It seems to us that there are two major components to trying to make sense of 2 Ne. 27:20-26 (or perhaps any other passage from the Book of Mormon): understanding the basic contours of the argument, and then observing how it connects with contextual material. So we’ll take these one at a time.
I. The structure of the reading for this week presents two distinct teachings that the Lord will say in the future to the unlearned man (Joseph Smith) to whom he will deliver the sealed book. The first saying, in verses 20-23 (starting with “then shall the Lord God say unto him . . . ”) is a response to the man’s confession, “I am not learned” in verse 19. The second, beginning with verse 24 (“and again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him . . .”), resumes the direct quotation from Isa. 29. It is clear here that at least verses 25-26//Isa. 29:14-15 are to be understood as the Lord’s direct instructions to the unlearned man—something that is not immediately evident from the original passage in Isaiah. Subsequent verses (2 Ne. 27: 27-35, the subject matter for next week’s discussion), seem to include both instruction by the Lord to the unlearned man interwoven with commentary by both Isaiah and Nephi. [Any paragraph that includes four parenthetical comments seems like it’s in trouble; there has to be a better way to write about complicated textual matters.]
We’ll consider each of these two sayings by the Lord in turn. The Lord begins in v. 20 by suggesting the reasons he has chosen an unlearned man to be the one to “read the words” of the sealed book: 1) because the learned have rejected them [see vv. 14, 18]; and 2) as a demonstration that the Lord is “able to do his own work,” that is, that those who accept the book will realize that the unlearned man has not produced it on his own but rather through the power of God. The second part of this first instruction to the unlearned man is to “touch not the things which are sealed” when he is reading the book (v. 21), which refers to the revelation of “all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof” described previously in verses 7 and 11. Once the unlearned man has read the words he has been commanded, and obtained witnesses (cf. vv. 1-14), the unlearned man is to seal up the book again so the Lord may preserve it until “all things” are to be revealed “unto the children of men” at a future time, in “the own due time of the Lord” (v. 22; cf. vv. 10-11). This subsequent revelation will also be brought forth in some miraculous fashion—that is, the first bringing forth of the book (by Joseph Smith) will in some manner become the type for which the final revelation of when the sealed words shall be read upon the house tops will be the antitype (v. 11)—since the Lord will then again demonstrate that he is “able to do his own work” (v. 21). He reiterates this typological orientation in verse 23: “I am a God of miracles, and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Nephi then returns to the underlying Isaiah text for the second set of instructions to the unlearned man, with a subtle indication that this is a follow-up response. Where Isa. 29:12-13 moves directly from: “I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said . . .”, 2 Ne. 27: 19, 24 reads: “I am not learned . . . And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him . . .” In both the original and in Nephi’s quotation, Isa. 29:13-14 expresses the Lord’s chastisement of those among whom he will proceed to do his marvelous work—“with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart(s) far from me and their fear toward(s) me is taught by the precept(s) of men”—a description which echoes Nephi’s earlier prophecy of the Gentiles in the last days (26:20). The “wisdom of their wise” in v. 26 contrasts with the Lord’s previous assertion of his own wisdom (v. 22); and Nephi adds a chastisement of the learned (“their wise and learned”; v. 26), echoing their rejection of his words in vv. 15-18.
II. The second thing to note in these two directives which Nephi prophesies the Lord will one day deliver to Joseph Smith is the verbal correspondence between them and Nephi’s prior interpretive gloss. If the pattern we suggested a couple of weeks ago in considering how Nephi uses scriptural texts is valid regarding his composition of “off-text” material (and it may not be; but see the discussion for 2 Ne. 26:26-31), Nephi here seems to be treating the first saying (vv. 20-23) as an independent source. Whether this was a now-lost portion of Isaiah prophecy or a fresh revelation to Nephi, he seems to have had this quotation from the Lord in mind when he composed vv. 6-14.
