Tag Archives: 1 Nephi

Study Group Notes: 1 Nephi 22:1-3


(1) Is the question in verse 1 an honest question? Is Nephi showing us one of the times when Laman and Lemuel were being humble? Or is their question sarcastic? (What are you getting at this time Nephi?)

(2) Who are “my brethren” in verse 1? We always assume Laman and Lemuel — but could it have been Jacob & Joseph, or nephews, etc.? However, 2 Ne 5:19 might contest that.

(3) Is there a difference between “meaneth” and “understood”? Does meaneth refer to a direct referent/what it means in its original text, and “to be understood” refer to an interpretation/what Nephi is hoping to get out of it?

(4) Nephi’s response in verse 2 doesn’t seem to follow from their questions. But perhaps this is on purpose, and he’s trying to suggest to them that they have the wrong worldview.

(5) The last verse of Chapter 22 and the first of 2 Nephi 1 show that Nephi and Lehi were the two teachers at the time (not Jacob or Joseph yet).

Advertisements

1 Nephi, Chapter 20 “out of the waters of baptism”


 1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.

I have understood for some time that Joseph clearly and unworrisomely added the words “or out of the waters of baptism.” The early documents are all there and clear that it was added in 1840. That doesn’t bother me at all that he did that — he was a prophet too! — but the question is: Why?

The original sense of the verse seems to me to be to narrow House of Jacob, name of Israel, to those specifically of Judah. But why “waters”? I did a little research and it’s possible to read this as “loins.” So the idea would be those literally descended from Judah. But since through Nephi’s eyes, Isaiah has a lot to say to the remnant of Joseph as an important redeemer of the whole house of Israel.

So that makes me rethink this idea of water and baptism. At baptism you receive a new name. In our case, we take on ourselves the name of Christ. I am wondering if it is possible to think that by the time that Isaiah is writing these words, anyone who has been baptized (not that I know even a smiggin of what that meant in the Biblical world) was then considered part of Judah. By the time that the Northern Kingdom had been scattered, was anyone still associated with the covenant, the prophets, the temple, and so forth, considered Judah? Something like those in the Book of Mormon being grouped into “Nephites” and “Lamanites” even though they weren’t all literally Nephi’s or Laman’s descendants. Whether or not Isaiah meant that, it seems to me to be the sense of what Joseph Smith is saying. There is something that has caused them to be called Judah when they weren’t all originally Judah. The entire House of Israel has been reduced to Judah, but not because that is all that remains; those that remain have been renamed, or baptized, as part of Judah. Thus we get the idea that there are only “Jews and Gentiles” and the word “Jews” remains today as the only real group the world associates with the Old Testament. The rest of Israel has been either “lost” or simply “dissolved” into Judah.

I think Nephi would have understood this verse in this sort of way, even if he didn’t need to think of it in terms of baptism. And whether or not baptism has anything to do with it, Joseph’s addition made me rethink this verse in terms of names, titles, rituals, etc. rather than literal descent.


Isaiah & the Redeemer


I’ve noticed before in 1 Nephi, Chapter 19 that Nephi says that he reads Isaiah specifically to convince his family to believe in the Redeemer. Is he saying that they already believed in a God, in the God of Israel specifically, but not necessarily in His role as Messiah and Redeemer? Lehi preaches about a Messiah that will save the world, and he almost gets killed. A Messiah simply for Israel is good news, however. The different titles that God receives are accepted or rejected based on what that person thinks about God.

So Nephi wants his people to believe in God as a Redeemer. Well, what if they don’t understand that there is a need to redeem anyone or any people? Isaiah makes it clear that Israel has been divided and scattered and needs to be brought back together. Is this why he reads Isaiah?

I did a search this morning for “Redeemer” in the Old Testament. It turns out that of the 18 times that word shows up, 13 of them are in Isaiah! (Here is a link to the search results.) The others are one in Job, two in the Psalms, one in Proverbs, and one in Jeremiah. And the earliest it shows up in Isaiah is chapter 41.

Anyway, I find this interesting and productive to think about!


