   |
|
|
1 AND now I, Nephi, make an end of my prophesying unto you, my beloved brethren. And I cannot write but a few things, which I know must surely come to pass; neither can I write but a few of the words of my brother Jacob.
Literary: Although Nephi is entering new information, and (as discussed at the end of the last chapter) is probably returning to a work he may have considered finished, he nevertheless attempts to integrate this new text into the narrative by providing a connecting introduction. This introduction links the previous material with the current material in a narrative, but not as a thematic extension. This new material is being added to the previous material on the plates, and Nephi takes care to make the text read from one section to another - but there is no connection between this chapter (and the next, though chapters 31 and 32 are clearly related) and the previous material. Nephi truly had finished his prophecy of the future of his people and this written work. Chapters 31 and 32 consist of completely new thematic material that, while it is related to material much earlier in the text, does not flow from any of the immediate material on the plates.
2 Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying. 2 Nephi 31:3 3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
Linguistic: Nephi declares that he delights in plainness, and this delight in plainness is a hallmark of Nephi’s writing and personal conception. We may presume that we understand what Nephi means, because we generally understand Nephi much more easily that Isaiah, but what does "plainness" mean to Nephi? The connotations of "plainness" may derive from Joseph having seen the term used in the King James Version in 2 Corinthians. I provide a more or less complete unit from Paul’s discourse to the Corinthians so that we may see "plainness" in the Pauline context: 2 Cor. 3:6-16 (see plainness in verse 12) 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. I include such a large section of Paul to make a point about plainness. Paul is speaking in plainness but it certainly isn’t the kind of plainness we usually associate with Nephi. In Nephi we assume that plainness means understandability. In Paul, however, despite his "plainness," the average English reader would have difficulty understanding the intricacies and meanings of the above passage. Of course Paul could be rendered into an English version that might make for easier reading, but even Paul’s mode of argumentation is complex and rather foreign to the modern reader. Understanding that plainness may not necessarily be "plain," we can now approach Nephi to attempt to understand his meaning of plainness. I suggest that for Nephi, plainness is both used to mean "bold and piercing" as well as used as a contrast to a style that is not "plain" in that it is sufficiently literary that meaning may be misunderstood or ignored. Nephi uses plainness in the "bold and piercing" meaning in the following example: 2 Ne. 9:47 47 But behold, my brethren, is it expedient that I should awake you to an awful reality of these things? Would I harrow up your souls if your minds were pure? Would I be plain unto you according to the plainness of the truth if ye were freed from sin? In this usage, Nephi is not "plain" because he is explaining things simply, but rather because the effect and power of the words have hit a chord in his brothers that has begun to stir the first feelings of repentance. His words are causing pain. Nephi asks first if he would "harrow up your souls if your minds were pure?" In other words, they would not feel pain in his remonstration if they had no sin in them. Following this, Nephi is "plain unto you according to the plainness of the truth." The context here, however, is not that Nephi is explaining anything, but rather that the pureness of what he is saying strikes the chord in them that does harrow their souls. This is also the context in the following passage: 2 Ne. 33:5-6 5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written save he shall be of the spirit of the devil. 6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell. Just as with Nephi’s brothers, plainness is capable of making men angry because it touches the guilt in their souls. The plainness is not just clarity, but a powerful statement of the truth of the Lord. This, is, of course, the very way in which the term was used in Paul to the Corinthians. Paul is referring to the power and boldness of the statement, not its comprehensibility. Nephi also uses plainness in a mode closer to what we have presumed, that is, something that is easier to understand. Rather than simply meaning easier to understand, however, Nephi appears to contrast plainness as an alternative style of prophecy. In particular, Nephi is contrasting his style of prophecy to that of his father and to Isaiah. 