LDS and Ezekial 37

[mormon_fool]

I wasn’t planning on contributing much to this thread. (Don’t want to catch people in a cross-fire of unsupported assertions ) But I ran across the FARMS website’s “Evidence of the Week” and it was too big of a coincidence not to bring up!

The Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph

"Ezekiel is probably referring here to an institution which flourished among the ancient Hebrews but was completely lost sight of after the Middle Ages until its rediscovery in the [nineteenth] century. That is the institution of the tally-sticks. . . . When a contract was made, certain official marks were placed upon a stick of wood in the presence of a notary representing the king. . . . The stick was split down the middle, and each of the parties kept half as his claim-token. . . . When the time for settlement came and the king’s magistrate placed the two sticks side by side to see that all was in order, the two would only fit together perfectly mark for mark and grain for grain to ‘become one’ in the king’s hand if they had been one originally."32

1. Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 319—20.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

I wasn’t planning on contributing much to this thread. (Don’t want to catch people in a cross-fire of unsupported assertions ) But I ran across the FARMS website’s “Evidence of the Week” and it was too big of a coincidence not to bring up!

Good quote, but where does that fit in with proving or disproving that those verses talk about the BoM.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Good quote, but where does that fit in with proving or disproving that those verses talk about the BoM.

It is a leap to say that the Ezekiel verses are talking specifically about the BOM. It might be helpful to bracket that question aside and ask what E and his audience would have understood from the imagery employed. One approach to answering that question is to explore how “sticks” are used in other contexts that would have been familiar to E.

Dr. Nibley here is just exploring one possible connection. Pretend for a moment that a stick repressents a covenant between two peoples. They break it in half and each party has a piece that uniquely identifies each party. Later the covenant is fulfilled when the two parties come back together with their halves.

It makes for a nice little parable where the parties are the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel (led by Ephraim and Judah) respectively. The covenant is really the one God has made with all Israel–including but not limited to–the promised gathering after a scattering. Both parties have a copy of the covenant which will fit together quite nicely. A leap would be to say that the writing on the sticks are symbolic of lengthy records of a covenantial relationship between God and his scattered people. An additional subjective leap would to be to specifically identify such records.

This is just one possible interpretion to explore. There are obviously many other avenues, which means speaking in terms of proof or disproof is less than satisfying to someone like me. I see the LDS reading as plausible and persuasive, but I recognize others may be considerably less impressed.

 

[mormon_fool]

## How can Smith have been an Ephraimite and a descendant of Manasseh ?

As he was Scotch-Irish, neither is likely ##

Joseph Smith was indeed an Ephraimite. The Latter-Day Saint thinking on this is that the Northern tribes were quite profusely scattered and got assimilated into host nations, contributing to the gene pool. If that seems unlikely, consider that mormons are adopted into a tribe of Israel – typically Ephraim. Mormons then inherit the blessings that were given to each of Israel’s (or Joseph’s) son depending on which tribe we are adopted into. There are some teachings gleaned from the Bible and Book of Mormon on Ephraim’s role in the Gathering.

Even though Lehi was from the tribe of Manaseh, Ishmael was from Ephraim. You won’t find this is the present day Book of Mormon but reportedly this fact was in the lost 116 pages which included the Book of Lehi. If true this means that the Book of Mormon peoples were descended in part from Ephraim.

So if an Ephraimite (Joseph Smith) took a prominent role in the Book of Mormon’s production, and Ephraimites still play a prominent role in popularizing the BOM (LDS missionaries), and the peoples written about in the BOM were partly Ephraimites; then it seems appropriate to tie in Ephraim to the stick of Joseph. That is if we have already taken the leap of faith necessary to grant that the BOM is the stick of Joseph.

 

[JRR]

What is Ezekiel’s message to the Jewish people in verses 15-22?

The answer: God promises a future restoration for the whole Jewish nation, and announces that someday the northern kingdom, called “Joseph” and the southern kingdom, called "Judah " would once again be a united Israel.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word translated “stick” always refers to wood and is never used, even figuratively, to mean a scroll or book. (See Numbers 17:2) In verses 15-22 is where the meaning of the “sticks” that joined together in Ezekiel 37. In verse 16 Ezekiel is told to write on one stick “For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions.” The first stick represented the southern kingdom or Judah. On a second stick, or piece of wood, Ezekiel was to write, “For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions.” This represented the northern Kingdom, callled Israel.

