The text for this week:
8bwho layeth down his life according to the flesh and taketh it again by the power of the spirit that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. 9Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men. And they that believe in him shall be saved.
I feel like this section really connects with 7-8b thematically, and would encourage continued discussion on Deidre’s insightful post as I think it will further the work on this section as well. To this end, my post this week is mostly a series of questions aimed at furthering discussion.
The action of “layeth” in “layeth down his life” gives us a Christ who is in control, who masters his movements, presents his gift, who willingly dies. (Is there another way to read this? I’m missing it if there is.) Why does Lehi qualify or clarify this description with “according to the flesh”? Is there any sense of “accord” here as agreement? That is, in agreement with or in obedience to the laws governing the flesh? Is this emphasis on death as a physical, embodied experience significant?
“and taketh it again”: I think the more expected phrase here would be “and taketh it up again”, but clearly there is no “up” in play. Why? I’m reading this as a way of emphasizing both Christ’s power and right—he is strong enough to take; taking, grasping, holding is his right as the firstborn (in taking his life-as-flesh again he takes his inheritance). The word “again” implies a repetition of a previous action—are we to understand Christ’s original incarnation as a taking? Also, clearly this again is misleading: Christ does not take again the same flesh, but rather perfected, celestial flesh. It’s a repetition with a difference. But what if it isn’t? What if the “again” is not misleading? Could the point be not the difference of the resurrected flesh (it’s escape from death) but rather its sameness? (i.e., this body is not something foreign, but rather familiar, in fact, the same?)
Is it significant that Lehi presents the resurrection in a binary pair of actions?
“by the power of the spirit”: what is this power? What does this phrase mean? Whose spirit? His? The Holy Ghost? How can a spirit have power to physically grasp (take)? If we read this as Christ’s spirit, does this change our understanding of our own spirits in any way? Do our spirits effect physical change in our world / lives?
“that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise”: Why the sudden introduction of the conditional here (“may” and “should”)? Why not just “that he brings to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first to rise”?
“Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God”: the sacrificial language here is clear. But we normally think about Christ’s sacrifice as linked with the imagery of the sacrificial lamb, or perhaps the scape goat—in other words, animal sacrifice. I think it’s interesting that after this careful, logical traversing of the atonement Lehi deliberately aligns the sacrifice not with animal, but rather vegetation. He is Abel’s offering, not Cain’s. And again, the question of word choice: why “unto” God? It’s easy to read this description quickly with Christ as God’s firstborn, first full fruit from God himself, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. So in what sense is he the first fruit if it’s not paternal?
It’s worth looking at Jacob 4:11 here too: “Wherefore, beloved, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, that ye may obtain a resurrection according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first fruits of Christ unto God.”
How is firstfruits used differently here? If Christ is the firstfruits unto God, and we are the firstfruits of Christ, what, exactly, does that mean? Why the difference?
“inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men”: Does this “inasmuch” qualify Christ’s sacrifice? It seems to say that the sacrifice is effective/effected only on the condition that it be available to everyone. Why this qualification? What does this tell us about the nature of sacrifice? Of atonement? “Intercession”—how is this word used here? Does it align with a more judicial, law-oriented sense of the term? Or does it evoke the intimacy of a personal plea? (Or, of course, both?) How does it provide further evidence for the discussion regarding opposition that Lehi is gearing up for?
“And they that believe in him shall be saved.” This is a fairly straightforward, declarative statement after many sentences flavored by clauses and conditions. Perhaps Lehi does this to provide contrast? That is, that while the mechanics of the sacrifice and atonement are themselves necessarily murky at best, the mechanics of salvation itself appear much simpler: belief. Perhaps this contrast clarifies grace? Perhaps it calls the attention of his listening sons?
Jenny, thanks for your thoughts here. Great insights and questions. A quick note on the phrase bring(eth) to pass the resurrection. This phrase appears for the first time in 2 Nephi 2:8 and it appears almost exclusively in the Book of Mormon and never in the King James Bible (it is however in JST Luke 3:7).
The next time this expression appears is in the words of Abinadi, who makes it clear that he is referring to an earlier source: “Have they not said also that he should bring to pass the resurrection of the dead?” (Mosiah 13:35). In context, Abinadi makes reference to Moses (Mosiah 13:33), Isaiah (Mosiah 14:1), and “all the prophets who have prophesied ever since the world began” (Mosiah 13:33). Since this phrase does not appear in the Bible and is only used by Lehi previously in the Book of Mormon, it plausible that Abinadi is referring to Lehi’s foundational teaching when he says bring to pass the resurrection (of course he could also be referring to teachings from other sources).
The phrase bring(eth) to pass the resurrection is later used by Alma2, Samuel the Lamanite, Mormon, and Moroni. In fact, of the six individuals who use resurrection more than once, only Jacob does not employ bring(eth) to pass the resurrection. I wonder if the consistent use of the phrase bring(eth) to pass the resurrection in the Book of Mormon (but not the Bible or, with one exception, the Doctrine and Covenants) indicates a pattern of speech that was developed and used by Book of Mormon prophets. If so, it could bear on 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?” Thoughts?
John, I had no idea that the phrase was so particular to the Book of Mormon. Thank you for drawing this out. It certainly appears to represent a specific speech formula used to talk about the resurrection. I’m wondering its influence on other scripture texts (within the Book of Mormon) might extend beyond formulation and into theology. That is, could this phrase be a linguistic marker signifying a prophet’s exposure to a certain (Lehite?) strain of theological thought? At the very least, it would seem to indicate exposure to a similar scripture canon among the Lehite prophets.
Another thought regarding the use of various words (like “unto”) that may or may not have a particular signifying meaning. I was listening to a course on the history of the English language. The professor was covering the history of the Bible in English, reading aloud examples from various translations (Bede, Wessex, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and up to King James). He made the point that the King James version appears to incorporate a markedly more poetic sensibility in its approach to translation, and argued that the poetic texture in scriptural translation is meant to convey the multi-faceted nature of scriptural texts. I thought this was an interesting approach, and I wonder if Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon and its linguistic relation to the King James translation might be similarly marked. That is, is it possible that the expanded rhythms and word choices here are meant to convey a poetic sensibility in Lehi’s original, one that marks scripture as open to multiple and overlapping interpretations?
I think the connection about “layeth down his life” and “taketh it again” is intriguing. Why do you think the more expected phrase here would be “and taketh it up again”? I was interested to see that while Christ says, “for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again” (3 Nephi 9:22) he also says, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again [no up]” (John 10:17). Also Moroni writes, “I remember that thou hast said that thou hast loved the world, even unto the laying down of thy life for the world, that thou mightest take it again to prepare a place for the children of men” (Ether 12:33).
As far as I can tell (and I may be missing something here) these are the only four instances where we see language like this in reference to Christ, and of course the “up” only appears once. Perhaps Christ only uses the word only appears post-resurrection – maybe the “up” is a change know that he actually has taken up his life. This naturally leads to the question of what Moroni was referring to in Ether 12:33. A prior conversation he had had with the Lord? (If so, this kind of defeats the idea that the word “up” is connected to post-resurrection statements). I’m curious to know what others think.
John, I think that in my original reading I was expecting “up” due to the presence of “down” in “layeth down his life.” If one lays down a life, then I was expecting for that to be reversed one would need to raise it up (or take it up). I’m not saying that’s a good reason for the reading, but just what my sense of symmetry wanted.
Re: “up”‘s connection to post-resurrection statements, I’m not certain—could it also be a distinction between Christ as the speaker and someone else as the speaker?
Something I’ve never quite understood is the connection between Christ’s resurrection and everyone else’s. Why exactly does Christ getting resurrected mean that everyone else will, too? Does his resurrection somehow alter the laws of the universe so that now this is possible for everyone?
So I’m looking at this clause: “that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.” And the crucial point seems to be the firstness. I’m also thinking about the firstfruits imagery. When it’s animal sacrifice, isn’t the emphasis on the animal being unblemished (as opposed to firstborn)? But with the agricultural imagery, the emphasis is on its firstness. Perhaps Christ’s ability to perform the atonement is tied to his being unblemished, not his firstness—after all, he’s not the first human being. But when it comes to the resurrection, the issue of firstness does become significant: he is the first to be resurrected, the firstfruits, and this is important.
But I still don’t really understand how him doing it first paves the way for everyone else.
<>
I like this. I think one of the theological challenges with our doctrine of premortal spirit –> mortal body –> postmortal spirit –> resurrected body is finding some way to have some continuity of identity through all these phases of existence. The resurrected body might be in some sense radically new, but I don’t think it can be entirely different.
I’m not sure what I did, but the is supposed to be this quote from Jenny’s OP:
“Also, clearly this again is misleading: Christ does not take again the same flesh, but rather perfected, celestial flesh. It’s a repetition with a difference. But what if it isn’t? What if the “again” is not misleading? Could the point be not the difference of the resurrected flesh (it’s escape from death) but rather its sameness? (i.e., this body is not something foreign, but rather familiar, in fact, the same?)”
Sheila, I like the distinction you draw out between Christ’s perfection (unblemished-ness) as qualifying him to perform the atonement and the significance of his first-ness with regards to the resurrection.
In reading over the passage again, this emphasis on his first-ness as the first to be resurrected is possible significant in several ways: it’s a mark of the completion of the atonement through the act of resurrection and it’s an indication of the universality of the resurrection and the potential universality of the complete power of the atonement itself (the only way something can be first is if there are others who follow).
Well, it’s Friday, and I’m finally caught up enough to turn to the post that went up this week! A few responses to things already said, and then I’ll see if I can’t say something in my own name tomorrow morning. :)
Jenny asks: “Why does Lehi qualify or clarify this description with ‘according to the flesh’?”
It’s a great point. Some serious work needs to be done on the Nephite theology of the flesh—if there’s a consistent tradition to discover, at least. Saint Paul, with whom the Nephites tend to have a good deal in common, has a significant theology of the flesh, one that ties flesh to death and disallows its redemption (bodies are redeemable, but not flesh, for Paul). This can’t, I think, be Lehi’s theological position, since he’ll go on to talk about the way the redemption makes us “free according to the flesh.” It would seem that the resurrection, for Lehi (and his theological heirs?), amounts to an actual transformation of the flesh, one that frees it from its orientation to death—regardless of the status of bodies.
Maybe.
Jenny asks: “Christ does not take again the same flesh, but rather perfected, celestial flesh. It’s a repetition with a difference. But what if it isn’t? What if the ‘again’ is not misleading? Could the point be not the difference of the resurrected flesh (it’s escape from death) but rather its sameness?”
Cribbing Adam (Miller), eh? :) First a quick point of clarification: I assume that the “it” of “taketh it again” refers most directly to “his life” and not to “the flesh.” Does that change things here? What’s resumed in the resurrection is not the flesh—which, presumably, has indeed been changed (“perfected, celestial”)—but life itself?
Jenny says: “The sacrificial language here is clear. But we normally think about Christ’s sacrifice as linked with the imagery of the sacrificial lamb, or perhaps the scape goat—in other words, animal sacrifice. I think it’s interesting that after this careful, logical traversing of the atonement Lehi deliberately aligns the sacrifice not with animal, but rather vegetation. He is Abel’s offering, not Cain’s.”
I’m going to take your innocent mistake and make a big deal of it. :) It was Cain who sacrificed vegetation and Abel who sacrificed animals, not the other way around. (Joseph Smith makes a big deal about this in one of his relatively early uncanonized theological speculations.) This leaped out at me, perhaps, just because I read this the other day in Rene Girard’s Violence and the Sacred: “One of the brothers kills the other, and the murderer is the one who does not have the violence-outlet of animal sacrifice at his disposal” (p. 4). So while I think you’re dead on to point out the vegetable-versus-animal distinction here, and I’m quite as fascinated by the emphasis laid on the “firstfruits” language, I wonder what it might mean to connect this up with the Cain-and-Abel story, since it would associate Christ’s sacrifice with Cain….
John says: “Since this phrase ['bring to pass the resurrection'] does not appear in the Bible and is only used by Lehi previously in the Book of Mormon, it plausible that Abinadi is referring to Lehi’s foundational teaching when he says bring to pass the resurrection (of course he could also be referring to teachings from other sources).”
I think he has to have Lehi in mind, but as a kind of lens through which to read all the other prophets—all those who, to put it frankly, never said such a thing. If I understand Abinadi’s basic gesture correctly, there, he’s trying to say that the theme of the resurrection, etc., should be read into all the prophets whose writings don’t seem to say any such things, at least not in such a straightforward way. But I take it that what provides him with this hermeneutic key is indeed, as you say, Lehi, who provides the beginnings of the theological trajectory that Abinadi takes up.
Sheila asks: “Why exactly does Christ getting resurrected mean that everyone else will, too? Does his resurrection somehow alter the laws of the universe so that now this is possible for everyone?”
Yes, this is a crucial question if we’re to begin sorting out the Nephite theology of the flesh. If it is indeed the case (as I suggested above) that the Nephites saw in Christ’s resurrection a certain transformation of flesh as such, then it seems that there’s something in that transformation that makes the resurrection a real possibility. Of course, we don’t seem to have any actual discussion of a mechanism for how this works, but perhaps it’s enough to say that the flesh—the universal flesh of the world—is itself somehow affected by the resurrection?