2 Ne. 25:4 4 Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy. But I give unto you a prophecy, according to the spirit which is in me; wherefore I shall prophesy according to the plainness which hath been with me from the time that I came out from Jerusalem with my father; for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn. The contrast to Lehi is implicit here, and is most explicit in Nephi’s recounting of his version of the Tree of Life dream. Lehi is a visionary man - a type of prophet to whom visions come as symbolic dreams (of which the Tree of Life dream is the most extensive example we have for Lehi). Nevertheless, visionary prophets were not readily understood, because their understanding of the symbols might be very different. One need only review the experiences of Joseph in Egypt to know that an interpreter of the dreams was more important than the dream itself. In this implicit differentiation between Nephi and Lehi, Nephi is contrasting plainness with a long tradition in the Old World of incomprehensible prophecy. Not only are the dreams and visions in frequent need of an interpreter with the power of God, but the ancient world was full of examples of a dichotomy between the receiver of the message from the gods and the interpreter of that message. In the Greek tradition, oracles would have two important functionaries, the profetes and the mantis. The mantis would receive the communication from the god, but would typically speak something unintelligible. The profetes was the interpreter. Thus for at least the Greek world, the communication from the gods was presumed to be extra-human, and require an interpreter, for the pure communication must necessarily have been beyond man. While the story of Moses and Aaron has Aaron as the spokesperson because Moses is not powerful in speech, it may also be that this dual appearance of prophet and interpreter better fit into the expectations of the ancient world. Nephi appears to contrast his plainness with the need for an interpreter caused either by the extreme symbolic nature of visionary prophecy, as well as the highly symbolic literary prophecy of Isaiah: 2 Ne. 25:7 7 But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy, according to my plainness; in the which I know that no man can err; nevertheless, in the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass. Nephi tells us that Isaiah’s prophecies are correct. They will be vindicated. What he does, however, is contrast his own prophecy with that of Isaiah, not in content, but in style. Nephi’s style is clearly not visionary (in fact Lehi is the only "visionary" prophet in the Book of Mormon - that style of prophecy appears to end with Lehi and the firm tie to the Old World) and is also clearly not symbolically complex. It is Nephi’s difficulty with symbols that drove him to require an interpretation of his father’s dream (which appears to have been perfectly clear to Lehi). In the end, Nephi’s meanings of boldness and lack of symbolic trappings fuse into his usage of plainness as a description of the way he prophesies: 2 Ne. 32:7 7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be. Nephi’s words are plain because they do not require specialized learning of symbols. They are also plain because they are bold and direct. It is a preaching that may be understood by all who search it, and is a condemnation of those who "will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness."
4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
As the text of 32 flows from 31, the only reason I can suggest for the firm division (entered by Nephi) is that the sermon was broken into two pieces, and thus is presented in the two pieces here. The reason for the two pieces may follow the same reasoning as we saw in Jacob’s discourse, where there was a gathering which lasted over two days, and Jacob’s speech also covered the two day period. While it is certainly only conjecture, the split over two days has a model in Jacob, and the form of this discourse is much closer to a sermon than the Nephi’s writings elaborating Isaiah. The specific introduction to this sermon has Nephi addressing an audience. While he has done that somewhat it the exposition on Isaiah, the specific admonition to recollection appears to fit better into an audience that would be familiar with Nephi’s speeches over time rather than as one who had read them on the plates. Additionally, Nephi uses the phrase "I have spoken unto you" which further suggests a present audience. Were he exclusively referring to a modern audience that was reading his words, he might better have noted "I have written unto you," for he certainly understood that future generations would have his word through a written medium. The format and the specific mention of speaking to an audience sets us up to see this as an included sermon, rather than a new text written specifically for the plates.
5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
This question must be answered first in a Jewish context. As modern Christians, our understanding of baptism is so intricately linked to Christianity that we make automatic presumptions of the term, presumptions of a Christian context that are so strong that many have derided the Book of Mormon for mentioning baptism so many years before John the Baptist. That cultural/religious definition of baptism is unfortunate in that it tends to prevent us from understanding the Jewish background behind baptism. After all, John was also baptizing before Christ, but John’s baptism must have had a different meaning that a Pauline baptism. Understanding the differences between a Christian baptism and a simple bath may be a crude example, but it highlights the range of meaning that can be given to the action. In the case of Nephi, how might he and his people understood the baptism of Jesus? The root of baptism lies in two symbolic concepts. The first is the concept of ritual purity, and the second is the symbolic extension of the cleansing power of water to ritual contexts. Ritual purity has to do with concepts of clean and unclean that have nothing to do with physical dirt, but rather one’s spiritual condition. For instance, the Lord tells Aaron: Lev. 10:8 8 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; The Lord is not making any recommendations about dirt, but rather spiritual condition. Cleanness and uncleanness in this context are ritual, not physical. In such a ritual condition of clean and unclean, it becomes of paramount importance to have a means of restoring "clean" when one becomes ritually unclean. Just as water can restore the physical cleanness, so does water become a ritual purifier. The ritual washing to remove ritual uncleanness (rather than dirt) is mandated for a number of occasions in the Old Testament: Num. 8:5-6 5 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 6 Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. 7 And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. Lev. 16:3-4 3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. Lev. 15:7-8 7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. In each of these occasions, ritual cleanness is restored through washing with water. In the case of Aaron putting on the holy garments, it is not hard to see that a fairly extensive washing - perhaps an immersion, but not necessarily that complete - would be required before the clothing could be put on. This would presume that the sacred nature of the clothing would require that it be put on "clean" flesh, and that therefore one’s entire body would have to be washed to be ritually clean. It is possible that the washing of the "hands and feet" in the next passage may signify the whole person rather than simply the mentioned hands and feet (see verse 21): Ex. 30:17-21 17 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 18 Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. 19 For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: 20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD: 21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations. The baptism of John is certainly related to this conception of ritual cleanness through washing by water (M’Neile, Alan Hugh, D.D. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Macmillan & Co. LTD. 1961, p. 33). The same conceptions would have underlain the ritual washings of the Qumran community. Geza Vermes explains the context of this ritual baptism at Qumran: "Ritual bathing was practised in the Community. The Damascus Rule (xi) devotes a section to purification by water, and the War Rule (xiv) foresees that the victorious Sons of Light will so cleanse themselves after battle before attending the final ceremony of thanksgiving. The Community Rule (iii, v) refers also to a purificatory rite in connexion with entry into the Covenant. This seems to have been a peculiar and solemn act similar to Christian baptism, and to have symbolized purification by the 'spirit of holiness'. 'For it is through the spirit of true counsel concerning the ways of man that all his sins shall be expiated that he may contemplate the light of life. He shall be cleansed from all his sins by the spirit of holiness ... And when his flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God’ (CR iii). From the same Rule it may be deduced that this 'baptism' was to take place in seas and rivers' (iii), like the baptism of John and Jesus, and that true conversion was the absolute condition for the efficacy of the sacrament (v). It may be of interest to note that the nearest Jewish parallel to this rite was the baptism administered to proselytes; in the case of women it was the only ceremony of entry into the Covenant of Israel." (Vermes, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin Books, 1975. P. 45). The elaboration of washing for ritual purity into some baptismal form was not unusual at the time of John. Indeed, Golb notes: "Baptismal rituals widespread in early rabbinic and early Christian times, and antecedents in first-century B.C. and first-century A.D. Palestine can hardly be narrowed down to the practices of a single group." (Golb, Norman. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? New York: Scribner. 1995, p. 372). To this point, then, we can easily see baptism as a natural development of the concept of using water to provide ritual cleanness. In Qumran, John, and Christian usage, however, there is another symbolic function that is added to the rite of baptism, and that is initiation into a group. Thus for Israel baptism became the rite of cleansing for a convert into Judaism, and for Qumran an sign of entrance into the community. Likewise in Christianity, baptism carries this connotation of an entrance into the community of the believers. In Nephi’s context, however, what is most interesting is the absence of this latter elaboration of baptism. Nephi speaks of the baptism in its cleansing mode, but not as a rite of entrance (this will be part of the Book of Mormon baptismal ritual, but not until Alma at the waters of Mormon - where the context is highly suggestive that it is an innovation at that time). It should also be noted that the burial/resurrection imagery that is symbolically attached to baptism in the New Testament (probably beginning with Paul) is entirely absent from the Book of Mormon. This is yet another indication of the altered contexts of the Old and New World. The burial/resurrection symbolism is effective in a situation where the death and resurrection of the Savior is an important focus of preaching, such as in Paul. The Book of Mormon spends much more time on the salvation aspects of the Atonement than the resurrection, and thus the burial/resurrection theme (virtually requiring the New Testament context of the crucifixion of the Savior) would be conceptually foreign to the symbology of the New World Christ. For Nephi, the cleansing function of the water immersion would make perfect sense, and fits into the question that is being asked - that is, how someone who is the Lamb of God, and therefore presumably clean, should be in need of a ritual cleansing. In this earlier usage of baptism as a ritual of cleansing, Nephi’s usage of the term makes reasonable cultural sense. What would not make sense is the entry function of baptism (which is the absent function for Nephi). With Nephi, there is no community to enter apart from that of his people. The only possibility for such a function would be the inclusion of the gentile populations that I have suggested, but even for them, the ritual cleansing function would have been sufficient. It is more likely that circumcision would be seen as the mark of entering the covenant for Nephi’s people than a "baptism" that should, in their cultural context, be for a ritual cleansing.
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
In this context it is also very important to remember the probably meanings of baptism to Nephi and his people. If their "baptism" held the concept of ritual washing for ritual cleanness, the contrast of the "holy" to the "baptism" becomes another of the difficult questions. The question becomes "why should one who is already ritually clean perform the rite of ritual cleansing?" Scriptural: The answer Nephi gives requires Nephi’s understanding of the nature of Jesus. More than the modern LDS who understands the pre-mortal role of Jesus as Jehovah, that identification between Jesus and Jehovah was paramount for Nephi. While modern LDS theology has a strong definition of the Father as apart from Jehovah, Nephi would have had no cultural/religious background that would have made that distinction. Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament, and while Nephi demonstrates an understanding of the distinction between father and son, he nevertheless could not help but have a stronger emphasis on the Jehovah role of the pre-mortal savior. In a very real sense, Nephi’s God was made flesh and came to earth. Nephi’s answer to the reason for Jesus’ baptism is couched in terms of this shift in sphere for Jesus. God remains in heaven, and remains the ultimate authority. However, Jehovah has now come to earth, and is both among men, and in the flesh. Thus Nephi has three phases to Jesus’ reason: "he showeth unto the children of men" Jesus is among men, but is yet the incarnation of Jehovah and the predicted Messiah. As such he might be considered as more than man, yet his actions are directed to mankind. He serves as an example for all mankind. "that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father" This alteration of position is emphasized here. Nephi emphasizes that Jesus is "in the flesh," that he is a mortal man, whatever his previous and future position. It is in the flesh that he elects to humble himself before the Father. The emphasis here is on the voluntary humbling, a status presumed of humans, but not of Jehovah. The Israelites would not have been able to conceive of Jehovah humbling himself, but in this condition of flesh, Jesus/Jehovah does what is proper for one in the flesh, and humbles himself before God. This example of the incarnate Jehovah (one in no need of deference to God) shows to all men their absolute necessity of deference to God. Of course the deference to a God the Father who has eternal position superior to that of Jehovah is also implicit here. "and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments." The direction of the first two points was horizontal, that is, to other men. In this point Nephi emphasizes the vertical direction, that Jesus must witness to the Father also. Thus Jesus becomes an example to men, but yet is still under personal necessity of obedience to the Father. Not even Jesus, the incarnate Jehovah, can avoid the responsibility of obedience.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
While the association of the Holy Spirit and baptism might appear to be a very Christian concept, the Holy Spirit also appears to be invoked for baptisms at Qumran: Eisenman and Wise discuss a fragment of a text on baptism at Qumran and note: "On the heels of this text, we come upon a series of fragments relating to baptism. By baptism, of course, the reader should realize that the proponents of this literature did not necessarily mean anything different from traditional Jewish ritual immersion. The terminologies are synonymous, though the emphasis on baptismal procedures at Qumran is extraordinary. This can be seen not only in texts such as the one represented by these fragments and the well-known Community Rule, iii, 1-4, which in describing baptism makes reference to 'the Holy Spirit', but also the sheer number of ritual immersion facilities at the actual ruins of Qumran - if these can he safely associated with the movement responsible for this literature." (Eisenman, Robert, and Michael Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. New York: Barnes and Noble. 1994, p. 230.) While the community of the scrolls is certainly later than Nephi, they are yet prior to the Christian usage of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. This linkage between baptism and the spirit is demonstrably pre-Christian, and while it cannot be firmly dated to anything Nephi would have taken with him from the Old World, it is not a concept that would be precluded prior to Christ’s birth - particularly since Nephi is declaring these things as part of his own vision.
9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
With such an understanding of narrow paths and gates, the listeners would understand that this mode of entrance into the kingdom was not for the great masses, and also that there was not much leeway in the passage. Translation: The use of such Old World-reliant terminology may suggest that this particular wording owes more to the King James Version than Nephi’s actual words. At the end of his life, Nephi would be speaking to more and more people who had never seen such walled and gated cities. Mesoamerican cities may have had some fortifications, but they were not walled cities in the sense of a Jerusalem. They had large causeways for the main entrances, but no gates. Thus this imagery works best on a population that had seen Jerusalem. By this time the Nephites would have had proportionately few of such people.
10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
The most interesting aspect of this verse is Nephi’s clear presumption that his audience knows and understands the injunction of the Lord to "follow thou me." We do not have the reference to Nephi teaching this to his people, but the clear expectation of this verse is that they already know it. Nephi is using the phrase not as new information, but as the proving text that supports the need for his people to follow the commandments. Of course we understand that we do not have all of Nephi’s teachings to his people (and in fact, have very few once he became king of the Nephites). Nevertheless, Nephi’s understanding of the mission of Jesus was extensive, and was taught to his people.
11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son. 2 Nephi 31:12 12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.
In keeping with Nephi’s theme of following Jesus, he explicitly ties the baptism of his people into the baptism of the Savior. Just as the Savior in fleshly humility followed the will of God, so must we, in those same circumstances, follow the example of the Savior and submit to the Father.
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism--yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
Nephi also adds that an important part of the preparation for the ritual is to "take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism." This wording suggests that Nephi sees the ordinance of baptism as the symbolic event that effects this "taking of the name." However, examination of the use of the phrase to "take the name of Christ" later in the Book of Mormon suggests that it is not inextricably tied to baptism. For instance, Moroni states: Alma 46:18 18 And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions. Moroni is using the term as a group identifier, and indeed after the time of Alma and the formal establishment of churches, it becomes an identifier. However, Moroni uses the name as the identifier, not the fact of baptism. They would certainly have been baptized, but the taking of the name appears to have become a separate formality later in the Book of Mormon - a specific rite which could be enjoined upon the entire group listening to King Benjamin (Mosiah 5:8). Part of the promise Nephi makes of the baptism is the receipt of the Holy Ghost. This is very clearly the meaning of the term "baptism of fire" as it is used in the Book of Mormon. Translation: Joseph Smith understood the baptism of fire to be equivalent to the Gift of the Holy Ghost. That this is the understanding of this Book of Mormon passage is confirmed by the similar usage in the Doctrine and Covenants: D&C 19:31 31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost. In spite of this correlation, the New Testament origins of the idea of a baptism of fire are interesting, and lead to a different interpretation of the meaning of the baptism of fire. This will suggest that the term "baptism of fire" in the Book of Mormon is due to Joseph’s borrowing of the phrase from the KJV New Testament, but applying it to a different conceptual designation. The important New Testament texts are: Mark 1:7-8 7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Luke 3:15-17 15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. Matt. 3:9-12 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. These are three recountings of the same incident. The language of both Luke and Matthew are dependent upon Mark 1:7-8, with the basic information from Mark being brought into a single verse for both Luke and Matthew (Luke 3:16, Matthew 3:11). What is interesting is not the correspondence, however, but the differences in both text and context. The context in Mark is simply the person and mission of John the Baptist. The text before the cited verses simply introduce John. The following text begins the story of Jesus’ baptism. Note the changes in Luke: Luke 3:15-17 15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. The first important change is context. Where Mark has the story appear in a simple discussion of John, Luke’s story occurs as an integral discussion about the Messiah. The