Many Crickets and One Elephant
Many Crickets and One Elephant
Ishmael, the son of Abraham, is a more interesting character than first meets the eye. In fact, for Gentiles, he is perhaps a more important figure, a more central figure, than even Jacob the grandson of Abraham. Consider these questions that arise from the scant details that we have of Ishmael’s life.
1-Ishmael was named by God before he was born. (OC Genesis 7:26) That is exceedingly rare in scripture and puts Ishmael in the company of men like John the Baptist and the Lord Himself. And of course the name Ishma-el suggests that he is part of the El. Even Abraham had to go through, and pass, certain earthly trials before being given a name by God. But Ishmael came pre-named. Does this suggest that he had already achieved a certain standing or relationship with God in a previous cycle of existence?
2-Both Jacob and Ishmael had twelve sons. Nowhere else in scripture do we read of a man thusly blessed. But both the son and grandson of Abraham had a full quorum of heirs. Are we being given a hint that these two branches of the family are in some sense parallels, equivalents, or binary? The Lord called the twelve sons of Ishmael “princes.” What does it say about a man if his sons are princes? And if a man has a plenitude of princely sons, what does it reflect on the father?
3-Both Isaac and Ishmael attended Abraham’s burial. Abraham had six other sons (with Keturah) but they are not mentioned as being there at the end. Only Isaac and Ishmael are noted. These two in particular came together to remember Abraham at the time of his death. Why tell us this? Is it meaningless information? Or is it a way to advance the idea that these two lines of the family are notable in some way for honoring Abraham’s legacy?
If this is the reason for naming Issac and Ishmael, it is easy to see why Isaac would be mentioned. All of Israel looks (or will look) to Isaac as their father.[1] And Israel has perhaps a greater claim to honoring Abraham than any other branch of the human family. But what about Ishmael? Why mention him as honoring Abraham?
Ishmael is of course the father of the Arab people, as everyone knows – Jews, Christians, and Arabs themselves. But, to put it charitably, the Arabs have not exactly distinguished themselves as humble followers of Christ.[2] If the Arab peoples are a parallel branch to the tribes of Israel, we might expect to see humility and receptive hearts manifest in their actions. And we might also expect to find scriptural reference to them. The Bible and the Covenant of Christ are replete with information about God’s concern for, plans for, and promises to Israel.[3] But when it comes to the Arab people, the scriptures give us…crickets.
[1] “The covenant with Abraham was renewed with Isaac, who also became the Patriarchal head and husbandman-father of the faithful. Believers thereafter likewise are numbered as Isaac’s “seed” through the renewal and extension of the covenant.” 178: The Book of Abraham Part 1 Denver Snuffer Blog
[2]There are of course exceptions to every rule.
[3]Denver has made the point that because of the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, Arabs have within them some of the blood of Israel. Does that mean that God defines Arabs as Israel? Denver hasn’t made that claim that I know of.
Perhaps we don’t know what we think we know. The idea that the Arabs are descendants of Ishmael is non-scriptural. Josephus was apparently the first to float the idea[1] but he gives us only a bald assertion. He provides no evidence for that claim. And in fact there is linguistic confirmation that archaic dialects of Arabic pre-date Ishmael.[2] If their language pre-dates Ishmael, do the Arabs themselves pre-date Ishmael?
No doubt the genealogy is complex, and it would be surprising if Ishmaelite people had not intermarried, to some degree, with the other residents of the region. Intermarriage between lineages was a “thing,” as for example with Esau. Esau married Judith and Basemath, two Canaanite women – which marriage displeased his parents. So, in an attempt to fix his familial faux pas, Esau married Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, and therefore a descendant of Abraham and a member of the chosen lineage. (OC Genesis 9:19) Apparently lineage matters. Ishmael’s lineage too, not just Jacob’s.
We also find an emphasis on lineage in prophecies of the last days found in the Covenant of Christ. Those prophecies invariably specify two different groups that will play important roles in the end-times: Israelites and Gentiles. One of these groups is related by blood to Jacob. But what about the other? What determines the identity of Gentiles? Are they also descendants of Jacob? Are they merely Israelites who have lost their identity? Denver appears to believe that this is the case. Below, he is first quoting the Lord talking about Isaiah’s words, then adds his interpretation of those words. (Modern English Translation talk
June 29, 2024)[i]
I give you a commandment to study these things diligently, because Isaiah's prophecies are critical. He clearly focused his prophecy on My people, who are part of the house of Israel. Therefore he necessarily prophesied about the Gentiles... If you want to understand what the Lord has been up to with the house of Israel through all of the generations, you have to take into account the Gentiles, because the Gentiles are simply part of the house of Israel that lost their identity. (end of quote)
If this is correct, why don’t we also call the lost tribes of Israel “Gentiles,” since those tribes are entirely clueless that they are descendants of Jacob? Or, alternatively, we could call the Gentiles part of the lost tribes. Either way, there seems to be a naming problem here. If Denver’s thesis is correct, why do the two groups have different names – if both are lost and both are Israel? Also, there may be many reasons to talk about the Gentiles (as part of a discussion about Israel) without the Gentiles being a part of the house of Israel. If you have a long, very long, intimate partnership between two individuals, a partnership that has thoroughly entangled their affairs,[3] it would be nigh impossible to talk about one of the individuals without talking about the other. But regardless of their entanglements they would remain distinct entities.