Sheila again: “Perhaps Christ’s ability to perform the atonement is tied to his being unblemished, not his firstness—after all, he’s not the first human being. But when it comes to the resurrection, the issue of firstness does become significant: he is the first to be resurrected, the firstfruits, and this is important.”
This is a nice distinction. This might suggest that we split the difference between Cain and Abel, between the sedentary and the nomadic, no?
Joe, thanks for correcting my sloppy reading … weakness of my flesh and all at play I’m afraid …
Re: “it” You’re right, of course, that the clearest referent is “his life,” however I think there’s at least a plausible reading of “his life” as “his life-according-to-the-flesh.” We normally read “according to the flesh” as modifying how he lays down his life, but I don’t think that reading is the only possible one here. Granted, the “life-according-to-the-flesh” is clunkier, but what if we do read “it” in those terms? What if we do see Christ’s work as physical, as the raising and taking of an enfleshed life?
Re: Cain and Abel. Yikes, that was a bad slip up. But the question of what the reading and association with “first fruits” (and therefore Cain) is, as you say, an interesting one. What could that mean? Just brainstorming here: maybe Christ’s sacrifice is somehow the inversion of Cain’s actions? That is, Cain kills his brother rather than see his brother become closer to God while Christ gives salvation to his brother so that he can see his brother become closer to God?
Ah, this is helpful. I’d misunderstood you’re claim—so thanks for correcting my sloppy reading. :)
Yes, this is worth playing around with: “it” referring to “his life according to the flesh,” not to “his life,” taken apart from a verb (“layeth down”) qualified by the according-phrase (“according to the flesh”). What might this suggest about the “by the power of the spirit” business? Do you also want to think about that phrase as qualifying “it” (and hence “his life”) instead of “taketh . . . again”? What is life-according-to-the-flesh, and what is life-by-the-power-of-the-spirit?
And yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m trying to think about re: Cain….
Great discussion. I’ve been thinking about the usages of “the flesh” in the Book of Mormon for several posts now and I think since some of it has bearing on the current post I’m going to place them here. I hope to come back to some of the other themes and interesting questions later.
First, one thing John noted in an earlier post the distinction between spiritual and temporal. What I find interesting is that initially this distinction seems to be provided by Laman and Lemuel when asking Nephi about how to read texts or understand visions.
“And they said unto me: Doth this thing mean the torment of the body in the days of probation [i.e. the temporal], or doth it mean the final state of the soul after the death of the temporal body [i.e. the spiritual], 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.” ( 1 Ne. 15:31-32)
“[M]y brethren came unto me and said unto me: What meaneth these things which ye have read? Behold, are they to be understood according to things which are spiritual, which shall come to pass according to the spirit and not [according to] the flesh? And I, Nephi, said unto them: Behold they were manifest unto the prophet by the voice of the Spirit; for by the Spirit are all things made known unto the prophets, which shall come upon the children of men according to the flesh. Wherefore, the things of which I have read are things pertaining to things both temporal and spiritual. . . and it cometh unto men according to the flesh . . . And now behold, I, Nephi, say unto you that all these things must come according to the flesh.” (1 Ne. 22:1-3, 18, 27).
I get the impression that Laman and Lemuel are more worried if the revelations or texts deal with the temporal or according to the flesh because then they really have to worry about them. It affects them. If things are only spiritual then they don’t seem to be too concerned. It could be the case that Nephi has a different understanding of “according to the spirit” his brothers, and it could be that this definition changes over time, but at least in these passages, it sounds as if “according to the flesh” can mean a time marker, and not necessarily a statement on the quality or nature of the flesh. Things that shall come to pass according to the flesh are things that will occur in the mortal lives of humans, or what occurs during temporal probation or deal with the temporal body. That’s one idea.
I sense this in other passages: “For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief. . . . For I will fulfil my promises which I have made unto the children of men, that I will do unto them while they are in the flesh” (2 Nephi 10:2, 17). Is Nephi using “according to the flesh” and “in the flesh” in the same way? Is Nephi stressing that these promises refer to the here and now (while in the flesh) or mortal life. Is he saying that their children will physically die, in contrast to a spiritual death? Does it make sense to read this as promises that related to some quality of the flesh?
We have a precedent of Nephi speaking of flesh in relation to God. ”And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.” (1 Nephi 11:18, 1830). Does this language qualify mother? That is, does this language function as a qualification that she is the mother of the flesh or with respect to the flesh but not in other respects?
“Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one.” (1 Nephi 17:35). “all flesh shall know that I, the Lord, am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.” (1 Nephi 21:26; 2 Nephi 6:18). Is the phrase “all flesh” being used differently here? Does all flesh signify human nature or humankind? It seems this is not being used as a time marker but speaking of flesh as humanity.
Likewise, does the phrase “no flesh” also gesture at humans or humankind? The phrase appears twice in our text: “And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off” and “there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.” (2 Ne. 2:5, 8). Should we understand this “no flesh” to be merely an idiom for “no human”? It’s humans that dwell not mere bodies, after all. Or should we read this in some other way? It seems to me that the flesh in ”no flesh” and “according to the flesh” point to different things. Does it make sense to read “according to the flesh” as a time marker as it has been used before? Or, does it make more sense in this case to read “according to the flesh” to modify “his life.”
I like the discussion between Joe and Jenny as to whether “take” refers to life or to the flesh: “who layeth down his life according to the flesh and taketh it again by the power of the spirit.” The word “again” seems to be problematic. There is a temptation to want to find the same action being repeated (e.g., I took my life once and I’ll take it again, or, I took my flesh once and I’ll take it again). I’m wondering, however, if the Book of Mormon text is adopting the King James language from John 10:17 : “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” The Greek term is palin, which can mean again but also back or anew and some have translated it: “I lay down my life, that I might take it back again.” If this is correct, perhaps we could read the text as: ”who layeth down his life according to the flesh and taketh it back by the power of the spirit.”
If the language does reflect John 10:17, what purpose does it serve to add “according to the flesh” to the sentence? Wouldn’t it still make sense without it? Is this just an attempt to resolve a logical contradiction that if God lays down his life, then by what means can he take subsequent action? Is this Lehi’s way of saying “he is only laying down life in one aspect but he continues to live obviously since he is God and cannot die”? Or does this have nothing to do with that? But what does “life according to the flesh” signify if not “the mortal body”?
John has pointed to other passages where Christ lays down his life: “Behold, for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again.” (3 Ne. 9:22). Now, given the above, I’m not so sure what “up” means here. Does it just sound better in 1830 English to have a more symmetrical form: “lay it down” and “take it up“? The phrase “lay down” appears to be one word in the Greek, so perhaps these prepositional adverbs “up” and “down” are merely an incidental byproduct of translation into English. We could remove these adverbs in translation, getting rid of the need to pair down with up: “who gives his life according to the flesh, and takes it back by the power of the Spirit.” This is just an example to eliminate the directions, not that I think this is a good translation.
Ups and downs make a lot of sense in terms of the Resurrection. Bodies laying down and raising up makes a good image. While perhaps not directly related to the Book of Mormon text we do have a text where Christ speaks of “my body which was laid down for you” (D&C 27:2).
I think what makes this passage complicated is that I feel we have passages speaking of God “taking” flesh. Ammon states “God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood.” (Mosiah 7:27). ”Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood.” (Ether 3:9). Why do these use the phrase “flesh and blood”? Would this be different if it just said flesh? Should we understand this to mean God is taking on human nature or humanity, rather than taking a body?
Jacob speaks of “the flesh” rising, which seems to refer to the resurrection of the body: ”this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. . . if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.” (2 Ne. 9:7-8). Does it make sense to read “the flesh” here as humanity or humankind (as in “all flesh” or “no flesh”, or in a more limited to the corporeal body “this flesh”?
“And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.” (1 Ne. 19:6). This “according to the flesh” doesn’t seem to be a time marker. Does it even make sense to read this as weakness according to being human? Is he gesturing at some inherent weakness in the flesh? It would seem Lehi gestures at such “And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein” (2 Ne. 2:29). Nephi seems to allude to this: “why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to temptations.” (2 Ne. 4:7). In these passages, flesh seems to be associated with sin and evil.
Finally, do the Nephites ever see a problem with the God dwelling in the flesh when flesh is associated with evil and sin? I know Christian theologians have viewed this as a problem and have tried to reconcile this issue by positing that Christ’s flesh is the equivalent to Adam’s body before the fall, or that Christ has unfallen human nature, not infected or tainted with this sin. Do the Nephites ever view this as a problem and if so do they ever offer solutions? Does Abinadi perhaps gesture at these issues? That question will have to wait since this is getting much too long.
Well, I was going to begin outlining some of my own thoughts on the flesh this morning, but then Rico posted this monster of a brilliant comment on the flesh in the Book of Mormon. I’ll have to postpone working up my own thoughts until tomorrow while I respond to several fascinating points Rico makes.
