The Word and the Sword

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

 Hebrews 4:12

When studying the scriptures, readers often come across ideas or words that are metaphorically linked over and over again to the point where it becomes obvious the connection isn't accidental. In many cases these connections are linguistic ones that were already established thousands of years ago in Hebrew or other Semitic languages, or even possibly in the first language that Adam and Eve used with their children. What’s especially exciting to me is that the Lord continued using some of these metaphorical linkages even while dictating revelations to his prophets in English during the early days of the Restoration, so that the original Semitic language connection remains for His instructive purposes.

One example that appears regularly throughout all four books of the LDS Church’s Standard Works is the metaphorical link between word/mouth and sword/a sword’s edge. The word for “mouth, word, commandment, opening, aperture” in Hebrew, פֶּה peh, is the same one used for “edge of a sword”. The dual meanings bridge again in the word פִּיפִיָה pee-fee-YAH, which signifies “sharp edge” or “mouth”. 

Starting with the Old Testament, I’ll list some verses where the word=sword simile is used for instructive as well as creative purposes.

Old Testament

And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword (Isaiah 49:2)

New Testament

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:17)

And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges… Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (Revelation 2:12, 16)

The Book of Mormon

And the Lord is near, and he justifieth me. Who will contend with me? Let us stand together. Who is mine adversary? Let him come near me, and I will smite him with the strength of my mouth. (2 Nephi 7:8)

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God. (Alma 31:5)

I love this example in particular because Alma uses the historical literary connection between word and sword in the verse but then turns the analogy upside down by setting the word and the sword in opposition to one another! 

(Also see Jacob 2:5, Helaman 5:30, and 3 Nephi 11:3)

Doctrine and Covenants

Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 6:2)

In addition to referencing the Hebrew-related dual meanings of word and sword, this verse also includes the literary device chiasmus (chiasm), which appears frequently throughout the scriptures. To make this example of chiasm more easily recognizable, I've highlighted and labeled (with letters) the parallel elements that appear in inverted order. The two references to God's word at the beginning and end of the verse effectively frame the word "sword", which is centered perfectly at the middle.

Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word (A), which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword (B), to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words (A).

(Also see D.C. 11:2, 12:2, and 14:2)

Outside of the Biblical Hebrew context, these passages are still easily open to interpretation and application since the word=sword metaphor has been used for centuries in literature. But knowing the common linguistic roots of these words has helped me better understand how our Father speaks in a uniform way throughout the ages.  

The Parable of “The Lost Son”

A few months ago I was studying Modern Hebrew verb forms when I came across an interesting bit of information that led me to some deeper scripture study and, later, to create this blog post. One of the best features of the dictionary I was reading, Barron’s 501 Hebrew Verbs, is that it includes a list of examples of common phases or sayings related to each verb. On this occasion I was reviewing the verb leh-eh-VOHD (לֶאֱבוֹד), which means “to lose, be lost, perish, stray, die, cease.” At the bottom of the page I came across a phrase from the New Testament that caught my attention. It was the Hebrew term for the Lord’s parable of The Prodigal Son, הבן האובד (ha-ben ha-oh-VEHD), which literally means The Lost Son.

I had never come across this unique interpretation before. After some thought and rereading of this well-known parable, I discovered that I like the Hebrew Language title much more than I do the English one. I know this is just one person’s opinion, but I’ll give a few reasons why I prefer the Hebrew language interpretation as The Lost Son.

Reason #1: For me, at least, this parable has much more to do with the youngest son's state of being (at first lost, then found) than it does the particulars of his misbehavior (the prodigal part), so I think the Hebrew title captures best what was at stake for the young man in this parable and, by way of personal application, for us. We could substitute any number of our own misdeeds for what this child has done, and the core themes of repentance, forgiveness, redemption, and God’s immeasurable grace and graciousness would still play out the same in the story. So the fact that he was prodigal (“irresponsibly or extravagantly wasteful”, according to the dictionary definition) really has little to do the parable’s key message(s).

