Blog

2 Nephi 31:1-8 — LeGrand Baker — Jesus’s baptism

2 Nephi 31:1-8
1   And now I, Nephi, make an end of my prophesying unto you, my beloved brethren. And I cannot write but a few things, which I know must surely come to pass; neither can I write but a few of the words of my brother Jacob.
2   Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.
3   For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
4   Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
5   And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6   And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7   Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8   Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

When Nephi writes “For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding,” he seems to be saying the Lord only tells us what we are willing and capable of understanding—and not more than that until we can understand more. So I suppose if we read what he is “obviously” saying, we are probably not getting the whole message. Nephi’s speaking “plainly” presupposes that his readers know how to read Isaiah whom he loves to quote. Consequently, his discussion of “the doctrine of Christ” begins with a reference to Isaiah 40, where we have an account of John the Baptist’s receiving his assignment at the Council in Heaven. The first three verses read:

1    Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2    Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.
3    The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:1-3)

“Comfort,” in verse one, is defined in Isaiah 61:3 as: to be made a part of Zion through washing (removing the ashes), anointing, clothing, giving a new name which is “Trees of Righteousness….”

“Ye” is plural, so God is speaking to a congregation. God is Elohim. So that places this chapter of Isaiah (and of our present reading of Nephi) in the same time frame as the latter part of Abraham 3 (“these I will make my rulers) which immediately precedes the account of the creation.

In verse 2, Isaiah’s evidence that Jerusalem has been pardoned is that she hath received of the Lord’s hand double in exchange for all her sins. Again we look in Isaiah 61, where the code word “double” is used twice — once to describe the blessings given to the dead and the other to describe the similar blessings given to the living who perform the vicarious work for the dead. One may assume that “at the Lord’s hand” means “at the Lord’s hand” and that it is the appropriate conclusion of the “comforting” sequence just mentioned. It’s like when Joseph received a double blessing when he received the birthright blessings of his fathers: He received the priesthood birthright and got two tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) rather than just one as each of his brothers did. One can conclude that receiving “of the LORD’s hand double” refers to the to the birthright blessings of Abraham which one receives “of the Lord’s hand.” And that the instructions given to the members of the Council had to do with making sure that happened. The very next verse, 3, is the prophecy of the mission of John the Baptist, or, in this Council context, it appears to be an account of the assignment John received at the Council. (As Amos points out, prophecies and a recounting of the decisions of the Council are essentially the same thing.)

What follows after that is the same pattern one would expect. That is, Isaiah 40 goes on to rehearse the decisions of the Council relative to the relationship of Israel to its King, Jehovah — which is, of course, a prophecy about the this-world work of the Saviour. From there Isaiah 40 moves into a series of questions which have to do with both covenants made and also the creation of the world. From there, the rest of Isaiah follows the pattern one would expect.

This is the context in which Nephi places what he calls “the doctrine of Christ.” What he will do next is give the rationale, presumably understood in the Council, but certainly valid in this world, about why the Saviour must be baptized.

His rationale is that the Saviour will “fulfil all righteousness.” Last week I wrote about “righteousness” and there is no reason to repeat it here, except to observe that it is “zedek-ness.” That is, “righteousness” has to do with temple things and, in this case, the propriety of the sequence of the ordinances and covenants of the temple.

Baptism, (which, for the dead, may only be performed in a temple) is not distinct from the other ordinances except that it is the first one – a cleansing ordinance which is a necessary prerequisite from all others. What Nephi is saying, so far as I can tell, is that in order to “fulfil all righteousness” (correctness in priesthood and temple things), Jesus had to go through all of the coronation ordinances just as everyone else. The fact that he was perfectly clean, and that the cleansing ordinance would not make him any cleaner, did not preclude the necessity of going through each of the steps in their proper order.

5   And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

If one considers the accounts of Jesus’s baptism in light of Psalm 2, Acts 10, and the stories of the Mt. of Transfiguration, including 2 Peter 1, then what Nephi is saying is much more complex than it appears at first reading.

2 Nephi 30:7-18 — LeGrand Baker– Poor and Meek

2 Nephi 30:7-18
7   And it shall come to pass that the Jews which are scattered also shall begin to believe in Christ; and they shall begin to gather in upon the face of the land; and as many as shall believe in Christ shall also become a delightsome people.
8   And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth.
9   And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
10   For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire.
11   And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
12   And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling, together; and a little child shall lead them.
13   And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
14   And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall
put his hand on the cockatrice’s den.
15   They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
16   Wherefore, the things of all nations shall be made known; yea, all things shall be made known unto the children of men.
17   There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed; there is no work of darkness save it shall be made manifest in the light; and there is nothing which is sealed upon the earth save it shall be loosed.
18   Wherefore, all things which have been revealed unto the children of men shall at that day be revealed; and Satan shall have power over the hearts of the children of men no more, for a long time. And now, my beloved brethren, I make an end of my sayings.

In these few short verses Nephi carries us from the time of the gathering of the Jews to the beginning of the millennium. He goes so quickly that it almost causes one to try to catch him and ask, “You have just skipped through the events of my lifetime, but where am I in your story.”

I suppose, if we could do that, he would respond, “I have told you already, that’s why we have read so much of Isaiah together.” At least, I think that’s what he might say, because as I read the parts of these verses which speak specifically of the members of Christ’s church, my mind moves back to Nephi’s emphasis on Isaiah, then, almost with transition, forward to the Beatitudes (for it’s all the same story). Now, as I sit here, my mind replaying some of the things Nephi has taught, I just go “WOW,” and wonder what to write to make that “WOW” intelligible to my friends.

It seems to me that in these passages Nephi does not write about our times as much as he writes about us – individually. The verse I have in mind is the one which he quoted from Isaiah before (Isaiah 11:4 quoted in 2 Nephi 21:4), and which he now pulls from its original context to paraphrase again here. In Isaiah’s code words (as I read the words) Nephi sums up our lives and our missions. He paraphrases Isaiah, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.”(2 Ne. 30: 9a )

I think what I would like to write today, is a review of the meaning of the code words, especially “poor,” “meek,” and “judge.” In looking at the meaning of “meek” we will have to look at other code words, like “way,” “path,” “secrets (sode),” and a few others. For some of you who have been a part of our Book of Mormon Project for about as long as I have, what I am going to write may contain nothing new. Some of you will recognize parts of this as being lifted almost verbatim from other things I have written. To you, I apologize for the redundancy, and suggest you may want to stop reading now. But for others of you, some of these ideas may be new, and may even have some value. I believe it is important in order to understand our verses, to observe that the two major code words which are used here are the same ones which are used in D&C 88:17. “And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.” The earth, as I understand that passage in its full context, was created, and will be celestialized, for the express purpose of being inhabited by the “poor” and the “meek.” Those are the same words which describe the people in our Book of Mormon verse. So our quest to understand either verse needs to begin with our discussing the answers to the questions: “Who are the ‘poor?’ and Who are the ‘meek’?”

First, Who are the poor?

The place to begin to look is in the Beatitudes (I will quote the ones in 3 Nephi 12 rather than in Matthew 5.), where verse three reads, “Yea, blesed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Non-LDS scholars don’t know (and most are honest enough that they say they really don’t know) what “poor” means in the Beatitude, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (3 Nephi version rather than the one in Matthew) However these scholars do insist that “poor” has nothing to do with poverty, or a lack of spirituality. The Anchor Bible translation uses ‘pious’ or God-fearing as a substitute for poor. That substitution makes sense in the first part of the verse, but it does not account for why the Saviour used “poor” as the requisite condition of those who will ultimately own the Kingdom of Heaven (It says, “theirs is the kingdom” – It does not say, “they shall be citizens of the kingdom”) People to whom kingdoms belong are called “kings” and “queens,” or, if it is an ecclesiastical kingdom, “priests,” and “priestesses.”

Some scholars have noted that the first three Beatitudes seem to be something of a paraphrase of Isaiah 61:1-3, which speaks of a coronation ceremony, of comforting those who mourn, and of the “meek.” In fact, Isaiah 1:3 is a review of the ancient royal and priestly coronation ceremonies. It mentions a washing (symbolized by exchanging ashes for a crown), anointing, clothing, and giving of a new name (“called”). (See: Margaret Dee Bratcher, “Salvation Achieved, Isaiah 61:1-7, 65: 17-66:2,” in Review and Expositor, Spring, 1991, Vol. 88, No. 2, p. 177-187; Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40 – 66, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, John Knox Press, 1995), p. 223-226; George A. Knight, The New Israel, A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 56–66 (Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1985) p. 50-57; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40 – 66 (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1969), p. 364-367.)

That coronation setting reenforces the idea that the “poor” to whom the kingdom of heaven belong, are its kings and queens rather than just its citizens, but it still doesn’t answer the question of why this adoptive royalty should be described by the word “poor.”

I believe the Book of Mormon gives us the answer to that question by telling us the sequence of the Saviour’s teachings. Third Nephi reports that one of the first things he did was to instruct the people about a fundamental change in the law of sacrifice. He told them the only appropriate sacrifice would be their own broken hearts and contrite spirits. That was not a new teaching, it was also found in the Psalms. The thing which was new in the instruction was that the outward sacrifices were to be discontinued, where major importance would be placed on the inward sacrifices instead. Soon after giving these instructions he said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit….”

(Other scriptures which suggest the same conclusion are: Psalms 34:18, Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 29:19, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2, 2 Nephi 9:30, 2 Nephi 2:7, 2 Nephi 4:32, 2 Nephi 27:30, 2 Nephi 28:13, Helaman 8:15, 3 Nephi 9:20, 3 Nephi 12:19, Ether 4:15, Moroni 6:2, D&C 20:37, D&C 52:15, D&C 56:17-18, D&C 59:8, D&C 109:72 )

It seems to me that one who has sacrificed a broken heart and contrite spirit can legitimately be called “poor” in the only sense which is perfectly consistent with the meaning of the first Beatitude. For that reason, I often read that Beatitude this way: Blessed are those who have sacrificed a broken heart and a contrite spirit, who come unto Christ, for they are the kings and queens, priests and priestesses in the Kingdom of God. At least, I think that is what it means.

If I am correct, it squares well with the statement, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor,” because ‘righteousness’ denotes the propriety of temple ordinances and covenants. Let me explain.

The word “righteousness” is the English rendition of Zadok if it is a proper name, or zedek if it is an adjective as it is in words like Melchizedek (“king of righteousness” or “my king is righteous”). The man Zadok was the High Priest who anointed Solomon to be king, and who later presided at Solomon’s Temple. After his death, according to tradition, all the legitimate High Priests who presided at the Temple (until sometime after the Babylonian captivity when the office of High Priest became a political appointment) were descendants of Zadok. Thus, to do something “in zedek-ness” or “with zedek-ness” means to do it correctly, in the manner of the High Priest. That is, to do it with the right authority, dressed the right way, in the correct manner, in the right place, and at the right time. Thus the words, ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ have to do with the correctness of the rites of the ancient Israelite temples.

“Judge” is also an important word which has both kingship and temple connotations. To judge can mean to condemn, but it can also mean to justify. It can mean to choose or select (as judging the best cake in a baking contest at a county fair) It can also mean to establish a standard of excellence by which one may conduct oneself, and to help one adhere to that standard.

It seems to me that what Nephi’s “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor,” is saying this: the criteria with which the Lord will judge (justify, select, give directions to) those who have sacrificed a broken hart and contrite spirit, will be ‘Zadok-ness’ — that criteria which is established by the covenants and ordinances of the temple.

Now let’s look at the next phrase, “and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” Here, we must go back to where we began before, with the understanding that the earth was prepared so the ‘poor’ and the ‘meek’ may inherit it. And, once again one must go to the Beatitudes to discover the meaning of the word “meek.”

The Beatitude in question is “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” It says the same thing as D&C 88 and is lifted almost verbatim from the Psalms. In the scriptures, when those scriptures speak in a temple setting, the word “meek” seems always to mean the same thing – and that meaning is not “humble,” and it is not “timid.” Some people choose to interpret this Beatitude is if it said, “Only non-self- assertive people will inherit the earth,” with the implied, sometimes stated quip, “and they will have to inherit it, because that’s the only way they can get it.” Those folks miss the point. The scriptures suggest that the word “meek” is the very opposite of a lack of assertiveness, and that the meek do not inherit the earth by default, but it is theirs as a legal heritage – it belongs to them by right. (Again I refer you to D&C 88 where the words “poor” and “meek” are words which describe the people in this world who will ultimately become celestial persons.) – and for whom the celestial earth will be created.

That use of “meek” is consistent with the way the word is used elsewhere in the scriptures. An example is in the coronation passages of Isaiah 61 we have already referred to. Isaiah wrote that the Lord was anointed “to preach good tidings to the meek.” Joseph F. Smith quotes that passage and also says that among those to whom the Lord preached were “the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.” (D&C 138: 42, 55) So, for those people at least, the quality of “noble and greatness” and the quality of “meekness” are apparently represented as being the same quality. This is also shown in the Bible where we learn, “the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3) Those who are “meek” are meek before the Lord. For example, in my view, Abinadi, standing defiantly before king Noah while delivering the Lord’s message to him and his fellows, is a splendid example of true meekness. Abinadi’s “meekness” is descriptive of his attitude toward God, but not of his attitude toward men.

One is meek before the Lord, when he keeps the covenants he has made with the Lord, that is, when one obeys the instructions he receives from the Holy Ghost about what to do in order to keep those covenants. This idea is clearly taught in the scriptures.

