Difference between revisions of "3 Ne 11:31-41"

Revision as of 10:46, 4 September 2006

Questions

• In verse 35 and following verses, what does it mean to "bear record" and what is its significance?

Lexical notes

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

Exegesis

Verse 31

Christ states quite bluntly that He is about to delare His "doctrine." The phrase, "my doctrine," might well be connected with 2 Ne 31:2, where Nephi states that he is about to declare "the doctrine of Christ." In both cases (2 Nephi 31 and 3 Nephi 11), the doctrine in question seems to be the interrelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (see especially 2 Ne 31:21). The term "doctrine" is interesting. Though the term is used in a number of different circumstances in the Book of Mormon as translated, it might be significant that one of these is a quotation of Isaiah (specifically of Isa 29:24, also found in 2 Ne 27:35). The context here seems similar to that in Isaiah in that the true doctrine of Christ is given after an errant version has been mentioned. In particular, the spirit of contention described in verses 28-30 will now be contrasted with the unified relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Also, if Isaiah's text might be understood as a point of departure for understanding the Nephite use of the term, the Hebrew word lqh comes into play (this is the word in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 29). The word is translated "learning" elsewhere in the KJV, but it means quite literally a "take" on things, a way of "taking" things up. If there had been disputations to this point on Christ's doctrine, He here offers His take on things, His way of taking them. While it might be said that this makes "doctrine" a rather subjective thing, it might well be responded that Christ invites one to come to Him, not to some objective reality He discusses. That Christ explicitly states here that this is "my doctrine" makes the point clear: one is to trust Him here, one is to follow Him, whether or not what He says conforms to some scientific or otherwise objective view of the world.

Verse 32

With this verse, the "doctrine of Christ" begins to unfold. It begins with a move that at once more radically subjectivizes the doctrine than the last verse and yet objectivizes it just as much. The "doctrine" is Christ's and the Father's. In fact, it is a doctrine given to the Son by the Father. More radically subjective: subjective enough that the Son could only receive it from another person (as it were), not from objective criteria. Yet objective: the doctrine is held by at least two now, a real take offered through the Son to all. This double way of understanding the role of the "doctrine" here offers a sort of criticism of the categories of subjectivity and objectivity: the "doctrine of Christ" outstrips these categories entirely. The doctrine is beyond questions of subjectivity and objectivity.

All of this opens onto the question of the interrelation of the Father and the Son, as well as the role of the Holy Ghost. And here, the doctrine of the trinity begins to unfold. Proceeding on, then, to the "doctrine" itself, a major difficulty arises out of the series of "and’s" that make up the passage comprising this "doctrine." Since every single phrase begins with an "and," it seems impossible at first to see where the actual discussion of the "doctrine" begins and where it ends. It in fact appears at first as if there is no discussion of the "doctrine" whatsoever, because, every phrase starting with an "and," there is the grammatical suggestion that every phrase is a continuation or extension of the sentence introducing the "doctrine." In other words, since every phrase is grammatically subordinate to the introductory phrase, the introductory phrase ultimately introduces nothing, and it appears as if there is no explanation of the "doctrine" in the passage. However, verse 35 makes it clear that, somewhere between that verse and verse 31, there must be read an explanation of the doctrine, since verse 35 essentially repeats the introduction of verse 31 and the beginning of verse 32, but in a confirmatory way. The difficulty is as to where to read it, and how to read it.

There is a hint, however, in verses 37-39, and perhaps a hint that clinches the matter. There, Jesus repeats in paraphrase the content of verses 33-34 twice and then says, quite explicitly, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my doctrine...." The lack of the "and" before that conclusive phrase (in verse 39) is telling: the baptismal commandment is the key to the doctrine, is the doctrine. With that clear, the contents of the discourse on the subject might be approached. Before approaching it, perhaps a word concerning the trinity is in order: the comments above have hinted repeatedly that the "doctrine of Christ" is a question of the trinity, whereas here it has been apparent that the "doctrine of Christ" is a question of baptism. A reply to this point is rather simple: how is it that one feels to draw so careful a distinction between the two, between the trinity and baptism (see the comments at verse 25)? The question of baptism is the question of baptism, that much is clear.

In light of this last clarification, the remainder of this verse becomes rather interesting: the "and’s" that hold this verse together, paralleling the "and’s" at the opening of this verse and the "and’s" at the openings of the following two verses, mean at once to tie the remaining phrases to the introductory "this is my doctrine" and to the actual "doctrine" as it is laid out in verses 33-34. The remainder of this verse, in short, is provided as a clarification at once of the "doctrine" and of the introduction of the "doctrine." What this accomplishes interpretively for the verse must be seen next.

First, there is a threefold record-bearing: the Son of the Father, the Father of the Son, and the Holy Ghost of the Father and the Son. Perhaps at the core of these phrases is the very phrase "to bear record." The phrase in English is fascinating enough; that is represents universally in the KJV the Greek martyreo only doubles the fascination: anyone can see in the Greek term here the English derivative, "martyr." While it is often pointed out that the English "martyr" (or, indeed, the eventual Greek just as well) extends the original meaning of the word (only coming to include the concept of death or persecution in the tradition after the New Testament), it should certainly be noted that the richer concept of the "martyr" is implicit in the original Greek word, as used before the Christian era. The best way to think this question is to look at the English translation, where the KJV translators recognized that some form of the word "martyr" would be perhaps to add too much meaning to the original Greek: they translated the verb as "to bear record."

