   |
|
|
1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life. 1 Nephi 2:2 2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness.
In 1 Nephi 2:11 Lehi states "I have dreamed a dream; or in other words, I have seen a vision." The prophetic mode of communication to Lehi was through the medium of dreams. In the Old Testament this was one of a set of acceptable means of receiving communication from God. One of the most famous dreamers of the Old Testament is Joseph (for instance Genesis 37:5-10). Joseph not only receives a dream which indicates that he will eventually rule over his brethren (which very dream precipitates the events which will put Joseph in a position to fulfill the dream) but also serves as the dream interpreter for Pharaoh. The dreams that Joseph interpreted were full of images, images of bread, birds, wheat, fat and starving cattle. Other dreamers of the Old Testament similarly dreamed of images: "13 And when Gideon was come, behold, [there was] a man that told a dream unto his fellow, and said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and, lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came unto a tent, and smote it that it fell, and overturned it, that the tent lay along.14 And his fellow answered and said, This [is] nothing else save the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel: [for] into his hand hath God delivered Midian, and all the host (Judges 7:13-14)." The tradition of symbolic dreams continues into the New Testament, with the heavily symbolic Apocalypse of John. The hallmark of the dreamer is not the voice of the Lord, not the dictatable exposition of the will of the Lord, but a play with its own syntax and meaningful symbology. Lehi appears to fit into that mold with the rare glimpses we have into his visions. Unfortunately for the study of Lehi, we have Nephi's rendition of the dreams, not Lehi's. Contrary to Lehi, Nephi's prophetic mode was not one of dreaming. In fact, Lehi is the only dreamer attested in the Book of Mormon. It appears that this prevalent Old Testament mode of accepted communication between God and man dies out with Lehi and is replaced by a more direct and less symbolic mode of communication. The difficulty in interpreting the symbolic dreams is probably one of the reasons why Lehi's family was not able to give him full support during the times of crisis. Not only do Laman and Lemuel deride their father as a "visionary man" (1 Nephi 2:11) but even his wife emphasizes her concerns by calling him a visionary man (1 Nephi 5:2). The difficulty in understanding the message of the dreams leads even Nephi to struggle with his father's dreams, in particular, this most recent dream which commands their departure: "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers. (I Nephi 2:16)." Nephi's later discourse on his father's dream of the Tree of Life further indicates that Nephi was not a dreamer, and did not understand revelation through the medium of dreams. It if for this reason (most likely) that Nephi's accounts of his father's dreams is typically quite abbreviated, and relegated to a restatement of the purpose rather than the precise content of the dream. Of course this changes for the Tree of Life dream, but for reasons which will be examined when that dream is discussed.
3 And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him.
Randall P. Spackman has written a detailed treatise on chronological issues in the Book of Mormon. Concerning the departure of Lehi he quotes 1 Nephi 7:14: "For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison. And they have sought to take away the life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the land." He then concludes: "this passage provides one of the most important clues for dating the time of Lehi's departure from Jerusalem. According to Nephi, the actions taken against Jeremiah and the other prophets were directly connected with the threats on Lehi's life. This argument was not an academic discussion between friendly brothers, but an intense debate involving life and death issues... Thus, the knowledge of Lehi's sons concerning Jeremiah's imprisonment places the escape of Ishmael's family after the time when the Egyptians invaded the land of Judah" [587 B.C.E.](Spackman "Introduction to Book of Mormon Chronology" FARMS reprint, 1993, p. 10). Spackman also notes that when Lehi speaks to Laman and desires that righteousness might flow from Laman "like unto this river" (1 Nephi 2:5-9) that water had to have been coursing in the wadis. That would meant the rainy season, or December to February (Spackman p. 8). This information has Lehi's family departing Jerusalem close to December to February, at the end of 587 or the beginning of 586 B.C.E.
4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.
A competing idea of Lehi's profession is that he was a metalworker (John A. Tvedtnes "Was Lehi a Caravaneer? FARMS reprint 1984). Certainly some knowledge of metalworking is indicated. Perhaps we have in the family abilities in both fields. Notice, however, that Lehi takes "nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents. In spite of the fact that Lehi had a stable dwelling place in the land of his inheritance, and was apparently wealthy, yet Lehi *had* provisions and tents. It does not indicate that he went to any trouble to get the required provisions. This may be an argument based on very little evidence, but Nephi does discuss other details of the trip. Were this the very first time Lehi had ventured into the desert, it is likely that he would have had even more argument from his family than he did. Thus, whatever metalworking skills they had were clearly augmented by a knowledge of traveling in the desert.
