|
|
3 Nephi 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Nephi 13:1 1 Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto the poor; but take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is in heaven.
One of the religious acts of the day was the giving of alms. While this served a “horizontal” purpose, it was nevertheless an act that showed piety before God. The emphasis is therefore on the proper way to give alms. Notice that there is no question about whether or not they are to be given. The focus of this lesson is on the spiritual value of the giving, not the social effect of the reception of what was given. A theme running through this set of instructions for vertical relations with God is that of a reward. The concept that living the law of God results in either a reward or punishment is a common theme in the scriptures. While it is certainly a simplification of the process, it is a familiar enough metaphor that we all understand it. We break the law of God: we are punished. We live the law: we are rewarded. The theme of the reward flows through this section rather than punishment because all of the examples assume that the correct act is done. It is not the correct action, but rather the internal motivation to that action that is the focus, just as it was in the section on the horizontal relationships. All of these actors perform their religious duties. All of them therefore are liable to reward rather than punishment. However, the source of the reward becomes the focus. All who perform the acts are rewarded, but the source of the reward changes. Old World Context: In the ancient world there was no Social Security. There was no church welfare system. There were abundant needy, but no official governmental program to address their needs. What there was, was public and private offerings. These offerings, or alms were collected on regular bases, and distributed to the needy. Certain festivals would provide particular occasion for the redistribution of goods. Alms took three forms in the Israel of Jesus day. The first was the alms dish. This was a collection plate that was accompanied by three men and taken as an active collection. This was apparently a door to door collection, and the presence of the three men was to provide assurances that the offering would arrive at the intended location. The second type was the poor’s-chest. This was a more passive collection in that the offering point was the synagogue. The collection was made on the Sabbath as worshippers came. This offering was distributed on the next Sabbath’s eve. The final type of alms was the alms of the field. Since one of the great needs of the poor was food, a direct offering occurred in the fields. A corner of the field was left unreaped. Sheaves left in the field were alms whether left intentionally or unintentionally. The poor also had the right of gleaning in the field as part of the alms-offering of the owner of the field. (John Lightfoot. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmiud and Hebraica. Hendrickson Publishers, 1989, 2:138-140). As Jesus opens this unit on the true nature of our religious devotions to God, he takes an accepted and necessary devotion, that of offering alms, and makes a distinction. That distinction is that the offering should be done for God and not for man. It should be done in private, not public. This sets the theme that will continue though this section. There is an association made between public/private and men /God. That which is public belongs to men, and the private belongs to God. Book of Mormon Context: We do not know what the social mechanisms were for the redistribution of goods in Nephite society. We know that the people were consistently admonished to treat all equally, and we have King Benjamin’s statement that they should not turn away the beggar (Mosiah 4:16). The economic situation in Mesoamerica was very different from that of the Old World. The communities were still more tightly associated with the land, and therefore there were probably fewer needy that there were in Israel in Jesus’ time when the economics of the world had removed land ownership from many of the poor and reduced the amount of produce from the land that they could keep for themselves. We also do not know of any situation in which there were public collections for the poor where ostentation before men would be a temptation. Nevertheless, while the specific case of alms before men and God is not a known social problem for the Nephites, they did have temptations to ostentation before God as witnessed by the Zoramite heresy. The Zoramites clearly arranged their religious devotions to be seen of men, and in their case, to exclude the poor. They are witnesses of the existence of the problem of the nature of one’s devotions, even if their example better fits the section on prayer which follows than this current lesson on the proper way to give alms. Textual: Although this section comprises a shift in the text of the Sermon on the Mount, it is not the beginning of a new sermon, but a continuation of the sermon. The chapter breaks intentionally follow those in the KJV, but those are arbitrary and break up the Sermon on the Mount into three chapters. In the 1830 edition, the entire sermon is given as a block, without the breaks. Even though it is clear that the KJV text is the base model for the 3 Nephi redaction, it is not copied blindly. In this case, an important change is made by recreating the sermon as a whole rather than splitting it into pieces that make greater conceptual divisions for the reader than ought to be there. Our modern versification makes it easier to correlate to the KJV, but it recreates the artificiality of the KJV (and other Bible versions) chapter breaks. The only textual change is the addition of the introductory statement: “Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto the poor.” This sentence serves as a clarification for a modern audience for whom the term alms might not be familiar in its social context. In the ancient world, the connection between alms and the poor would have been so obvious that the qualifier that alms were for the poor would be redundant. In the modern world it might be like saying “taxes for the government.” That is redundant, as we understand that taxes have no other direction. What this sentence does, therefore, is render the ancient more intelligible to the modern. It is not translation of words, but rather of concepts, and in this case the translation of a concept where the connection might have been diminished through time.
