Matthew
joespencer
Robert C.
robf
BrianJ
douglashunter
Kevin Barney
Jim F.
nhilton
cherylem
Clark Goble
NathanG
jennywebb
janetlisonbee
kirkcaudle
Karl D.
KarenWhy Abraham “sought” the Priesthood
Posted by kirkcaudle on February 23, 2010
In Abraham chapter 1, Abraham talks about his appointment to the Priesthood. However, I am trying to figure out where he actually fits into the actual Patriarchal lineage of the Priesthood. Who is he a descendant of and why did he have to actually seek the Priesthood?
Here is v3-5.
3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
4 I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.
5 My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice;
It appears that Abraham does not view his direct lineage with the righteous. Notice in v3 he talks about “the” fathers, but never “his” fathers. That seems to denote that they were not related to him, or at the very least they were distant from him. If this is true then I, wonder if the reason Abraham “sought [his] appointment unto the Priesthood” was that he was not of the Patriarchal line. Verse 4 seems to lean this way, as again, Abraham speaks of “the” Fathers and “the” seed. Not once does he say he is from their seed.
The first two words of verse 5 contrast with the last five words of verse 4. Verse 5 talks about his “fathers,” plural. Abraham wants to be aligned with “The Fathers” and not “his Fathers.” The text does not say when his family left the church, or even if they were ever members at all.
If the ancestors of Abraham were not members of the church (using the term “church” loosely of course) or did not hold the Priesthood then this really does make Abraham the ultimate convert.
Abraham is the only person in scripture that I can think of that is actually told to leave his family. When he leaves his father, he gains a new spiritual/eternal family in chapter 2 (and Gen. 12). This seems to be what Abraham was after all along. Unhappy with his true lineage, he went out to find a new one. He was unhappy with his story so he wrote a new one.
Not sure if I am on base with any of this or not, but I would love to hear comments from others. Any non-canonical insights on the lineage of Abraham would be great.
Emily Ward said
Take a look at Genesis 11:10-27. Abraham is a decendent of Shem, Noah’s covenant son. He is more recently a decedent of Eber, making him truly a Hebrew.
Emily Ward said
Sorry, there’s more:
We learn in D&C 84 that Abraham was ordained to the priesthood by Melchizedek, whom some GAs and gospel scholars believe to be Shem himself. Therefore, if Abraham received the priesthood through his 7th great-grandfather, he received the blessings of the fathers through HIS fathers. There’s a powerful message here, I think, one that plays prominently into the outpowering of the spirit of Elijah in the last days: Even when your own parents are not stalwart, and don’t give you what you spiritually need, we can look behind us to earlier generations and find the strength and examples we need to move forward, making better choices than our parents.
Robert C. said
Great thoughts, Kirk. I think it’s also interesting to think about Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac in this light also—even his own son was to be placed on the altar of sacrifice, in similitude of Christ, for the good of the Kingdom. The Kingdom or bust, it seems. On the other hand, perhaps the point of the near-sacrifice of Isaac, when read in light of the Book of Abraham, is that God did not require the sacrifice of Abraham’s son, in contrast to the priests of the gods of Abraham’s father who were about to sacrifice Isaac. (By the way, I think this is Girard’s view of the Abraham and Isaac story—can anyone confirm and/or cite a source? I’d be curious to track this down….)
Also, the D&C 84 passage came up in our Sunday school class, precisely in regard to this question. Interesting to me is 84:1 which claims the priesthood continues “in all generations.” How are we to read that in light of the Apostasy?
J. Madson said
Robert C
yes that is Girard’s view. That the Akedah story is the story of man moving away from human to animal sacrifice and that the greatness of Abraham was that he didnt sacrifice his son as “the Gods” of his culture demanded.
Its in his “Things Hidden from the Foundation” and “I saw Satan fall like lightning.” It may be in other books as well. I actually think Gil Bailie deals with it best in his book.
