   |
|
|
In this verse and the next. Nephi provides us with clues as to the nature of the shift in cultural education that has occurred in the New World. In this verse he specifically notes that there are many of his own people who do not understand the "manner of prophesying among the Jews." In the next verse we get a little more information about the reason why this is so. Narrative: Nephi has just copied a large amount of Isaiah's writings from the brass plates onto the small plates. He is now beginning his personal commentary that springboards from the themes of Isaiah. While it is true that this general method of using text is part of Nephi's (and Jacob's) known pattern, there will be a difference in these final chapters of Nephi that must be noted. To this point in the construction of Nephi's text we can discern two distinct stages in writing. The first stage is the reflective/historical phase. In the reflective/historical state, an older Nephi, already in the New World, and already a leader of his people, places his story in text. We can locate the beginning of the writing of this section of Nephi's oeuvre to around 30 years after the departure from the Old World, and covering the next 10 years with great rapidity (2 Nephi 5:28 and 34) . Estimates of Nephi's age upon departure vary, but certainly the Nephi who begins writing the reflective/historical part is somewhere near 50 years old, and ages another 10 years in less than 10 verses. The second section of his narration is one that is contemporaneous with the writing. This section begins in 2 Nephi 5, and continues through the end of the 2 Nephi. We don’t have very many markers to indicate the passage of time during these sections, but it is probably that we can separate the narrative section dealing with Jacob’s sermon from the Isaiah/Isaiah exegesis section. It is in this second section of Nephi’s writings, those that he writes "in real time" rather than historically, that we can begin to see a change in the nature of Nephi’s narrative style. To this point in Nephi’s work, his narrative is rather well controlled, with a particular focus on sacred lessons that are placed into the framework of historical events. Onto the bones of history, Nephi lays the flesh of experience with the spirit and with particular conflicts of spirit, such as the contentions with his brothers. When Nephi presents his version of discourse to his brothers, it is characterized by the general style of scriptural citation, followed by a tightly reasoned discourse that applies that text to the current situation. Even in the presentation of Lehi's final sermons we find a clear and logically developed argument where element follows element in a tightly argued sequence that develops the point of the story. The final chapters of Nephi's work, beginning clearly with chapter 25, are qualitatively different in the structuring of argumentation. The information that will be presented in these final chapters is powerful, but the presentation of the arguments lacks the power of Nephi's younger work. We have two possibilities to explain the difference in the nature of Nephi’s argumentation in the earlier and later sections. The first is the possibility that advancing age has taken its toll on the great man. While that is possible, and certain from a physical standpoint, there is nothing in the narration that suggests that any of his prophetic power, or the great power of his testimony have been effected. The second, and more likely explanation, is that we are seeing the difference between writing after having time to structure an argument, and writing straight to the plates. In the earlier discourses, Nephi had the benefit of time to hone the argument, and whether or not he had written them down at the time, the discourses certainly reflect what he meant to say, whether the precise words are the same or not. In the current section, however, Nephi is writing and composing at the same time. This provides us with a more genuine link to his thoughts and feelings without the masking of reworked structure. We have from here to the end of Nephi’s writings perhaps our most intimate interaction with the man Nephi - a time when we find him coming straight from the heart without the benefit of time and restructuring of argumentation. What evidences will we see of this hypothesis? The primary evidence lies in the lack of discretely developed units. As Nephi writes, he touches upon a subject. and then tangentially expands that topic. New topics will be introduced that, while important, do not logically flow from the previous topic. Rather than exegetical elaborations of themes, Nephi presents information. These chapters are the final statements, written late in life of a man attempting to share his vast store of prophetic knowledge with those generations whose time he has seen.
Nephi is very clearly speaking of his people, and his charge in their education. That Nephi is not speaking to a future uneducated population is evident by his admission that the fault lies in his own choice of what to teach and not teach. Nephi is not saying that he knows prophetically that future generations will not understand Isaiah, but rather that his current generation does not understand, and that it is specifically due to a choice he has made. The disconnection between generations does not appear to be sufficient to warrant Nephi's recognition that the manner of prophesying of the Jews, indeed many aspects of Judaism, have not been continued. The Old World parents of Nephi's generation would have even unconsciously transmitted much of that culture without regard to Nephi's teaching. Nephi assumes a key role in the transmission of cultural information precisely in the case posited for Jacob's speech in 2 Nephi 6, a situation where a large number of gentiles are being admitted into Nephite society. Under that scenario, Nephi becomes the controller of the types of cultural information passed on (by virtue of his position as King) as well as the formulator of a new social order based on his understanding of the gospel rather than inherited Jewish traditions. The second phrase of the verse is more problematic for its vehemence. Nephi states: "...for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations." Nephi gives us no clue as to his meaning here. Surely he did not condemn his entire heritage though he certainly has jettisoned some part of it. What might he mean? In the context of the phrase's position in a transitional passage between a long citation of Isaiah and the coming improvisation thereon, it is probable that Nephi's condemnation of his cultural roots is related to Isaiah's condemnations which have been occupying Nephi's pen for however long it takes to copy passages onto plates - a process that must be cumbersome in any case, but increased in intensity by the necessity of accurately entering copying text rather than inventing it. Of course it cannot be certain that Nephi is speaking only on the basis of Isaiah, as his father also suffered rejection at the hands of the Jews. Surely this had something to do with his feelings. Perhaps one of the clues to Nephi's contextual reference to Isaiah comes from the construction of the condemnation itself. As is frequent in Isaiah, Nephi's phrasing is a nice dual parallel, with two phrases similarly constructed with identical meanings used to emphasize the thought. While Nephi can produce beautiful literature, witnessed by the Song of Nephi (2 Nephi 4:16-35) he does so infrequently, preferring a rather plain prose. This paired parallel construction coming so soon after the long