Let’s start with the text of 2 Nephi 2:5-6. (Note – there are no textual variants in these verses (nor any in 2 Nephi 2 until verse 10)).
The Text
And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth”
The First Guiding Question
I’d like to start by addressing a portion of our first guiding question:
“What relationship does the sermon of 2 Nephi 2 bear to scripture generally—whether in terms of its immediate setting, its reliance on other scriptural texts, or its influence on other scriptural texts?”
As I read the text for this week, a phrase that jumped out at me was “full of grace and truth.” Clearly this phrase is related to John 1:14, what surprised me was that the phrase also appears five times in the Book of Moses (1:6, 32, 5:7, 6:52, 7:11). Is it possible that the book of Moses was a key part of Lehi’s message in 2 Nephi 2?
This led me to a very interesting article by Noel B. Reynolds called “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis.” In this article Reynolds argues that the Book of Moses was closely related to the brass plates and that a series of textual connections between the Book of Mormon and Moses are present because of the influence of the brass plates on Nephite thought.
He states that 2 Nephi 2 is “the chapter that reminds us most strongly of the Moses texts.” While Reynolds does not mention “Full of grace and truth” in his article he does provide other examples that may demonstrate a relationship between 2 Nephi 2 and Moses. Reynolds writes:
“The doctrine of divinely given free agency is implicit in all of scripture, but is only taught explicitly as a fundamental concept in the book of Moses and the Book of Mormon. In Moses we learn that “Satan . . . sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3), that God “gave unto man his agency” (Moses 7:32; 4:3), and that men are therefore “agents unto themselves” (Moses 6:56). Lehi picks up these same themes in a major discourse on freedom of choice or agency and teaches that “God gave unto man that he should act for himself” (2 Nephi 2:16); that by the redemption “they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:26); and that men “are free to choose liberty and eternal life, . . . or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil” (2 Nephi 2:27)….
One sentence from Moses seems to have spawned a whole family of formulaic references in the Book of Mormon: “And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice” (Moses 4:4). This language is echoed precisely by both Lehi and Moroni, who, when mentioning the devil, add the stock qualification: “who is the father of all lies” (cf. 2 Nephi 2:18; Ether 8:25).”
There are several other phrases in 2 Nephi 2 that may come from Moses. Consider these two:
“And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth” (2 Nephi 2:19) – compare “Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken” (Moses 4:29).
“For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents” (2 Nephi 2:21) – compare “But God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent” (Moses 6:50).
There’s more that can be done here, but I’ll leave this point for now. At the end of this post I’ll provide a list of 53 four-word phrases that 2 Nephi 2 shares with the Book of Moses (of course some of the most important connections could be thematic or have fewer connected words).
The Second Question
Next, a thought on the 2nd question: “In what ways is audience important to the theological bearing of 2 Nephi 2? More specifically, how important are the details of Jacob’s life to the theological interpretation of Lehi’s words, particularly in the first half of the sermon?” While preparing this post, I went back to the 1830 text of the Book of Mormon. What I found probably belongs this comment thread, rather than this post, but here goes. I noticed that there is no chapter break between 2 Nephi 1-2 in the original text of the Book of Mormon. Here is how it appears in the 1830 text (structurally, for convenience I’m using the current text). I’m starting with 2 Nephi 1:28:
And now my son, Laman, and also Lemuel and Sam, and also my sons who are the sons of Ishmael, behold, if ye will hearken unto the voice of Nephi ye shall not perish. And if ye will hearken unto him I leave unto you a blessing, yea, even my first blessing. But if ye will not hearken unto him I take away my first blessing, yea, even my blessing, and it shall rest upon him. And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban; nevertheless, thou hast been brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and I know that thou art a true friend unto my son, Nephi, forever. Wherefore, because thou hast been faithful thy seed shall be blessed with his seed, that they dwell in prosperity long upon the face of this land; and nothing, save it shall be iniquity among them, shall harm or disturb their prosperity upon the face of this land forever. Wherefore, if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son. And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my first-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren. Nevertheless, Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain. Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer; for thou hast beheld that in the fulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men…
And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon….
To me this softens contrasts between 2 Nephi 1 and 2. In the original text there is a break between what we have as 2 and 3 and also 3 and 4. So 2 Nephi 1-2 constitute one unit and 2 Nephi 3 a separate unit. 2 Nephi 2 and 2 Nephi 3 both end with “Amen,” 2 Nephi 1 does not, again arguing for a continued discourse. Viewed as one continuous block of text it seems like Lehi is going around circle, (as his family is in the tent) speaking with different individuals. Thus what we have as 2 Nephi 2:14 may not be the “big shift” back to everybody. If all are present, Lehi’s eye contact could have shifted the focus even before verse 14. Perhaps this is a conversation we can pick up at a later point.
Now this post is already growing long, and we haven’t addressed perhaps the most important question, at least as it pertains to these verses: “Is there a consistent or coherent theology developed in 2 Nephi 2—particularly with respect to purpose, creation, freedom, law, opposition, redemption, and agency?”
2 Nephi 2:5-6 focuses on several of these issues. Knowledge of good and evil and law are both connected agency. Elder Paul V. Johnson stated: “There are several things necessary to make agency operative: eternal law, opposition or opposites, including enticement to the good and the evil, a knowledge of good and evil, sometimes referred to as knowledge of good from evil, and the freedom or ability to choose. Without each of these elements agency and the accompanying personal accountability for our choices would not function” (Elder Paul V. Johnson, Satellite Broadcast to Seminaries and Institutes, August 2003).
Commenting on these two verses, Brandt Gardner states:
“The eternal law itself cannot exalt us because violating any portion of that law places us in a position of nonjustification. Lehi acknowledges that this is exactly what he means, for his second sentence defines the first: ‘by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off.’ The law cuts us off from God. It does not bring us closer—again because we will, perforce, violate the law.
“Lehi’s next sentence further defines our predicament: ‘By the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.’ While he does not define ‘they’ at this point, they are Adam and Eve, to whom he returns later in the discourse. In the context of the Garden of Eden and the law, Lehi’s two types of separation are understandable. The ‘temporal law’ is the Fall’s physical impact on their daily lives—e.g., difficulties in earning their daily bread. The ‘spiritual law’ with its spiritual fall separated them from all that was good—by definition, God’s presence. Therefore, the effect of the spiritual fall was eternal misery.
“As I read Lehi’s sermon, he is constructing his case in dramatic extremes: the world’s condition had there been no Atoning Messiah. Lehi is showing the darkness of despair before the Messianic hope brightens our lives.” [Gardner, Second Witness, 2:37-39]
So a simple construction of these verses could be as follows:
Men know right from wrong, and there is a law that clearly designates what the right choices are. There is no way a person can comply with the law in such a way that they are saved by the law alone. Because of this redemption can only come through the Messiah.
I know there are a lot of loose ends here, so I’ll sign off with a couple of questions in hopes that together we can together work through a few of these issues this week.
