as God. On the other hand there is a statement of an environmental uniqueness – that the historical process was different (relatively speaking) from any other historical 

process. The problem occurs as Smith notes when we suggest that ontological/theological claims are identical with the historical claims – and thus suggest that all we needs to be done to deny the ontological and theological claims is to place them in an environment by stressing similarities (and not differences) within that environment. This is what these comparisons try to do. Christian (and Mormon) apologists develop this concept of ‘uniqueness’ in response to charges that it was not in any way unique (even if there was and is some validity in the ontological arguments). 

Smith's book then goes on to discuss this issue within the context of various religious movements and their opponents. These kinds of parallels are often effective (as you note) as a means to destroy faith because individuals often share misconceptions with those who forward these kinds of arguments. Larry Hurtado discusses this issue in some detail in his book _Lord Jesus Christ Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity_ (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2003). There he introduces two major lines of  thought dealing with the development of the idea that Jesus was divine. The one group claims that there is nothing extraordinary about such a belief – it is easy to understand Jesus as divine simply because he was divine. The other group he describes “arose in large part in reaction against this naïve and ahsitorical view”. For these, the notion of Jesus as divine wasn’t particularly noteworthy either. After all, when viewed as a historical process, early Christian devotion could be seen as a natural expansion on ‘pagan’ views. But of these two positions, Hurtado notes:

"Before we proceed further towards analyzing Christ-devotion as a historical phenomenon, however, it may be helpful to note a relevant (and in my view misguided) assumption shared by both the pre/anticritical and the history-of-religion approaches. It is worth identifying because it continues to be influential in both popular and scholarly circles. This is the notion that the validity of a religious belief or practice is called into question if it can 

be shown to be a truly historical phenomenon, and the product of historical factors and forces that we can attempt to identify and analyze. … Wishing to preserve the religious and theological validity of traditional christological claims, the anticritical view attempted to deny or minimize as far as possible the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion. On the other hand, 

the history-of-religion scholars were convinced that their demonstration of the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion proved that it was no longer to be treated as theologically valid or binding for modern Christians. In both views the assumption is the same: if something can be shown to have arisen through a historical process, then it cannot be divine "revelation" or have continuing theological validity."

Hurtado sees the problem in terms of two sides competing with a similar but flawed set of assumptions. The assumption that Hurtado sees at work is that if something can be shown to arise through a historical process, then it cannot be revealed. This is largely the same argument that Jonathon Smith provided. The one side attempts to show that because of the historical process, the subject matter cannot be revealed. The other side denies the historical process and simply claims revelation. Hurtado is quite clear about this: “the misguided assumption I am criticizing here has obviously worked mischief in scholarship. ... it has led a good deal of historical-critical scholarship to opt for some simplistic historical analyses in the interest of opposing traditional Christian beliefs.”

The notion is applicable to your question – because the same principle is at work. The basic idea is that through the comparison, those things that we felt 

were "original" or "unique" are shown to be perhaps quite ordinary. And the underlying notion is that not only is it quite possible for such a belief to have developed without a need for revelation or some kind of origin in God, but that it seems almost that we should have expected just such a development.

In the 18th century, this approach was widely employed by various groups generally in a polemical fashion to attack other religious groups. And in fact some of this literature had an influence on the early LDS Church and its leaders (for example, the idea of a "primitive church" as expressed in our Articles of Faith comes largely from this kind of literature). By the end of the 19th century, this kind of comparative effort had come under attack, and in the early 20th century (and certainly by 1930), this kind of approach had largely been abandoned within scholarly literature. 

As an example, William E. Paden in the introductory material to his book: _Religious Worlds: The Comparative Study of Religion_ wrote (quoting the 1994 

edition):

"Comparison has also been used as a polemical weapon by religions themselves to show the inferiority of other traditions and the superiority of one's own. It has been used to show that all religions are really the same. It has been used to show that all religions are false. Many people sense that the absoluteness of their own beliefs is threatened by the existence of parallels elsewhere. To there is a kind of politics of comparison.

In some ways comparison is simply unavoidable. We all employ comparison every day, and thinking itself is in large measure based on it. It is built into language and perception. What a thing "is" is determined by its similarity and diference with other things like or unlike it. Science would be impossible without it, and without it the realm of metaphor would vanish. The analogical process is part of the way every cultural system classifies its world.

Comparison can create error and distortion as well as insight and knowledge, and this is noticeably so in the area of relgion. Religious phenomena have been compared for centuries, but not necessairly in the pursuit of fair description or accurate understaning. Comparison is most often a function of self-interest. It gets used to illustrate one's own ideology. It easily becomes an instrument of judgment, a device for approval of condemnation."

Paden goes on to provide several guidelines for these kinds of comparisons that help to limit the abuse and enhance their use for understanding - I have summarized three of them here:

1 - Historical facts are necessary to keep comparisons honest - to challenge in particular generalizations that comparisons like to use (things are always more similar when we make generalizations about them as opposed to getting specific details).

2 - comparative analysis deals with analogy, not identity. It compares things that have similarities that are otherwise quite different. Looking at distintive and original features is just as important as looking at the similarities.

3 - Comparison is not an end in itself - it merely supplies a comparative perspective, which should add to our understanding of all of the elements being compared.

In the end, I think that Mormonism as a whole reacts to different aspects of this in different ways. On the one hand, we believe in ongoing revelation. There is no fixed canon. We do not believe that we already know everything that we need to know, or that all the necessary knowledge about God is already encoded in our scripture. In fact, we accept the idea that new revelation when it occurs (and when it becomes necessary) can correct or reinterpret or even replace what we previously held as revelation. We see in our own faith the idea that a religion can both be revealed and grow out of an environment that has influenced its past teachings and leaders. The other thing that we can see is that while it is also possible to compare Mormonism to other religious movements, and to talk about Mormonism on these same terms, we find that there are things within it that are quite distinctive and perhaps even original. When we look at the Christ event - when we look at Jesus Christ and his life and teachings - it isn't so much the things that we find everywhere that are useful to help us understand our faith - it is the things that are very distinctive. To use the language that Johanthon Smith used in the first book I quoted from, when we place Christianity within a historical context, we may find things that are not unique, that are shared with other events and movements and religious narratives. But, within its ontological and theological context, Christianity presents us with something that is not ordinary, and that is not commonplace, and any simplistic analysis will simply avoid this part of the discussion, pretending (as Smith tells us) that these two issues are merely one and the same.

The more you read of current approaches to parallels and the scholarly literature discussing comparative religion, the less and less convincing these kinds of parallels will seem. The appear convincing mostly because we haven't ever taken the time to consider their impact. 

For a very detailed scholarly look at the topic (and you will probably want to find a library with this book, as it costs a significant amount) I recommend 

 _Comparing Religions Possibilities and Perils?_ by Thomas Athanasius Idinopulos, Brian C. Wilson, and James Constantine Hanges, eds. (Brill: Leiden, 2006)

In Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times

Hugh W. Nibley

Reprinted by permission from Mormonism and Early Christianity, vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1987), 100–67. It also appeared in the Improvement Era 51 (December 1948): 786–88, 836–38; 52 (January 1949): 90–91, 109–10, 112; 52 (March 1949): 146–48,180; 52 (April 1949):212–14.

Pages 105-109

To the Jews "the gates of hell" meant something very specific. Both Jews and Christians thought of the world of the dead as a prison—carcer, phylake, phroura—in which the dead were detained but not necessarily

It is the proper function of a gate to shut creatures in or out of a place;[4] when a gate "prevails," it succeeds in this purpose; when it does not "prevail," someone succeeds in getting past it. But prevail is a rather free English rendering of the far more specific Greek katischyo, meaning to overpower in the sense of holding back, holding down, detaining, suppressing, etc. Moreover, the thing which is held back, is not the church,[5]for the object is not in the accusative but in the partitive genitive: it is "hers," part of her, that which belongs to her, that the gates will not be able to contain. Since all have fallen, all are confined in death which it is the Savior's mission to overcome; their release is to be accomplished through the work of the church, to which the Lord promises that at some future time he will give the apostles the keys. In one of the very earliest Christian poems Christ is described as going to the underworld to preach to the dead, "And the dead say to him, …'Open the gate to us!'" whereupon the Lord, "heeding their faith," gives them the seal of baptism.[6]Baptism for the dead, then, was the key to the gates of hell which no church claimed to possess until the nineteenth century, the gates remaining inexorably closed against those very dead of whose salvation the early Christians had been so morally certain. In passing it should be noted that this poem in its conclusion definitely associated the release of the dead with the "rock."

Thus thy Rock became the foundation of all; upon it didst thou build thy kingdom, that it might become a dwelling place for the saints.[7]

The same idea is even more obviously expressed by Ignatius in what is perhaps the earliest extant mention of the rock after New Testament times, making it equivalent to the high priest…to whom alone the secrets of God have been confided… This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock…the Key…the Gate of Knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the host of prophets.[8]

From which it is clear that Matthew 16:17–19, with its combination of gates, keys, and rock, definitely hinges on the subject of salvation for the dead, and the work by which they are admitted to the presence of the Father.

