The Text
28And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great mediator and hearken unto his great commandments—and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life according to the will of his Holy Spirit, 29and not choose eternal death according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.
30I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation. And I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.
There are no textual variants in these verses, and no readily apparent influences on other scriptures. In fact, it’s striking how much of Lehi’s phrasing here is singular to these verses:
- great mediator
- great commandments
- faithful unto his words
- will of his Holy Spirit
- eternal death
- everlasting welfare
Other wording is also very uncommon:
- will of the flesh [1 appearance: John 1:13]
- good part [1 appearance: Luke 10:42]
I was struck by these phrases in particular because they all, to some degree or another, make up my sense of mormon scriptural phrasing. That is, with one exception (“will of his Holy Spirit; more later on), all of these phrases seemed or felt like descriptions and phrases that I had heard or read repeatedly in scripture. This is, of course, not scientific: my familiarity could be due to my prolonged and repeated exposure to this chapter! And yet, I don’t think that if you approached an unbiased mormon with these phrases that they would feel unfamiliar to them, or like they didn’t understand or think they understood what the phrase signified theologically.
I’m left with several questions from this exercise:
- To what extent could this possible familiarity indicate the breadth and depth to which Lehi’s words have entered mormon scriptural language? (I do not, for example, think that many people would feel that they were necessarily familiar with much of Lehi’s discourse beyond the tree of life vision.)
- What does Lehi mean by using the adjectival qualifier “great” here? Is it significant that “great commandments” come from the “great mediator”? Is there a specific quantitative thrust at play here? Or just general “greatness”? The fact that it’s unique makes me think Lehi is trying to get at something specific, but I’m not sure what it is …
Word Choice
The strategy I employed for reading these verses here was to closely read them word by word, noting the various word choices employed by Lehi and my responses to them. I’m reproducing what I deemed to be the most interesting results of this exercise in this section; I’ll follow the text fairly chronologically for clarity’s sake.
Look
Returns to the theme or motif of sight/seeing/waking (motions associated with the eyes as sense organs, as portals for information), which Lehi initially brought up in 2 Ne. 1:14: “Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent.” The connection with the phrase “Awake! and arise” is significant for two reasons: 1) the only other instance of this phrase in the Book of Mormon occurs in Moroni 10:31, itself another farewell chapter and 2) the connection between sight and creation.[Fn1]
[Fn1] I’ve been struck by the ways in which the theme of sight, or looking in this case, connects with the creation narrative. We have the LDS temple liturgy of course, in which Adam’s creation in some ways begins with a command that he awaken and rise up to meet Eve. But beyond that, we also have a repeated emphasis on Christ as the figure who restores sight, who covers the eye in order to re-new the vision, re-create the new man in Christ. The emphasis of the atonement is to be reborn anew; one way to mark that rebirth is through a new sight, a new way of seeing, of looking at things, followed, of course, by action: we awake, and then we arise.
Will of his Holy Spirit
How do we understand this phrase? If this refers to the Holy Ghost, then why is he appearing in this context: “and choose eternal life according to the will of his Holy Spirit.” I’m just not clear on what is going on here, and would appreciate some discussion. The closest I’ve come is to look at 1 Nephi 10:17 (words are spoken and knowledge is given by the power of the Holy Ghost) and Moroni 10:5 (by the power of the HG you can know the truth of all things).
Mediator
I think Lehi’s switch to the title “Mediator” here at the end is interesting in part because of the role of the mediator to reconcile estranged parties. This is precisely Lehi’s hope against hope: to reconcile the bitter factions within his own family. With Lehi, no matter how great the scope of the visions, in the end he returns to his personal anxieties for the salvation of his own family members (e.g., his version of the tree of life vs. that of Nephi’s).
Choose
Just a note: the choice Lehi puts forward here is not the choice between the Mediator and the Devil, but rather in this case the choice between eternal life or eternal death. It seems like it would be easier to justify choosing the devil over the christ in some ways (in that one could always say something like “well, he may be the devil from your perspective, but from mine he’s not” or some other relativizing of the situation) than it would be to choose eternal death over eternal life. Eternal death and eternal life cannot be (as easily) explained or justified away, and they involve not a choice between associates, but rather a choice between one’s own, personal future. Just an interesting rhetorical strategy to again personalize his discourse for his sons, trying to reach them.
Spoken
Lehi’s witness here is explicitly oral rather than written. Lehi is a prophet of the book, to be sure, but in the end it’s the spoken witness, the oral testimony, that he chooses to leave with his sons rather than his writings.
Probation
This word does appear at other places in the Book of Mormon:
- 1 Ne. 10:21 [Nephi responding to Lehi’s tree of life vision]
- 1 Ne. 15:31–32 [Questions from his brothers regarding Lehi’s vision]
- 2 Ne. 2:21 [This discourse]
- 2 Ne. 9:27 [By Jacob]
- 2 Ne. 33:9 [By Nephi in his farewell chapter]
- Helaman 13:38 [By Samuel the Lamanite]
- Mormon 9:28 [By Moroni in what he thinks is his farewell chapter when he’s writing it]
1) The majority of the users are those directly connected to and presumably thus influenced by Lehi, Samuel the Lamanite, and Moroni (who, presumably in his role as Mormon’s son was also exposed to Lehi).
2) Its use appears often in discourses connected thematically with a final farewell, with an emphasis on the state of the soul after death.
Prophet
Note that this is singular, not plural (which is how I’ve always accidentally read it). Singular usage by original Lehites appears to refer either to a prophet previously identified in the discourse, or to Isaiah in most cases.
None other object
In these last few sentences, Lehi is being deliberately apolitical, setting himself apart from the family feud. This rhetorical move is pathetic—it evokes a strong sense of pathos as it highlights Lehi’s sorrow at his fracturing family and what, to him, must have seemed like failure on the family level.
Hearken/Be faithful
I ended up doing a little digging surrounding the phrases “hearken unto his great commandments”and “be faithful unto his words.” These are both phrases unique to Lehi, but that in part appears to be due to an inversion of the verbs “hearken” and “be faithful.”
The phrase “unto his words” is much more commonly associated with the phrase “hearken” as in “hearken unto his words”: 5 out of the 7 instances of these words appearing together in a verse use some variation of “hearken unto his words”; one of the two instances where this is not true is here in 2 Ne. 2.
The connection between “faithful” and “keeping commandments” is a little more complicated, but essentially the same: of the 26 instances where these words appear together
- 12 are in slight variations of the phrase “be faithful in keeping the commandments”
- 4 refer to the commandments themselves as being faithful
- 5 use faithful as an adjective unrelated to the act of keeping the commandments
- 2 explicitly identify people who keep the commandments as faithful
- and 3 are instances where the words are not in a related phrase
2 Ne. 2:28
1 Cor. 7:25
D&C 58:2
Concluding Thoughts
I realize this may have been a bit tedious, and there are definite drawbacks to looking at things on a word/phrase level rather than in terms of the big picture, but hopefully there are some thoughts here that will allow us to continue our discussion this week.
Lehi's Discourse 
Thanks for the post Jenny. I just wanted to give a quick response to get started. Hopefully I can come back later in the week for a careful response to your ideas.
In A Reader’s Edition, Grant Hardy puts “chosen in the good part” and notes that the reference is uncertain. Presumably Lehi is quoting the words of a prophet, but we do not have any Old Testament scripture that we know Lehi could have been quoting.
In terms of textual influence: I think Jacob in 2 Ne. 10:23-25 is influenced by 2 Ne. 2:28-30. The language is strikingly similar. Also, Jacob uses “welfare of your souls” in 2 Ne. 6:3.
“Will of the Holy Spirit” seems to have influenced King Benjamin’s discourse in Mosiah 3:19. Mosiah 3 is certainly Lehi’s progeny. I don’t know that I would have seen how rich the discourse was with allusions to Lehi but for all the time we have spent over the past months (too many connections to list them here. Benjamin even begins with “awake” and discusses the fall of Adam and the forbidden fruit). Verse 19 is the part I had in mind: “yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit.” We have the word “enticing” and I think about Lehi’s statement: “save it should be that he were enticed by the one or the other.” King Benjamin could have stated the enticings of God, or the Lord, or Christ, or the Messiah or any number of terms. Holy Spirit, at least to me, seems to connect back to Lehi.
I’m thinking that “will of the flesh and the evil which is therein” had an profound influence on Nephi. I think I’ve mentioned this one before but I think 2 Nephi 4 is deeply influenced by Lehi’s discourse. In terms of proximity, Nephi’s lament comes on the heels of Lehi’s discourse, it’s immediately after the death of Lehi. For those who enjoy a more creative and speculative interpretation related to family dynamics, I think of it this way. I feel like Lehi’s discourse makes all of life very straightforward and easy. All you have to do is choose God and not the devil. It’s that simple. Everyone is free to choose and you have two choices: life or death, God or the devil. Everything is focused on man’s choice as the ultimate determining factor. God has set up the experiment of opposing enticements and man takes center stage to choose one way or the other. In 2 Nephi 4, I hear Nephi resisting Lehi’s philosophy. Nephi is depressed because it isn’t as easy as Lehi makes it out to be. Choice, it turns out, is not as straightforward and reductionist as Lehi makes it out to be. I hear Nephi saying “If my father is right, I’m supposed to be free to choose. So why don’t I feel free? Why do I feel like I have no power at all?” Nephi, in complete contrast to Lehi, notes the utter uselessness of man’s ability and power to be obedient: “the arm of the flesh.” Nephi isn’t satisfied with a God who sets up opposing enticements and then says to man: now you choose. Nephi’s entire prayer is not about man’s ability to choose God, but on God’s ability to save man. He asks God to intervene in ways far beyond merely providing positive enticements. Lehi’s discourse, while perhaps a last effort to turn Laman and Lemuel back to the path, perhaps inadvertently ends up having a psychologically damaging effect on Nephi. Too much focus on man’s agency (if I can speak in broader terms unrelated to the Book of Mormon context) is not always empowering. It often backfires when individuals realize just how unable they are to choose the good. “Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man.” (D&C 93:33). And remember, we have an unresolved tension hiding in Lehi’s discourse. After Lehi convinces us that the by the law all men are cut off, or by the law no one is justified, he proceeds to set up agency as the solution. How can agency be a solution where no one is righteous? For Nephi, our salvation is not in man’s choices but in God’s choices. In Nephi’s words: “Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm” I see a serious critique of the approach where man’s trusts in his ability to choose the good (agency as the vehicle for salvation), because that ultimately this not trusting in God, but trusting in one’s own ability, history, or track record of righteousness. Nephi’s lament is where Lehi’s theory meets practice.
Rico, I would love to hear more of your thoughts on connections between King Benjamin’s speech and Lehi, particularly since so much of Mosiah 3 is coming from an angel. I too thought of Mosiah 3:19 when I read this passage — not only in the enticings of the spirit but also choosing death according to the flesh (like “putteth of the natural man.”
“Choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit; And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh” VS
“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord,”
Even though there isn’t a strong direct textual connection right here, I think it would be interesting to explore thematic connections. Thanks for spark on this and hope to hear more!
Wow, Jenny. Your “opening exercise” is incredibly striking. I’m floored. Your experience is mine. And I’m left wondering. I’ll be getting back to the rest of this as I can over the course of the week, but I’m astounded that these phrases are so unique. I’m inclined to think that, as you suggest, there’s something privileged about these last verses here—perhaps about this whole chapter—in the Mormon imaginary. I’ll be reflecting on this….
Jenny, thanks for this post. It is interesting to see how unique many of the phrases are.
One other musing one unique words/phrases … focusing on words like you did led me to look at the word “great.” Lehi says it 6 times (including “greatness”) in 2 Nephi 2, and particularly focuses on it towards the end of the chapter (“Great and last day,” “Great Mediator,” “Great commandments”). I wonder if there is something to that (?)
I need to mull over your post and come back with some specific comments at a later time. For now, I just wanted to re-mention something we discussed towards the beginning of this seminar, namely the audience Lehi is addressing. He clearly ends the talk with a focus on sons, plural, “Unto you all my sons….” But then in Chapter 3 he directly shifts back to Joseph, and when he concludes that message, the focus is still on Joseph. It is almost as though Jacob has become lost in the narrative. I wonder if this is intentional either on the part of Lehi or Nephi. While the start of the chapter clearly begins directed to him, any specific reference to him is gone after verse 4 and this effect seems magnified by verse 30.
What was this like in the real-life dialogue? Did Jacob feel slighted at the end? Was it just the natural course of a conversation? Was there a concluding message to Jacob that just wasn’t included in the record that we have?
Jenny points out the intriguing phrase in verse 28 about the will of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting because it highlights the Spirit in a conversation about the flesh—Lehi is still thinking very dualistically, and invoking the will of the incorporeal Spirit underscores the division between flesh and spirit. It is also interesting given the way the Spirit is spoken about in Alma 7 where the embodiment of Christ is discussed and explained. Alma explains that Christ will take upon him flesh that he may know how to succor his people. He continues in verse 13: “Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.” Here, Alma says that the Spirit knows all things, nevertheless, Christ chooses embodiment so he can suffer according to the flesh. In light of Lehi’s discourse, it is interesting to reconsider what we say commonly enough in Mormon parlance, that the trinity is unified in will while remaining separate as persons, as bodies. Does this point to a division in wills? The Spirit does not just remain disembodied, but wills a separation from the flesh, from death in favor of life, while Christ, to empathize with the full range of human experience, wills embodiment and death?
I like that Jenny highlights Lehi’s closing declaration that he has “none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls” (2 Nephi 2:30). Jenny suggests that Lehi speaks strategically here as a diplomat, trying to unify a divided family. I appreciate this idea, but think there is another angle as well. Lehi has just finished one of the most deeply philosophical elaborations in the Book of Mormon record; in fact, he has waxed quasi-Kantian at times in both his ethics and underlying metaphysics. Now he concludes that he has none other objects save his children’s everlasting welfare. In other words, none of this seems to matter for its own sake—it only matters if it leads to the salvation of his family, both individually and collectively (as Jenny points to). This hearkens back to Nephi’s insistence in his appropriation of the Isaiah material, that the scriptures must be likened unto individuals (and civilizations) for their profit and learning: “And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning” (1 Nephi 19:23). In fact, Lehi employs this same language earlier in the discourse when he proclaims, “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” (v. 14). This points to LDS scripture, revelation, and thought as pointing us towards an ethics more than a theology or religious philosophy. (This relates back to the earlier point about the Spirit and embodiment: on a worldview informed by a corporeal God, how could religion be anything but an ethics? God is bound to God’s own corporeality, and this forever underscores the significance of the human body and human behavior within that embodied self, and does so “all the way down.”) Theological reflection is useful not in terms of helping us understanding the nature of God or the universe in which we dwell for its own sake, but insofar as it informs the ways in which individuals live in the universe, the actions which they choose. This is not just the overarching theme or the bottom line, it is the sole object of Lehi’s extended reflections. It is all about action, behavior, about salvation and exaltation. It is not just about family peace and diplomacy, it is about encouraging individual obedience, which is inextricably bound up and tied together in familial exaltation. This of course allows me to do what I am impelled to do anyway, which is to give Kierkegaard the last word. In his most ethical text, Works of Love, which is extended exegesis on the commandment to love the neighbor, he claims that Christian love is sheer action. He writes, “But Christian love, which is the fulfilling of the Law, is, whole and collected, present in its every expression, and yet it is sheer action; consequently it is as far from inaction as it is from busyness. It never accepts anything in advance or gives a promise in place of action; it never rests satisfied in the delusion of being finished…it never sits idle marveling at itself” (WL, 98-99). Christ was the fulfilling of the law because he did what it required: “There was in his love not the distance of a moment, of a feeling, of an intention from the Law’s requirement to its fulfillment”; Christ did not say yes or no, rather “In him love was sheer action” (WL, 99). Kierkegaard elaborates on Christ in a way that is clearly instructive to individual persons, “there was no moment, not a single one in his life, when love in him was merely the inactivity of a feeling that hunts for words while it lets time slip by, or a mood that is its own gratification, dwells on itself while there is no task—no, his love was sheer action” (99-100).
Deidre,
Thanks for these reflections on the ends of philosophy. I couldn’t agree more in principle, and I’m glad to see you find textual support for this idea right here in the text. In my view, philosophical and theological reflection is something we’re called to do because of charity, and because of nothing else.
Deidre, I get the sense that Lehi and Alma have different aims in the texts you point out. Alma, it seems to me, is trying to address the question as to why the Son of God does not know certain things until he experiences them in the flesh (connected to verse 12). Alma has to explain that it is true “the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh” for reasons other than gaining experiential knowledge. Alma seems to be trying to explain why it is correct to say that the Son of God does not know all things or why he must suffer to “know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.” I get the sense that Alma is trying to reconcile the omniscient God with the Son of God who, apparently, is not omniscient.
Lehi, by contrast, is not speaking about knowledge but about the two (binary) opposing enticements: “the will of his Holy Spirit” and “the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein” (or as Jacob rephrases Lehi: “the will of God” and “the will of the devil and the flesh.” 2 Nephi 10:24).
I think you are quite right that Lehi is speaking very dualistically. Lehi is attributing evil to flesh and goodness to spirit (a lesson not lost on Nephi: “And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?” Nephi 4:27).
Joe, I know we discussed this briefly (I need to go back and respond) and you question whether Lehi is saying that flesh is “inherently sinful.” I’m somewhat at a disadvantage because I haven’t read your paper addressing this question (so I don’t know to what extent we diverge). But at any rate, at the moment I don’t see any good reason not to associate the devil and evil and the flesh in the text of the Book of Mormon given the way that Lehi, Jacob, and Nephi make this connection. In fact it may be important to maintain and preserve this connection between evil and the flesh and not eliminate it. One thought that comes to mind is that this makes Christ’s embodiment in mortal flesh more of a victory. Associating flesh with evil infuses meaning into Abinadi’s words that “the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation.” (Mosiah 15:5). Abinadi isn’t describing Christ as suffering temptations from the devil in the wilderness as he does in the New Testament (Matthew 4 and Luke 4), but suffering temptations from the mere fact of being subject to “the flesh and the evil which is therein.” The victory of Christ, however, is that he inverts this relationship, subjecting the flesh to the Spirit, and yielding not to temptation. This in turn highlights the importance of partaking of the flesh of Christ—incarnation as sacrament—the flesh we partake is flesh that has been subjected to the spirit, or as we say sanctified. For these reasons, I don’t want to be too quick to find a way to interpret the flesh as not evil, because I fear I may overlook these associations. Christ’s victory over sin and death (i.e. the flesh) is attenuated if the flesh is not also evil. (Now if the flesh can be sanctified—via the Incarnation—then perhaps the conclusion is that the flesh is not inherently sinful, and if that is what you are saying then I would agree).
The more positive view of the human body and corporeality in Joseph Smith’s thought and in Mormon thought generally, post-dates the Book of Mormon, and are driven by a series of theological developments, that I sense are unrelated to the concerns in the Book of Mormon so I worry about reading these paradigms into the Book of Mormon text in ways that may mask the work the Book of Mormon is performing. Again, I might be too cautious here.
There are different views within Christian theology as to whether Christ was born with prelapsarian or unfallen human nature, untainted by original sin (as Augustine argued), or whether Christ was born with the same fallen nature that we all are (as asserted by Karl Barth who reassesses the traditional view). It seems to me that in the Book of Mormon Christ takes on flesh and the evil therein, not some prelapsarian flesh untainted by the fall, but its in Christ overcoming that evil that breaks the bands of sin and death. Or something like that.
Alma, still seems to me to be somewhat doing something different with flesh and knowledge in a way that Abinadi and Lehi do not do. Perhaps I’m trying to keep their paradigms distinct too much, but can’t help but feel they are speaking in slightly different contexts.
Hey Rico,
Just getting back to this. My apologies, of course.
I’ll organize my response as a few clarifications at the level of terminology.
First, I think it’s important not to conflate “body” and “flesh.” “Body” implies something of a total system, a thing with boundaries, and a certain sort of inhabitation, a mode of presentation that places something in a world. “Flesh,” however, implies a certain sort of affective tissue, a complicated because unlocatable point of contact for the living with things. The word “body” can be used of inanimate things—not only generally but in the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 2:11; Mosiah 21:18; 25:4, 15, 21; 29:39; Alma 2:5; 43:51; 49:20; 50:29; 57:33; 62:14, 15, 33; Helaman 1:24; 3:4; 3 Nephi 3:25; 4:3, 4; 19:5; Mormon 2:7; Ether 3:16—but the word “flesh” is always used to refer to the animate, because it’s the animate to which flesh lends itself as substance. (Particularly interesting here is Ether 3:16, with its discussion of a human-like body that isn’t of flesh. This might be set side by side with 3 Nephi 28:15, which speaks of a “body of flesh,” a phrase that itself suggests the radical difference I’m pointing out.)
Why is it important to keep this difference in mind? Well, for one, I want to make clear that whatever I have to say about the flesh in the Book of Mormon isn’t tied to any Mormon theology of the body, later or earlier. I’m looking only at what the Book of Mormon is doing with the flesh. For two, though, I think it’s just a necessary distinction so that we don’t fall into ambiguities, etc.
Second, there’s a major difference between inherence and connection or relation. In your comment, you seem to conflate these two (except, perhaps, in your parenthetical aside at the end of the first paragraph on this issue). To say that the flesh isn’t inherently evil isn’t at all to say that there’s no connection between flesh and evil; indeed, it’s only possible for there to be a connection between two things if the one is not inherent in the other. This point may, I think, be the key to whatever disagreement or misunderstanding there is here.
Why is this difference important? It helps to clarify that, as you guess between parentheses, there seems in the Book of Mormon to be an understanding of the possibility of the flesh being redeemed—not just in the case of the Incarnation, but through what becomes possible by means of the Incarnation, namely, the resurrection. This is already on display in 2 Nephi 2:8, I think: “there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God,” yes, but then Lehi adds: “save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah.” Lehi could have said: There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, and so human beings have to be drawn from their flesh. He doesn’t, though, but instead suggests that flesh itself can be changed.