Nephi appears to work phrases from vv. 20-23 into his introductory material in order to prepare readers for the text they are about to encounter. That is to say, much of the “off-text” discussion in 2 Ne. 27:6-18 seems motivated by the intention to forestall potential misapprehensions that might arise from reading the two directives cold. For example, the sealed things which are not to be touched, the words which are to be read, the witnesses which have been promised, the subsequent re-sealing of the book, and the specific meaning of the “all things” which are to be revealed at some future time are clearly identified. Additional overlapping words and phrases include: the learned, the own due time of the Lord, sealing up the book, and the equation of the Lord “proceed[ing] to bring forth the words of the book” in v. 14 with his “proceed[ing] to do a marvelous work and a wonder” in v. 26 (also linking the significance of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon to the future salvation of the Jews prophesied at 25:17). As we read it, the Lord’s directive in vv. 20-23 seems to be a source that is interpretively expanded in anticipation of its quotation rather than a summarization—put into the Lord’s words—of Nephi’s independent expansion of Isaiah 29. Perhaps the distinction makes little difference; either way, it serves primarily as a reiteration of particular prophetic content.
But here we seem to have ended up in the opposite situation from Kim, who began one of her posts by confessing that she didn’t really know what to make of the passage, and then went on to say some good things. When we started writing this entry we thought we had something to say, but now we’re not so sure. There seem, objectively, to be numerous phrasal connections between Nephi’s midrashic comments at 2 Ne. 27:6-14 and the injunction he attributes to the Lord in vv. 20-23. But why? Is Nephi preemptively commenting on a text he already has? Does God reveal a verbatim future quotation to Nephi at the very moment Nephi sets stylus to metal (a quotation that responds to what Nephi has just written)? Or does Nephi prophetically (i.e., with inspiration and authority) put words in God’s mouth that bring together concepts and phrases that he (Nephi) has already employed? Is it all just so much random repetition, or is there some kind of intentionality behind the echoes and allusions that are exhibited in the text (we much prefer the second of these last two options, but perhaps it is a matter of faith—at least until we can come up with more examples and patterns to use as evidence).
I absolutely love participating in this discussion; I’m shocked that our weekly posts are almost over, and more than a little disappointed!
I agree that Nephi thematically sets up the Lord’s vocalizations in v. 20-26, and as to the reason, I think it can be attributed to the fact that the rest of the chapter (except for v. 29-32, perhaps) is a direct quotation from God–it makes a perfect climax to the vision that Nephi has been discussing. He’s explained things in his own words, worked in the words of Isaiah, but in the end he will abandon the interpretation and explanation of the vision and what it means for God’s work to the Master himself.
In fact, these last passages are, in a way, the only direct vocalization of God that we have had in either chapter 26 or 27 (possible exceptions: 26:5 and 26:17, but I feel that both of those statements have an indirect feel as compared to those in chapter 27, because there God uses the personal pronoun “I”, while these two verses in chapter 26 have a feel of third-person narration by Nephi who is simply citing his source).
Thinking in terms of my paper, (which topic I’ve now made explicit, so I can be less shy about my biases) and trying to take the two chapters as a whole: Nephi’s vision begins with the destruction of his people resulting in consuming pain and anguish for Nephi (26:7). Like Mormon and Moroni, this Nephite destruction turns his attention toward a future generation–the Gentiles (beginning in 26:12 or 14), but they too are described with many of the same elements that lead to the Nephite destruction. In the end, it is only the record (the “supplementary word” as Joe calls it) that succeeds in accomplishing the Lord’s work. Nephi’s anguish is subsumed in the assurance from God (by direct quotation) that He is “able to do [his] own work,” will perform a marvelous work and a wonder,” and bring about the fulfillment of the Lehitic covenant through the Book of Mormon.
?
I need, after reading this post and Kim’s comment, to go back and reread more carefully the verses under discussion before I have anything substantial to say at the level of the verse.
