'New life' as an early Christian/temple theme (and major mantic symbol), part 2

This is a continuation of my last post. In part 1, we looked at the ancient story of Cain and Abel and how the same lessons were taught by Jesus. To someone unfamiliar with the ancient symbols found in the Cain and Abel story, it might seem that Jesus was teaching radical new doctrine, when in actuality He was restoring the original understanding of the doctrines of the Israelite religion, which had been suppressed centuries earlier. Hundreds of years before Christ, Jacob preserved a wonderful summary of the original religion in Jacob 4:4-10. He wasn't the only one -- we'll get to some additional examples in the next few posts.

Grasping this idea can unfold new layers of meaning in very familiar verses, as we have already seen with Matthew.

As this concept clicked in my head, I understood the words of Paul on faith in a new light. Here is what Paul said about Abel as he spoke about what it means to have faith (I've included the KJV first followed by the same verses from the Expanded Bible, which offers some helpful notes and alternate translations):

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. (Hebrews 11, KJV)

3 It is by faith we understand that the ·whole world [universe; cosmos; ages] was made by God’s ·command [word; Gen. 1] so what we see was ·made by something that cannot be seen [L not made from/by visible things].

4 It was by faith that Abel offered God a ·better [more acceptable] sacrifice than Cain [Gen. 4:4–8]. God ·said he was pleased with [commended him for; bore testimony to] the gifts Abel offered and ·called Abel [commended him as; testified that he was] a ·good [righteous] man because of his faith. Abel died, but through his faith he is still speaking [12:24]. (Hebrews 11, Expanded Bible)

Faith led to Abel's more acceptable offering to God, an animal sacrifice in the manner taught to Adam by the angel (see Moses 5:5). Obedience to that ordinance (and an understanding of the doctrine of Christ underpinning that ordinance) allowed Abel to find life eternal (though he died, "through his faith he is still speaking"). From this we learn that true faith (as it was initially taught by angels) is centered on a belief that God is the Creator, that He knows best, and that we must constantly strive to hearken to His voice.

In the following chapter, Paul makes another reference to Abel's offering in direct comparison to Christ. All of this is given in the context of a description of God's church that is loaded with temple/covenant imagery:

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12, NRSV)

What happens to our faith when we begin to view the temple the place where we come to exercise our faith in God, the place where we can "come to Mount Zion ... and to innumerable angels in festal gathering"? What is being celebrated? That we have found new life in Christ, the "mediator of a new covenant" through His blood which was shed for us.

Faith begins with hope in a better world and that hope leads us to a new life in Christ. Everything we do as we follow Him is best thought of as a celebration of what He did for all mankind. To reiterate Jacob's words from the last post, "... we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us." (Jacob 4:4)

How can we know if these are new ideas or ancient ones?

The Book of Mormon provides a key to answering this question, but as I mentioned above, it is not the only place where these ancient understandings were recorded. Margaret Barker (a Methodist scholar of the Bible) has spent her life uncovering the most ancient understanding of Israelite temple worship and symbols.  She is an excellent resource on this topic. In the next post, I'll review some of the sources she cites to demonstrate that the concept of "new life" is an ancient doctrine of the first Israelite temple, not an early Christian invention.

'New life' as an early Christian/temple theme (and major mantic symbol), part 1

Stisa's last post reminded me of a few concepts I'd like to touch on as I continue to flesh out the "mantic versus sophic" battle of worldviews. The contest between the materialist/intellectual mindset and the 'heavenly order' mindset goes back to Cain and Abel. Abel "hearkened unto the voice of the Lord" whereas Cain "hearkened not," instead asking: "Who is the Lord that I should know him?" (See Moses 5:16-17.) 

On the surface, the differences between the brothers might have seemed trivial.  Able tended sheep. Cain tilled the ground. But there was a major difference beneath the surface.  Cain loved Satan more than God and obeyed Satan's commands.  God warned Cain against rejecting the "greater counsel which was had from God."  Cain, in response, grew angry. The following sequence of events results in Cain covenanting with Satan in exchange for worldly wealth and murdering his brother.