Also, it’s apparent that the source of the father’s worry isn’t that that his child has spent away his portion of the family’s hard-earned inheritance. The father doesn’t mention this point once throughout the whole narrative. As with any conscientious parent who has observed his children’s behavior over the years, this father certainly knew what his boy would do with the inheritance once he gained control of it. In contrast, the Lord twice emphasizes that the father’s focal concern was that his son had fallen into a lost state of spiritual death. The former source of his pain and later source of his joy was that “this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” (See Luke 15:24 and 32.) Instead of focusing the reader’s attention on this central point, the English title, The Prodigal Son, tends to place it specifically on the child’s character flaws, as opposed to the condition his spiritual deficiencies have led him to.

Reason #2: The title The Lost Son speaks to a significant doctrinal truth that the English title leaves out – that being lost in the spiritual sense is equivalent to finding ourselves in a state of pending separation from God and our expanded Eternal family unless we turn back through repentance. I remember one occasion when I became lost in a public place as a very young child. The few minutes of separation from my parents that I experienced were extremely frightening and disorienting.  The irony is that I was surrounded by people, but because all of them were strangers I still felt immeasurably alone. This event reminds me that perhaps the most defining element of being lost is finding oneself surrounded by the unfamiliar (i.e., unconnected to family), which in a literal and spiritual sense is what happened to The Lost Son. The root of the word unfamiliar originates from the Latin familiaris, which means “domestic, private, belonging to a family, of a household". 

Through his misdeeds, the younger son had cut himself off from his father’s household, and consequently found himself lost in a state of literal and spiritual unfamiliarity. As with all of us, his need to be connected to someone or something while in exile was so strong that he “he went and joined himself to a citizen of that (far) country” (ibid., vs. 15) in a type of false-familiarity. In the end, though, it was no substitute for the full association and sense of belonging that he had previously enjoyed with his family. After an undefined time in his lost condition, the child finally “comes to himself” and is later reinstated to his former position via several symbolic tokens of royalty. (See vs. 17 and 22, and Genesis 41:42)

A Biblical Hebrew Take on Marriage

There’s a Biblical English figure of speech related to marriage that I used to think was odd and confusing. This expression, “to take to wife”, appears regularly throughout the King James Version of the Old Testament. One reason the phrase sounds so foreign to English-speakers is because it’s a literal word-for-word translation of the Biblical Hebrew phrase לקחת לאישה (lah-KAH-khat leh-ee-SHAH). In modern English, the most common expression we’d use now for “to take to wife” is “to marry”. Here are just a few of many examples of the archaic phrasing that can be found in the Old Testament:

And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. (Exodus 2:1)

“When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.” (Deuteronomy 24:5)

At first glance, the wording “to take to wife” can appear chauvinistic and demeaning since the act of taking something or someone implies the use of force, reducing the one being taken to the status of a subject (at best) or an object (at worst). On closer examination, though, it turns out that this idiom is anything but sexist. At the center of this phrase is the Hebrew verb לָקַחַת (lah-KAH-khat), which has various meanings, depending on the context. The most common translations are “to take, grasp, or seize”, but it also means “to receive” – the more accurate translation as it relates to marriage. So an alternate reading of the Biblical idiom “to take to wife” is “to receive to wife”.

Two parallel scriptural passages that detail the same event – the Lord “taking/receiving” the City of Enoch to Himself – demonstrate the interchangeability of these seemingly incompatible meanings. The first reference is from the Doctrine and Covenants, while the second is from the Book of Moses:

“I am the same which have taken the Zion of Enoch into mine own bosom; and verily, I say, even as many as have believed in my name, for I am Christ, and in mine own name, by the virtue of the blood which I have spilt, have I pleaded before the Father for them.” (D.C. 38:4, emphasis added)

“Enoch and all his people walked with God, and he dwelt in the midst of Zion; and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, Zion is Fled.” (Moses 7:69, emphasis added)

The more accurate English rendering of this Hebrew-language idiom as "to receive to wife" affirms that both womanhood and marriage were highly respected and considered sacred by the ancient Israelites and in Patriarchal Era family groups. Receiving someone into an association or relationship signified honor, love, respect, and acceptance. For example, the Lord, as the Spiritual Bridegroom of the faithful who love Him, receives His spiritually begotten sons and daughters with honor into a closer association with Himself.