The Beatitude “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth,” seems to be a composite of two Psalms, which, together, speak with amazing power. The Psalm from which the Saviour is actually quoting in the Beatitude is 37:11. In context it reads:

7   Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his [his own, rather than the Lord’s ] way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass .
8   Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
9   For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10   For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11   But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:7-11) .

To “wait” means to be to wait, liking siting at a bus stop and waiting for the bus to come. The implications of that are clarified in Psalm 25. I’ll show you when we get there. For the present let’s just observe that it is apparent from that scripture that to “wait on the Lord” means to be alert to keep the covenants which one made with him at the Council in Heaven and patiently wait for him to fulfill his part.

Here in our present Psalm (37:11) the important relationship of the Psalms with the Beatitudes is shown in more than in the fact that the Lord quoted the Psalm almost verbatim. Verse 11 reads, “But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

In the Beatitudes, the Saviour not only quotes the first part of that verse, but he quotes it in its own sequential context. Notice the sequence in the Beatitudes:

5   And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. ….
8   And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God
9   And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

The key to the meaning of “peacemakers,” is Mormon’s introductory statements on the first page of Moroni 7.

In that sequence, verse 8 brings one into the presence of God, and verse 9 sits one on the royal throne of God as his legitimate heir. Please let me explain. The coronation setting of the Beatitudes was established in the first three verses, as we have already mentioned. In verse 9 the subject is given a new name or king name, which is “child of God” (“…for they shall be called ‘the children of God’.”). A “child” is a legitimate heir. If such a new-name, or king-name, is found, as this one is, in a coronation context, one can guess that the name “child” probably suggests that the person is being recognized as a legitimate heir to the throne. It appears that in the Beatitudes the king-name “child of God” occurs just as it does in the final anointing rites in the kingship sequence of the ancient New Year’s festival, as suggested in Psalm 2:7. Some scholars believe that in the ancient Israelite New Year’s festival, the final anointing of the king was apparently a dual ordinance, both of adoption and coronation. It had to be, they assert, because anyone who was anointed king, and who sat upon the throne, but who was not a legitimate child, would be a usurper. It is a question of legitimacy. Before one can sit upon the throne, one must be adopted as a legitimate heir. In the ancient coronation ceremony, the king-apparent had first to be acknowledged as a child of God, before he could set upon the throne of God. Thus the anointing ordinance answered both needs. The other Psalm which the Saviour’s Beatitude about meekness refers to is 25:9-14. Even though the direct quote is not there, in many ways this psalm is even more explicit than the other. Let me quote it all to you, then look at it more closely.

9   The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
10   All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11   For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
12   What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
13   His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
14   The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant (Psalm 25:9-14).

Lets begin by looking closely at the concluding verse, 14, then go back and examine the other verses in light of that conclusion. It reads, “The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.”

The word “secret” is the same Hebrew word as in Amos 3:7, which reads “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” The word translated ‘secret’ is the Hebrew word SOD (“sode” in Strong). It means the secrets or the decisions of a council. In these and similar contexts, it refers to the decisions of the Council in Heaven. [Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament (Philadelphia, Fortress Press,  1968),  2-6.]

What Amos says, then, is that the Lord will not do anything until after he recalls to the prophet the covenants and decisions made in Council. What our Psalm says is that the Lord will teach the decisions of the Council to those who fear (respect) him, and “will shew them his covenant.” I understand that to mean that God, by the power of the Spirit, will teach each individual the covenant he made in the pre-mortal existence, relative to that person’s expectations of the mission he would do while on the earth. The psalm introduces that idea by associating the word “meek” with those who remember and keep that covenant. The remembering comes as a gift from God; the keeping is a matter of one’s faith and integrity.

Now lets re-read the portion of Psalm 25 which is quoted above. I’ll put the words of the Psalm in caps and my comments in lower case letters.

The following verses are from Psalm 25:

9    “THE MEEK [those who keep their eternal covenants ] WILL HE [the Lord ] GUIDE IN JUDGEMENT,” [To judge righteously, that is to be a righteous judge, is the first and most important function of a king. It is represented in verse 7 of the Beatitudes, immediately before one sees God, as “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” If the meek are to be the kings and priests of a celestial world, they must learn how to judge righteously. To not learn to judge righteously, is to disqualify oneself. Those who keep their covenants can learn that requisite lesson, because the Lord will be their “guide in judgment.” ]

9-b    “AND THE MEEK WILL HE TEACH IN HIS WAY.” [In a temple context, “way” is a code word which usually means the sequence of the ordinances and covenants. (The Beatitudes, especially as they are reported in the Book of Mormon, may thus be seen as a quick map of the “way.”) ]

10    “ALL THE PATHS [same code meaning as “way” ] OF THE LORD ARE MERCY [Another reference to the primary responsibility of kingship ] AND TRUTH [ Truth is knowledge of reality – things as they were, are, and will be (D&C 93). So, the “path” of kingship includes learning judgement which is based on an understanding of reality.]

10-b    UNTO SUCH AS KEEP HIS COVENANTS [ The covenants, in this context, would be the ones which one made at the Council and which one re-makes in this world. ] AND HIS TESTIMONIES. [Scholars aren’t sure what “testimonies” mean in this and similar contexts. Some believe it was something which was worn on the body, and that the wearing of it was a testimony of the covenants which one had made.]

11    “FOR THY NAME’S SAKE, O LORD” [God has many names, just as covenant people have. New Names are always associated with covenants (For example, one takes upon oneself the name of Christ when one is baptized and takes the sacrament.) Therefore, in a temple context, one can almost always replace the word “name” with the word “covenant” in a scripture without changing the meaning of the scripture. In this instance that is true. The name is question is “LORD,” i.e. “Jehovah,” which the scriptures and our own Bible’s dictionary suggest is the Saviour’s king-name or covenant-name. In which case “Jehovah” is probably the new name given him when he was anointed King of Israel at the Council. (Our Bible Dictionary reads, “Jehovah. The covenant or proper name of the God of Israel.” p. 710). The phrase, “for thy name’s sake” would mean, “for the sake of the mutual covenant which we made at the Council, and which is represented by your king-name, Jehovah.”]

11-b    “PARDON MINE INIQUITY; FOR IT IS GREAT.” [This is an obvious reference to the powers of the atonement. At the New Year’s festival, before one could be anointed king, the king- designate had to be ceremonially cleansed (washed and pardoned) before he could continue in the sequence of ordinances and covenants. In our case, the Saviour’s atonement must be applied for the same reason.]

