Talk:Heb 12:1-13:25

Verse 12:18: Touched

I'm still stuck on this word, largely I think b/c the contrast in v. 22 is built on this (see also my comment on the Talk:Heb 12:21-25 page under the heading "The contrast in v. 22"). The Anchor Bible lists Ex 10:21 and Deut 4:11 as cross references which I want to study more when I have more time. Also, to understand better how God is associated with the "burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest" see the following:

• for fire: Ex 3:2; Ex 24:17; Ezek 1:27; see also Num 16:35; Heb 12:29 (which seems to be quoting Deut 4:24 and Deut 9:23)
• for blackness and darkness: Ex 20:21; Deut 5:22-23; 1 Kgs 8:12; see also Amos 5:20 and 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 1:6, 13
• for tempest: Ex 10:22

I'm also very interested in the "ineffable" idea in verse 19--this is my reminder to myself and invitation to others to help me think through these ideas.

While I have a minute more, I think these are interesting particularly interesting for Mormons b/c the rest of Christianity tends to read this (that is, "touched" in v. 18 coupled with "God is a consuming fire" in v. 29) as saying that God does not have a tangible body. D&C 130:22 of course undermines such a reading. So what is going on here?

Also, I think D&C 107 should be considered here since (1) it seems to contrast the Aaronic and Melchezidek priesthoods with the Aaronic being about temporal things (cf. "spritual things" in vv. 8 and 18 with "outward ordinances" in vv. 14 nd 20 and "temporal things" in v. 68), and (2) a nearby passage is quoted in the Joseph Smith sermon that Joe has referenced at Heb 12:22. --RobertC 01:38, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC)

You've sold me, Robert. Unfortunately for doing any serious work on this yet, I'm at my in-laws until late Thursday, where I have only a dial-up connection (country roads, take me home) and little time to do much (the blog is all I've really had time to get to while here). So hopefully on Friday I'll get back to this business, as well as to responding to much of what else is happening around the wiki. --Joe Spencer 02:44, 2 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Verses 12:22-24

I am increasingly convinced that these three verses are the key to understanding everything Joseph Smith had to teach after 1839. What is going on here, and what do these verses mean? I want to start working out some commentary here, and I'd invite any and all to work on these same verses also. --Joe Spencer 14:44, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Abel

The Abel/Christ connection seems to be one that we haven't really looked at closely as LDS. I'm really interested in thoughts on what this might be. We have Abel as the judge of the dead in Apocraphal Abraham literature. Abel as the name of the stone where Joshua placed the tabernacle. The blood of Abel, the blood of Christ. Some have suggested that the Abel story is based on earlier Summerian stories of the death and rebirth of Dumuzi. Anyone have some good published studies on the connections here?--Rob Fergus 17:39, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether this was implied in the list you wrote up there, Rob, but I take it you are familiar with this JST reading for Genesis 17 (lds.org has a typo: Able instead of Abel). I assume that it is connected with the present verse in some sense (the traditional response: Joseph restored the original source for "Paul"'s reference; the new mormon studies approach: Joseph tried to explain this verse and produced the JST at Genesis 17; my own approach: I don't know that I think Joseph restored some original text here, but I'm convinced he is letting us see a clue to unraveling the whole matter, showing us something true). In addition, I think that the Abel-Seth business raised some weeks ago now in the D&C is important here: Abel as the perennial son, Seth as the to-become-a-father. In other words, the two sides of the fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood are bound up with Seth and Abel (father and son, sealed up by the Holy Spirit, etc.).

But besides these, my own ruminations, here are a couple of things I'm pulling off my shelves right now. Harold Attridge writes the notes to Hebrews in the HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV). He notes at Heb 11:4, which is translated "By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain's. Through this he received approval as righteous, God himself giving approval to his gifts; he died, but through his faith he still speaks," that the "speaking" here is an interpretation of Gen 4:10, Abel's blood speaking from the ground after his death. That seems to be behind the present verse, which the NRSV translates: "and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." That's a rather fascinating statement, taken on its own! But in light of how central Joseph made this passage to the sealing keys and the gathering of the fathers to the sons, etc. (see his "before 8 August 1839" discourse), this Abel as son versus Jesus as Son thing is all the more interesting. Abel: the son who could not become a father, whose blood speaks impossibility (except in Christ/baptism for the dead?). Christ: the Son who rose again, as did His Father, to become a Father, whose blood therefore speaks all possibilities. Hmmm....

Glancing at Philo and Josephus, I don't see anything of particular interest. A couple of interesting traditions surface in the pseudepigrapha, however. In 1 Enoch 22, Enoch witnesses the dead raising their prayer for release to God. When he asks "Rufael," his angelic guide about the foremost of their voices, he is told "This is the spirit which had left Abel, whom Cain, his brother had killed; it continues to sue him until all of Cain's seed is exterminated from the face of the earth, and his seed has disintegrated from among the seed of the people" (verse 6). In the Testament of Abraham (where there, though?), Abel is the judge in the heavens. In the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 9:8, Isaiah sees Abel as the foremost of the righteous in the heavens. He is mentioned along with two other figures: Adam and Enoch.

More interesting still, though: In the Apostolic Constitutions 8.5.1-4, this is found: "You [God] are the one who marked out beforehand, from the beginning, priests for dominion over your people: Abel at first, Seth and Enos and Enoch and Noah, and Melchizedek and Job; the one sho showed forth Abraham, and the other patriarchs...." Those listed are interesting: "Abel at first," though his place was taken through murder, then "Seth and Enos" together, who appear to have formed a "first Presidency" with Adam in Moses 6 (see again the "before 8 August 1839" discourse). After that the ones we expect: Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Job, Abraham, etc. Perhaps most interesting of all, in the Life of Adam and Eve chapter 40, Cain tries to bury Abel's body, "but could not, for the earth did not receive the body, saying, 'I shall not receive another body until the mound of earth which was taken from me and formed shall come to me.' Then the angels took up the body and set it on the rock, until the time his father died, and both were buried according to the command of God in the regions of Paradise in the place from which God had found the dust" (verses 4-6).