- Does eliminating the chapter break between 2 Nephi 1 and 2 alter in any way our conception of the setting in which this discourse took place, or our understanding of the context of this pericope?
- How do connections between 2 Nephi 2 and the Book of Moses inform our understanding of 2 Nephi 2? Could 2 Nephi 2 provide a lens of “Lehi reading Moses” as 2 Nephi 26-27 illustrates Nephi reading Isaiah?
- How can we develop the theological connections between verse 3 (“thou art redeemed because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer” and verse 6 “Redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah for he is full of grace and truth”). Thus in both of these verses the emphasis on redemption through Christ, not through man, and not through the law. How does this interchange with agency and other focal points that Lehi will emphasize?
Last note: four-word phrases shared by the Book of Moses and 2 Nephi 2.
| all men must repent |
| all the children of |
| and all things are |
| and the fowls of |
| And the days of |
| beasts of the field |
| behold all things have |
| bring to pass the |
| by the power of |
| children of men and |
| children of men were |
| Eden to till the |
| father of all lies |
| for he is full |
| fowls of the air |
| full of grace and |
| good and evil And |
| he is full of |
| in the days of |
| in the end of |
| in the last days |
| in the presence of |
| inhabitants of the earth |
| is full of grace |
| know good from evil |
| knowing good and evil |
| of all the earth |
| of Eden to till |
| of God and he |
| of God that they |
| of grace and truth |
| of the air and |
| of the children of |
| of the field and |
| that all men must |
| that they may know |
| the beasts of the |
| the children of men |
| the earth And the |
| the father of all |
| the fowls of the |
| the inhabitants of the |
| the power of the |
| the presence of God |
| the things which I |
| the tree of life |
| there is no God |
| these things are not |
| they were created and |
| to till the earth |
| unto the children of |
| unto the inhabitants of |
| ye shall be as |
I’ll be saying more soon, but this morning just a couple of thoughts on the Moses-Lehi connection.
First, thanks for bringing all this out. It’s most helpful and incredibly provocative. It raises a number of questions and points in fruitful directions. That said…
I wonder if we shouldn’t be rather careful about the direction of influence here. There are good and faithful arguments suggesting that Joseph’s “New Translation” was less a restoration of ancient material than a reworking of the biblical text in light of the Book of Mormon’s reorienting claims. At the same time, there are good and faithful reasons to believe that it also, or at least at places, gives us a window onto very ancient material—as, for instance, in Moses 1 or the whole Enoch cycle. It’s difficult to know exactly what we’re dealing with. I wonder if it might be most important just to look at the connections and how they inform each other, and not to move too quickly into any particular claims that Lehi had a source in the Book of Moses. Maybe a stronger case can be made, but I guess my point is that it would have to be made. So, at any rate, it seems to me.
Further, I wonder—and I haven’t had time to look—whether these connections are complicated at all by a comparison with just the earliest manuscript of the Book of Moses. There are two manuscripts for Joseph’s work on the Old Testament. The earlier is by far the more interesting, and it is much more creative, on the whole, than the later one. Since that earlier manuscript heavily reworked all of Genesis 1-24, moreover, I wonder whether there might be connections to be found between 2 Nephi 2 and the larger text to be found in that earlier manuscript. Are there thematic connections throughout it, or just in the excerpt that has become our Book of Moses? Or is that to bark up the wrong tree, because the connections are mostly with the later, revised manuscript?
All this just to say that any work on intertextuality with the Book of Moses is a tricky affair!
I agree that it is a tricky issue and that care is required. I found Reynold’s article to be extremely insightful in this regard. Reynolds states, “The foregoing discussion of Book of Mormon parallels to a number of book of Moses passages constitutes substantial evidence that the two texts are in some way dependent on one another or some common source. The question that follows next concerns the direction of influence.” From what I gather though his article doesn’t address the possibility that parallel portions are the result of inspired additions as opposed to original text.
I agree that the textual connections are interesting in and of themselves but more work is needed.
Okay, getting back to this….
Very nice points about the relationship between 2 Nephi 1 and 2 Nephi 2, as well as between 2 Nephi 1-2 and 2 Nephi 3. This is undoubtedly a major step in the right direction, though it still has to be said that there’s a certain undeniable privileging of the words to Jacob, as well as a clear sense in which the second half of 2 Nephi 2 repeats the first half of 2 Nephi 2, though in narrative form and with a different audience. I’ve got to do some more thinking about all this, but you’ve brought out exactly the right complications.
I’ve got a whole set of questions concerning the theological claims made in verses 5-6, but I’ll have to sort these out before I ask them. In short, I’m struck by how much these verses scream for interpretation, but at the same time by how much they resist interpretation….
Okay, the more I work on these verses with an eye to theology, the more I’m left just with a series of interpretive questions. As obnoxious as it might be to do so, I’ll just ask a load of questions.
To whom does “men” refer at the beginning of verse 5 (as well as subsequently, whether in the form of “men” or in the form of “they”)? Is it significant that in this passage, every reference to “men” disappears once Lehi turns to the Messiah (not “wherefore, they are redeemed in and through the Holy Messiah,” but “wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah”)? How might all this have been different—say, if “children of men” appeared instead of “men”?
Why is there an emphasis on sufficiency of instruction? Does this suggest that “men” are given just enough to be blameworthy? Or does this suggest that “men” are fully informed on this matter? And the passive construction of “are instructed” leaves us in the dark: Who undertakes this instruction, and under what circumstances? Are to understand simply that the fruit of the forbidden tree effects this instruction, or are we being referred to actual teaching? Is it of any significance here that torah, the Hebrew word for law, would be more appropriately rendered as “instruction”—i.e., is it the law that does the instructing in question here?
Should we put any weight on the construction of “know good from evil”? Is the idea that one can tell good from evil (one can distinguish the two), or is the idea that one can know good from evil (one can only develop an acquaintance of the one through acquaintance with the other)? Could the order of the opposed terms be reversed without a change in meaning (“know evil from good”)? Should we read much into the word “evil”? How might the meaning be changed if the word were “bad,” for instance?
Do we have a new thought or a mere repetition when we’re told that “the law is given unto men”? What is “the law”? Is this word general or specific? That is, are we being told that “men” are confronted with some kind of generalized normativity just by being human, or are we being told that a specific law was given to “men”? Do we have reference here to the Mosaic law? If so, how would that change our interpretation of “men”? Whether the law is general or specific, what does it do? Does it merely forbid? Does it prescribe as well? Does it just draw distinctions? Does it provide a generalized picture of what one should be like?
How would we read “by the law no flesh is justified” if it were ordered as follows: “no flesh is justified by the law”? What does justification mean here? Should it be taken in its juridical sense (declared innocent in a kind of court setting)? Should it be taken in its more strictly Pauline sense (made-righteous or made-just)? Should it be taken in its more logical sense (provided with an explanatory reason)? And what’s to be made of the emphasis on the flesh here? Why not just “by the law no one is justified” or “by the law no man is justified”? Is there some kind of privileged relationship between the law and the flesh?