2 Therefore, when ye shall do your alms do not sound a trumpet before you, as will hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
The second set of terms is hypocrites/men. Of the two, the men is the most familiar usage because it means just what we assume it means. The men is the community. The word that can cause problems is hypocrites. In English this word connotes one whose moral reasons for acting in a certain way are questionable. The Greek word that is transliterated as hypocrites simply meant an actor, literally one who acted on a stage. In the original context, these were not people singled out for their suspicious motivations, but for placing themselves on a stage. Of course the implication that their motivations were less than religiously pure comes from the context of the saying, so it is no wholly incorrect. It does, however, alter the original understanding if the emphasis is on the stage and the showiness, and that it is the showiness that is being contrasted with the proper way to show this type of religious piety. The showiness before men is implicitly contrasted with a private act before God. Jesus is saying that the change of “theater” alters the giver of the reward. If we act on stage so that men see our actions, we are rewarded by the men who see. If we act in private where God sees but men do not, then it will be God who does the rewarding. There is no known association of blowing the trumpet when bringing alms to the poor’s box in the synagogue. (John Lightfoot. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmiud and Hebraica. Hendrickson Publishers, 1989, 2:139-40) This comment appears rather to speak of the custom of blowing trumpets in the festivals of distribution. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 278). The point of the trumpet, of course, was to announce the act to the public, and the clear implication was that the actors on the stage would call attention to themselves for their ability to provide the alms. Book of Mormon context: The specifics of this saying depend upon details of first-century Jewish practice that are not specifically known for the New World. The nature of poverty in the New World along with the nature of economics suggests that a poor’s box would not have been used. Such a collection point works in a monetary economy, but not in the barter economy as was found in the New World. Nevertheless, even though the specific example is culture-bound to first-century Israel, the problem it discusses was relevant and extant in the Book of Mormon. One of the problems created by the ostentatious giving is the very obvious difference between the person who is able to give and the one who needs to receive. The public giving creates a situation where a social hierarchy is made visible and reinforced. This is the continuing Book of Mormon issue with one who exalts himself above another. The issue of creating social hierarchies was a large problem for the Nephites, and one of their sorest temptations. This saying would be applicable to them in the context of reinforcing the need for the principle of social egalitarianism that was the Nephite ideal. Textual: The changes in the 3 Nephi redaction serve to change the verse from the 2nd person singular to the second person plural. This makes sense in for English as we know that Jesus is speaking to a large group. The KJV is reproducing a more intimate discourse that appears to be between Jesus and one other person. However, clearly the New Testament context is a large gathering as in the New World. This change simply makes the more modern grammar fit with the known context. Matthew 6:2 2 Therefore when [ye shall do your] (thou doest thine) alms, do not sound a trumpet before [you] (thee), as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; 3 Nephi 13:4 4 That thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly.
The focus of verse 3 is to emphasize the private nature of the alms. Not only should we not act out our piety on the stage of men, we should do them with purity of heart and singleness of purpose. In the ancient world the connection between the hands was not simply one that recognized that we have two of them, but that we have a duality in us. The left represented evil and the right good. The English word sinister comes from the Latin word for left. There are recorded occasions when certain rabbis would eat or drink only with the right hand, ostensibly to indicate the purity of their actions. (John Lightfoot. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmiud and Hebraica. Hendrickson Publishers, 1989, 2:141-2). In verse 3 it is assumed that the right hand is acting. The left, the one symbolic of evil, is not to know what the right hand is doing. Of course God always knows, but we are to do our pious actions in a way that God will, but not even the symbolic evil one will know. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
5 And when thou prayest thou shalt not do as the hypocrites, for they love to pray, standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
Textual: There are two changes in this text. The second is required by the first. Matthew 6:5 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not [do] (be) as the hypocrites (are): for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. The first change would appear to be the removal of the italicized word, are. Once that was gone, the verb was required to be edited to make sense of the sentence in the absence of the italicized word. The essential meaning of the text has not been altered at all. The only reason for any of the changes was to remove the italicized word.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