Those who fondly suppose that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" is a guarantee of the security of the church on this earth[9] are inventing a doctrine diametrically opposed to the belief of the early church. If there was one point on which the primitive saints and their Jewish contemporaries saw eye to eye, it was the belief that Satan is "the prince of this world,"[10] nay, "the god of this world."[11] It is here that men are under his power, and here that he overcomes the kingdom of God by violence.[12] "The days are evil," says the Epistle of Barnabas, "and Satan possesses the power of this world."[13] Beyond this earth his power does not extend: Jehovah alone rules in the spirit world, according to the Jewish doctrine, and his angels stand guard over the wicked ones.[14] It is on this earth that the devil is to be conquered and his power finally broken—he has no other stronghold to which to flee.[15] When he goes to hell, it will not be in triumph, but to be bound and imprisoned there.[16] His bonds are the "snares and deceptions" that "bind the flesh of men with lust," and which will be meaningless after the judgment, when none may enjoy the prerogative of being deceived.[17] When the devil rules hereafter it will be only over those "sons of perdition" who willingly follow his example.

The medieval idea that the devil is the proper ruler of the dead is a borrowing from obvious pagan sources, popular and literary.[18] In the earliest versions of what eventually became the medieval Easter drama, the Harrowing of Hell, Satan and Death appear as rulers of different spheres: in the dialogue between them Death begs Satan to retain Christ in his realm, which is the earth, so that he might not descend and cause havoc in the underworld.[19] This idea appears in the very old pseudo-gospel of Nicodemus, wherein Satan, boasting that he has overcome Christ on earth, asks Death to make sure that the Lord's mission is likewise frustrated in his kingdom below.[20] No less a scholar than Harnack after prolonged searching declares that he knows of no passage in which "the Gates of Hell" signifies the realm of Satan, or is used to refer to the devil himself or to his hosts.[21]

"The gates of hell," then, does not refer to the devil at all; though his snares and wiles might lead men sooner or later to their death, delivering them "to the destruction of the flesh,"[22] his power ends there. The gates of hell are the gates of hell—the "holding back" of those who are in the spirit world from attaining the object of their desire.

There is a great wealth of oriental legend and liturgy recalling how a divine hero overcame Death in a knock down and drag-out contest-the central episode of the famous Year-drama.[23] Sometimes the hero smashes the door of the underworld as part of his campaign. Contamination from these sources was sure to occur in the Christian interpretation of Christ's mission to the "underworld," but as Schmidt has shown at length, the early Christians never connect the two traditions: there is no fight when Christ goes to open the way for the release of the dead; he meets absolutely no opposition, and does not have to smash the gates, since he has the key.[24] How incompatible the two versions are is apparent in those early accounts which, characteristically, attempt to combine them. Thus when Prudentius, the first great Christian poet, tells of Christ's visit to the underworld, he includes the gate-smashing episode, derived not from any Christian source, however, but borrowed from the tragedy Hercules Furens of the pagan Seneca.[25]

Thus in the Odes of Solomon:

And I opened the doors that were closed; I rent asunder the iron bolts…and nothing appeared closed to me, since I myself was the gate of everything; and I went to all my imprisoned ones to free them, so that I left none in bonds; and I imparted my knowledge without stint…sowing my seed in their hearts and turning them to me.[26]

Christ would hardly smash the gate if he himself were the gate.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBackyardProfessor?feature=mhw4#p/u/4/jja1xx3s54A

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thebackyardfreemason

Here is my introduction to the videos on Freemasonry I will produce over the next several years. I hope they are beneficial, enjoyable, funny, and  informative.
 

Kerry A. Shirts, 32°

Eagle Rock Lodge #19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

May 16, 2010

 The “All-Seeing Eye” in Freemasonry has the intention, the guided meaning for us that “all the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his goings; that the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good, and especially upon them that fear him and hope in his mercy.”[1] Sir Lionel Brett claimed that “the concept of an all-seeing deity goes back at least to Euripides, 5^th century B.C.. The phrase was proverbial.”[2] And, of course, as a symbol, not to mention the actual reality, the eye is the most important sense we possess, since it is through the eye we receive light, the most significant goal of Freemasonry. “In the symbolism of Freemasonry, the ‘all-seeing eye’ in the triangle and surrounded by sunbeams appears in many lodges over the master’s chair, a reminder of the wisdom of the Creator, the “Great Master Builder of All Worlds,” penetrates all secrets; the eye is in some contexts also called the ‘eye of providence.’”[3] These ideas resonate in the ancient Egyptian concept of the Wedjat eye, also called “The Eye of Horus.”

 Rather than worrying about tracing the origin of the concept or the actual time the phrase was first used, or when it was adopted into Freemasonry, I will share some themes from the ancient Egyptian concept of the “Eye of Horus,” and it’s meanings, themes, and contents in the ancient Egyptian rites.

 This comparison of religious ideas and symbols, and what they mean help us learn more about our own usages of the symbolisms at our disposal in Freemasonry. They give us a different view, a contrasting perspective, and an intellectually stimulating inclusive comprehension of not only ancient symbols and their meanings and use, but of our own.

“The Eye of Horus was multivalent. It represented life; it also represented order. It was the eye snatched away by Seth, tore apart in the battle, restored to wholeness by Thoth, and returned to Horus (who then offered it to Osiris); it was reestablished order, sound and perfect again.”[4] Hans Bonnet indicated that it represented a symbol of triumph over any attack, which meant the power of the Eye, the light of God, was a healer, a sign of salvation (heilszeichen).[5] Bonnet also describes how it repels evil “als Amulett der Befriedung es bricht auch die Macht des bosen Blickes,” – “as a charm of pacification, it breaks the power of the evil look.”[6] Eberhard Otto “maintains that it is a symbol of ‘physical health,’ and ‘the beautiful connection between God and man through light.’”[7] There it is again, the theme of light, as well as power, order, including healing, salvation, health, etc., everything good in other words. Freemasonry is congenial with all of these concepts.

The “All-Seeing Eye of Justice” was associated with Ma’at, the Egyptian concept of order, regulation, law, etc. The eye imposes order and reverence on the world.[8] One of its functions is combining with the oil of healing which revives a smitten hero (usually the king). As a food substance, it is “the power of the bread which fills, revives, and strengthens the king.”[9] This reminds us of the wages of a Freemason, of the corn, oil, and wine and their functions, all done under the “All-Seeing Eye.” It is really instructive to grasp that it was the “corn measure” used in Egypt for their mathematical fractions, that represented the various parts of the Wedjat Eye, which when all added together, give the eye its wholeness, health, and makes it the perfect eye, “the sound eye.” This is the “filling,” and “completing” the eye.[10] In Freemasonry, corn represents “all the nutritious fruits of the earth; the emblem of wine, implying all that nature affords to gladden the heart, and the emblem of oil… represents nature’s bounties, the wages of practical labor.”[11]

We even learn “it was for the Egyptians the creative eye that gives form and hence existence to things: ‘I am Shu, the image of Re, seated in the interior of the Eye of his Father. The eye creates and nourishes… to inspire love in the soul. In the Memphite theology… the tongue (word) and the heart (mind) of the God Ptah are the source of creation. But the Eye itself has creative power. ‘My Eye meditated upon the divine tear which I shed on myself, and men and women came into being from it.’”[12]

The theme of the eye tied with the sun cycle is also interesting to Freemasonry from a purely informative point of view. The Egyptian shen ring was a symbol of the solar cycle (Sonnenzyklus), and Horus, as the Sungod, enters the soil of the earth in the west at sunset, in order to renew his Eye, (sein Auge zu erneuern) and is regenerated with new life as he rises as the sun in the east.[13] Any Freemason will have in mind the lodge as aligned from the east to the west, and the movement and meaning of the sun through the day from sunrise, to the meridian point of the day, to sunset in the west, and who symbolizes the three stations of the sun in the lodge, all underneath the “All-Seeing Eye” as Lodge business is conducted. W. Kirk MacNulty showed the idea of the direction in Freemasonry signifying that “they traveled East in search of instruction, and West to propagate the knowledge they had gained.” The real dynamism however is realized when the “journey from west to east is represented, symbolically, by the progress through the Masonic degrees; and it is, in fact, the ascent up Jacob’s Ladder…” [14]

“The all-seeing eye” also represents the sun in the Scottish Rite, since it is, from our earthly perspective, the sun which gives the light and life here on earth. Without it, life is simply impossible on our oblate spheroid.[15]

In his Doctoral Dissertation, T. G. Allen also demonstrated how the Eye of Horus represented the sun. It connects with the deceased king’s own person identified with Horus, and further “became identified likewise with the magic Horus-eye.”[16] The eye is labeled as “large,” “great of honor,” “powerful,” “sound,” “sweet,” “flourishing,” etc. Everything good, true, beautiful, and noble is associated with the Egyptian eye, heal, strength, and life is the overall theme.[17] It is an offering to the King associated with oil, wine, fruit, meat, barley, incense, food, and nourishment.[18] Perhaps because the eye represented the sun, we understand the description “The gods of East and West are satisfied with the great thing which came to pass in the embrace of the offspring of the god (msw.t.ntr).[19] The symbolism and myth of the sun as it encircles the earth, and how we imitate its journey in the lodge is important. We incorporate ourselves into the cosmological dramatic myth. “A myth always contains a religious truth…from the waters of chaos the primeval hill arose. The sungod ascended the hill, repressed the forces of chaos and initiated world order called Ma’at and in this way the first king assumed the government of the world.”[20] It is a government of order which is established, imitating the kingdom of the sun here on earth, hence the ancient king’s circumambulations around the altars, and even their own cities, imitating the sun.