and laborious process of copying Isaiah is highly suggestive that Nephi's comments should be seen in the light of Isaiah's criticisms. What then are the works of darkness? As with Isaiah, Nephi does not criticize the Lord, nor the Law. With the emphasis on "works" and "doings" Nephi is condemning the ways in which the Jews performed those actions of the Law. Like Isaiah, he would condemn those who did not understand the justice of God, and who would deny rights and justice to the poor, a theme that is later highlighted in King Benjamin's great speech. Nevertheless, Nephi specifically notes that one of the things that has been lost is the "manner of prophesying." Why, along with the works of darkness he condemns, would the "manner of prophesying" also be lost? The answer is necessarily speculative, as Nephi does not give us enough information to be sure. Nephi had, in his youth, had a tremendous experience with the spirit when he wanted to know more of what his father had seen in a vision. While that experience was transforming, it is also clear that Nephi didn't understand his father until he had seen his own vision. It is equally certain that his brothers did not understand it either. Lehi was a prophet of the Old World, a "visionary man," one given to precisely the "manner of prophesying" of the Jews, and of Isaiah. Nephi's prophetic style never became "visionary," even after his own vision. While not specifically connected to the "works of darkness," this visionary, symbolic, approach to prophesying is certainly one that Nephi discarded to provide his own preference for greater plainness and clarity, a preference that colors the remainder of Nephite prophetic history. Narrative: Nephi begins with a logical transition. Because he has presented so much text he needs to provide some linkage between that text and his elaboration of it. Even though it provides a needed transition, the development of the transitional text begins to take on a life of its own. and the transition becomes not a linkage between source scripture and elaboration, but a mini-discourse on Nephi's perceptions of both his historical roots in Jerusalem and is lifetime efforts to lead a people in the New World. As noted in the introduction to this section, we see more rambling in Nephi's narrative, and it begins with this transition that takes a flight of its own rather than move quickly to the point of scriptural elaboration.
It is precisely in this context that Nephi introduces his extrapolation on the Isaiah foundation. Nephi indicates that he want to show "all those that shall receive hereafter these things which I write, that they may know the judgments of God, that they come upon all nations, according to the word which he hath spoken." The purpose of Nephi's scriptural discourse will therefore be two things, a discourse to future generations from a prophet charged with preparing for them, and a justification of the words of the prophets, and thereby a firm foundation for his own prophetic statements.
Nephi addresses his future audience, the descendants of the house of Israel. Having cited Isaiah prophesying to and about Israel, Nephi now ties the historic Old World Israel to the New World Israel. In so doing, Nephi is clearly noting that the message of Isaiah will pertain to the New World Israel as well as the Old World Israel. Nevertheless, he also notes that while Isaiah's message is clear to one with the spirit of prophecy, it was nevertheless not sufficiently clear either to the Old World nor the New World Israel. In order that the New World might plainly understand the message Isaiah had for them, Nephi will expand on some themes in Isaiah to underline and support his own vision. Nephi will give his own prophecy. He announces that this is not an exegesis of Isaiah, but rather Nephi's prophetic message, that happens to expand on Isaiah's themes. Nephi, however, prophecies in plainness. This must be contrasted not only to Isaiah but also to Lehi. Those two were of the Old World prophetic tradition. Nephi is consciously altering that tradition and creating a new line of prophetic utterance that is couched in "plainness" rather than what Nephi has considered the more obscure, and therefore little understood, style of Old World prophecy. Narrative: The movement from subject to development has taken a side trip here. Nephi begins with the purpose of elaborating upon Isaiah, but enters here on an aside directed to his future audience. Once again while the information is appropriate and vital, the point is in the lack of structure of the narrative. This aside is triggered by the discussion of the differences between Old World and New World prophetic forms in Nephi's people. It is not a structured part of what might be considered a argument based on Isaiah, it is rather an explanation as to why such an argument need be given. Where the younger Nephi (in the recast speeches) was precise and deliberate. this aside comes as an indication that the information is coming from the stream of consciousness triggered by context, not by developed argument.
The fulfillment Nephi refers to is the captivity by Babylon, of which his father preached, and for which preaching the family left Jerusalem. The experience in the "lands round about" must refer to the time after the departure from Jerusalem, for any direct evidence Nephi would have had of the destruction of Jerusalem would have come from the accounts passed on in these other lands, even though he also could claim confirmation through revelation . Having established his authoritativeness, using the destruction of Jerusalem as firm case in point, Nephi declares that he will not discuss that destruction. That is past, and impacts his future generations only in the circumstances of their location. Nephi's concern is with the prophetic utterances of Isaiah that he sees as pertaining to yet future generations. It is to these people, and these issues, that Nephi will turn in discourse. Narrative: Verse 6 is a restatement of the theme of verses 1 and 2. Presuming that verses 1 and 2 were his intended transitional material, the return to that transitional material suggests that Nephi recognized his divergence from his purpose, and now resumes his original intent.
Regardless of the understanding of Nephi's coming prophecy on Isaiah's themes, Nephi indicates that when those predictions come to pass, then shall we know completely. Such is the real nature of prophetic utterances. Even the clearest do not necessarily show us, with precision, times and places. Nevertheless, when the prophecy is fulfilled, then we are able to see how that prophecy fit into the events.
It is not surprising that there would be those among Nephi's people who would see no value in Isaiah's words. First, his people do not understand the prophetic style of Isaiah, as Nephi has made clear in this introduction. Secondly, the majority of his people are now probably more a New World people, with only the stories of the leaders and perhaps parents to tie them to the Old World. If, as suggested, there are many in the community who have no Old World connections at all, and are truly New World people, it is quite reasonable that they would question the applicability of Isaiah's pronouncements upon Israel to their own lives and destinies. Nephi's view of Isaiah not only has ties to the Old World but his view is one in which he insists on a direct application of the prophecies to his own people. In the prophecies of restoration, Nephi sees his people foretold and it is this inclusion of his people in the promises to Israel that he intends to expound.
Historical: Nephi's immediate reference for a destruction of Jerusalem is the Babylonian captivity his father had foretold, and which they had escaped through the desert and on to a New World. Nevertheless, Nephi is also aware of another historical destruction, that which was the subject of much of Isaiah’s discourse. The eventual fulfillment of those prophecies lay in the destruction of the Northern kingdom, and the removal of the ten tribes. In prophetic vision Nephi foresees other destructions to come upon the Jews, and any of the terrible pogroms against the Jews in more recent history can attest to the accuracy of Nephi's vision. Nevertheless, Nephi reminds them as he reminds us, that such things are foretold by the prophets, and are ultimately caused by our refusal to completely follow the Lord. This is not to say that the Jews are to blame for the Holocaust. Far from it. Just as with the destructions predicted by the hand of Assyrian and Babylon, Israel can be placed in a position where the Lord is unable to stay the destructive hand, a series of events no doubt enabled by other events in Israel's past.
Narrative: "Prophetic history" is informing the structure of Nephi’s discussion, but it is not a linear progression. Nephi justifies the prophecies by linking the destruction/scattering to a redemptive gathering. This gathering is temporally located in the eschatological future. However, once he sets the outline as one that requires the end to counter the beginning, he moves to intermediary events. This is either another example of a rather rambling approach to his style, or it is an imprecise structural use of the concept of chiasm and balances, where the critical major structure is to create elemental balance. Thus the redemption must follow the destruction. The return to the concepts in the middle would therefore simply be a different structural model than the modern expectation of chronology. The problem with using chiasm as a complete organizing principle is that the passages do not fall into a tight chiastic structure. Thus it is the idea of balance in the chiasm that would be used, not the literary device itself.
Narrative: Nephi declares that his soul delights in prophesying of the Messiah. The text which will follow strongly bears this out. Whatever Nephi’s original intent may or may not have been in writing his prophecies after copying those of Isaiah, the theme of the mortal Messiah virtually hijacks all other themes.
It should be remembered in this context that Nephi's use of the term "church" has a wider symbolic meaning rather than a narrow one. This "church" is best seen in the context of the other occasion where Nephi speaks of a "church" - the "Great and Abominable church." Just as that use of "church" was for a category of people opposed to God's plan, so here this "church" is the representation of the believers more than the organization. This is evident in that it is those who fight against this church" who are blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem. The incipient Christian church was to small, and to far from the attention of the Romans to have been a proximate cause of the invasion. Nevertheless, the ultimate cause is still those who were unable to follow the Lord. The late historical blaming of the Jews for the murder of Jesus is not really in evidence here. Nephi does not display any sign of condemning Israel for anything more than what Isaiah does - not properly following God.
Polemical: One of the charges leveled against the Book of Mormon is that it answers an 18th century question in a way typical of the times. Very specifically, the Book of Mormon is seen in the context of a work like View of the Hebrews which attempts to locate the lost ten tribes in the Americas. While there might be superficial and tangential similarities, the attribution to the Book of Mormon the idea of finding the lost ten tribes derives from a cursory reading of the text, not from the text itself. The Book of Mormon very specifically ignores the question of the ten tribes, and deals with a completely different historical dispersion/gathering.
Following Nephi's explanation of the "future history" of Israel and the internal clauses of this sentence that emphasize the mission of the Savior, "these things" encompass Nephi's understanding of the message of Isaiah, which would include the birth and mission of the mortal Messiah as well as the eventual triumphal entry of that Messiah that will see the times of the restoration of Israel to its honored place as God's people.
Nephi notes that in the latter days of the fulfillment of these prophecies, that the Lord will set his hand the second time. When was the first time that he set his hand to "restore his people from their lost and fallen state?" This is somewhat confusing in that Nephi is using language typically reserved for one eschatological function and is applying it to another. In Isaiah, as well as most of Nephi's writings, the term "restore" is typically used a a description of the reuniting of scattered Israel. It is the glory of a righteous people that is being "restored." In this case, Nephi is selecting an element of that eschatological restoration, that is, the righteousness, and is linking that return to righteousness with the earthly mission of the Messiah. In Nephi's terms, then, the first attempt to "restore" Israel came through the Messiah' gospel. It is important to make sure that we see Nephi' vision of the Savior in his own terms rather than our own. The presence of such a developed christology this early in Book of Mormon history lends itself to the argument that the Book of Mormon reflects a "Christian" (that is a modern sectarian Christian) view of the history of the gospel in Israel. While the language of the Book of Mormon clearly couches its christology in more modern terms, passages as this one underscore the superficiality of the words as a description of Nephi's understanding. In using the term "restore" in the context of realigning Israel with the Lord, Nephi places his vision of the future precisely parallel to that of Isaiah. Without the christological vocabulary, Isaiah's prophecies may include a Messiah, but they include a presumably Jewish Messiah whose mission is to restore the House of Israel to its proper position before the Lord. Nephi sees Jesus' mission on earth not in terms of separation, but of repentant healing. Where the Christian world views itself as separate from Judah, and sees the mission of Jesus to establish a division, a new covenant that would pass glory of chosen people from the lineage of Judah to the separate community of Christian believers, both Isaiah and Nephi see the Messiah as a reformer of Israel - one who does not divide, but who brings back or restores the honored position of Israel. Textual: The term "marvelous work and a wonder" is a direct citation of Isaiah 29:14. Nephi is placing his words (and by extension, the entire Book of Mormon) as a fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11-14. Nephi will pick this thread up again in 2 Nephi 26:16
The grammatical referent for "he" returns to "the Lord" at the beginning of verse 17. Thus the marvelous work and a wonder will be when the Lord brings his words to future Israel. How is this to be done? Certainly Israel has had copies of the Lord's words for centuries. The particular words that will come, however, will be "given them for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah." This purpose in the words to be given future Israel narrow the candidate texts to the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. Because Nephi specifically relates these words to a time near the end, it is the Book of Mormon to which he refers, and in a more immediate context, his own testimony. Nephi understands that his personal witness of the Messiah will be given to the future Israel as a means of convincing them of the Messiah that Nephi has come to know so well and of whom he bears strong witness. Nephi specifically notes that there is only one Messiah. His reason for being so specific must be his future vision in which other candidate "messiahs" would be proposed. We need not suppose that these proposed messiahs would be evil in intent nor that the deception of which Nephi speaks is malicious in intent. There have been great leaders among the Jewish people who have bee proposed by the people of the land (the Macabeean revolt) or by their congregation (some modern Jewish sects). That the leadership qualities of such men should inspire hope is understandable. That they are not the expected Messiah is certain. Narrative: The introduction of this purpose of the Book of Mormon as a testimony of Jesus begins to shift the focus of Nephi’s discourse. Where he begins with a specific reference to Isaiah, it is the his testimony of Jesus as Messiah that becomes the main point of much of his text. Of course there were Messianic references in Isaiah, but the critical launching point from Isaiah to Nephi was the restoration of Israel. It was this prophecy of the future redemption of Israel that becomes Nephi’s reason for his own prophecy of those later times and events. The mission of the earthly Messiah fits into to that context, but the Messiah so firmly occupies Nephi’s thoughts as to shanghai the logical development of his narrative. Once begun, his testimony of the Messiah becomes the dominant theme of his discourse, and only tangentially returns to either Isaiah or the restoration of his people.
Randall P. Spackman has done some interesting work on this prophecy of 600 years: "In counting and recording the passage of time for hundreds of years, Lehi’s descendants obviously used some type of calendar accurately. We are led to ask what kind of calendar they used because dates derived from well-attested external history establish a time window several years too small to allow for the full 600 years stipulated in Lehi’s prophecy. Did Lehi mean that the Savior would come in about 600 years, or must we look elsewhere for an explanation? Evidently, Lehi was not simply approximating the time of the Lord’s birth, because the Book of Mormon records tat the heavenly signs marking that event appeared after the passage of an even 600 years - that is, in the 601st year, matching the prophesied time frame with precision (see 3 Nephi 1:4, 21, 26). This brings us back to the Nephite calendar, which was surely quite different from our modern method of reckoning time, and a crucial question arises: How long was a Nephite year?" (Spackman, Randall P. "The Jewish/Nephite Lunar Calendar." In: Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 1998, 7:1:50) After discussing the external evidence requiring the foreshortened year count, he concludes: "If the Nephites measured the 600-year period preceding Christ’s birth with a lunar calendar composed of twelve "moons," there is no discrepancy at all in the counting of 600 years. A twelve-moon calendar averages only 354.365 days per year, eleven days fewer than a solar calendar, which averages 365.2422 days per year. Between 597 BC and 5 BC, ample time existed for this lunar calendar to measure all 600 years." (Spackman 1998, p. 51.) Translation: Most problematic for modern readers is the final assertion of Nephi: "according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Most particularly problematic is the specific declaration of the name. It certainly is no problem for a prophet to know a future name, for Nephi names Mary as Jesus' mother (1 Nephi....). The problem is in the conflation of name and title that occurs with "Jesus Christ." Jesus is the proper name. Christ is the title, and a title that is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew meaning of "Messiah." Edward Brandt examined this question and noted that verse 19 contains "both the English transliteration of the Hebrew term for "the anointed one" - Messiah - and also the transliteration of the Greek term extended to the English for "the anointed one" - Christ." (Brandt, Edward J. "The Name Jesus Christ Revealed to the Nephites." In: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure. Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1989, p. 203.) He therefore recognizes the problem as stated. His answer, however, is off the mark: "The continued use of the name Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon, in view of all of the other names and titles used in the scriptures, shows it had an important influence on the Nephites throughout their history" (Brandt 1989, p. 203). His argument is to show that "Christ" is used frequently, and is associated with the "name." For instance, he cites Mosiah 15:21 (Brandt 1989, p. 204). The text of that verse is: Mosiah 15:21And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ—for so shall he be called. Brandt’s analysis emphasizes the "for so shall he be called" as a justification for the use of the term Christ in the declaration. He concludes: "They knew as Peter knew that there was no "other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ,… whereby man can be saved" (2 Nephi 25:20; compare Acts 4:12; see also 2 Nephi 31:20-21; Mosiah 3:17; 5:8; D&C 18:23; Moses 6:52,57) (Brandt 1989, p. 205). It is instructive to view the referenced verse in Acts 4:12: 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. The sentiment is clearly the same, but there is a significant difference. While the emphasis on name remains, it is only in the Book of Mormon that Jesus Christ is used as a name rather than a name and title (the only possible explanation for the presence of Messiah and Christ in the same sentence. Brandt is answering the wrong question. He is suggesting that Christ is a known title, and so it was. That does not mean, however, that Christ is an ancient word and not a transliteration of Greek. In all of his texts, the term Messiah fits equally as well. The difference is that Joseph as a translator preferred the more familiar "Christ." Brandt’s arguments never answer nor address the reason for the dual presence of Messiah and Christ, unless Brandt suggests that "Christ" is a personal name and not a title. That might answer the question, but it raises too many others. Why would Jesus have a last name in the New World, but not in the Old World. Why would Jesus be the only person in the entire Book of Mormon to have a last name? Why would his "last name" be the same as his title, but only seen through a Greek transliteration rather than a Hebrew one? We have in this passage another evidence of the nature of Joseph’s participation in the creation of the text. His own probable confusion between the titles, or at the very least, his much greater familiarity and comfort with Christ is the reason for the introduction of the term, not an imagined revealed name of "Christ."
To this point in Nephi's discourse he is promoting two themes simultaneously, and this dual purpose detracts from a single, focused argument. Nephi must not only tell us of the future history of Israel (and the role his message will play in it), but as part of that future history, Nephi takes a moment to discuss not only the mission of the Savior (which is a pertinent part of the future history) but also his testimony of that Savior. While it is understandable that he should bear testimony of Christ it provides a divergent focus from his point and results in a wandering argument line as well as this convoluted sentence. Nephi gives his testimony of Christ with an oath. It is the strongest oath he can make, and he begins it with the ritualistic: "as the Lord God liveth." He then expands his oath with a reference t Moses, The reason for the reference to Moses is to provide a touchstone of accepted fact on which he can reference his oath. Nephi used Moses is a somewhat similar way in a speech to his brothers earlier in life (see the argument begun in 1 Nephi 17:23). In both that earlier speech and the current context, Moses is used as an undisputed historical fact. For Nephi, Moses is a historical fact so well accepted that he may use it as t he reference point for things that might not be assumed to be as historical. In the earlier speech, the historical fact of Moses and the exodus was used as an indisputable fact that his brothers could not deny and therefore had to stand in condemnation for not likening there own situation to the Exodus led by Moses. In this case, the historical fact of Moses becomes the measure of the veracity of the oath Nephi pronounces. The miracle of raising the serpent on the pole has christological meanings for modern readers, but Nephi is not using the incident for its typological meaning, but rather its evidential value as a proof of the power of the Lord through a prophet. The evidence that we should understand the example in this way is that Nephi gives two examples in his oath, and the delivery of water from the rock is much less obvious as a type of Christ. In the current context, it is the miracle rather than the meaning of the miracle that is important to Nephi. Even though the ultimate purpose of this passage is to declare Christ, Nephi does not explicitly use the incident of the raising of the serpent to move that argument forward. Anthropological: Leaving aside for a moment the controversy over using Jesus Christ as name, the use of this oath places Nephi's use of "name" in an ancient context. In the ancient word, the one's name was more than a simple appellation, it was an intimate link to the person so named. In the Hebrew world, this extended to the changing of names in sacred circumstances where the nature of the person had changed, such as when Abram was renamed Abraham by the Lord. This intimate connection between name and person is the reason for the modern idiomatic remnant of this concept. When we say "speaking of the devil" we meant that we have been speaking of a person, and that person arrives. In the origin of that idiom, the power of speaking the name would invoke the presence the presence of the person. In other words, the connection between name and person was considered to be so strong that the very utterance of the name could command the presence of the person so named. Similar conceptions of the name and person exist in other cultures. The Navajo do not speak the name of the deceased, presumably for the reason that so speaking might call them from their rest to the known world. It is this powerfully charged atmosphere that we do best understand Nephi's assertion that "there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved." Note that even in the statement he makes, Nephi is referring to the person, not simply the name. Nephi says that there is "no name,,, save it be this Jesus Christ..." In the context of the question of the "name Jesus Christ" the presence of the word "name" in this sentence should be seen in the ancient context, and the "Christ" as the artifice of the translation process. Remembering that the invocation of the name is the same (anciently) as the person helps us also understand that for us it is the mission and actions of Jesus that are salvific, not our conception of a label. To take upon us his name is to take upon us his efforts and presence, and therefore implies more of us than a simple declaration of him. The name implies the acceptance also of the requirements and yoke he places upon us, however light that yoke might be.
It is not clear how Nephi sees this prophecy being fulfilled, other than he clearly sees the Book of Mormon as a fulfillment of it. Our first problem in understanding the prophecy comes in understanding how Nephi sees the preservation of the seed of Joseph. Nephi answers this question later in his discourse when he speaks of his vision of the destruction of his people: 2 Nephi 26:9 9 But the Son of righteousness shall appear unto them; and he shall heal them, and they shall have peace with him, until three generations shall have passed away, and many of the fourth generation shall have passed away in righteousness. 2 Nephi 26:10 10 And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people; for, notwithstanding the pains of my soul, I have seen it; wherefore, I know that it shall come to pass; and they sell themselves for naught; for, for the reward of their pride and their foolishness they shall reap destruction; for because they yield unto the devil and choose works of darkness rather than light, therefore they must go down to hell. Nephi sees the ultimate dissolution of his people. What he sees is not just genocide, but rather apostasy. He sees the dwindling of the believers but this is certainly to be contrasted with the elimination of the people entirely. He is very clear that there will be people in the latter days that carry the inheritance of Joseph, as that inheritance comes through Lehi and therefore through both Lamanites and Nephites: 2 Nephi 26:15 15 After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten. Nephi sees that the future generations will hold remnant of both Nephite and Lamanite lineages. Thus while we typically speak of the destruction of the Nephites at the end of the Book of Mormon, we are speaking of a different conception of that term thn does Nephi. What Nephi sees is the preservation of the genetic connection to Joseph, where the destruction of the Nephites by the time of the end of the Book of Mormon relates to a political/religious body rather than to physical bodies. The answer to this first question of Nephi's perception of the seed of Joseph raises other questions, however. While the seed may be seen as the lineage of Joseph, a lineage that Nephi prophecies will persist through both the his own and the houses of his brethren, we are not now certain how the passing of the text from generation to generation will effect their preservation, as they will have been physically preserved for centuries while the text is no longer being actively passed through generations. How will the text effect the preservation, if it is not even present during the years of greatest conflict with the gentile world that threatened the physical existence of all Amerindian populations? The nature of the text and its function in proclaiming the Messiah gives us the clue. Nephi is not concerned with a blessing of the preservation of the physical seed of Joseph, but with their eternal preservation that will come through their reliance on the grace of the Messiah. Because Nephi sees the physical remnant at a point prior to the reintroduction of his written testimony, he must understand this prophecy in its spiritual sense rather than a physical one.
For those peoples in whose hands the text of the plates was available, however, the words of those plates were a testimony to them, and a responsibility upon them to be judged by the words they had in their possession. This was true of the ancient Nephites and is true of the modern saints as well.
