Talk:2 Ne 31:1-21

v. 13 speaks of angels. Bruce R. McConkie defines an angel as a messenger of Christ.

This is an interesting section of the Book of Mormon because it is one of the few places in all of scripture where both the Father and the Son speak at the same time.--Mdn32

tongue of angels

Joe, interesting stuff. Thanks for posting. I need some time to think through this. There's a lot here. --Matthew Faulconer 03:18, 13 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm leaving in a little bit to go camping for a few days. Hopefully on Saturday I'll be able to do a little further work. I'd like to post some comments to Isa 6:1-13 to flesh this subject out some. --Joe Spencer 13:39, 13 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Coherence with Nephi

I did some slight rewording trying to make it more NPOV. I simply thought someone might take offense or consider the unedited comment irreverent regarding Alma or Mormon. --RobertC 20:47, 7 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew understanding of faith and hope

Jeff and Joe's very interesting discussion ("Hope is a vision") of Ether 12:4 has got me wondering about the OT view of faith and hope. It's surprising to me that the word "faith" appears very infrequently in the OT (at least in the KJV). The closest Hebrew words I could find (from my not-very-exhaustive search) were [emuwnah], which means "firmness, fidelity, steadfastness, or steadiness" (and is usually translated "faithfulness" or "truth") and emuwn which means "faithfulness, trusting" and is usually translated "faithful."

Hope, at least in Psalms, usually (or at least often) comes from the Hebrew word yachal which means "to wait, hope, expect" and is frequently translated "hope" or "wait."

So what? I'm predisposed to view faith as more of a past and present tense word and hope as something of the same ilk but looking toward the future. I don't understand the Hebrew way of thinking about time well enough (Joe or others, can you recommend any good books on this subject?) to think about this with much confidence, but I'm curious if it makes sense from this ancient Hebrew view of time to think of faith and hope in this way.

Also, I think this suggests a meaning of faith (to me at least) that is related to belief and more related to works in the fidelity sense. That is, to have faith in God is to be faithful to him. A quick look at BOM uses of the word faith seems to support this view—most often, faith is used in the "they were blessed according to their faith" sense (it seems "faithfulness" would be a near-equivalent rendering in these verses), but even in Alma 32, faith seems to be used in a way that emphasizes the work of nurturing one's desire to believe (faith then is effectively the work required to turn a desire of belief into perfect knowledge...).

I'm ignoring the "trusting" aspect of the Hebrew definition for faith in my focus here on faithfulness. A relation between these two meanings isn't clear to me. The Hebrew root aman means "to support, confirm, be faithful." For some reason (sorry, I can't remember my train of thought here) this makes me think of Blake Ostler's emphasis on the Atonement as a relationship with God. If we enter into an intimate relationship with God, we support each other, trust each other, and are faithful to each other. I've been struck by how frequently relationship imagery is used in the OT (esp. the "don't go whoring after other Gods" sense; Blake has some interesting chapters discussing covenants in a relationship sense which I haven't read yet, but they look very interesting). I really think this might be an important aspect to understanding faith. I am faithful to my wife by serving her and honoring all commitments I've made to her and I trust she will do the same. So if I trust in God, I am motivated to be faithful to him b/c I trust he will make good on his promises? (I really need to get a good word-study Hebrew dictionary—again, any recommendations?)

On a slightly different view (or at least emphasis), faith then relates to my part of the relationship and hope relates to God's part. That is, for my part, I am faithful to God, both in my physical works and in my heart (this may be a better way to think of the relationship between "faithful" and "trusting")—in turn, this faithfulness toward and trusting in God produces a hope in me that God, in being faithful and true to his part of the relationship, will make good on the promise of salvation.... --RobertC 15:16, 10 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Robert, just a brief response for now--and, by the way, thanks for the changes mentioned above. I was writing on my feet, and I knew it was phrased rather poorly, even accusingly--but you cleared that up so that it now speaks my own thoughts on the subject. Concerning the Hebrew meaning of faith/hope. First, the bibliography: the best word study book for Hebrew I have come across is the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. It runs about $80 new (I got mine used at Powells for about $35). It is two volumes, and it is helpful especially in that it is organized by root (rather than by word) so that all words etymologically related are found together, and in that each entry has some decent discussion. I don't always agree with it (the BDB is a helpful source to use with it), but it is always a very good place to get started. I've been trying to track down a good semitic roots dictionary, but I have not found one yet.