The Egyptian “shen” ring as a circle representing the sun and its obit, “guarantees the eternal life [ewige Leben] of the people as a symbol of eternity [symbole der Ewigkeit].”[21] This order from chaos, this ruling in love, order, and justice (Ma’at), is precisely the basis of the governance of our Masonic lodges. Hence the Worshipful Masters is in the East, while the Junior Warden is in the South, and Senior Warden is in the West, following the daily path of the sun. In fact, the Egyptologist Westendorf added that when the King possessed the name “S3HEW-RE,” this name surrounded the supports of heaven, the signs for heaven, and the underworld, as well as the borders of the world, which were all inscribed on the ring the King wore. The shen ring was the symbol for “all that the sun orbits” (was die Sonne umkreist).[22] The ring itself with the name on it, simultaneously represent the king as the go-between (Mittler) of heaven and earth, and protects him by virture of its borders.[23]

As in Freemasonry, whereas we identify with Hiram Abiff in our ceremonies, with the all-seeing eyes above us, the kings of Egypt identified with Horus, once they received the all-seeing eye of Horus.[24] The theme is ascending, in major stages, which ties in with a resurrection, and life in the Hereafter, conjoined with the eternal Lunar and Solar cosmological Cycles.[25] This is one reason why the Horus eye can have multiple meanings, in some contexts, representing the sun, in other contexts, representing the moon, and in many instances, representing both.[26] Hence the reason the Egyptians connected the Horus eye with the snake, the djet Uraeus serpent found on the Pharaohs crowns, since it was also a representation of eternity.[27] This cyclical ascension by stages were performed in ceremonies, mystery plays (Mysterienspiele) by masked actors, re-enacting the nature myth of the difficulties of life and how to overcome them.[28] This is why Osiris was identified with Horus, who upon ingesting and digesting the eye, was able, like the sun, to be reborn again on the horizon at the new day.[29] When they reach the end of their destination, they embrace (umarmung) each other because they are the symbolic representation of the overcoming and uniting of all opposites, day and night, light and darkness, yesterday and today, death and life. It is all the opposites which the sungod embraces through the eternal life of circumambulation in the eternities, living orderly, justly, and eternally in the heavens.[30] The all-seeing eye, which is the representation of the sun, which is imitated here on earth with its revolutions, and eternal orbit, is a very good meditation for Freemasons.

The philosophy of the symbolism is that of granting one its properties so one can behold or see the light. At Heliopolis, the sun city itself, the eye was filled, which imitated the moon in its cycle of waxing and waning, dying and being reborn, exactly as the sun was seen doing from forever and forever.[31] It was Thoth [Mercury, Enoch, and Hermes Trismegistus] who filled the eye, which symbolized a cyclic completion of both cosmos and man.[32] This was done on the 6^th day, once again, showing that each part of the eye corresponded to a day of the week, i.e., a cosmic cycle which man is a part of and certainly included in the life and time cycles.[33] Thus, time as well as eternity is symbolized by the eye, as it relates to (symbolizes) not only temporal cycles, but heavenly cycles also bringing all things (parts) together both in heaven and on earth, dead and alive, into one vast unity of reality. That reality is one of eternal life as Osiris is said to fly to heaven being reborn like the Phoenix, (er fliegt empor als Phoenix und nimmt am Himmel Platz), which, we are told, goes back to an astronomical observation (bestimmte astronomische Beobachtung zurueck).[34]

The eye is for all, as it is presented as a gift for being able to “see” (Dir hat Horus sein Auge gegeben, dass du damit siehst.)[35] In the Theban Recension of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, chapter 80, we read “I have rescued the Eye from its nonexistence before the festival of the fifteenth day had come…I have come to lighten the darkness, and it is bright. I have lightened the darkness…”[36] In the Coffin Texts, the eye is said to be flame.[37] And why not? Not only is the eye considered to be the sungod Re, it is also the winged sundisk Horus, which also marks the Summer Solstice, the midpoint of the sun’s path through the sky.[38] We mark the midpoint of the sun’s journey in our lodges also. It was a prime prerequisite to mark the northern most and southern most points of the sun in the cycle, which was imitated by the Pharaoh-kings (Zur zyklischen Gliederung pharaonischer Regierungszeiten liefert der Horusmythos ein kosmisch gottliches Paradigma), and gave the meaning to the Horus myth with the eye.[39] The Eye of Horus in the Coffin Texts is also anointed onto the person’s brow, so it will uplift him.[40] The two eyes of Horus not only protect the person, they guide him through the heavens as well, and even expand his heart. It is eternal water, a protection, a garment which guides one on the path, strengthens all the members of the body, actually having the power to “combine your flesh, and pull together your members, ward off foes, and cause one not to be forsaken. All of this is meant to be, as one travels on the celestial path, equipment meant to “equip you as a god.”[41] One travels in the sacred sunboat of the god Re, which circles the heavens, and in which mortals desire to enter.[42]

From one possible Freemason point of view, Thoms Milton Stewart has pointed out that the light shining in the darkness (he points us to John 1:5 – “and the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not”) the question Stewart asks is, “Is there a light that shineth in the darkness? Of Thoth it is said: ‘Thou hast given light and life to mortals, intelligences and creatures of light, and how does this help to answer our question?

1.     Mortals – those instructed in the doctrine but who had not realized the inner vision, who live in worldly things. For them the orb of light is I the darkness.

2.     Intelligences – those who had realized the inner vision, and had become men; that is lived in their minds. For such the orb is brought to light.

3.     Creatures of the light – those who had become one with the light of the inner and spiritual world. These latter are the sons of Light and Mind; having the conscious self identity of their own individuality, independent of their physical body. They have opened the Eye of Horus and the light shineth in the darkness. The inner nature is illuminated.”[43]

The eye is a representation of the sun “as it makes its appearance… of the sun… as an assurance of a cyclical renewal of life, the beginning of a new day.”[44] This cosmic background is one of those things that is just good to understand for Freemasons with our symbol of the All-Seeing Eye.

Endnotes

1.     John Sherer, “The Masonic Ladder or the Nine Steps to Ancient Freemasonry,” The Masonic Book Club, Vol. 28, a facsimile reprint of the first edition by R. W. Carroll and Co. Publishers in 1827, Reprint in 1997: quote on page 94.

2.     Sir Lionel Brett, “The Vocabulary of the Ceremonies,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol. 101 (1988): 4.

3.     Hans Biedermann, “Knaurs Lexicon der Symbole,” translated into English by James Hulbert, “Dictionary of Symbolism: Cultural Icons and the Meanings Behind Them,” Meridian Books, 1992: 123.

4.     Byron Shafer, editor, “Temples of Ancient Egypt,” Cornell University Press, 1997: 24.

5.     Hans Bonnet, “Reallexikon der Aegyptischen Religionsgeschichte,” Walter De Gruyter, 1952: 854.

6.     Bonnet, “Ibid.,” p. 855.

7.     Eberhard Otto, “Gott und Mensch: Nach den aegyptischen Tempelinschriften der griechisch-roemischen Zeit, eine Untersuchung zur Phraseologie der Tempelinschriften,” p. 85, as quoted in Hugh Nibley, “One Eternal Round,” Deseret Book/Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2010: 315.

8.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 319.

9.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 320.

10.  Sir Alan Gardiner, “Egyptian Grammar,” Griffith Institute, Oxford University Press, 3^rd Revised edition, 1994: 197-198.

11.  John Sherer, “The Masonic Ladder or the Nine Steps to Ancient Freemasonry,” The Masonic Book Club, Vol. 28, a facsimile reprint of the first edition by R. W. Carroll and Co. Publishers in 1827, Reprint in 1997: quote on page 68.

12.  Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 204-205.

13. Winfried Barta, “Der Koenigsring als Symbol zyklischer Wiederkehr,” in “Zeitschrift fuer Aegyptische Sprache,” (Hereafter cited as ZAS), 98 (1970): 15.

14.  W. Kirk MacNulty, “A Philosophical Background for Masonic Symbolism,” in “Heredom: The Transactions of the Scottish Rite Research Society,” Vol. 5 (1996): 26.

15.  Rex R. Hutchens, “A Bridge To Light,” The Supreme Council, 33° 1733 16^th Street N. W., Washington D. C., 2006: 18.

16. Thomas George Allen, “Horus in the Pyramid Texts: A Dissertation,” University of Chicago Libraries, 1916: 13.

17.  Allen, “Ibid.,” p. 48.

18.  Allen, “Ibid.,” p. 59-60.

19.  Allen, “Ibid.,” p. 69.

20.  C. J. Bleeker, “The Pattern of the Ancient Egyptian Culture,” in “Numen,” #11, 1964: 78.

21.  Barta, “Ibid.,” p. 12.

22.  Barta, “Ibid.,” p. 12.

23.  Barta, “Ibid.,: p. 13.

24.  Joachim Spiegel, “Die religionsgeschichtliche Stellung der Pyramidtexte,” in “Orientalia,” 1953: 142, note 1.

25.  Whitney M. Davis, “The Ascension Myth in the Pyramid Texts,” in “Journal of Near Eastern Studies,” Vol. 36/3, 1977: 162.

26.  Hermann Kees, “Zu den Aegyptischen Mondsagen,” in “ZAS,” 60, 1925: 3-4.

27.  Rudolf Anthes, “Das Sonnenauge in den Pyramidentexten,” in “ZAS,” 86, 1961: 1-21.

28.  Wilhelm Spiegelberg, “Der Aegyptischen Mythus vom Sonnenauge in einem Demotischen Papyrus der Roemischen Kaiserzeit,” Sitzungsberichte per Koeniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1915: 890.