common citation from Mark is the same citation about the relationship of John to Jesus, but in Mark it comes in response to a question that specifically examines Messianic possibilities. John defers a title of Messiah, but bestows it by implication on the "one mightier than I." The change in text is the ending verse. Verse 16 is not found in Mark, but appears in both Luke and Matthew’s versions. In the new context of Luke and Matthew, this added verse is important. Noting the added verse, however, may miss another very significant addition. In both Luke and Mark, John’s original statement that the "one mightier than I" would baptize with the Holy Ghost has added to it the additional "baptism" of fire. Examine the same textual and contextual alterations in Matthew: Matt. 3:9-12 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Matthew’s text agrees with Luke, but the specific context does not. Rather than a discussion about the Messiahship of John, the context is one of the rightful children of Abraham, and in particular the righteous. In verse 10 Matthew places the statements of baptism in a context of a judgement, where the wicked are separated and burned. It is this context of Matthew that is perhaps most instructive about the meaning both of the addition of the word "fire" in verse 11 and the addition of the entire verse 12. Verse 12 echoes the theme of verse 10. We have a purging of the wicked - a separation of the good from the evil. In both verses 10 and 12, the wicked are burned. This is a very common image in the Old Testament: Ezek. 5:4 4 Then take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; for thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel. Isa. 5:24 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Perhaps the best reference for Matthew’s contextual examination of these passages comes from Isaiah: Isa. 10:16-23 16 Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire. 17 And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day; 18 And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth. 19 And the rest of the trees of his forest shall be few, that a child may write them. 20 ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. 22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. 23 For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land. Isaiah presents two themes. The first is the burning destruction of the wicked (verses 16-19). This is followed by a redemptive section which exalts the righteous remnant in the midst of the destruction of the wicked who have not followed God’s ways (verses 20-22). I suggest that is precisely this context in which Matthew, and to a less obvious degree Luke, ask us to see the comments of John the Baptist. In particular, what has begun as a discussion of the difference between the baptism of John and Jesus and become a theological statement of the Messianic mission of Jesus. In Mark, the baptism of water is simply contrasted to the baptism by the Holy Ghost. This contrast between two baptisms is a very neat parallel to the contrast between the two performers of the baptisms. What changes in Luke and Matthew, however, is the addition of yet another aspect to Jesus’ "baptism." Rather than only baptize with the Holy Ghost, Jesus will baptize with fire. The context of the baptism by fire in both Luke and Matthew suggests that the baptism by fire refers to the apocalyptic cleansing at the time of the Messiah’s triumphal return. It is the burning of the wicked and simultaneous redemption of the righteous. It is Jesus in his Messianic role predicted by Isaiah and the other prophets. In the context of the New Testament only, I suggest that the baptism of fire is distinct from the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that it refers to the events of the end of the world when Christ will come in glory and his glory will "burn" the wicked. This is most obviously not the context in which the term is used in the Book of Mormon. This should not be read as an "error," but rather simply an appropriation of language. It is an artifact of the translation process, not of the theological meaning of the text.
14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.
Scriptural: Nephi mentions that after the personal descension of the Holy Ghost, one "can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels." Certainly the gift of tongues is a gift of the spirit (1 Corinthians 12:10; Alma 9:21; Moroni 10:15-16) but it is not clear that this particular phrase refers to the "gift of tongues." Nephi suggests that this "baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost" will lead to a situation where one’s testimony is so firm, that should one afterward fall away "it would have been better for you that ye had not known me." This suggests that something more than the gift of tongues is meant. In this case, Nephi is speaking of a spiritual transformation - an alteration from the natural man to a spiritual man. Nephi is referring to what will later be termed a "mighty change" (Mosiah 5:2).