““What we must try to see in the story of Abrahams’ non-sacrifice of Isaac is that Abraham’s faith consisted, not of almost doing what he didn’t do, but of not doing what he almost did, and of not doing it in fidelity to the God in whose name contemporaries thought it should be done” p 141, Bailie
Substitution is what the story makes clear of human for animal. The bible acknowledges the significance of what he did by saying all nations would become heirs and the promises he receives after the “test”.
“For Abraham performed the quintessential biblical act: he renounced a form of sacrifice that had become morally intolerable, and he did so in the name of the God whom his contemporaries thought were requiring them to perform the outmoded sacrifice” Bailie 142
I can get you page numbers if you like for Girard
J. Madson said
I also think this post is helpful in seeing how rampant child sacrifice was in Israel
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/01/child-sacrifice-a-traditional-religious-practice-in-ancient-israel/
Rameumptom said
In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham destroys Terah’s idols and then flees to Noah and Shem’s home to live. If such is the case, then Abraham literally sought the priesthood for several reasons: 1. to receive the priesthood and its blessings, 2. to receive instruction in the gospel, 3. to find refuge from Nimrod, Terah and his enemies.
When we consider that in 11QMelchizedek, we read that “Melchizedek is El”, we realize that in one sense, Abraham was not just going to the Fathers, but also to those who represented God. Melchizedek was the Priest of El Elyon, while Abraham was called to be the Priest of Yahweh. Note that in being sacrificed, Abraham saw El on his throne, while being rescued by Jehovah (Abr 1). Yahweh was El’s divine son, and Abraham was Yahweh’s divine son.
As regarding the Akedah, Rabbi J.H. Hertz stated: child sacrifice was actually “rife among the Semitic peoples,” and suggests that “in that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
Karen said
quick comment -
He also says he wanted to be one who could administer the same, which is a bit different than receiving the priesthood.
Also, there’s a cool article by Pres. Benson called, “What I Hope You Would Teach Your Children About the Temple” (Liahona 1986) that talks some about Abraham, and also what it means to be one who administers the ordinances.
Hopefully I’ll join in the discussion more another time –
Janey said
> 7.Karen said: Also, there’s a cool article by Pres.
> Benson called, “What I Hope You Would Teach Your Children > About the Temple” (Liahona 1986) that talks some about
> Abraham, and also what it means to be one who administers > the ordinances.
Could someone please give me the URL for that article?
I’m a sincere (senior citizen) ‘investigator’ and I’m still finding my way around on the Web, as far as reading some authentic LDS articles, etc.
Btw, I love this website & also Meridian and T & S…
I have the OT manual and am going through the lesson study guides each week, so these notes & comments are very helpful to me. (and I don’t feel that i have to check in my brain at the door, which is a great feeling. Thanks!)
Jane – pjrema@shaw.ca (anyone who would like to dialogue with me about any LDS topic, etc., is welcome to email)
Nathan E. Rasmussen said
Months later, here’s that article. It’s a good one!
kirkcaudle said
ok, so I feel stupid about not turning back a few pages and seeing the Gen. 11 linage! But I guess it is good to be humbled every now and again, lol. However, my question still remains, whay does Abraham use the language of “the Fathers” in verses 3-4? What does he not identifity with them like he does with “his fathers” in verse 5?
When Abraham says “Fathers” in verse 3 it would appear he is referring to more than one generation. So if we go by the text in Gen. 11, does that mean that Terah, Nahor, Erug, and Reu were all wicked (Gen. 11:22-27)? That would be 4 generations, just a random number, but you still get my point. When Abraham uses the term “The Fathers” in verses 3-4 he goes all the way back to Adam, so how far back is he going in verse 5?
