Why Noah Matters

On March 28th, movie (and I suppose Bible) fans across the world will get their first glimpse at Darren Aronofsky's Noah, starring Russel Crow, Anthony Hopkins, Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson.  According to the film's website, Noah is the "epic story of courage, sacrifice and hope" and this film "brings to light an untold story" (I'm assuming the cast has uncovered new ancient documents about the Noah flood because I was under the impression that this story was quite familiar to almost everyone) of the Noah that nobody has seen before (you gotta love that Russell Crowe guy. Noah was in desperate need of a makeover!).

To be honest, I am actually pretty excited to see this movie, even if it ends up being historically and/or theologically bogus.  The story of Noah has always been one of my favorites of the Old Testament.  Besides, the preview looks pretty good.  See for yourself:

 

The story of Noah, as found in the Book of Genesis, is arguably the most controversial tale of the entire Bible. The notion that a global flood, just a few thousand years ago, killed every living thing with the exception of the animals and people Noah brought with him on his magical Ark, has spawned debate for centuries. Scientists, historians, geologists, physicists, etc. have (at least in my book) closed the case when it comes to Noah being a literal and absolutely factual history.  It is not.

Despite this fact (and yes, it is a FACT), the story of Noah is not without merit, and that merit goes far beyond a simple bedtime tale or a cool Hollywood movie. The Noah story matters. It has deep theological and moral value that should be recognized, regardless of whether you esteem it as infallible history or a cool ancient myth.

To understand why the Noah story matters, we must first take a brief look (and I do emphasize brief) at how this story came to be.  Most people with even a relatively limited understanding of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) recognize that the Noah story has its origins in even older tales outside of the Hebrew tradition. Whether it be the Sumerian tale of Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim or the Hindu tale of Manu and Matsya, deluge myths are common motifs of the ancient world.  The reasons for this are somewhat complex, but as Yale University Professor of Religion Christine Hayes points out:

The ancients placed creation within the primordial soup of water. In the Babylonian creation myth, it is the blood of the slain Tiamat that sprays forth from the firmament as rain and from the earth as lakes and oceans. Water is the breeding ground for the gods who use this soup to give life to the earth, the plants, the animals and finally to mankind himself. But water is also what takes life away, allowing the gods to start anew their creative process. 

Keeping this idea of water as the primordial soup of creation and destruction, we can better understand the significance of certain verses of scripture found in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis:

2.) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit (translated as "wind") of God moved upon the face of the waters.

6.) And God said, Let the there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let ut divide the waters from the waters (a verse obviously influenced from the Babylonian epic of Marduk and Tiamat).

7.) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters (much as Marduk spliced open Tiamat) which were under the firmament from the waters which wee above the firmament: and it was so.

8.) And God called the firmament Heaven.

9.) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10.) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good (just as Marduk called one half of Tiamat the heavens and the other half the earth).

It is through the vehicle of water that the Hebrew God (not to mention the Babylonian and even earlier Sumerian God) is able to bring about creation.  Ironically enough, evolutionists would agree (in a roundabout way) with this claim, since they too maintain that much of life came from the primordial soup that is earth's oceans.

As for the Noah story, the flood becomes more than just a destructive force.  It is the life-giving "soup" that brings about a new beginning.  As a result, the Noah flood saga is less about a vindictive god bent on destroying man and more about a loving creator trying to breathe new life into a corrupt and dying world. The Noah story is a shared motif that early Hebrews borrowed from their neighbors and not a unique creation they came up with on their own. As historians Victor Matthews and James Moyer point out in their book, The Old Testament: Text and Context:

The Israelites shared much of the worldview of ancient Mesopitamia. As a result, a great deal of the material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region. This is what makes the study of nonbiblical epics so valuable. By making comparisons and by seeing the general religious and literary environment of the ancient Near East, it is possible to understand more fully how the Israelites perceived their world and their place in it.

Regardless of its origins, Noah presents to both the ancient and modern reader a lesson on how important and precious life really is. The primordial waters that give life can also take it away, but from terrible destruction and devastation comes new life. As Utnapishtim (Noah) teaches the great hero Gilgamesh (ancient Sumeria's version of George Washington):

"Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man."

From Utnapishtim, Gilgamesh learns the important lesson that life should be cherished because it is not going to last forever.  For the Biblical Noah, mankind's ultimate zoologist, sailor and colonizer, the importance of cherishing life...all forms of life...is a lesson he knew all too well.  Caring for plants, animals and humans became the central purpose of Noah's existence, and is the principal lesson he teaches us today. We are, whether we want to admit it or not, responsible for how we treat not only our fellow humans, but how we treat the earth and its abundant plant and animal life. Yes, we need to devour plant and animal life in order to sustain our own, but this is an intimate relationship that binds all life as opposed to dividing it.  Noah honors his sacrifice of a "clean beast" and a "clean fowl" upon his altar, and God accepts it with a "sweet savor" (Gen. 8:20-21). God honors the sacrifice of all His creations. After all, His covenant isn't just made with man.  As we learn from Genesis chapter 9, verses 5, 12 and 13:

5.) And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of EVERY BEAST WILL I REQUIRE IT, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

12.) And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you AND EVERY LIVING CREATURE that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13.) I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me AND THE EARTH. 

In short, God's love for His creations includes far more than just us. It is human arrogance that we think God cares only for the Homo Sapiens.  Just as God saved the male and female Adam and Eve from the mistakes made in the Garden of Eden, so did God save the male and female versions of all animal life from the corruption of a degraded world.  The ark was meant for the lion, tiger, bear and rabbit every bit as much as it was meant for man.  

Noah's legacy is far more than just a tale of a great shipbuilder or divinely inspired zookeeper. It is a lesson on how to appreciate life on all levels. Tragedies of all kinds (floods, fires, earthquakes, famines, etc.) will always abound.  Such is the state of our existence in mortality. Whether you believe that God caused/causes these tragedies is irrelevant. Death and destruction is here to stay. Our job is simply to enjoy the ride on our own arks of life, regardless of whether the waves take us out or not. We, like the animals or Noah himself, enter our arks, side-by-side with those who are embarking with us on the journey of life.  As Morgan Freeman put it in the film Evan Almighty:


For me, the story of Noah is not one in which death and destruction come from an evil and sadistic god who could care less about giving humanity a second chance.  Instead, it is the story of how God helps man deal with the inevitable tragedies of mortality. From death and destruction comes new life and happiness. Our job is to recognize the rainbow in the tempest by changing our attitude. In so doing, perhaps we too will be able to sing with Gilgamesh the song of joy in the face of tragedy:

"The dream was marvelous but the terror was great; we must treasure the dream whatever the terror; for the dream has shown that misery comes at last to the healthy man, the end of his life is sorrow. But from death comes new life, but its days are numbered, whatever he might do, it is but a wind."

Wisdom and the "Heavenly Goddess/Mother" Legends

As anyone who is bilingual/multilingual will tell you, the work of translating from one language to another can, at times, be a bit of a mess.  For example:

 

Fortunately for America, this simple and innocent faux pas on the part of Secretary Clinton ended with little more than a chuckle for both parties.  Other translation errors, however, have had much more serious repercussions. 