The next three verses of our Psalm are a reiteration of the blessings of those who receive the ordinances and covenants already referred to. These verses begin with the question,

12    “WHAT MAN IS HE THAT FEARETH [love, respects, as being in “awe” of, gives honor to] THE LORD?” Then it answers its own question:

12-b    “HIM [the man] SHALL HE [God] TEACH IN THE WAY [ I presume “in the way” means in the way. In other words, as one moves through the sequence called the “way,” God will teach him, not only the sequence, but also the meaning and significance of the steps.]

12-c    HE SHALL CHOOSE.” [As I read it, these words mean God will teach the man “in” the “way” so the man may know which options he should choose in order for him to have both the means and the opportunity to keep the covenants he made in Council.]

13   “HIS SOUL SHALL DWELL AT EASE; AND HIS SEED SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.” [This is an enlargement of the promise we read in Psalm 37. Here the blessing that one’s soul will “dwell at ease” is tied to a further declaration that “his children shall inherit the earth.” Thus, the Beatitude, “Blessed are the meek,” carries with it all the promises of exaltation in the eternal bonds of family.

14    “THE SECRET [ sode — decisions of the Council ]OF THE LORD IS WITH THEM [the meek ]THAT FEAR [ respect, honor ] HIM; AND HE [the Lord] WILL SHOW THEM [the meek ]HIS COVENANT.” [which, I presume, means: The Lord will show him the covenant assignments made at the Council – and also remind him of the covenant provisions made at the Council which would guarantee that one would be able to fulfil those assignments]

As a review, let me get out of the way so you can read the scriptures as they are written, without all the stuff I put in between. They simply say,

7   Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
8   Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
9   For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10   For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:7-11) .

9 The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11 For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
14 The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant ( Psalm 25:9-14).

Jesus summed all that up by saying simply, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth..”

If one adds to that, Albright and Mann’s statement that the classic Greek word translated “blessed” literally means “in the state of the gods,.” (Anchor Bible, Matthew, p. 45, fn 3.), what we hear the Saviour saying is this:

“In the state of the gods are those who keep their eternal covenants, for it is they and their children who shall inherit the celestial earth.”

Now let us return to our original Book of Mormon scripture where this discussion began, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.”

The direct object of ‘judge’ is ‘the poor’, but the direct object of ‘reprove’ is not given. Presumably it is also the poor. In which case the words might be read, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove [the poor] with equity for [the sake of] the meek of the earth.”

I think what that says is that the Lord will judge the poor by the covenants they have made and that he will direct the affairs of the meek so they may fulfill those covenants, in order that the Lords purposes on this earth may be fulfilled. That, you will recall, is what Ephesians chapter one is all about.

2 Nephi 30:2 — LeGrand Baker– Name of God

2 Nephi 30:2
2   For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel (2 Ne. 30:2 ).

The phrase “Holy One of Israel” is the key to the meaning of this verse, thus deserves close attention.

In the phrase, “Holy One of Israel,” the Hebrew word translated “Holy” does not mean “complete,” as “holy” often does. Rather it means: “sacred (ceremonially or morally)” (Strong 6918). In simpler English, on e could say “Holy” means “ceremonially sacred.”

The Hebrew word translated “one” does not simply mean the number, like in the sentence, ‘I have one rose.’ Rather it means oneness, to be “united,” or brought “together” (Strong 259 ).

We find in Psalms 89:18, “For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.” And the similar statement in Isaiah 43:15, ” I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.”

Thus it appears that the phrase “Holy One of Israel” is one of Jehovah’s king-names ( i.e. covenant name, or new name ), reminding us that the Father will “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:” (Ephesians 1:10); just as the phrase “Lord of Hosts” (Master of the Armies) is Jehovah’s king-name denoting his responsibility as protector, defender, and commanding general in Israel’s military relations with her neighbors.

Thus it appears that the phrase, “Holy one of israel” is the sacral king-name ( covenant name, or new name ) of the God and king by and in whom israel is ceremonially united.

That phrase “Holy One of Israel” is used 68 times in the scriptures. In each of those uses, the context suggests that the one spoken of has the rights, prerogatives, and powers of a king. But they rarely suggest kingship in a military sense. The greatest single scriptural concentration of the phrase, “Holy One of Israel,” is found in Second Nephi chapter 9, which is Jacob’s discourse on the atonement of Christ. (There it is used twelve times – almost one fifth of the whole. ) Most of these statements have to do with judgement and God’s power to be the judge – which was the most important peace-time power of an ancient Near Eastern king. Typical of Jacob’s teachings is this regard is 2 Nephi 9:25:

25  Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

In other statements Jacob refers to Jehovah’s power to give and deny life, which is the ultimate of godly powers which can be expressed also as an earthly-kingly prerogative. Jacob speaks of “that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel” ( 2 Ne. 9: 26). And “by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel” ( 2 Ne. 9:12).

Thus in Jacob’s magnificent sermon about the Saviour’s atonement, Jacob repeatedly ties the powers and prerogatives of the atonement to Jehovah’s authority as King. The second greatest scriptural consecration of the phrase “Holy One of Israel” is found in First Nephi 22 (6 times) which talks about Joseph Smith’s restoration of the temple and of the blessings associated therewith. Here the idea of Jehovah’s kingship is closely associated with the notion of kingship as it was taught by the Saviour in the Beatitudes, that is, the relationship between kingship (having the name “child of God”) and of having peace or being a “peacemaker.” (Nephi does not use the word “peace” in the following verses, but he describes it.)

24   And the time cometh speedily that the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall, and the Holy One of Israel must reign in dominion, and might, and power, and great glory.
….
26   And because of the righteousness of his people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness [ i.e. zedek = priesthood and temple temple correctness ], and the Holy One of Israel reigneth. (1 Nephi 22:24-26 ).

Scholars assert that the Psalms are the texts of the ancient Israelite new year coronation festival. The writings of Isaiah are largely a commentary on the meaning of that festival and its coronation ceremonies. Nephi and Jacob’s writings are very closely tied to that same idea and sequence. Thus, it is not at all surprising that almost all of the scriptural uses of this sacred royal name of Israel’s God are found in the writings of Isaiah, Nephi, Jacob, and in the Psalms.

Now let us return to the verse which initiated this discussion. Embedded in that verse, written by Nephi, one discovers a carefully worded composite of all of the sacred kingship connotations found in the phrase “Holy One of Israel.”

2   For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel (2 Ne. 30:2 ).

2 Nephi 29:1-3 — LeGrand Baker — ‘A Bible, a Bible…’

2 Nephi 29:1-3
1   But behold, there shall be many—at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel;
2   And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel;
3   And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

There tends to be four sorts of Christian professional church people (both Catholic and Protestant, and increasingly even some Mormons) who accept the scriptures, but only on their own terms and not on God’s. Those terms are different from the one God describes here, which is that he might fulfill the covenants he made with us in our premortal life, and which he has re-confirmed with the prophets as their time came when they should be on the earth. Those categories of church people are:

1) The preacher, who is essentially a Bible thumper, who sees himself as
the interpreter of God’s word and would be either frustrated or angered at the notion that there is an authenticated interpretation which is different from his own. He doesn’t want a second Bible because it might cause him to change his mind about what he teaches from the first one.