281). We have many antitheses active in this section. We have “in the streets and synagogues”/ “in very private interior rooms for only one person.” We have the public/private antithetical set. We also have the interesting set of God “seeing secret”/ “rewarding openly.” This continues the inside/outside, reward of men/reward of God themes that was begun in the first section on alms. Prayer is another expected devotion, but true prayer is done before God, not before men. Book of Mormon Context: We actually know a fair amount about the living places of different Mesoamerican peoples. The wealthy lived in compounds of buildings that were built of permanent materials, such as stone or cement. The farmers lived in homes that were built of wood with thatched roofs, not at all unlike those that may been seen in the modern homes of the descendants of these the Book of Mormon period people. None of these homes were laid out in the same way as an Israelite home, and none of them have consistent interior rooms without windows. Indeed, none of the homes had windows, and certainly the homes of the common people had none, nor any interior room at all. Rather than closets, the roof beams were used to hang things that would have been placed in the Israelite “closet.” Thus this particular verse is again couched in terms that are culture-bound to the Old World context. In the New World there is still the importance of public and private devotion, and Zoramites continue to serve as a reminder that the Savior had ample reason to remind the Nephites of the importance of the proper intent in their prayers. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
It is very important that we understand that the context of this admonition is heathen prayer, not the prayer of the believer. Part of the importance of this message is that no matter what the heathen says, they cannot be heard, because they are praying to the wrong god(s). Nevertheless, despite the impossibility of their prayers being heard, they continue do pray, and do so in ways that they think will be effective. They pray in ways that they “they think that they shall be heard.” In the ancient
world there was much more of what we might term magic in religion. One of the
aspects of the magic of the ancient world was the belief in the
effectiveness of words. We have the remnants of the idea of powerful words when
we repeat the phrase “speak of the devil.” We tend to cut the full phrase down
to this abbreviated form, but we understand that we say this when a person
appears about whom we have been speaking. The full phrase was “speak of the
devil and he shall appear,” and it has reference to the power of speaking the
name to compel the presence. The connection between name and person was very
strong, and the speaking of the name in the proper conditions was believed to
be effective, that is, to cause
that person to appear. In like manner, the concept of spells and
amulets was to use effective,
powerful language to create the
desired change. Thus if one said a magic spell correctly, the outcome would be
as indicated in the spell. Speaking the formula incorrectly would invalidate
the word-spell, and it would not work. Thus the ancient world was filled with
the concept of the effectiveness of words. This is the background against
which we need to see this evocation of the heathen prayers. Those prayers could
not be truly effective because they were not directed to the true God. However,
the heathen still believed that their prayers could be effective by repeating
them correctly. Thus they repeated the formulas, the
magic, of the prayers. The repetition would increase the force of the formula. The example pits the form of the prayer against the meaning of the prayer. Just as it is quite possible
to righteously pray in public (such as for a public gathering, such as a church
meeting) it was also possible for repeated words to be a righteous prayer (as
in the sacramental prayers). The important point was that we understand that
the effective part of prayer is the internal meaning of
the prayer, not the very words we speak. Prayer is not a magic formula, but a
heartfelt petition to the Lord. Book of Mormon Context: We do not know what
the prayers were for the rest of the Mesoamerican world at this time because
there are no contemporaneous records. However, we can surmise that they would
have been strongly influenced by the principles of effective magic because
the root of much Mesoamerican religion was shamanic, and shamanistic religions
understand the spiritual world as one that is susceptible to human manipulation
through rituals. It is very probable that this teaching was quite at home in the
New World context. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him.
Jesus reverses this view of how prayer works. Not only is prayer not a way to bind God, it is simply our petition to God to have God work in our favor as he already knows we need. The directionality of the need fulfillment is reversed. We do not decide what we need and require it of the gods as do the heathen, but we petition God to act in our favor, which He will do because He knows what is really in our favor. Social Context: In the world and among the people to whom Jesus spoke, there was great need to understand that God could be acting in their interests even when He did not fulfill their wants. As a people, Israel wanted to throw off the Roman domination. As a segment of society, the poor wanted to throw off the domination of their overlords and those to whom they were indebted. They wanted many things that were not forthcoming. They had prayers unanswered. Where was God in this process? It was important for them to realize that there was a God who answered prayers, but answered them according to the spiritual needs of the person, not the material ones. This was a God who understood what they truly needed in their spirits and provided that, even while their prayers for deliverance for earthly problems did not appear to be effective. God gives us what we need, not what we want. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