Jacob seems to have picked up on this in what is unquestionably the most important passage on flesh in the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 9:7-9. There he points out that “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.” Flesh must rise again if spirits are also to rise. There’s much to think about there.
So what’s the link between flesh and evil? It seems to me that the key to thinking about mortal flesh in the Book of Mormon lies in its mortality, its orientation to death. It’s not the flesh per se that lusts, etc., but the flesh as oriented to death that’s naturally evil. Wherever we find “flesh” meaning, in the Book of Mormon, something like “the naturally evil substance of our human bodies,” I think we can assume that there’s a tacit qualifier there: “death-bound.” To whatever extent the flesh is uncoupled from death—whether in the actual event of the resurrection, or in the event of orienting oneself to something other than death—the flesh is redeemed. Human beings are then, as Lehi has it, “free according to the flesh.” The flesh itself is freed, freed from its bondage to death and freed to do as it will—if it wills anything other than death.
That’s what I’m after, anyway. :)
I appreciate the follow up Joe.
But to make sure I’m being clear, let me go back to what I suggested initially: “In these passages [2 Ne. 2:29; 2 Ne. 4:7], flesh seems to be associated with sin and evil.” Your response was that “it isn’t necessary to posit that the flesh itself in his reference is evil or sinful… it isn’t therefore the case that mortal flesh is inherently sinful.” I was confused by this response, partly because it seemed aimed to safeguard against something I wasn’t arguing.
Lehi uses the phrase: “the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein.” I’m not rephrasing Lehi’s statement to read “the will of the flesh and the inherent evil which is therein.” Whether that evil is inherent in the flesh or not, I don’t know. Lehi’s phrase that there is evil therein seems significant, and often overlooked. Lehi’s statement might not be precise but it wasn’t my intention make a claim beyond his statement. I may be wrong, but I don’t think I’m conflating inherence and connection, I just I haven’t been speaking to the issue of whether the flesh is inherently evil or necessarily evil any more than I see the Book of Mormon speaking to this issue.
You make the argument that because the flesh can be redeemed, the flesh is not inherently evil. I can agree the flesh can be redeemed and I suppose I can agree this means that the flesh isn’t inherently evil, but I’m less certain this is an important distinction. But it may be that it is more important for your purposes than for mine.
In the text for this post Lehi uses the phrase: “the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein.” (2 Ne. 2:29). I point out that Jacob later appears to restate this idea to say “the will of the devil and the flesh” (2 Ne. 10:24). This gives us additional associations with the devil, evil, and the flesh. What are we to make of this?
In trying to make sense of this association, and noticing Nephi’s many references to flesh in 2 Nephi 4, I’m proposing a speculative reading or hypothesis: what if Nephi’s lament, following right on the heels of Lehi’s discourse, is a manifestation of his misgivings about the flesh after hearing Lehi’s teachings? Nephi doesn’t resolve his anxiety by reminding himself that the flesh is not inherently sinful. It doesn’t ameliorate his anxiety. He laments: “And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?” (Nephi 4:27). Nor does he seem to look towards the resurrection to find comfort. He associates sin and flesh and is concerned for his soul.
I can accept the distinction you’ve offered, but I don’t see the issue of whether the flesh is inherently sinful or necessarily sinful to play a significant role in Nephite theological discourse or in the narrative (and I’m not saying that you are saying this is important to the narrative). I don’t, for example, see a debate among Nephites or their dissenters as to whether the flesh is inherently sinful or necessarily sinful. (I’m not saying a distinction or inference is irrelevant if we cannot find it articulated by characters in the Book of Mormon. But I’m focusing my attention on the anxiety in the narrative and I want to explore the cause of their anxiety and also explore how they resolve that anxiety).
For the most part, I don’t think I’m in disagreement with most of what you’ve outlined above. It’s only your last paragraph where I’m still puzzled. Are you suggesting that we should understand “evil” in the phrase “the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein” to mean “death”? That is, are you suggesting that the evil of the flesh is that it will die?
To whatever extent the flesh is uncoupled from death—whether in the actual event of the resurrection, or in the event of orienting oneself to something other than death—the flesh is redeemed. Human beings are then, as Lehi has it, “free according to the flesh.” The flesh itself is freed, freed from its bondage to death and freed to do as it will—if it wills anything other than death.
1) If the flesh is only free at the actual event of the resurrection, what comfort is that to those who struggling with the flesh during the time they are alive, during their probationary state? This seems to be Nephi’s concern in 2 Nephi 4.
2) “or in the event of orienting oneself to something other than death—the flesh is redeemed.” This may be a good restatement of Lehi’s teachings (except that Lehi states man is free, not that the flesh is free). But if it is, I don’t see Nephi gaining solace in it. In fact, I hear Nephi to be saying “Haven’t I already oriented myself to God? Then why do I not seem to be free? Why am I still angry?” or saying “I can’t seem to orient myself to God, even though I’m supposed to be free to do so.” He recounts all the great things God has done for him but it isn’t enough. He conclusion is significant:
I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Ne. 4:34).
My proposed reading is that Nephi is wrestling with the some of the implications of Lehi’s teachings. Nephi doesn’t seem to find solace in Lehi’s teaching that man is free to choose God or the devil. Nephi laments “why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul? Why am I angry because of mine enemy?” In other words, if Lehi is right, then why isn’t it working? Lehi’s specific teachings on agency do not reflect Nephi’s religious experience. This is one reason why I feel Nephi latches on to Lehi’s earlier words that those with a “broken heart” and “contrite spirit” are saved (2 Ne. 4:32).