I will say this, though, in general response to Kim’s comment: I think you have nicely articulated what I think is less Nephi’s than Isaiah’s model. I’m thinking here of Isaiah 6-8 on specifically von Rad’s reading (Heather, it appears, will back me up on the importance of this): it is the frustration of Isaiah’s prophetic work that leads him to write and seal up his texts for another generation, etc. Nephi is picking up on that, I think, and Nephitizing it. And then Mormon and Moroni will take it up as well….
(It would be fun to speculate about what the Book of Lehi looks like. Did Mormon have an entirely different program before he came across the small plates? In other words, how did his reading of the small plates, at about the time he began to write Mosiah, change his project?)
Hm. I will admit to knowing nothing when it comes to Isaiah. I’ll have to go read von Rad.
It seems (in brief reflection) that Mormon and Moroni are getting this theme solely from Nephi. That is, they never mention Isaiah or rethink his texts in the manner that Nephi is. Perhaps they are picking up on this theme, but missing the Isaianic aspect of it, too caught up in its relevance to their own experience with the Nephite destruction?
I also find this passage somewhat confusing. So instead of trying to add answers (which I don’t have), I’d like to bring up a few more questions.
Why does God say “touch” not the things that are sealed? I think H/G’s point that these verses are unique because it is actually God’s voice. So why the emphasis on the materiality of the sealed portion rather than the content? Why physical and not literary? Especially why not translate or read? Is there someting to the physical aspect of the revelation? Could it be an echo to the tree of knowledge? Or just a idiom for emphasis on how important it is to stay away?
Why also when the book is sealed is it so that it can be hid “up unto me”? Does the seal have anything to do with the book being in God’s possession rather than in man’s? And why here is the seal so that “the words” may be preserved (and here it’s the words that have not been “read” rather than “touched”)?
Kim says that the recontextualization done by Nephi is unique to him, but it seems that this is especially unique even for Nephi. With as often as he quotes OT scripture, is there anywhere that his use of the text is anything like this? It seems that he either is working with a much broader source text than our Isaiah (an option I don’t think is too likely) or he is using this text much more fluidly and emphatically than he is usually prone to do.
Kim-
I am also feeling sheepish about how much I don’t know. For example, here’s a summary of a discussion between me and Nick:
Me: I need to look at a book that’s been referenced on the blog several times. It’s by von Rad. You know anything about him?
Nick: The German scholar? Yeah, we have a couple of his books.
Me: Oh, really? Do we have one on the OT.
Nick: Yeah, we have the 2 volume one on OT theology.
Me: Really? When did you buy that?
Nick: I bought it a couple years ago. Do you want me to get it for you?
Me: Um. . .yeah, that would be nice.
Ya think I woulda thought to ask if we OWNED the book maybe in week 2 or 3 of the blog, not week 8!!! Sigh.
My husband just pointed out that the JST of Isaiah varies both from Isaiah and BoM. Joseph inserts quite a bit from the book of Mormon (10 verses+), but actually omits a couple parts too. One of the ommitted parts is the beginning of verse 11, “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed.”
Does this mean that we have a prophet (Joseph) midrashing on a prophet (Isaiah) aware and using the midrash of another prophet (Nephi) on Isaiah?
Ludlow in “Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet” does a detailed comparison of the 3 noting that Joseph includes most of Nephi’s material into Isaiah except for the portions that seemed overtly Nephi’s insertions about his own people.
Kim,
Regarding Mormon/Moroni’s relationship to Isaiah: First, make sure to look at Moroni writing in Mormon 8:23. Second, I think Mormon uses especially Second Isaiah to set up the backbone of the entire Book of Mormon:
(1) Isaiah 48-49 (in 1 Nephi 20-21)
(2) Isaiah 50-51 (in 2 Nephi 7-8)
(3) Isaiah 52-53 (in Mosiah 11-17)
(4) Isaiah 54-55 (in 3 Nephi 22)
Again, I have to wonder whether doing something like this only occurred to Mormon after he read the small plates, but I can’t but assume some kind of intentional something going on here. (I should mention that the play between Abinadi’s work on Isaiah 52-53 and Christ’s work on Isaiah 54-55 [or really, in some ways, 52-55] is far more complicated than it might first appear, and it is a subject that has fascinated me for a few years, though I’ve not yet really put anything too serious together about it. I certainly need to do so.)