“And the Father and I are one. I am in the Father and the Father in me; and inasmuch as ye have received me, ye are in me and I in you.” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:43)

We receive Him in covenant, and He in turn receives us into an eventual full association in fulfillment of that same covenant.

Applying this idea back to marriage, I now read Old Testament passages that include the phrasing “took to wife” in a very different light. By receiving one another in covenant, both husband and wife pledge their best efforts and best selves to nurturing their relationship. By the same token, it follows that they also receive each another at marriage, faults and deficiencies included, with an implied commitment to help one another overcome them. “Receiving to wife/husband” in this sense might be one of the best gifts spouses can give each other.

The Mind vs. the Heart: A Biblical Hebrew Perspective

And he said unto them, “Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law.”

Deuteronomy 32:46

One of the things I love most about studying linguistics is learning how East vs. West cultural and world-view differences often surface in language.

For example, in Western thinking it’s the mind that’s most often referenced in literature as the controlling agent of human thought, desires, and behavior. On the other hand, in Middle Eastern culture and language it’s primarily the heart that takes on these duties. This becomes especially evident in the use of adverbs and in certain figures of speech. In Romance (Latin origin) languages, variations of the Latin word for “mind” (mens) are regularly attached to the end of adjectives in order to create adverbs that end in -ly in English. I’ve highlighted the suffixed variations of mens in the following Romance language translations for happily:

French – heureusement

Italian – felicemente

Spanish and Portuguese – felizmente

These Latin-based words literally mean “happy minded” or “of a happy mind”. Other examples of adverbs in Spanish that follow this same formula of adjective + variant of mens (mente) = adverb include:

lentamente = slowly, or literally “of a slow mind” or “slow-minded”

completamente = completely, or lit. “complete-minded”

lógicamente = logically, or lit. “of a logical mind”

In contrast, Hebrew adverbs are built much more often around the word “heart” (לֵב lev) than the word for "mind" (נֶפֶשׁ NEH-fesh). Here are some common examples:

בְּחֵפֶץ לֵב be-KHE-fetz lev – willingly, or lit. “with a desiring heart”

בְּתוֹם לֵב be-TOHM lev – in good faith, lit. “with a complete, perfect heart”

When discussing matters of the heart in Hebrew and other Semitic languages, it's rarely associated with romantic interest, which is more of a Western cultural-linguistic association. As seen in the examples I provided above, in Hebrew the heart is most often linked to the human will, motives, desires, thoughts, and mental attention or focus – the core of what influences our behavior(s). So when Biblical Hebrew writers used the word heart, it was rarely linked to emotions.

Here's an example that helps underline this point. The following is a common phrase in both Biblical and Modern Hebrew that literally means “to set or place one’s heart on (something or someone)”, but its figurative, practical meaning is “to focus intently on, to regard, or to pay close attention to.”

…לְ לָשִׂים לֵב (lah-SEEM lev leh…)

One of many examples of this saying that appear in the Old Testament can be found in Exodus 9:21. In the original Hebrew, this passage literally reads "And he that placed not his heart on...", but as you'll see below, this idiomatic phrase was translated here into the common meaning "regarded not".

And he that regarded not (שָׂם לִבּוֹ לֹא loh sahm lee-BOH) the word of the Lord left his servants and his cattle in the field.

Again, this metaphorical use of the word "heart" has little to do with emotional attachment or love; instead it centers on the mind, and mental and spiritual exertions of will. In the verse from Deuteronomy that I included at the top of this post, the Hebrew meaning of “set your hearts” is to focus unwaveringly on and to pay close attention “unto all the words which I testify among you this day.” One of the few exceptions to this rule of disconnection between emotion/affection(s) and the Hebrew-based figure of speech “to place, set one’s heart on” (lah-SEEM lev leh…) appears in the Book of Mormon. 

Yea, and cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and whithersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever. (Alma 37:36, emphasis added)

Here the figure of speech still works, though, since the prophet-writer is communicating the idea that our affections or love should always be focused on the Lord. In other places where this metaphor appears in the Book of Mormon, and throughout the Old Testament for that matter, it’s usually associated with the spiritual danger of focusing our attention inappropriately on material wealth. I’ve listed several examples below.

Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart (i.e., don’t focus inordinately) upon them. (Psalms 62:10) 

And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need. (Alma 1:30)

(Also see Mosiah 12:29, Alma 5:53, Alma 7:6, Helaman 7:21, and Helaman 12:4.)

My final illustration of the Hebrew usage of  the heart as a fountain of rational thought, knowledge and wisdom appears in Exodus 36:2. The English translation reads:

And Moses called Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man (אִישׁ חֲכַם-לֵב ish khah-KHAHM lev), in whose heart the Lord had put wisdom, even every one whose heart stirred him up to come unto the work to do it.

So evidently it's not just the mind (brain) that acts as the repository of rational thought or intelligence, unless the Lord is only speaking metaphorically in these types of passages. On the other hand, if this verse and others like it are to be taken literally, this may be a case of science finally catching up with spiritual and scriptural truth. Some recent heart function studies now indicate that not only does the brain send neural and chemical transmissions to the heart, but the opposite is also true - the heart communicates with the brain and directly influences its activities by these same means. See the link below for an interesting read on this topic.

Let Your Heart Talk to Your Mind

Living Waters

This post has to do with both Hebraisms in modern scripture and Hebrew language metaphors that Christ used to teach gospel doctrines during His ministry. As with parables, the reason these metaphors were (and still are) so effective as teaching tools is that spiritual truths can be packaged symbolically in common elements of our daily experience. 

One of these metaphors is fresh water. Hebrew uses two main phrases for the term “fresh (as opposed to salt) water”. The first phrase is the contemporary Hebrew expression, while the second is the Biblical term.

מתוקים מים (MY-eem meh-too-KEEM) – Literally, “sweet waters”

חיים מים (MY-eem KHY-eem) – Literally, “living waters”

(Notice that both Hebrew phrases use the pluralized form “waters” to describe a body or source of water. The singular form מי, pronounced mey, is the Hebrew word for water as an element or in other generic references.)

In Jeremiah 2:13 we find one example of this older Hebrew term for “fresh water”:

“For my people have committed two evils ; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Emphasis added)

  כִּי-שְׁתַּיִם רָעוֹת, עָשָׂה עַמִּי:אֹתִי עָזְבוּ מְקוֹר מַיִם חַיִּים, לַחְצֹב לָהֶם בֹּארוֹת, בֹּארֹת נִשְׁבָּרִים, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָכִלוּ הַמָּיִם.

In the scriptures, Christ’s words and doctrines are often associated with “living” or fresh water, an analogy that would have resonated strongly with the people Christ taught in the Middle East since fresh water was (and still is) a valued commodity in that mostly arid region. Ironically, the Holy Land is surrounded by, or has within its borders, many large bodies of water (the Mediterranean Sea, the Dead Sea, the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba, etc.), but all of them are briny except for one – the Sea of Galilee. I think it’s interesting that this unique, immense source of fresh (“living”) water is located in the region where the Savior was raised and began His early ministry. The connection may be a simple coincidence, but we find many links between the Lord’s life, His pure doctrines and references to fresh water in the scriptures. Just as daily fluid intake is essential to our physical survival, the “living waters” of Christ’s doctrinal teachings and His love, represented by “the fountain of living (fresh) waters” in Lehi’s dream (see 1 Nephi 11:25), sustain us spiritually day after day.

Sea of Galilee

With the exception of the Sea of Galilee, all other fresh water in the region had to be extracted from wells or the river networks that flow within the borders of Israel. In John, chapter 4 we read about Christ’s instructive encounter with the woman of Samaria at a well. Verses 10-14 read:

“Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

How appropriate that the Source of spiritual living water taught these doctrines while sitting by a well!

To further expand the analogy, the Lord often references “bitter fountains” in His teachings given through Biblical prophets and His apostles. A “bitter fountain (spring, source of water)” was one that had brackish (salt) water seeping into it, contaminating what was previously fresh (“living”) water and effectively rendering it harmful and useless. The invasive salt water can represent false or tainted teachings and practices that infiltrate and contaminate the pure, living doctrines of Christ. (See Exodus 15:23-25 and James 3:11.)