When translating the Bible into English, for example, a number of mistakes were made in the process.  Whether confusing the words "camel" with "rope" or "eunuch" with "believer," it is clear that at least some honest mistakes could not be entirely avoided.  And while some translation errors resulted in incorrect words or phrases being published to the world, there were other errors which proved to be more subtle but every bit as critical to capturing the original meanings behind these ancient texts. 

One possible example of this fact rests with the word "wisdom," or in Hebrew, חוכמה (not that I have any clue what that means but it looks cool). According to Webster's Dictionary, wisdom is: "the quality of being wise; knowledgeable, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and the best means."  This seems to be as solid a definition as any for the word, "wisdom."

The Bible is literally saturated with beautiful references to wisdom and the importance that God places on our obtaining and cultivating this all-important attribute.  For it was by wisdom that God created the earth and established the heavens (Prov. 3: 19).  Wisdom was the gift that Solomon wanted more than any other (1 Kings 4: 29).  It was with the temptation of greater wisdom that the serpent was able to get Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3: 5).  And as every good Mormon knows, it was the quest for greater wisdom that compelled a young Joseph Smith to seek God in prayer (James 1: 5).  And it was an appeal to God's natural wisdom that inspired Poet William Wordsworth to write:

Books! ’tis a dull and endless strife:
Come, hear the woodland linnet,
How sweet his music! on my life,
There’s more of wisdom in it

Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.

Yes, it is safe to say that wisdom is one of humanity's basic instinctual cravings. 

But is there more to the word "wisdom" than meets the eye?  As mentioned above, translation errors can, at times, distort the original meanings to certain words, or even negate what was originally an important concept that ancient writers wanted to convey. How does this all apply to the word "wisdom?"

In the Hebrew language, the word "wisdom" is feminine, as is the case in many other languages.  Of course, this isn't particularly noteworthy for us today, since most nouns are, at least in most languages, assigned masculine or feminine pronouns.  But wisdom was unique to the ancients because it not only served as an embodiment of special knowledge but also because it embodied deity itself.

Throughout the ancient tradition, wisdom was regularly personified as an exalted female figure, crying out to her lost children with loving petitions to correct their wayward behavior:

Wisdom crieth without; SHE uttereth HER voice in the streets: SHE crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city SHE uttereth HER words, saying: how long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1: 20-22).

Whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or other ancient languages, the personification of wisdom with feminine deity was an important and common practice.  Many of the earliest Goddesses of the ancient world were exalted primarily for their wisdom and loving kindness towards mankind.  In the Celtic world, the Goddess Danu was known as the "Beloved wise one" and "Mother of heroes."  For earlier Egyptians, the Goddess Hathor was one of the most important and popular deities throughout the history of Ancient Egypt.  It was her "wise guidance and counsel" to other gods within the Egyptian pantheon that earned her the title "Mother Goddess."  And then there's the case of the other "Mother Goddess" of the Semitic world, Asherah, whose wisdom and kindness to mankind earned her the title of "Queen of Heaven" and "Goddess and consort of Yahweh who is worshipped in Heaven." 

This union between wisdom and female deity may seem like little more than simple polytheism to most, but such a label oversimplifies and downplays the importance that the ancients placed on this wisdom/Mother Goddess dichotomy.  For most ancients, wisdom WAS the Mother Goddess. As historian William Denver makes clear in his work, Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel:

The rediscovery of the Goddess and of women's popular cults in ancient Israel redresses the balance. It helps to correct the andocentric bias of the biblical writers. It "fleshes out" the concept of God, brings the divine mystery closer to the heart of human experience, and yes, to the mystery of human sexual love. We humans are engendered; if we are to think and speak about God at all, it must be in a way that combines all that is best in males and all that is best in females. Even the androcentric biblical writers sometimes employed female imagery. Yahweh "gave birth" to Israel (Deut. 32:18); he has a "womb" (Job 32:29).

Whether or not we of the modern world esteem this ancient folk tradition of wisdom and the Mother Goddess as nonsense is irrelevant, for its presence can be found throughout ancient scripture.  For example:

Happy is the man that findeth WISDOM, and the man that getteth understanding.  SHE is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto HER. Length of days is in HER right hand; and in HER left hand ariches and honour. HER ways are ways of pleasantness, and all HER paths are peace. SHE is a tree of alife to them that lay hold upon HER: and happy is every one that retaineth HER.

And here's the really cool final verse:

The Lord BY WISDOM HATH FOUNDED THE EARTH; by understanding hath he established the heavens (Proverbs 3: 13, 15-19).

Was a "Mother Goddess" (a.k.a. "Wisdom") involved with the creation? 

But that's not all:

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But WISDOM is justified of HER children (Matthew 11: 19).

For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I WISDOM dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions (Proverbs 8: 11-12).  [Interesting to note the first person reference here!]

From the Book of Wisdom:

Now with you is WISDOM, who knows your works and was present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes and what is conformable with your commands. Send HER forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch HER that she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure (NAB Wis 9: 1,6,9-10 ). [Note that Wisdom is female, and with God at creation. She is coeternal with the Father.]

And from, of all places, The Book of Mormon:

O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek WISDOM, neither do they desire that SHE should rule over them! (Mosiah 8: 20).

Now, by no means am I suggesting that every single reference to wisdom in scripture is somehow referring to a female goddess.  I wouldn't feel comfortable making the claim that any of the aforementioned verses prove such an assertion.  However, I do think it is abundantly clear that the ancients esteemed wisdom and the "Mother Goddess" tradition as being one in the same.  As the great Hebrew scholar Raphael Patai points out in his excellent book, The Hebrew Goddess:

In the Book of Job, Wisdom is described as a personage whose way is understood and place is known only by God himself, while the Book of Proverbs asserts that Wisdom was the earliest of God's creations and that ever since the primeval days she (Wisdom) has been God's playmate.

In the Apocrypha, this role of Wisdom is even more emphasized. A passage in the Wisdom of Solomon states that "She [Wisdom] proclaims her noble birth in that it is given to her to live with God and the Sovereign Lord of all loved her."  It was observed by Gershom Scholem that the term appears again in the same chapter in the sense of marital connubium, and that it is therefore clear that Wisdom here is regarded as God's wife. Philo states quite unequivically that God is the husband of Wisdom.

Wisdom played a particularly important role among the Jewish Gnostics. References to the role of Wisdom in the primodial days of the world seem to indicate the existance of a Gnostic Hokhma-myth which originated in Jewish circles and was hypothetically reconstructed as follows:

Out of the primeval chaos, God created the seven archons through the intermediacy of his Wisdom, which was identical with the "dew of light."  Wisdom now cast her eidolon, or shadow-image upon the primeval waters of the Tohu wa-Bohu, whereupon the archons formed the world and the body of man.  Man crawled about upon the earth like a worm, until Wisdom endowed him with spirit. Satan, in the shape of a serpant, had intercourse with Eve who thereupon bore Cain and Abel.  Thus sexuality became the original sin. After the fall, the sons of Seth fought the sons of Cain.  When the daughters of Cain seduced the sons of Seth, Wisdom brought the flood upon the earth (Pp. 97-98).