On the rest: I have to think about these things a little further before I can say too much. Jeff's most recent comment forced me to think very clearly the fact that the majority of texts in the Book of Mormon see faith and hope as far more fundamentally tied than I have lately recognized. My wife and I had a nice two-hour conversation last night on the subject, and that especially (God bless my wonderful wife!) opened the subject up in a few ways I had not at all considered before. But that means that for now, the field has been laid bare, and I have not yet begun the work necessary to thinking it out. I wonder about what may come of such a study. I will begin it tomorrow morning, I presume, and I will keep you posted (obviously) as I work through that question. For now, I think the best reading of emunah and of aman reads them in terms of a trust that entails faithfulness, perhaps in the sense that we speak of being faithful to a text: to be faithful to a text means that you trust what the author says. That may be too abstract for now. I'll have better thoughts on this subject soon. --Joe Spencer 21:30, 10 Jul 2006 (UTC)

I've done some real thinking and research on the subject now, but of course, only just a beginning. Here are my preliminary findings for you Robert.

Through the course of my research today, I became more and more convinced that there is no OT equivalent of the terms at play in the Book of Mormon. There certainly are NT equivalents, and I'm sure some work on the DSS, etc., would provide some intertestimental equivalents. Faith: aman in the OT is the verb to be considered, but it does not have the meaning we ascribe to faith now. It is translated "believe" when it occurs in the hiphil stem, which is problematic for translation. Since aman in the qal (active indicative) means to be firm, etc., the verb translated throughout the OT as "believe" would more literally be translated "make firm," or perhaps more coherently, "make a foundation of." In other words, where we translate "Abraham believed God," it might be better to translate "Abraham made God his foundation." (Hiphil is, in case you don't know the stem constructions of Hebrew, a causative form of a verb.) Now, if all of this may be collapsed into a concept--in other words, if there is an OT concept of faith--it would be as follows: to have faith implies a relation in which the one who has faith makes the other his/her foundation; faith implies a radical dependency or even a fund (fountain, foundation, etc.). Hope: yachal, as you suggest, is a decent place to look, though batach and qawah are both often translated as "hope" in various contexts in the OT. All three run together to some extent, but I have only considered yachal in any detail as of yet. The verb is interesting because it is translated as "hope" really only in the psalms and in Job. Elsewhere it is translated as "wait." However, there is a grammatical distinction that supports this differentiation. When the verb is translated as "hope" it is usually in the piel stem, as "wait" in the hiphil stem. The verb does not ever occur in the qal stem. In other words, both "hope" and "wait" are apparently best read as derivatives of a simpler meaning that is not found in the OT. Sorting out what this implies is somewhat difficult, and I think I need to look somewhat more closely at the specific occurences of yachal to make more sense of it, as well as to look more closely at betach and qawah.

As I try to bring this to bear on 2 Nephi 31, I am immediately struck with some difficulties. The difficulties are suggestive, however. I think more research needs to be done first. For example, is the radical reliance of verse 19 or the dwelling relation of verse 20 more like the concept of faith I have developed here? Both might lay claim to it. Are we moving in the direction of deconstructing these, then? Or what is at play? More to be done. --Joe Spencer 18:34, 11 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. And interesting that faith is immediately followed by the phrase "relying wholly upon the merits of him who is might to save".

Regarding hope, I think I realized that my understanding of faith and hope is tainted a bit by Philip 3:13-14. I see take from this NT passage (which should be kept distinct from Nephi's writing, nevertheless...) a notion of faith as something that is achieved ("attanined" in the KJV), but lest someone misread and think that attaining faith is all that is needed, Paul appends to this a notion analogous to hope (which I think naturally leads to the notion of endurance like Nephi writes), something that points beyond a simple attainment of faith. (As you can see, I'm still a bit stuck in my rut of thinking of faith in a present, even perfective, sense, and hope as something in the future, something we wait for as opposed to something we engage in more immediately...).

Also, interesting that whereas the OT doesn't really use the term faith, the book of Moses does: Moses 7:13, Moses 7:47, and Moses 6:23. --RobertC 16:45, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to Philippians. I think that Paul is talking in very much the same vein as Nephi.

Some further research today yields some further thoughts on the Hebrew meaning of hope, at least. Yachal is intransitive, whereas aman is not (whenever it is translated "believe"). When there is an "object" of one's hope, it is attached to the hope by a lamed, roughly "to" in English: one hopes "to" God, or one directs one's hope "to" God. At any rate, yachal seems to be something that begins and ends with an individual. That it occurs primarily in the intensive stem suggests that it is a sort of passion as well, a passion that defines an individual. Looking at betach and qawah, they don't seem to be very helpful. Betach means something like "certainty" in a verb form, and qawah means more literally to wait for something. Though both are occasionally translated as "hope," they are far less seldomly--and never systematically--so. Both are used in the simple qal, simple indicative, which provides less help as well. Yachal is probably the best place to look.