This metaphor was also used by Book of Mormon prophet-writers and later by Christ in revelations given through Joseph Smith. Not only has the Lord continued using this reference for instructional purposes, but it’s noteworthy that He also uses the pluralized Semitic-origin term “living waters” and “waters of life” (instead of the singular “living water”), providing yet another example of Hebraisms that can be found in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. (See Alma 5:34, Alma 42:27, and Doctrine and Covenants 10:66 as examples.)

“Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”

The Galilean town of Nazareth (circa 1900 A.D.) 

Although this post has more to do with historical irony than it does Biblical Hebrew, I’ll do my best to weave some useful linguistic information into the story as I go along.

The starting point for this discussion is the origin of the name for the Galilean town of Nazareth (נצרת nah-tzeh-RAHT), the place where Jesus spent almost all his childhood and most of his adult years. Its origin can’t be nailed down with any certainty, but the name seems to stem from a Hebrew word for “offshoot, offspring, shoot, sprig, sprout” (נֵצֶר neh-TZEHR), a term that may be related to the numerous olive groves planted in the surrounding areas. New branches and shoots that sprout out of a tree’s older limbs and exposed roots extend the life of the tree in cases where the main trunk has died off or has become unproductive. When these shoots are grafted into other olive trees, they can enhance the productivity of the host tree and improve the quality of its fruit. 

Here’s where the historical irony begins.

Based on what we know of Nazareth at the time of Christ’s birth, the ancient town would have been considered an unlikely and even unfitting place for the Son of God to be raised and begin His ministry. More than one scriptural passage from the New Testament hints that the Galilean town was probably regarded with some degree of contempt at the time of Christ. When Phillip reported back to his friend Nathaniel that he had found the long-awaited Messiah, the latter dismissed Philip’s invitation to “come and see” with the geographic jibe, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” In contrast, the Lord unconditionally embraced his personal connection to the town as demonstrated by the following: (1) in mortality He answered to the name "Jesus of Nazareth" (see John 18:5), (2) He referred to himself on at least one occasion following his resurrection by that same title (Acts 22:8), and (3) He apparently never discouraged his apostles from referring to him by the name (Acts 2:22, 4:10, and 10:38).

But the irony gets even better.

The modern and Early Christian Era Hebrew terms for “Christianity” and “Christian” are respectively nahtz-ROOT (נַצְרוּת) and nohtz-REE (נוֹצְרִי). For obvious reasons these words don’t directly reference Jesus’ name or his titles of Christ or Messiah, as happens in other languages; instead the Hebrew translation of Christianity is something akin to “Nazarinity”, with Christians being referred to as Nazarenes. It appears that there were tactical reasons behind this practice since Roman political leaders and the Jewish hierarchy both had something to gain by linking the budding Christian faith and Jesus’ followers to what was generally considered an insignificant, backwoods town. For example, during the Apostle Paul’s hearing for sedition in front of the Roman governor Felix, the High Priest Ananias’ spokesman refers to Christianity as “the sect of the Nazarenes” instead of the sect or religion of Jesus (Acts 24:1-5).

A rural road leading into present-day Nazareth

But the core meaning of the Hebrew terms for Christianity and Christian seems to have shifted over the centuries. The present-day usage of nahtz-ROOT and nohtz-REE focuses more on the linguistic relationship in Hebrew between the noun for “sprout, branch, shoot” and the Jewish view that Christianity is merely an off-shoot religion that grew out the living trunk of Judaism. So in Modern Hebrew, Christianity might be better translated something closer to “branching-off-ity” than “Nazarinity”.

The amazing thing is that Biblical prophecy addresses both of these meanings. 

If the term nahtz-ROOT was originally meant to emphasize Christianity’s link to the otherwise unremarkable rural town, the linguistic association has only worked to further validate Nazareth’s long-foreseen and honored place as the predicted hometown of the Messiah.

“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”

(Matthew 2:23, emphasis added)

If, on the other hand, the Hebrew terms for Christianity and Christian are meant to underline the “off-shoot” religion’s subordinate relationship to the "father trunk" of Judaism, this meaning also fulfills Biblical prophecy.