5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.
A possibility that there were other women in Lehi's family comes from a statement by Erastus Snow:
This may have been information available in the record of Lehi which Nephi simply does not mention.
6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water. 1 Nephi 2:7 7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God. 1 Nephi 2:8 8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.
The easy answer is that Lehi was fleeing, and to go in virtually any other direction led him into thicker civilization, and possibly into the waiting arms of enemies. Toward the desert was the sure path of escape, a route which had been an historical option for those fleeing difficulties in their cities (Nibley, Lehi in the Desert p. 82). Along the border of the Red Sea, on the Eastern side, was a well known and traveled merchant trail. Even though it was well known, it was not likely to have held high traffic, and is likely that Lehi used this trail, and just as likely that he was familiar with it. In none of the verses dealing with the early part of the journey is their any indication that they did not know where they were going, or how they were to survive as they went there. Three days into their journey, they stop in a valley with a river. In the borders of the Red Sea there are several wadis which could have been blessed with water during the rainy season. As noted earlier, the fact that water was present helps to date the time of their arrival to the rainy season, as the river was likely not there at other times. Socio-Cultural information: Naming places When Lehi finds the river in the valley, he names it for Laman. In doing so he followed oriental custom in naming bodies of water, and other land features. It was not/ is not unusual for lands and features to have multiple names in different places (and likely for many to have been forgotten) (see Nibley Lehi in the Desert p. 88-89). Religious significance: Lehi's altar Lehi was a prophet called of God, and directed by that God to leave his home. Lehi clearly understood the reason for his flight to be the threats on his life. Notwithstanding that he had left his land of inheritance, his home, and his worldly goods, he nevertheless erected an altar to give thanks to the Lord for his deliverance. Notice that there are no known actual attempts on his life, and that the sole real evidence that Lehi has that he has been led to salvation is the word of the Lord. Nevertheless, it is sufficient for him, and he gives thanks for salvation from an event of which he really only knows by revelation. Lehi builds an altar of stones, which was a typical Arab/Hebrew wilderness altar. Building an altar of stones is, on the one hand, due to exigency as there were likely few other building materials available. However, the altar of stones is probably more significant than that. Why was the sacrificial site not a pit ringed by stones? Why was it not simply a brush pyre? Early Israelite worship understood "high places" to be of particular religious significance. Moses receives his epiphany on the Mount. The elevation of stones probably served two purposes, the first of which was to create a miniature "high place" which through its symbolic elevation provided a sacred location. The second was that the use of stones connected the altar to the natural order, and built a symbolic miniature sacred mountain upon which the offer of sacrifice would be effective. The next point of interest concerning Lehi's altar is that he built it in the first place. Lehi traced his genealogy through Joseph, not Levi, and therefore was not a Levite, and therefore not one of the line of priests who should be offering sacrifices. In addition to the obvious ability of the Lord to provide whatever priesthood is necessary for his prophets, it is also probably that Lehi was engaged in sacrifices which did not require Levites. Indeed, from what can be discerned of noted sacrifices in the Book of Mormon, they were not those which would have required a Levite. Clark Goble discusses the possible nature of the Law of Moses in the New World:
9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness! 1 Nephi 2:10 10 And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord! 1 Nephi 2:11 11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart. 1 Nephi 2:12 12 And thus Laman and Lemuel, being the eldest, did murmur against their father. And they did murmur because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them. 1 Nephi 2:13 13 Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father. 1 Nephi 2:14 14 And it came to pass that my father did speak unto them in the valley of Lemuel, with power, being filled with the Spirit, until their frames did shake before him. And he did confound them, that they durst not utter against him; wherefore, they did as he commanded them.
