Thursday, June 11, 2026

Bradshaw, Bowen, and Thompson on Genesis 12:8 and “his” or “her” tent

  

pitched his tent. The consonantal text literally reads: “pitched her tent.” Rashi commented that this means that Abram pitched Sarai’s tent before his own. However, a similar puzzling syntactic construction occurs in the story of Noah in conjunction as part of what appears to be a description of worship within a sacred tent—a proto-temple.  Both there and here, the Zohar offers an explanation that takes the letter he of the Hebrew feminine possessive to mean “‘the tent of that vineyard,’ namely, the tent of Shekhinah.” Shekhinah is the Hebrew term for “the divine feminine” that was used to describe the presence of Yahweh in Israelite temples. The idea of Abraham putting up a sacred “tent of meeting” is consistent with the report in the same verse that he built an altar and “called upon the name of the Lord.” Indeed, in a variant of the same theme, some modern commentators take the letter he in the Hebrew text of Genesis as referring to Yahweh, hence reading the term as the “Tent of Yahweh,” the divine sanctuary. (Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen, and John S. Thompson, In God’s Image and Likeness 3: The Family of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar [Salt Lake City: Eborn Books; Orem, Utah: The Interpreter Foundation, 2025], 31)

 

Postmortem Purgation of Sins in Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16a, 16b-17a

  

Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16a:

 

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֶלֶךְ וְצִבּוּר — מֶלֶךְ נִכְנָס תְּחִלָּה לַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפַּט עַבְדּוֹ וּמִשְׁפַּט עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל״. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמֵיתַב מַלְכָּא אַבָּרַאי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיפּוֹשׁ חֲרוֹן אַף.

 

§ About this verse Rav Ḥisda said: When a king and a community are brought before God for judgment, the king is brought in for judgment first, as it is stated: “To make the judgment of His servant,” and afterward: “And the judgment of His people Israel.” What is the reason for this? If you wish, say that it is not proper conduct for the king to stand outside and wait for the trial of his subjects to come to an end. And if you wish, say instead that the king is brought in first so that he may be judged before God’s anger intensifies due to the sins of the community, and consequently he may be saved from overly harsh judgment.

 

 

Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a:

 

תַּנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שָׁלֹשׁ כִּתּוֹת הֵן לְיוֹם הַדִּין: אַחַת שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאַחַת שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאַחַת שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִיִּים. צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם, רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרַבִּים מִיְּשֵׁנֵי אַדְמַת עָפָר יָקִיצוּ אֵלֶּה לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְאֵלֶּה לַחֲרָפוֹת לְדִרְאוֹן עוֹלָם״, בֵּינוֹנִיִּים — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם,

 

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: There will be three groups of people on the great Day of Judgment at the end of days: One of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written and sealed for eternal life. Wholly wicked people will immediately be written and sealed for Gehenna, as it is stated: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Middling people will descend to Gehenna to be cleansed and to achieve atonement for their sins,

 

17a

 

וּמְצַפְצְפִין וְעוֹלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּאֵשׁ וּצְרַפְתִּים כִּצְרוֹף אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וּבְחַנְתִּים כִּבְחוֹן אֶת הַזָּהָב הוּא יִקְרָא בִשְׁמִי וַאֲנִי אֶעֱנֶה אוֹתוֹ״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמְרָה חַנָּה: ״ה׳ מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה מוֹרִיד שְׁאוֹל וַיָּעַל״.

 

and they will cry out in their pain and eventually ascend from there, as it is stated: “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; they shall call on My name, and I will answer them” (Zechariah 13:9). This is referring to the members of the third group, who require refinement and cleansing. And about them, Hannah said: “The Lord kills, and gives life; he brings down to the grave, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6).

 

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד. וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר דָּוִד: ״אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה׳ אֶת קוֹלִי״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר דָּוִד כׇּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ — ״דַּלּוֹתִי וְלִי יְהוֹשִׁיעַ״.