In this story, we see a pattern -- rejecting the word of God led Cain to "get gain" in this life but lose eternal life. (I mentioned the Hebrew connection between Cain and "get gain" in a previous post here.)  Abel, by contrast, lost his mortal life as a result of his faithfulness but found eternal life in the process. Abel honored the vision of a heavenly order by which all things must be done on earth.  Cain rejected this idea and sought to create for himself the things he desired on earth. Thus by valuing God's wisdom over his own life, Abel will never die, and by rejecting God's "greater counsel" in favor of worldly gain, Cain will never return to God's presence.

This is ancient wisdom told in the form of a simple story of two brothers, with the deeper wisdom tucked safely beneath the surface. This understanding of the need to find new life through Christ was also taught symbolically through ancient temple rituals. Stisa's post pointed out how the holy anointing oil is a temple symbol for light and life, and how Abinadi makes this same connection in Mosiah 16:8-9. He didn't choose those words randomly, either.  He is clearly preaching to these priests the things they have rejected by favoring the Law of Moses over the Doctrine of Christ.

Abinadi's experience is a nice analog to what must have been happening in Jerusalem following Josiah's temple "purge" around 621 AD. This was a battle of worldviews, and the original temple symbols which emphasized the Doctrine of Christ were suppressed.

Old becomes new

If the Doctrine of Christ was stripped from the temple a few decades before Lehi first saw his vision, many parts of the Book of Mormon suddenly make much more sense.  Nephi's obvious disdain for "the Jews" in Jerusalem (see 2 Nephi 25:2, for example) makes sense in this context -- they corrupted the holy temple.  Jacob's condemnation of the Jews for "looking beyond the mark" also makes sense (see Jacob 4:14).  Just prior to that verse, Jacob lays out in several verses what the ancient, original meaning of the Israelite religion is:

4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.
5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.
6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.
7 Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things.
8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.
9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?
10 Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works. (Jacob 4)

This is the mantic worldview in a nutshell. That is the religion of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. The "Old Testament religion" we think about and read about is a corrupted version of this, not the other way around.

Margaret Barker writes about the importance of establishing what came first in the context of the early Christians. Her words apply just as aptly to thinking about the ancient Israelite religion:

There is a tendency to classify according to the categories of a later age. What became the canonical texts are the norm, and all others, together with the ideas they represent have a lower status. Instead of asking how such 'strange' texts came to be written, we should be asking how they came to be excluded. (The Great High Priest, p. 26)

If the religious reformation is successful enough in suppressing older doctrines, these will appear to be completely new when they are restored. For example, consider the following words of Jesus:

24 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16)

It seems Jesus was reiterating suppressed truth with these words (rather than breaking new ground). He is teaching the same lesson we can learn from the story of Cain and Abel. 

Parallel/inverted story arcs -- Sherem and Abinadi

My last few posts (here and here) have covered interesting ideas from a recent Interpreter paper authored by Val Larsen about cultural decline in the Book of Mormon from a prophetic worldview (the mantic) to an intellectual/materialist worldview (the sophic).  It's obvious that the Book of Mormon endorses the mantic perspective, yet over and over again we see the pattern of a mantic restoration followed by a decline to the sophic.

This post will discuss parallel themes in two well-known Book of Mormon stories: Sherem and Abinadi. Larsen lays out in specific detail how these two stories parallel each other.  Both stories take place in the context of a once-righteous people falling into wickedness involving sexual sin and material excess.

In the case of Sherem, he is the intellectual Deuteronomist challenging the prophetic tradition of the high priest (Jacob). He visits the Nephites, the spiritual survivors of the escape from wicked Jerusalem who heeded the prophetic words of Lehi (a mantic restorer). 

In the case of Abinadi, he is the prophet challenging the sophic tradition of the high priest (Amulon) of Noah, who is the king of a group of people who removed themselves from the leadership of Mosiah-1 (a different mantic restorer) and returned to the land of Nephi, which they had narrowly escaped with their lives.  They reversed course after following a prophet, and it led them back into captivity and later wickedness.

Here is a table from his paper outlining the main elements of each story:

In both cases, the interloper delivers his message and then dies, but the people eventually embrace that message.