2) The sociologist whose training focused on sociology and psychology, and who uses the Bible as a source of “inspiration” for his parishioners, but who doesn’t believe a thing in it that doesn’t conform to his own sociological training. To him the very idea that God spoke to anyone at all is absurd.

He doesn’t want a second Bible because he has already rejected the first.

3) The scholars — archaeologists and historians who see the Bible as an ancient history book, which is showing itself to be surprisingly accurate
in its historical detail, but whose authors made assumptions about God and religion which are fundamentally only the same as the ones their pagan neighbors made. These scholars probably actually understand the Bible better than the people in either of the two previous categories. But they understand it in terms of what they believe the ancients thought and did, rather than in terms of what God taught and did. For them, a second witness for Christ would upset their entire academic apple cart and they would have to re-think many of their favorite ideas. Consequently, there can be no place in their academia for such a second Bible.

4) There are people in each of the above three categories who actually do believe in God. Sigmund Mowinckel, the great Swedish linguist and Biblical scholar who discovered that the Psalms were the text of the ancient Israelite New Year festival, is one striking example. The nearly
anonymous preacher in the little country church who only wants to teach his congregation to love God and each other, is another – I suspect there are many like him. These people do not accept the Book of Mormon because they do not have a chance to do so, either because they have never heard of it, because it was not presented to them in the right way, or because their education, training, or culture get in the way of their seeing clearly. Nonetheless, in the last 170 years, many such people have discovered the Book of Mormon, embraced the gospel, and learned the meaning of the eternal covenants of the Father.

2 Nephi 28:1-3, 9, 13 – LeGrand Baker — false churches

1   And now, behold, my brethren, I have spoken unto you, according as the Spirit hath constrained me; wherefore, I know that they must surely come to pass.
2   And the things which shall be written out of the book shall be of great worth unto the children of men, and especially unto our seed, which is a remnant of the house of Israel.
3   For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord—
….
9   Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
….
13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.

It is an axiom among historians that the primary function of religion has always been to help the rich control and exploit the poor. This assumption is the basic premise upon which is built most modern studies of ancient, as well as contemporary religions. And one doesn’t have to look very hard to discover that the argument appears to be very sound indeed.

I used to wonder what would have become of me if I had not been born into the LDS Church. I’m not sure I would have joined the church as a convert, and I can’t imagine where my attitudes would have taken me otherwise.

Throughout human history, religion has been the major power of enslavement used by governments against their own people. In the ancient world, kings were either gods or representatives of god. In more modern times, that same assertion (though colored by more “acceptable” political jargon) has been made by leaders as diverse in their philosophy as Hitler and Stalin; and as typical as Eva Peron. In our own country, the political deification of John Kennedy is an expose in miniature of American political principles and practices.

Religion and patriotism have almost always been synonymous. It is because of that union, or, by way of that mutual co-dependence, that throughout human history, religion has been the primary machine by which the political and economic elite have generated human hatred and human suffering. The promise of riches in the afterlife has been exploited to enforce and to justify poverty and wretchedness in this life. Governments use religion to manipulate the morality, emotions, and credulity – both the productive and the destructive powers – of the masses.

In medieval Europe, kings were almost entirely subservient to the Pope. Before Henry VIII, the Catholic Church owned one third of all real estate in England, and one third of English taxes were sent to Rome every year. Henry VIII broke the back of that subservience by confiscating the church’s property, keeping much of it, and distributing the remainder to the British aristocracy (After that, if the Catholics were to re-take their power in England, the English aristocracy would have to give back the confiscated property. So Protestantism became secure in England) But even so, the English king remained the final religious authority in his kingdom. Today, Queen Elizabeth is still head of the Church of England.

As recently as Victoria’s day, the power of the church was used to sustain a veneer of “morality” ( under which was hidden un-condemned white slavery) and a justification of Social Darwinism (under which was condoned the poverty and corruption decried by Charles Dickens). The religious veneer of “Victorian Morality” not only prevailed in England, but also in America. It was under the critical eye of American Protestant ministers that Jim Crow laws were passed in the South and Mormons were persecuted in the west.

Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and his understanding that personal, political, and economic freedom were absolutely impossible without the separation of church and state, to Americans, at least, the idea that the Queen is the head of the Church of England seems not to mean much nowadays. But in principle it has always meant a great deal. The spread of religion was the justification for the creation and ultimate power of the British empire (As it was for the Spanish, French, Dutch, and German empires), and it was the less overtly recognized rationale which supported America’s “Manifest Destiny.”

Modern social scientists have limited our use of the word “religion” to mean notions about god, but in terms of their function in modern society, ideas with different names are as powerful today, and in the same way, as the ancient religions used to be. The structural variants on the philosophy of Rousseau (Humanism, Fabianism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism) which deny god as god, replace theocracy and the church with other philosophically imposed power structures which look like apostate religion in that they also exert moral, social, political and economic control. Thus religionists of all stripes (whether theologically or philosophically self-defined) still dictate the meaning of personal, public, political, and economic “morality.” And the “morality” they accept is sometimes more a-moral than the oldfashioned Protestant “immorality” used to be.

Nephi’s statement ( 2 Ne. 28:1-18 ) is a classic, in that it describes so accurately the powers and corruption of apostate religion. It also serves as a warning. I suspect one of the greatest challenges to Mormonism — and I stress: Not to Mormonism on its the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve Apostle level, but on its bureaucratic sub-levels — as Mormonism becomes a world religion, will be to discover how to let its people remain free, and how not to use its powers of numbers, wealth, and prestege in the classic and perverse way that the powers of churches have almost always been used. [2 Ne. 28:1-18, 12 Apr 99, Dil Rust, ] In Mormon’s claim of being “a descendant of Nephi” (Mormon 1:5), which also applies to Moroni, Mormon is established as a representative of Nephi, just as Joseph Smith, likewise a direct blood descendant of a great prophet (Joseph the Patriarch), was a latter-day representative of Joseph. Both serve as second witnesses to the truths taught by their lineal ancestors. In the case of the Book of Mormon, Moroni can be twinned with his father, and in fact says that he finishes his father’s record and does so under his father’s direction.

With that said, I’d like to point out a connection between Nephi’s testimony and that of his direct descendant Moroni. This connection is also directly relevant to the basic character of the Book of Mormon.