Does the “or” that follows “justified” suggest that we’re now getting just another way of saying what’s just been said, or does it suggest that we’re now getting a corrected or more accurate version of what’s just been said? Again, what if “by the law men are cut off” were rendered as “men are cut off by the law”? How would that change our interpretation? How is meaning altered when we shift from the negative construction of “no flesh is” to the positive construction of “men are”? And how are we to think about the disappearance of “flesh” in this second formulation? What does “cut off” mean here—cut off from what (from God? from the earth? from the community? from Eden?)?
What’s the status of the “yea” that comes next? How is it different from the “or” that preceded the last bit? Is the second formulation of the “by the law” business being affirmed here, or are both formulations being affirmed? And what’s the status of the “and also” that comes a few words later? Does it suggest that “the temporal law” has a certain privilege here, “the spiritual law” being a kind of secondary concern? Or does it simply connect the discussion of the temporal law and the spiritual law to each other, on equal terms, we might say?
What on earth is “the temporal law”? And how on earth does it differ from “the spiritual law”? Does “temporal” mean “pertaining to the flesh” or does it mean “pertaining to time”? Does “spiritual” mean “pertaining to the spirit” or does it mean “pertaining to eternity”? Are there two distinct laws here, or are there two ways of relating to one and the same law (as in when one speaks of “spiritual interpretation”)? Would it be even remotely right to take “the temporal law” to refer to the law of Moses? If so, would it be even remotely right to take “the spiritual law” to refer to what comes with Christ? How would such historical distinctions hold water in light of the “even as” of the preceding verses?
How do we think about the change from present to past tense here (“men are cut off” is replaced now with “they were cut off”)? Does the past tense suggest anything about the identification of the temporal law? Is it of any significance that when Lehi turns from the temporal law to the spiritual law, he returns from past tense to present tense (“by the temporal law they were cut off,” but “by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good”)? Why is “cut off” replaced with “perish from” when Lehi turns from the temporal to the spiritual? Is this a clarification of “cut off” or a replacement of it? Might this shift suggest that we punctuate this sentence and the one preceding it differently: “By the law men were cut off—yea, by the temporal law they were cut off—and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good”? How would such a reworking, where talk of the temporal law is just a clarification of the preceding bit, change our interpretation more generally?
What is “that which is good”? Why such a complicated formula (and not simply, say, “they perish from the good”)? How does one “perish from that which is good”? Should we even entertain the outlandish possibility that “perish from” is being used in something like the way we say “die from” (“he died from lead poisoning”) and not in something like the way we say “die to” (“he’s dead to me”)? If so, what on earth would it mean to say that someone dies from what’s good? Why is perishing here doubled with “becom[ing] miserable forever”? And how seriously should we read that “forever”? Does it mean what it says? Or is the forever cut short by what follows in verse 6?
Why does verse 6 begin with “wherefore”? How is that word functioning here? Is the previous verse meant to be a kind of theological motivation for this verse, and that’s what the “wherefore” signals? Or is the point more direct—perhaps that the Holy Messiah has to be introduced because the law can never effect redemption? Does the wherefore set up a disjunct or a conjunct, then? Similarly, is redemption here to be roughly equated with justification from the preceding verse? Are these two distinct operations? How are we to understand redemption at all? Should we look to Old Testament models, where redemption means to be purchased back out of slavery? Or are there other ways we should think about this? What relationship does redemption have to “salvation”?
What does it mean to say that “redemption cometh”? Is this a statement just of how redemption is effected (it comes in and through the Messiah), or is it an announcement of an event (the Messiah, bringing redemption, comes!)? And why is “cometh” divided between coming in and coming through? How does redemption come in the Messiah? How does it come through the Messiah? Are these distinct operations? Where does this language of “in and through” come from? Why is the Messiah specifically described as “Holy” here? Would it have made a difference if that had not been added to the title?
What’s going on with the “for” that introduces the last clause? Does the grace-and-truth bit explain “holy”? Does it explain the possibility of redemption? Does it explain the Messiah’s ascendency over the law? And why is there an emphasis on fullness? Why did Lehi not say just that the Messiah is graceful and true? What’s the meaning of pairing grace and truth? How is the Gospel of John relevant to this? Is grace here meant to be positioned opposite the law from the preceding verse? But then what’s truth doing here? And how are we to understand truth more generally here? What does it mean to be full of truth?
A few questions that are plaguing me….
Great questions. I’ve spent a little time working on the question “What on earth is “the temporal law”? And how on earth does it differ from “the spiritual law”?” Obviously each of those phrases only appear in 2 Nephi 2:5, so we have to look elsewhere to determine the meaning.
First I think it’s interesting that this is the only time Lehi refers to the “temporal law” or even uses the word “temporal.” The fact that he gives no explanation makes me think that there must have been a commonly shared understanding with his family members as to what he meant.
The first time a “temporal” (or a derivative) appears in the Book of Mormon is 1 Nephi 14:7: “For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.” It seems to me that in this sense temporal _could_ be referring to mortal life and _spiritual_ refers to eternal life.
The next time we see the word “temporal” comes when Laman and Lemuel as Nephi about the vision he had. “And they said unto me: Doth this thing [possibly the justice of God in v. 30 or the awful gulf in v. 28] mean the torment of the body in the days of probation, or doth it mean the final state of the soul after the death of the temporal body, or doth it speak of the things which are temporal? And it came to pass that I said unto them that it was a representation of things both temporal and spiritual; for the day should come that they must be judged of their works, yea, even the works which were done by the temporal body in their days of probation” (1 Nephi 15:31–32).
I’m interested in the distinction that L&L make here between “the days of probation” and “the things which are temporal.” Or are they using these terms synonymously? (Is it A or B or A?)
Nephi’s answer in verse 32 again seems to intimate that “temporal” refers to things of this life.
Nephi’s next two references to “temporal” again seem to refer to things pertaining to mortality:
“Wherefore, the things of which I have read are things pertaining to things both temporal and spiritual; for it appears that the house of Israel, sooner or later, will be scattered upon all the face of the earth, and also among all nations. And behold, there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem. Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away; and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea; and whither they are none of us knoweth, save that we know that they have been led away. And since they have been led away, these things have been prophesied concerning them, and also concerning all those who shall hereafter be scattered and be confounded, because of the Holy One of Israel; for against him will they harden their hearts; wherefore, they shall be scattered among all nations and shall be hated of all men. Nevertheless, after they shall be nursed by the Gentiles, and the Lord has lifted up his hand upon the Gentiles and set them up for a standard, and their children have been carried in their arms, and their daughters have been carried upon their shoulders, behold these things of which are spoken are temporal; for thus are the covenants of the Lord with our fathers; and it meaneth us in the days to come, and also all our brethren who are of the house of Israel” (1 Nephi 22:3–6).