29.  Winfried Barta, “Zum Wesen des Gottes Osiris nach Zeugnissen der Aelteren Totenliteratur,” in “ZAS,” 117, 1990: 89-93.

30.  Barta, “Ibid.,” p. 93.

31.  Hermann Kees, “Die Feuerinsel in den Sargetexten und im Totenbuch,” in “ZAS,” 78, 1942: 47.

32.  Georg Moeller, “Die Zeichen fuer die Bruchteile des Hohlmasses und das Uzatauge,” in “ZAS,” 48, 1910: 100-101.

33.  Hermann Junker, “Die Sechs Teile des Horusauges und der ‘Sechste Tag,’” in “ZAS,” 48, 1910: 101-106.

34.  Junker, “Ibid.,” p. 104 for Phoenix comment, and 106 for astronomical idea.

35.  Kees, “Die Feuerinsel,” p. 52.

36.  Raymold O. Faulkner, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth By Day, Being the Papyrus of Ani,” Chronicle Books, 1994: plate 28.

37.  Raymond O. Faulkner, “The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts,” Aris & Phillips, re-issued, 1994, 3 Vols., quote in Vol. 1, Spell 313, p. 234.

38.  Dieter Kurth, “Der Kosmische Hintergrund des Grossen Horusmythos von Edfu,” in “Revue d’Egyptologie,” 1983: 73. For Horus as winged sundisk, see also Carl Wilke, “Bemerkungen zu einer spaeten Bezeichnung des Sonnengottes (b3-nb-hj),” in “ZAS,” 76, 1940: 97-98. He brings in the winged scarabus beetle and falcon as well.

39.  Kuth, “Ibid.,” p. 74.

40.  Faulkner, “Coffin Texts,” Vol. 3: Spell 845, pp. 30-31.

41.  Faulkner, “Coffin Texts,” Vol. 3: Spell 845, pp. 36-41.

42.  Jan Assman, “Der Koenig als Sonnenpriester,” J. J. Augustin, 1970: 14.

43.  Thomas Milton Stewart, “The Symbolism of the Gods of the Egyptian and the Light They Thrown on Freemasonry,” Baskerville Press, 1927: 81.

44.  Hans Goedicke, “The Bright Eye of Horus: Pyr. Spell 204,” in “Gegengabe Festschrift fur Emma Brunner-Traut,” Verlag Tubingen, 1992: 102.

By Kerry A. Shirts MM

Eagle Rock Lodge # 19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

May 10, 2010

 In the “Transactions” of the Idaho Lodge of Research No. 1965, Vol. 28/2 (Oct. 2006), an article “Compass – Set at 60 Degree Angle” by Jack L. Abrams, PM, (as originally found in the 2006 Trestle Board of Ionic Composite Lodge No. 520, in Fraternal Review of the Southern California Lodge of Research) appeared on pp. 11-12, discussing the compass and its 60 degree angle. Why is it set at 60 degrees?

 “The reason is the equilateral triangle has always been sacred.” [1] The sum of all angles of a triangle is of course 180 degrees. Divide by 3 and we get 60 degrees. “The compass thus set at 60 degrees alludes to the equilateral triangle and if the two points were united in a straight line, it would form one.” And, further, a compass set at 60 degrees can exactly make 6 points on a circle, dividing the circle into 6 equal parts. “The points, thus made, with the one in the center, constitute the mystic number seven.”[2]

 Those 6 points on the circle, when connected with straight lines will form the hexagon (Solomon’s seal, or the Shield of David as it is called).

 But previous to seeing the very interesting sacred geometry of Solomon’s Seal (I shall have to write a paper actually showing the various interesting themes of this graphically, it really is quite amazing to see what comes of it all!), what is the compass itself? What does it represent? Of this, great insight can be obtained for Freemasons who come to understand this magnificently sacred instrument.

 In Medieval times, it was thought “as an abstract symbol of the eye of God.”[3] The legs of the compass thus represent rays of light and grace which shine from the heavens to earth. “The compass has only one role: from a central seed point it creates the transcendental hole called the circle. It opens up a divine space of light, awareness, and potential configuration. Remember that every circle you construct represents the Monad, the complete universe.[4]

 When constructing any circle using a compass, we are literally creating a metaphor! The metaphor is profoundly enough, “the stages of the divine, ongoing, creating process itself. Anywhere you place a center you can scribe a circle and symbolically create the space of the universe itself. The circle is a shape begging to be organized. As the value ‘one,’ or unit, is the parent of all numbers, the circle is the parent of all shapes. All subsequent shapes and patterns will be inscribed within this all encompassing Monad. That’s why the world is called a uni-verse (Latin for ‘one turn’). This is Plato’s ‘Whole of Wholes.’

 The closed upright compass on the point represents the mythological world axis, world mountain, or holy center of many cultures, the symbolic pole or spine that supports creation and around which everything turns in adoration. The center is traditionally known as ‘the keep of Zeus.’ Protector of hearths and boundaries (centers and circumferences) and the source of moral order, Zeus dispensed judgment from the center… the point is the source of out whole of wholes. It is beyond understanding, unknowable, silently self enfolded. But like a seed, a point will expand to fulfill itself as a circle. Ponder the point as a seed enfolding a sacred mystery.”[5] And herein is where the pure power of the Masonic symbolism is demonstrated. “In every well furnished lodge there is or should be a certain point within a circle. The ritual goes on to say that the point represents the individual brother…”[6] And the Masonic brother can properly be called “a seed enfolding a sacred mystery.” And in point of fact (pun, pun) when we meditate and seek our own more subtle center within ourselves, our higher or deeper self, “the power that motivates the actions, emotions, thoughts, and desires. This center of gravity is not in space, but in pure awareness… this power is the motivating power with which we are conscious, identical to the heart of every natural form and symbolized by the center of the circle.”[7]

 Now, the center is established, our compass is upright as the world axis. Now we open the compass. This is a wonderful meditation! Rather than being trivial, this act has great significance for our meditation, as well as the act of creating a geometric universe in symbol. We are engaging in the cosmological creative process with the compass. “It represents the first archetypal principle of the Monad: equal expansion in all directions….the opening compass represents the first manifestation of God’s light [Masons, NOTICE THIS!] and Brahma’s voice, illuminating and vibrating the universe into existence, as espanding states of slef awareness, which we call nature. Nature’s forms represent invisible forces made visible… as you open the compass, consider that you are metaphorically repeating this first principle of the Monad, the opening of light, space, time, and power in all directions.”[8]

 The 2^nd principle of the Monad is whirling, the circle’s rotary movement, giving us cycles, movement, periodicity, circuits, orbits, vibrations, and rhythms.[9] The Monad’s third principle involves the area within the circumference. A circle is not just a curve but the miraculous space inside, which manifests between nothingness (zero dimensional point) and everythiung (infinitely many points around the circumference). “A circle encloses the most space by the smallest perimeter. In other words, the most enclosure with least exposure. The Monad’s third principle is maximized efficiency.”[10]

So to sum up the incredibly fascinating metaphor and symbolism of the compass, its reason for existence, so to speak.

The Monad or oneness, expressed as a point and a circle, is the foundation for our geometrical construction of the universe. The three parts of the circle – center, circumference, and radius forming the space within – correspond to the three principles of the Monad: equal expansion, cycles, and efficient space… we express the Monad’s principle in the things we do and create.

Everything seeks unity. The goal of many religions and mythic ordeals is to return to a lost state of Divine Oneness. But we have no need to return to a state of oneness because unity is axiomatic and we already are integrated in it. Barely recognizing our situation, here and now we live in a whole and beautifully harmonious wonder world. Only a self imposed illusion of separateness keeps us from recognizing our own center of awareness and identity with the One. To understand this unity the ancient mathematical philosophers contemplated the principles of the Monad through the arithmetic principles of the ‘number’ one and by exploring its geometric expression as the circle.”[11]

I bet you never look at that simple compass resting on the V.S.L. on the altar again will you!

 Endnotes

1.        1. “Transactions,” p. 11.

2.        2. “Transactions,” p. 11.

3.        3. Michael S. Schneider, “A Beginner’s Guide to Costructing the Universe: The Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science,” HarperCollins, 1994: 6.

4.       4.  Schneider, “Ibid.,” p. 6.

5.        5. Schneider, “Ibid.,” pp. 8-9.

6.       6.  Jack Buta, “Esoteric Geometry,” in “Philalethes: The Journal of Masonic Research and Letters,” (Dec. 2005): 134. See also the very interesting ideas of Delmotte Patrice, MPS, “To the Glory of the G.A.O.T.U., ‘The Holy Saints John. An Operative Point of View,” in “Philalethes,” (April, 2003): 45-46, wherein he demonstrates the point within a circle can represent the location of the temple most sacred place or of the altar. It is the first step found using the Solstice points (represented by the Holy Saints John), as markers for the first step in erecting a building as well.

7.      7.   Schneider, “Ibid.,” p. 9.

8.      8.   Schneider, “Ibid.,” p. 10-11.

9.       9.  Schneider, “Ibid.,” p. 12.

10.    10. Schneider, “Ibid.,” p. 16-17.

11.    11. Schneider, “Ibid.,” p. 20.