Narrative: Nephi broaches the subject of grace versus works in a very casual and off-handed manner. Rather than the major discourse one might expect of a nineteenth century religious tract, Nephi slides into the thick of theological controversy almost as an aside. If we may rightly assume that Nephi is pronouncing for his own purposes, and not for resolution of modern theological argument, in what context does he provide this gem of brevity? The direct context is one of the efforts made to teach their children. In Nephi's original context, he is emphasizing the work that they must do, but very specifically the work required to diligently teach their children of the Messiah. It is this reference to the Messiah that trips his mind to grace, because his context has been those efforts required to teach. In Nephi's discourse, he and his leaders and teachers diligently teach, and expend effort in so doing because their children will be judged by the knowledge available to them. Because the weight of that judgement is heavy upon the parents, they work to fulfill their obligation to teach in such a way that their children will understand the message, and be enlarged through the gospel rather than condemned by it. It is the message of the Christ that leads Nephi to declare his grace. It is the responsibility of their understanding that informs the work that they do. Scriptural: It is very difficult for a modern reader to approach Nephi's text without bringing to it the tension of theological argument concerning the relationship of grace and works. Modern theological debate has separated the concepts of grace and works into two mutually exclusive concepts rather than Nephi's complementary pairing. Understanding grace and works in Nephi requires that we better understand the nature of Grace in the Old Testament, which most directly informs Nephi's connotations for the term. The Old Testament meaning of Grace is one of benefit or favor given to a person. As a favor or gift, it may be given of God, or by man: Gen. 6:8 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Gen. 34:11 11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give. Gen. 39:4 4 And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand. In these three verses, a person is finding "grace in the eyes/sight" of someone who holds. or could hold power over them. Genesis 6:8 has the Lord as the bestower of grace, but in the other two cases, the bestowal of grace comes at the hands of a mortal. Thus the idea of grace in the Old Testament has more to do with the grace itself than the giver. It is a gift, regardless of the person who bestows it. This creates an important distinction between a concept that is representational, and one that is operative. A representational concept is one where the term stands for a meaning, it represents that meaning or concept. Generosity is representational of an attitude and relationship between people. On the other hand, some terms become operational - or indicative of a function performed or effected. The word "emancipate" is not only a concept, but represents a functional action that creates a change. One's generosity might lead one to emancipate another, but the generosity is only descriptive of the attitude, not the result. One might also be generous, and desirous to emancipate, but not have the legal ability to do so. Grace suffers from a conceptual confusion between representational and operational terms. In the Old Testament clearly, and in the New Testament demonstrably, Grace is representational. Grace is a description of a quality or attitude of God and the Savior. We have problems in understanding Grace when we attempt to make the term operational, which can occur when we misunderstand the idea that we are saved through Grace. The phrase makes it appear that Grace is operational, that Grace is a term for something that actually makes a change. It is not. Grace is always representational. Notice how the representational and operative concepts can approach the use of grace in Ezra: Ezra 9:8 8 And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage. The usage in Era come closer to the New Testament uses that appear to use grace as an operator - something that has effect in and of itself. The problem with seeing grace as operational in Ezra is that the effect of this "grace" does not match the salvific grace of the New Testament. In other words, if grace is operational, it has different effects. It is best to see grace, even in this case, as representative of the care and concern of the Lord, whose actions are effective and motivated by his bounty or good favor (grace) toward man. It is God who is operative, not a concept of grace. The representational meaning of grace is the only one that fits the following passages in Psalms: Ps. 84:10 10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. Ps. 84:11 11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. In the case of Psalms, grace is provided by the Lord, but is again representational rather than operative. The Lord gives "grace and glory" as examples of the goodwill he shows to man. The following phrase makes this clear, as the "no good thing will he withhold from the that walk uprightly" is the cumulative phrase for which "grace and glory" is the specific example. The New Testament also shows that grace is best used as representative of God's favor toward mankind: Luke 2:40 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. We might presume that grace shifts connotations in the New Testament, being representational in the Old Testament, but acquiring an operational meaning in the New Testament. This is not the case. The use early in Luke is clearly best translated by "favor". Jesus is given a gift of wisdom and grace is referring to that privileged position Jesus enjoyed with the Father. Similarly, we find in John: John 1:14 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. What does it mean to be full of grace? It is the same as Luke's statement that the grace of God was upon him. This is the favor of God, and the fullness refers to the quantity that Jesus possessed. This is still a representation of the favor of God, directed to his only begotten. There is no room in this usage for a functional aspect to grace. It remains representational. It is in Paul's writings that grace begins to appear as an operational term: Rom. 3:24 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: In this passage it appears as though grace really is a term of operation because we are justified through the medium of Christ's grace. Rather than a technical definition, or an alteration of mode, Paul's use of grace can yet be seen as representative of a gift or favor. In the same epistle to the Romans we find: Rom. 1:7 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace is here both a greeting and a gift. When the beneficence comes from Christ, it is his love that allows the expiatory action that effects our justification. The justification comes directly from the atonement, not from "grace," but it is the grace of Christ that allowed him to go through with the atonement in our behalf. If grace is representational rather than functional, how should we understand the relationship between grace and works? In one sense they are not comparable, for works is inherently operational, whereas grace is representational. They connote entirely different aspects of our walk before the Lord. Grace is a motivation, work is an action. The beneficent motivation of God is an enabler. Grace does not save us, it enables salvation to be accomplished. Seen thus, there is no conflict between them. Wherein then, is the classic theological contradiction? The problem comes in the question of merit. This is precisely the focus Paul gives the issue: Rom. 4:4 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Rom. 4:16 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Paul is not contrasting the difference between something that one does and an external "grace," but rather that which may or may not merit salvation. Paul is clear that our salvation comes not because we earn it, but because of the grace and good will of God. Grace does not save us without or in spite of works, because the works cannot effect our salvation. We are incapable of earning that salvation, and therefore we are saved through "Grace" - through the benevolent gift. As a representation of attitude or character, Grace is descriptive of God and Jesus. The actual salvation, however, is enacted by Jesus through the events of the atonement.