15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
There are actually two very crucial words that we should understand in that phrase: "endure" and "end". In the KJV, the word that is being translated "endure" is the Greek word hupomeno to "remain under". Meno is to remain (hupo is "under" and the word from which we get the prefix hypo-, as in hypodermic (under skin). The larger list of meanings for hupomeno is: "To stay behind, survive. To await another. To abide their presence. To be patient under, abide patiently, submit to. To wait for. To stand one’s ground, stand firm. Persist in doing". (Liddell and Scott) In the New Testament context, the meanings most applicable are "to be patient under," and "to stand firm," and "persist in doing." With those meanings, not the new context it gives to the following verse: 1 Corinthians 13:7 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Understanding the Greek meanings, we see this verse as a very short chiastic contruction, with "beareth" and "endureth" being equated, and "believeth" and "hopeth" standing as equivalents. In this context, the "bearing" and "enduring" have less to do with pain and suffering as they do with persistence and steadfastness. A loose retranslation might be "Standing firm in all things, believing all things, hoping all things, persisting in doing all things." The second word of interest is "end." The word "end" is translating the Greek word telos. The meanings of telos are: "the fulfilment or completion of anything. To be finished or ready. To be completed." There is another verse where these ideas are presented in the New Testament, and it is a verse that we might not otherwise connect with "endure to the end": Matthew 5:48 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. The word "perfect" is translating the Greek word teleios. Telos and Teleios are different forms of the same word. Specifically for teleios the definitions are: "having reached its end, complete. Of persons, absolute, complete, accomplished." In both of these cases, "perfect" and "end" both refer to something that is completed or finished. What is to be finished? The process of exaltation. We are enjoined to endure to the end, or, as it might be rephrased, persist in doing until we have been exalted. There is a goal in our mortal life that extends beyond the boundaries of this life. That is a path we are walking, and we are told to continue on that path until we reach the goal. This persistence in working on the process of exaltation is what Alma admires in his son, Helaman: Alma 38:2 2 And now, my son, I trust that I shall have great joy in you, because of your steadiness and your faithfulness unto God; for as you have commenced in your youth to look to the Lord your God, even so I hope that you will continue in keeping his commandments; for blessed is he that endureth to the end. Alma uses "continue in keeping his commandments" and "endureth to the end" as equivalent phrases. In Alma’s argument, this persistence in keeping the commandments will lead one to be blessed, because we are blessed if we persist in keeping the commandments (or enduring to the end). Christ himself clarifies to the Nephites gathered around the temple in Bountiful what the nature of the reward was when the "end" or "completion" came: 3 Nephi 15:9 9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. The "end" is eternal life, which is the same as becoming celestial people. That it the "end" for which we seek. 2 Nephi 31:16 16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved. Nephi provides his own explanation of what "endure to the end" means. For Nephi, it means to continue to follow the example of the Son of the living God. The important aspect of the phrase is the persistence in doing.
17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
Polemical: Nephi pronounces the name of the three, and specifically states that they are one God. At times, this passage has been used to suggest a development in Joseph’s theology from the triune God to a godhead. I propose that it is rather a legitimate statement of Old Testament style monotheism (with alterations appropriate to the different nature of Book of Mormon revelation). Let me give a little background on the concept of monotheism, a concept central to Old Testament theology, but one frequently misunderstood as we look backward. In the theological development evidenced in the Old Testament, monotheism stands out as the great innovation of Israelite religion. There is no other early monotheistic society. Even so, Israel’s monotheism was firmly in the context of a polytheistic world. The God of Israel was a corporate god, unique in his singular and direct relation to that corporate entity. However, the Old Testament is clear that Israel understood that other cultures had gods. They did not dismiss their existence, merely declared the superiority of their god above all others. Monotheism, at least in its roots, was not a belief in a single god to the exclusion of competing gods, but to an exclusive relationship between the corporate god and his people (and the proclamation of the superiority of that god). Monotheism, and the insistence upon the uniqueness of god in Israelite religion is a direct result of their physical and cultural location in the midst of polytheistic societies. The adamant preaching of the oneness of god forcibly stands in contrast to the multiplicity of competing gods in competing religions (which at times were evident within Israelite culture). The Book of Mormon provides exactly the same context. Having the Nephites live in Mesoamerica (as a current hypothesis) places them firmly in the same situation as Israel. They were required to stress the oneness of god to separate the concept from the completing pantheons around them. As with the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon theology of monotheism is perfectly appropriate as a response to polytheism. In contrast, modern Christian society is so firmly comfortable with their one god, that the clarification of the nature of the godhead is not confusing, and is certainly no temptation to the worship of a pantheon. In the context of the culture which surrounded the Nephites, it makes much more sense to see this passage as a monotheistic affirmation amidst polytheism than as an example of Joseph’s changing theology. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1999 |
2
Nephi 31:1
|
|
 |