The opening phrase of the model prayer addresses God as Father. More specifically, it addresses God as “our Father.” Even more specifically, it addresses “our Father, who art in heaven.” The force of this introduction is to establish a relationship between the one offering the prayer and God, to whom the prayer is offered. First, we have the designation of “our Father.” This is a title of inclusiveness. There is a relationship of Fatherhood, but it is not exclusive. It is shared by all of his children on earth. He is our Father, not my Father. Secondly, the concept of Father in itself establishes a type of connection between God and us. This is particularly important in the Book of Mormon context because it was their understanding that the Fatherhood of God was literally a transformational relationship. Mosiah 5:7 7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. The covenantal relationship of the Nephites established the kin relationship with God. Through our covenants we become family and kin with God, with God at the head, as would be a Father. As in a family, we have required relationships of mutual care, trust, and responsibility. Thus for the Nephites, the designation of Father was literally one of kin relationship, and they would have understood that title to be indicative of the nature of the relationship that was expected. In spite of the kin relationship, our Father, is a particular type of Father, as he is in heaven. This qualifier not only distinguishes God the Father from the rights and responsibilities of our earthly Fathers, but it also indicates the realm of operation. God the Father is not only in heaven he is concerned with heaven. His realm is heaven, and his purposes are directed to the eternal, not to the temporal. In the context of the introduction to the Lord’s prayer, this recognition of the realm of operation for God is significant. When we pray to this God who knows beforehand what we need, we should expect that the needs that are understood and attended to are heavenly concerns. It is our spiritual and eternal welfare that is God’s concern, not our mortal and temporal lives. For the Israel of Jesus’ time, God was concerned with throwing off the bondage of Satan, not the Romans. The last phrase is “hallowed be thy name.” The term hallowed is an older English form meaning to make sacred. Of course more than the name of God is to be made or held to be sacred. The power of the name was such in the ancient world that it was a representation of the person, and so intimately connected with the person that the invocation of the name might be considered as requiring the presence of the person. The sacredness of the person of God is embodied in the name, and this intimate relationship between person and name is what led to the Jews declining to pronounce the name of God. Of course no human should be so presumptuous as to attempt to demand the presence of God by pronouncing the Name and therefore essentially commanding God’s presence. The beginning of the prayer therefore establishes and recognizes the relationship that we have before God. He is our common Father, but we are as siblings before him. The nature of our vertical relationship also defines our horizontal relationship. As we approach this person we come as we would to a father, with respect, but with an assumption of the favorable relationship with that Father. In spite of the familiarity of our model of God as Father, we still must understand God as different from our earthly Father. God is concerned with a different realm. Our relationship may be familiar as with a Father, but it is still one of respect for God, which we recognize by noting the sacredness of the person as represented by the Name. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean version.
10 Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Textual: The 3 Nephi redaction removes the entire first phrase from the Matthean text: Matthew 6:10 10 (Thy kingdom come.) Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. This is an unusual deletion. It is quite certain that this was part of the Old World version of the prayer. It is attested in the various manuscripts of the text, and corroborated in the Didache, a very early second-century church manual: “Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.” (Italics added. Didache). The removal of the phrase from the Book of Mormon has not altered the way in which the verse is seen by modern LDS authorities. For instance, it is assumed to be part of the phrase when President Anthony W. Ivins concludes his conference discourse: “May the blessings of the Lord be upon you. May his protecting hand be over you, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit direct you and abide with you and all who seek to establish righteousness and justice upon the earth; that God's kingdom may be established and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. This is my humble prayer, my brethren and sisters, in your behalf and in behalf of all the world Amen.” (Italics added. President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1930, First Day—Morning Meeting 19 - 20.) The deletion is more unusual in that the retained phrase flows from the deleted invocation of the presence of God’s kingdom on earth. The reason that God’s word would be done on earth as in heaven is that the kingdom of God would be on the earth. Thus the Old World context of this line in the prayer is dependent upon the conception of the coming of the kingdom of God. In what context is this phrase inapplicable in the New World? It is possible that the removal of this phrase has to do with the Messianic associations of the invocation that the kingdom of God come. In the New World there is a dual association with the Messiah. There is the Atoning Messiah and the Triumphant Messiah. While the kingdom is associated with the Triumphant Messiah, the presence of the Atoning Messiah in their midst might indicated that at least some portion of the kingdom had come. The presence of the Savior in their midst is the presence of that kingdom, and therefore perhaps redundant that they pray for its coming. The second reason for the removal of the phrase has to do with the differing contexts of the Old and New World. In the Old World the political domination of Israel by a foreign nation was the harsh reality of everyday life, and the constant expectation of Israel was that their Triumphant Messiah would come to redeem them physically. In the Old World, the prayer continues to recognize the coming of the Messiah, but continues to push that ultimate political solution into the future. The Book of Mormon context has no such political domination by an outside force, therefore no such constant desire for the advent of the Triumphant Messiah. For the Book of Mormon the emphasis was clearly on the coming of the Atoning Messiah, and it was he who stood before them to give them the instruction on prayer. Therefore, the emphasis on the continual patience for the awaited kingdom was unnecessary.