Anyway, some traditions to get a discussion started. Fascinating stuff, no? --Joe Spencer 00:09, 15 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Verse 12:22: The contrast in v. 22

What about the contrasting "but" in v. 22 being not just with the "touched" of v. 18, but the event of burning and darkness? This shifts the emphasis to the unsanctified status of those at the event of Mount Sinai with the already-perfect status of God's assembly in v. 23. This also suggests an interpretation of v. 20 that emphasizes (perhaps) the non-son status of any animal that touches the mountain (referring to the son theme developed earlier in this chapter). Thinking in terms of the temple, my thinking is that those who have entered the temple are those who have already been born again and do not need to fear any destruction or judgment (per vv. 25ff) b/c the necessary change has already been effected....

I think the "touched" could also be interpreted this way. The Greek pselaphao (touched) used in Acts 17:27 has a searching/groping connotation (cf. D&C 101:8--I think the "feel after" usage there is lexically linked to the situation at Mount Sinai...). So the contrast here is between those who are in the process of searching (by having their unrighteous orientation destroyed) with those who have already reoriented themselves (or who have already "been touched" by God) in order to be one with God. This reading also affords an interesting connection with psallo (to touch or to pluck)--that is worshipful music is supposed to reorient us toward God.

Hmmm, not sure if this really works in the end, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Also, these issues make think of Luke 17:21--is the kingdom of God "within" or "in the midst of us"? It seems to me to be basically the same issue (notice, however, the related "though he be not far from every one of us" in Acts 17:27 which might bring us full circle to the tangible/intangible distinction of "touched"...). I like thinking that Luke is purposely a bit vague, or that it is at least conveying both ideas (like the idea of cleansing the inner vessel first and then the outer vessel can start to become clean: if we approach Zion in our hearts first, in the temple, then we can work on building Zion outside of ourselves and outside of the temple...). --RobertC 18:18, 18 Dec 2006 (UTC)

stickler

In saying this I realize I run the risk of being too much of a stickler, but here goes... I think we need to separate commentary on these verses themselves from commentary on Joseph Smith's interpretation of these verses. The former clearly belongs on the commentary pages (and in as much as Joseph Smith's intepretation is an interpretation it is fine to include it). But the commentary should focus on interpretting the scriptures--not commenting on Joseph Smith's interpretation. That part of the commentary today which has as its aim to understand or explain Joseph Smith's interpretation I believe should be moved to a user sub-page. (As as side note: this should not be seen as saying it is less important--it is not difficult for a user to click a link--the point is to be consistent about the type of content in the commentary.) I'm going to have a hard time justifying my position. But, if everyone agrees with me I won't bother. If others disagree I'll give it my best shot. If people agree but aren't sure how best to acheive what I am suggesting, I am willing to give it a shot but wanted to solicit opinion on this before taking any drastic step. --Matthew Faulconer 05:25, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Stickle away, Matthew. I agree. As I wrote what is there, I wrestled with it, because it seems obvious that it steers too far astray from the wiki's outlines. The reason I haven't really returned to it, in fact, is because I've been wrestling with what on earth to do about it. At first I thought it best just to interpret the verses directly, but through a lens like Joseph's, but I find that rather difficult to write. So I've sort of been sitting here puzzled. I'm thinking a lot right now about Joseph's approach to the Bible and what it means for Latter-day Saint hermeneutics (on a four-fold level: the JST, revelations that allude to or explain the Bible, full-blown revelations of ancient texts (Abraham, D&C 7, etc.), and vocal commentary). But I think you are right to say that this sort of question outstrips the purposes of the site. Perhaps especially because so little work has been done on "Joseph Smith and the Bible." I'm not, however, very patient with editing my own work, so I will ask another willing soul to work through these few paragraphs to purge the 1830's from them. Thanks. --Joe Spencer 18:32, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I think that, at least in a certain sense, Matthew is right (though I'm not conceding that a careful study of Joseph and the 1830's is not important for reading this passage...). However, I really hope Joe will continue to share his thoughts and findings regarding Joseph's relation to this passage, either on the wiki or on the blog (and I think I speak for many others, incl. Matthew). --RobertC 21:35, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I will, Robert, in one way or another. Perhaps the blog. Perhaps lds-herm is a good place? I'm not sure. This question is becoming obsessive for me (the broader question of Joseph's relation to the Bible, that is), and I'm not sure exactly how to address its--what seem to me to be--explosive implications for Mormon studies. Perhaps I should work out a subpage for Hebrews 12:22+, or perhaps I should create a user subpage for the subject generally. My fear is that if I do this last one, I will stop posting on everything else in the meanwhile. Hmm... --Joe Spencer 16:00, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a blog post would be great. I also think a subpage (or set of them) would be great. Further, I don't see those two as mutually exclusive. For example, I could see one starting work on a subpage on a particular topic, then posting something on the blog to get others' ideas on a couple of issues in particular and then going back to the subpage. On the question of whether to devote yourself to this topic. The way I deal with this question is pretty much I try to write on whatever interests me most. I like the fact that this gives me a feeling of freedom--I can jump around knowing that my half-finished thought (which is no longer my top priority) is there as it is and one day I'll get back to it (or someone else will).

On a related note, I see this site going through certain stages. Right now this site is littered with great ideas and comments which are often not complete and certainly not polished. I think that is great. Better that than us all working on producing 2 perfect pages.

--Matthew Faulconer 03:59, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC)