Sharon Moughtin-Mumby on Hosea's Negative Portrayal of Those Labelled כהן KHN of His Time

The following stands out as it shows that Hosea speaks ill of those labeled כהן, not simply כמר:

 

In 4: 10, הזנו appears at the end of a passage accusing the priests of deliberately leading the people into sin so that they themselves might profit. To my mind, if the priests are causing the people to sin in this context, then it makes sense that they are also causing ('encouraging') the people to 'prostitute'. 'The sin of my people they devour;| And for their guilt they are greedy!| So it will be like people, like priest,| I will punish him for his ways| And return his deeds upon him;| They will eat but not be satisfied!| They will encourage prostitution (הזנו), but not increase!| For they have forsaken YHWH to hold fast to prostitution.' (4: 8–10). The causative reading of the Hiphil allows us to read 'They will encourage prostitution, but not increase' in parallel with 'They will eat but not be satisfied', with the priests as the subject of both threats. We could even read 'increase' (יפרצו) as a word-play between 'increasing in number' (as a consequence of 'prostitution') and 'increasing in wealth', as the priests are warned that they will no longer gain as a result of encouraging the people to sin.

 

If the priests are condemned for 'encouraging prostitution' in 4: 10, it seems to me that this message is echoed in 5: 3. Wolff has already argued for a causative reading of the Hiphil, הזנית, in 5: 3, underscoring the possibilities. However, he understands Ephraim to be the subject of the verb: 'For you, Ephraim, taught whoredom,| Israel is defiled.' Given the uncertain thrust of this accusation, however, it seems more likely that Ephraim should be understood as the object of the Hiphil, so that we can read Ephraim and Israel in parallel as the objects of defilement by others: 'I knew Ephraim;| And Israel was not hidden from me.| But now you have led Ephraim into prostitution (הזנית),| Israel has been defiled!' (5: 3).

 

Macintosh considers the possibility of such a reading, yet rejects it, due to the unclear identity of the masculine singular 'you'. The desire for such clarity, however, would negate the possibility of reading much of the poetry in the prophetic books. If we were to ask to whom this indictment might be addressed, then the passage's introduction in 5: 1 usefully indicates three groups as possibilities (the priests, the establishment, and the royal house), and it is possible that one from among these is implied. Given the strikingly similar accusation in 4: 10, the most likely contender is the priests, and it is therefore of interest to note that כהן appears in the singular in 4: 4–9 (cf. 4: 4). Whether כהןrefers to a specific priest or is a collective singular ('priesthood') is debated, although the latter seems more likely. Either way, it appears that this כהן is the most likely identity of the mysterious 'you' in 5: 3, revealing a provocative message that powerfully echoes 4: 10 and indeed much of Hosea 4–14: it is the leadership, particularly the priesthood, of Israel who are responsible for the people's outrageous behaviour. Once again, we witness attempts to smooth over the idiosyncrasies of Hosea 4–14, betraying a significant underestimation of this inimitable prophetic poetry. The 'prostitution' motif of Hosea 4–14 is not as clichéd and formulaic as traditional translations and commentaries suggest. Indeed, the examples we have seen so far are trivial compared to this poetry's daring metaphorical language, which is consistently reflected in other appearances of the 'prostitution' motif. (Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel [Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008], 65-66, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

Klyne R. Snodgrass and Stephen J. Chester on δικαιοω in Romans 6:7 and Paul's Theology of Baptism

 

The other, more likely explanation seeks to interpret the vb. [δικαιοω] not as “free,” but as “justify, acquit” in the genuine Pauline sense, and [sin], not in the sense demanded above (something like “obligation to the Torah”), but in its Pauline sense, an act against the will of God (so Lyonnet, Romains, 89; Cranfield, Romans, 310–11): the one who has died has lost the very means of sinning, “the body of sin,” so that one is definitively without sin; one has been freed of the fleshy, sin-prone body. In either case, a change of status has ensued; the old condition has been brought to an end in baptism-death, and a new one has begun (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 33; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 437)

 

For Paul, baptism justifies because it is a real participation in the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (Brant Pitre, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid, Paul A New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2019], 203)

  

In their work on Romans 6, Protestants Klyne R. Snodgrass and Stephen J. Chester render Rom 6:1-7 as follows:

 

¹What shall we say then? Shall we continue with a relation to sin so that grace might increase all the more? ²No Way! How can those of us who died in relation to sin live in it? ³Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴We were buried with him through baptism into death so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should live [lit., “walk”] in newness of life. ⁵For if we have been united to a death like his, indeed we will be united to a resurrection like his. ⁶We know that our old being was crucified with him so that the body dominated by sin might be nullified, so that we no longer are enslaved to sin. ⁷For the one who died has been acquitted [lit., “justified”] from sin. (Klyne R. Snodgrass and Stephen J. Chester, Dead to Sin, Alive to God in Christ: Romans 6 For the Life of the Church [Touchstone Texts; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2026], 37, comments in square brackets in original)

 

They offer the following commentary on Rom 6:7 and the use of δικαιοω, and baptism being the instrumental means of justification in the above pericope:

 

The purpose of all this dying, of course, is living and freedom, no longer being a slave of sin. Later in 6:14 and 7:6 Paul will use the similar language of being under the law and of being released from the law. The wording in 6:6 and 7:16 is close in that both have a form of the verb “nullify” (katargeō), have the infinitive “to be a slave” (douleuō), have a form of the word “old” (palaios/palaiotēs), and see death as the means of release from bondage. While the thought of death being the way to freedom may seem odd, it was not odd for Paul. We die in order to live. Being joined to Christ’s death and resurrection is an identity changing event, for all relation to a former destructive tyrant is cut off, and one is free to live in productive and meaningful ways.

 

That Paul states so clearly in 6:6 that the destruction of the body of sin ends slavery to sin implies that freedom follows. This is a truth that Paul will state explicitly later in verses 18 and 22, although there he will carefully define the nature of freedom from sin by [pairing it with enslavement to righteousness and to God. Here at 6:7 he instead states that “the one who died has been justified [dedikaiōtai] from sin.” Yet English translations routinely fail to reflect Paul’s choice of verb. Apart from the Revised Version (1881), it is necessary to go back to the sixteenth century to find an accurate translation into English. Instead of respecting Paul’s use of the verb “justify,” most other versions read as if Paul’s use of the verb “justify,” most other versions read as if Paul here used the verb “free, set free” (eleuthero): “Whoever has died has been freed from sin.” This reflects what translators feel would have made sense for Paul to say at this point in his argument. Not what Paul actually says.

 

Such translations are problematic. If a verb that seems to fit the context does not appear, translators and exegetes should not suppose that Paul unaccountably uses one verb when he should have used another and should not base their translations and interpretations on what they believe he ought to have written. Instead, they should reflect on why the verb that does appear was selected, for Paul’s use here of the verb “justify” serves two very clear purposes. First, its use in a location where the announcement of an end to enslavement to sin could have led smoothly into a discussion of freedom from sin highlights the liberative dimension of justification. Justification is a legal image, denoting the acquittal of the one accused, but those acquitted are also set free by the judge. English readers can miss this dimension of what Paul means by justification if another verb is used.

 

Second, the use of “justify” at 6:7 connects justification with baptism. Those baptized into Christ’s death are those who have been justified from sin. If another verb is used, this connection between justification and baptism may also be missed by English readers. In seeking to clarify Paul’s meaning by specifying that those baptized have been set free from sin, translators have only obscured it. The connection Paul makes here between justification and baptism matters because it assists the reader in understanding the work of the cross as it applies to them. Paul has emphasized that justification does not come through the law but instead takes place by the grace of God through Christ’s sacrificial death (3:24-25). Believers have been justified by his blood (5:9). These texts speak powerfully of divine mercy for human transgressions. To be justified is to be forgiven (see 4:7-8).

 

But the truth of Christ’s death for us is not the whole of what Paul wants to say about justification and the cross. He also emphasizes the necessity for believers to die with Christ, for Christ’s saving work not only brings them forgiveness for their sins but also makes possible their death to sin so that they can walk in newness of life (6:4). Therefore, Paul can say that Christ “was raised for our justification” (4:25 NRSV). Liberation from sin is also part of the gift of justification, and Paul highlights this by saying that those who have died with Christ in baptism have been justified from sin. The cross and the justifying power of faith in the saving death of Jesus are ritually embodied in baptism It is no surprise that Paul’s confidence that believers can have victory over sin is based on their union with Christ in baptism.

 

Romans 6:7 thus makes it clear that justification is a participatory concept. (Klyne R. Snodgrass and Stephen J. Chester, Dead to Sin, Alive to God in Christ: Romans 6 For the Life of the Church [Touchstone Texts; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2026], 76-78, italics in original)

 

 Further Reading:

Refuting Jeff McCullough ("Hello Saints") on Baptismal Regeneration

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes on the Use of the Plural “Better Sacrifices” in Hebrews 9:23

  

To take the latter question first, there is general agreement among commentators that the plural better sacrifices is not a precise but a generic plural, corresponding or accommodated to the plural “these rites” in the first clause of the verse: the inferior sacrifices of the levitical system called, speaking generally, for better sacrifices. To be specific, however, they were superseded not by many sacrifices but by one, namely, the unique and fully adequate self-offering of the incarnate Son on the cross of Calvary (as our author repeatedly insists—see 7:27; 9:12, 14; 10:10, 12, 14, so that he is not open to the charge of imprecision). His is the “one sacrifice for sins for ever” (10:12 KJV). Hence it is described here as better: it accomplishes once and for all that complete and eternal redemption which the imperfect sacrifices of the former system never could accomplish. (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977], 379)

 

Ken Penner on Isaiah 56:6-7 (LXX)

  

6 Scribe B made no break here at the beginning of Isa 56:6, but the later scribe who numbered the sections made a division.Whether or not we start a new section here, there is no new finite verb in this verse, so the dative continues the αὐτοῖς of 56:5. Ottley spells ἀλλογενέσι as ἀλλογενέσιν. The reading δουλεύειν (also in A and B and followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler) is a change by scribe B himself, from δουλεύεις. Swete spells ἀγαπᾶν as ἀγαπᾷν. The recurrence of φυλασσομένους recalls 56:1, 2, and 4. There are three accusatives governed by the preposition εἰς: bondmen and bondwomen and sabbath-keepers; these three are what the God-fearing foreigners become.

 

7 The future of εὐφραίνω is used, with the accusative indicating the person cheered. The neuter τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα must be nominative, in parallel with αἱ θυσίαι. See Acts 10:35 for the connection with salvation and δεκταὶ, doing what is right. Paul mentioned the acceptable sacrifice in Phil 4:18: ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω· πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν, ὀσμὴν εὐω- δίας, θυσίαν δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ. The passive κληθήσεται has the nominative οἶκος as its subject. Mark 11:17 has the full quote Ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; Matt 21:13 shortens it to Ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευ- χῆς κληθήσεται; Luke 19:46 (S*) has the even shorter ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς. The point made in the context of Isaiah, namely that the house of prayer is πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, is lost in Matthew and Luke. Here the eunuchs and foreigners are accepted; in Luke 17:18 it is the leper that is the foreigner; in Acts 8:27 the eunuch. (Ken Penner, Isaiah [Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2021], 614)

 

Ken Penner on Isaiah 14:12 (LXX)

  

12 A parallel rhetorical question introduced by πῶς matches that of 14:4, introducing a paragraph of the dirge that continues to express astonishment at the fate of such a lofty person as the king of Babylon falling so low. The height from which he fell is connoted by the label ἑωσφόρος, etymologically “dawnbringer,” the name of the star that appears at the dawn. Greek ἀστήρ had the same connotation of “star” as English; it could be applied to an outstanding person. The bright star ἑωσφόρος was also known as Ἀφροδίτης ἀστήρ (Eudoxus, Ars astronomica 5.2), which was in turn also called Φωσφόρος (Geminus, Elementa astronmiae 1.28), meaning “light-bearer,” which is translated into Latin as lucifer. (ἑωσφόρος appears in some manuscripts of 2Pet 1:19 for Φωσφόρος.) In any case, an illustrious person is meant. The connection between Lucifer and Satan is therefore not made here in Isaiah, but by Luke 10:18; Ottley also noted the similarity between Luke 10:15 and Isa 14:13, 15. Origen saw Lucifer as one of the fallen angels (Hom. Jos. 1.6) but did not imply he is their chief. In Comm. Ro. 8.9.4 he suggested Lucifer might be referring to Israel. Eusebius in his Commentary on Isaiah gave not the slightest indication of the interpretation of this fallen star as Satan, even though 2.7 shows he was familiar with fallen stars in the context of Satan falling from heaven by alluding to Luke 10:18 there. Rather, in commenting on 14:8–21, Eusebius took great pains to argue that this whole prophecy refers to the historical king of Babylon. Nevertheless, in Praep. ev. 7.16 he did connect Isaiah 14:12 with the leader of the fallen evil spirits. The participle ἀποστέλλων has a definite article in the other uncials; it has phonetic similarity to ἀνατέλλων earlier in the verse. G misread חולש as שולח and probably also על as כל . The ideas of falling to the earth are taken up in 2Macc 9:7–8, but the parallels are not mainly on the level of vocabulary. (Ken Penner, Isaiah [Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2021], 444)

 

Everett Landon Proving a RLDS Interpretation of the "Woman" in Revealtion 12 in the April-May Issue of "The Book of Mormon Foundation"

 The following comes from

 

Everett Landon, “I Saw . . . A Woman,” The Book of Mormon Foundation (April-May 1970): 5-6:

 

 

"I SAW....
.. A WOMAN"

 

(The following article is taken from a letter in reply to the question asking the identity of the "Woman clothed with the sun" of Revelation 12)

Editor

 

In order to give an opinion concerning Revelation 12, we are under necessity to take some liberty with the propositions which reflect LDS traditions. These do not always quietly retreat from our minds in a moment's time. Often, to this day we find ourselves tripping over them.

In the fullest and most fundamental identification, Israel and the Church of God are one and the same! Far fetched? Unlikely? Let us see!

 

If the Sacred Scriptures establish such to be the case, the WOMAN is not one or the other. She is both Israel and the true Church of Christ.

 

It was no mere historical happenstance that Jesus was born of the line of Israel in the lineage of Judah and specifically of the House of David. Certainly all of those circumstances had been adequately provided for in prophecy long before His nativity.

 

Nor was His choice of disciples a narrow provincial expedient. The Apostles were Israelites to a man and the Church, the building of which He announced to his disciples was FOUNDED IN ISRAEL. Then, not until Judah had demonstrated a very definite disinclination to follow did He send His ISRAELITISH preachers to offer salvation to the Gentiles.

 

And as the power and divine inspiration accompanying those Jewish servants of Christ disappeared with their own passing, so did the spirituality and validity of the church among the Gentiles wane into total apostasy.

 

Of Latter Days, who shall demonstrate for us that no sooner had Gentiles received the Book of Mormon than eagerness to set up a Church with a Gentile identification led them into a continuing chain of "revelations" to gather and build, adding one spurious and exotic doctrine after another. Did not all of these things depart as had the New Testament Gentiles, falling away and deserting the divinely inspired teaching of Jesus through His own appointed Jewish Apostles?

 

The Church which Christ as a grown man built in Judah did not hear Him, that is, it did not bring Him forth except as it inherently existed already in the heritage of His people Israel as the heirs of Jehovah’s plans of salvation according to the promises made to Abraham.

 

Nor did the UNBUILDED church at the beginning of Jesus' ministry bring forth the PRIESTHOOD of those men nor the power in which they ministered. Again we say, not except as the church already existed in a basic way in Israel. Remember, Jesus did not say, "I will create my church," nor "I will begin my church." His church had existed for many years before among the Nephites. His declaration was that He would "build" His Church among the Jews and a bit later among the Gentiles among neither of whom it had been functioning.

 

What of the "woman's flight into the wilderness" and modern claims of a RESTORED CHURCH, with the PRIESTHOOD and the HOLY ORDER according to LDS-ism? We ask, did the Church literally and historically pass anywhere to be nourished for a time, times and a half a time from the face of the serpent? If so, who can deny Catholicism's claim to being the remnant of the Church of Christ? For many centuries she was the only Church (?) on earth. Therefore, if what happened to the Church in Rome was "nourishment from the face of the serpent?" LDS-ism (and this writer) will have to interpret the meaning of the "nourishment" in an entirely new light.

 

But this is not so with the view that sees the "Woman" as Israel. She disappeared from Jerusalem into a wilderness of oblivion, yet in a manner preserving her for a better day. Moreover, in view of Jesus' assurance concerning His church, that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against it, must we bow to the Catholic claim to continuous succession from Christ and the Apostles? Or must we concede that the "gates of hell" did prevail? Or was the woman's flight something else entirely?

 

For this reason we must begin again and examine our own thinking by asking ourselves, What is the Church? Who is the "woman?"

 

Realistically speaking, in all that God has done for (or against) Israel, He has sought to make them His people — His in heart and soul. He has never abandoned that effort. And though by the passing of centuries the Gentiles have written them off as the religious custodians of the Lord upon earth, He has not. Nor will He!

 

The spiritual blossoming of Israel will be the donning of the bride's apparel by the Church of Christ, and happy will be those Gentiles who will be brought in and numbered among that household. (3 Ne. 10:1)

 

If the woman be ISRAEL she would at the time of John's vision, have been "New Testament Israel". The law of Moses having then been fulfilled, may very probably have been depicted as the moon under Israel's feet. If that be true and Israel had divested herself of that old garment, would not the dropping away underfoot by it for the donning of the NEW GLORY of the SUN be the putting away of the lesser law for the glorious Law of Christ? (Heb. 9:1-15, 2Ne 11:44-59)

 

And as the keeping of the OLD LAW entailed the observance of many feasts, fasts, sacrifices, duties and bans, so the clothing of the Woman with the glory of the sun meant her covering with the more excellent way, THE WAY OF CHRIST. It was of this that Isaiah was speaking.

 

"Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

 

"Shake thyself from the dust, arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.

 

"For thus saith the Lord, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money." (Isa. 52:1-3)

 

In the final sense, then, by keeping Christ's Law, JERUSALEM will be clothed upon with the beauty of holiness and righteousness.

 

Notice too, that the Jewish martyr, Stephen thought the church as being Israel in referring to Moses' and God's people in the wilderness of Sinai. (Acts 7:37,38)

 

Truly, salvation IS for all, Jew, Gentile, Black. White — all! who will repent of their sins and follow Christ with real intent and full purpose of heart. Nevertheless, God works by plan, not by catch-as-catch-can courses and expediencies. This statement is a prelude to repeating that from remote times, God has followed a specific design. Through a chosen people — a nucleus of humanity — namely ISRAEL, The leaven of His word and His Spirit should work throughout all nations for the rise and establishment of His Kingdom upon earth.

 

At the risk of being regarded as dogmatic and arbitrary, we again say, that is the way it is. This is the way it is in God's Word and if we would participate in His work we are simply going to find it necessary to re-arrange our prejudices accordingly or "correct our beliefs!" and the direction of our efforts. We must be in accord with that which the Bible and Book of Mormon fairly shout to be Jehovah's way and His redemptive plan.

 

Weigh again these thoughts concerning Rev. 12. Compare scripture in support of a GENTILE ZION and CONSIDER ITS SOURCE. Re-examine doctrines advocating Gentile establishment and control of God's Church and Kingdom; God's rejection of Israel in favor of the Gentiles. Such search and consideration will undoubtedly reveal Israel to be the nucleus, the hub around which we all must rally — with Christ at the very center — for the consummation of the Lord's work.

 

Everett Landon

 

(Study Scriptures)

 

ISRAEL AS THE CHURCH	HER FLIGHT INTO THE WILDERNESS
Acts 7:37,38	Isa. 19:12–17
ISRAEL AS THE WOMAN	17:16–18; 32:1–18;
Isa. 54:6–17	39:1–10; Joel 1–13
Jer. 3:20; Ezek. 16:14–20	42:1–25; 43:15–22;
23:1–49	44:1–8
SHE IS THE BRIDE	Hos. 2:21–23; 9:16,17
Isa. 62:1–5; John 3:28,29	13:9–16
Matt. 9:14–15	Mic. 4:8–10; I Ne. 2:43–64
HER CHILD	2 Ne. 10:39
Rev. 12:5	Ezek. 20:33–37; 34:1–31
Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2	REMNANT
PRECEDENT FOR THE STARS	B of M 1 Ne. 10:1–104
Gen. 37:9	1 Ne. 25:19

Thomas S. Maley and Rolland D. Sprague (RLDS) Defending the Traditional Restorationist Interpretation of Ezekiel 37 and the Stick of Ephraim

  

We are amused and entertained by the quote from Ezekiel 37 made into song about the head bone to the neck bone and so on. Dramatic song producing though this tale of restoration may be, to me it does not exceed in quality the thoughts portrayed in verses 15 through 20 of the same chapter.

 

Being somewhat attracted to the text, I was gratified when I procured the New English Bible and turned anxiously to find how the subject would be treated by the newer translators. Perhaps a quote of the text would provide fruit for thought if not justifying note for those who read:

 

Ezekiel 37:15-20 NE: "These were the words of the Lord to me: Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, 'Judah and his associates of Israel.' Then take another leaf and write on it, 'Joseph, the leaf of Ephraim and all his associates of Israel.' Now bring the two together to form one tablet; they will be a folding tablet in your hand. When your fellow-countrymen ask you to tell them what you mean by this, say to them, These are the words of the Lord God: I am taking the leaf of Joseph, which belongs to Ephraim and his associate tribes of Israel, and joining to it the leaf of Judah. Thus I shall make them one tablet, and they shall be one in my hand. The leaves on which you write shall be visible in your hand for all to see."

 

The text goes on to tell of the restoration of the Israelites from their places of exile and the re-establishment of a unified Israel. Whether the foreseen re-establishment will prove viable in the face of modern day politics is a question by itself. The question of that which precedes the unification is what interests us at this point.

 

Did you notice that the "Sticks" of the King James Version are rendered in this case "Leaves of a wooden tablet"? Also their unification? Also, did you become aware how that the leaf of Joseph was to be taken and joined to the leaf of Judah? Would this imply a prior possession of the leaf of Judah? Does the fact that the matter would be readable become evident to you?

 

While the balance of the Chapter portrays the unification of the restored families, this re-establishment does not occur until the instance of the tablet-leaves is a completed thing, for the text proceeds with, "Then say to them," etc, denoting a prior completion of the legible instruments and their unification.

 

Interesting to note also is the fact that a gathering "to their own soil" would come after the literate incident, suggesting that it should be for one moment felt that the historically current advent of a peopled Israel is the resolution of at least the beginning of that restoration prophesied, we can safely concede that the event of the tablet must have already occurred. The door is closed now for any new event to which the tablet incident might relate!

 

Whether my gratification at the portrayal was hinged upon wishful thinking or upon a lack of stiff neckedness is for history and the one who reads to judge.

 

For me, my faith in the Book of Mormon as the "Leaf of Joseph" has been justified. He who judges, though his decision may be adverse is party to the same thinking or pliability as am I. If there be truth, let the Spirit of God witness. (Thomas S. Maley, “Ezek. 37,” The Book of Mormon Foundation [April-June 1971]: 1)

 

 

In attempting to answer this question it is necessary to ask two more: 1. Whence came they? 2. Why did they come?

 

It seems fitting that the search for answers should start in Genesis with Jacob as he blesses his children, beginning with Judah, 49:8-12.

 

"Judah thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thy enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee.... Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come: (The lawgiver is, of course, Jesus Christ.) and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall be red with wine and his teeth white with milk."

 

Then to verses 22-27: "Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches (plural) run over the wall. The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him. But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob: (From thence is the Shepherd, the stone of Israel:)—(Is not this also a reference to Jesus Christ? If so, is he not of Judah and of Joseph?)—even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb: The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills: They shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

 

Ephraim, given the choice of blessing, is the crown, the heir, since the birthright of Reuben, the first-born, was given to Ephraim and Manasseh. But included is the blessings on both Ephraim and Manasseh. This point is very important.

 

Jacob says, in Gen. 48:15-22, "The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, and let my name (Israel) be named on them." Since the birthright was taken from Reuben and was given to them, they were to be Israel. This is why Judah is not called Israel. It is important to note that the greater blessing was to Joseph, and in turn was passed on to his two sons.

 

Concerning Ephraim, the crown, we turn to the prophet in Ez. 37:16. "...take another stick, and write upon it, for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:" To write for Joseph it must be for both the sons, and a record "for all the house of Israel." The first stick was "for Judah and for the children of Israel his companions." The first was to include children of Israel; the second was for Joseph entirely, and all the house of Israel.

 

Of great importance is the statement, "whose branches (plural) run over the wall." There is no doubt Lehi was of Manasseh, and therefore of Joseph, (see Alma 8:3), and he came to this, "the land of promise" which was to be Joseph's land; (see Ether 6:6-8 and III Nephi 9:50); therefore the land of both Ephraim and Manasseh, for the blessing of Joseph was put upon both his sons. It is indicated in Gen. 49:26 that his blessing would be at the "utmost bound of the everlasting hills." Deut. 33:13-17 describes Joseph's land further, mentioning "the ends of the earth." These blessings were pronounced in Egypt and the land of Canaan, which is geographically situated so that the land farthest in any direction is the American continent. The same description of his land found in Deut. 33 is repeated over and over in the Book of Mormon as the writers describe the precious things found in their promised land.

 

Let us consider the fact that there were other blood-lines besides Lehi's who came to Joseph's land, also. Among them were Zoram, the servant of Laban, (I N. 1:35–1:41); Ishmael and his family (I N. 2:7–11); and Lehi's wife, Sariah, of whose genealogy there is no record of reference. Then there was Mulek who also came out of Jerusalem to the promised land. (Hel. 3:55–57) and Omni 1:26). He was a son of Zedekiah, king of Judah. By reading II K. 24:1–18 we learn that Zedekiah's original name before he was made king of Judah, was Mattaniah, and that he was an uncle of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon; and his mother was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. Who is to say that, among all these, there were not some who were descended of Ephraim?

 

It seems reasonable to assume that with these, or among these, there might have been some descendants of Ephraim, even as some of the house of Israel were among Judah, for Chronicles describes how Ephraim mingled among all the tribes, and even among the gentiles.

 

There was jealousy and enmity between Judah and Ephraim because of Ephraim's prevalence. Eventually Ephraim was conquered in 721 B.C. by Shallmaneser through the internal divisions of the Kingdom of Samaria. From here on Ephraim began to lose his identity, to be lost among the multitude of gentile nations. Being divided and lost, he kept no records.

 

Lehi's people kept a record and also recorded the records of others who came here of the house of Israel. This record is only an abridgement of the whole. Lehi (of Manasseh) did become a nation, and great. Those who search the ruins of that great nation only partially reveal how truly great he was. Yet to be unfolded is the whole story, filled with wonder and awe.

 

We note that Ez. 37 mentions two sticks on which a great deal of writing would be placed. It is obvious that very little could be written on a wooden stick, but history indicates that records were kept on a scroll which was rolled on a stick making it possible to write extensively with much room to keep the record intact yet without bulk. This item was customarily referred to as a stick. (See History of the Holy Bible, John Kitto, D.D., F.S.A., pp. 403).

 

Ephraim is still hid among the multitude of nations and is not yet identified as Israel. But at a future time he is to be gathered in from the four quarters of the earth and be one nation, Israel again, as the Lord said, "I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them from every side, and bring them into their own land. I will make them one nation." (Ez. 37:21-22; also II N. 9:46-50.)

 

Judah's record is in the Bible; also records of the children of Israel his companions, but not "... all the house of Israel his companions."

 

After Joseph was blessed by Jacob, there is very little more written of his personality; and shortly the record announces Joseph's death. Then follows the record of Ephraim for awhile until he is conquered and scattered and loses his identity; after which it is promised he will become a multitude of nations among the heathen and gentiles. Hosea 8 tells us that Ephraim was to be swallowed up and shall be among the gentiles. Therefore Ephraim, when gathered from among them, will need to be marked or identified for separation or designation.

 

Ezekiel says the stick of Joseph is in the hand of Ephraim, not that it was written by him since he was scattered. Thus it fell to Manasseh to keep the record of Joseph that it might be found in, or given into, the hand of Ephraim, this being a mark, or designation of his identity. The gentiles now have the Book of Mormon, which is Joseph's record kept by, or written by, Manasseh. This nation was set up for the specific purpose that this record might come forth unto a gentile nation.We are a gentile (that is, not Jewish) nation. Ephraim was lost among the gentile nations. Will any dispute these facts?