God then tells Ezekiel, in verse 17, to join the two sticks into one stick and have them become one in Ezekiel’s hand. In doing so, God is saying that He will bring back together His divided and decimated people.

The LDS Church fails to look at verses 21-22. God explains the meaning of the two sticks being joined together.

"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: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel: and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall be nor more two natioins, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

The prophecy of Ezekiel 37: 16-17 has a specific historial context. It is the prediction of the future unity of God’s divided covenant people. The interpretation taught by the LDS Church to make this passage a predication regarding the Book of Mormon violates the clear historial, grammatical context of the passage, and is thus a fallacious interpretation of the Biblical passage.

 

[mormon_fool]

On another thread, I read the following from the esteemed tkdnick and realized I did a rather poor job of relaying mormon perspectives on Ezekiel 37.

tkdnick:

Not a single thing I found could even possibly refer to the BoM. Another interesting thing I found (pointed out by another LDS) is that even ‘bigwig’ LDS do not espouse that these verses predict the BoM.

Actually “bigwigs” are more or less obligated to accept that the Stick of Ephraim refers to the BoM among other things. But that is because we accept prophetic expansion. Consider for instance Doctrine and Covenants 29:5

Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

http://scriptures.lds.org/themes/graphics/spacer.gif
I do not blame anyone for not being able to see the BOM in the stick writing if they don’t accept continuing revelation. This might be another case of believing before seeing.

If one reads the chapter after v. 16 it is good stuff primarily focused on the gathering of Israel. The return of Davidic unity to the promised land, the return of the tabenacle in the midst, and obedience to the Lord’s statutes will be signs of the gathering. In v. 26 a covenant is mentioned, seemingly strengthening Nibley’s interpretation that the sticks take part in a covenant ceremony

If sticks at least partly represent a covenant, in order to interpret what they could possibly represent we should find examples of covenants. Consider:

The word testament is a derivation of the Latin word testamentum, which was used in Jerome’s Vulgate to translate the Hebrew word b’rith, covenant. The Greek equivalent is diatheke, which also means covenant. The word has come to be used in describing the two main divisions of the Bible: The Old Testament and The New Testament. It should be understood then, that the Bible is generally to be looked at as a covenant between God and man.

Is there any real problem with seeing the Bible as the covenant the Stick of Judah (in part) repressents?

Another tie-in that a covenant is being made by breaking sticks might be this definition:

a contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means “to cut,” and hence a covenant is a “cutting,” with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18, 19).

Dividing a stick can be used in place of dividing animals (much cleaner!) like Nibley suggested above.

Its all about making connections and reading between the lines.

Later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

JRR:

What is Ezekiel’s message to the Jewish people in verses 15-22?

The answer: God promises a future restoration for the whole Jewish nation, and announces that someday the northern kingdom, called “Joseph” and the southern kingdom, called "Judah " would once again be a united Israel.

Very nice points, in fact I made some of the same points in earlier posts on this thread. I will overlook the generalizations about mormons that we ignore this or that or commit this or that fallacy, although I am sure sometimes this happens. This mormon fool tries to avoid such whenever possible.

My only concern with your otherwise brilliant post is your insistence that sticks can only repressent tribes. Whenever I ponder scriptural symbolism, I find it unhelpful to insist that only one thing is meant. In this case, I have embraced a dual meaning. As an invitation to all to continue exploration of Ezekiel 37 think on how the Lord will gather his people in the Last Days. I think the scriptures or records of past covenants will facilitate the gathering.

Here is how the Nephite prophets foresaw it in passages that are obvious commentaries on Ezekiel 37:

1 Ne. 13: 41.

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; 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; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.
Scriptures

[2 Ne. 3: 12](http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/3/12#12).

12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
Scriptures

 

[mormon_fool]

Another possible approach for interpretting Ezekiel as a reference to the BOM can be found in this scholarly article found in the LDS church magazine.

 

[Chazemataz]

## That interpretation has no basis at all in the OT text - it is simply a justification, after the event, of a fact for which it would be convenient to find a Biblical prophecy: namely, the supposed prophetic ministry of a certain 19th-century American.

I could do the same, and say that I’m foretold in the Book pf Daniel and in Revelation 12. (That is two references to one ) So could Abraham Lincoln, or anyone else with a name in the Bible. Saying it is so, doesn’t make it so. Where is the proof that Ezekiel meant any such thing ?