Larsen believes it can be implied from the text of Jacob 7 that Sherem was specifically permitted by Nephi's successor to challenge Jacob. Jacob, after all, does not mention the king by name and specifically condemns the actions of the people under his reign. He also bases some of his contrast on the assumption that the descendants of Nephi gradually embraced the sophic worldview and rejected the Christ. I'm not sure I accept either of these conclusions uncritically, but they are interesting and both idea have some supporting evidence.  Regardless of how tenuous you might consider these two premises, the parallels between Sherem and Abinadi are undeniable. Here is another similarity -- Abinadi is specifically put to death for claiming that Christ will come down (the core tenet of the mantic worldview):

7 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.
8 For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people. (Mosiah 17)

Sherem, on the other hand, is struck down by the power of God after demanding to see a sign (signs and wonders are another core tenet of the mantic worldview):

13 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Show me a sign by this power of the Holy Ghost, in the which ye know so much.
...
15 And it came to pass that when I, Jacob, had spoken these words, the power of the Lord came upon him, insomuch that he fell to the earth. And it came to pass that he was nourished for the space of many days. (Jacob 7) 

In other words, Abinadi suffered death for challenging the sophic ideas of the high priests of Noah and Sherem died for challenging the mantic principles of the high priest appointed by Nephi. 

The misguided interpretation of the law of Moses condemned Abinadi, and the power of God condemned Sherem. 

One more parallel to close this post:  Just before Sherem died, he "confessed the Christ, and the power of the Holy Ghost, and the ministering of angels" (Jacob 7:17). On the contrary, Abinadi died as a result of refusing to recall his testimony of Christ. (Mosiah 17:8-9).

400 year cycle(s) of decline in the Book of Mormon

This short post will set up a concept I am currently studying as part of the "mantic versus sophic worldview" concept I have posted about recently.

Restoration happens through mantic revelation. The prophetic tradition is the essence of the mantic worldview. In other words, a prophet is called by means of heavenly messengers. This involves visions, prophecy, and powerful spiritual experiences. 

By contrast, apostasy typically happens as a people drifts away from the mantic worldview and gradually embrace the sophic (intellectual) worldview. They de-emphasize Christ and His atonement and adopt a more materialist perspective, with a focus on wealth and status.

This is a central theme in the Book of Mormon, presented in various ways. One of these ways involves the concept of a 400 year cycle of decline, which is presented twice in the Nephite history. Recall that Mosiah-1 saved the Nephites from destruction (or at least those who would listen to him and follow him). They escaped the land of their first inheritance (Nephi-Lehi) and made their way to Zarahemla, where Mosiah became king. The second cycle ends with the complete destruction of the Nephites. The parallels between these two cycles are numerous and often subtle, but very interesting. There's a lot of material to cover on this subject, but I want to present one single common detail between the first Nephite cycle and the second.  

320 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, one of his descendants wrote the following on the small plates: 

And now I, Amaron, write the things whatsoever I write, which are few, in the book of my father. Behold, it came to pass that three hundred and twenty years had passed away, and the more wicked part of the Nephites were destroyed. (Omni 1:4-5)

Compare with these verses written about a much later time, when the people had grown very wicked:

48 And it came to pass that when three hundred and twenty years had passed away, Ammaron, being constrained by the Holy Ghost, did hide up the records which were sacred—yea, even all the sacred records which had been handed down from generation to generation, which were sacred—even until the three hundred and twentieth year from the coming of Christ. (4 Nephi 1)

What are we to make of this similarity between name of record-keeper, timing, and condition of the covenant people? Did Joseph Smith simply recycle plot points as he finished the dictation, as some critics might assume?  Or is this a clue intended to point our mind to finding common themes and apply them to our own lives?

In a future post, I'll outline some additional details that cause me to believe the latter.  Each of us is susceptible to allowing our own heavenly worldview to become corrupt and fixated on material wealth, forgetting God and the true purposes of His creation and His covenant. The Book of Mormon offers a powerful formula to help us step out of this cycle of chaos and embrace the way of life.

Laman and Lemuel as faithful Deuteronomists

In my last post, I introduced the concept of a mantic worldview (one which embraces a heavenly order and revelation from God through spiritual communication and prophets) and a sophic worldview (an intellectual, materialist worldview that denies the existence of heavenly things).

