Category: Scriptures

Jacob 4:8-11 — LeGrand Baker — ancient temple code

It is amazing to me, how frequently the scriptures can speak with a new power and say things they have never said to me before. I don’t know how many times I have read today’s verses, but it is many. As a boy I memorized verse 10, and have since enjoyed both it and the context of its message. But today I read it differently from the way I have ever read it before. Dan and I have talked about part of it, but, even so, I have never seen it in its entirety as I did this morning.

v. 8 “Behold, great and marvelous are the works

[“Works” often refer to the ordinances one performs, or if not, to the way one fulfills the covenants he has made. So, in a temple context, “works” is very much a temple word. ]

of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him

[ Jacob probably used sode for the word which is translated “mysteries.” SOD means the secret workings of a council – in this and similar contexts in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the secrets of the Council in Heaven. Dan has taught me that when I see that word, “mysteries,” we are in the middle of a discussion of the decisions of that Council. So when I saw it here, I thought, Wow! What is Jacob trying to say to me?]

and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways

[“Way,” as used by Isaiah and in the Psalms, is a code word which means the sequence of the ordinances and covenants (which is the same as the sequence of the New Year’s festival), or else, like “works” it means the path one walks (same code words) as one lives according to the ordinances and covenants he has made.]

And no man knoweth of his ways [same code word] save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.”

In the next three verses, Jacob walks us through the sequence of the New Year’s festival. He begins with references to the work of the Council, especially the creation of the earth and the creation of man.

9   For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?
10   Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand.

[One usually takes counsel from another’s mouth, but this time he admonishes his hearers to take counsel from the Lord’s HAND.]

For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.

[I leave it to you to figure out that sequence.]

Jacob then brings his hearer’s mind to the whole purpose of the ceremonies
– that is to explain one’s own personal relationship with the Saviour — but especially the Saviour’s power to cleanse and to restore one to God’s presence.

11   Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled [this requires a cleansing ] unto him [the Father] through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented [to the Father] as the first-fruits of Christ

[ the idea of “first-fruits” is about birthright blessings, the same which occur at the conclusion of the New Year’s festival. ]

unto God [the Father]
having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him
[see discussions of faith (pistis), hope, and charity in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord ] before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.

[This is the same conclusion as one finds in Moroni 7.]

So Jacob has just walked us through the entire sequence of the Feast of Tabernacles temple drama, concluding with the same admonition with which the sequence itself concludes.

Jacob 4:5 — LeGrand Baker — Edited Law of Moses

Jacob 4:5
5   Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness (Jacob 4:5).

We do not know what Jacob meant when he wrote that the law of Moses pointed their souls to Christ, because we cannot know what he meant by “the law of Moses.” What we can be sure of is that what we have in our Bible is not the same as he had. All one has to do is compare our Book of Moses with the first chapters of Genesis to see that someone has severely edited the Bible version. That editing, say scholars, occurred after the Babylonian captivity. At about the same time Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings and Chronicles were apparently also written. A severe apostasy was taking place during those years. It was the same kind of apostasy which occurred in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries after of the Christian era, and had many of the same consequences. During the Jewish apostasy, the religion became monotheistic, they abandoned their belief in Elohim, Jehovah, and a heavenly Council, and turned their belief to a god whom they could not understand, whom they called Jehovah. Just as the Christians abandoned their belief in a Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Council and turned their belief to a god whom they called Jesus but whom they could neither define nor understand. In consequence of the Jewish apostasy, even what is left of the five books of Moses bears such strong evidence of their editors’ work that many scholars actually believe that the books of Moses were first composed after the Babylonian captivity.

At the time of this apostasy, the Jews were part of the Persian Empire. They had no king of their own, and the sacred temple rites which focused on the covenant between God, king, and people, were no longer politically or religiously expedient. During this apostasy the Jews also lost the most sacred of their temple and coronation ceremonies. They rearranged the order of the Psalms (the text of their temple ceremony) so one could no longer discover the story line by reading the Psalms from beginning to end.

Our Book of Leviticus is an Aaronic Priesthood instruction manual about which sacrifices should be performed on which days, but it says almost nothing about what the people or the king were doing during the festivals, and it gives no indications about the temple ceremonies in which the Psalms were sung.