This section can be contrasted with with the latter-end of chapter 22 in which Nephi seems to be speaking of a “spiritual” or eternal gathering and scattering of Israel.
After Lehi’s discourse we only hear the word “temporal” once from the first generation of Nephites. Jacob uses the word “temporal” it is said in reference to death and seems to have the meaning of “temporary.”
With the foregoing in mind, I wonder if “temporal law” refers simply to mortality. So by temporal laws we perish (I age, get sick, eventually die) and by spiritual laws (eternal issues such as choosing between good and evil) I perish spiritually.
Joe, you asked, “Would it be even remotely right to take “the temporal law” to refer to the law of Moses? If so, would it be even remotely right to take “the spiritual law” to refer to what comes with Christ? How would such historical distinctions hold water in light of the “even as” of the preceding verses?” What are your answers to this question?
I’d love to hear others insights as to the possible meanings of “temporal law” and “spiritual law.”
My answers? Did I have any answers? ;)
For the moment, I’ll just express my thanks for your review of the relevant texts. It’s most helpful. I’ll do some more serious thinking about this, and then I’ll see if I have anything helpful to say myself!
Concerning the chapter divisions. Certainly, the way original chapters of the Book of Mormon are subsequently parsed can seriously impact the way we read the text. I certainly feel this was well illustrated by the Alma 32 seminar where one can see that dividing the original Alma 16 (1830) chapter into 6 chapters significantly disrupted the narrative. Relatively speaking, dividing up 2 Nephi 1 (1830) into two chapters doesn’t seem to disrupt the narrative to the same extent. As Joe mentions, 2 Nephi 2 doesn’t hide the fact that it is connected to 2 Nephi 1. Having said that, I think the what has been fruitful to me is to recognize that everyone appears to be present and listening to the words of Lehi, whether Lehi is directly addressing them in speech or not. In that view, Lehi is able to communicate ideas to a particular audience member indirectly. Or to put it another way, it isn’t clear what logical reason Lehi needs to direct verses 5 and 6 to Jacob alone. It certainly feels like something he would want to say to everyone.
Read in that light, “And men are instructed sufficiently” might be Lehi’s way of addressing Laman and Lemuel without addressing them directly. In the past Laman and Lemuel have claimed ignorance of the ways of the Lord: “for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.” (1 Ne. 15:9). Perhaps this is Lehi’s way of saying that no one has an excuse. Lehi tends to speak in a juridical sense here that ignorance of the law is no excuse because no one claim ignorance. His whole argument would break down if one could be ignorant of the law. I’m reminded by Paul’s arguments for why Gentiles are are without excuse, even though they are “without the law.” I want to come back to this later.
In terms of the text (2 Ne. 2:5-6) and the relationship to scripture generally, you suggest Lehi may be reading the Book of Moses as translated by Joseph Smith. My sense is that this is a larger argument that would entail a distinct set of questions and tools. I agree with Joe that there are faithful arguments for not taking the position that Reynolds does. Just as one example, the first Book of Moses manuscript (OT1) contains several references to the names Christ and Jesus Christ. If the Book of Genesis contained on the brass plates is OT1, then how do we explain how Lehi and Nephi do not obtain this information about Christ from the plates of brass? The story Nephi tells is that they get these names from angels. Modifications to OT1 in OT2 does eliminate a few of these references to Jesus Christ (or substituting them for “only begotten” or “son of god”), but not all of them. If, on the other hand, the argument is not that OT1 is the plates of brass version of Genesis, but only indicative that Lehi had an intermediate version with affinities to OT1, then it would be difficult to examine influence. This, of course, does not preclude a connection being made. The Book of Mormon manuscript and OT1 are produced within a relatively close time period so that taking into account OT1 could prove fruitful, and perhaps we can explore that along the way.
I think there are internal Book of Mormon texts we might also consider that are related to verses 5 and 6, namely, Alma 12 and Alma 42 (listed in the internal commentary file). Of course, nothing precludes Alma from using Lehi’s discourse in novel ways or in ways that Lehi did not intend, but may be fruitful to explore Alma’s understanding of Lehi, especially in how he interprets “temporal law” and “spiritual law.” I’d like to come back to this later.
Finally, I think you raise a crucial tension between agency (although not a term used in the Book of Mormon “act for himself”) and redemption. I think this foreshadows a complex issue that we should see coming up again, especially in later as Lehi’s discourse unfolds.
Great stuff here, Rico.
Thanks for pointing out the potential (thematic) connection between Lehi’s “men are instructed sufficiently” and Paul’s argument in Romans 1. I’ll be interested to hear your further thoughts on that.
Thanks, also, for your careful note on the use of “Christ” and “Jesus Christ” in OT1. That’s a very straightforward piece of evidence, I think. In my view (I’ve argued this in an essay that’ll appear in a collection of essays due out this year from Kofford Books), the New Translation is best viewed as a systematic reworking of the Bible on Joseph’s part in light of two themes uniquely brought out by the Book of Mormon: (1) a new sort of messianism (in which the Messiah has always already come, and in which this idea is supposedly taught by “all the prophets”) and (2) a systematic theology of writing (in which texts and their circulation play a determinate role from the beginning of history). I’ve no particular commitments to most of the translation project being a restoration of actually historical documents, but all the commitment in the world to it being a kind of theological reworking, an attempt to rethink the biblical text in light of what the Book of Mormon suggests. Hence, I’m inclined to see the direction of influence flowing from the Book of Mormon to the Book of Moses, rather than the other way around, and I’m most interested in asking how 2 Nephi 2 gives shape to the reworking of the Genesis text.
Echoing Joe’s thanks. I hadn’t full thought through the implications of Jesus Christ’s name appearing in Moses but then being a new revelation to Jacob and later Nephi. To Joe’s point about the direction of influence, I think Reynold’s argument is still important: “It is clearly Moses that provides the unity and coherence to a host of scattered Book of Mormon references. It is the story of creation and subsequent events that supplies meaning to Book of Mormon language connecting (1) the transgression, fall, and death; (2) explaining the origins of human agency; (3) describing the character and modus operandi of Satan; (4) explaining the origins and character of secret combinations and the works of darkness—to mention only a few of the most obvious examples. The Book of Mormon is the derivative document. It shows a number of different authors borrowing from a common source as suited their particular needs—Lehi, Nephi, Benjamin, and Alma all used it frequently, drawing on its context to give added meaning to their own writings.”
I’ve just finished giving Reynolds’ article a re-read (it had been a few years since I’d read it). I like what he’s doing for the most part, but I’m surprised he doesn’t draw exactly the opposite conclusion. If it’s the case—and I agree with him—that “it is clearly Moses that provides the unity and coherence to a host of scattered Book of Mormon references,” and if it’s the case—and I agree with him—that “it is the story of creation and subsequent events that supplies meaning to Book of Mormon language connection (1) the transgression, fall, and death; (2) explaining the origins of human agency; (3) describing the character and modus operandi of Satan; (4) explaining the origins and character of secret combinations and the works of darkness,” then I’d want to say, rather precisely, not that “the Book of Mormon is the derivative document” but that the Book of Moses is the derivative document.