11 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
The difference with the heavenly debts was that they could be absolved, and the mechanism was simple. It was related to our own actions. At this point Jesus returns to the theme of one of the Beatitudes: Matthew 5:7 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Refer to the commentary on that verse for the way in which our actions form the model for the way God interacts with us. In a very real sense, we will obtain mercy in the same way we show it. We will receive forgiveness from God in the same way as we give it to others. Jesus equates the vertical and horizontal relationships, and indicates that we should act the same in both realms, and in both cases, we ought to imitate the characteristics of God. Book of Mormon Context: Mesoamerica was not a monetary economy and therefore the particular debt-relationships that plagued Jesus’ Old World audience did not exist in the New World. We do not have any information about debt relationships directly in the Book of Mormon, though there is a hint that at least in surrounding cultures slavery was practiced. (Mosiah 2:13 and commentary on that verse) Later evidence of slavery indicated that it could be the result of indebtedness, but there is no direct evidence for that practice either earlier in Mesoamerican history, or in the Book of Mormon. Textual: The 3 Nephi redaction deletes a phrase from the Lord’s prayer: Matthew 6:11-12 11 (Give us this day our daily bread.) 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. The removal of the Matthean verse is certainly not due to the lack of attestation in New Testament manuscripts, and is corroborated in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:3). Indeed, this forms an important part of the Old World prayer. It has been suggested that the removal in the New World prayer is a recognition of a differing context, where the Old World Sermon was given to the disciples who really would have to go without purse or scrip, and therefore needed to pray that they would be given their daily bread (see Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987-1992], 4: 83; Robert J. Matthews, Behold the Messiah [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1994], 116; Paul R. Cheesman and C. Wilfred Griggs, eds., Scriptures for the Modern World [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1984], 91.). This suggestion is tempting, but it depends upon understanding the Sermon on the Mount as directed exclusively to the twelve, a situation that is improbable for the New Testament sermon. That sermon makes sense only when given to the assembled multitude. The assumption appears to be related to a particular reading of Matthew 5:1-2 Matthew 5:1-2 1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, The twelve-exclusive reading of this passage has Jesus seeing a multitude and purposefully leaving them. To see the Sermon on the Mount as instructions to the twelve exclusively, one must read the term disciples here as meaning only the twelve. While the twelve were disciples, not all disciples were the twelve. In this case, the intent of Matthew is not show Jesus removing himself from the multitudes who were assembling to hear him, but rather teaching them. The multitude is the set of disciples, not just the twelve. Both the Old World and the New World sermon are given to a multitude of believers, and we cannot lean on the assumption of the missionary assignment of the twelve as a reason to explain the absence of the phrase “give us this day our daily bread.” The contextual argument is absolutely untenable in the face of the next phrase that is retained. If there are consistent contextual differences between the Old World and the New World, then we should also expect some alteration to the phrase “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” That phrase is absolutely dependent upon an economic context that existed in the Old World, but not in the New World. Without a monetary economy, the concepts of indebtedness were very different in the New World. If we were to use context as the explanation for inclusion or exclusion, we might actually see the need for daily bread as constant across to the two worlds, and the indebtedness as the variable. The original context for “give us this day our daily bread” has a purposefully dual referent. Bread is not only the physical staff of life, it is the symbolic staff of life. Jesus himself was the “bread of life” in John (John 6:33-35). Manna was the bread from heaven that symbolized the protection and care of the Father. In the particular setting for the Sermon where so much of the imagery rests on the nature of the poor in first-century Israel, the requirement for daily bread was an important concern. It is particularly important that the current “daily bread” follows the prayer for the arrival of the kingdom. In the social context of the original prayer, the kingdom is in the future, and the need for bread is present. The prayer hopes for the glorious fullness, but requires the immediate necessity. What creates the reason for the exclusion of this phrase from the 3 Nephi redaction? If we attempt to recreate a condition that would have altered the text as it was given to the Nephites, we encounter the interpretive problems noted above. However, understanding that Joseph is interacting with the Old World text suggests that the reason for the removal of the phrase is the presumption of the request that the bread be given. It is likely that the exclusion comes from the difference between the assumption that one must work for one’s daily bread as opposed to having it given to us. It is certainly possible to incorrectly read this petition as one that requests manna-like deliverance. Our reality is much more closely tied to our use of agency to accomplish our ends. More relevant to our experience is God’s command in Genesis: Genesis 3:19 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread… The most likely scenario for the exclusion of the phrase from the Lord’s prayer is this perceived conflict with the need to earn bread and the presumption that the phrase in the Lord’s prayer suggested that there was no need to work for one’s daily bread.