Rameumptom, thanks for sharing that Apoc. of Abr. story. It fits nicely with my thoughts. And also, I think the Shem and Melchizedek connection is speculation at best. I tend not to believe it for a few reasons.
joespencer said
Kirk,
Though it is clear—at least in Genesis—that Abraham came directly through Shem’s lineage, I think you are identifying a crucial tension in the text between “the” fathers and “my” fathers. The mistake, I think, would be to assume that the only interpretive approach to this tension has to take up straightforward “lineal” readings. What other hermeneutical possibilities emerge from the text in light of this tension?
Robert,
Oh, how I wish the Book of Abraham went on to recount the whole of Abraham’s story and so provided more than a loosely implicit set of interpretive possibilities for making sense of Genesis 22! As it is, though, I think we’ll have to confess that the Book of Abraham only complicates—rather than prescribes a particular approach to—the Akedah. Incidentally, I think the best work to be done here would begin with the complex political implications of Abraham 1, rather than with the deceptively obvious parallel between Abraham-on-the-altar and Isaac-on-the-altar.
kirkcaudle said
That makes me wonder if perhaps the linage of Gen. 11 is a spiritual linage that Abraham was adopted into after he received the Priesthood in Abraham 1. Notice at the start of Gen. 12 (Abr. 2) Abraham receives the covenant. Perhaps Abraham 1 takes places before Genesis 11. Therefore, when Genesis 11 is written the spiritual/adopted line of Abraham is provided, not necessarily his genealogy. This would like would need to be established (along with the Priesthood)before the blessings of Gen.12 (abr. 2) could be given.
Or another thought, maybe Abraham could have two family lines like Jesus (Matt/Luke)? The ancestral line given in Matthew comes through David’s son Solomon, whereas, in Luke, it comes through David’s son Nathan. Maybe the if Abraham 1 provided an ancestral chart it would split at a different places than it does in Genesis 11? Maybe that would account for the “the” and “my” Fathers language.
Thinking out loud.
Emily Ward said
Reading the comments, and thinking about the question for another day, I have to add that perhaps the reason he uses “the fathers” instead of “my fathers” has something to do with the patriarchal order. Abraham did not need to to be spiritually adopted into the covenant line. We know he was already entitled by blood to receive the priesthood. What Abraham wanted was to receive the blessings of the Patriarchal order. One can hold the Melchezidek priesthood and not be a member of the order. When I read, ” I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of brighteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great cknowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many dnations, a prince of peace, and edesiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a fHigh Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers,” I read that Abraham had a desire to receive the blessings of the temple. Where else would he find greater knowledge, more instruction, and a promise to have eternal increase (father of many nations). He needs the endowment and he needs to be sealed in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and he knows it. He must have these things in order to be a high priest. Abraham knows his own father is not righteous and can’t give him these blessings, so he seeks them out where he can. This isn’t a question of lineage. Abraham wants the highest blessings and covenants God offers his children, and he has to change his place of residence in order to make those things available to himself and his family.
kirkcaudle said
Emily, other than Terah, who do you think Abraham is refering to as “my Fathers?”
It is interesting that Abraham knew that he would be “the father of many nations” before Genesis 12 took place. So was this blessing still a surpise when he recieve this it?
Rameumptom said
In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham flees Ur, Nimrod, and Terah, and hides/lives with Noah and Shem. In this instance, we get a literal fulfillment of seeking “the fathers”.
kirkcaudle said
“Abraham knows his own father is not righteous and can’t give him these blessings, so he seeks them out where he can. This isn’t a question of lineage.”-Emily (#11)
I only bring up the lineage question because of sayings such as,”I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers” (Abr 1:2). To my understanding, in the Patriarchal Order those who are born in the Patriarchal line have a legal right to the Priesthood and its blessing, much like the sons of Aaron still have a legal right to theirs today. Therefore, when Abraham uses the word “became” it appears to me to denote there was a time he did not have a legal right to the Priesthood. He actually had to seek it out.
And again, if we go by the line given in Genesis 11 as a reason why Abraham was in this line of Priesthood, then his Father must have had it, because he is also in the line of authority. However, it appears from the text he does not.
kirkcaudle said
#13 Rameumptom, I like the insight of Abraham running to Shem and Noah. And I think the story fits very well with the Abraham 1 narrative. However, the question still remains, other than Terah, who are “my fathers?”
