3 Ne 16:1-5
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
The Book of Mormon > Third Nephi > Chapter 16
| Previous (3 Ne 15:21-24) | Next (3 Ne 16:6-10) |
Contents |
Questions
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions
Lexical notes
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes
Exegesis
Verse 1
The chapter break is somewhat unfortunate here, since the discourse is clearly continued without a moment's pause from chapter 15 (hence, see the commentary at the endof that chapter for context). Read in light of the last two verses of the last chapter, in fact, it is clear that this first verse is an extension of the categorization at work concerning Israel (as over and against the Jews and the Gentiles). While the Nephites and Lamanites have been, to some extent at least, privileged as a sort of representative token of Israel, the Lord offers other Israelite groups that make up the remainder of this broader, classified group. Tying this verse quite explicitly to the last verse of chapter 15 is the word "sheep," marking these others as bound up with the Lamanites and Nephites as those to whom the Lord Himself not only speaks but appears. But even as Christ binds them together, He separates them, since He has not "been to minister" to these. In other words, by binding the Nephites and Lamanites to these other "lost" groups of Israel, the lack of visitation (or manifestation) He mentions is, effectively, already overcome, decidedly to be undone: Christ binds Himself to visit the other "lost" groups precisely by binding the Nephites and Lamanites to these others as "sheep."
v 1-2 Most members of the church are confused about the other sheep and the 10 tribes even after years of studying and mentioning them in Gospel Doctrine and seminary classes. How could Joseph have possibly understood all this at such a young age and made-up such a bold statement and attribute it to the mouth of Jesus?
Verses 2-3
The implications of verse 1 are drawn out explicitly in verses 2-3: since Christ has neither offered His voice nor His visible appearance to these other groups, He has "a commandment of the Father" to go to them and number them His sheep as well. All sheep will thereby be gathered into "one fold," even as there is "one shepherd." These statements of action finish off the classification of three major groups, a classification that began with 3 Ne 15:23: Israel (who apparently hears and sees), the Jews (who apparently at least hear), and the Gentiles (who neither hear nor see, but receive the ministration of the Holy Ghost). Christ has obviously spent--due to the audience--the most time explaining the classification of Israel.
Verses 4-5
The classification worked out in the last five verses is now taken up into a rather complicated commandment, one explained at length and in a number of different ways in verse 4, and one that opens onto an entire discourse (beginning in the verse 5) about the history of the covenant. The commandment, perhaps, is simple: the Nephites/Lamanites are to "write these sayings after I [Christ] am gone." The commandment, perhaps, is not so simple: not only should one explore the meaning and reference of "sayings," it is not entirely clear what all might be implied by the act of writing (as opposed to understanding, etc.) that is commanded. Moreover, besides the (relatively simple) complexity of the commandment, the remainder of verse 4 offers a number of purposes for the commandment, the tenor of which does quite a bit to guide interpretation of the two points already mentioned. Clearly, these two verses need to be worked out at length.
Whatever "sayings" Jesus has reference to, and whatever is fundamentally implied by their being committed to writing, the purposes for the commandment are clear, but need to be explored. While the "that," which followed "after I am gone," marks the following phrases as explaining the purpose of the commandment, the "if" that follows the "that" makes things somewhat more difficult: the purpose itself of the commandment is subject to a conditional situation. The conditional situation, then: "my people at Jerusalem," clarified quite explicitly as the disciples ("they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry"), do not seek a knowledge of the Nephites/Lamanites and other Israelite tribes. The conditional is quite specific, and apparently rather arcane: just in case the Old World disciples ask nothing of the lost tribes of Israel. On the one hand, such a situation does not seem at all likely: why wouldn't the disciples seek out an understanding of the long since dispersed seed of Abraham? On the other hand, perhaps the situation is entirely likely: so focused on survival in times of persecution, so expressly concerned with the proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and so completely taken up with the fundamentally radical Christian exegesis of the Old Testament, the disciples might never even raise the issue. Historically speaking, the latter seems to have been the case. This importance of this conditional situation is borne out by the following, explicitly stated purpose of the command.