 וְיָצָא חֹטֶר, מִגֵּזַע יִשָׁי; וְנֵצֶר, מִשָּׁרָשָׁיו יִפְרֶה.

"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (neht-ZEHR נֵצֶר) shall grow out of his roots.”

(Isaiah 11:1, emphasis added)  

From the Christian perspective, Christ Himself was the prophesied-of Branch that came directly out of the ancestral roots of the House of Judah. (Please see the caption that describes the photo below.)

Off-shoots (nahtz-REEM) growing out of the roots of an older olive tree

A Linguistic Connection Between Power and Temples

Sometimes during my lunch breaks at work I pull out my set of Biblical Hebrew flashcards. I like to review key words that tend to resurface throughout the Old Testament, and one of those I came across a few weeks ago was the word for temple, hey-KHAL (הֵיכָל). The great thing about this and many other words in Biblical Hebrew is that often you’ll find common consonant combinations that reveal associated meanings.

In the case of hey-KHAL (הֵיכָל), we see the three letter root yod-khaf-lamed ( ל+ כ + ׳). This root appears is many words related to the idea of power and ability, including the noun יְכוֹלֶת (yeh-KHOH-leht), which signifies “power, ability, capability, capacity, competence, possibility” and the verb לִיכוֹל (lee-KHOHL), which means “to be able to, capable of, possess power to”. Lastly, the Hebrew term for “almighty” or “omnipotent” is kohl yah-KHOHL (כֹּל יָכוֹל), literally translating to “all-powerful, all-capable”.

After reviewing this word, I thought about how temples have been a focal point in God’s relationship to mankind over the centuries, and that whenever the Lord has established His covenant relationship with people in various times and places throughout history, He has always commanded them to build temples. One of the Lord’s key promises as part of this covenant relationship is that He will manifest His presence and power in temples as long as His people live worthy of these blessings.

The temple-power connection resurfaces throughout the scriptures, especially when temples are dedicated. The first example we have is related to the tabernacle that Jehovah commanded Moses and the people of Israel to build while in the wilderness. Shortly after the tent and all its contents were consecrated and dedicated to the Lord, He demonstrated His power in various ways to the wandering Israelites.

“And on the day that the tabernacle was reared up the cloud covered the tabernacle, namely, the tent of the testimony: and at even there was upon the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until the morning. So it was always: the cloud covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night.”

Numbers 9:15-16

Later, at the dedication of the Temple of Solomon, Jehovah again showed His acceptance of the structure and the sacrifices made by His people to build a House of God through manifestations of His power.

“Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house. And the priests could not enter into the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord’s house. And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth forever.” 

2 Chronicles 7:1-3

The last example comes from the prayer given to the Prophet Joseph Smith by revelation prior to the dedication of the Kirtland (Ohio) Temple, the first temple constructed during the “dispensation of the fullness of times” (see Ephesians 1:10). This prayer was first read publicly at the initial dedicatory session on March 27, 1836. The brief except I’ve included below references the temple-power connection in several places.

“And that all people who shall enter upon the threshold of the Lord’s house may feel thy power, and feel constrained to acknowledge that thou hast sanctified it, and that it is thy house, a place of thy holiness. And we ask thee, Holy Father, that thy servants may go forth from this house armed with thy power, and that thy name may be upon them, and thy glory be round about them, and thine angels have charge over them.”

 Doctrine and Covenants 109:13, 22

Later that evening, during a priesthood session that took place inside the temple, various demonstrations of Divine power were poured out on the church members. The Prophet Joseph described them in this way:

“A noise was heard like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple, and all the congregation simultaneously arose, being moved upon by an invisible power; many began to speak in tongues and prophesy; others saw glorious visions; and I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation. The people of the neighborhood came running together (hearing an unusual sound within, and seeing a bright light like a pillar of fire resting upon the Temple), and were astonished at what was taking place. This continued until the meeting closed at eleven P.M.”

History of the Church, 2:428

The personal take-away for me is that I'm reminded each time I attend our modern-day temples that I and every other person who is there can have access to God's power (according to our desires) in overcoming challenges and unholy influences in the world.