To begin to understand how truly the ordinances of the law of Moses testified of the Saviour, all one has to do is read the 22nd Psalm, which is so vivid in its language that one can almost sense the Saviour’s agony as he hung on the cross, then suddenly shifts scenes to the great meeting in the spirit world where the dead waited to receive the Saviour. It tells how he spoke to them, bearing testimony of his Father, and of his own mission. (If you don’t know that psalm, please stop and read it. It is one of the most moving poems in sacred literature.) If that psalm was sung with any understanding by the ancient Jews, then it is sufficient evidence that the ancient Jews understood the Saviour’s atonement and his power to save the living as well as the dead. Apparently the ceremonies, as well as the theology was stripped of its understanding of the true Messiah.

But Lehi left Jerusalem before this apostasy, so the law of Moses to which Jacob referred did testify of Christ, in ways which we no longer have record of.

For an example of the editorial policy and activities of the Old Testament editors, compare Genesis 6:1-13 with Moses 8:17-30.

Jacob 4:4 — LeGrand Baker — ‘hope of his glory’

Jacob 4:4
4    For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us (Jacob 4:4).

The phrase, “hope of his glory” is used only four times in the scriptures. Two are in this verse. Later, in verse 11, Jacob will write,

11   Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.

Here the word “glory” has the same connotation which we use when we speak of the glory of the celestial world. “Hope” as it is used in this kind of context in the scriptures, does not mean wishing, or wanting, or even anticipating. The Hope which is in the context of faith, hope, and charity, means accepting a promise (covenant) as though it were already fulfilled.

Mormon is the other writer who uses the phrase. In his letter to Moroni he writes,

25   My son, be faithful in Christ; and may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever (Moroni 9:25).

For Mormon, the concept of “hope” and “rest” seem to have a similar meaning.

If Jacob is using his words carefully, as I presume he is, then what I believe he is saying is that hundreds of years before the Saviour came to the earth, Jacob and other prophets anticipated with full trust the promised blessings of eternal glory. That is his testimony. His message is that that hope is available to everyone else as well.

Jacob 3:11 — LeGrand Baker — ‘slumber of death’

Jacob 3:11
11   O my brethren, hearken unto my words; arouse the faculties of your souls; shake yourselves that ye may awake from the slumber of death; and loose yourselves from the pains of hell that ye may not become angels to the devil, to be cast into that lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death.

“…shake yourselves that ye may awake from the slumber of death;”

Like his brother Nephi, when Jacob taught his people, he depended heavily upon the sacred rites and scriptures of his ancient forefathers who had lived at Jerusalem. Here, it is most likely that he is reminding them of one of the Psalms which they would have sung, both as a hymn and also as a part of their ancient temple ceremonies. The Old Testament scripture that contains this idea is the 13th Psalm. The speaker of the Psalm in the temple drama, probably the king, prays that God will “lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.” It seems apparent that the death he fears is not one which would be brought about by an assassin’s knife, but rather a death which he can experience while his body still lives, but while his soul is dark and his “eyes” cannot see. This seems to be the same idea which Jacob is expressing, and a is a continuation of the idea of darkness which he expressed earlier. The entire psalm reads:

1   How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me?
2   How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart daily? how long shall mine enemy be exalted over me?
3   Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyeslest I sleep the sleep of death;
4    Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved.
5   But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.
6   I will sing unto the LORD, because he hath dealt bountifully with me. (Psalms 13:1-6)

Jacob 3:8 — LeGrand Baker — ‘holy, without spot’

Jacob 3:8
8   O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

Ancient Israelite temples were both the same and different from ours. As I read the following:

38   For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was (D&C 124:38).

I see the very strong suggestion that the temple ceremonies which were revealed in the Nauvoo temple were also performed in Moses’ tabernacle and Solomon’s temple. There were smaller rooms and a staircase mentioned as being a part of Solomon’s temple, but no mention is made of how they were used. There also seems to me to be enough evidence in the pre-3 Nephi portion of the Book of Mormon to suggest they had the same temple rites as we have. Yet their temples had some dramatic features which ours do not. Some of those features had to do with burnt offerings and sacrifices which have since been discontinued. One, perhaps the most striking, of the features was the huge golden throne sitting against the back wall of the Holy of Holies. This was the throne of God on earth, and represented his throne in the temple of heaven.