Nephi prophetically says that a major characteristic of churches in the last days not built up unto the Lord is that they “deny the Holy Ghost” and “deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel” (2 Nephi 28:4-5). They will declare that if someone says “there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles” (2 Nephi 28:6). Ten centuries later, Moroni prophetically sees that same day when “it shall be said that miracles are done away” and when “the power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and be lifted up in the pride of their hearts” (Mormon 8:26, 28). That day is not coincidentally linked with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. (The larger passage in Mormon 8:26 reads: “. . . and it [the Book of Mormon] shall come in a day when it shall be said that miracles are done away; and it shall come even as if one should speak from the dead.”) Moroni (and his father, teaching the same thing) thus stands as a second witness of a central truth of the Book of Mormon: that while churches generally will deny the power of God, the Book of Mormon itself will be (and, really, is, since Moroni speaks to us “as if ye were present”) a miracle. It will come forth miraculously by the agency of an angel; it will be brought forth through the instrumentality of a prophet of God; and it will testify that possession of gifts of the Spirit is an essential characteristic of the true church of God (see especially Moroni 10).

2 Nephi 28:19-32 — LeGrand Baker — choosing good or evil

2 Nephi 28:19-32
19   For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;
20   For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.
21   And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well–and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.
22   And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none–and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

It doesn’t seem to make much difference which message is received from the Devil. If one sees good and becomes angry because he sees it as evil; or if one sees evil and perceives it as good, either has the same effect upon his soul. The system seems to be (I’m paraphrasing Chauncy Riddle here) If one sees a good thing the devil teaches him that the goodness is of the devil. If one sees a bad thing the devil teaches him that it cannot be of the devil because there is none.

23   Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

In an ancient temple context, the word ‘works’ almost always means ordinances (as in the book of James and in Alma 12).

28   And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rockreceiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

There is only one truly sacred rock. Symbolically it is the one at Jerusalem upon which the holy of holies stood. In truth, it is the Saviour, whose earthly throne was in that holy of holies.

29   Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!
30   For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
31   Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.
32   Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

More obvious references to the ancient temple drama. I don’t know how Nephi could have said it any more clearly. The options are either coming into the presence of God, or not coming into the presence of God. Its either one, or else it’s the other.

A personal note: As I wrote this, the contrast between good and evil caused me to reflect. Most of the people who will read what I have just written are my close personal friends – people whom I love and trust. This note is to you. It seems to me, that as one walks in the darkness that is this world, the next best thing to being in the presence of God, is to have friends who try to be like Him. To each of you, thank you for being my friend. Please accept the embrace I would send with this note, as if only you were near enough to hug. – LeGrand

2 Nephi 26 — LeGrand Baker — Isaiah’s world history

I am deeply appreciative of Dil’s last week’s comments. What I have to write will not add much, if anything at all. All it does is look at this chapter from the perspective of an historian, rather than from Dil’s more artistic vantage point of literary critic.

To me, this chapter gives one an interesting perspective on world history. Nephi moves through almost three thousand years on a single thread. That thread not only teaches what is important to Nephi, it also teaches us what is universally important. To see that, lets briefly go through the chronology of the chapter.

The story Nephi is about to tell is summed up in the first verse, “And after Christ shall have risen from the dead he shall show himself unto you, my children, and my beloved brethren; and the words which he shall speak unto you shall be the law which ye shall do.”

There Nephi addresses two audiences, his descendants, whom he calls “my children”; and those who are partakers of the covenant, whom he calls “my beloved brethren.” He draws an unspoken distinction between the law of Moses and the Gospel, by the instructions, “the words which he shall speak unto you shall be the law which ye shall do.” Then, after this introduction, he begins his chronology.

Verse 2 covers the 600 years between Nephi’s own time and the birth of Christ: ” many generations shall pass away, and there shall be great wars and contentions among my people.”

Verses 3-6 covers the period from the sign of the birth of Christ, until the destructions which will be the sign of his death.

Verse 7 is Nephi’s testimony — a reminder that he saw these things while he was in “the presence of the Lord.”

Verses 8-11 describe the coming of Christ to the Nephites and the rest of the history of the Book of Mormon until its conclusion.

Nephi’s narrative then leaves his own people in their apostate state and reminds us that the Saviour will keep his promise to manifest “himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith.”

He then turns his attention to the last days,

Verses 14 through 19 are a summation of Isaiah 29, which Nephi has not quoted before, and which is a prophecy of the Book of Mormon.

Verses 20 through 22 are about the world of Joseph Smith – and about our own world as well. When people “preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor. And there are many churches built up which

cause envyings, and strifes, and malice. And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old….”

Verses 23 through 29 is a description of Christ’s church as it will be restored in the latter days. This is not a description in terms of the church’s organization, but in terms of its invitation to the world to partake of Christ’s salvation. “… he hath given it [ salvation ] free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.” What Nephi offers here, and what Nephi sees as the purpose of his panoramic history, is universal salvation, but not universal exaltation. Christ has given “salvation…free for all men.” But notwithstanding that free gift, “he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”

Then, in verses 30 through the end of the chapter, Nephi concludes by showing how the whole history of the whole world (as he has described it) focuses on the salvation of each single individual. “…he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

Nephi’s conclusion of his brief overview of world history, is the same as Mormon and Moroni’s conclusion of the great panoramic sweep of Nephite history. In the Book of Mormon it is Moroni chapters 7 and 10 discussing faith, hope, and charity, as a kind of crescendo of everything else that has been taught. Nephi does the same thing. He writes, “wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love, and except they should have charity they were nothing.”

In summary, this is a remarkable Chapter. Not only does it explain Isaiah in terms which are easy to understand, but in doing so, it shows how human history focuses on human encounters with the Christ, and that the purpose of each individual within that great history, focuses on one’s individual relationship with the Saviour.

2 Nephi 25:1, 5 — LeGrand Baker — Why Isaiah?

1 Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. Forbehold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews…..
5. Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah…(2 Nephi 25:1, 5).

When the Saviour came to America he commanded,

1   And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah. (3 Nephi 23:1)

And to that, Mormon added, “Search the prophecies of Isaiah. ( Mormon 8:23)

I would like to address the question, “Why Isaiah?” Why not Jeremiah, or Ezekiel. or Deuteronomy? Actually there is a very good answer to that question, and while I won’t attempt to do it justice in the short space I have to write in, I would like to at least give a brief overview of the answer.

The Prophet Joseph wrote, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly…” “Translated” works fine if one reads it to mean, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God so far as our version says the same thing as the original said.” But a more precise way of writing what Joseph probably meant would be, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is both transmitted, and translated correctly.” It is the “transmitted” part which I wish to discuss.

Bible scholars are forever arguing about which parts of the Bible were written when. For example, one prominent view is that much, if not all, of the five books of Moses were written after the Babylonian captivity. Most scholars believe that all of Deuteronomy was written just before the exile into Babylon.. Nephi tells us that the Books of Moses were included on the Brass Plates, so we know they couldn’t have been written after the Babylonian captivity. However, In some ways, the scholarly argument is quite sound. All one has to do is compare the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price with the beginning of Genesis is our Bible, to discover that someone has taken some enormous editorial liberties with Moses’ writings. One of the reasons scholars say that the Books of Moses were written after the Babylonian captivity is because some of those editorial changes bear the linguistic marks of that later period of Jewish history.