There is perhaps no better example of this wisdom/Mother Goddess relationship than that of Sophia.  For the Hellenized Greek world, Sophia (which in Greek actually means "wisdom") was the literal philosophical personification of wisdom.  In later Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity, Sophia was an expression of understanding of the Holy Spirit. It was (for many of these early Greek Christians) Sophia who caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus.  In addition, it was Sophia who descended upon Jesus as a dove at his baptism. 

One important thing to remember here is that Sophia was never a member of the traditional gods of Greek mythology.  She was a later and separate goddess who came to embody wisdom itself.  For Plato, Sophia was best understood as philo-Sophia, literally meaning the love of wisdom (or what we call philosophy today).  In fact, it was Socrates, who, when standing before the Oracle of Delphi and questioned, "Of all the Greeks who is the wisest?" responded, "Why none more so than the Mother Sophia."  Socrates then went on to make his famous declaration, "I know one thing: that I know nothing," but then went on to explain that true wisdom came from accepting this all-important fact of life.   Is it any wonder why the earliest Christians chose to name the most magnificent architectural achievement of the Medieval era the "Hagia Sophia?" (which means "Holy Wisdom").

With this concept of wisdom/Mother Goddess fully infused into much of the ancient world, we of the modern day can gain a different and newer perspective on what these ancient writers were trying to say.  There can be little doubt that the wisdom/Mother Goddess dichotomy was, for many ancients, as real as the Trinity is for many orthodox Christians.  To separate the two words from what appears to be, at least in some cases, a duel meaning would be like separating peanut butter from jelly.  Why on earth would anyone want to separate that which seems meant for the other?  And if there is to be a "Mother Goddess" theology, I can think of no better attribute for her to possess than that of wisdom.  Wisdom rules heaven together with God, and the two are peanut butter and jelly!  Or as the Muslim proverb put it, "Heaven rests at the feet of wisdom."

The Pearl's Great Price: Juxtaposing the Book of Abraham With the Book of Moses

And What They Teach Us About
the Nature of Revelation

One of the most popular "smoking gun" allegations against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and of Joseph Smith in particular, has been the Book of Abraham. This book, along with the Book of Moses, comprise the majority of what Mormons call The Pearl of Great Price, one of four works canonized as scripture by the LDS faith. To understand the nature of these allegations we must first briefly revisit the history of the Book of Abraham and of the Pearl of Great Price in general.

A Brief History of the Joseph Smith Papyri
In 1833 a man named Michael Chandler purchased a collection of mummies, scrolls and other Egyptian artifacts from an excavator named Antonio Lebolo. Chandler attempted to earn money by touring the eastern United States with the artifacts, electing to sell a number of them along the way. In 1835, while traveling through Kirtland, Ohio, Chandler sold his last four mummies along with a collection of several scrolls to Joseph Smith for $2,400. While examining the artifacts, Smith declared that the scrolls "contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236). Smith immediately set out to translating the record and completed most of the work in the latter months of 1835. After a few revisions in 1842 the work was completed and published in the church magazine Times and Seasons later that same year. In 1880, along with other works, the Book of Abraham was canonized as scripture as part of the Pearl of Great Price.

For members of the Mormon church in Smith's time, the Book of Abraham was seen as the palpable reality of Smith's divine revelatory powers. Though members already had access to the Book of Mormon they did not have access to the golden plates. The Book of Abraham, however, retained its original primary source material in the form of ancient Egyptian scrolls. Even today most members of the church accept the Book of Abraham at face value. Few have found any reason to question its authenticity.

And though Mormons of the 19th century had an excuse to not question the Book of Abraham (the Rosetta Stone had still not been deciphered making any translation of Egyptian impossible), today's Mormon is forced to confront some difficult hurdles. Unlike 19th century historians, modern day scholars know precisely what the book of Abraham scrolls and facsimiles have to say. How? Because we have the scrolls themselves.

When Joseph Smith died in 1844, the papyri became the property of his wife, Emma. In the wake of the succession crisis over who would replace Smith as prophet, a battle that Brigham Young eventually won, Emma refused to relinquish control of the documents to the church. At some point, Emma elected to donate the artifacts to a Chicago museum. For decades thereafter it was believed that the ultimate fate of the papyri ended with their destruction in the great Chicago fire of 1871. However, in 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The papyri were then given back to the church where they remain to this day.

So What do They Say?
The natural question for us today is, "Have modern Egyptologists deciphered the papyri?" The answer is "Yes." The obvious followup question is "What do modern Egyptologists have to say?" For Mormons the answer isn't very appealing. It turns out that the papyri are nothing more than common Egyptian funerary texts from the first century B.C. (a full translation of the papyri can be found here). In addition to the papyri being common funerary texts, the facsimile's from the Book of Abraham are of note. Contrary to Smith's interpretation, modern day Egyptologists have conclusively shown that the facsimiles are not a depiction of Abraham on an altar (facsimile 1), or of Kolob and other heavenly representations (facsimiles 2 and 3). Rather they are common embalming scenes and a hypocephalus from the Egyptian Book of the Dead and Book of Breathings. When asked about Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles, Dr. W.M. Flinders of London University stated, "It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in [Smith's] explanations" (I recognize that these facsimiles deserve further attention but that is not the purpose of this post. You can find a plethora of good material on the topic with a simple Google search. I'll let the reader decide what are good sources for further research). In short, modern day Egyptologists have successfully shown that the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith said it was. And make no mistake, this isn't a conspiracy nor an attempt to smear Joseph Smith. This is factual, provable, verifiable reality. There is no reason that I or any other Mormon should attempt to sugarcoat these undeniable facts.

Now before my Mormon friends bail on me for sounding too "anti-Mormon" hear me out for a second. Though it is true that the papyri and facsimiles are not what Joseph Smith said they were, and regardless of the fact that Joseph Smith didn't understand Egyptian in any way, shape or form, and in spite of the true interpretations of modern Egyptologists, I still maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture. Here's how:

Don't Throw the Baby Jesus
Out With the Bathwater
As I write this post we are but 2 days away from my favorite holiday: Christmas! This is truly the best time of the year! Holiday cheer is in the air, Christmas lights decorate the town, and homes smell sweet with the scent of freshly cut Christmas trees. But most importantly I love Christmas because of Christ. And though I love this holiday more than all the rest, I fully recognize the fact that almost everything we do on Christmas has nothing do do with Christ. In fact, most of what we do to celebrate this season is pagan in origin. From Christmas trees to holiday wreaths, yule logs to mistletoe, Christmas is LOADED with pagan rituals and tradition that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity (for more on this topic see my post here).

Does this truth about Christmas take away from the holiday season? Is it the duty of all good Christians to reject these traditions? Does the baby Jesus care that we celebrate his birth with pagan symbols in the dead of winter? I contend that he does not. What matters is that Christmas, even with all of its pagan elements, is the medium through which we celebrate the birth of Christ. We are imperfect people. Imperfect people make mistakes. This means that it is only natural that our imperfections will manifest themselves through our traditions, customs and yes, even our history.