First, regarding Laman and Lemuel: Yes, this is a brilliant take on those passages. I’d soften your conclusion on this point ever so slightly, however. Yes, there seems to be a link between “according to the flesh” and the temporal more generally, but it isn’t clear that that doesn’t imply something about “the quality or nature of the flesh.” The very order of the temporal—of time as experienced—is grounded by the existential reality of death, as philosophers from Plato to Derrida have convincingly argued, and there’s good reason (as I suggested in response to one of our earlier posts) to see the term “flesh” as connected specifically to mortality as mortality—that is, as oriented to death. Hence, to say that there’s a kind of extensional equivalence between “according to the flesh” and “temporal” is to say that the flesh is what has the nature or quality of dying, is to say that flesh is what we inhabit when we’re living toward death. So, at any rate, it seems to me.
I’d offer the same qualifications later when you deal with texts that suggest a kind of equivalence between “flesh” and “human.” To whatever extent “being human” means “being mortal” or “being-toward-death,” the temporal marker of “according to the flesh” is at work in “all flesh” and “no flesh,” no?
I think you’re exactly on the mark when you connect this passage with John 10:17, but I want to double your question about what it means to add “according to the flesh” to the wording of John. I think we need to ask also what it means to add “by the power of the spirit” to it. If we ask both of these questions, it might help us to recognize that the two additions are two qualifications of the “laying down” and the “taking again.” The first of these is done according to the flesh; the second by the power of the spirit. The question we’re then left with is what Lehi adds to the Johannine statement by setting up this opposition between “according to the flesh” and “by the power of the spirit.” That’s something I’d have to do a bit of thinking about. But in the meanwhile, bringing out this pairing helps to make all the clearer to me that we need not bother with Christ “taking flesh” here, even if that sort of phrasing appears elsewhere in scripture. Flesh appears here only as a qualification of how Christ goes about laying down His life; and spirit appears here only a qualification of how Christ goes about taking His life again. What’s laid down and taken again is always, it seems to me, life.
Now, the reference in 1 Nephi 19:6. I’ve written a little about this passage. I think it’s actually quite inescapable that there’s some kind of temporal marker here. First because there’s already a temporal marker in every assertion of mortality (and it’s hard to see how “weakness” doesn’t point precisely to mortality). But second because what Nephi’s trying to explain and “justify” in that passage is his recourse to a temporal narrative framing (1 Nephi 1–2 Nephi 5) of the “more sacred things” he had been commanded by God to produce in his small plates record (2 Nephi 6-33). It seems to me, given the work I’ve done on the larger passage within which that text falls, that Nephi’s point is precisely to say that because he’s a temporal being, a being who experiences things in terms of narratives and histories, he’s felt it necessary to embed the non-narrative sacred materials of his record in a framing narrative.
Finally, this question of “evil and sin.” Yes, Nephi’s reference in his so-called “psalm” can’t be entirely uncoupled from evil and sin, but it isn’t necessary to posit that the flesh itself in his reference is evil or sinful. The Nephites seem more generally to have a theology of sin that roots it in orientation to death (I’d have to explain this at length to justify it, especially since my article on this hasn’t yet appeared in print, though it should be out in the next year… I’ve been saying for three years), that is, a theology that suggests that sin is mobilized by mortality as such. There’s thus a sense in which, for the Nephites, sin can’t be uncoupled from death and the temporal nature of being human, but it isn’t therefore the case that mortal flesh is inherently sinful. Indeed, I think we’ll see Lehi explain in the course of this sermon how it’s possible to talk about flesh that doesn’t sin. It follows from all this—if my reading isn’t misguided—that there’s no real theological difficulty in Christ assuming flesh.
Now, my responses here seem like a bunch of criticisms, so let me reiterate that you’ve made a series of brilliant moves, all of which ratchet up the stakes of this discussion. I mean only to further the conversation with all the nits I’m picking!
I’m late in offering a clarification, but here it is. I am not in my comment above intending to posit that the mortal flesh is inherently sinful. Is this an argument others have raised (that the flesh is inherently sinful) that I’m not aware of? All I’m saying above is that there seems to be an association between flesh and evil, the nature of which needs further exploration. I’ll try to explain more in the 2 Nephi 2:28-30 thread.
Rico, you’ve really covered a lot of important ground here—thank you. Re: 1 Ne 19:6, in light of the discussion relating to flesh and death, I’m tempted answer your question as to whether there’s an inherent weakness in flesh with a qualified “yes.” That is, the inherent weakness of flesh is its inevitable death. The ongoing journey towards death necessarily impacts and impairs the flesh over a lifetime. Thus, Nephi’s words in 1 Ne 19 seem to indicate his acknowledgment of his own mortal limitations—his weaknesses are a natural part of the frailty of the human enfleshed body. In this reading, the inherent weakness is not some sort of original sin, but rather the inevitable process of decay that occurs whenever flesh is placed in time.
Not taken as criticism at all but a thoughtful and welcomed critique Joe! Let me agree with you that “according to the flesh” could imply something about “the nature and quality of the flesh” namely that, as you put it, “the flesh is what has the nature or quality of dying, is to say that flesh is what we inhabit when we’re living toward death.” I can agree with this. However, I’m trying to make a distinction between what can be inferred from a passage and the function of a particular phase.
One specific passage I had in mind was 1 Ne. 22:18 “Behold, my brethren, I say unto you, that these things must shortly come; yea, even blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke must come; and it must needs be upon the face of this earth; and it cometh unto men according to the flesh if it so be that they will harden their hearts against the Holy One of Israel.”
I agree that the “flesh” implies a “temporal nature” in that all flesh has a expiration date, but this is not what I had in mind by “temporal marker.” I only mean to say that Laman is asking whether a prophesied event will occur in this life or after death. That is, the phrase is demarcates two time periods. So, in this case I actually do not mean “temporal” in the sense that “there’s already a temporal marker in every assertion of mortality” although I agree with the statement.
What I’m suggesting is that if the sentence read, for example, “and it cometh unto men in this life if it so be that they will harden their hearts against the Holy One of Israel” that it might perform the same function and that the meaning might be the same. Now, if this substitution is semantically equivalent (acknowledging that there could be other meanings), then what I’m saying is that I don’t see Nephi being particularly interested in getting Laman and Lemuel to understand the temporary nature of human flesh or the inevitability of death in that specific passage, even though I would agree that those statements are true. Nephi, I would argue, is not trying to make a statement about the flesh here.
Rather, the purpose of the statement in this passage, I would argue, is to explain to Laman and Lemuel that these events are not in reference to punishment that will take place after this life, but are reference to events that will occur in this life, so Laman and Lemuel had better pay attention to them and should not ignore them. I’m only suggesting this for particular passages, and not attempting to draw a general conclusion of this phrase in the Book of Mormon, because I think it is used in different ways in different places.
So, in this specific case, while I agree that there are these inherent meanings between flesh, mortality, death and time, I’m wondering if Nephi is using the term to clarify to Laman and Lemuel which category they should understand these events to take place. So, I might try to substitute “according to the flesh” with “in this life” and see what happens or what readings are produced. I’m only trying to make these substitution to ferret out these phrases that might have multiple meanings, like using a prism to separate light.
So let me substitute “according to the flesh” with “in this life” in a few passages and observe whether the meaning is altered.
2 Nephi 10:2 “For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us in this life.” I think this is a fruitful substitution. It seems to hold true and seems like a good fit, especially considering promises that the Nephites will “prosper in the land,” which resists a spiritual reading or that they will prosper only in heaven after they die. One could always argue that keeping the commandments prospers one spiritually, or is good for one’s soul, but has no bearing on one’s financial situation in this life, and we could accept this is a true statement, but I don’t think this is the intended reading.
2 Nephi 9:53 “he has promised unto us that our seed shall not utterly be destroyed, in this life, but that he would preserve them.” This too seems to hold true without a loss in meaning.
Alma 7:12 “And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, in this life, that he may know in this life how to succor his people according to their infirmities.” This feels wrong to me. This feels like there is important meaning that is lost by this substitution. So, in this case, the phrase “according to the flesh” has to mean something else or something more, or performing some other function than demarcating time.
Alma 7:13 “Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth in this life that he might take upon him the sins of his people.” This leads to a reading that, while it might be true, I don’t think this is the intended reading. We also lose the spirit and flesh dichotomy and the connection between suffering and the body. This substitution doesn’t capture all the meaning that I feel is intended, so here I do not think this is a good fit.
2 Nephi 2:27 “Wherefore, men are free in this life; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man.” I can’t decide on this reading. Maybe this too leads to a true statement as it stands, but maybe it doesn’t capture all the intended meaning. By the way, I also want to make a distinction between a true statement and an intended meaning. It doesn’t matter whether a substitution leads to a true statement. If there is a loss in meaning, then there must be more intended. I know this seems like a rather subjective approach and it’s fraught with difficulties, but its just a brainstorming tool.