12 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
The meaning derives from a continuation of a theme of opposition or antithesis. In this case there is a parallel between temptation and evil. In the Greek it is more likely that the intent was not generic evil, but rather the evil one. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 297) This parallel is even stronger when we realize that it is in Matthew that we have a full accounting of the temptation of the Lord by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11), a scene that is in the chapter that precedes Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, in the context of Matthew’s gospel, temptation and the evil one are linked and serve as parallel concepts. The next set of parallels are parallels in apposition. We have the reversal of lead into and deliver from. Since God is to deliver us from Satan, the balancing phrase virtually required a counterbalancing lead into. Of course it is not correct that God would lead us into temptation, and therefore the first phrase is a negative condition. The structure of oppositions that has been central to many of the themes in this Sermon should be seen as the underlying form and cause of the language in this particular saying. Textual: There is no change in the 3 Nephi redaction. However, when Joseph revisited the Sermon on the Mount as we has translating the Bible, he did make alterations in the Matthean text: JST Matthew 6:14 14 And [suffer us not to be led] (lead us not) into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Clearly the issue when Joseph revisited this verse was the idea that God might lead us into temptation. The theological issue is that God would not cause us to sin, and therefore we need not ask him to stop doing it. It also removes a potential conflict with James: James 1:13 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
13 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
Of course this entirely misses the point. The translation method did not always require that Joseph translate anew from the plate text, and in particular it appears that it was preferable for the original modern audience that texts that resembled the KJV should also replicate the KJV. We are seeing not a condemnation of translation, but a definition of translation as Joseph used the term. Since he used the KJV Matthean text as the basis for the 3 Nephi Sermon, it is no surprise that this phrase should be retained. Even if this phrasing is adopted later, it was probably adopted quite early, as we see a variant of it in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: 1 Chronicles 29:11 11 Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. It is quite probable that this combination of expressions was linked to a liturgical description of the Lord early in the Christian church, and therefore the early presence in Paul is part of that standard language, which is then added as the final phrasing to the Lord’s Prayer.
14 For, if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 3 Nephi 13:15 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
The content and location of these two verses lend credence to the suspicion that the previous verse is a later insertion in the Lord’s prayer. These two verses pick up on the precise theme that is given in verse 11 (compare Matthew 6:12). Without the final line of praise to God, these two verses come much closer to their apparent context, which is an an expansion of verse 11. Matthew’s textual construction is elsewhere tightly controlled, and it would be unusual for Matthew to have left these two verses unconnected and unconnectable. Removing that final line allows these two verses to be what they appear to be, which is an expansion of the meaning of verse 11 (or Matthew 6:12). The forgiveness of trespasses flows directly out of the forgiveness of debts. Rather than the debt of one man to another, our trespasses comprise our debt before God. Once again the principle that is taught is that the way we conduct our horizontal relationships will become the model for the way God conducts our vertical relationship. With so much emphasis on this interesting relationship between man and God, it is important to take a moment and understand why it is so. If God judges according to a divine and eternal justice, how can he justly judge us according to our human judgments? Shouldn’t God judge us against some eternal truth rather than our actions? The answer to this lies in understanding what it is that we are all about while on this earth. Unfortunately, too much or the language we use to describe heaven leaves us with the incorrect idea of what we are doing. We say, for instance, that God is testing us. That helps to understand some of the nature of agency, but it is ultimately an unsatisfying answer. Why should God test us if he already knows the answers? If God is omniscient, should he not already know what we will do before we do it? If so, doesn’t the very definition of God preclude him gaining any information from the testing? The testing and the proving are not to prove ourselves to God. By definition, He already knows. Therefore the testing an proving must be for us. How are we tested and tried? Psalms 66:10 10 For thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us, as silver is tried. The proving of the silver does not test to see if it is silver or not. It truly is silver, even before the proving. The difference is the impurities. Those are burned out in the hot furnaces and the silver is tried. This life becomes for us the hot furnace that will prove the silver within us. We are children of God… Romans 8:17 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ… The true silver is already in us, but it needs to be refined. Agency is the process by which our incipient God-like natures are exercised against opposition so that we develop those attributes in the way that God has. We are to continue this process of refining our spiritual qualities until we have become “perfect, even as [our] Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48).