The dramatic conclusion of the New Year Festival (their 22 day covenant renewal ceremonies) occurred in the Holy of Holies when the newly anointed king, adopted as a son of God, sat upon his Father’s throne, and presided in God’s stead over earthly Israel. Some scholars have suggested that the king’s adoption and enthronement was symbolic of the adoption and enthronement of each of the persons who watched the ceremony.

While that is probably true, it is certainly true that the adoption and enthronement of the king represented the prediction of a similar event which would take place after death when each individual returned to God to be presented to him as he sat upon his heavenly throne.

Jacob’s statement can probably best be understood in connection with the drama of that ancient royal temple ceremony.

That accounts for context of Jacob’s statement, but it does not account for his remarkable comment about their skin color “when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.”

It seems to me that the skin color in Jacob’s statement is also symbolic.

When Heber C. Kimball spoke at the funeral of President Jedediah M. Grant (Journal of Discourses 4: 135-138.) he said that President Grant had been in the spirit world several times before his final death, and that when he returned to his body President Grant “could look upon his family and see the spirit that was in them, and the darkness that was in them; and that he conversed with them about the Gospel’, and what they should do, and they replied, ‘Well, brother Grant, perhaps it is so, and perhaps it is not,’ and said that was the state of this people, to a great extent, for many are full of darkness….” When I first read that, it reminded me of Moroni 10:33 which reads, “…then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.” If I understand those statements correctly, it is better to be a person of light, than a person of light who is partly darkness – “spot” may be Moroni’s description of that darkness. While I readily admit that Jacob says he is talking about skin color, it still seems to me that his observations may not be about skin color at all, but about personal darkness. He may be saying essentially the same as President Grant and Moroni said.

Jacob 3:1-2– LeGrand Baker — pure in heart

Jacob3:1-2
1   But behold, I, Jacob, would speak unto you that are pure in heart. Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith, and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction.
2   O all ye that are pure in heart, lift up your heads and receive the pleasing word of God, and feast upon his love; for ye may, if your minds are firm, forever.

Here Jacob is using one of those golden phrases which are reserved in the scriptures are never trite, yet which sounds so simple that we sometimes read over them without considering their meaning. The phrase is “pure in heart.”

A few weeks ago [Aug. 1999] I did a rather complete look at the word “heart,” and sent it to you. As you will recall, it was used in the Old Testament to mean the place where one thinks and feels. That is, the heart is the seat of one’s emotions as well as of one’s intellect.

I think the best places to look to discover the meaning of “pure” is the Psalms in the Old Testament, and the Beatitudes in the New Testament. Both are written in a temple context, just as Jacob’s sermon is, so that also narrows down the meaning somewhat.

The Psalm which probably comes most closely to saying what Jacob is saying is the 24th, where one reads:

3   Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? [The hill upon which the temple is built] or who shall stand in his holy place? [the Holy of Holies in the temple]
4   He that hath clean hands [hands which are ceremonially cleansed – having received a washing ordinance], and a pure heart [In that Psalm, the Hebrew word which is translated “pure,” is also translated “clean” in Job 11:4, and in Psalm 73:1. It is translated “choice” in Song 6:9 ]; who hath not lifted up [exalted] his soul unto vanity [pride, an illusion, a puff of breath, nothingness], nor sworn deceitfully. [“loves and makes a lie”]
5   He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and righteousness [zedek – correctness in priesthood and temple things] from the God of his salvation.

The Hebrew word translated “blessing” is almost always translated that way when it is a gift which comes from the Lord, but when it comes from a person, the word is translated “present,” as in 2 Kings 18:31. In my mind, it is not a great conceptual leap to go from blessing or present to endowment, which is a self perpetuating gift. So my admittedly untrained mind wonders if our special meaning of the word “endowment” might be an appropriate translation here instead of “blessing.”

As I understand those verses, they mean that one who has received the appropriated ordinances, and has a “pure heart” will receive temple blessings “from the God of his salvation.” Apparently, “from the God of his salvation.” means “from the God of his salvation.”

I think the best place to look for the New Testament (and Third Nephi ) meaning of “pure in heart” is in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” There, the Greek word translated “pure”also may be translated “clean” or “clear.” So the Hebrew and Greek words seem to convey essentially the same meaning.