It’s like the proof that Joseph Smith is prophesied of in Genesis 49 - both are an unsupported assertions, which are unecessary, because the texts can be explained without resorting to such ideas.

It’s no different from the Muslim idea that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible. ##

I am now intriqued in Genesis 49. Especially because the footnotes on my Bible says the meanib is obscure. Why exactly do mormons say it refers to Joeseph Smith? I think it refers to the other Joeseph.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

On another thread, I read the following from the esteemed tkdnick and realized I did a rather poor job of relaying mormon perspectives on Ezekiel 37.

Esteemed? I get the title esteemed?!? Wow!

Thanks for adding some more explanations. From reading your post regarding Nibley, I was under the impression that you were on “my side” that Ezekiel does not predict the BoM.

One thing I think is important to add…whether or not Ezekiel predicts the BoM does not, in and of itself, necessarily mean that the BoM is not true.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Thanks for adding some more explanations. From reading your post regarding Nibley, I was under the impression that you were on “my side” that Ezekiel does not predict the BoM.

I am on your side in the sense that I don’t think that the Ezekiel passage makes a good “proof text” for the Book of Mormon. If we are left with just the Ezekiel text then there is insufficient information to formally deduce that it means, although I think Nibley and Meservy do a decent job showing that some mormon interpretations are plausible.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

One thing I think is important to add…whether or not Ezekiel predicts the BoM does not, in and of itself, necessarily mean that the BoM is not true.

I am in agreement with this. I would hope that people can suspend final*, intellectual, judgement about whether the Book of Mormon is true or not based on a variety of analysis. I don’t think there are any simplistic, one issue, knock-out punches for or against it.

• It is alright to make some tentative judgement calls so we can move on with their lives, though.

 

[mormon_fool]

Chazemataz:

I am now intriqued in Genesis 49. Especially because the footnotes on my Bible says the meanib is obscure. Why exactly do mormons say it refers to Joeseph Smith? I think it refers to the other Joeseph.

Sorry about the delay on my response, I had to do a little research on this topic. I am not quite sure which versus in Genesis 49 you are referring to. But it brings to mind the “Messiah ben Joseph” Jewish tradition:

In summarizing the Messiah ben Joseph tradition, it should be said that his role centers in—in fact, he seems to be the focal point of—the latter-day gathering of Israel. In this role he is to restore true temple worship, return Judah to Palestine, rebuild the city of Jerusalem, build the temple there anew, and bring to pass the restoration of the ten tribes. All of this is destined to happen before the coming of the Messiah ben David. The Messiah ben Joseph tradition is always closely associated with the return of Elijah, who is also to be a forerunner of the Messiah.

“Joseph Smith as Found in Ancient Manuscripts” in *Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament, *Monte S. Nyman ed.

J.F. McConkie, the scholar making the above summary of the literature about Messiah ben Joseph next asks what the ultimate source of the traditions are:

Perhaps as interesting as anything else in relationship to the Messiah ben Joseph traditions is the fact that no one seems to know where they came from. No passage in today’s canon fits. Arguments have attempted to tie these traditions to Jacob’s patriarchal blessing to Joseph, to the blessing given by Moses to the tribe of Joseph, to Isaiah’s suffering servant passages, and, as we have seen, to Jeremiah’s reference to an Ephraimite prophet. Other arguments have involved Ezekiel’s prophecy about the stick of Joseph, Daniel’s reference to “Messiah the Prince,” and passages in Joel and Hosea which have been linked to the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who has also been associated with the Messiah ben Joseph. Also, attempts have been made to associate the tradition with Obadiah’s references to the leading role of the tribe of Joseph in the events of the last days; Habakkuk’s reference to a prophet who would do a work that would cause men to “wonder marvelously,” a work which most would not believe (which passage is especially interesting because Christ applied it to Joseph Smith in 3 Nephi 21); and Micah and Zechariah. The marvelous thing is that none of them fit. None of them speak of a prophet named Joseph who would be a son of Joseph of Egypt called to gather Israel in the last days. To the Latter-day Saint the answer is simple. We have read it in the text that Joseph Smith restored to chapter 50 of Genesis in his translation and in 2 Nephi 3, where Lehi gives a patriarchal blessing to his son Joseph.