Why?
All the details Reynolds assembles suggest to me that Joseph Smith, newly acquainted with the rich-but-largely-unsystematized theological ideas laid out in the Book of Mormon, takes what he’s discovered to the Bible, and begins to experiment with a theological re-writing of the text in light of the Book of Mormon. In the course of doing so, he does a lot of synthesizing and systematizing, sorting out and thinking through things. At the same time, he does a lot of flattening and de-historicizing: where the Book of Mormon presents a history of development of all these ideas (barely surfacing in the small plates, subsequently worked up into a kind of system at the time of Benjamin and Abinadi, and then heavily worked over by Alma’s generation), the New Translation provides all the details as a more or less completely worked out theological picture—but one projected back into a narrative rather than presented as a set of ideas expounded in a sermon.
Thus, rather than seeing the Book of Mormon as presenting “a number of different authors borrowing from a common source as suited their particular needs,” I can’t help but see the Book of Mormon as presenting a complicated tradition of theological development with clearly-traced beginnings in Lehi’s reflections, a tradition whose development is largely governed by historically contingent needs but which draws not on a stable and always ready source but on itself precisely as a tradition. The ties with the Book of Moses are crucial and illustrative (I’m more than intrigued!), but their significance may lie elsewhere than in mere source identification.
Are there costs in regarding the New Translation as something other than the restoration, pure and simple, of a more-original biblical text? Certainly. And I feel the pinch when I shell out to cover those costs. But what I get in return is, I think, well worth what I paid: a theological interpretation of the biblical text offered in full militant fidelity to what the Book of Mormon brings to light—one done fully under the sway of the Spirit and by the prophet of prophets. It gives me a model for thinking about what it means to read scripture with the spirit of prophecy, and it gives me a strong sense for why I might not need to bother much with discovering historically-inaccessible “originals” when what matters is the set of eternally true ideas that, once developed, can change lives. And I trust that in the mix of working on the biblical text in the way Joseph did, I’m likely to stumble—as I trust he did—on some actual (though perhaps indiscernible) restorations of the original. But what matters isn’t that but what emerges in its truth along the way.
Maybe I could put the point this way, a bit more provocatively: Why should I be inclined to think that Joseph’s prophetic gift is a kind of divine tool for accomplishing what secular scholars aim at: the historically original, the objectively knowable, the responsibly accurate? Shouldn’t I be much more inclined to think that Joseph’s prophetic gift works in an entirely different register—indeed, that it calls the aims of secular scholarship quite directly into question? I can’t help but worry that Reynolds in this article, despite his careful work on the text, gives in to a temptation, granting too much importance to the desire to out-secular-scholar-ize the secular scholars through divine means. I can’t help but worry that this model grossly misinterprets the scriptural formula “by study and also by faith” (ironically the title of the book in which the essay appears!), which doesn’t, I think, mean to suggest that secular study can be taken further in its secular aims when one doesn’t discount what can be learned by faith (faith as supplement to study), but means to suggest, rather, that secular study can be helpful for those who are serious about faithfully pursuing truth (study as supplement to faith).
But I’d better put an end to this sermon! Yikes!
Rico I appreciate our idea about Lehi perhaps using this as an opportunity to indirectly provide messages to his children (maybe the idea resonates with me because it’s a technique I use all the time!) :)
I need to go back and read it with this lens in mind.
Joe – thanks for your thoughts. Your paradigm deserves careful consideration. In light of the textual connections we’ve considered this week. I’m wondering what implications it would have for our study if the textual connections flowed from the Book of Mormon to a prophetic interpretation of the Bible. Would there still be significance in specific textual connections? Or would it be more of just commonly shared language? How foundational is the text of 2 Nephi 2 for later understanding, both in the Book of Mormon and in the restoration?
These are very good questions. I guess it seems to me that even to get started:
First, it’d be necessary to take six different texts into account here: (1) 2 Nephi 2 itself; (2) any subsequent BoM texts that draw on 2 Nephi 2; (3) the Genesis account of the Fall; (4) the OT1 version of the Fall story; (5) the OT2 version of the same; and (6) D&C 29, received at about the same as and clearly related in important ways to Moses 4, etc.
Second, we’d have to find answers to a set of deeply complicating questions: (a) Is there a clearly traceable history of thinking about 2 Nephi 2 within subsequent Nephite history? (b) How is what’s decipherable of that history—whether in its beginnings in 2 Nephi 2 or in its subsequent developments—related to the KJV text of Genesis? (c) What kind of a relationship should be established between OT1 and OT2 (i.e., is the former the only text to be taken seriously as a “source” text, or are there places where the latter gives us a better reading?)? (d) What relationship does the determined Book-of-Moses text sustain to Genesis, regardless of the Book of Mormon? (e) What relationship does D&C 29 have to Genesis, if there’s any directly traceable influence on its shape? (f) What is the relationship between the determined Book-of-Moses text and D&C 29, and how does that complicate the picture? (g) With all of that established, what do we begin to find when we set 2 Nephi 2 side by side with the determined Book-of-Moses text? (h) Are there any other sources that might provide these two texts with any phrasing or wording common to them but not to Genesis or D&C 29, which might simply have functioned in the working formulaic vocabulary of the translator?
That’s a ridiculously tall order, for sure. Nonetheless, it could be undertaken without too much trouble if the scope is limited to a particular potentially productive phrase common to 2 Nephi 2 and Moses 4. Then it’d be necessary just to (i) investigate any echoes later in the Book of Mormon of the phrase or its immediate context, (ii) look at how the phrase may or may not be related to Genesis, (iii) look at how the phrase is used in the Book of Moses when both OT1 and OT2 are taken into consideration, (iv) glance at how the phrase might be connected with D&C 29, (v) consider whether there might be an independent source-in-terms-of-translator’s-vocabulary, and then, finally, (vi) decide what might be implied by the relationship between Lehi’s and Moses’ respective texts.
And doing this with a few really promising connections might well give us a clear sense of what we’d find if we went about the ridiculous program I outlined above!
John (and Joe and Rico!), this is really interesting. I’m so sorry to be so late coming to the conversation—I just want to let you know that I’ve got a lot to mull over and that I’ll be chiming in soon. (Also hoping to encourage others who, like me, may be a bit behind for one reason or another to join in, even late!)
I’m gonna try to take a stab at the issue of temporal law and spiritual law. I like the direction Joe and John have taken to explore the issue.
The more I think about it, the more I feel the better parsing of the text might be the following:
“And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free. And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.”
Lehi’s instruction of “the fall” colors the rest of his language. His language of “know good from evil” seems to be intended to invoke the Garden of Eden story. In which case, it sounds like Lehi is suggesting because of the events of the fall, men have been sufficiently instructed.