To bear: to hold up, to carry, even to support a burden (the etymological tie between "bear" and "burden" is rather obvious). The word also, of course, is used for labor: to bear is to give birth (again, the etymological tie is rather obvious). To hold up, to carry, to support, even to give birth to: a record. A record: a seconding (re-) of the heart (-cord) of the matter, a doubling of what is witnessed, a setting out in a physical object (perhaps even plates of gold) what would otherwise disappear with the passing of the event. The word "record" usually translates, in the Old Testament, the word zykrwn, a remembrance, a re-enactment, even a memorial: the record re-calls into the present what otherwise would pass away, re-presents what otherwise would slip into the past. To bear record: to hold up, carry, even give birth to what otherwise would disappear into the past. To bear record: to hold in the present what is liable to slip away into the past, to present it or even re-present it. Martyreo: to present physically (even in one’s physical body—and here the question of martyrdom is already implicit) the event that otherwise would slip into oblivion, the irretrievable past. In short, to bear record is to offer oneself as a physical re-presentation of an event (or, at times, of another person).

All this said, what does it mean to say, for example, that the Son bears record of the Father? The implication is that if it were not for the physical reality of the Son, the knowledge of the Father would pass away, that the Son’s person presents (makes present) the otherwise unknowable reality of the Father. But, then, what of the Father bearing record of the Son? It seems that this would mean that without the confirming witness of the Father—the voice from the heavens, for example—the divine reality of the Son would fade, and He would go unrecognized, would be thought other than what He is, would cease to be Himself as He is. This reciprocal record, the re-presentation of the Father by the Son and the presentation of the Son by the Father, is finally said to be presented or re-presented by the further record of the Holy Ghost. This last record is perhaps the most difficult one to handle, precisely because the record—unquestionably "borne"-—is always to be physical, not merely spiritual. But no sooner is this point made than the difficulty passes away: the dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual is Greek, not scriptural, and the witness of the Spirit is, in the end, more physical perhaps than the vision of the Father or of the Son. In its physical witness, the Spirit presents and re-presents the double relation of the Father and the Son.

But perhaps all of this sounds too "Trinitarian." Even so, it all seems to be what Jesus is talking about quite clearly. None of this yet breaches the implied relationship that underlies the double record-bearing work of the Father and the Son, and none of this yet explores how it is that the Holy Ghost is to be understood as playing into that relationship: the doctrine might well become far more "Trinitarian" than it already is. At any rate, there is certainly a good deal at work here.

Drawing from the abstract (if it can indeed be called abstract) question of record-bearing, Jesus mentions a rather concrete point of relation between Himself and the Father: the Son bears record of the Father’s commandment concerning the Son. The point opens right onto baptism.

Verse 33

From the comments above, it appears that one can excerpt verses 33-34 from the rest of the passage as the "doctrine" of Christ. However, the obvious connection between the end of verse 32 and the beginning of verse 33 destroys that possibility: even though verses 33-34 seem in some sense to be more explicitly the "doctrine," it only opens up through the commandment that issues from the trinity ("the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me [the Son]"). That the "doctrine" of verse 33 is specifically connected to the theme of the trinity is also important because it works towards interpreting the content of the "doctrine": inheritance, as mentioned in verse 33, is inevitably to be understood in terms of father and son, or of Father and Son. In other words, the trinitarian context in which verse 33 appears decides in advance that inheritance is not figurative, but trinitarian. But before exploring what this implies, it might be best to draw quite explicitly the connection between verses 32 and 33.

The commandment that closes verse 32 is of the utmost importance: after drawing out the intertwining record-bearing relations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Jesus explains what those relations amount to, namely, a record borne by the Son of the Father's record-bearing commandment concerning the Son. The Father's universal commandment (to "all men") is only made manifest in the Son (this is the theme of much of Paul as well, and--if read carefully--"Second" Isaiah). This is as much as to say that the trinity is a necessary step on the way to the possibility of a universal invitation to the Abrahamic covenant. Outside of the trinitarian interrelationship of the Godhead, there is a sort of closure of the commandment (to Israel, it would appear). The Son, bearing record of the Father's otherwise hidden commandment, opens the possibility for "all men, everywhere, to repent and believe...." That the belief to be had is specifically "in me [the Son]" is vastly important: the belief commanded by the Father, as revealed in the Son, is a commandment to become involved in the trinity itself, to believe in the Son. When in verse 33 Jesus goes on to say that those who so believe (believing in the Son) become heirs, He seems essentially to be saying that these who believe in the Son gain a particular relationship to the Father (as sons in the Son). The trinity is, across the space between verses 32 and 33, made the locus of a universal plan of salvation. But what all of this means can only be explored through careful attention to the details of verse 33.

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links