As a look at specific instances of aman and yachal, I notice that a very specific difference seems to run between them. And this difference seems to play, actually, into your (Robert's) past/future distinction, though in an odd manner. Faith (aman) seems usually to have a sense of dedication about it, an openness to what is happening and about to happen; hope (yachal) seems usually to have a sense of closure about it, a closedness to what has happened or what is happening at present. Faith: openness to the future. Hope: closedness to the past. In other words, the temporal structure of reality is not variable, but one's reaction to it. The future is always unknown, the past always known (back to our discussions of the future behind one, the past before one, etc.). Faith, however, responds to this structure by turning toward the future, while hope responds by turning away from the past. Perhaps both of those are at play in Philip 3:13-14.

What this means for faith and hope is not entirely clear. If we try to think them through the structure of temporality, we come to two different attitudes, two different ways of "being-in-the-world" (which I quote only with reluctance, having re-read chapter two of Marion's God Without Being just yesterday!). What, however, would a transition from faith to hope entail, or a transition from hope to faith? Are the two really the same thing, the different (even differant) terms left to us to deconstruct? I'm not sure. That the two meet up in this passage (2 Nephi 31:19-20) at a gate (a door, a veil?) might suggest as much. I'm still trying to feel the full weight of their ability to intertwine (in Merleau-Ponty's sense, if we are thinking at all in terms of deconstruction). More study must be given them, which I won't be able to report for a few days (I'm heading off camping in the morning until Saturday afternoon, though I will be studying out in the wonderful retreat nature provides). Certainly, the subject seems to be opening up. I need to think Paul's words there very carefully still. --Joe Spencer 23:55, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Paul's words on this subject are increasingly suggesting to me that faith and hope are to be understood in a sort of continuum, as two sides of a single experience. Perhaps this leads to a deconstructive project after all, a thinking of faith and hope in terms of intertwining. Faith and hope clearly describe together a single turning (a shuv or conversion), but they introduce into that experience a difference (or differance, at any rate). Faith and hope must be understood--even if by the fact that there are two words here--as different from each other, even though they might be both an attempt to name a single "event." Only thus could they be an intertwining: undeniably one, and undeniable two, at once.

All of this is, however, just to think the terms as they appear in the OT. But is it not at least very similar in the Book of Mormon. The apparent identification of faith and hope points toward it. That faith is thought in terms of hope ane hope in terms of faith is likewise suggestive. However, I do think it is undeniable that this passage (here in Nephi) points toward understanding hope in terms of an actual vision, a real, physical vision that opens a spiritual, non-physical vision. That vision seems to be a vision of the Christ. My argumentation for that point should probably be worked out in the commentary, and I need to think that more carefully. Tomorrow... --Joe Spencer 18:33, 17 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Great thoughts Joe (sorry for the delay, I've been out of town--and away from internet--visiting family, it'll take me a while to catch up on things...). Your thoughts about the openness of faith and closedness of hope are particulary interesting to me (b/c they're currently thought-provoking, the rest will likely have a more delayed effect on me...). Rereading the passage, "the perfect brightness of hope" phrase keeps calling out to me. In the scriptures, "perfect" does not seem to be used in connection with faith (at least according to this quick search), in contrast to hope and love. To me, this supports a reading of faith as a meeting of oneself and God, where one's own efforts play an important role in one's turning to God, whereas hope is more of something that originates in God (alone) to bless us (or, the perfect brightness of hope is a result of our complete/whole reconciliation with God who is already perfect/whole...). On this view, charity would be something that comes as a result of the faith and hope we've thus obtained. --RobertC 23:28, 17 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Am I reading you rightly: faith as our movement towards God, hope as God's movement towards us? I don't think that sums up what you're saying well. It seems hopelessly reductive. Though I don't know what to make of hope in such a scheme, at least faith should be thought of thus: faith is our (active) reception of God's movement towards us. Hence, if faith is our movement towards God, it is so as a response to His initial movement towards us (faith as response). Isn't this why "faith is made perfect in works"? He offers Himself as foundation first (He loved us first), and we respond by actively taking up that foundation (we love Him).

So what, then, of hope? If the "perfection" that describes hope is to be associated with the "perfection" of God (of course understanding "perfection" in the Hebrew sense), then what of hope remains ours? I'm not sure how to approach that question, to be honest.