This would also suggest that the reason “by the temporal law they were cut off” is placed in past tense because this event already occurred to Adam and Eve. Certainly, this is how Jacob and Alma seem to interpret Lehi. Interestingly, Jacob and Alma also seem to feel the need to create new language to clarify Lehi’s words. They do not repeat the phrase “temporal law” but rather Alma uses the term “temporal death” and Jacob uses the term “death of the body.” Of course, it could be the case that both Jacob and Alma misunderstand Lehi but I don’t see that here. Thus, the “temporal law” seems to be pointing to Genesis 2:17, not quoted by Lehi, but partially quoted or paraphrased by Alma: “If thou eat thou shalt surely die.” (Alma 12:23). Under this interpretation, the law cannot point to the law of Moses, as Adam and Eve precede the law of Moses.
Similarly, in terms of “spiritual law” it seems this is the law that relates to what Jacob calls “death of the spirit” and both Jacob and Alma call “spiritual death.” This could point to any law, the transgression of which results in the death of the spirit. Thus, in an odd way, none of us have the opportunity to be obedient to the temporal law anymore, although this implication doesn’t seem to be discussed in the Book of Mormon. The inevitability of physical death has already been decided for us. Our choices ultimately come down to either eternal death or eternal life.
But there is another reason why it doesn’t seem that Lehi is referring to the law of Moses. This law seems to be universal. In 2 Ne. 2. Lehi makes no accommodations for the possibility that there is no law, or that some men may not be sufficiently instructed in that law. Lehi states “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil” suggesting that no one can claim ignorance. Indeed, under Lehi’s view, a world without law is a world where God does not exist (2 Ne. 2:13).
Yet, I see Jacob somewhat diverging from Lehi here. Jacob does seem to think that the law refers to a specific law that one possesses or that one can be without. (2 Ne. 9:25-27). Jacob makes accommodations for “all those who have not the law given to them.” Alma seems to ignore Jacob’s interpretation, or if not ignoring, finds Lehi’s view better suited for his needs and goes back to Lehi’s logic. (Alma 42:17-22). Thus, for Lehi and Alma, saying there is no law ultimately throws a wrench into everything and leads to the conclusion of no God. Alma writes: “if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature.” For Jacob, however, not having law only means there is no condemnation and “where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them.”
I think we have some interesting divergence occurring in these sections. Jacob is making some accommodations that I don’t see being made in Lehi’s discourse. Jacob’s view does get adopted later by Mormon in the debates about the baptism of little children (Moroni 8:22) who are described as without the law.
Fascinating thoughts, Rico. I’m especially intrigued by that contrast you note between Lehi and Jacob in their approach to the law, and how it touches on the problem of, what do you do with the potential that some might not get the message due to no fault of their own? One way of dealing with that question that some theologians have adopted is to start with the premise that God wants to save all (usually based on 2 Peter 3:9) and then work backwards—if God wants to save all, and x is required for salvation, then x must be universal (x might refer to—possibly implicit—knowledge of the law and/or of Christ).
Lehi proposes some kind of universal knowledge, I think, but he’s not using that sort of logic. He here describes the current situation of humankind: we know good from evil (presumably as a result of the fall), and we are given the law. It’s interesting that he doesn’t entirely follow the common chronology in which you set up the problem (humans are fallen) and then go to the solution (Christ). Rather, he first says that the way is prepared from the fall and that salvation is free, then comments on the human condition, and then brings up the Messiah. In other words, he adds a bit at the beginning, which I think points to the idea that the fall isn’t a mistake but is part of a broader plan.
I’m also thinking about the implications of this for missionary work. One of the problems of any sort of universal knowledge is that it can call into question the value of evangelizing. Briefly jumping ahead, v. 8 gives the injunction to tell the world that no flesh can dwell in the presence of God except through the grace of Christ. Do we preach both the law and Christ—or is the former already known? At the very least, knowledge of Christ is evidently non-universal (or we wouldn’t be told to share it).
On a bit of a tangent from this, in past attempts to tackle the LDS position on natural knowledge of God, I’ve been interested in what the Lectures on Faith have to say, which that it comes exclusively through revelation (as opposed to something innate): “Without the revelations which he has given to us, no man by searching could find out God.” (3:7) Adam taught “his posterity; and it was through this means that the thought was first suggested to their minds that there was a God.” (2:31) Humans wouldn’t even ask the question of God without it being sparked by an external source: “from human testimony, and human testimony only, that excited this inquiry, in the first instance, in their minds.” (2:56)
But coming back to Lehi and the law, I’m wondering whether the law is something we know implicitly, in a kind of Light-of-Christ way—not a set of rules, but an innate sense of right and wrong—or is it something we are taught from external sources? Does that differ depending on whether we’re talking about temporal or spiritual? Also, noting the tenses: humans “are instructed” and the law “is given”—it sounds like an ongoing thing, something dynamic. And what is the purpose of the law? It seems more like a curse than a gift, since not only does it fail to justify us, but it also cuts us off. It’s interesting that Lehi doesn’t talk about any benefits of the law per se (e.g., it’s a schoolmaster, as in Paul’s writings); his argument later in the chapter is that if there is no law, ultimately, there is no God. Law isn’t simply a moral good to help us along the way; it’s a necessary aspect of the fabric of the universe.
Great thoughts Rico. I think the point you and Joe make about the past tense of “temporal law” is important. The word “law” appears 5 times in 2 Nephi 2:5 and it is only used in the past tense once (as you point out, explicitly to the temporal law).
I’m not sure what to add next, but I will keep thinking on this.
I really appreciate your follow up Sheila. There is a lot to ponder here. It’s also tempting to speculate the reasons why Jacob entertains this additional theological concern where Lehi does not. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that by Jacob is writing at least 40 years after Lehi’s family has split up (2 Ne. 5:34) and there are others that Jacob can describe as “all those who hath not the law given to them” as distinguished from those “that hath all the commandments of God, like unto us.” (2 Ne. 9:27). Who are these people?
Interestingly, I think by introducing this theological novelty, Jacob creates a problem. If “the mercies of the Holy One of Israel hath claim upon” those who do not have the law, then what is the benefit for giving people the law? (Assuming that Lehi is talking about the law of Moses). I think you are right that the law seems much more like a curse than a gift here. Any benefits of the law Lehi highlights deals with how the law structures reality.
Perhaps, this leads Nephi and Jacob to feel the need to provide justifications for why they still “keep the law of Moses” (2 Ne 25:24-25; Jacob 4:5). As a tangent, these justifications for the law of Moses seem to be replete all through the Book of Mormon (quite a fascinating line of thought on its town). Suffice it to say, I find these explanations interesting because of Lehi’s arguably negative take on law “by the law no flesh is justified…by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good and become miserable forever.” Incidentally, I wonder what Nephi thought of this. He returned to Jerusalem for the plates of brass based on his reason “they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.” (1 Ne. 4:15).