By Kerry A. Shirts MM

Eagle Rock Lodge #19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

We can no more show a direct line of descent from the ancient Egyptian rites than we can those of Eluseus, Mithraism, Judaism, or Early Christianity. In reading the ancient literatures in all their vastness, however, some parallels are just too good not to at least take notice. Not that the meanings scholarship ascribes to many of the ancient mysteries are the meanings which today’s Masonry adapts, interprets, or even accepts, but the parallels are quite striking, in a general sense. Knowing the parallels gives me impetus to command the Masonic literature, the meanings of the rituals and ceremonies, to strive for greater comprehension, understanding, and appreciation for what we do have right now today. That is the spirit in which I share these notes. It is to the LDS scholarship of Hugh W. Nibley whom I read steadily, and have done so through several decades, (19 volumes averaging almost 500 pages each in the Collected Works of Hugh W. Nibley so far) which I use to note the parallels. Masonry was not on Nibley’s mind, the LDS temple and parallels to the Egyptian rites were the context he labored so diligently and wonderfully on. It is a wonderful side benefit that Masonic parallels are also possible to view here. In all three traditions, the temple is core to the rites. Therefore, I make no apology for noting themes of interest to the LDS and Masons, because whatever understanding we may attain to the temple, its philosophy, history, and meaning, is designed to get us into the eternites. I shall leave a few short notes, summations, and themes which I have found, not even pretending to exhaust this amazing information. I will write more on these themes as time permits me.

The Egyptian Book of Breathings is at the end of a long Egyptian evolution of literature stretching back 

into the area of 4,000 B.C. Beginning with the Pyramid Texts, developing into the Coffin Texts, Egyptian Book of the Dead, and the Books of Wandering Through Eternity, we arrive at the Books of Breathings. It is this last type of literature that the Joseph Smith Book of Breathings belongs to. The historical time line is shown by Nibley in his book “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” 2^nd edition, Deseret Book/FARMS, 2005.

The Book of Breathings was a type of ticket, a guide book for the dead into the next world. According to the Egyptologist Kurt Sethe, it is “a directive for people participating in a ritual play.”[1] The scribes of the Books of Breathings summariozed the long, vast abundant literature from antiquity into a message book which provided clues to those involved in the rituals. Condensing thousands of pages into the briefest hints for the participants to get clues as to what to say and do during the ritual ceremonies.[2] “The scribe wanted to compose a sort of manual for the ceremonies of the House of Life [the Egyptian temple] dealing with the rites for the conservation of life.”[3] It was at this point that the Masonic Monitor popped into my head. The philosophical theme is quite close to this. These “prompting sheets” were considered “sacred and secret,” meant only for the eyes of the instructors and initiates. The Masonic Monitors are coded, exactly as some Books of Breathings were, in order to keep the knowledge from those not involved in the ceremonies.

The Egyptian word “snsn” has multiple meanings, the overall impression based on understanding of the ceremonies which have survived from antiquity is that of uniting oneself with distinguished company, in a continual living of the person even after their earthly death, “since all the rites and ordinances, both for the living and dead, have as their express purpose the achieving of eternal life… namely, the ‘total security’ of eternal life and exaltation.”[4] The Book of Breathings is the instructional materials a “textbook of vital instructions” which were “characteristic of the ancient mysteries everywhere, known from the Orphic mysteries as “passes for the dead” written on gold tablets, to the seals – ‘symbola’ or ‘tesserae’ – admitting the living and dead to ritual banquets and other ceremonies.” “It’s purpose was to keep the owner properly informed.”[5] There is simply no better description of a Masonic Monitor than this. Proper information is precisely what gives a “dark” candidate more “light.”

In the Egyptian theme, there were guardians at various gates which one had to pass in order to continue progressing into the light. Knowledge of certain passwords and other types of information was absolutely necessary, or the guardians would not let you pass. Every single Mason, from an Entered Apprentice to the Master will understand this. Again, “He who knows passes by all obstacles and cannot fail.”[6]

To sum up the points and purposes of the writings, they are a “vade mecum,” or guidebook to the hereafter. They are “a passport to eternity.” The same theme is found in the “Totenpaesse” (passports for the dead) of the Orphic Mysteries. They are a “letter of recommendation.” The purpose is to help the initiate get to somewhere else, namely, from this world, into the eternal realms.[7]

For the Egyptians, the rites of Osiris were paramount, being, how to achieve life beyond this earthly present. The rite of Osiris “provides the ‘rationale’ of a ritual drama designed to initiate the dead into a new and eternal life… the rites of Osiris were supposed to have been revealed to men by Osiris, the first mortal to be resurrected, death made of him a being who knew ‘the great secret’ of how mortals become immortal.”[8] The theme is to make alive, young, energetic, and given a new permanent eternal life. This occurred through the rites and ceremonies of the dramatic plays in the Egyptian temples. And the foremost, best, most comprehensive symbol used was none other than the sun.[9] As the sun transitted through the heavens from one horizon to the other, in an eternal round of everlasting, so mankind sought to emulate that divine eternal pattern in their temples. As the sun literally changes its nature (from our perspective, even though it is an appearance of change) on the horizon in speed, size, and color, so does change occur to one going through the ceremonies imitating the sun as the symbol for eternal life. It is “the symbol of the boundary between this world and the other world.”[10]

“In our text [the Joseph Smith Book of Breathings] the word for ‘enter’ the horizon is ‘hnm,’ meaning properly to join or fuse with. Since light is the universal attribute of divinity [EVERY Mason will get this also]; it is not surprising that the sun is the ‘Urbild des Gottes,’ [the original representation of God] which goes back to prehistoric beginnings at Heliopolis, the sun-city.”

“The whole business of the Egyptian temple centers around the mighty drama of the sun in his course (das gewaltige Schauspiel des Sonnenlaufes) not only because the sun is the most obvious symbol of divinity, but because the temple was, from megalithic times, designed to serve as an observatory of heavenly bodies and their motions, especially the sun… the heavenly journey of the individual is an analogy to the voyage of the sun on the divine path.”[11]

The sun theme of Freemasonry is quite striking, especially as it relates to the lodge, as every single Mason will understand.

 Endnotes

1.     Hugh Nibley, “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment,” 2^nd revised, enlarged edition, Deseret Book/FARMS, 2005: 96.

2.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 96f.

3.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 96.

4.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 98.

5.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 99.

6.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 100.

7.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 101-102.

8.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 104.

9.     Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 106-109.

10.  Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 107.

11.  Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 111.

By Kerry A. Shirts MM

Eagle Rock Lodge 19

Idaho Falls, Idaho

May 1, 2010

 No feature of Solomon’s Temple has had more commentary than the two pillars flanking the front entrance of Solomon’s Temple. But what do they mean? I won’t discuss all facets of them in this paper, but will work with the historical and etymological meanings of the names, and some other features in the discussions of the scholarship on the Ancient Near Eastern temples. And in the legends of our Craft, I will touch on a few items of interest to Masons concerning the pillars, the symbolisms as I understand them within Masonry. As always, the interpretations, research, meanings, and understandings I present here, are strictly my own, not to be construed as “the” meaning for the pillars in Masonry. Freemasonry has no dogma, nor any book which all Masons must conform to in order to understand “correct doctrine.”[1]

 But a little background never hurts, so I take a page to show the historical and archaeological discoveries that shed light on the temple.

 One the most recent studies covering an enormous amount of ground on Solomon’s Temple says “Solomon’s Temple is part of a common temple-building tradition in Syria and Canaan, indeed, in terms of form and ornamentation, Solomon’s Temple could be considered quite typical of the region. The closest surviving parallels to Solomon’s Temple are found in northern Syria at the temples of Tell Tayinat and Ain 

Dara (13^th – 8^th centuries B.C.). All three temples have the same tripartite floor plan, with a holy of holies at the back and two columns in the front… many scholars believe the architectural similarities of Solomon’s Temple to dozens of known temples in Syria can be explained by the fact that Solomon hired artisans from Phoenicia to help build his temple (1 Kings 5: 20, 32).”[2] The threeness of the temple is, of course, of serious interest in the numerical symbolism to Masons.

 R. B. Y. Scott has shown that “Literary references include the mention by Lucian (28 f.) of twin pillars at Heliopolis, by Posidonius of two inscribed columns of bronze in the Herakleion at Gadeirasa and by Herodotus of two pillars in the sanctuary of Herakles at Tyre, "one of pure gold, the other of emerald, shining with great brilliancy at night."8b Menander, quoted in Josephus, (Antiquities of the Jews, VIII, V, 3), also refers to a golden pillar in the temple of Jupiter at Tyre.[3]

 Scott further surveys what various scholars have indicated as to the nature of the pillars themselves. “Robertson Smith held that they were fire-altars in the form of immense candlesticks or cressets in which the fat of the sheldamm was consumed, and having associations, by reason of their adornment, with the sacred tree. Watzinger recalls the realistic representations of the holy tree in Assyria,"' and Skinner thinks that they were translations into metal of the sacred stones or obelisks. Others have held that the pillars were phalli, or cosmic pillars, or symbols of the two mountains from between which the sun-god came forth." Hollis' discussion of the solar elements in the plan of Solomon's. temple suggests some connection with Egyptian obelisks, early forms of which were surmounted by a disc or sphere, like the bowls or globes at the top of the Jerusalem pillars. We must expect mixed influences in the plan of Solomon's temple, and it is impossible to say anything more definite than that the twin entrance pillars were a characteristic feature of temples of the period, when the religions of many peoples were related to a single underlying pattern; and that they had a cultic significance.”[4]