 

Beit Hillel say: He Who is “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) tilts the scales in favor of kindness, so that middling people should not have to pass through Gehenna. And about them, David said: “I love the Lord, Who hears my voice and my supplications” (Psalms 116:1). And about them, David said the entire passage: “I was brought low [daloti] and He saved me” (Psalms 116:6). Although they are poor [dalim] in mitzvot, God saves them.

 

Postmortem Purgation of Sins in Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13:3

  

13:3 A. The House of Shammai says, “There are three groups, one for eternal life, one for shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2)—these are those who are completely evil.

 

B. “An intermediate group go down Gehenna and scream and come up again and are healed,                                                                                                    

 

C. “as it is said, I will bring the third part through fire and will refine them as silver is refined and will test them as gold is tested, and they shall call on my name and I will be their God (Zech. 13:9).

 

D. “And concerning them did Hannah say, The Lord kills and brings to life, brings down to Sheol and brings up (1 Sam. 2:6).”

 

E. And the House of Hillel say, “Great in mercy (Ex. 34:6)—He inclines the decision toward mercy,

 

F. “and concerning them David said, I am happy that the Lord has heard the sound of my prayer (Ps. 116:1),

 

G. “and concerning them is said the entire passage.” (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13:3, in The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction, 2 vols. [trans. Jacob Neusner; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 2:1188-89)

 

Notes on Tithing in Early Christianity

  

Every true prophet that wishes to abide among you is worthy of his support. Likewise, a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of the wine-press and the threshing- floor, of oxen and of sheep, you will take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets. Didache (c. 80-140, E), 7.381.

 

The wealthy among us help the needy.... As for the persons who are prosperous and are willing, they give what each thinks fit. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.185, 186.

 

Instead of the Law commanding the giving of tithes, He taught us to share all our possessions with the poor. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.477.

 

The class of oblations in general has not been set aside. For there were both oblations there [among the Jews] and there are oblations here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the [Israelite] people; sacrifices there are, too, in the church. Only the outward form has been changed. For the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by free men..,. [The Jews] had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him. In contrast, those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord's purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.484, 485.

 

At the beginning, God accepted the gifts of Abel, because he offered with single-mindedness and righteousness. However, He had no respect for the offering of Cain, because his heart was divided with envy and malice. . . . For if anyone will endeavor to offer a sacrifice merely for outward appearances,. . . such an oblation will not profit him anything. . .. Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man. For God stands in no need of sacrifice. But it is the conscience of the person offering that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.485.

 

On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation—but only if it is his pleasure and only if he is able. For there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.46.

 

They used to sell houses and estates so that they might lay up for themselves treasures in heaven. They presented the proceeds from them to the apostles, to be distributed for the use of the poor. However, now, we do not even give the tenths from our patrimony! Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.429.

 

Let the bishop use as a man of God those tithes and first-fruits that are given according to the command of God. Let him also dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings that are brought in for the poor. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.408

 

Give to the priest those things that are due to him—the first-fruits of your [threshing] floor and of your wine-press. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.413.

 

 

C. Early Judaism and Christianity

 

In both early Jewish and early Christian exegesis of the scriptural references to tithes the Deuteronomic sacrificial meal is forgotten. Another characteristic common to both early Jews and early Christians is generalizing of the tithes. Whereas in the OT tithes apply to specific agricultural products, rabbinic and patristic exegesis tends to include all agricultural products and eventually all forms of income as subject to the tithe. In the Mishnaic tractate on tithes (Maʿaśerot) is the statement, “Whatsoever is used for food, and is kept watch over, and grows from the soil, is liable to Tithes” (1:1), not just grain, wine, and oil. Later extensive lists are drawn up of every agricultural product subject to the tithe, including even relatively insignificant herbs such as thyme and mustard. This generalizing tendency can already be seen in the 2d century b.c.e. in the book of Tobit: “Of all my produce I would give a tenth to the sons of Levi who ministered at Jerusalem; a second tenth I would sell, and I would go and spend the proceeds each year at Jerusalem, the third tenth I would give to those to whom it was my duty” (1:7–8). Very early in the history of Christianity tithes are extended to include money. This occurs for the first time in Didache 13:7 (late first or early 2d century c.e.), then in all subsequent Christian writing on tithes. Despite this generalizing tendency virtually all references in early Judaism and early Christianity are to tithes (plural) not to the tithe. Tithes do not become the tithe until much later in the history of Christianity.