Another thought on 1 Nephi Chapter 18 (Looking for the Abrahamic Covenant)


It dawned on me this morning that if this were written in third person, it would probably be easier to see how it’s similar to Exodus. Or, vice versa, what if Moses’s story of wandering the wilderness with the children of Israel had been written in first person? (Presumably there was first-person account written originally…) but what if our account were written in first person? I see and understand the criticism that Nephi is glorifying his own righteousness over that of his brothers. But he does it so frankly and bluntly that it has a strange feel to it. It’s too matter-of-fact at points. So, I wonder, if what happens is that Nephi sees in their story a straightforward parallel to the children of Israel and Moses, and finds it almost crucial to point out those similarities so that his people can see themselves as covenant Israel — literally, really, covenant Israel — so he is willing to put into his very, very short narrative of their 8 years those moments that show their similarities such as rebellion and lack of faith, leadership calling to repentance, repentance and forgiveness, and then how God mercifully led them towards the promised land when they repented. If that’s Nephi’s goal, then he does a good job of it; but why does it sound awkward sometimes? I think it is because Moses’s story, as we have it, is third person. We read it and think, “Of course Moses is glorified in some ways by the story; he was Moses!” 🙂 It is easy to see the pettiness of the Israelites and we don’t assume Moses is embellishing the story. But with Nephi, we have an account written in first person, which means those moments were Nephi is the hero and his brothers are petty sound a bit suspicious. I don’t distrust Nephi myself, but I can see how the literary approach would lend itself to finding Nephi a bit self-serving. However, even there I think there is an awkwardness and frankness about the story that calls me to be suspicious about the suspicious reading. 🙂 He always shows when his brothers repent, he shows his father’s humbleness and prophetic power alongside his moment of murmuring, and he always attributes his power to God and not himself. Even the moment when he slays Laban, he shows how he was a weak person who didn’t want to listen. Imagine again all of this in third person — how would it sound? Very different.

Anyway, just a thought I hope was worth sharing/recording this morning. 🙂


A thought on 1 Nephi 18:9-10


 9 And after we had been driven forth before the wind for the space of many days, behold, my brethren and the sons of Ishmael and also their wives began to make themselves merry, insomuch that they began to dance, and to sing, and to speak with much rudeness, yea, even that they did forget by what power they had been brought thither; yea, they were lifted up unto exceeding rudeness.

10 And I, Nephi, began to fear exceedingly lest the Lord should be angry with us, and smite us because of our iniquity, that we should be swallowed up in the depths of the sea; wherefore, I, Nephi, began to speak to them with much soberness; but behold they were angry with me, saying: We will not that our younger brother shall be a ruler over us.

First off, verse 9 is horribly, horribly depicted in that “Book of Mormon Movie” from a decade ago. (Yikes!) It isn’t that their dancing itself is bad or their singing (or their clothes, if you believe the movie), those all come after the word “inasmuch.” So, what’s going on here? Well, they first “make themselves merry.” I wonder if we could read this in the more British sense of the word: they are getting drunk. They drank “insomuch” that they began to be silly, to dance, to sing, and so forth. And there inhibitions were down, and they began to speak with much rudeness, meaning, I think, with much honesty. Whatever control over themselves they had to exercise to go along with Lehi and Nephi’s plans was left off and they spoke with rude frank honesty, “even that they did forget by what power they had been brought thither.” I don’t think it just a mental “forgot” that Nephi’s guessing at, I think they were verbally saying things against God, or at the least attributing God’s miracles to something else (their own strength?). I think this is why Nephi is so fearful and intervenes, and why in the end Laman and Lemuel have to be shown so drastically that God really is in charge! I like that Nephi describes himself as speaking with “soberness.” 🙂


1 Nephi, Chapter 17 (Looking for the Abrahamic Covenant)


I’m a bit distracted today, but here are some pieces of thoughts anyway:

Right about verse 22, we start to see comparisons between the Nephites and the Israelites again. This time, however, it’s sparked by something that Laman and Lemuel say:

22 And we know that the people who were in the land of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept the statutes and judgments of the Lord, and all his commandments, according to the law of Moses; wherefore, we know that they are a righteous people; and our father hath judged them, and hath led us away because we would hearken unto his words; yea, and our brother is like unto him. And after this manner of language did my brethren murmur and complain against us.