There may be depths to Denver’s argument that can’t be easily seen, but there appears to be a strong case for a different interpretation. Here’s the idea. You decide if it has merit.
Our gospel covenant starts with Abraham. Everyone since his time will need to become part of his family if they hope to be saved. “God established Abraham as the new head of the family of God on Earth. God told Abraham: As many as receive this gospel shall be called after your name and shall be accounted your seed.” (D. Snuffer blog 178)
In the beginning of Abraham’s story, two branches of his family were given special consideration. Abraham was told that a great nation would come from Ishmael. (OC Genesis 7:33) And Jacob was told that his descendants would also form a great nation. (OC Genesis 11:43) Two parallel nations. “Great nations,” but not in the sense of who wins the most olympic gold medals or who has the most nukes. “Great” in the sense of who bears fruit meet for God’s kingdom. That’s what God cares about – how He determines who’s great.
The gospel covenant comes to fruition in the end-times when these same two branches of Abraham’s family (one tame, one wild) do what they need to do to be qualified for saving in God’s kingdom. The two groups are Israel and the Gentiles: the descendants of Jacob and the descendants of Ishmael.
When the Lord addresses the Nephites in 3rd Nephi, Chap. 7, He tells them of the marvelous future awaiting their descendants, and He ties the promise of their future to the covenant made to Abraham. He also tells the Nephites of a (possible) great future awaiting the Gentiles. But for the Gentiles, no mention of a covenant is made. Not coincidently, after Ishmael was born, God promised Abraham that he would have another son, Isaac, and that He would establish His covenant with Isaac, not Ishmael the firstborn.
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac… (OC Genesis 7:33)
This provides the predicate for the Lord emphasizing Israel’s covenant, but making no mention of a Gentile covenant. Issac had one, Ishmael didn’t. It also explains why the Lord would seemingly introduce the Gentiles out of thin air. He goes to great lengths to explain to the Nephites why their descendants have a claim on God’s attention (they are His by covenant).[4] But the Gentiles show up in Christ’s sermon with no back-story at all. Ta-Da! Here are the Gentiles! They have this great role promised to them in the end-times and we are given no idea why. Again...crickets. Unless! Unless the Lord did give us the back-story of the Gentiles. He just gave it to us 4000 years ago, in the seemingly irrelevant details of Ishmael’s life. Talk about a pregnant pause.
Now of course there is a way for Gentiles to gain a place in Abraham’s family, and that is by the ordinance of adoption. And adoption comes as a consequence of obedience and sacrifice. Thirteen-year-old Ishmael serves as an example to the Gentiles who want to be saved, when he consents to the ordinance of circumcision in order to retain a place in his father’s house.
“And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.” (OC Genesis 7:34)
But, physical circumcision is insufficient if we Gentiles want to become one with Israel in Abraham’s house. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that (really) circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and (real) circumcision is that of the heart…“(NC Romans 1:11) (my parenthetical additions)
So, Isaac and Ishmael came together at Abraham’s burial to honor his memory. And in the end-times, in a chiastic mirror image, Israel and the Gentiles will come together, when the Gentiles preach the gospel to Israel and then are adopted into the house of Israel. Abraham then gives the duo a bequest. But surprisingly, his “wealth” is not divided equally among his heirs. And even more surprisingly, the lion’s share goes to the Gentiles. Chapter 17 of OC Isaiah is a warning and a promise to Israel, and in verse 7 we find this familiar verse.
“Behold, I will lift up my hand to the gentiles and set up my standard to the people. And they shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be your nursing fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers.”
When God’s family is reorganized it appears that the Gentiles, at least some of them, will become mothers and fathers, kings and queens, to Israel. This seems fitting since the latter-day Gentiles are tasked with preaching the gospel to scattered Israel and bringing them home to Zion. If Ishmael is a type for repentant gentiles, then this explains why Ishmael’s branch of the family is a generation older than Jacob’s. And why Ishmael came pre-named. When God says of Ishmael, “Behold I have blessed him,” (past tense) is God confirming the idea that Ishmael had already been made a part of His family?