I like your discussion about the topic of evangelization. As you suggest, despite the assertion that “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil” there are still things that Lehi says must be made “known unto the inhabitants of the earth.” I get the sense that knowing good from evil does not equal knowing the law of Moses and neither of those two equal knowing about the Holy Messiah.
I’m skeptical that Lehi is saying the fall is not a mistake or that there is even a concern whether the fall is intended by God or not. It is true that he states “And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free” but I don’t read this as saying that the fall is part of the plan (although I may need to unpack what I mean by that).
This relates to Jenny’s question about this language, but I would read Lehi to be saying something along the lines “And the way is prepared [that man may be redeemed] from the fall of man.” I would read this verse in light of Lehi’s reiteration in verse 26: “And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil.”
King Benjamin phrases the relationship this way: “I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.” (Mosiah 4:7) “And Aaron did expound unto him the scriptures from the creation of Adam, laying the fall of man before him, and their carnal state and also the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, through Christ, for all whosoever would believe on his name.” (Alma 22:13).
I know that within broader development of Mormon thought on the fall that several Mormon thinkers consider God to have intended and planned the fall (this becomes a concern), taking an expansive definition of the plan of salvation to include the fall, but I see that as a later theological development. I see the plan of redemption as articulated in the Book of Mormon to be the response to the fall. At least, I’m skeptical that the Book of Mormon entertains or anticipates the concern whether God intended the fall or not, whether it is a “mistake” or not.
In a related vein, we haven’t really discussed the idea that Lehi appears to have a concept of “the fall” but it isn’t clear where he is getting this idea or what background we should assume about it, if anything. Biblical scholars argue that the fall concept isn’t inherent in the Genesis text and that it is part of a Christian exegetical tradition (although this is debated and others point to later Jewish writings like 2 Esdras). For our purposes, I’m not sure whether this is pertinent to our discussion, or whether it is more fruitful to just examine what Lehi explicitly says about the fall, but I thought I mention it.
Fantastic discussion of the law and some related themes here. Most instructive. A few thoughts in response from me, mostly to Rico’s first comment on this business:
If I’m understanding Rico’s reading correctly, he’s suggesting that “the temporal law” refers specifically to the commandment given to Adam and Eve in Eden regarding the fruit of the forbidden tree: “Don’t eat it. In the day you do eat, you’ll die.” What Lehi here calls “the temporal law” would then be exactly equivalent to what Alma, in Alma 12:31, calls “the first commandments, as to things which were temporal.” Consequently, “the spiritual law” refers specifically to the instructions given to Adam and Eve after being banished from the Garden, instructions about which Alma has much to say in the same “sermon” at the end of Alma 12 (and into Alma 13).
Yes?
I like that interpretation, at the very least because it makes for a rather direct theological inheritance—one that Rico and Sheila in particular have been discussing in some detail. However that inheritance is received, however, I want to think about what this interpretation suggests about what Lehi himself has to say.
First, this interpretation makes for a certain potential inconsistency in Lehi’s first two claims in verse 5: “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil” and “the law is given unto men.” If the latter refers as much to “the temporal law” as anything else, and hence to something originally given in Eden, it would seem strange to couple it with the claim that “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil,” since that arguably wasn’t the case until after Eden was lost. It would seem that the position of Lehi’s statement that “the law is given unto men” would either equate it with or indicate its historical subsequence to the sufficient instruction he mentions at the opening of the verse.
How to deal with this potential inconsistency?
Perhaps we should read verse 5 as laying heaviest emphasis on the events that take place immediately after the ejection from Eden—the events that Alma (again in Alma 12) outlines in terms of (1) angels being sent to instruct Adam and Eve to call on God’s name and (2) Adam and Eve then being privileged to converse with God rather directly in order to receive “the spiritual law” or the “second” commandments with their associated promises and penalties. If we read verse 5 this, we’d hear the whole passage as follows:
“And men [that is, all human beings, as the descendants of Adam and Eve] are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil [because they inherit the teachings that have been passed down since Adam and Eve, who had specific, divine instruction regarding what to do and what not to do after their ejection from Eden]. And the law [meaning, specifically, "the spiritual law"; we're to think of the instructions just described as coming in the form of an actual law, hence with penalties and the like] is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off [the problem, in other words, is that the law---even the spiritual law, where our focus is so far---can only inflict punishment, can only cut off]. Yea [i.e., I'm about to tell you the whole story again, but now starting from the Garden itself and then progress to what we've just been talking about], by the temporal law they were cut off [this is how they arrived in the position of being able to be instructed at all regarding good and evil]; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever [trapped within the consequences of the broken temporal law---oriented to death and so to their own pathetic passions and fantasies---human beings generally find themselves cut off in a much more depressing and eternal sense: they fail with regard to the spiritual law]. Wherefore [that is, because the temporal law has always already been broken for us, thanks to Adam and Even, and because that fact leaves us always in a problematic position---self-focused and death-obsessed---with regard to the spiritual law that we've all been given and are expected to obey], redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah [in and through, that is, the one who comes to overturn the effects of the broken first or temporal law through the resurrection---an action that frees us from our death obsessions and so makes it possible for us to obey the spiritual law]; for he is full of grace and truth.”
I like this, and I think it’s probably the best interpretation.
The difficulty, of course, is that of universality, as Rico and Sheila have begun to discuss. It’s fascinating that Lehi doesn’t seem interested in qualifying this “sufficiently” business at all, while subsequent Nephites are. Lehi is Pauline in that regard, for sure. However others soften the blow, then, how do we think about Lehi’s inflexible claim? I suspect there’s much to be learned from his formulation….
Joe, thanks for articulating this. I want to answer yes to your first paragraph! As to potential inconsistencies, my initial reaction is to say that I feel good about allowing Lehi to be inconsistent or to offer points that simply are inconsistent with other points no matter how we look at it. This realization coming, of course, after rigorous inspection and exploration of as many potential solutions as possible, as I think you are doing above and that I hope we continue.
As an aside, I suppose that I have an underlying suspicion that any doctrinal exposition can be perfectly and logically consistent with each moving part perfectly corresponding to every other moving part, where all intended messages find complete and final expression in speech, which have absolutely no leftover side-effects or unintended consequences, with no doctrinal remainders so to speak. Or to put it another way, I don’t want to force Lehi to be consistent if that does violence to his message, or if that sacrifices his message.
But let me try anyway, hopefully in a way that does not do violence! What I’m about to do is probably convoluted and annoying but I think it will probably be the best way for me to make sure I understand your rephrasing of the text. I think I agree with you but perhaps this will help clarify any points of divergence.