 The idea of having a “cultic significance” rings with a Freemason, because in the legend of our own Craft and rituals the pillars have just such significance. This is not to say it is the same, for it realistically isn’t, but then there was never a uniform understanding of the pillars in antiquity either, let alone modern scholarship. This is also not to say there is a direct line of historical descent from the pillars of Solomon into Masonry either, for it is not to the historical that Masonry finds it meaning, but in the ritualistic, the allegorical teachings which teach moral lessons. As. S. Brent Morris noted recently concerning the central facet of Freemasonic ritual, “The legend of Hiram Abif is a simple story, apparently based upon Hiram the metalworker mentioned in 1 Kings 7:13… the legend is a simple vehicle for teaching fidelity to a trust; it has no basis in historical truth. It is a Biblically inspired morality play much like ‘Amahl and the Night Visitors.’ It seems to have been introduced into Masonic ceremonies around 1726.”[5]

 One context of the pillars that caught my attention was proposed by Hugh Nibley which indicates a cosmological connection of heaven and earth. The funeral plaque of Guillaume Letellier which commemorates his design of a Gothic church of a Seventeenth-century drawing of 1484 marble original is a Masonic piece of art with all the implements of Masonry, the square and compass, plumb bob, trowel etc.  “Far from being rooted in magic or superstition, these objects are supremely utilitarian; the solid structure of reality in our world depends on them. They are the practical, nay indispensable, tools of the builder. By them the pillars of Solomon’s temple were set up to establish before the world the meeting place of heaven and earth. They embody the work of compass and square…”[6] Along with the pillars, the two triangles of the “Star of David,” the “hexagram or Solomon’s seal,” were “singular geometrica; emblems,” which, “in a way similar to the ancient mysteries of Pythagoras, the Kabbala, Templars, Masons, Rosicruscians, etc., where the members identified themselves by secret signs and tokens… these seals [such as the hexagram] “bind heaven to earth and the pilgrim to both. They are two stars, the two most sacred emblems in the ancient world, and their function is to blend together all things holy in both time and place.”[7] Andre Parrot has noted that they have also been proposed as “permanent indicators for calculating the equinoxes.”[8]

 For my own understanding and appreciation of these pillars’ functions of blending heaven with earth, the cosmological meaning, seriously enhances my appreciation for these pillars being in Freemasonry, not that it is the orthodox intent of their function in our ritual. For me, the broader the significance of the pillars [as with all Masonic symbols and symbolism] from all cultures, the more meaning they hold for Freemasonry. I know some Masonic scholars enjoy the simplicity of one to one correspondence with symbolism. For me this loses immense meaning that an individual can come to our rituals with. I don’t care if it was the original intent of Freemasonry, with the vast depth and broadness of the totality of symbolic meanings from antiquity all the way up to our day, having the pillars in Masonry calls to my mind numerous associations, significations, and knowledge that I simply could not have otherwise with a singular imposition of meaning onto individual symbols. Multiple meanings all gathered together into one is so much more intense, interesting, complete and delightful for my understanding, not that I have to make Masonry conform to all the multiple meanings. I don’t. I just enjoy knowing them all for my own enlightenment.

Returning to the theme of the pillars having a “cultic significance” arises especially on considering the various meanings, and at least trying to ascertain the main meaning of the words “Jachin” and “Boaz.” Freemasonry has adapted an etymological meaning, and whether it accords with what Biblical scholarship has found, translated, and learned through the various means of etymological investigation or archaeological discoveries or not, the pillars have great meaning for Freemasonry. Freemasonry does not have to adopt to the current fads and scholarly discussions of possible meanings historically, philosophically, or religiously, in order to have our own meaning of what our ritual teaches us about the pillars. And yet, for all that, I find the scholarly investigations to deepen my understanding and appreciation for what the pillars mean to me as a Freemason, hence it is extremely valuable for me personally to look into all the possible ways the pillars have been interpreted. What I find is what I share here, with the caveat that in the future I may very well have updates to share also. We as Freemasons will never arrive at the final knowledge of all things in our craft in this life. Our hope is for good living and learning and sharing with uplifting inspiring knowledge here, with our brothers, family, and friends, and the continuous learning for us into the eternities in immortality.

 Parrot noted Jachin and Boaz have been interpreted and translated in different ways.

1.     He (Yahweh) will establish (Yachin) with power (boaz) the column or the temple.

2.     May [God] keep [it] upright by [his] power.

3.     He will confirm strength in him

4.     He [Solomon] established [this column] with power; Boaz set it up.[9]

Jachin = “he will establish” while Boaz = “in strength thereof.”[10] “Some scholars have suggested that these twin pillars may have contained the sacred fire of the temple with the smoke symbolizing the presence of the Lord. In any event, the pillars with their strength, beauty, and symbolic names likely represented the presence of the Lord and the permanence of the Davidic house.

The word ˓ammûd is also noteworthy in the phrases ˓ammûd ˓ānān and ˓ammûd ˒ēš, “the pillar of smoke” and “the pillar of fire” (Ex 13:21; cf. 14:24 ˓ammûd˒ēš wĕ˓ānān, “pillar of fire and smoke.” These visual tokens of the presence of Yahweh in leading, directing, and protecting his people were designed for the comfort of Israel and the consternation of her enemies (see Num 14:13-14). It was in the mysterious pillar of cloud that Yahweh would manifest himself before Moses (Num 12:5; Deut 31:15), and this mysterious manifestation in cloud, smoke, and fire was never forgotten by Israel (e.g. Neh 9:12).[11]

 They could have been stylized forms of standing stones, or perhaps, like Job indicated, they could be pillars of heaven (Job 26:11). The HALOT has an interesting entry I reproduce here:

pillar, support for a building (BRL² 259f; Reicke-R. Hw. 1678) Jubilees 1625f.29; עַמּוּדֵי אֲרָזִים (for houses made of cedar from Lebanon) 1Kings 72; the pillars of an אוּלָם: א׳ הָעַמּוּדִים the Hall of Pillars 1Kings 76; b) עַמּוּדֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה the seven pillars of wisdom Proverbs 91: meaning disputed: either the pillars of a house (with reference to a hall or to free-standing pillars in a place for ceremonial) or, with cosmic significance, the seven planets as the pillars of the world, see Ringgren ATD 16/1:42.

—3. a) free-standing pillars: the two pillars יָכִין and בֹּעַז situated in front of the temple and venerated 1Kings 715-22.41f 2Kings 2513.16f Jeremiah 2719 5217.20-22 1Chronicles 188 2Chronicles 315-17 412f (Gray Kings³ 186-89; Noth Könige 153-55; Würthwein ATD 11/1:75f, with bibliography); b) where the king stood in the temple area on state occasions, עַל־הָעַמּוּד either at or on the pillar, assuming this was a kind of podium supported by a pillar (vRad Ges. Stud. 207; Metzger VTSupp. 22 (1972):162ff) 2Kings 1114 233 [12]

 Notice again, that pillars have a cosmological significance. “The symbolism was multiple and developed in the course of time.”[13] Through the process of historical deduction and induction, biblical scholarship has shown interesting probabilities for the pillars’ functions in numerous ways, one of the more interesting is in the “Interpreters Bible dictionary. “It seems probable that the names of the pillars in Solomon’s royal temple (cf. Amos 7:13), where he officiated as principle priest (1 Kings 7:14, 22; 8:64), were derived from the initial words of dynastic inscriptions like that of Gudea. In Genesis 31:45, 49, a named pillar serves as a perpetual witness to a solemn covenant. In 2 Kings 11:14; 23:3 it is specially noted that the king would ‘stand by the pillar,’ suggesting its special significance for the king. The verb “establish” is prominent in Old Testament dynastic oracles (2 Samuel 7:12-13, 16;  1 Kings 2:24; Psalm 89:3-4; Isaiah 9:6), and the first pillar may have borne an inscription like: “He will establish (yakin) the throne of David forever.” The second inscription may also have had dynastic significance – “In the strength of (be’oz - boaz) Yahweh shall the king rejoice.” (Cf. Ps 21:1).”[14]

 Keil and Delitzsch said the interpretation indicated that Solomon meant the pillars to mean “Let this temple stand forever;” and the second [pillar] Solomon desired that God would give it strength and endurance. The pillars were symbols of the stability and strength, which not only the temple as an outward building, but the kingdom of God in Israel as embodied in the temple to be His dwelling-place in the midst of his people.”[15]

 Herbert G. May noted “pillars supporting the winged sun-disc (the sky) in the Anatolian royal "cartouche"[16] again confirming the cosmological aspects of pillars in the Ancient Near East. In fact, in the Dumfries Manuscript No. 4, ca. 1710 the questions are asked – “How high is your lodge? Answer: Inches & spans Inumerable. Question: How Inumerable? Answer: The material heavens & stary [sic] firmament. And many early London Masonic lodges actually had ceilings in their lodges painted as blue star spangled ceilings.[17]

 More to this point, “they [pillars of Solomon’s temple] may have been regarded as the  reflection of the columns between which the sun rose each morning to pour its light through the portico of the Temple into its interior, or that, like the Egyptian ‘djed’ symbol they may have also denoted ‘endurance,’ ‘continuity,’ in which case their dynastic role would become self-evident.”[18] The meaning of the Djed can clearly be seen and read in the architrave of Sahure, where we read “S3hw-R’ ‘nh dd w3s snb 3w-ib=f d.t” translated means “Sahure, life, stability, dominion, health, and happiness forever.”[19] “As an amulet, it conferred stability on the deceased and the ability to stand upright.”[20]

 In her analysis of Jachin and Boaz, Carol Meyers noted that “the symbolic value of Jachin and Boaz can be apprehended without full knowledge of their physical reality,” and in fact, Freemasons can agree readily with her comment “Religion and ritual are not to be seen as isolated or compartmentalized features of Israelite life.” [21] It is especially within the Masonic ritual that the pillars play a part as symbolic of the entrance into the temple for Masons. Truman G. Madsen noted the scripture at Revelation 3:12 which he called “The pillar in the temple promise.” “I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out.” Madsen notes “written on ‘the pillar’ is the name of God and of the City of God and of the New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven. In Jewish sources it is said that the Levites were entrusted with the ‘keys’ of the temple, with power to overpower or bind both the evil and the good.”[22]

 In connection with this theme of writings on the pillars, somehow denoting power given, Herodotus informed us that in Syria Palestine, he saw pillars also from Phocea, Sardis, Smyrna, whereon an inscription carved in human form, “from one shoulder to the other across the figures chest in sacred Egyptian characters which reads ‘I acquired possession of this land by the strength of my shoulders.’[23] Notice how this is quite close to the pillars of Jachin and Boaz and their meaning.