Not to draw this discussion into the questions I'm also raising concerning theology, but might we not find a way of thinking faith and hope through the distinction between idolatry and icon worship? If faith is our response to a first distraction (reduction?) from the world (even a Heideggerian Welt), is it not a sort of idolatry, a worship of the very first appearance? Faith and idolatry? I have to admit that if anything we have said of hope above carries through, then it was not until I found hope that I saw for the first time that I had had real faith, though from the standpoint of hope I would describe my (previous) faith as a sort of idolatry. That seems suddenly very clear to me, though I realize that must sound very odd. Faith and idolatry? That might be worth studying out. Certainly, most idolatry is a form of, or is motivated by, faith. Is hope a distraction of faith? If faith describes our turning toward God, does faith entail a freezing regard that holds God in idolatry? Hmm... I've got to think that one out very carefully.

In the meanwhile, I think we must begin to regard faith and hope from the standpoint of their being differential names for the single event of turning. This makes it clearer to me, for now, that arguing out the visionary nature of hope should be postponed (as far as the discussion is concerned). --Joe Spencer 17:29, 18 Jul 2006 (UTC)

So what, then, of hope? If the "perfection" that describes hope is to be associated with the "perfection" of God (of course understanding "perfection" in the Hebrew sense), then what of hope remains ours? I'm not sure how to approach that question, to be honest.

I haven't looked into this very carefully yet, but my sense is that scriptures consistently do not talk about hope as "ours" in the same way that they talk about faith as ours. That is, faith is something we choose (as a response to God as you say), whereas hope is something we are infused with (I'm thinking of Jacob Morgan's recent Dialogue article "Divine Infusion Theory").

I'm not sure I really follow where you're going with the faith-idolatry thought, but I do think hope might be profitably considered as a result of proper faith. If we have true faith in the true God, we obtain salvific hope, which in turn reinforces our faith (I've been thinking about the"backward causation" aspect of hope a bit recently...). Inasumuch as our faith is off course, it may not yield the fruit of hope like it should (cf. Alma 32:21—my thought here is that Alma's treatise about the good seed answers Matthew's question about the phrase "which are true": if you have faith you will obtain the fruit of hope, whereas if the seed is not true you will not receive hope-ful swellings of the seed. But notice I'm taking the view that Alma and Nephi are talking about faith and hope in similar ways, though this may very well be a poor assumption to build upon...). --RobertC 18:19, 18 Jul 2006 (UTC)

I think I follow your meaning with hope better. Moro 8:26 certainly suggests something like that, doesn't it? In fact, shouldn't we read that verse (and verse 25) as a sort of commentary on Nephi's verses here? Faith and the work of baptism (very much what Nephi has in mind here in 2 Nephi 31), which leads one to the reception of the Holy Ghost, when hope and charity are poured out upon the individual.

Is this an "AHA!" moment? We've let the winds of theology blow us somewhat too far from the text we have at hand, have we not? The infusion business has blown me back in that direction. Certainly what can--perhaps must--be said about the present passage (2 Nephi 31:19-20) is that it concerns the transition from baptism to the gift of the Holy Ghost. The doorway, the gate, the veil even, is a question of the subtlest movement between those two "ordinances" (I think I have to use the term loosely here). In other words, faith leads us to the moment of baptism, hope and charity characterize all that follows, thanks to the (certainly divine) infusion of the Holy Ghost. Charismata, right?

To break apart the nutshell into which this might be pressed: Nephi's language here does not limit the gate to baptism. Christ's baptism, there is interesting evidence, was more than what we usually experience at eight years old. (Baptism and endowment? Baptism and sealing? How should we think about the higher significance of things here?) At any rate, there is a moment of strict, outward actuation, which is followed by a divine infusion. That seems to be the pattern at work in both Mormon's discourse and Nephi's discussion.

Is it in Alma's discussion, as you mention? I don't know that I see it right off, but it might well be argued that it is there. Some further study should be pursued in that direction. Hopefully, this grounds things some more.

Concerning idolatry. I think that the idolatry/faith link holds up even with the paragraphs I've just written. To develop it well, I think the discussion would have to turn rather technical, but it can be done. I'm thinking of idolatry as found in the works of Jean-Luc Marion, and iconism in the same as well. I've got to think that issue more closely. I think I'll have time in the morning tomorrow, and then hopefully I'll have something more helpful to post. --Joe Spencer 20:16, 19 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Temple symbolism?

I noticed this comment at the 9-moons blog by Jacob and thought it was very interesting. I'd like to come back to this and think about it more sometime (and I hope someone beats me to it!). --RobertC 20:54, 4 Sep 2006 (UTC)