In spite of the fact that Laman and Lemuel serve as the symbolic foils for the conflict between God and Mammon, they were literally hindrances to the progress of the small party. At this time, there are only six known members of the party which has taken flight from Jerusalem, and of the six, two are adamantly against the action. To make matters worse, the two who are against the action are the oldest and second oldest son. Given the relative position of males and females in Israelite society, Sariah's position as one of the six is fairly minor. Lehi stands at the head, but the next two in importance are Laman and Lemuel. Not only by their numbers, but by their birthright, Laman and Lemuel are important to the family, and their disagreement with their father is significant. Nevertheless, the indication of the extent of their disagreement comes from Nephi, not necessarily Lehi. The only specific text we can trace to Lehi does not directly berate his sons, but does so only indirectly. Lehi does not condemn his sons outright, but rather attempts to place a positive side to their disruptions by desiring that they be better than they are. Lehi does not specifically mention Laman's murmuring, but rather desires that he be like a river running to the fountain of righteousness. The implication is there, but the sentiment is positive. Likewise Lehi's desire for Lemuel to be firm as a valley places his transgressions in their most favorable and forgiving light. Were it not for Nephi's clear explication of their dissention, we would not guess the depths of their disaffection from Lehi's words alone. Scriptural analysis: These verses provide one model of the reaction of the spiritually unfeeling to the word of God. Verse 11 states:
Note that Laman and Lemuel have clearly heard and understood the *fact* of their father's preaching. They have exposure to the word, and have understood the import thereof. However, they refuse to believe that the words have any validity. They begin by denouncing the messenger as a means of demeaning the message. Their father is a "visionary man". As discussed earlier, this is literally true. Lehi is a dreamer, and receives his revelation in the mode of dreams. The difficulty in interpreting dreams, however, makes it easier to dismiss their meaning. Laman and Lemuel do not use "visionary" as a descriptive, but rather a pejorative word. Their "evidence" for their father's lunacy is that he has required that they leave their land of inheritance and wealth - certainly a foolhardy thing to do. Thus, rather than inspiration, Lehi's visions are no more that the "foolish imaginations of his heart". As a model for those who cannot understand the things of God, Laman and Lemuel serve as remarkably typical examples. The world (its wisdom, its goods, its comforts) serve as the definition of what is real and important. When the word of God conflicts with the world (and any of those definitions) the world reigns supreme, and it must therefore be the word which is false and to be shunned. Linguistic information: Nibley discusses the use of the term "fountain" in these verses:
Redactive analysis: In the writing of this event, Nephi has chosen to keep the general events in their "historical" order. To this point in the narrative of Lehi's family, the textual focus is on Lehi and Lehi's actions. The imposition of the first person "I" of Nephi is limited to his introduction and some intercalated comments. The first person of Nephi is the writer/observer, and is not important to the text. Until the verses which follow. When Nephi describes the events of his father's ministry, he correctly emphasizes Lehi's actions in the valley of Lemuel. To that end, the beginning text cites Lehi's desires for his two eldest sons. It is only after that exhortation that Nephi begins to shift the narrative focus of his record away from the work of his father, and into the events of his own life. The explanation of the sins of Laman and Lemuel at this point in the text serve to do more than simply elaborate the reasons behind Lehi's particular exhortations. They serve as a crucial background to the introduction of Nephi into the narrative. This will he be clearer in the discussion of verse 16 to follow.
15 And my father dwelt in a tent.
Nibley discusses at length the cultural meaning of a tent for the Bedouin. It is the focus of their life, and their way of life, with strong oaths prominently featuring the image of the tent as the seat of the family (Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, Deseret Book 1952, p. 57-58). When Nephi notes that his father dwelt in a tent, his gives notice that they have adopted a nomadic style of life. The intent of the family is not simply to create a temporary dwelling while awaiting construction of a new home just outside of Jerusalem. They are in the tent as a way of living for a time to come. They will travel. They do not now have a permanent home.
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers. 1 Nephi 2:17 17 And I spake unto Sam, making known unto him the things which the Lord had manifested unto me by his Holy Spirit. And it came to pass that he believed in my words.