Emily Ward said
Terah had a legal right to the priesthood, and may have indeed been ordained, but had since chosen a different path. This disqualified him from passing the blessings that should have been Abraham’s by right. It is a patriarchal line. Even today the priesthood, where it can be, is passed from father to son. Abraham knew it’s a patriarchal line. When he says he wanted, “the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same,” I think he expresses a desire to be sealed into his family (where it seems he may not have been before) and also to have the right to pass it on to his children. His desire is poignant–he wants to be able to give his children the greater peace and happiness that was denied him because his own father just didn’t care enough. So, he seeks the blessings of “the fathers” to become a part of the patriarchal line, making him a “father of many nations” and a “prince of peace” inheriting the promises made to Enos and Noah. “The fathers” could further be used to point out that all of us have common fathers. All of us are direct descendents of Enos, and Noah–we should seek out our rights and blessings too. Abraham can seek out the blessings of all the fathers because most, including Noah, are still alive when Abraham reaches adulthood! Depending on how old Abraham was when he died, Shem may actually have outlived him. The meaning of “becoming a rigthful heir” is probably dual–Terah, being wicked, is not a rightful heir because he chooses not to be. Abraham, because he desires the blessing, is spiritually a rightful heir, despite his father’s denial of the gospel.
Is that too winding and long? Have I expressed myself clearly?
kirkcaudle said
Emily, again, I agree with what you are saying about “the Fathers.” But who are “my fathers” in v5?
I feel like we are talking past eachother on this question :)
Emily Ward said
Sorry. Man, I hate when I don’t take time to write things out in Word and then proof-read before I post. :)
What I am trying to say, and saying poorly, is:
At one point, as we both agree, Abraham had righteous fathers who could pass on the priesthood line. Abraham tell us that “my fathers” had turned to idolatry. I don’t know how many generations back that goes, and I’m fairly sure the text can’t tell us. However, Abraham is lucky, because the righteous fathers are still alive and can give him what he seeks.
There, is that better? ;)
Emily Ward said
It’s like Abraham’s family had their own little “Great Apostasy” and Abraham was the prophet of his own family’s restoration!
Rameumptom said
I would suggest that Abraham hints at who the fathers are. He wants to be the “father of many nations” which would represent Noah, THE father of all nations. And he sought to be a “prince of peace” which was one of Melchizedek’s titles (and may have been Shem).
I believe that “my fathers” are Noah and Shem.
kirkcaudle said
Emily #18, yes, much better! And #19, is exactly what I think. So maybe we agree after all? lol.
Rameumpton #20, how do you reconcile the view of “my fathers” as referring to Shem and Noah in v5 when Abraham states “My fathers . . . turned from their righteousness.”
Rameumptom said
I think Abraham is referencing two groups of his/my fathers. Some of his fathers, such as Terah, had indeed, turned from God.
And so he had to go above the apostate fathers to those who continued the religion of El/Yahweh alive. Melchizedek/Shem was the prophet/priest of El. Abraham was called as the prophet of Yahweh, son of El. He sought the full priesthood power, which the righteous fathers, Noah and Shem, held.
Shumway said
I have a question that It think you would probably answer for me. What does verse 4 mean? “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.” What is the appointment of god unto the fathers concerning the seed? BTW when Abraham said “the fathers” I thought he was just referring to the fathers of everyone–or at least of his line–, as in Noah, Shem, etc. I also thought that when he said “my fathers” he was referring to those of more recent date, and more specific to him who had fallen away.
kirkcaudle said
I know this is an old thread, but I just noticed that the last post had an unanswered question. I always hate to see questions left hanging when someone asked them for a reason. So, I’ll take a crack at it!
In verse 4 I see “the seed” as the patriarchal line or those who came from the seed of “the fathers.”