And the same is true of the Book of Abraham. Is the book good history? Absolutely not. Is it good scripture? No doubt about it. And make no mistake, there is a clear difference between history and scripture. The former must be analytical, objective and rely on demonstrative evidence, while the latter is allegorical, inspiring and faith-promoting. For critics to expect perfection from the Book of Abraham is to expect what never was, is, or ever will be. Or as the poet Alexander Pope put it:

Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see.
Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be
In every work regard the writer's end,
Since none can compass more than they intend,
And if the means be just, the conduct true,
Applause, in spite of trivial faults, is due.

And though my defense of the Book of Abraham will no doubt come off sounding like the rantings of a biased apologist to critics, I still maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture, and to support this claim I now turn to the Book of Abraham's "twin sister" in the Pearl of Great Price: the Book of Moses.

Enoch: The Mystery Man
Unlike the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses was the result of direct revelation to Joseph Smith while he attempted his revision of the Holy Bible. The work was completed long before the book of Abraham (1830-31) and was incorporated into the Pearl of Great Price as a "sister book" to the BoA. In Smith's translation, 3,422 words were added to the Genesis story up until chapter 6:13, which is where the Book of Moses ends. That almost exactly doubles the conventional word count of Genesis up to that point in the King James Version. The Book of Moses deals with the creation story and a few short narratives on Moses himself, but the bulk of it centers on the story of Enoch. This is significant because the story of Enoch is almost non-existent in most Christian scripture (particularly the Bible) but is the central theme of the Book of Moses. And it also helps that the Enoch of the Book of Moses just happens to fit very nicely with the Enoch from the actual ancient texts. For example:

Moses 7:67 "And the Lord showed Enoch all things, even unto the end of the world."

2 Enoch 40:1 "Now therefore, my children, I know everything;...my eyes have seen from the beginning even to the end, and from the end to the recommencement."
-----
Moses 7:4 [the Lord said to Enoch] "Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations."

3 Enoch 45 "And I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts...And every deed of every generation, whether done or to be done in the time to come, to all generations, till the end of time."
-----
Moses 6:51 "And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh."

2 Enoch 23:4-5 "You [Enoch] sit down and write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born,...For all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth."
-----
Moses 7:44 "And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted.

2 Enoch 41:1 "And I [Enoch] sighed and burst into tears, and I said concerning their disreputable depravity, Oh how miserable."
-----
Moses 7:59 [Enoch to God] "Thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne."

3 Enoch 10:1-3 [Enoch speaking] "The Holy One made for me a throne like the throne of glory...He placed it at the door of the seventh palace and sat me down upon it."

Needless to say, the similarities between Smith's Book of Moses and the actual records of Enoch are striking (and there are a lot more than what I listed above). These incredible similarities are a fact not lost to many experts. For example, noted Yale scholar Harold Bloom, who specializes in ancient and sacred literature, stated that the Book of Moses (and Abraham) is "strikingly akin to ancient suggestions" that essentially restate "the archaic or original Jewish religion, a Judaism that preceded even the Yahwist." Bloom continued by stating that he found "enormous validity" in the way these writings "recapture critical elements in the archaic Jewish religion...that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched [Joseph] Smith directly." So while the Book of Abraham is often the recipient of criticism, it's "sister book" has been praised by scholars in a variety of fields.

Of course, critics have countered these claims by pointing out the fact that the first English translation of the Book of Enoch (the Bodleian/Ethiopic manuscripts) was published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, nine years before Smith's Book of Moses revelation. However, these early translations (and others like them) do not contain the similarities mentioned above. Those come from later (and better) translations of the ancient text made long after Smith's death. In addition, though these works were published in the early part of the 19th century, they did not become popular (even in Europe) until the 1850s. So while it is possible that Smith had access to a condensed early version of the ancient Enoch, it is certainly not probable.

The Nature of Revelation
So how can one book in the Pearl of Great price (the BoA) have so many apparent problems, while the other (the BoM) receives praise? The answer lies with the nature of revelation itself. Contrary to what many believe (even within my own faith) I maintain that revelation is not some magical, mysterious, supernatural connection to heaven. I do not believe in psychics and I reject the "hocus pocus" tactics of fortune tellers. Heck, I reject a lot of the supposed "revelation" that many in my own faith hail as fact (every faith has its mythology). Instead, revelation is (in my opinion) the quiet, consistent persuasions of the mind that often lead to those "AHA!" moments. Or as Joseph Smith himself put it:

A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon...And thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, Pp. 151).

Does that mean that anyone can receive revelation? Absolutely, and I believe that most of us receive it without our even knowing it. Revelation is a part of us. It invigorates the mind the same way air invigorates the lungs (and most of us breathe without even thinking of it). Revelation is the "light bulb" of the mind turning on to new and exciting ideas. It is what inspires the poet, motivates the scientist, drives the composer and enlightens the philosopher. This is how everything from the Bible, the Qur'an, Handel's "Messiah", and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel can be seen as the fruits of revelation (yet all of those still have their human imperfections). I believe that some of the world's greatest thinkers received revelation. As James E Faust taught:

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

It is arrogant presumption for us to think that all of our thoughts and ideas are exclusively our own. We thank God for the air we breathe and the food we eat. Why not for the inspirations of our mind? In short, revelation is the "eye" (or "I") to enlightenment, which we discover through: "I"nspiration, "I"ntellect, "I"ntuition and "I"nstinct.

None of this, of course, can explain how the Book of Abraham can appear as an apparent historical fraud and still be inspired scripture. Much of this rests with the eye (or "I") of the beholder. What we do know is that inspiration, intellect, intuition and instincts are tricky things. We all know that they are real but they can also be quite deceiving. It's hard for us imperfect humans to fully trust our intellect, intuition, etc., but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Perhaps Joseph Smith's intellect and intuition were wrong about the papyri he purchased but that doesn't mean that he wasn't inspired. Could the papyri have served to "spark" the revelation? To the critic such an assertion is ridiculous, to the believer in revelation...true revelation...it is quite probable. As Nephi put it:

But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught (2 Nephi 33:2).

For me, the real beauty of the Pearl of Great Price rests with its lessons on revelation. Here are two books, with very different pathways to revelation, testifying of the truthfulness of the Gospel. It is true that scripture never has, nor ever will be, good history or science, but history and science have never been good scripture. History may answer the "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions, while science answers the "how" questions, but it is religion that answers the ever-important "why" questions. The truth of the matter is that we need them all to gain further light and knowledge...i.e. further revelation. As one important revelation put it: "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." (and dare I say that the glory of God is also Inspiration, Intuition and Instinct as well).

Let us all be grateful for the revelation we receive, regardless of its source. Whether in the form of "non-Mormon" source material or questionable historical relics is irrelevant. The work of revelation, though often painstaking and difficult to sort out, is worth all of the work. Remember, every butterfly was first a caterpillar, every flower had to first push through dirt, and every pearl of great price was first irritating sand inside of an oyster. No revelation is meant to be easy, if this were not the case, what would it be revealing?

Happy Samhain...er...Pomona...er...Halloween

In my opinion, one of the coolest aspects of history is to see how ancient customs and traditions from hundreds or even thousands of years ago still manage to weave themselves into our 21st century world. Such is the case with many of our current holidays. Whether it be Saturnalia (Christmas), Imbolc (Groundhog Day) or St. Patrick's Day, it is astonishing to see just how many of these ancient pagan traditions are still with us today, even if their meanings have been lost to time.