 More interesting still are the inscriptions on a cylinder of King Gudea of Lagash which was situated at the ‘ka.sur.ra’ gate. On several different stealae the inscriptions at the temple read “der Herr des Sturmes Enlil, welcher nicht seinesgleichen hat, blickt mit guenstigen Auge auf Gudea, den Gross-priester Ningirsus.” Here we see Gudea is the high priest of the storm god Enlil. Another inscription set up at su.ga.lam, the main entrance to Eninnu, bore the name “der Koenig der (brausenden) Wirbelwinde Enlil, der Herr, der nicht seinesgleichen hat, hat in seinem reinen Herzen erwaehlt Gudea, den Grosspriester Ningirsus.” This shows us that “the king of the (stormy ) whirlwinds Enlil, the Lord who has had no equal, has in his pure heart, chosen Gudea the high priest of Ningirsus.”[24] The significance of this, according to R.B.Y. Scott, is that “this sentence name is a royal dynastic oracle.”[25] The evidence here, which helps establish Jachin and Boaz is fascinating!

“Eissfeldt, citing Assyrian and Egyptian parallels

finds it probable that, on the accession of an Israelite king,

a cult prophet declared his adoption by the deity, e. g., Psalm 27:27

We may look, then, to the language of the dynastic oracles and

the accession Psalms for suggestions as to the nature of the

pillar inscriptions.

The most important of the former is in 2 Sam 7:8-17, the

oracle of Nathan to David as worded by the Deuteronomic

historian. Three times in this passage the verb ‘kin’ is used

significantly: "I will establish his kingdom" (12c), "I will establish

the throne of his kingdom forever" (13b), "thy throne shall

be established forever" (16b). In the same context, David's

prayer includes the words: "the house of thy servant David

shall be established before thee" (26). Similarly, at the time of

Solomon's accession, the king utters an oath "as Yahweh liveth,

who hath established me, and set me on the throne of David

my father" (1 Kings 2:24). Similar phraseology is used of the

divine confirmation of the kingship in 1 Sam 13:13; 20:31; 2 Sam

5:12; 1 Kings 2:12, 45, 46; 2 Chron 17:5 (of Jehoshaphat). Granted

that all these passages are later than the period of the erection

of the Temple, they adhere with remarkable faithfulness to

the phraseology of what appears to have been a traditional

dynastic oracle. Cf. the language of Isa 9:6 "upon the throne

of David, and upon his kingdom to establish it"; 16:5 "a throne

shall be established." The dynastic oracle in different words

appears in Jer 33:17.

The prominence of the verb ‘kun’ in various "royal" psalms

referring either to the human or to the Divine king is notable.

Gunkel and Mowinckel agree that the composer of the People's

Lamentation Ps 89:20-38 (Gunkel includes with this 4, 5) has

taken over as a ground for his entreaty material from a dynastic

oracle in a royal liturgy. Note the language of vv. 4, 5 "I have

made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my

servant; thy seed will I establish ('akin) forever, and build up

thy throne to all generations"; v. 22[26]

 The reconstruction by Scott of Jachin and Boaz as “He (Yahweh) will establish the throne of David, and his kingdom to his seed forever.” And for Boaz, “In the strength of Yahweh shall the king rejoice.” Scott notes “This would be an appropriate inscription for Solomon to have placed upon the pillar, and it would explain why later Davidic kings stood by the pillar in coronation and covenant ceremonies.”[27]

 “The Psalms of Yahweh's enthronement and sovereignty make frequent use of the word 'oz, with reference to Yahweh's victorious strength as displayed in creation and history: Ps 93:1, "Yahweh is king... he has girded himself with strength";

Ps. 96:6, 7, 10, "Yahweh made the heavens, . . . strength and beauty are in his sanctuary, . . . Yahweh is king, the world also is established that it cannot be moved"; 99:1, 4, "Yahweh is king, . . the strength of the king loveth justice" (or, with Schmidt, "a strong one has become king"); 132:8 "Arise, O Yahweh, into thy resting-place, thou and the ark of thy strength." We should note, also, the occurrence of 'oz in the royal liturgies in Ps 21:2, 14: "0 Yahweh, in thy strength shall the king rejoice ... be thou exalted, 0 Yahweh, in thy strength"; and in Ps 110:2 "the sceptre of thy strength will Yahweh send from Zion." We may point out, further, the association of the verb kun and the noun 'oz (or words from the same roots) in Ps 89:14, 15; 93i,2; 99:4. If the use of synonyms be allowed for, the association of these ideas in royal psalms is frequent.”[28]

 Thus the pillars represent the tree of life that flank temple entrances in the ancient world, and “like the Egyptian djed pillars in Egyptian architecture, the pillar symbolizes strength, solidity, binding efficacy, endurance, continuity, and cosmic order.”[29]

 For Freemasonry this is fascinating. Walter Sharman has noted many of the sources I have used in this paper, and has shown many more sources [the Masonic ones] I don’t have access to. One of the early Masonic rituals found in the “Catechisme des Frances-Macons” (1744), recounted by Harry Carr in “The Early French Exposures,” indicate that the Masons received their wages by one of the two brass pillars next to the temple![30] The pillars play a part in the first two lectures, and this is significantly interesting in relation to the second lecture where we learn the pillars are not the place the wages are received. Now, of course, Freemasonry does not feel the need to be strictly historically true with any record when it comes to ritual, allegory, and symbolism intent on teaching morality in human kind. It is not about being accurate historically that alone teaches the truths in Masonry, it is about teaching morality through symbolism and allegory. History has nothing to do with reality in that regard in Freemasonry. Freemasonry uses historical situations and events as a basis of the allegorical teachings, but things are added, or taken away, as seen fit in order to teach what lessons Freemasonry has to teach the candidates. “They have been invented by the makers of the rituals for symbolic purposes connected with the forms of initiation. Out of these myths of Speculative Masonry its philosophy has been developed.”[31] The ancient mysteries [and I would add history] are too far removed from us in time to claim a direct lineal descent.[32] But this is not to say great instruction and learning can occur using symbolism adapted to our own situation, from antiquity from all areas. The legends we use are not accurate history, but the lessons are truth regardless. History alone does not teach truth, as history is never about what has actually and realistically happened. History is simply man’s interpretation of what he thinks happened. “History is all hindsight; it is a sizing up, a way of looking at things. It is not what happened or how things really were, but an evaluation, an inference from what one happens to have seen of a few scanty bits of evidence preserved quite by accident. There is no such thing as a short, concise history of England, any more than there is an authentic three-minute version of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. One might construct such a thing, and it might be a work of art in its own right, but it could only be a parody of the real thing – a pure fiction.”[33] Interestingly enough, concerning the actual physical Temple of Solomon itself … “it is incorrect to describe its existence as an historical fact… there is no actual evidence that the Temple ever existed.”[34]

 For instance, it is seriously problematical that globes are on top of the pillars, as they are in our ritual. Anciently globes simply weren’t there.[35] C. F. W. Dyer noted that the Bible uses a word which means “bowls,” and it can perhaps be implied that something spherical is meant. However, “the question of the globes [on top of the pillars] is not supported and justified by taking the actual detail from the Bible. And yet, Albert Mackey found Rabbi Solomon, in his commentary “uses the word ‘ponel’, signifying a globe or spherical body, and Rabbi Gerschom describes it as ‘like two crowns joined together.’ Lightfoot says ‘it was a huge, great oval, five cubits high, and did not only sit upon the head of the pillars, but also flowered or spread them, being larger about, a great deal, than the pillars themselves.[36]

 Like the detail of the history of Hiram Abiff, this is a Masonic allegory.”[37] G. E. W. Bridge has an excellent lecture on this aspect of Masonry teaching through “veiled allegories.”[38]

 The pillars were not used as the archives to Freemasonry, nor the receptacles for the paraphernalia of the Temple.[39] There is still no agreement of whether the pillars were hollow or not.[40] But because extra Masonic accretions have occurred is not the reason to simply discard all things Masonic about the pillars, for there are several reasons for using them in our ritual. We are not orthodox literalists insisting on historical truth alone as the barometer of truth. That being said, it is fun to know that Rosenbaum speaks of an old commentary which states that the pillars “were meant to represent the sun and moon.” Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to the incredibly instructive, meaningful symbolism of the sun and moon in our lodges and ritual! The phenomenal medieval Jewish commentator of scripture, Rashi himself taught “the House of David is compared to the strength of the sun, and with the eternity of the moon.”[41] As Freemasons that is meaningful. It is worth remarking as well that because the custom was the king standing by the pillar during the making of a covenant “as was the custom” (2 Kings 11:4; 23:3), it has been proposed that the one pillar represented the Northern Kingdom and the other pillar represented the Southern Kingdom. After all, the purpose of the temple in the first place to unite the two kingdoms.[42]