I don’t see anything in Lehi’s discourse that suggests that “evil which is therein” is removed. Rather he says to “choose eternal life according to the will of his Holy Spirit, and not choose eternal death according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.” If Lehi is still following his ontology of opposites, and I think he is, then he needs both the will of the Holy Spirit and the will of the flesh to be enticing man one way or the other. In other words, the two opposing enticements established in the Garden, are now located within man after the fall (or something like that). “The will of the flesh and the evil which is therein” will continue to exist in man during his life, despite being redeemed from the fall. Redemption from the fall allows man the freedom to choose to follow the will of the spirit or the will of the flesh but it doesn’t rid the flesh of the evil therein (otherwise man could not act for himself). Redemption from the fall doesn’t eliminate the will of the flesh as a choice, otherwise, man could not act for himself. That’s what I hear Lehi saying.
I’d like to challenge the idea that flesh uncoupled from death is best understood as flesh redeemed. The flesh of Adam and Eve before the fall are arguably uncoupled from death (according to Lehi) and yet they don’t seem to be “redeemed.” If Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of life after they had fallen, their flesh would be uncoupled from death, but they wouldn’t be considered “redeemed.” Also, being resurrected doesn’t mean one can dwell in the presence of God. As I’ve suggested before, we should avoid conflating brought to stand in the presence of God to be judged, with dwelling in the presence of God (although I think this sometimes is conflated in the text of the Book of Mormon). An unrepentant individual is resurrected and raised to immortality, and God judges his works to be evil. So, his flesh is “redeemed” I suppose from the first death, but he is not redeemed from the second death and he does not dwell in the presence of God and he perishes. That seems to be the understanding of the Book of Mormon. Look at Alma for example:
12 And Amulek hath spoken plainly concerning death, and being raised from this mortality to a state of immortality, and being brought before the bar of God, to be judged according to our works.
18 Then, I say unto you, they shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God’s justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption. (Alma 12:12-18).
Being resurrected—raised from corruption to incorruption—in and of itself, is not considered “redemption” (Alma 12:18; Alma 11:14; Moroni 7:38; Mosiah 16:5.) Just because the flesh cannot die any longer due to the resurrection is not redemption for the wicked. “Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death.” (Alma 11:41). There is no rejoicing or benefit in the fact that now, now that its too late, that the flesh has somehow been changed. The evil in the flesh has already done its work during the probationary state. We have unredeemed immortality in Book of Mormon theology.
3) As to whether flesh is inherently evil, to squarely address this point. You write “It seems to me that the key to thinking about mortal flesh in the Book of Mormon lies in its mortality, its orientation to death.” This seems tautological. Naturally, mortal flesh is mortal. Yet, I’m not sure how this is key to thinking about flesh in the Book of Mormon. Why isn’t it the case that the key to thinking about the mortal flesh in the Book of Mormon that there is evil therein, as the text states?
Lehi could have said: There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, and so human beings have to be drawn from their flesh. He doesn’t, though, but instead suggests that flesh itself can be changed.
I don’t disagree with this. Lehi is limiting his words to the resurrection. He is saying that no flesh can resurrect except through the Messiah. Yes, flesh can be changed from corruption to incorruption, but this was never in dispute. Yet, if flesh is changed, I see no reason why we cannot discuss the nature of the flesh before this change (or examine how or when this change takes place). I don’t need to posit that the flesh is inherently sinful or necessarily evil. I’m not by any means saying that the flesh is evil and that this is an immutable state and the flesh is impervious to change and that the resurrection and redemption of Christ cannot change this evil, because flesh is inherently or necessarily evil, and that the resurrection is only the resurrection of spirits and not bodies. My inquiry begins with Lehi’s statement: “the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein.”
Key to everything I’m saying here is this: Nothing of what I’m saying is about the actual event of our own resurrection. Everything I’m saying is about how we dwell in mortal flesh between the announcement to us of Christ’s resurrection (with the accompanying promise of our own eventual resurrection) and our deaths. I’m not saying that we’re free from evil when we are resurrected; I’m saying that we’re free from evil when Jesus is resurrected. Christ’s resurrection changes the nature of the flesh because it uncouples it—through a promise to which we have to be faithful—from death. Because we don’t have to be oriented to our own deaths (and there’s the root of sin), we’re free to do good—or to embrace evil, if we want to. And that means that, even as we’re in the flesh, we’re free from evil. That’s why I’m insistent on distinguishing inherence from connection: the evil that’s in the flesh is rooted in its inhabitant’s orientation to death, but that can be overcome while one remains in the flesh.
I think that’s the point I’m failing over and over to communicate. The way that the event of Christ’s resurrection redeems us spiritually is by uprooting sin long before our (unmistakably assured) deaths and (merely promised) resurrections. There’s no necessity of a penal substitution theory or any such thing if the whole point of the atonement is just to free us up, in the flesh, from the sin-generating power of death. And that’s accomplished through the event of the (Christ’s) resurrection (with its promise of, but not yet the actuality of, our own).
There have been several really great questions and discussions brought up here; thanks all for participating.
I wanted to follow up to Joe and Rico’s discussion regarding flesh and its relationship with evil. The following may seem like it’s wandering a bit, but I do think it’s applicable here.
If we jump to Jacob’s first significant appearance in the text following Lehi’s blessing, we find him speaking to the (now separated) Nephites in 2 Ne. 6-10. As he begins his discourse, Jacob explicitly recalls Lehi’s teachings, saying “and I have taught you the words of my father; and I have spoken unto you concerning all things which are written, from the creation of the world” (2 Ne. 6:3).
Jacob launches into the theological meat of his discourse by saying “I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah” (2 Ne. 6:4). The point of this review of Isaiah appears to be to remind the Nephites that God always fulfills his covenants: “Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for the Mighty God shall deliver his covenant people” (2 Ne. 6:17).