I think it is important that the Beatitude reaches the same conclusion as the Psalm. That is, “He shall receive the blessing from the LORD and righteousness from the God of his salvation.” May not be substantially different from, “for he shall see God.”

Alma implies the same thing when he asks, “I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?” (Alma 5:19)

Some, but not all, of the contexts in which that phrase “pure in heart” is used in the Doctrine and Covenants imply the same thing. For example,

Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God. … Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion–THE PURE IN HEART; therefore, let Zion rejoice, while all the wicked shall mourn (D&C 97:16, 21; see also, D&C 56:18).

If Jacob was using that phrase in the same way it is used in these other examples, then there is great power in what he says:

1   But behold, I, Jacob, would speak unto you that are pure in heart. Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith, and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction.
2   O all ye that are pure in heart, lift up your heads and receive the pleasing word of God, and feast upon his love; for ye may, if your minds are firm, forever (Jacob 3:1-2 ).

Jacob 2:23-24 — LeGrand Baker — wives and concubines

Jacob 2:23-24
23   But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24   Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Some people have found a conflict between that statement and the one in the D&C which reads,

38   David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39   David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord. (D&C 132:38-39)

It seems to me that the conflict is more apparent than it is real. Let me explain. Having a concubine would be immoral for us, and if we tried it, we would immediately loose our membership in the church. Jacob was saying that it would be equally immoral for his people and that the practice must end (or not get started) among the Nephites.

But having concubines was not immoral for David and Solomon – and the question I wish to address — the question which those two seeming conflicting scriptures ask — is about David and Solomon. It is not about the Nephites or about you and I.

First of all, we need to define our terms:

CONCUBINE . A slave girl who belonged to a Hebrew family and bore children. Concubines were acquired by purchase from poor Hebrew families, captured in war, or taken in payment of debt; A girl in this classification achieved a certain status if she had sons (Gen. 2 1:10; 22:24; 30:3; 31:33; Exod. 23:12; 21:7,10). Her son might become a co-heir; her name was remembered because of her offspring; a barren wife might have a son through her; she might have her own quarters; she was to benefit by the seventh day of rest; and she had the right to food, clothing, and sexual intercourse. She had the affection of her “husband” (Judg. 19:1-3). Eunuchs were put in charge of concubines (Esth. 2:15); they are called “man’s delight” (Ecci. 2:8), along with singers. A king might have many concubines (I Kings 11:3). The faithfulness of the daughter of a concubine induced David to give decent burial to the bones of Saul and Jonathan (II Sam. 21:10-14). [Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (New York, Abingdon Press, 1962), l:666

The phrase “she had the right to” makes it clear that her having children was not what Jacob called “committing whoredoms.” The concubine was a legal wife of sorts. She and her husband were legally married. The major difference between her and the women called “wife” was that under normal circumstances the children of a wife who was a “concubine” could not inherit, but the children of a wife who was a “wife” could inherit. Let me try to explain that in terms of David and Solomon themselves.

Before he became king, David had two wives, Michel, King Saul’s daughter; and Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite. After he became king, he married Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, whom some scholars believe may have been king of Jerusalem before David captured the city. Several other wives of David are also known by name, (2 Samuel 3, 5) After that, “David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.” (2 Samuel 5:13) But I could not locate a statement about the total number of David’s his wives and concubines.

However, for Solomon, finding that information was easy.

Solomon was apparently more amorous by far than his father David. “But king Solomon loved many strange [non-Israelite] women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” (1 Kings 11:1-4) Notice in the phrase, “he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines,” that the wives are called “princesses.” That is important because it teaches us something about the differences between Solomon’s wives and his concubines.

In the ancient world, a king’s children were of one of three ranks. Their rank was not determined by the rank of their father – all of them had the same father and he was king. The rank of the children was determined by the rank of the mother. If the mother was the queen, her oldest son was heir apparent to his father’s throne. Her other children were also royalty, and could also inherit. If the mother was a “wife,” her children were royalty and could inherit. If the mother was a concubine, her children had the dignity of being the children of the king, but could not inherit.

What determined which women were wives, and which were concubines was apparently the rank of the girl’s father and mother, and the richness of the dowery she brought to her husband. For example, if Solomon makes a treaty with the king of Egypt and that treaty is sealed by exchanging daughters, and the king of Egypt gives Solomon a great dowery for his daughter, and Gazer as a present. That girl is going to be a very important “wife.”