Such is the case with Halloween. This holiday, which has become a favorite for children in many parts of the world, has its roots in an era from long ago.

In the highlands of modern day Ireland and many other parts of the British Isles, the Celtic festival of Samhain was celebrated by scores of small towns and villages throughout the land. Samhain (one of the most important Celtic holidays), which was essentially an end of the harvest festival, marked the beginning of winter's reign (called the "dark half" of the year). During this day (the night of October 31 extending into the morning of November 1), Celts believed that the barrier between the living world and the "otherworld" was so thin that the souls of the deceased were able to easily pass between the two.

And while it may seem strange to us in the modern world to hear of mystical barriers between one world and the next being thinned on a singular fall evening, we need to keep in mind that the ancient world of Celts was deeply dependent on the elements. As agricultural societies of the ancient world, Celtic people understood all too well what the winter months meant. Is it any wonder that these people, who saw dying trees, plants, animals and even people with the advent of winter, would see October 31 as a day when the barrier between the living and the dead faded?

During the celebration of Samhain, Celts would invoke the help of their local priests (druids) to pray to the gods for safety from death. These prayers reached a crescendo on Samhain, when the souls of the dead (particularly those who had died in the previous year) could come to the aid of their loved ones.

But not all the souls who crossed into the land of the living were kind. As a result, Celts went to extremes to protect themselves from these unwanted visitors. Bonfires on the outskirts of town were dedicated to the gods as a way to beg for the return of the sun and as a way to keep the evil spirits away. Average people would also dress up in various costumes to ward off the unwanted spirits from their village. In addition, blood sacrifices of animals were regularly made by druid priests, who believed that on Samhain they could better predict the future of the coming year than on any other day.

Samhain wasn't the only festival in the ancient world. In Rome, the celebration of Pomona, the goddess of fruits and gardens, was held on November 1. On this day, divination games (essentially fortune telling games) were a regular part of the Pomona celebration. One of the many games, particularly for men and women who had reached the age of maturity, was to bob for apples, peel the skin, toss the skin over one's shoulder and then analyze it to see which letter of the alphabet it resembled. It was believed that the letter was the first letter of the man/woman that the participant would marry. As the Roman empire continued to expand into northern Europe the ideas of Pomona (the celebration of the harvest) and Samhain (the celebration of the dead) began to fuse with each other. Soon the Roman and Celtic festivals became a united and mainstream celebration that spanned over an entire continent.

But Pomona/Samhain would not overcome every obstacle. With the emergence of Christianity as the preeminent force of the Medieval World, the celebration of Pomona/Samhain would change forever. With its hostility towards all things pagan, the Catholic Church quickly sought for the removal of festivals like Samhain (and Saturnalia). However, church authorities quickly realized that these beliefs and traditions couldn't simply be squashed out. As a result, the church adopted a different tactic. Under the direction of Pope Gregory I, church authorities no longer sought to remove pagan ideas but to Christianize them. Pagan idols were given Christian identities while the pagan devotion to the souls of the dead was converted into a devotion to saints.

Under Pope Leo VI this tactic of pagan "hijacking" was taken even further by the creation of All Saints Day, or All Hallows Day on November 1st. On this day, all of the chosen saints of God were praised by the church, while devout disciples and priests prayed for their assistance to intercede on their behalf with god (does this ring a bell with the ancient Samhain rituals?). As a result, the day before All Hallows Day (October 31st) was known to Christians as "All Hallows Eve", which was eventually shortened to "Hallows Eve'n" and then "Halloween."

But the demonetization of pagan beliefs didn't stop there. In 1486 Pope Innocent VIII made witchcraft (by papal decree) the work of the devil. In consequence, traditional pagan roles for female druids were castigated as being the work of Satan. Needless to say, this spawned a title wave of fear and animosity towards anyone who had the slightest appearance of being a witch. Ridiculous new laws and tests were created to help "identify" witches. Black cats were seen as being the animal embodiment of a witch's soul and were considered bad luck if they crossed one's path. Heck, even the famous Joan of Arc was killed on the grounds that she was a witch!

Halloween wouldn't alway remain in the hands of the Catholics. On October 31, 1517 Marin Luther published his "95 Theses" against the Catholic Church. One of his main grievances, which became a staple of Protestantism, was a rejection of all things linked to popes, priests and saints. As a result, Halloween became a horrific celebration for devout followers of Luther and Protestantism in general. For example, Puritan settlers in America forbade its celebration (along with Christmas) from taking place in the New World. Perhaps this helps to also explain their paralyzing fear of witches, which eventually overcame them and brought about the Salem Witch Trials.

Which brings us to today, where Halloween is seen as a secular holiday for kids. And though this current interpretation is a lot more serene than those of old (no witches have been burned in quite some time) it is still important to remember the origins. After all, they show us just how much we still maintain the legends and symbols of old.

Defending the Book of Mormon: The DNA Rebuttal

In the past year, a number of religious, scientific and historical skeptics have come forward with new evidence that they believe completely and utterly destroys the validity of the Book of Mormon. This new evidence, which centers on several DNA studies, states that the claims made in the Book of Mormon, particularly regarding the origins of Native Americans, is completely and utterly bogus. Now, as most religious people are aware, one cannot prove the validity/invalidity of the Book of Mormon (or any scripture for that matter) purely with science. Scripture, and religion in general, are matters of faith which transcend the physical world. As a result, any person of faith (from almost any religion) will tell you that a spiritual conversion is paramount to understanding matters of faith. And as our missionaries have been stating for over 100 years, one needs to pray sincerely and with real intent to the only source (God) that can give your soul clarity on such issues.

With all of that aside, I want to focus on these alleged "smoking gun" discoveries that supposedly shed "irrefutable" doubt on the validity of the BoM.

First off, as some of you probably already know, the Mormon Church recently made a one-word change to the introduction of the BoM. The old version read:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis).

The new version reads as follows:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and thy are among the ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis). "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

So why the change? First off, let's keep in mind that this is NOT the first time that the Mormon Church has made changes to the BoM. There have been literally hundreds of changes over the years. Unlike many Evangelical Protestants, we as Mormons do not accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura -- i.e the infallibility of scripture. We accept that ALL scripture (including the BoM) is written by man, and therefore subject to human error. Even the Title Page of the BoM reminds us of this:

And now, if there are any faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgement-seat of Christ.AndAnd now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...

This simple fact helps us understand the change. The Mormon Church has always tried to update and correct its doctrine/scripture when necessary.

Now, skeptics will claim that these changes are the symptom of a church cover up. They will say that these recent DNA discoveries have forced the Mormon church to change fundamental doctrines in an effort to appease the scientific community. They are mistaken. The Mormon Church has never EVER claimed that our scripture was perfect. In fact, the very man who translated the BoM made such a claim:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Nowhere does Joseph Smith say that the BoM is infallible. Instead, he says "most correct." This still allows for human error to occur, but does not take away from the book still being the "most correct" of any on earth.