25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.
Rom. 7:4 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Gal. 2:19 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. The concept of contrasting a "dead" law and a "living" Christ is uniquely Pauline. The vocabulary is found only in Paul and in Nephi. There should be no doubt that the vocabulary in Nephi owes a debt to Paul. What is the nature of that debt? Is this a Pauline sentiment long before Paul, or is this another artifact of Joseph’s vocabulary? It is the latter. The evidence that there are two different concepts couched in similar terms comes from the contrast in the meaning for Paul and Nephi of the concept of the "dead law." In both, the law is "dead" because it does not provide salvation. Both Paul and Nephi understand that salvation comes through Jesus Christ. The crucial difference lies in the import of this shift in the nature of the law and what it means. While for both it is a celebration of the mission of the Savior, the impact on the social structures of the communities is diametrically opposite. The key lies in 2 Nephi 25:25. After making the dead/alive difference, Nephi notes that they "keep the law because of the commandments." Thus in Nephi we have a Jewish community continuing to abide by the law while looking to Christ as their ultimate salvation. The Nephite resolution of Torah and Christ is to keep both. The Pauline resolution is to declare the end of the special laws of Torah, particularly circumcision and dietary laws (neither of which is mentioned by Nephi). In Paul, the original context of the dead/alive dichotomy is precisely the severance of Christian from Torah: Rom. 7:1-6 1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Paul’s argument begins with the example of marriage, with a particular purpose. Paul is using the understanding of the permanence of marriage to become the symbol of the permanence of Torah. Marriage is a binding relationship between husband and wife - so long and the man lives. After that, however, the wife is freed from the marriage, and may marry another. Paul sees Torah as a binding relationship between covenant people and God only so long as Torah lives. When Torah becomes "dead" the "marriage partner" is freed from the binding relationship, and is able to go to another. In this analogy, Paul creates division between Torah and a Christianity not bound by Torah. Were the passage in Nephi informed by the meaning of Paul rather than just the language of Paul, we would expect to see in Nephi a polemic against circumcision, or against any other form of Torah observance. Not only is this absent, but we have in Nephi precisely the opposite reaction. Nephi’s people continue in their relationship with Torah, adding on to it the realization that it is the Messiah who will save, and not Torah. In the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s religious vocabulary was used to develop certain themes. In this case, Joseph was familiar with Paul, and uses Paul’s vocabulary to describe Nephi’s intent. The structure of that intent, however, differs despite the similarity in the usage of vocabulary.
Nephi certainly sees and predicts the time when the law is "done away." Once again, this is an echo of Pauline theology, but also an accurate picture of the way the Christian doctrine has influenced the development of a Christian religion. For Nephi, the mission of the Messiah fulfills the law in such a way that it is supplanted. Nevertheless, he understands that there is value in the law, and for that reason, he and his posterity will keep the law until it is fulfilled. For however great their understanding of and hope in Jesus Christ, they also clearly understood that the law was to last until the time of its fulfillment, and that their knowledge of the gospel of Christ was not sufficient to fulfill the law. For Nephi, the fulfillment of the law occurs in the person and atonement of Jesus Christ, not in his doctrine.
Either Nephi speaks to a future population (again a legitimate reading of prophetic discourse) or his current population breaks the bounds of social expectations. As indicated previously, the most likely scenario that would create this change is the influx of a number of gentiles into that community. This provides the best explanation if the statement is aimed at his current population.
30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.
Nephi does not emphasize it here, but there has also been at least one change in the catalog of performances and ordinances of the law of Moses. The people are also to be baptized symbolic of the remission of their sins through Christ (2 Nephi 9:24). The modern world is so familiar with Jesus through the New Testament, that it is valuable to attempt to remove that knowledge and attempt to understand Jesus Christ from a purely Nephite point of view. With their admonition to continue the performances and ordinances of the law of Moses, in what aspects has the understanding of their religion been altered by the explicit revelation of Christ? The baseline is to establish those things that have probably not changed at all. Certainly in performances and ordinances, they will hold to the law of Moses, according to this word of Nephi. It is also most probable that the moral laws, such as the ten commandments, are kept in full force. With respect to the moral laws, we may presume that the Nephites would have no different understanding than that Jesus attempted to give his followers: Matt. 5:17-18 17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. It is safe to presume that the Nephites would have had such an understanding of their relationship to the moral law, and Nephi vouches for the continuation of the performance laws. Nevertheless, there is a difference in Nephite religion, and it hinges on Jesus Christ. To this point in the Book of Mormon there appear to be only three ways in which this expanded revelation has effected Nephite religion:
The third item is fairly straightforward. Items 1 and 2 bear further examination. The net effect of the revelation of Jesus Christ is the alteration of the Nephite conception of God, let alone the godhead. Where the Nephites would have inherited a belief in Jehovah as the single God of Israel, they now must integrate another God. While Nephi would have clearly understood this relationship, he had not necessarily worked out a vocabulary appropriate to the existential reality. The tracks of this integration are perhaps obscured in modern polemics about the nature of the Nephite understanding of the Godhead. For instance, when Robert Millet discusses Nephi’s understanding of the Savior, he cannot avoid discussing the modern controversy over the text of the Book of Mormon: "The condescension of God the Son consists in the coming to earth of the great Jehovah, the Lord God Omnipotent, the God of the ancients. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon contains the following words from the angel to Nephi: "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh" (1 Nephi 11:18; italics added). The angel later said unto Nephi regarding the vision of the Christ child: "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, the Eternal Father!" (1 Nephi 11:21; italics added; cf. 1 Nephi 13:40, 1830 edition). Later in the same vision of the ministry of Christ, the angel spoke, saying: "Look! And I looked," Nephi added, "and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record" (1 Nephi 11:32; italics added). In the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith the Prophet changed these verses to read "the mother of the Son of God," "the Son of the Eternal Father," and "the Son of the everlasting God," respectively. It would appear that the Prophet made these textual alterations to assist the Latter-day Saints in fully understanding the meaning of the expressions. Critics of the Church or myopic historians are eager to point up these changes as illustrative of Joseph Smith's changing views on the doctrine of the Godhead, an example of pre- and post-1835 theology; some would suppose that Joseph was tied to a type of "trinitarianism" before his theology "developed" over time, and would thus place (inappropriately) the Book of Mormon within that developmental process. Such a conclusion is both unwarranted and incorrect. For one thing, the Book of Mormon writers make scores of references to the distinct identities of Jesus Christ and his Father. fn One need only read Nephi's words in 2 Nephi 25, regarding the necessity of the Jews believing in Christ and worshiping the Father in his name (verse 16) to appreciate the distinctness of the members of the Godhead in the minds of Nephite prophets. In addition, in 2 Nephi 31 we note the constant reference to the "words of the Father" as opposed to the "words of the Son." In our chapter now under consideration (1 Nephi 11), we read in verse 24 (italics added) these words: "And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him" (see also verse 7; Alma 5:50). The Prophet Joseph Smith's alterations in previous verses—mother of the Son of God and the Son of the Eternal Father—are perfectly consistent with the description of Christ in verse 24. Mary was indeed the "mother of God," and Jesus Christ was the "Eternal Father," the "everlasting God" (cf. Mosiah 15:4; 16:15; Alma 11:38-39). The condescension of God the Son thus consists in the fact that the Eternal One would "descend from his throne divine" (Hymns, 1985, no. 193), be born in the most humble of circumstances, become among the most helpless of all creation—a human infant—and submit to the refining influences of mortal life. An angel further explained the condescension of God the Son to King Benjamin: "The time cometh, and is not far distant," he prophesied, "that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay." Further, Jehovah, the God of creation, "shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death." (Mosiah 3:5, 7.) The condescension of the Son—his ministry among the unenlightened, his suffering and death, followed by the persecution and death of his anointed servants—is described by Nephi in 1 Nephi 11:27-36. (Millet, Robert L. "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." In: First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation. Religious Studies Center, BYU. 1988, p. 168) Brother Millet is tackling a potentially thorny issue in the Book of Mormon, but is explanations and reasons for the explanations are pertinent to a modern audience with modern concerns. For Nephi, we can be assured that his prophetic understanding of the role of the Savior was as accurate as his information about his name and his mother’s name. What is interesting from Nephi’s standpoint, however, is that Nephi faced a rather unique challenge. Nephi had to immediately expand his understanding from a single God into God the Father and God the Son. To complicate things for Nephi, he would have learned of Jehovah’s role as creator, but the ascription of God the Son to that particular creative role. For Nephi, the position of the Messiah pre-mortally would be to assume the position that had been reserved for God the Father - that is, as the creator and the particular God of Israel. In that context and understanding, Nephi is absolutely correct that God condescended to the earth - because Nephi has learned that the position of God that he has worshipped is occupied by the pre-mortal Savior. Nephi has no vocabulary to deal with the role of the God the Father, and indeed does not develop a theology of God the Father. Nephi acknowledges that He is, but provides to defined role, and makes no attempt to provide a context for the Father. For Nephi, the revelation of Jesus Christ is the revelation of the figure he has known as God, but who must now be separated into Father and Son. Nephi’s theology goes no further than that. The revelation of Jesus Christ to the Nephites was a remarkably different process than the post-resurrectional appearances and deification of Jesus. In the New Testament, the resurrection becomes the proof point of the divinity of Jesus, and his place with God the Father. For Nephi, however, the process was completely different. Nephi learns of Jesus not through a mortal made immortal, but as the direct revelation of the pre-mortal creator of worlds who was yet to become flesh. In that context it is perfectly understandable that Nephi would have seen Jesus in the position of the God whom he knew as creator and protector of Israel (as indeed is supported by modern LDS theology.) The second issue for the Nephites is the emphasis on the expiatory nature of the mortal mission of the Messiah. Jewish law understood both sin and the necessity of the removal of sin, hence many of the particular rites of expiation - the most symbolically important being the sacrifice of the unblemished lamb. Thus the general concept of the sin/repentance/cleansing cycle embodied in the atonement would not have been foreign to the Jewish Nephites. However, the interesting point is that this is the only uniquely Christian aspect of teaching that appears in the writings of Nephi or Jacob as we have them to this point in the Book of Mormon. This begs an interesting contrast between the Christianity of Nephi and the Christianity of 12 Apostles in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Christian church was founded upon not only the person of Christ, but his teachings. The fundamental doctrines of Christianity flow from the instructions Jesus gave while he taught in his three year ministry. While he did teach of the import of his death and resurrection, his time was mostly spent in explaining the way in which he would fulfill the law of Moses, principally as a shift in emphasis from performance to transformation of will (the intent of much of the Sermon on the Mount, see Matthew 5). These doctrinal teachings appear to be missing in Nephi and Jacob. They teach the things their people need to hear, but the doctrines are not demonstrably Christian. In the polemic between a world presupposing Jesus as something wholly new, and a Book of Mormon preaching Christ long before his birth, the point that is missed is that so little of Jesus appears to this point in the Book of Mormon. Were Joseph to have truly constructed a Christianity, one would expect more of a doctrinal explanation. We do not get that here (though doctrines of Christianity will gradually enter the Nephite record later). What we have is the remarkable addition of the person of Jesus. At this point, it appears sufficient. In the end, it is this emphasis on the person and mission rather than the teachings that informs Nephi’s statement: "2 Nephi 25:29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out." Nephi is emphasizing the person, and the proper worship of the person. He is not emphasizing anything about following precepts. This is because the revelation of the person is the great new revelation Nephi has taught. The person and his atonement are the paramount facts of the new vision. Precepts will come later. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1999 |
1
Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth
of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know
not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.
|
|
 |