It’s an odd thing that his brothers claim, in some ways. This is a tangent into thinking about human nature — sorry to anyone who might actually be reading this — When a prophet comes to say a people needs to repent, he comes because God has told him the people need to repent. I don’t know at what point “the people” have gone astray. When a majority of people have turned their hearts? When the dominant discourse is no longer faithful? When the leaders have influenced so many people that if there isn’t a stop to it soon the next generation will be lost? I’ve never been quite sure on that point, anyway. So it made me think of that when Nephi’s brothers talk about the people in Jerusalem. Who do you think they were referring to? Is this, “Everyone I knew was keeping the law,” or “I think the majority did,” or what? They knew prophets had come besides Lehi. But of course, there was debate at the time about who was a true prophet and who was preaching dreams they had that weren’t from God. Hmm.

But back on track now — Joe has pointed out that this verse right here opens up an opportunity for Nephi to distinguish between the law and the covenant. (The details are in a chapter of a new book he’s working on; I wish they were in a blog post I could link to!) Nephi relates the history of the Israelites and their journey in the wilderness and all the help that God gave them. That’s really the focus, I guess: see how God guided them and helped them every step of the way, even when they hardened their hearts against Moses and so forth, he didn’t give up on them and eventually they were ready to go to the promised land. I don’t see the talk of the covenant as clearly as Joe does, so I’ll have to spend some more time talking to him about it and write another post, I think.

I do see the comparison here between the Israelites and the Lehites:

40 And he loveth those who will have him to be their God. Behold, he loved our fathers, and he covenanted with them, yea, even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and he remembered the covenants which he had made; wherefore, he did bring them out of the land of Egypt.

This sounds like 1 Nephi 1:20:

I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.

I also like how the conversation God has with Nephi nicely matches the conversation Nephi has with his brothers. In both cases, there is an emphasis on how God has led them and provided the way for them to leave one place and reach a promised land. There are specific details in each (for example, God making raw meat taste sweet, and God making manna rain from heaven).

I’m afraid I don’t have much to add this morning — mostly I’m distracted wondering exactly what Joe had in mind.


1 Nephi, Chapter 15 (Looking for the Abrahamic Covenant)


I find it pretty cool that not only does Nephi include his vision and the conversations he had with the angel, he also includes another chapter with the explanation he gives his brothers. I’m totally convinced now that every time he includes explanations of anything to his brothers, it’s just a handy way for him to teach his readers. 🙂 A two-in-one move; more narrative and documentation as well as solid doctrinal preaching for his readers’ sake. Perfect.

Nephi is rather frustrated and upset that his brothers won’t ask God to help them understand. Is that same reprimand being directed at us, too?

After reading everything Nephi saw, doesn’t he sound a bit impatient in verse 12 as he explains this to Laman and Lemuel: “and behold are we not broken off from the house of Israel, and are we not a branch of the house of Israel?” I want to add some extra ! and ? at the end of that sentence. 🙂

Verse 13 presupposes a lot of foreknowledge about the future. He knows their seed will dwindle in disbelief. Either Lehi talked about that before, and so Nephi is just putting two pieces of the puzzle together in front of them, or else, this is information only gathered after inquiring of God, as Nephi told them they should have done.

Aren’t 12-16 a great summary of his vision? More specifically, aren’t they a great summary of what the olive tree represents? I think Nephi did a pretty good job there answering his brothers’ question.

Verse 17 gets slightly more complicated, at least in the abbreviated form we have here. But verse 18 has a direct reference to Abraham, so I want to quote that certainly:

18 Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

think that perhaps I shouldn’t pass by verse 17 so quickly afterall. I’m thinking a lot lately (as I’ve mentioned in others posts) about how the gospel has to go to the Gentiles before it goes back to the House of Israel. Is this so that the Gentiles have a chance to be included in the Abrahamic Covenant? Is this precisely what it means that “all the kindreds” of the earth can be blessed? A covenant is given to Israel, but then power is shown to the Gentiles specifically in giving them the records of Israelites which contain more detail about the covenant, and they can be adopted in and then they take it back to Israel… this back and forth, first last and last first thing really is starting to make me read this “all kindreds blessed” idea much more clearly than I ever had before!

I can see why Nephi begins to use Isaiah so much. (See verse 20) This really is all that Isaiah is talking about, isn’t it?