Let me explain. If I handed you a copy of a page from a book by Mark Twain, and on that page he had quoted a scripture, but hadn’t bothered to put quotation marks around it – and if you were not familiar with either that page of Twain’s writings or with the scripture – and if I asked you to circle the words which had been lifted from the Bible, you could easily do that. Even though both Mark Twain and the Bible quote are written in English, the language style is sufficiently different that you could readily tell which was which. A scholar can recognize those kinds of differences in Biblical Hebrew as well. Not everyone agrees on just what those stylistic shifts in the text mean, but scholars agree that they at least mean that much of the version of the Bible which has been preserved until our day, has been given a pretty through editing by people who lived many years after the original writers.

For example, most scholars believe that the history books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) are each compilations of at least two, and probably more original histories, and that the historians who compiled them had different motives and thus selected different things to include – and to exclude – in order to achieve their own purposes. Thus Kings and Chronicles, which describe the same time periods, focus on different stories and use the stories to make different points. These two histories (Kings and Chronicles) each end after the Babylonian captivity, so it would be a bit difficult to argue that they were written or compiled during a period before the Babylonian captivity. If that is correct it means that the entire first half of our version of the Old Testament was either written or severely edited after the Babylonian captivity. That fact (I presume it is a fact) is extremely interesting to Latter-day Saints, because by knowing the time of that writing or editing, we can deduce a number of significant things.

First, If our versions of the five Books of Moses were edited after the Babylonian captivity, the versions we have are significantly different from the versions which were contained on the Brass Plates. Consequently, the Book of Mormon references to the “Law of Moses” may refer to facts about the Law which are not transmitted in our Bible. The most obvious example of this is that the Book of Mormon prophets repeatedly say that the Law of Moses is about the Saviour, yet, apart from the idea of the sacrificial Lamb of Passover, we have difficulty discovering how that is so.

Second, The other history books ( Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) could not have been on the Brass Plates if it is true that they were written after Lehi left Jerusalem. But what might be on the Brass Plates is copies of the original manuscripts from which the information in our histories was taken.

By the way, that same logic, teaches a good deal more about the contents of the Brass Plates. For the same reason Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, part of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were written after Lehi left Jerusalem so were not included on the Brass Plates.

So, of the books in the Old Testament which we have, which MAY have been included on the Brass Plates were the writings of some of the “minor” prophets (Hosea [c. 740 BC], Joel [before 850 BC or as late as after the return], Amos [about 740 BC], Obadiah [c. 845 BC], Jonah [It is not known when this story was written.], Micah [unknown], Nahum [probably a contemporary of Lehi], Habakkuk [ probably a contemporary of Lehi], Zephaniah [another probable contemporary of Lehi].). There may also have been Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon. But the only ones we can be sure of (because they are either mentioned, quoted, or paraphrased in the Book of Mormon) are the Books of Moses, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and part of Jeremiah. There are also prophets which we do not have in our Old Testament, most notably Zenock and Zenos. We can also be sure that the Brass Plates contained some Israelite history, because both David and Solomon are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

When the angel described our Bible to Nephi, he described it this way:

23  The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13:23).

All that is relevant, but it still does not answer the question, “Why Isaiah.” The answer to that question will become obvious if we begin by eliminating the others, and ask, “Why not Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets?” The answer seems to be that these prophets wrote about specific events or circumstances, but not write so much about the doctrines and the theology. For example, in the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, Jeremiah tells his story, calls the Jews to repentance, and bemoans the loss of Jerusalem and its Temple. Ezekiel is a contemporary of Jeremiah and Lehi, but Ezekiel is already in exile in Babylon and is writing about the problems of his own time. The minor prophets also write about the problems of their own times. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets contain important prophecies about the Saviour and the return of Israel, but even though there is much truth their, their object is to write about other things besides the gospel, the temple, or the plan of salvation.

Why not the Books of Moses? Because much is missing from our five books of Moses. I’ve already mentioned Genesis, but there are other important examples also. The book of Leviticus, for instance, is the place where we go to find the particulars about the sacrifices and performances of the Law of Moses. But all Leviticus is, is an Aaronic priesthood handbook telling how and which sacrifices are to be performed when. It tells almost nothing about what the rest of the people do when those sacrifices are performed. It tells almost nothing of the other ceremonies connected with those sacrifices. Probably the most important example of that lack of information is the Leviticus description of the Feast of Tabernacles. It tells what animals are sacrifices and how, but in conjunction with those Aaronic Priesthood ordinances, the people were re-enacting the whole story of the plan of salvation. We have almost nothing in our versions of the books of Moses which even suggest such ceremonies were going on. (more about that below)

Why not the histories, Kings and Chronicles? Because they were written or compiled during the time of Jewish apostasy, and they reflect the doctrines of that apostasy. Before the Babylonian captivity the Israelite religion was polytheistic. They believed in Elohim, Jehovah, and a whole Council of minor gods. After the return from Babylon, they became monotheistic, worshiping only Jehovah, but not being sure about who or what he was. Much of the “problems” with the wrathful “Old Testament God” are due to the histories’ having been written during the time when Jews were not quite sure what God was. There are other doctrinal problems in the histories as well. One of the most important is the omission of the story of the plan of salvation as I mentioned in the preceding chapter.

Why not the Psalms? The Psalms are wonderful. They are the actual text of the dramatization of the plan of salvation. They may not be perfect, but many of them seem to have come down to us almost in tact. Their problem is their arrangement. One cannot read them in sequence and discover what they were originally about. Some scholars call the arrangement and headings of the Psalms “the first commentary on the Psalms.” These headings, along with the present arrangement were added after the Babylonian captivity, during the period of apostasy I have just described. Consequently, whatever one might have learned from reading the Psalms in their original order, is now almost entirely lost. For example, if our temple ceremony was much longer, and mostly sung in a whole series of separate songs, one would expect, if he read the words of those songs in their correct order, to discover a good part of the ceremony. But if the songs were all jumbled up, one just couldn’t find a story, and might even conclude there had never been a story in the first place. That would be especially true if the new arrangement of the songs was divided into groupings, with the implication that there was meaning in the groupings. That is the situation with the Psalms. It seems to be all there, but looking for it is like trying to make sense of a picture when all one has is the scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. A couple specific examples: At the conclusion of the ceremony the king was anointed “king.” The Psalm which was probably sung during that anointing ceremony is Psalm 2. So in our version, we find the song which was supposed to be sung at the conclusion of the drama, at the beginning of the hymn book. Another example. There is a scene in which one sees the Council in Heaven. Jehovah has just been anointed King of Israel, and now this scene shows the calling of the earthly king and queen. That Psalm would have been sung during one of the earliest scenes in the drama, but in our arrangement of the Psalms it is # 45, a third of the way into our present book. Psalm 82 also takes place in the Council, it is almost two thirds of the way into our Book of Psalms. So, in its present jumbled condition, the Book of Psalms is not the best place to look to find the doctrines of the gospel and of the plan of salvation.