 

Now, I believe no one will condemn the mistakes and false doctrines of Joseph Smith more than myself. They have been a great stumbling block, a rock of offense. But to say that the idea or theory that Joseph Smith may have projected was error simply because he presented it is equally a stumbling block. Perhaps one of the most common mistakes, and most discouraging, is to keep Joseph Smith's misadventures and false revelations constantly before the people to his discredit. I believe it is enough to say he fell. It is better that we put what precious time we have into joining these two books one to another in our hands and let them be one in God's hands.

 

It is good to note that the Apostles had Ez. 37 in mind when asking Jesus questions in Acts 1:6: "When they therefore were come together they asked him, saying, Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel?" Then Jesus explains that after they receive the Holy Ghost, they must go forth as witnesses that he has set the stage for this "restoring again," by his teachings, death and resurrection. This witnessing will be even to the uttermost part of the earth, which, as we have pointed out, is the American continent.

 

There are some closely related statements in Ez. 37, I N. 3 and II N. 2 and 12:42-63. Please turn, now, and read them as space will preclude my quoting them in entirety.

 

Verse 42 of II N. 12 refers to the same thought as Ez. 37:21. "And say unto them, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land..." "I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel." The harmony becomes ever more apparent as we read all of this reference. "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick for Judah, ... and another for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim ... join them together ... and they shall be one in thine hand." (Ez. 37:16-17). Then verse 19, "I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim (among the gentiles)... and will put them...with the stick of Judah, ... and they shall be one in mine hand."

 

It is necessary to read all of 1 N. 3 to get a clear picture; but I quote verses 195-196, “And the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one.” (Joined one to another into one stick). II N. 2:19-21: “Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; (the sticks of Joseph and of Judah) and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins (Joseph) and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah shall grow together." (Established in one --- joined one to another into one stick.) The purpose also is set forth: "unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins." II N.2:21.

 

When they are joined, then will be the time of the fulfilling of Ez. 37:26-28: "Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them, yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore."

 

Remember that Jacob, in blessing his sons, Joseph's blessing was greater, and that upon Ephraim and Manasseh Jacob bestowed his name, Israel. In fact examination will show that the blessing upon Joseph and his offspring required about 777 words in English while the blessing upon all the other eleven sons together was made with 403 words only. Then, too, Joseph's land was to be a choice land above all other lands. (Ether 6:6-8) Can there be any doubt then that this is Ephraim's and Manasseh's land? If not, then the final conclusion remains; that is, to reunite Israel, to prove, "Then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord." (Ez. 37:14.)

 

It is so urgently necessary that all effort be confined to the purpose of joining these two books—records—sticks that came from God through Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Judah, to guide all the house of Israel back to God from out of the heathen nations where they have gone, to be "one nation in peace", to restore the kingdom to Israel again, that they shall be "one in mine hand."

 

An important step, perhaps the first to be taken, is to lay aside or put away all so-called "revelations" that attempt to place attachments or interpretations on these ancient records. Such superlatives have been the millstone around the neck of would-be believers in the Book of Mormon. The greatest potential danger and the most satanically successful is, that in trying to prove some fallacy in latter-day revelation, which in fact has no connection with the Book of Mormon and its purpose, many have been caused to turn against even the Book of Mormon itself. It is to be hoped that my efforts to clarify the identity of the "stick of Judah" and the "stick of Joseph" will in some measure dilute the doubts that may have been recently implanted in the hearts of some.

 

Our questions answered, we conclude by stating that Ez. 37, I N. 3 and II N. 2:42-63 summarizes the matter, as does Deut. 33:13-18. I quote verse 17: "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns (plural) are like the horns of unicorns: (Bible and Book of Mormon), with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." This is what shall be accomplished by the joining of the two sticks in God's hand. And God's purpose is to "restore again the kingdom of Israel".

 

I urge that we confine ourselves solely to this end. (Rolland D. Sprague, “Two Sticks” The Book of Mormon Foundation [April-June 1971]: 1-4)