Now, this whole controversy over one stupid little word is the result of some recent scientific discoveries. In 2006, around the same time that the change to the BoM introduction was made, scientists were testing the DNA of several old Native American tribes that were still in existence. Their results: the DNA of Native Americans IS NOT Jewish/Hebrew/etc., but instead is ASIAN. As a result, Mormon skeptics have literally pounced on this proclamation and declared it to be proof-positive that the BoM is/was a fraud. After all, how can one refute DNA evidence? Isn't this the same evidence that is declared to be 99.8% accurate in a court of law? Case closed, right?

Not so fast.

There are a few factors that we must take into account before we simply declare this study to have closed the book on the BoM case. Here are four key issues that all of us (including the Mormon faithful) need to consider:

#1: New World Colonization
From all credible archaeological and historical accounts, the "New World" was populated with between 300 and 400 million native inhabitants. As we all know, after Christopher Columbus "sailed the ocean blue in 1492" and discovered the New World, a literal fever of exploration, colonization and conquest caused the Spanish, French, Dutch, English, Portuguese and others to stake their claims in these strange lands beyond the Atlantic. And as history shows, the European conquest was a huge success, a success that inadvertently caused the literal genocide of the vast and diverse Native American population. Between the early years of Columbus' discovery (1492) and the onset of the American Revolution (1776) most experts estimate that the amount of death (caused primarily by European disease) took the lives of over 80% of all Native people. In other words, 8 in 10 Native Americans were dead before the United States ever became a nation.

So what does this mean for the BoM? Simply put, the DNA samples taken from these various ancient tribes is only indicative of 20% of all Native Americans. In other words, the test conclusively proves that 2 in 10 Natives don't match what is preached in the BoM.

But it gets worse.

#2: Mitochondrial DNA
As most laymen (or women) know, DNA are the basic building blocks of life that is past on to offspring through sexual contact. Both male and female chromosomes combine to create a new life form, whose genetic makeup is a mix of both paternal and maternal DNA (I realize that as a novice in science I have no right to make any profound comments on DNA research but I think my very simplistic explanation is sound for this topic).

Now, when testing the descendants of a particular individual/race/civilization, scientists are not able to simply take a regular DNA sample. Instead, they must look to MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. The Mitochondria is often referred to as "the powerhouse" of the human cell. And for some reason, it contains its own DNA that can be traced back thousands of years to determine one's origins. From all scientific standards, the testing of mitochondrial DNA is foolproof and considered a solid scientific practice. As a result, any assault on the testing of mitochondria, from the perspective of accuracy, would be futile. HOWEVER, there is one key element to mitochondrial DNA that does shed doubt on the DNA testing of Native Americans. Mitochondrial DNA is MATERNAL. In other words, a male cannot pass on his genetic material into the mitochondria of his children. Only the female can accomplish this.

So what does this mean for the DNA testing of Native Americans? It means that the results are a representation of FEMALE genetic origins. And since men account for roughly 50% of the human population, we are forced to omit 50% of all Native Americans from this test. So, we take our 20% of surviving Native Americans and divide it in half, which gives us roughly 10%. Simply put, the DNA testing of living Native Americans proves that only 10% of all Native Americans are of Asian decent.

Hence the reason for the change in the BoM intro. The testing clearly proves that 1 in 10 Native Americans do not fit with the BoM story. So, in an effort to reflect this reality, the Mormon Church has made the change..."AMONG the ancestors of the Native Americans."

#3: Reading the BoM the Right Way
This probably sounds conceded. I'm not suggesting that I know the right way to read the BOM. That's a personal decision. Instead, I am suggesting that we get rid of an old but persistent myth when reading the BoM. For too long, members (and non-members alike) have assumed that the BoM is the story of three separate migrations to the New World: the Jaredites, Lehi and his family, and the people of Mulek. The BoM mentions these three, AND ONLY THESE THREE independent migrations. For some reason, it is assumed that these parties arrived to a virgin land, vacant of any other human life, and that somehow these relatively small migrations multiplied until they became large enough to fill all the lands from Canada to the tip of South America.

My question: where does it say ANYTHING to this effect in the BoM? Why do we insist that Nephi, Lehi, Bro. of Jared, etc. were the ONLY people living here? Isn't that quite presumptuous? For one thing, the wives/daughters of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc. would have had to give birth to HUNDREDS of children each in order to hit the numbers that Columbus and other explorers encountered in 1492. Physically speaking, this was impossible for women of the ancient world.

Perhaps the following analogy will help make sense of this. When we read the records of the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts, they often make it sound as though they stumbled upon a fresh, untouched, virgin land just waiting for them to colonize. As we know this wasn't the case. Literally thousands of Native Americans lived in and around the region, not to mention the fact that a dozen or so European ventures had already been in the area. The Puritans didn't discover a virgin land and neither did Lehi, Nephi, etc.

#4: What Tribe Were They?
Last point. Remember what tribe Lehi was from? He was the son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Nephi 5: 14-16). And as we know, Joseph had two sons: Ephraim and Manasseh. Now, we have no way of knowing which of the two Lehi came from, but it is at least very likely that they came from Manasseh. Why? Manasseh was a nomadic, wandering tribe that was heavily involved in shipping, trade and sheep-hearding. And if you recall, Nephi, Laman, etc. were unfamiliar with Jerusalem when asked to return to the city by Lehi. I find it interesting that Nephi keeps calling Jerusalem the "Land of our Inheritance" instead of "Home." Could it be that they were hardly ever there? Wandering about as Manasseh had always done? As quasi-nomads?

And then there's the case of Lehi. Isn't it amazing that he had no problem wandering in the "wilderness." It was almost as if he had done it before...lots of times. Could he have been a trader? How did he and his kids learn Egyptian?

And remember Ishmael? Back in Lehi's Day, "Ishmael" was a VERY popular name among...not Jews...but the ARABS! Why would Lehi be friends with an Arab?

Of course this is all speculation, but the evidence seems to support it. And here's one last thing to consider about Manasseh: Since they were a wandering tribe, that meant they were regularly in contact with other civilizations. In fact, national identity in the ancient world was nothing like it is now, and as a result, the intermixing of blood was common. Could Manasseh have incorporated some Asian blood? Oh, and keep in mind that the Assyrians conquered and led away the tribe of Manasseh during their conquest of Jerusalem. It wouldn't be hard to see how intermixing could have taken place at that time as well!

In conclusion, the so-called "smoking gun" evidence provided by DNA testing is anything but. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on that.  In the end, The Book of Mormon, like any book of scripture, requires faith.  Science, history, etc. have their roles but so does scripture, and for that I am glad we have the Book of Mormon today.

Did Jesus Endorse a Separation of Church and State?

And if so, How Far Did
He Want it to Go?

So I realize that this post is likely to ruffle a few feathers. After all, many people have very passionate feelings about the man from Nazareth known to billions of followers as Jesus the Christ. With this in mind, I will try to treat the topic with as much care as I can.

The very question posed in this post probably seems strange. After all, Jesus and his teachings, at least for the devout Christian, seem to transcend trivial political issues like church/state separation. Why would the Savior of mankind care about political ideology, governmental structure, etc. when he himself was called "King of kings and Lord of lords"? Shouldn't that suffice? Why would Jesus waste his time addressing the relatively mundane details surrounding issues like prayer in school, the oaths of the Pledge of Allegiance, the role (if any) that organized religion should play in the halls of government, etc., etc. etc.? Perhaps Gov.Mike Huckabee said it best when asked what Jesus would do as a modern politician:




And perhaps he is right. Surely Jesus would spend his time dealing with more important matters, right?