Kim and Julie,
The von Rad text that is most relevant here is volume 2, pages 147-169. I find it immensely helpful.
Julie,
Thanks for highlighting the word “touch.” I like the possible tree of knowledge connection.
Grant and Heather,
Expect a response, at last, shortly!
In response, at last, to Heather and Grant:
H&G: “The structure of the reading for this week presents two distinct teachings that the Lord will say in the future to the unlearned man (Joseph Smith) to whom he will deliver the sealed book.”
Joe responds: The distinction you’ve drawn out (at some length) is apt, and quite helpful on a number of counts. Thanks.
H&G summarize the content of verses 20-23.
Joe responds: The more I’m looking at these four verses, the more I think the key to their interpretation is actually the last independent clause of verse 23, which you do not mention in your discussion. The clause: “and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.” Not only does this phrase mark another connection between Nephi and Moroni, but it seems to me to be what explains the remainder of verses 20-23.
Verses 15-18 give us the story of the words, but emphatically not the book itself, being given to the learned. Interestingly, the learned one is not interested in the words, wanting only the book. The unlearned then receives, according to verse 19, both “the book and the words.” But if this seems at first to suggest that the unlearned have unlimited access to precisely what the learned wanted to have, verses 20-23 make it clear that there is another limit, already described in verses 7-8, 10-11. We thus have what might be described as a kind of three-tiered book/words:
(1) The words of the unsealed part of the book, separable from the material book as such.
(2) The material book as such, separable, however, in its accessibility from the physically sealed “revelation” in the book.
(3) The revelation.
Anthon and Harris are both given security clearance level 1; Joseph is given security clearance level 2; and only the Lord, so far as this text tells us, has security level 3.
But then this splitting up of things has a purpose, according to verses 20-23. H&G point to what is clearly a central phrase: “I am able to do mine own work” (v. 20). But this phrase opens an interesting trajectory running through vv. 20-22:
(1) Mere assertion: “I am able to do mine own work” (v. 20).
(2) Announcement of (eventual) demonstration: “I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work” (v. 21).
(3) Specific instructions grounding the possibility of the (eventual) fulfillment of the announced demonstration: “Wherefore, . . . hide it up unto to me, . . . until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men” (v. 22).
This little trajectory is interesting because steps (1) and (2) emphasize the Lord’s “own work,” making Him, so to speak, the sole agent of the entire operation. But step (3) shifts the burden to Joseph (or, the unlearned reader, we could say more generally): If Joseph is faithful in taking up his task, the whole world will be inducted into security clearance level 1, Joseph will remain in the (relatively privileged) position of security clearance level 2, and the Lord will retain His unique command over security clearance level 3. Joseph has the burdensome task of maintaining the fidelity necessary to keep these three levels quite separate.
But then the question: Why is God so interested in setting up these levels at all? To what purpose? And this is where I think verse 23, and especially its mention of faith, is vital.
H&G mention the possibly typological emphasis in verse 23: God wants to “show unto the world that [He is] the same yesterday, today, and forever.” But given that this phrase is preceded by “For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles” and is followed by “and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith,” I think it is best to understand talk of “sameness” being a question of God’s always being a God of miracles, always being a God who works through faith (Nephi and Moroni).
Is the complex setting up and maintenance of the three levels of textual access not aimed precisely, according to this verse, at establishing the need for faith?
Which also means: the three-tiered structure of the Book of Mormon text as Nephi gives it to us in these verses tells us something about the structure of faith. Faith is (1) to have some words already given while (2) not having access to the original “source” of those words as well as while (3) anticipating further words that remain, for the moment, sealed. (We are venturing remarkably close to Ether 4 here!) And the fact that the setting up of this whole structure follows so immediately on the rejection of the words (in favor of the material book) by the learned establishes a very important distinction between faith and knowledge: to believe is to be essentially distracted from questions of knowing, from questions of having had empirical experience of the material reality behind the words.