That leaves Isaiah – and Isaiah is wonderful. It is evident from quotes in the Book of Mormon, that our version of Isaiah is transmitted to us in very good condition. It is full of the gospel, and the whole plan of salvation is there. There are prophecies of the Saviour, explanations of the atonement, examples of how to obtain individual salvation, discussions of the covenants made by the Father with his children, and an explanation of the entire plan of salvation as described in their ancient temple ceremonies.

Beginning with Isaiah 40 and continuing to the end (excluding the Cyrus chapters which were added later) the latter half of Isaiah is a commentary on the ancient Israelite temple ceremony which was glorified by the singing of the Psalms.

Why is Isaiah so difficult to understand? Because it is written in the context of the ancient temple. People who do not know the temple have no context into which they can put Isaiah’s writings, so they have to make up their own context. Since Isaiah uses some historical references to make his points, most scholars use those historical references as the context, and miss the point altogether.

Why did Nephi teach Isaiah without teaching about Jewish history? Because Isaiah is written in the language of the temple, so one can read and understand at least the latter half of Isaiah without knowing hardly anything at all about Jewish history.

Why is Isaiah so important? For the same reason the ancient temple ceremony was so important. It told the story of our existence from the Council in Heaven until the resurrection. It identified the participants of that ancient ceremony in terms of where they were just now – that is, where this world’s experiences fit into the overall context of the great, eternal story. It told them how they came to be here on the earth, and what they must DO and BE in order to return to their Father. Isaiah does that in the same sequence, in the same format, and with the same message as the ancient temple drama in the Psalms. That’s why Isaiah is so important, and, I am sure, that is why Nephi loved his writings as he did.

2 Nephi 17 — LeGrand Baker — Overview of Isaiah’s writings

The book of Isaiah divides naturally into two halves, separated by the history of king Hezekiah in chapters 36-39. The Hezekiah story is not only the dividing line between the two halves of Isaiah, it is also a testimony of personal triumph, and as such, it is a promise to all who will obey the Lord. In the story, Hezekiah becomes ill and is told by Isaiah to put his house in order, because he is going to die. Hezekiah does not want to die because his purpose in life is not fulfilled. Therefore he complains to the Lord, “I shall not see the Lord, even the Lord, in the land of the living.” (38:11) After Hezekiah’s lament, the Lord instructs Isaiah to return to the king and tell him he may live for fifteen years more. In the portion of the chapter which seems to have been written by Hezekiah himself, the king rejoices, “What shall I say? he hath both spoken unto me, and himself hath done it: I shall go softly all my years in the bitterness of my soul. [I won’t complain any more] O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so wilt thou recover me, and make me to live.” (38:14-15) I take it that Hezekiah’s statement, “he hath both spoken unto me, and himself hath done it” means that the Lord has fulfilled Hezekiah’s greatest desire and the king has seen his Saviour.

Thus this dividing line which separates the two halves of in the writings of Isaiah is evidence of the fulfillment of the hope issued by the first half, and an appropriate introduction to the second half. Let me explain further.

The second half of Isaiah, beginning with chapter 40 and continuing until the end (but excluding 44:28 through 47 which was probably not written by Isaiah but added during the Babylonian captivity. I explain that in my comments on 1 Ne. 20), the second half of Isaiah follows the pattern of the Israelite New Year Festival, which was their 22 day annual endowment session. It begins with the Council in Heaven, tells of the creation, Gods covenants with men on earth, and concludes with the ultimate triumph of Jehovah. This second half may also be described as containing the plan or the decisions of the Council. Also, of the pattern of every individual life. Consequently it contains prophecies about the Saviour, and about the Prophet Joseph’s restoration of temple work, and salvation for the dead. It is thus a prophetic history of the actualization of ideas, and it may also be seen as the outline of the life which each individual must follow if one is to receive the fulfillment of the promises given to Hezekiah.

In contrast, the first half of Isaiah is more of a prophetic history of world events than of individual experiences. This first half is also divided into two parts, with chapter 6 (Isaiah’s visit to the Council) being the dividing line. Before chapter 6 it is what I believe to be a prophecy of the events of the 21st century. After chapter 6, is a review of world history beginning with Isaiah’s time and concluding with the millennium.

Elsewhere, the Book of Mormon draws from almost all parts of Isaiah, but here in this part of Second Nephi, Nephi quotes the entire portion from chapter 2 through 14. I presume the reason for his doing this is that chapters 2 through 5 are most relevant to the events of our times, and chapters 8 through 14 are most relevant to the events of his time.

Even though Nephi and his family have left Jerusalem before the final Babylonian captivity, they seem never to have lost their intense awareness that their roots remain in the Holy City. Near the beginning of Second Nephi, Nephi records his father’s saying, “I have seen a vision, in which I know that Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have perished.” (2 Nephi 1:4) Later, Nephi himself, offers a second witness that this is so when he writes, “ Wherefore, it hath been told them concerning the destruction which should come upon them, immediately after my father left Jerusalem; nevertheless, they hardened their hearts; and according to my prophecy they have been destroyed, save it be those which are carried away captive into Babylon.” (2 Nephi 25:10)

Isaiah began to prophesy about 758 BC. In chapter 7, his writings begin by decrying the wickedness of the people of the kingdom of Israel and prophesying of their destruction by the Assyrians. Later on, in 721 BC, he watched with sadness as those prophecies were fulfilled, and the 10 tribes were captured and carried away from their homeland. Isaiah also wrote of a similar fate which would befall the Jews when they would be captured by the king of Babylon. Isaiah died sometime after the beginning of the reign of Manasseh, who reigned from 697 to 642 BC, so Isaiah had been dead less than a hundred years when Nephi was a boy, and he and his family left Jerusalem. When they left, Babylon had already defeated the Jews once, but soon after they left the city would be utterly destroyed and the people carried into captivity.

This story is ancient history to us, but to Nephi it was in his immediate past and in his immediate future. (In our perspective, Isaiah was as close to Lehi as Wilford Woodruff is to us, and the war with Babylon was closer than the Berlin Wall or the next presidential election.)

Given the immediacy of both Isaiah’s prophecies and of their fulfillment, it is little wonder that Nephi chose to include those parts of Isaiah’s writings as a part of his own testimony that the Lord is God, that he rules in heaven and on earth, and that his purposes will be fulfilled in his own way.