 

Another widespread tendency of early Christianity is the identification of the OT Levites, the principal beneficiaries of the tithes, with Christian priests. Origen writes, “God orders the priest-Levite who possessed no land himself, to live together with an Israelite who possesses land. And the priest-Levite should receive those earthly things which he does not have from the Israelite; and the Israelite should correspondingly receive the heavenly and divine things from the priest-Levite. The priest should be completely free to devote himself exclusively to the service of God. He should be supported just as we provide oil for a lamp so that it can give light” (Homilies on Joshua 17:3, quoted in Vischer 1966: 27). The Apostolic Constitutions carry this tendency a step further by equating the OT priestly order with church order. The bishops are the equivalent of the high priest; the elders, of the priests; the deacons, of the Levites (ANF 7:410).

 

Two different lines of interpretation of the OT commandments on tithing may be discerned in the writings of the Church Fathers. Many of the earlier fathers and especially the early monastic writers regarded the OT commandments on tithing as superseded by the teachings of Jesus. The Hebrews were to give a tenth, but Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had to give to the poor (Matt 19:21 = Mark 10:21 = Luke 18:22). Irenaeus writes that the Jews “had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him, but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely” (haer. 4:18 in ANF 1:485). Nonetheless Christians did not give all that they had; most did not even give a tithe. The sermons of fathers such as Cyprian and Chrysostom occasionally rebuke Christians by implying that those who do not tithe are inferior to the Jews. Chrysostom writes, “Someone told me with great amazement that so-and-so gives a tithe. How shameful it is that what was taken for granted among the Jews has now become an amazing thing among Christians. And if non-payment of the tithe puts a man in jeopardy with God then, consider how many are in such danger today” (Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 2; quoted in Vischer 1966: 16). A second line of patristic interpretation, more characteristic of the post-Nicene period, sees the OT tithes as an acceptable, though minimal, standard of giving for Christians. Augustine was the chief spokesperson for this viewpoint. (J. Christian Wilson, “Tithe,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 6:580)

 

 

Tithing in the Early Church. In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists the common words for tithing do not appear. Nevertheless, giving still continued to be an important part of early Christian worship. Justin Martyr observes that every Sunday “those who prosper and so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows and those who are in want … and those who are in bonds and the strangers who are sojourners among us” (I Apol. 67; cf. also Apost. Const. 2, 27). Irenaeus considered tithing to be a Jewish law not required of Christians for Christians had received “liberty” and should consequently give without external constraint (Haer. 4, 18, 2). Origen viewed tithes as something to be far exceeded by Christians in their giving (In Num. hom. 11). Hence, for the early Fathers of the Church, as for the writers of the NT, the tithe was a thing of the past; a new principle for giving was guiding them now and propelling them to share—the goodness of God and the inward compulsion of the Holy Spirit.

 

Note that in this primitive period of the church’s history, giving was still voluntary, was directly related to whether God had prospered a person or not and was chiefly for the aiding of the poor. Little or nothing is said about how the clergy and the church were sustained. Presumably they were kept going by the free will gifts of the people to whom they ministered. Later, however, tithing was reintroduced as a means of supporting the church. It was reintroduced first by instruction with the aid of such NT passages as Matt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:3f., etc., and on a voluntary basis. Eventually, however, the power of civil law was required to effect what instruction failed to accomplish. The renowned decree of Charlemagne (A.D. 785) no longer gave the people an option—they were taxed for the support of the church whether they liked it or not. (G. F. Hawthrone, “Tithe,” in New Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986], 3:854-55)

 