16 Moreover, when ye fast be not as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. 3 Nephi 13:17 17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face; 3 Nephi 13:18 18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father, who is in secret; and thy Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
Old World Context: The traditional context of fasting was one of emphasis on deprivation. It frequently accompanied mourning, and was therefore considered appropriate for festival occasions that recognized national calamities (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 298). It is the context of calamities or other afflictions that influenced the cultural attitudes towards fasting. Since it was typically found in contexts of mourning for something if not someone, then it was appropriate to appear as if in mourning. Hence the public attire reflecting an attitude of mourning. When Jesus counsels on fasting, he is shifting the reasons for fasting from one of affliction to one of spiritual preparation. Thus for Jesus, fasting is not mourning, but spiritual purification. It is therefore appropriate for them to anoint themselves rather than take on the visual aspects of mourning. The combination of fasting and prayer was an understood intensifier of prayer in Judaism (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 299). This is the context in which it functions for Jesus. The difference was not in the function, but in the visual presentation. For Jesus, fasting could be integrated into one’s life as a regular part of one’s spiritual preparation. The Pharisees fasted twice a week. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 298). It is probable that Jesus performed some type of regular fasting. The best proof of this is the occasion of the healing of the young man after the failure of the disciples to accomplish the healing: Matthew 17:19-21 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. On this occasion, the apostles certainly were faithful, but yet unable to perform the healing. When Jesus arrives, he is able to immediately perform the healing. He does not say, I must fast, and leaves to fast for a period of time. What he does is perform the healing as assure the twelve that this additional capability was due to fasting. That fasting had to have been performed prior to that event, and as part of a continuous process of spiritual preparation. Book of Mormon Context: The Book of Mormon context of fasting includes both the aspects of mourning (Alma 28:6; Alma 30:2) and spiritual preparation in conjunction with prayer (Alma 6:6; Alma 17:3). What is not know for the Book of Mormon is whether or not there were visual manifestations of fasting or mourning. Because we do not know if there was a visual component of fasting in the New World, the applicability of this particular part of the Sermon to the New World context is unknown. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal; 3 Nephi 13:20 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. 3 Nephi 13:21 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
The treasure that is “laid up” on earth is necessarily an earthly treasure. It is used as the foundation of the metaphor because it would be so common for a poor people to dream of such treasures. Modern saints are no less susceptible to this temptation than our ancient forbearers. In some ways our plight is even worse because the advent of purchases on credit allow us to possess such treasures even when we cannot currently afford them. Thus our interest in these earthly treasures is not simply one of longing, but of current possession. The fundamental contrast in the teaching is the nature of the things that are treasured. For earthly treasures the imagery suggest perishability. The treasures are accumulated goods, where fancy clothing might be destroyed by such natural causes as moths. This is contrasted to a heavenly treasure that is permanent. There are, of course, differences between the earthly and heavenly treasures. The earthly treasures are valuable and desirable while on this earth, but they are also temporary. They cannot last. Heavenly treasures last forever. The problem, of course, is that they do not appear to be of as much usefulness during this life. As with many of the Beatitudes, Jesus teaches that we should look forward to the rewards of heaven rather than the rewards of earth. Book of Mormon context: This is a lesson of particular importance to the Nephite people. The greed for temporal wealth had been at the heart of the Nehorite heresy as well as the most recent Gadianton influence. The temptation to the worldly wealth had been a great part of the changes that led to the destruction of the Nephite polity. The Nephites in Bountiful would not have been those who had accepted those temptations to worldly wealth, but they would certainly be in a position to appreciate this reinforcement of the nature of their relationship to wealth. Textual: There are no changes from the Matthean text. In the 3 Nephi redaction as well as the Matthean text this verse begins a set of teachings that have no interrelationship. Whereas other sections of the sermon had thematic threads that linked the teachings, in this case we have various teachings that exemplify the gospel, but have no discernible relationship from one to the other. The translation of
this verse in the KJV uses “rust” as a translation for a word that more
properly translations as “eating,” or perhaps an “eating-thing.” The literary
parallel in the Greek would therefore be perhaps better translated as moth
and worm rather than moth and rust. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation
for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982,
p. 326). The unstated treasure of the original would therefore be excess
clothing and food rather than simply finery and metallic wealth. The rust would not apply to precious metals in any
case. This concept of moth and
worm would be a more applicable
message for the New World. Nevertheless, the text was left with moth and rust.