If, on the other hand, a desert chief makes a pact with Solomon, and sends one of his daughters along with whatever little dowery he can afford to ratify that pact, that girl will probably be a concubine.

The statement about how many wives and concubines Solomon had is not so much a statement about his amorous life as it about his prestige among his kingly neighbors. That is, it is probably intended to tell more about the success of his international relations policies, rather than to tell about his love life.

As time passed, Solomon let his wives have more political and religious power then he should have allowed, and the Lord was angry with him for building temples to their gods. But the Lord sustained his kingship, For the sake of the covenant the Lord had made with David, the Lord did not break his promises to Solomon. (See 1 Kings 11:1-12)

That statement is consistent with the one in the D&C. The Lord had made a covenant with the kings of Israel, and he was going to keep it. Therefore he justified their having many wives and concubines as was consistent with the norms and socially accepted values of their times. Indeed, their having many wives and concubines was evidence in their time of the fulfillment of the Lord’s other covenants. And the fact that the kings sanctified their marriages by the prophets, make their marriages acceptable to the Lord.

It appears to me that what Jacob is saying is that his people could not use the fact that the Lord justified David and Solomon, and twist that fact to justify their own actions, when the object of their actions was to satisfy their desires for lust and possession.

Jacob 2:18-22 — LeGrand Baker– pride is a dangerous illusion

Jacob 2:18-22
18   But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
19   And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good–to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.
20   And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it? (Jacob 2 :18-20).

In America, about the time the Declaration of Independence was written, there was a polite phrase which often appeared in private and professional correspondence. It was a softer way of saying “I know I am right,” or “I know I deserve this.” The words were “I flatter myself that [such and such is so]” It was a strange expression, for it asserted the reality of something based on the fiction of self flattery. Pride is that. Pride is pretending something is real, then acting on its “reality” as though one were not pretending. That is why pride is so dangerous. It distorts, even violates, our sense of reality. It is like living in a kind of “virtual reality,” but making real life decisions based of one’s interactions of things which do not exist.

Pride and vanity are much the same.

“Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2) and the preacher is correct, for, “Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.” (Psalms 144:4) Strong defines the Hebrew word translated “vanity” as “vapour, breath.” That is, vanity is a variety of nothingness. Isaiah warns, “Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity…” (Isaiah 5:18) I think that means those who justify their iniquity with nothingness — figments of their own imaginations, but only pretense, and nothing real.

In the sentence, “For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak. (Psalm 59:12), the Hebrew word translated “pride” is also translated, as “excellency,” “majesty,” “pomp,” “swelling,” and “arrogancy.” Excellency and majesty are good enough concepts when one is speaking of God or an anointed king, but otherwise they are like pomp and swelling – an assumed reality which is not fact, and not there.

It seems to me that the greatest danger of pride is that it causes one to live, act, respond, value, hate, and even love in a world that is only a fiction. And in that fiction, one’s life, actions, responses, values, hatreds, and love are also fictions. Let me give you some examples:

A great danger in pride is the way one perceives others: If one assumes a superiority as he interacts with others, his life (in that instance), actions, responses to those persons, attitude toward their value as people, love or hatred for them, all these are vanity – pretended realities which exist only in the mind of the person who is proud. But while his perceptions are fictions, his actions and attitudes as they impact the lives of others are real. So will God’s judgements be.

A greater danger in pride is the way one perceives oneself. If one defines oneself in terms of one’s possessions, academic superiority, social status, ability with words, or any other thing which one temporarily owns or displays, and calls these things himself, then one is defining oneself in terms of a vanity — a wisp of vapor — a temporary thing which cannot survive time — which will rust, decay, or grows old even while he grows old.

The danger of that is that if one defines himself, and dictates his own attitudes and actions in terms of pretended reality, then one can not BE. The eternal BEing which was oneself before this life, and (one would hope in his case) will be oneself hereafter, is locked in a closet from which it cannot escape, while his pretended Self moves about and reacts to a vacuum of fiction. For such, this life is a quality of evil because it is a quantity of nothingness which violates the law of one’s own eternal being.

Humility, on the other hand, as I understand it, is simply an acknowledgment of who and what one is, of the eternal worth of others, and of trying to live in a world of truth, without pretense, where assumptions and reality are the same thing.