This contrast shows up throughout human history, including in the Book of Mormon. This post will be the first in a cluster of posts on this topic and how it shows up in many ways throughout the history of the Nephites.

Today we'll look at Laman and Lemuel.  The modern reader might be tempted to envision Nephi's older brothers as lazy, heathen, fickle, or just plain wicked. Why did they choose to follow their father yet criticize him every step of the way?  Why did they constantly try to kill their younger brother Nephi?

A new paper by Val Larsen suggests a different motivation for Laman and Lemuel's actions. He suggests they were faithful adherents to the reformed religion of Josiah which dominated Jerusalem at the time of Lehi. He suggests that viewing the brothers through this lens best explains their seemingly inconsistent and often aggressive actions towards Nephi and Lehi.

An overview of Josiah's reforms

To get a better sense of the impact Josiah's reforms had on the culture of the day, Larsen offers some details about the step Josiah took to consolidate religious practice (and consequently political power):

1. Eliminating the concept of a council of Gods ("Elohim ... Asherah ... [and] seventy sons who ruled the nations of the earth, the son Yahweh being the God of Israel" who resided both in the temple and in heaven) in favor of monotheistic worship of Yahweh.
2. Removing symbols of Asherah (including the tree/menorah) from the temple and the Mount of Olives.
3. Denying the corporeal nature of God in favor of an imperceptible, intangible God.
4. Emphasizing  strict adherence to the Law of Moses.
5. Declaring the written law to be complete and unchangeable.
6. Outlawing all forms of prophecy. ("Prophecy could be accepted as prophecy only after it was no longer prophecy, i.e., only after unfolding events had proved it to be true (Deuteronomy 13:1–3; 18:21–22).
7. Requiring the people to kill anyone who came to them as a prophet.
8. Banning all forms of sacrifice and ritual worship outside of the Jerusalem temple.

History repeats itself

As I look at this list, I see similar trends occurring after the time of Christ.  It's as if each period of restoration is inevitable followed by a drift from the mantic to the sophic. We can even see evidence of it in the church today, despite the urgings from our leaders to seek personal revelation and come to know God directly, worship Him more diligently in our homes, etc.

Lehi as a mantic restorer

What I also see is a good explanation for Lehi's concern for his people at the very beginning of the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 1:5). Lehi would have descended from the Northern Kingdom tradition, which (according to this paper) embraced prophetic dreams, the ministry of angels, imagery of the Tree of Life, and the Bronze Serpent tradition. Each of Josiah's reforms would have struck at the heart of this Northern Kingdom tradition.

Of course what follows in 1 Nephi 1 is a heavy endorsement of the mantic worldview: Lehi is blessed with a vision of "he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Nephi 1:8).  Later, he sees Jesus Christ descending and given a prophetic charge to minister to the people and cry repentance.  When that fails (the people try to kill him), he is commanded to flee the city with his family.

Laman and Lemuel

This leads us to Laman and Lemuel, who as Deuteronomist sophists would have simultaneously been required to obey him (Deuteronomy 5:16) and kill him (Deuteronomy 13:1-10;18:20)!

Here are a few additional points of evidence cited by Larsen in favor of his view of Laman and Lemuel as Deuteronomists:

• They first rebel after their father builds an alter outside of Jerusalem.
• They complain their father is a visionary man.
• Nephi describes his brothers as "like the Jews at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father” (1 Nephi 2:13).
• They ignore the sign of the angel after beating their younger brothers.
• They later rebel as they leave Jerusalem the final time, after Nephi rebukes them sharply, in accordance with Deuteronomy 13:5.
• They refuse to come to the Tree of Life in Lehi's dream.
• Nephi persuades them to help build the ship by invoking the example of Moses.

Conclusion

This is a fascinating idea, and I find it pretty compelling. It is very interesting to me how neatly this story found in the opening of the Book of Mormon fits a historical context only recently pieced together by scholars.

Sadly, the battle between these two ideologies does not end when the family crosses the ocean.  We see evidence of these same struggles happening repeatedly through Nephite history, as we'll discuss in future posts.