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

M. L. Garfield Cook on D&C 87:2-3, 8

  

And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. . . . Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen. (D&C 87:2-3, 8)

 

Commenting on D&C 87:2-3, 8:

 

The gospel is the means of saving the house of Israel from the famine of which Amos spoke (Amos 8:11) and of judging the nations (2 Ne. 25:22-23). The Lord promised that all kindreds of the earth would be blessed with the blessings of the gospel through the seed of Abraham (1 Ne. 22:9; Abr. 2:11). This could not happen unless the Lord would make bare his arm in the eyes of all nations; therefore, the Lord God would do so in his due time (1 Ne. 22:10-11; Is. 52:10; Rev. 11:6-13; D&C 1:14; 45:44-48; 88:88-93; 90:9-10).

 

To date wars have served to open the doors of nations for the preaching of the gospel. World Wars I and II were in partial fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s 1832 prophecy on war. War began to be poured out upon all nations in World War I after Great Britain called upon other nations to defend itself against other nations. World War I began precisely 70 years after the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith. These 70 years reference the eventual reunification of Judah and Ephraim. Seventy years from Thursday, AD 27 Jume 1844, brings us to Sunday, AD 27 June 1914. The next day, on Monday, AD 28 June 1914, Ferdinand and Sophie, duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated while driving through the streets of Sarejevo. This event triggered World War I. This date was 2520 years from the time Daniel was taken captive into Babylon. Forty-two months (3.5 years or 1260 days) after the 1st World War was triggered Jerusalem was redeemed for the political return of the Jews (Rev. 13:5; cf. p. 105). (M. Garfield Cook, Cornerstones of the Restoration: A Message Extracted From a Genealogical Record [rev ed.; Salt Lake City: Hiller Book Binders, 1999], 94-95)

 

 

Joseph Smith prophesied that the wars leading up to the Second Coming began in South Carolina (D&C 87:1-2, 6-8). Civil War in the United States began on AD 12 April 1861. The Southern States called upon Great Britain to help defend themselves from the Northern States as prophesied. The Prophet said further that war would be poured out upon all nations when Great Britain called upon other nations to defend itself against other nations (D&C 87:3; cf. 1 Ne. 14:16). This occurred beginning in World War I. (M. Garfield Cook, Cornerstones of the Restoration: A Message Extracted From a Genealogical Record [rev ed.; Salt Lake City: Hiller Book Binders, 1999], 98)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Joseph S. Park on "Memorial" as a designation for the tomb

  

“Memorial” as a designation for the tomb

 

It is hardly surprising, given the function of the tomb as the primary occasion for the remembrance of the deceased, that the most common use of the idea of memory in our inscriptions occurs in the designation of the tomb as a “memorial.” Also, it is an indication of the high level of currency of the designation that several different Greek and Latin words are used in this way.

 

The most common Greek terms to be used in this way are μνημα and the closely related μνημιον, occurring, for example, several times in Palestine and Egypt. These seem to appear consistently at the beginning of the inscription, followed by the name of the owner of the tomb, or in some cases an entire area (BS ii 11, 106), in the genitive case. However, one striking deviation from this use of μνημα/μνημιον as part of an identification formula can be seen in the relatively much earlier fragmentary epitaph of Theon (JIGRE 114, 1st cent B.C.-1st cent. A.D.), which concludes with the very straightforward first-person statement ενθαδε μνημηω κειμαι αποφθιμενος, “I lie here dead in the tomb.”

 

The ”tomb of” identification formula can also be seen with the Latin memoria, which, judging from the presence of the Greek transliteration μημοριον, was perhaps even more widely known than μνημα. An interesting combination of this with another identification formula, “here lies,” can be seen in hic est memoria Isidora (JIWE i 187). A similar combination appears in the trilingual epitaph of Mellasa (JIWE i 183), in which the hic est memoria of the Latin text is translated into the Greek ωδε εστην μεμν[ι]ον. Here, the fact that both the Greek and Latin words are used as equivalent to the הקבר in the Hebrew text indicates that they simply mean “tomb,” without any reference to actual idea of remembrance. This is even more clearly the case in the epitaph of Aurelius Samuel (JIWE i 145), in which the deceased declares “I . . . bought the memorial for myself and my wife,” and warns “let no-one open the memorial and put someone else’s body on top of our bones.”