 It is irrelevant if the King Solomon version of the Bible is not in the Quran or the Upanishads, or any other sacred volume. Masons of non-Christian, non-Jewish persuasion realize the ritual is allegory, not necessarily historical fact. “In Masonry, it is for each member to take comfort in his own belief or tenet so as to be a good Mason. All religions, when distilled, teach the same morals and point the same way – oly the pathways of approach are different. The story of King Solomon’s Temple is to drive home a message and a moral. Hence, it can be comfortably accepted by a Mason of any persuasion.”[43] And one point of the moral is that the Masonic application of the ritual use of the two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, is similar to that of making a king anciently, but now it has been applied in a different manner as “it is an essential part of the making of a Freemason.”[44]

 For Freemasonry, the pillars symbolism is twofold, following Mackey’s Encyclopedia:

1.     The names are the symbols of strength and stability of the institution.

2.     And in reference to the pillars of fire and cloud anciently, “they are symbolic of our dependence on the superintending guidance of the Great Architect of the Universe, by which alone that strength and stability are secured.”[45]

 These two themes fit in rather well with the idea that the pillars represent God Himself. And from God’s strength and stability, we also live, function, and perform our lives.[46]

 Endnotes

 1.     Arturo de Hoyos, S. Brent Morris, “Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry?” M. Evans Publishing, revised edition, 2010: 108. “Freemasonry… has no dogma or theology, no wish or means to enforce religious orthodoxy.” (p. 108).

2.     William J. Hamblin, David Rolph Seely, “Solomon’s Temple: Myth and History,” Thames & Hudson, 2007: 29-30. See also John Monson, “The New ‘Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel,” in “Biblical Archaeology Review,” (2000).

3.     3.  R. B. Y. Scott, “The Pillars Jachin and Boaz,” in the “Journal of Biblical Literature,” Vol. 58, No. 2     (Jun., 1939): 144. My thanks to my dear and good friend Ron Beron for helping me acquire this     source.

4.    4.  Scott, “Ibid.,” p. 144.

5.     5. Arturo de Hoyos, S. Brent Morris, “Ibid.,” p. 129.

6.     6. Hugh Nibley, “One Eternal Round,” Deseret Book/ Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon     Studies, 2010: 590.

7.     7.  Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 588.

8.    8.  Andre Parrot, “The Temple of Jerusalem,” Studies in Biblical Archaeology No. 5, Philosophical     Library, 1955: 27.

9.     9. Parrot, “Ibid.,” p. 27-28.

10.  10. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” Abingdon Press, 4 vols., 1962: Vol. 1: 780.

11. 11.  Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). “Theological Wordbook of the     Old Testament,” (electronic ed.) (674). Chicago: Moody Press.

12. 12.  Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M., & Stamm, J. J. (1999, c1994-1996). “The Hebrew and     Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament” (electronic ed.) ( quote on page 843). Leiden;  New York: E.J. Brill.

13.  13.  “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” Abingdon Press, 4 vols., 1962: Vol. 1: 781.

14.  14.  “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” Abingdon Press, 4 vols., 1962: Vol. 1: 781.

15.   15. C. F. Keil, F. Delitzsch, “Commentary on the Old Testament in 10 Volumes,” William B.     Eerdmans Publishing, reprint, 1985, Vol. 3, 102-103.

16. 16.  Herbert G. May, “The Two Pillars before the Temple of Solomon,” in “Bulletin of the American     Schools of Oriental Research,” No. 88 (Dec., 1942), pp. 19-27.

17.  17. “Notes and Inquiries,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol. 84 (1971): 321.

18.  18. John M. Lundquist, “The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State,” in Donald W.     Parry (editor), “Temples in the Ancient World,” Deseret Book/ Foundation for Ancient Research and     Mormon Studies, 1994: 218.

19. 19.  Karl-Theodor Zauxich, “Hieroglyphen ohne Geheimnis,” translated from th German by Ann Macy     Roth, “Hieroglyphs Without Mystery,” University of Texas Press, 2^nd paperback, 1994: 46. See page     45 for the temple lentel inscription itself.

20. 20.  John H. Taylor, “Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt,” University of Chicago Press, 2001:     204.

21.  21. Carol L. Meyers, “Jachin and Boaz in Religious and Political Perspective,” in Truman G. Madsen,     (Editor), “The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives,” Volume 9 in the     Religious Studies Monograph Series, BYU Religious Studies Center, 1984: 136, 137.

22.  22. Truman G. Madsen, “ The Temple and the Restoration,” in “Temple in Antiquity,” p. 15.

23.  23. Robert B. Strassler, “The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories,” Pantheon Books, 2007: 162.

24.  24. John M. Lundquist, “The Legitimizing Role of the Temple,” p. 219.

25. 25.  R. B. Y. Scott, “The Pillars Jachin and Boaz,” in the “Journal of Biblical Literature,” Vol. 58,     No. 2 (Jun., 1939): 145.

26. 26.  Scott, “Ibid.,” p. 146.

27.  27. Scott, “Ibid.,” p. 147.

28.  28. Scott, “Ibid.,” p. 148.

29.  29. John M. Lundquist, “Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Old     Testament,” in Donald W. Parry (editor), “Temples in the Ancient World,” Deseret Book/ Foundation     for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994: 286.

30.  30. Walter Sharman, “Beside the Pillar… As the Manner Was,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Robert     A. Gilbert, (editor), Vol. 106 (1993): 239-240.

31.  31. Albert G. Mackey, “The History of Freemasonry: Its Legends and Traditions, Its Chronological     History,” Masonic History Co., 1906, Vol. 1: 1.

32.  32. Henry L. Stillson, (Editor-in-Chief) William James Hughan, (European editor), “History of the     Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons and Concordant Orders,” The     Fraternity Publishing Co., 1916: xvii.

33. 33.  Hugh Nibley, “Do History and Religion Conflict?” in “Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant     Present,” Don Norton, editor, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 12, Ancient History, Deseret     Book/ Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992: 440.

34.  34. C. N. Batham, “The Two Great Pillars,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol. 94 (1982): 248. Cf.     Batham, “The Alignment of the Temple,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol. 86 (1973): 347, The     great Biblical scholar and archaeologist, William F. Albright said “no certain traces of the Temple of     Solomon… have so far been recovered by archaeologists.” However, Albright still felt justified in     arguing against outright Biblical forgery, and believed evidence would come forth eventually.

35. 35.  Harry Carr, “Hebraic Aspects of the Ritual,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol. 97 (1984): 79.     See an excellent discussion by Yasha Beresiner, “Masonry Universal: Globes (and Maps) in     Freemasonry,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol. 102 (1989): 24-59.

36.  36. Albert Mackey, “Mackey’s Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,” by Robert I. Clegg, 2 Vols., The     Masonic History Co., 1920, Vol. 2: 780.

37.  37. C. F. W. Dyer, “The Two Pillars,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol. 94 (1982): 240. See also     Eric Ward, “In the Beginning was the Word… An Exercise in Ritual Archaeology,” in “Ars Quatuor     Coronatorum,” Vol. 83 (1970): 306.

38.  38. G. E. W. Bridge, “Veiled in Allegory and Illustrated by Symbols,” in “The Collected Prestonian     Lectures 1925 – 1960,” The Quatuor Coronati Lodge, 1967: 265-281.

39. 39.  Carr, “Hebraic Aspects,” p. 79.

40.  40. Alex Horne, “King Solomon’s Temple in the Masonic Tradition,” The Aquarian Press, 1972: 215-    216.

41.  41. Carr, “Hebraic Aspects,” p. 79.

42. 42.  Eric Ward, “In the Beginning was the Word… An Exercise in Ritual Archaeology,” in “Ars Quatuor     Coronatorum,” Vol. 83 (1970): 309.

43.  43. R. B. Khambatta, “King Solomon and the Temple,” in “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum,” Vol 93 (1981):     219.

44.  44. Eric Ward, “In the Beginning was the Word… An Exercise in Ritual Archaeology,” in “Ars Quatuor     Coronatorum,” Vol. 83 (1970): 309.

45.  45. Albert Mackey, “Mackey’s Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,” p. 781.

46.   46. Albert Mackey, “Mackey’s Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,” p. 782.

Many topics such as the fraud of Leo Taxil saying Albert Pike taught upper degrees of Masonry teach the worship of Satan, that Masons do not regard the Bible as important, that Masonry is simply pagan, Masonry as anti-religious,  etc. I will bring out the many details in this stunning tour de force of very strong, very logical, and stellar research decimating the anti-Masons, once I complete my reading of it. Simply a MUST OWN, and MUST READ book. I will write up a serious review of this here once I finish it.

The astonishing parallels with anti-Mormonism and Anti-Masonry is something else I am going to write about. Even down to the exact same authors who are both anti Mormon,/Mason, and the exact same strategies, and types of lies. De Hoyos and Morris destroy the anti-Masons. The deliberately stupid ones like Decker, Scnoebelen (sp?, yeah, I really don't care that much whether I get it right or not), etc.