Not so fast.

While it is true that Jesus' primary goal was to bring people to him as the Savior of mankind, it would be both foolish and inaccurate to state that he cared nothing of the affairs of this world. And even though he made it clear that his "kingdom was not of this world," Jesus was, on occasion, quite vocal and passionate about the affairs this world.

Render to Caesar

During his ministry, Jesus was, from time to time, confronted by some of the more prominent members of Jewish society in an effort to confront him or catch him in a lie of sorts, all in an effort to discredit the man whom they esteemed as an enemy to their agenda. On one occasion, two different groups (the Pharisees and Herodians) confronted Jesus in an effort to "entangle him in his talk." Both the Parisees and Herodians hated Jesus (for different reasons) and believed that entangling him in his words, especially on hot-button political matters, might discredit him in the eyes of his followers. We read of what happened in Matthew 22:

15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19. Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21. They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

There's a great deal to dissect in these eight verses. First off, the Pharisees and Herodians attempt to trap Jesus by appealing to his teachings regarding the supremacy of god. In Roman society, Caesar was esteemed to be a deity and those who rejected such teachings were often met with ridicule and scorn. Taxes were the predominant way in which homage to Caesar was acknowledged and as a result, any attempt to avoid them was met with severe consequences. So, in the minds of the Pharisees and Herodians, Jesus was trapped. If he answered that man should not pay tribute to Caesar he would be seen as an enemy of the state. But if he agreed with paying tribute, he would come off looking like a hypocrite, since Jesus had emphasized the supremacy of the kingdom of god to that of man.

So what was Jesus to do? Blast their argument to oblivion of course! Matthew tells us that Jesus "perceived their wickedness" and got right to the heart of the matter. By using a mere penny (most certainly a denarius in Roman coinage) Jesus completely and totally surprised (or as Matthew states "marveled") his audience by uttering the now famous phrase, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." This simple phrase completely baffled the Pharisees to such a degree that they simply walked away with their tail between their legs. Jesus came away the clear victor.

Church/State Separation as a Christian Concept

So why where the Pharisees and Herodians so baffled by Jesus' seemingly simple remark? After all, this wouldn't sound that profound of a rebuttal to politicians or theologians today. Well, let's keep in mind that we are speaking of the ANCIENT world; a world that had long fused the political and theological worlds together by establishing kingships, Caesars and other "divine" rulers. The notion of an independent church, separate and sovereign from the secular world, was more than just a novel concept. It was revolutionary. As a result, we can logically and rationally proclaim that a separation between church and state is very much a CHRISTIAN concept. As my blog buddy Brian Tubbs points out by quoting Dinesh D'Souza's bestselling book, What's So Great About Christianity:

D'Souza argues that the "separation of religion and government" was a "Christian idea" and that Jesus was the "first one who thought of it." D'Souza points to Jesus' confrontation with the Herodians and Pharisees in Matthew 22 as the birth of the concept.

D'Souza explains that, for the ancient Greeks and Romans, the "gods a man should worship were the gods of the state." Accordingly, "patriotism demanded that a good Athenian make sacrifices to the Athenian gods and a good Roman pay homage to the gods of Rome."

Well, along come the Christians, who refuse to worship the Roman gods. This was unacceptable to Roman authorities (at least prior to Constantine)...

In Matthew 22, Jesus clearly teaches that Caesar is entitled to certain "things" (and he implies taxes as being among those "things"), but draws a line of distinction. Caesar is NOT entitled to everything, only some things.

Likewise, Jesus implies a limit in the other direction. While God is sovereign and all-powerful, Jesus nevertheless explains (later to Pilate): "My kingdom is not of this world."

According to D'Souza, "God has chosen to exercise a limited domain over earthly rule, not because He is limited, but because He has turned over part of His kingdom to humans for earthly supervision."

Jesus of Nazareth was clearly in favor of a separation between church and state not because he wanted a secular society but because he wanted a moral one, and the best way to ensure that was to take religion out of the hands of the politicians. Jesus and his apostles had seen first hand what religious politicians (Pharisees, Herodians, etc.) had done to religion and Jesus clearly wanted no part of it. Rarely if ever did Jesus "trash talk" anyone but he certainly did with these types. As he stated in Matthew 12:34:

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

And throughout his ministry, Jesus would continue his insistence on church/state separation:

"My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)

"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve god an mammon." (Matthew 6:24.)

"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me." (Luke 22:25–26, 29)

"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (Luke 18: 9-14)

And Jesus didn't stop there. Even when tempted of the devil and the masses to be made a king (a physical, worldly king since he was presumably already "King of kings") over all the land, Jesus flat-out refused:

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4: 5-8)

"Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:13–14)

"Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." (John 6: 13-15)

But with all of his apparent disinterest (or insistence in a separation between church and state) in secular matters, Jesus was quick and fierce in his defense of religious sovereignty. In the only account of his resorting to violence, Jesus was more than willing to "throw down" with those who made a mockery of the temple:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:13–16)

For Jesus, the pollution of worldly distractions had defiled the Lord's temple; an offense that was far worse than the introduction of religion into government. Simply put, the temple of the Lord was to be free of secular distractions, political rhetoric and worldly wealth. It was a house of sacrifice and prayer. Politicians and greedy capitalists be damned! =)

In light of such evidence, it is abundantly clear that a separation of church and state was, and still is, a CHRISTIAN concept. The very founder of the faith saw tremendous advantages to both church and state when both are put in check and denied the right to overpower the other. Under such a system, religion and government would mutually flourish not as opposing forces but as equal partners in creating a free and moral world. One could not exist without the other, and one could not exercise dominion over the other.

Our Founding Fathers (both the ultra-pious and "infidel" types) had a perfect understanding of this concept. They saw that the establishment of a joint church/state government had brought nothing but misery to the world, and they were hell bent on ensuring that it wouldn't happen in the "land of the free":

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country." (George Washington, 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274).

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814).

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785).

These quotes, and the thousands of others like them, do not illustrate an abhorrence of religion on the part of the founders, but instead illustrate the incredible depth of understanding they possessed with regards to Jesus' true teachings. In other words, the founders were able to cut through the B.S. and get at the core of the matter. A separation of church and state was THE FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT to ensuring a free republic. Losing sight of this all-important concept was to lose sight of freedom itself, to lose sight of Jesus himself.

And, thank God, the founders didn't lose sight of either.

Romans 13 and the American Revolution

Over at my other blog (American Creation) a large debate over the significance and interpretation of Romans chapter 13 has been raging for the past few months. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Romans 13, it is a chapter in which the Apostle Paul lays out some of the "rules" regarding a Christian's duty to follow civic leaders. Here are a few of the more important verses from that chapter:

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

As is evident in the aforementioned verses, Paul admonishes the Christian populace to submit to even the wickedest of leaders because "Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." In other words, to defy a leader is to defy God himself.