Chapters 7 and 8 continue to cover Isaiah’s teachings on covenants and God’s relationship to his covenant people.
Chapters 9 and 10 contain Jacob’s theological explication not, as we might first expect, of Isaiah’s words, but rather of the concept of covenant as exemplified through Isaiah’s teachings: “And now, my beloved brethren, I have read these things that ye might know concerning the covenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the house of Israel” (2 Ne. 9:1).
This focus on covenant is crucial: Jacob knows that his brethren have been worried about their unknown future (justly so—they’ve left Jerusalem, and now left the Lehite colony) and that in their studying, they keep running up against two irrefutable facts: their bodies will die, and Christ will also become embodied (and therefore he will die too). “For I know that ye have searched much, many of you, to know of things to come; wherefore I know that ye know that our flesh must waste away and die; nevertheless, in our bodies we shall see God. Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem” (2 Ne. 9:4–5).
The trick here is that the scriptures generally, and specifically the words of Isaiah, are, as Jacob emphasizes, speaking of “things to come” (note this phrase both in 2 Ne. 6:4 and 2 Ne. 9:4). It appears that the Nephites have seen only part of these multiple “things” in the prophecies—death and embodiment—and that they have not clearly seen the more important “things”—the covenants of the Lord.
Chapters 9 and 10 tell the same covenantal story over and over in order to drive home the point that “the covenants of the Lord” are “great” … “and because of his greatness, and his grace and mercy, he has promised unto us that our seed shall not utterly be destroyed, according to the flesh, but that he would preserve them; and in future generations they shall become a righteous branch unto the house of Israel” (2 Ne. 9:53). Jacob teaches that all the covenants of the Lord point toward preservation and regeneration (recall Jacob 5, where the branches are repeatedly cut off and re-grafted; in the end the tree still bears fruit).
We have several covenantal stories throughout these chapters, but they all witness the same truth of redemption: the Lehite Exodus to the isle of the sea (a promised land), the scattering and gathering of Israel foretold in Isaiah, the Fall and entrance into mortality, the birth of an embodied Christ destined to atone and die and resurrect, and each individual life in the flesh—these present, at a macro level, the same motif of inevitable loss followed by graceful gain.
So, Jacob says, if all you’re reading is the inevitability of death, you’re missing the covenantal point of redemption: “may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God” (2 Ne. 10:25). Death and sin are both redeemed.
But, as Joe points out, this covenantal redemption is explicitly not a future event; it is not something we are waiting for, but rather something we are recognizing (veils lift, as it were). Jacob is clear on this point: “For I [God] 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 Ne. 10:17). The covenants are fulfilled not at our future resurrection or judgment, but now, on earth, while we “are in the flesh.”
God’s covenants are all the same: he promises safety in land, restoration to land, preservation of seed, a gathering of Israel. All of these are another way of explaining and teaching the reality of being a covenantal people—a reality of safety, restoration, preservation, gathering, regeneration, freedom—in essence, a witness of life in spite of the reality of death. Put another way, Lehi, Isaiah, and Jacob each witness our covenanted, already-fulfilled, freedom from sin while yet in the flesh, by and through the atoning Christ.
Jenny, I really like that we are continuing this discussion. Quick question: I’m not sure I understand why you consider atonement and resurrection to be “covenantal redemption.” I don’t know what this language does.
So, Jacob says, if all you’re reading is the inevitability of death, you’re missing the covenantal point of redemption: “may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God” (2 Ne. 10:25). Death and sin are both redeemed.
I agree with you that death and sin are redeemed but I want to stress the means by which each are redeemed. Jacob specifically says that death (what Jacob also calls the death of the body) is overcome by the resurrection (not the atonement), and he specifically says that everlasting death (clearly not physical death but only the analogy of death in that man is cut off from the presence of God or what Jacob calls the death of the spirit) is overcome through the atonement (not the resurrection). In other words, in this verse, Jacob is not saying that the resurrection overcomes sin and that the atonement overcomes physical death, this would be inverting the relationship that Jacob explicitly sets forth. The language in the Book of Mormon is atone for sins, never atone for death. So any interpretation that requires the reader to substitute of atonement for resurrection, or says sin is overcome via resurrection and physical death via atonement, or conflates the two or redefines atonement and resurrection in a way that ignores this fundamental distinction, I feel, has serious and perhaps insurmountable textual challenges, regardless of what other merit they may have. I continue to be open to all possible readings of the text but I don’t think the argument has been made yet that this reading can be grounded in the language and structure of the text. I know this wasn’t the point of your comment per se, but I thought I’d still raise it here.
But, as Joe points out, this covenantal redemption is explicitly not a future event; it is not something we are waiting for, but rather something we are recognizing (veils lift, as it were). Jacob is clear on this point: “For I [God] 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 Ne. 10:17). The covenants are fulfilled not at our future resurrection or judgment, but now, on earth, while we “are in the flesh.”
I still disagree with this discussion on the futurity or immediacy of redemption in these passages. I strongly agree with you on your seventh paragraph. I see an overwhelming amount of textual material that repeatedly focuses on how the Nephites are concerned with future events. They talk about it, they worry about it, they lament about it. In 2 Nephi. 9:4–5, as you rightly point out, Jacob focuses on two of those future events from the perspective of the Nephites 1) the resurrection (“in our bodies we shall see God”) and 2) the incarnation (“in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem”).
The resurrection is in fact a future event, and even the atonement, in so much as the Nephites are looking forward to the “coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world” is a future event. The story of the Nephites is a story where they repeatedly long for a future event and debate about this future event. I have a difficult time overlooking this facet of Book of Mormon narrative.