 

A strong contrast to this use of memorial strictly to mean “tomb” is observable in the statement dormition eius est memoria eius in the epitaph of Peon Geta (JIWE i 174). As Noy points out, the dormition here may also mean “tomb,” as is the case in the blessing sit pax super dormitorium eorum of JIWE i 121. There are, therefore, four possible combinations: “his sleep is his memorial,” “his sleep is his tomb,” “this tomb is his memorial,” and “his tomb is his tomb.” The second and last of these, however, are plainly to be ruled out as not being meaningful, so that in either case, memoria is not to used to mean “tomb,” but “memorial.” Of the two remaining options, the latter, perhaps to be interpreted “his tomb is that by means of which he shall be remembered,” is the most likely.

 

Finally, it is not surprising that this aspect of remembrance is also fresh in the occurrences of the term μνεια, “memory,” in the metaphorical sense of “memorial>” For example, in the epitaph of Ursus (JIWE ii 253), the words μνεια του μ<ε>λλονυμφιου, “memorial of the man about to marry,” neither appearing at the beginning of the epitaph nor containing the name of the deceased, presents a striking contrast with the use of other terms as part of an identification formula, above. Similarly, the words μνια αυτου (JIWE ii 167) and μνια σου (JIWE ii 354), occurring near the end of the epitaphs in which they occur, seem to express simply and deliberately that the tomb is meant to be the occasion for the remembrance of the deceased. IT is noteworthy that this seems to be the only memory-related word used in the Jewish inscriptions of Rome, and also that this word is not used in this way elsewhere. (Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 129-31)

 

 

The Greek formula

 

Although there are among the Jewish inscriptions of Rome no Hebrew occurrences of the present formula, there are three Greek equivalents. The LXX of Prov 10:7 seems to have been followed in the μνημη δικαιο[υ] σ[υ]ν ενκωμιω, “the memory of the just man with praise,” which honors an anonymous teacher of the law (JIWE ii 307) buried in the Randanini catacomb. The μνια δικαιου εις ευλογιαν in the Monteverde epitaph of Macedonius (JIWE ii 112), on the other hand, follows the Aquila version. Macedonius (JIWE ii 112), on the other hand, follows the Aquila version. Finally, the form μνημη δικαιου ις ευλογιαν ου αλητη τα ενκωμια appears on the epitaph of Amachius (JIWE ii 276), also from the Randanini catacomb. As van der Horst points out, this very interesting variant contains elements of both the LXX and Aquila versions.

 

The general meaning conveyed by these three Greek adaptations of Prov 10:7 in a this-worldly remembrance and praise of the deceased, Unlike the Hebrew formula examined above, the fact that these are all different from each other seems to indicate that the authors probably reflected upon and made references to their respective version of the Greek bible rather than imitate a set a formula. This is somewhat in contrast to the ε.ε.η.κ.α. formula, which comes after each of them.

 

There is, in addition, a similar Greek formula in the epitaph CIJ 731c, 4th-5th cent.), from Crete: μνημη δικεας ις εωνα, “the memory of the righteous forever.” Although the lack of the word “blessing” or “praise” in this formula makes it unlike any of those found in Rome, the first two words are sufficiently recognizable for it to be considered as based on Prov 10:7. It is possible to take this formula as simply declaring or wishing that the deceased is never to be forgotten. However, the meaning of the words εις αιωνα does not seem to be exhausted by a merely this-worldly remembrance. (Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 142)

 

Sola Scriptura Debate: Robert Boylan (Latter-day Saint) vs. Kelly Powers (Protestant)

 

Sola Scriptura Debate: Robert Boylan (Latter-day Saint) vs. Kelly Powers (Protestant)








Blog Archive