Immediately prior to the American Revolution, a decent percentage of theologians became deeply concerned with the Biblical implications of the American Revolution. Was God going to be angry at the colonists for their rebellion to the British King? Especially when we consider that Paul was admonishing the Christians to submit to the horrific reign of Nero? After all, if submission to Nero was imperative to the salvation of the practicing Christian, what right did the American colonists have to rebel against a King who wasn't nearly as bad?

As I mentioned before, this has been a very intense and thorough debate over at my group blog. I have watched, over the past several months, my fellow blog brothers debate this issue into dust. This debate usually follows the same rough outline where one person will enter the ring armed to the teeth with quotes from Locke, Rutherford, Sidney, Mayhew, Calvin, Jefferson, etc., etc., etc. Not soon after, my email inbox will be full of comment notifications, full of anxious rebukings, most of which are, like the original comment itself, delivered with powerful counter-punch material from some of the same sources. Now, it's not that I dislike this back-and-forth debating over this singular (and in my opinion, relatively unimportant) issue. On the contrary. I have found the debate to be both extremely enlightening and quite entertaining. I've admired the abilities and passions of the "key participants" (you know who you are) along with the enormous arsenal of knowledge and understanding they possess.

With that said, my personal beliefs are that the Romans 13 issue was a mere side issue compared to the other pressing challenges taking place. In a nutshell, I simply do not believe that this was as big of an issue as many are making it out to be. Please, don't get me wrong here. I realize that it was a major issue for many people. After all, obeying the will of God is no small sack of potatoes, and I realize that many people believed that salvation (not just worldly freedom) hung in the balance. However, if we take a step back and look at the grand picture, I believe we can see that the American Revolution was much larger than one simple chapter from the "Good Book" and that war with Britain was going to happen with or without Romans 13.

With all of that said, I am going to try and play along as best I can. Let's assume that I am completely wrong and that the Romans 13/God sanctioning rebellion was not only an issue but THE ISSUE of the American Revolution. Given this new sense of importance I still maintain that the debate surrounding Romans 13 was not that big of a deal for those involved in the American Revolution.

Why you ask? Because the matter had already been resolved...

...

...At lest for those who established the American republic.

Long before the Founding Fathers arrived on the scene the debate over the Kingship/rule of law had been raging for centuries. As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, a number of important theologians, thinkers, and civic leaders took up this very cause as their own. Everyone from Locke to Rutherford, Sidney to Montesquieu helped to mold how the founding generation would come to understand the relationship between God and government, government and the people and the people's duty to government.

Much has been made of Romans 13 and rightfully so. But there is another Bible chapter to consider; one that inspired a certain Samuel Rutherford to challenge Divine Right kingship. In Deuteronomy 17 we read:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

For men like Rutherford, this was clear-cut evidence from God himself that the LAW was king, not the other way around.

Algernon Sidney, whom Thomas Jefferson credited (along with Locke) as being one of the primary sources for the American conceptualization of individual liberty, agreed with Rutherford's interpretation that the rule of law was to be superior to any kingship. To defend his thesis, Sidney appealed to the very laws of nature:

If there be any precept, that by the light of nature we can in matters of this kind look upon as certain, it is, that the government of a people should be given to him that can best perform the duties of it. No man has it for himself, or from himself; but for and from those, who, before he had it, were his equals, that he may do good to them. If there were a man, who in wisdom, valour, justice, and purity, surpassed all others, he might be called a king by nature; because he is best able to bear the weight of so great a charge; and, like a good shepherd, to lead the people to do good . . . Solomon tells us, 'That a wise child is better than an old and foolish king.'

[...]

If governments arise from the consent of men, and are instituted by men according to their own inclinations, they did therein seek their own good; for the will is ever drawn by some real good, or the appearance of it. This is that which man seeks by all the regular or irregular motions of his mind. Reason and passion, virtue and vice, do herein concur.... A people therefore that sets up [government does it so]...that it may be well with themselves and their posterity.

Which of course sounds awfully familiar to:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

For Jefferson, who was never a big fan of St. Paul to begin with (you may recall that his version of the Bible contains none of Paul's epistles), Sidney's interpretation of law rang strong and clear as it pierced through the "old school" interpretation of complete submission to God's rulers. In a letter to his chubby little New England buddy John Adams, Jefferson points out just how appealing Sidney's view of government was:

I have lately undertaken to read Algernon Sidney on government...As often as I have read it, and fumbled it over, it now excites fresh admiration that this work has excited so little interest in the literary world. As splendid an edition of it as the art of printing can produce —- as well for the intrinsic merit of the work, as for the proof it brings of the bitter sufferings of the advocates of liberty from that time to this, and to show the slow progress of moral, philosophical, and political illumination in the world —- ought to be now published in America.

Of course skeptics will point out that the American Revolution cannot, in any way, be reconciled with Romans 13 because if Paul admonishes Christians to endure the treacheries of Nero, how can they possibly justify rebellion against a king who simply raised their taxes? Perhaps they are right. There may be no biblical way to justify the American Revolution. I suppose one could cite Biblical examples such as Deuteronomy 17, 1 Kings 11, Daniel's civil disobedience, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's refusal to obey Nebuchadneezar's laws, Moses, etc., but I doubt much of it would stick. Simply put,much of this debate is based off of personal biblical interpretation.

And such was the case with our founders. The moment that Jefferson, Madison, etc. committed to embracing the perspectives of Locke, Sidney, etc. they also committed, perhaps subconscientiously, to rejecting a literal interpretation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

But Paul's lesson wasn't completely ignored either. Yes, the framers of the Revolution were not about to let some obscure chapter from the Bible deter them but at the same time, they weren't about to rush into a reckless rebellion either. The trick was knowing when abuses from tyrannical leaders required a response from the people. Again, Algernon Sidney helped to provide the answer:

Those who had wit and learning, with something of ingenuity and modesty, though they believed that nations might possibly make an ill use of their power, and were very desirous to maintain the cause of kings, as far as they could put any good color upon it, yet never denied, that some had suffered justly (which could not be, if there were no power of judging them); animate them to persist in the most flagitious courses, with assurance of perpetual impunity, or engage nations in an inevitable necessity of suffering all manner of outrages. They knew that the actions of those princes, who are not altogether detestable, might be defended by particular reasons drawn from them, or their laws or their country; and would neither undertake the defense of such as were abominable, nor bring princes, to whom they wished well, into the odious extremity of justifying themselves by arguments that favored Caligula and Nero, as well as themselves, and that must be taken for a confession, that they were as bad as could be imagined.

[...]

They who are already fallen into all that is odious, and shameful and miserable, cannot justify fear...Let the dangers never be so great, there is the possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms and courage to use them but that people must surely perish who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed.

Or in other words, it is completely silly (and contrary to the laws of nature) to endure inept leaders who had demonstrated their incompetence or their ill will towards their subjects. Or as Jefferson put it:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

And while this debate is likely to rage on for months (or maybe even years) here on this fair little blog, I remain convinced that the Founders' understanding of kings and law had already been shaped by centuries of European debate on the matter. Men like Locke, Sidney, Rutherford, etc. (along with many before and after them) helped to mold (and perhaps justify) the arguments for Revolution.

But again, it doesn't really matter because war was a' coming regardless of what the Bible said.

And that's a fact, Jack!