You enumerate at least three claims that Lehi makes: 1) men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil; 2) and the law is given unto men; and 3) by the law no flesh is justified or by the law men are cut off. Lehi then cites the temporal law and the spiritual law, presumably to support his claims. One question I have is whether he intends to support all, some, or only one of those claims by those specific examples. (Complicating this is whether claim 2 is actually being offered to support claim 1, but anyway). Let’s see what happens if we try to support each claim by both the temporal law and the spiritual law, starting with claim 3, closest in proximity.
Claim 3. I think it is easy to see that the examples of being cut off by the temporal law and being cut off by the spiritual law, are specifically offered to support his claim that “by the law no flesh is justified or by the law men are cut off.” Both examples provide good support for that particular claim and all are related by the “cut off” language, and these are also closest in proximity. I see strong intent in this case. I feel good about this one.
Claim 2. I’m almost thinking this is not so much a claim but a fact (“the law is given unto men”) being used to support claim 1, or I suppose it can function as both. At any rate, we could say that the temporal law was given to men when God said (using Alma’s gloss) “If thou eat thou shalt surely die.” (Alma 12:23). I had suggested earlier that perhaps the spiritual law “could point to any law, the transgression of which results in the death of the spirit” recognizing the ambiguity that we still aren’t exactly sure whether this is the law of Moses or something else. Alma’s discussion of the commandments that God provided Adam and Eve after their expulsion certainly seem to fit this: “Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death.” (Alma 12:32). Interestingly, Alma never characterizes these commandments as the law of Moses. He doesn’t seem to interpret Lehi as referring to the law of Moses here. In fact, he doesn’t elaborate what they are in any great amount of detail (other than don’t do evil, which is as simple a commandment as one could imagine).
Still, I can’t tell whether by “the law” Lehi only means this spiritual law. What other law could he be referring to? Is this Alma’s way of making sense of Lehi’s universal law motif, that man is always with a spiritual law because God makes sure to hand it down? Again, this seems to diverge from Jacob who seems to be comfortable with the notion that some do not have the law handed down (yet as I think about it, is Jacob simply making a maddening distinction between two kinds of law: “he has given a law; and where there is no law given”? How can there be no law given when he has given a law? Does he just mean he gives to some but not others?).
Claim 1. “Instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil.” Now there is a relationship between “the temporal law” (“If thou eat thou shalt surely die”) and “knowing good from evil.” And one could see a connection between knowing good and evil and being instructed sufficiently. However, you suggest there is potential inconsistency, because Adam and Eve can only be sufficiently instructed after they eat of the fruit and not before. Here, I think I may agree in part but perhaps differ in part from your solution.
One could see the result of the temporal law as the vehicle for providing knowledge of good and evil. This certainly seems to be the case as Alma articulates it: “having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil” (Alma 12:31). And, at least in this case, as I read Alma, this knowledge of good from evil doesn’t seem to arise from any subsequent instructions by God or angels, or by revelations or sacred texts. The implication is that this makes all men responsible without any additional knowledge. That could work, in a sense, to support his claim that men are instructed sufficiently. Or in other words, because of the temporal law, Lehi’s audience is sufficiently instructed to know good from evil. Under that view, it doesn’t look like such an odd coupling.
Incidentally, I’m very reluctant to think that Lehi (or anyone else in the Book of Mormon) is concerned with the dilemma of prelapsarian knowledge/culpability because I don’t know that this is ever an issue in the text itself. This definitely becomes a very serious issue later down the waterfall of theological development within Mormonism, but I see this as driven by later theological concerns that are not inherent in the Book of Mormon text itself.
But let’s move to the example of the spiritual law. My initial assessment is that it is very difficult to see an intended relationship here. Can we say that the result of the spiritual law is that eyes have been opened to know good and evil or that the result of the spiritual law is that men and women are instructed sufficiently? That doesn’t seem to work. Therefore, I see a break in symmetry and doubt whether Lehi intends his statement about the spiritual law to be used to support his claim that men are instructed sufficiently. However, if I understand you correctly, you suggest that perhaps we can read “instructed sufficiently” to refer to what Alma discusses in Alma 12:28-32, that God sends angels to men to make “known unto them the plan of redemption.” If so, I wonder if this may pose some potential challenges. For one, if men are sufficiently instructed as a result of the temporal law to know good from evil, then isn’t it redundant to send angels to them to instruct them sufficiently that they know good from evil after the fall? Secondly, it would seem that what they are instructing men isn’t to know good from evil, but the plan of redemption, or how to repent and call upon God, how to get out of their predicament. I’m almost tempted to think that being instructed sufficiently can only make a person culpable, this isn’t saving knowledge, it’s what cuts everyone off. Lastly, even though Alma discusses God conversing with man after the fall, I don’t see him linking this up with Lehi’s language of being “instructed sufficiently.”
In conclusion, I’m somewhat ambivalent whether Lehi intends both the spiritual law and temporal law to support all his claims. I think he clearly appeals to them to show how man is cut off, but whether he intends that they both perform the same persuasive work for his other claims, I’m still somewhat undecided.
Just to make sure I’m interpreting you correctly, Rico: If you’re right (and I think you likely are), all that would need to be changed in the inserted commentary I provided would be that “instructed sufficiently” would refer not to the event of the angelic instruction (or the subsequent divine instruction), but simply to the immediate consequence of eating the forbidden fruit. The giving of the law would still refer to those events of instruction, but the “instructed sufficiently” bit would be a prior and, so to speak, simpler event. Yes?
Yes, I think that’s what i have in mind.
Then, yes, I definitely think you’re right. I might be happily settled on a basic interpretation of this text!
The discussions on this post have been fascinating; I am sorry to have been so absent the past two weeks. I wanted to add two quick thoughts / questions, mostly as notes to myself since the discussion has shifted already.
1. Regarding the spiritual and the temporal law: I wonder if another way to look at this issue would be to ask what this distinction tells us about the nature of law itself as understood by Lehi (theologically). That is, what is it about what law is that necessitates (or permits) this division / distinction? These laws cut us off both ways, so why not talk about law as a single entity that cuts off completely rather than divide it into spiritual law and temporal law? Especially since in modern Mormon theology we have such an emphasis on laws (and ordinances) being held up both in time and in eternity / both on earth and in heaven ? An ordinance enacts on earth an embodied relationship to laws that have force in the past, present, and future. Is there something different in Lehi’s understanding of law given his division?
2. Regarding the justification of the flesh: having the flesh justified could be seen as a recasting of the atonement (and plan of salvation) as struggle to *raise* flesh—to reverse the pull of entropy. So the emphasis on the justification of the flesh itself points towards an orientation toward the body in Lehi’s theology. An understanding of creation, fall, atonement, and veil as centered on the encarnation of spirit, the reality of entropy, the stop and reversal of decay, and the carrying of the flesh on into a degree of glory.
Nice points here, Jenny. I don’t know where to go with your first point, but I’m eager to hear more. As for your second point, I take it this (that the flesh itself has to be transformed) is precisely what Jacob argues in 2 Nephi 9—arguably on the basis of what he’s learned in the course of Lehi’s teachings in 2 Nephi 2….