Perhaps here more than anywhere else in these chapters, we have begun to uncover Nephi’s “theory of reading”: to read faithfully is to read words without a book, and to do so in anticipation not of eventually having the book (of eventually knowing), but of eventually receiving further words (again without a material book?). For Nephi, faithful reading is not something we undertake in a quest for knowledge (where faith would be something like proto-knowledge), but in a quest for revelation (where faith would be something like proto-revelation).
Does that have any traction?
H&G: “Nephi then returns to the underlying Isaiah text for the second set of instructions to the unlearned man, with a subtle indication that this is a follow-up response.”
Joe responds: I like what you have to say about verses 24-26, but I find myself unable to decide much of anything about what’s going on there until we grapple with the remainder of the chapter . . . something I’m a bit frustrated about.
H&G: “Nephi appears to work phrases from vv. 20-23 into his introductory material in order to prepare readers for the text they are about to encounter.”
Joe responds: I think this is as brilliant a reading here as it is in the last verses of chapter 26. Thanks. One should add that the “off-text” discussion here, however, is a bit different from the “off-text” discussion in chapter 26. There, it was purely off-text. Here, it is only somewhat off-text because it is part of an admittedly massive expansion of Isaiah 29:11-12.
H&G: “Does God reveal a verbatim future quotation to Nephi at the very moment Nephi sets stylus to metal (a quotation that responds to what Nephi has just written)?”
Joe responds: I don’t know that I’ve got anything like an answer to this question (or the associated questions H&G enumerate). But I want to double it (or them) with questions about Joseph’s act of translating and/or reading of these passages. Was Joseph told these words in some event separate from his translation/reading of the text? Or was Nephi’s prophecy of the Lord’s saying these words to Joseph fulfilled precisely when Joseph read them in the text? Can Nephi have been, just by writing the words into the text that Joseph would eventually translate, fulfilling his own prophecy in advance? What does that tell us about prophecy and fulfillment? How does this compare with Jan Shipps’s brilliant discussion of the Book of Mormon’s strange temporal function with regard to prophecy (see her Mormonism, pp. 51-53; I can send these pages in a Word file to anyone who does not have immediate access to them, if you just let me know)?
Much to think about!
Thanks for all the fine comments. We particularly liked Joe’s “security clearance” analogy.
Kim – For us, reading the Book of Mormon as the work of Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni–distinguishing the characteristic styles, strategies, and concerns of the three major narrators–was a major breakthrough in helping us to better understand the text. You’re asking exactly the right sorts of questions (even though we’re not sure we have all the answers yet).
Julie – It does seem like Nephi is doing something special in these chapters. Perhaps 1 Ne. 22 is similar in how it reworks key terms and phrases from Isaiah into a new prophecy, but 2 Ne. 26-27 offer a particularly focused interpretation and expansion of of a single chapter of Isaiah. We wonder if this isn’t something that is fairly unique to Nephi’s life-circumstances. Nephi knows and loves the scriptures, but there is no indication that his children feel the same way. Indeed, Nephi explicitly says that “they know not the manner of prophesying among the Jews” and that he deliberately chose not to teach them “concerning the manner of the Jews” (2 Ne. 25:1-2). He is keenly aware that an entire tradition of Jewish exegesis will die with him. (He tries to get Jacob involved [2 Ne. 6:4] and sees some success at 2 Ne. 6-10, but we have to wonder whether Nephi helped Jacob with that talk; after Nephi is gone, Jacob never produces anything like it in his own book). Abinadi and Jesus do some creative readings of Isaiah 52-54, but this mode of midrashic interpretation is quite rare in the Book of Mormon. Mormon never does anything like it and neither does Moroni.
Joe – It does seem like Mormon’s project changes when he discovers the small plates. He had originally envisioned a straight-through abridgment of the large plates. When he decided to add the small plates as an appendix, his history would have both started and ended with an account of the first generations of the Lehites. It would have been wonderful to get two versions of the origin story–one in a primary source and the other secondary, but Martin Harris ruined that the book-ends format that Mormon came to adopt.