To recap, I don’t think every instantiation of “according to the flesh” will function the same way. In fact, I almost feel this first usage drops out after Nephi’s interactions with Laman and Lemuel, especially when “according to the flesh” begins to be applied to Christ (and therefore refers to his Incarnation) and not to future events such as prophesied destruction or divine promises (which need not have any reference to the Incarnation). These later types of contexts (prophesies and promises) are not complicated by the Incarnation, and so it is easier to see that they are not, I still would argue, intended to be statements about the flesh, but only a signifier that some event is not to be spiritualized or understood to occur after death.
But yet, and here is the rub, for the Nephites, the Incarnation is an event taking place in time: an event that they prophesy will occur in the future “according to the flesh.” I’m just musing on this odd circumstance that if Nephi had told Laman and Lemuel that “the Messiah will come according to the flesh” would they would understand Nephi to be saying that “this is not an event that will happen after death, but a Messiah will arrive in human history” or whether they would understand Nephi to be saying “God will be incarnated into human history and the point is that God will take on corruptible flesh.” At any rate, I’m considering this usage more on a case by case basis, trying to look at how the phrase functions within the text and seeking to look for the intended reading, however problematic that approach may be.
In fact, there was a another passage I had considered but it didn’t make it into my comment.
“And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people.” (Alma 7:12a). Do you think we could substitute death for flesh here without any change or loss in meaning? That is, taking on death is the same as taking on flesh? If so, I think that makes sense.
That’s a good point on the addition of “power of the spirit” in 2 Nephi 2:8. I feel that there is a dichotomy between spirit and flesh that runs throughout the Book of Mormon, but I’ll have to save that topic for a different time.
Joe and Jenny, as for 1 Nephi 19:6, I’m just not at the point where I understand Nephi to be saying that the reason for his errors and the errors of “other men” or “they . . . of old” is due to the fact that he will inevitably die. What does the fact that he will ultimately die have to do with making errors in the text? If the only weakness of the flesh is that it will ultimately expire, what logical connection does this have to making errors in the recording of or producing a sacred record? We have a counter example in the God who takes on flesh. We don’t see any references to the incarnate God being susceptible to making errors just because he dwells in a tabernacle of clay. I also have a hard time seeing this as being related to a specific strategy that only Nephi makes in arranging his record, because he is claiming that “they of old” also made errors. So whatever error is being made, it would seem, is something common to both Nephi and these “other men.”
If, for example, Nephi claimed that due to the weakness in the flesh that he wouldn’t be able to record events after his death because he wouldn’t be around to experience them, then that would indicate to me that the weakness to which he refers is that his life has a time limit. I see a weakness in the flesh that goes beyond the fact that he will inevitably die. What do you think?
This is helpful, Rico. I have no real quibble with anything here. My point wasn’t to say that every time we have “according to the flesh” in scripture the point is to teach something about the nature of the flesh; my point was to say that to use that phrase is at the very least to draw on the idea of the nature of the flesh in order to say something. I had misunderstood you to be saying that there were instances where “flesh” didn’t seem to have reference to the temporally determined nature of mortal flesh because the sense of the larger sentence in which “flesh” appears is focused elsewhere. But I think we’re in agreement.
So perhaps I could phrase you original question in the following way: Does the (basically constant) referent of “flesh” play a significant role in the sense of what Lehi says here when he employs the phrase “according to the flesh,” or does the way that the phrase is used downplay that referent (because Lehi’s semantic emphasis is on the fact that Christ’s death/resurrection will be real and not merely spiritual)? If that’s the question, I’m simply inclined to say: No, I think the referent of “flesh” is crucial to what Lehi’s saying. It seems to me clear that Lehi’s distinguishing between two actions of the Savior—the one accomplished “according to the flesh” and the other accomplished “by the power of the spirit,” and both associated with His dealings with His “life” (laying down and then taking again).
On 1 Nephi 19:6, I should have been clearer. My point is not to say that the mere fact of death makes people structure texts in a certain way! My point is just to say that the weakness associated with mortality plays a role in how Nephi thinks his text has to be structured: mortal human beings, because of the flesh, will approach what he writes in a certain way, and that demands that he produce it in a certain way. I meant no more than that. (I should also note that I don’t take his “if I do err” to refer to “making errors.” He’s referring in that passage, on my reading, to erring by structuring his record in a certain way, something others before him did for the same strategic reasons, presumably. Obviously, there’s a lot more to say about all that—which I’ve undertaken in my book.)