But before turning to that purpose, there is a curiosity at play in the conditional that might open things up some more. Christ draws into this question of seeking knowledge of Israel the theme of the Trinity (understood quite loosely). The knowledge of the lost tribes of Israel is to be sought by "ask[ing] the Father," explicitly "in my [the Son's] name," so as to receive such knowledge "by the Holy Ghost." Why Christ would couch the conditional situation in trinitarian language is not at first clear. And the remainder of verse 4 offers little help, though perhaps a hint from verse 5 opens the possibility of a solution: "the covenant" given to "all the people of the house of Israel" was given specifically by "the Father," while its actual fulfillment appears to be the work of the Son. In other words, verse 5 seems to suggest that the business of the Abrahamic covenant and the doctrine of the Trinity are closely connected, that the Father-Son-Holy Ghost complex is a question, first, of the work of the covenant. How that would be--and what that would mean--remains to be discussed. Perhaps it can only be worked out through careful consideration of the following chapters.
The purpose, then, of the commandment: to preserve a written text that might be brought to the Gentiles (note: as opposed to the Jews/Christians), precisely so that the Gentiles might bring the remnant of the Jews (/Christians?) "to a knowledge of... their Redeemer." Looking at this express purpose of the commandment, one sees more clearly the importance of the conditional nature of it, as mentioned above: if the Jews/Christians do not seek a knowledge of scattered Israel, then the Gentiles will first know of these covenant people, and it will be their (the Gentiles') work to bring that knowledge to the Jews (/Christians?), so that they might be gathered again, and know of Jesus Christ. In other words, there seems to have been, at the time, two ways things might have unfolded: on the one hand, the Jews/Christians (the disciples, early Church--mostly Jews) might seek an understanding of Israel, and the covenant would be returned to them, etc.; or, on the other hand, the Lord might bring the records of Israel to the knowledge of the Gentiles, who would thereby bring the understanding of the covenant to the (consequently) scattered Jews (/Christians?). In short, the Jews were to receive an understanding of scattered Israel, but how that would happen remained to be decided (whether it would be direct or indirect).
But though the two possibilities are laid out here, it becomes clear (and rather quickly) that one of these is already bound to happen, that one of these two possibilities is already dawning (as verse 5 itself makes clear): the Jews/Christians will not seek a knowledge of Israel. The consequence: the commandment is not really a hedge, not really conditional, not really a preparation for a possible situation that would undo God's plan; it is, in fact, the very establishment of God's plan (it was never really in the program to leave the Gentiles out of the story entirely). In other words, though it sounds here as if history might have gone either way, the appearance, in light of all the following discussion (hinted at in verse 5, but confirmed by the remaining chapters of instruction by Christ), is somewhat misleading. The Gentiles were a part of the plan already (in the end, Christ must appeal to Isaiah to make this point absolutely clear--but that is just the point: if Isaiah was already speaking of these things eight centuries earlier, then the Gentiles' role was not a conditional, and certainly not a new, thing).
Rereading these verses, then, it is clear that the commandment to commit the Christic sayings to writing is a commandment to prepare for a grand unfolding of the history of the Abrahamic covenant. With that broad interpretive key, this verse might be found to hold a great deal of insight into the history of the covenant. However, though it is packed with compacted insight, it is really just a hint of what is to be expounded at length over the course of the remainder of 3 Nephi. Two keys to the interpretation of all the discourses of Christ on the Abrahamic covenant to come: first, one must understand that the covenant is bound up with Christ's doctrine of the Trinity (a doctrine that begins to be unfolded as early as 3 Nephi 11); second, one must understand that the Gentiles' role in the covenant is central, if surprising, and that detail is not arbitrarily decided upon in a late attempt to salvage the covenant, but is rather bound up within the very nature of the covenant itself (as is clear from the very beginning: all the nations of the earth are to be blessed in Abraham).
Related links
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links
| Previous (3 Ne 15:21-24) | Next (3 Ne 16:6-10) |