A few more random responses to questions Joe raised:
1) Regarding the distinction between the words and the book, it’s interesting that Moroni (again) addresses the topic directly, referring to an otherwise unspecified “commandment of the Lord”–”the plates thereof are of no worth, because of a commandment of the Lord (for he truly saith that no one shall have them to get gain), but the record thereof is of great worth…” (Morm. 8:14). Book of Mormon authors regularly distinguish “the records” from “the plates,” with the former being “engraven” on the latter, even though we might assume that you can’t really have one without the other.
2) The centrality of readers’ faith with respect to the Lord’s making particular revelations available in text form is similarly substantiated in his conversation with Mormon reported in 3 Ne. 26:6-12, summarized in vs. 11: “I will try the faith of my people.”
3) We’re intrigued by your formulation of “Nephi’s Theory of Reading,” as embracing the words without requiring the book itself. Is it possible that the distinction also encompasses the notion that the Lord repeatedly refers to the words as his own, that is, the words of the book shall proceed forth out of his own mouth (2 Ne. 3:21; 29:2; cf. 27:20–”the words which I shall give unto thee”)?
You comment as well that “for Nephi, faithful reading is not something we undertake in a quest for knowledge but a quest for revelation” is appealing–but we’re still thinking about it! Oddly enough, when the Spirit asks Nephi what he desires after seeing the tree his father had described from his dream, Nephi defies our expectations. We might assume that he would say “I want to taste of the fruit; I want to be happy.” This, after all, was fruit that would bring “exceeding great joy” (1 Ne. 8:12). Instead, Nephi’s request is, “to know the interpretation thereof” (1 Ne. 11:9-11). His own quest for knowledge results in a Pandora’s-box of lifelong grief (1 Ne. 15:4-5; 2 Ne. 26:7).
4) You ask if Joseph Smith was told the words of 27:20-26 in some instance separate from his translation/reading of the text. JS-H 1:19 indicates that Jesus Christ himself quoted at least a phrase of Isa. 29 to Joseph in the First Vision. And it seems possible that Moroni may have quoted some of the first statement in his Sep 21, 1823 visit, though this account is rendered in paraphrase (JS-H 1:34-35). When Joseph was translating, did he recognize the “unlearned man” as himself? Did he remember the words the Lord had spoken to him several years earlier in the sacred grove: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (followed by a quotation from 2 Tim. 3:5). Or did Joseph borrow familiar words from Isaiah to communicate his experience when he was recalling in in 1838. [One more odd note--the paraphrase of Isa 29:13 at JS-H 1:19 substitutes "they teach for doctrines the commandments of men" for Isaiah's "their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men." This new variant appears to match the reading of the Septuagint (in a footnote to the NIV): "Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men" (Masoretic Text) vs. "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men" (LXX)]
A quick thought (my full response will be tomorrow): Julie asks
“Why does God say “touch” not the things that are sealed? I think H/G’s point that these verses are unique because it is actually God’s voice. So why the emphasis on the materiality of the sealed portion rather than the content?”
I’m wondering if we can see a parallel between the emphasis on the materiality of the sealed portion and the emphasis on textuality in Isaiah 29, i.e., Isa. 29 contrasts two forms of seeking revelation: mystical and textual. Those who follow the “familiar spirit” route and those who follow the textual route.
Perhaps the materiality implied in “touch” says something similar about the nature of the sealed text? In other words, an acknowledgment that God gives literally physical texts? That revelation without some sort of physical touchstone is open to misappropriation? (And, of course, this would then tie into revelation as well as ordinances in the temple—we have the temple in part to press upon us a physical consciousness of God?)
Jenny, have you read the paper on Isaiah I posted to LDS-HERM last week or so? It deals with exactly this theme in Isaiah generally….
Joe, I haven’t, but now I’m curious …