In the relationship of Nephi and Sam we find one of the clearer examples of two of the Gifts of the Spirit:
In this case, it was given to Nephi to have the direct confirmation of the truth of his father's words. It was a confirmation which he sought, and to which is character likely drove him, as this will occur again when Nephi wants to understand Lehi's dream of the Tree of Life. Sam, on the other hand, seems to have no driving compulsion to ask the Lord directly. Sam is able to hear Nephi's confirmation, and is able to believe it directly. From an informational standpoint, Sam appears to receive much or most of what Nephi had learned, as Nephi made "known unto him the things which the Lord had manifested unto" him (verse 17). According to the Doctrine and Covenants, these are both gifts of the spirit, and neither is indicated to be superior to the other. Both methods lead to the same end. Both Nephi and Sam remain faithful, and follow their father. Both receive the same blessing as Nephi in 2 Nephi 4:11. Redactive analysis: As noted above, "and my father dwelt in a tent" places a termination to the explicit story of Lehi. To this point in the Book of Mormon, Lehi is the major figure. Lehi is a prophet who preaches in Jerusalem. Lehi is the one whose life is threatened. Lehi is the one who leads his family out of Jerusalem into the wilderness. Lehi is the one who pronounces the fatherly exhortation to righteousness on the heads of Laman and Lemuel. Nephi appears as little more than the faithful recorder, a Watson to Lehi's Holmes. In just a few verses, however, the narrative shifts entirely, and makes that shift keying on the dissention of Laman and Lemuel. After Nephi describes Lehi's pronouncements for Laman and Lemuel, Nephi openly describes their rebellion and its causes. He ends that story of his father with the capping "and my father dwelt in a tent". The next verse reintroduces the "I" of the narrative, but this time not as a parenthetical comment, nor an introductory statement, but with Nephi as a major protagonist in the story. Indeed, from this point the text is really no longer an excerpt from the Book of Lehi, but truly the beginning of the Book of Nephi. At this point, the Book of Mormon shifts to become the story of Nephi, not Lehi. They key to the shift is that Nephi appears to entertain some of the same hesitations as his brothers. Unlike them, however, Nephi asks God. That direct communication of the validity of his father's message places Nephi's feet firmly on the road to his role and the prophet of the New World.
18 But, behold, Laman and Lemuel would not hearken unto my words; and being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts I cried unto the Lord for them. 1 Nephi 2:19 19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart. 1 Nephi 2:20 20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands. 1 Nephi 2:21 21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. 1 Nephi 2:22 22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. 1 Nephi 2:23 23 For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also. 1 Nephi 2:24 24 And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.
Nephi's preaching to his brethren also establishes the mission of the family from a second source, and complies with the word of God coming from two or more witnesses ( Deuteronomy 17:6). Redactive analysis: Nephi's confirmation from the Lord that his father's actions are divinely inspired (verse 16) are followed directly by a second witness from the Lord. While Nephi may have had other prayers answered prior to these events, we do not know of them. In fact the confirming witness which Nephi communicates to Sam has only one narrative function, and that is to set up the conditions for Nephi's first major revelation described in the text of the Book of Nephi. When Nephi cannot convince Laman and Lemuel as he did Sam, Nephi returns to the Lord. What Nephi receives at this time is his prophetic calling, and the divine validation of the social restructuring of the family affairs. Not only is Nephi called as a prophet (verses 19 and 20 - note that the Lord now specifically mentions leading Nephi to the land of promise - it does not say that Lehi would be led....)but Nephi is told that he will have political ascension over his brothers (verse 22). This is contrary to traditional law, and places Nephi in a similar context to Joseph of old (from whom he is descended) in that the younger brother has visions from the Lord, and eventually alters the traditional family position rules. Scriptural analysis (verses 19-24): Nephi's prophetic calling does not come without any preparation on Nephi's part. In verse 19 we see Nephi as a man of faith, who has sought the Lord diligently. Nephi possesses the faith and lowliness of heart to use his faith. He also does so for the benefit of others, not simply for selfish motives. Verse 20 implicitly calls Nephi to be the prophet of the exodus to the New World. Indeed, from this point in the narrative on, Lehi's role diminishes and Nephi's increases. In this context it interesting to note that the first indication of the ultimate destination of the family's journey comes to Nephi, not Lehi, if our indications are correct from the text as we have it. It may be that Lehi knew, but there is no evidence of it in the current Book of Mormon. Since the purpose of Nephi's inquiry to the Lord is to plead for Laman and Lemuel, he receives information about them. It was not the hopeful information that Nephi had probably desired. The Lord does not instruct Nephi on the methods of converting his brethren. There is no "tell them to go and wash seven times in the river Jordan" (see 2 Kings 5:10-14). Nephi is rather clearly told that should his brethren rebel, they should be cut off. The lack of hope in that statement continues with the predictions that Nephi will rule over his brethren, and the description of a long-lasting feud between his and his brothers lineages (v 24 "they shall be a scourge unto they seed...). |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
1
Nephi 2:1
|
|
 |