22 The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 3 Nephi 13:23 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
The second aspect of this teaching is the contrast between light/dark as a contrast between good/bad. This symbolic contrast is sufficiently pervasive in our own culture that we understand it quickly. It is the combination of this metaphorical usage of light and darkness with the idea that the eye projects light from inside out that allows us to understand how this teaching was understood. The light or lamp of our body projects light. The optimum condition is when that eye is “single.” The Greek might also be translated as “sound.” The particular contextual meaning for “sound” is one of wholeness, completeness, or without blemish (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 330). Thus when the lamp is pure or perfect, it can project a soul full of light. The contrast is given in the KJV as “evil,” but should be read as the opposite of “single/sound.” Thus we have one case where the light if full because the eye us sound and another where there is darkness because the light is unsound. It is quite probable that there is a naturalistic picture that was well known standing behind these images. The ancient world was well acquainted with lamplight at night, and would be well aware of the amount of light given off, and particularly the quality of the light. If there were an unsound fuel source, the light would not be as consistent, or possibly as bright. Thus the soundness of the source was directly seen in the quality of the light given off. It is in this context that we see the darkness in the soul. With the unsound eye or lamp, the evidence of the dimming or inconsistent light was an impurity of the source. This teaching serves to underline many of the teachings of the earlier part of the Sermon where the importance of the internal spiritual change is considered to be the most important. The light emanating form one’s eye was evidence of that internal quality. Book of Mormon Context: We have no evidence for the cultural conception of the light as lamp or receptor. We do not know how a Mesoamerican audience would have understood this reference. Textual: There is no change from the Matthean text.
24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
Book of Mormon context: We know that the principle of serving either man or God would have been applicable to the Nephites as it is to all humanity. What we do not know is the particular types of master/servant relationships their might have been. It is possible that they were similar to those of Israel, but unlikely given the differing economic situations and the meaning of a master in the Old World at this time. Textual: There is no change from the text of the Matthean sermon. However, the 1830 edition does make a change in the text at this point that cannot be seen in the recutting of chapters to more closely follow the KJV. In the 1830 edition, this verse ends a chapter. The information that will allow us to analyze this is contained in the next verse, and will be discussed at that point.
25 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Textual: In addition to a chapter break that does not occur at this point in the KJV, we have an addition to the text that creates a new social context for the next set of verses. At this point Jesus breaks off speaking to the multitude and shifts specifically to the disciples. This shift in context allows this next section comprising verse 25-33 to be a specific command to the twelve rather than an address to the multitude. The reason for cutting the text in this way would be the same as in the elimination of Matthew 6:11 (Give us this day our daily bread). The “problem” lies in the apparent requirement that the listeners not work for a living. By giving the command to the twelve only, this may be seen as applying to missionary work where the twelve were to travel without purse or scrip. This shift in context is clearly inserted to resolve this problem since as soon as this section is over, the text has Jesus returning to the multitude. Although this insertion involves a description of Jesus actions in the New World, since that description is in the context of the insertion of the Old World Sermon, it is best to see this text as one of Joseph Smith’s interactions with his source text. There is a theological problem of the implication that one need not work for a living, something that is not generally correct. However, there is a context in which it was accurate, and that was for the missionary effort as practiced by the original twelve. Thus this chapter division and insertion of the text that shifts context allows for the resolution of this modern problem.
26 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Textual: There is no change from the Matthean text.
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Textual: There is no change from the Matthean text.
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; 3 Nephi 13:29 29 And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these.
Textual:
There is no change from the Matthean text. The Lukan parallel is Luke 12:27.
The Greek text for that verse has the more natural pairing of spinning and weaving. The dual
reference to clothing is more appropriate to the context of the lilies than the
Matthean toil and spin.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, even so will he clothe you, if ye are not of little faith.
Textual: There is no change from the Matthean text.
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 3 Nephi 13:32 32 For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Matthew 6:31-32 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. There is no clear basis for this deletion, and it is perhaps an unfortunate one for it provides an important context to this teaching. The theme of these verses has not been that one should not work, or that one should not have any concern for food or clothing, but rather that anxious concern for excess or abundance is not the proper goal. The contrast is made between the children of Israel and the Gentiles, and of course the reference to the Gentiles is a negative one. The Gentiles are concerned for the accumulation of clothing and food in excess of their needs. Indeed, in the Old World, the people to whom Jesus spoke would have been well aware of the excess accumulation of the Gentiles, since their excess was created by the labor of those very people to Jesus addressed.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. 3 Nephi 13:34 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof.
The conclusion is that we should take “no thought for the morrow.” Again, this is a saying that can easily be misapplied. It does not mean that we should not plan ahead. The entire context has been one of the accumulation of earthly excess. We should not be concerned with acquiring stores of goods under the guise of preparing for future needs. We should rather be concentrating in the things in the future that are truly important, such as the kingdom of God. When we are told that “sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof” we are being told that we are able to accomplish in this life that which is necessary for this life. Our ability to provide for material goods is sufficient for our earthly existence. We need not be anxiously concerned for excess. What matters is our treasure in heaven. What matters is that we seek the kingdom of God. Textual: There is no chapter break at this point in the 1830 edition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Brant Gardner. Copyright 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