This all begs the question, “which is greater, Isaac’s covenant or Ishmael’s promise?” Well, put it this way. You ask your wife if you can buy a snowmobile, and she responds, “Yes, if you will agree to declutter the garage.” Fair enough. Even though it means several Saturdays moiling and toiling in the cold. Or. You ask your wife if you can buy a snowmobile, and she says, “Yes dear, you may.” You would be tempted to say that a promise is altogether better than a covenant. But in fact the only difference may be that a covenant is based on future performance, while a promise is given for past performance. In the latter scenario, you get the snowmobile without condition because your wife reflects on the fact that every evening for the past month you’ve been busy painting the house. Ishmael was painting the house while Israel was out painting the town. Take another look at the parable of the prodigal son.[5]
Here’s another question that the Ishmael paradigm answers.
Almost all of the Covenant of Christ is a narrative about members of the house of Israel, whether they be Nephites, Lamanites, or Mulekites. But then at the end of the book we have this weird little addendum, the Book of Ether. It’s about a group, the Jaredites, that is never described as or claims to be a part of the house of Israel. It’s a bad fit with the rest of the book.
A Jaredite claim to a connection with Jacob is in fact conspicuous by its absence.
But wait. Is it even possible that the Jaredites could have been Israelites (or descendants of Ishmael)? Yes, it is. The chronology is kind of muddy, but sources from the Midrash[6] tell us that Abraham and Nimrod[7] were contemporaries. And the home of Abraham and the likely spot of the tower were only a few hundred miles away from each other. So, the brother of Jared may well have known of Abraham or even have had a relationship with him. And ask yourself, did the brother of Jared “receive the gospel,” and was he “accounted Abraham’s seed?” – as all the faithful must be. If he was, where did he go to receive the ordinances to make that happen?
The brother of Jared had rare spiritual gifts. He’s an interesting guy. But when we look for an explanation as to who produced this prodigy, the book of Ether gives us...more crickets. The Jaredite record is overflowing with genealogy, except for the one time it matters. One can’t help but wonder why.
Still, both chronologically and geographically, it is possible that the brother of Jared was part of Abraham’s family, and maybe thru Ishmael’s line. Maybe this explains why the Jaredites looked for, and even expected, a land of promise,[8] but why they make no claim to be Israelites. Maybe this is why the title page of the Covenant of Christ tells us that the book is written to Lamanites, Jews, and Gentiles. Maybe the Covenant of Christ is the Gentiles’ story too. That’s a lot of maybes. And here’s one more. That elephant sleeping on the couch in the family room, it may be his name is Ishmael.
Gordon Platt
January 5, 2024
In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Adventure of Silver Blaze, Sherlock solves the mystery of a missing racehorse and a murdered trainer by noticing what is not in evidence: the guard dog didn’t bark. He didn’t bark because he knew the intruder, and didn’t feel threatened. Sometimes this kind of “negative fact” can alert us to important points in the scriptures. Why aren’t we told certain things when it seems we should be? And, similarly, sometimes important points are made using very few words – as with the story of the life of Ishmael.
[1]https://www.meforum.org/ishmael-father-arabs
[2]See above website
[3]In Peter’s day, the Jews were sent to take the gospel to the Gentiles (see Cornelius), and in the end-times the Gentiles will take the gospel to the Jews. God ordained this partnership, presumably as a way to form a bond between the two groups.
[4]Though of course, like everyone, they have to repent and come to Christ.
[5]Thanks Mc.
[6] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4529921/jewish/Who-Was-Terah.htm
[7]According to Jewish tradition, Nimrod directed the building of the tower.
[8]Covenant of Christ. Ether 1:36
[i] Modern English Translation Talk
June 29, 2024, Stanley, Idaho Denver C. Snuffer, Jr.
Page 11
In fact, I give you a commandment to study these things diligently, because Isaiah's prophecies are critical. He clearly focused his prophecy on My people, who are part of the house of Israel. Therefore he necessarily prophesied about the Gentiles. (3 Nephi 10:4 CE, emphasis added)
Let that sink in for a minute. Christ is saying... Great are the words of Isaiah (ibid. RE) is the way it is in that old English version. He's saying: “Isaiah's [words] are critical. He clearly focused his prophecy on my people, who are part of the house of Israel. Therefore, he necessarily prophesied about the Gentiles.” If you want to understand what the Lord has been up to with the house of Israel through all of the generations, you have to take into account the Gentiles, because the Gentiles are simply part of the house of Israel that lost their identity.
We have two groups of the house of Israel who have retained an identity that we can point to and say, “Oh, they're remnants.” One of them are what we call Jews; the others are what we call Native Americans. Despite the fact that the Native Americans, like the Gentiles, have lost their personal identity with the tribes of Israel, they are nevertheless a remnant of the house of Israel. So in the allegory (that we get an encounter as early as Jacob—in the RE version—chapter 3; in the Book of Mormon LDS, chapter 5), when you encounter that, those branches that are being scattered around the vineyard necessarily include groups that have altogether lost their identity. And the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to awaken people and bring them back. And it goes so far as to say, “I don't care what your bloodline is. If you reject the covenant, you're no longer my covenant people. And if you accept my covenant, you are part of my covenant people.” And he's putting back together root and branch to have the natural fruit return. And that's the great work of the Book of Mormon.