Now, I fully agree with you on the temporality of Jacob’s words here: “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 Ne. 10:17). In other words, “while they are in the flesh” means that God will fulfill these promises while the children of men are alive and not after their death. Where we differ is in which “promises” Jacob has in mind and whether those promises are in fact immediate or in the future.
What has God promised? Jacob says a the very end of the chapter, “he has promised unto us that our seed shall not utterly be destroyed, according to the flesh, but that he would preserve them; and in future generations they shall become a righteous branch unto the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 9:53). How can this not be a future promise? How can this not be something that Nephites will still need to wait on perhaps even to come true after the current generation passes? In chapter 10, Jacob picks up right where he left off. What are the promises?
[T]he 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, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be restored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer. (2 Nephi 10:2).
But behold, thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance. (2 Nephi 10:7).
The reason why Jacob has to add the language “according to the flesh” here is because otherwise his audience may think he is just repeating the language from 2 Nephi 9. There he used “restore” to mean “bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other” and “and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again” and “they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.”
Jacob,it seems to me, wants to be clear to say, “I don’t mean our children will perish in that they will die, but I mean they will perish because they no longer believe (i.e. “perish in the flesh” or perish while alive). I don’t mean our children will be restored in the sense of their spirit and body being restored to itself, and I don’t mean they will be restored to a knowledge because they are resurrected. I mean they will be restored to their lands and restored to a knowledge of God while they are alive.”
So this “according to the flesh” business is Jacob’s way of distinguishing between the difference senses of perish or restore. So back to Jacob’s statement “he has promised unto us that our seed shall not utterly be destroyed, according to the flesh, but that he would preserve them; and in future generations they shall become a righteous branch unto the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 9:53). Again, from the perspective of Jacob’s audience, the only reason they know that in the future their children will fall away is because Jacob has a revelation about it and tell them: “it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief.” (2 Ne. 10:2). This is not unlike Nephi seeing in vision the future destruction of his people (1 Ne. 15:5, 2 Ne. 26:7-11). But both the perishing and the restoration are future events. I agree with you that they are as far into the future as the resurrection or judgment but “in future generations they shall become a righteous branch unto the house of Israel” is a future event that, from the stand point of Jacob’s audience, they will not be alive to witness when it finally comes to pass.
One final comment. The Book of Mormon text aside (text aside), I don’t disagree with the idea that we can feel to sing the song of redeeming love while we are alive, that’s one of the ideas I personally cherish. I just don’t want to read that idea into the language of the text that was never intended to have that meaning. That’s only where I am coming from. This is my main quibble. I think the Book of Mormon is replete with language that will serve the exact same purpose , or was intended to serve the purpose of “already-fulfilled” or redemption that we are “recognizing.” For example, where King Benjamin’s says that God “is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another. . . he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you.” (Mosiah 2:24). That text is dripping with this immediacy and intimacy and alreadiness. Or, Alma “Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me . . . And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more.” (Alma 36:18-19). Here again, there is this instant redemption the moment Alma directs his mind to Christ.
I don’t want my push back to be interpreted as if I disagree with the idea per se (and to be sure that may be true at times as well) but mostly I’m concerned with the idea matching the most appropriate text. I hope that makes sense.
Nice discussion, Jenny and Rico.
Just a quick point: I’m not sure if I’m misreading you, Rico, but I don’t think anyone has argued that the atonement somehow overcomes death and the resurrection somehow overcomes sin, nor has anyone argued for a view that atonement and resurrection are somehow to be conflated. At least, I’ve certainly not meant to argue that. Instead, what’s been argued for is a theology in which a single event (the event of Christ’s resurrection) offers the promise of an ultimate triumph over death quite generally (that’s the resurrection) and thereby uproots sin in the present (that’s the atonement). The resurrection and the atonement, the conquests of death and of sin, are kept quite separate, though they are effected through a single act or event on the part of the divine. I take it that when Jenny speaks of a present redemption of the flesh, she has reference to the present uprootedness of sin in view of the future destruction of death.
I can agree that this theology hasn’t here been shown in all rigor and detail (speaking for myself, I frankly haven’t had time to do any more than make a few sketchy promissory notes), but I can’t agree—if you’re saying this, and I’m not sure you are—that it’s simply at odds with the text. For it to be at odds with the text, we’d have to identify some passage where one of the following is stated baldly: (1) there were two distinct redemption events, not one; (2) there is no fundamental relationship between death and sin. The opposites of those two things are either stated or implied again and again throughout the Book of Mormon, and that’s all that’s necessary to underpin the theology being set forth (but not really argued for).
Now, I don’t want at all to say that the Nephites consciously thought all of what I’ve suggested in here. I think it’s likely that they—or at least some of them—did, but it doesn’t much matter to me whether they actually did. What I’m doing in working up this theological picture is hermeneutical, an investigation of a certain set of theological ideas in light of what the text presents us with. It presents us with a kind of double surprise: (1) there was only one event of redemption (forget the Golgotha/Gethsemane split!); (2) there is a fundamental relationship between death and sin (such that without the resurrection all would become devils!). The exegete can simply assert those surprising statements and move on, but the theologian can’t. I can’t help but ask what’s implied by or presupposed in or possible to think about in light of those two statements. And the picture I’ve painted is one that makes sense of it. I don’t doubt there are others, but they’d also have to explain in a theologically productive way that double surprise.
Of course, theology issues a call that no one in particular needs to answer. Exegesis is crucial, perhaps more crucial, than any particular theological project. But there’s nothing illegitimate about theology just because it goes beyond exegesis. It responds to different worries and concerns, and it ought to.
Now, again, I don’t know if I’m responding, really, to anything you’ve said—perhaps only to my own neurotic will to hear worries on your part about this approach to the text. But it’s all worth saying, I think.