Second Nephi 2 All

Home > The Book of Mormon > Second Nephi > Chapters 1-5 > Chapter 2 > Verses 2:1-5
Previous page: Chapter 2                      Next page: Verses 2:6-10

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Relationship to Chapter 2. The relationship of Verses 2:1-5 to the rest of Chapter 2 is discussed at Chapter 2.

Story.

Message. Themes, symbols, and doctrinal points emphasized in Verses 2:1-5 include:

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:1. The "And now, X, I speak unto you" phrase that opens this chapter echoes 2 Ne 1:30, the first time Lehi turns from one addressee to another in this discourse. It also anticipates verse 14, where the same construction is found next. (It is perhaps worth mentioning that the somewhat more restricted "And now" construction—a marker in LDS scripture generally of an important shift even as some broader continuity is maintained—appears two other times in the chapter: verse 14 and verse 22.) Both of these instances of the longer construction are of some importance for interpretation of chapter 2 (as well as a further instance of the same phrase, to be found in 2 Ne 3:1). That the construction quite clearly plays the role at least of redefining the intended audience of the address, then the present chapter is, through the repetition of the construction, split in two: 2 Nephi 2 can be broken into two major parts, one addressed primarily to Jacob (verses 1-13) and one addressed to all of Lehi's sons (verses 14-30). While the implications of the shift in verse 14 for interpretation of the whole chapter are undeniably numerous, one must not fail to notice how this point forces a reinterpretation of this very first verse: though Lehi addresses himself to Jacob quite directly here, and though that direct address will continue through the first thirteen verses without fail (witness verse 11: "If not so, my first-born in the wilderness..."), the particularity of this address will be questioned retroactively by Lehi's quite sudden shift in the middle of the chapter (verse 14). Hence, even as this first verse would appear to limit Lehi's interests to Jacob alone, it must be quite clear from the very beginning that Jacob's particularity is being canceled by the anticipatory echoes to be heard in the formalistic construction by which he is singled out in the first place. Jacob is thus hardly isolated or abstracted from his context by the direct address (by name!) of verse 1. Rather, he is given to his context, is named only within the broader context that he apparently cannot escape.

This contextuality becomes clearer still with Lehi's next words: "Thou art my first-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren." Two contextualizations, ultimately in tension, are at work in these two sentences. The second might be cited first, since it is the simpler of the two: Jacob's very life has been contextualized by "the rudeness of [his] brethren," has its place only within the framework of the familial conflicts that so much occupy Nephi's narrative of the travels through the wilderness and across the sea. Less obvious in meaning is the first contextualization: "Thou art my first-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness." Certainly relevant here is the desert backdrop, the suffering on Lehi's part, the days that are emphatically plural. But of more interest and importance, in the end, is Lehi's audacity in labeling Jacob—albeit, of course, with an important caveat—his "first-born." In fact, much can be made of this label: it is certainly of some significance that Lehi does not use the title in chapter 1. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that he will, during the same series of discourses, refer to Laman (curiously in the third person) as his "first-born," but only after having labeled Jacob such first, and only in an address to Laman's apparently innocent children (2 Ne 4:3). It is this connection or anti-connection with Laman that speaks so loudly in this verse: Jacob is named precisely in that he is aligned with, and yet held in an almost horrible tension with, his oldest brother, Laman, the (actual) first-born. Though the second contextualization is perhaps the more explicit, it is this first that is far richer in implication by its linguistic binding together of Jacob and Laman.

But all of this is only the backdrop to something still more curious at work here: an allusion to 1 Ne 1:1. Actually, such an allusion on Lehi's part, given the chronology and historical details of 2 Ne 5:31, would have been impossible, which means that one of two situations obtains here: either Nephi to some degree at least doctors Lehi's actual discourse so that it nicely matches up with what he had written in 1 Ne 1:1, or it is rather Nephi's famous first verse that alludes to this discourse. The point is of some exegetical, as well as of some hermeneutical, interest. Before fleshing out some of the implications, the parallel construction of the two passages should be spelled out more explicitly. Set side by side:

  I, Nephi,                                      And now, Jacob, I speak unto you:
  
  having been born of goodly parents             Thou art my first-born in the days of 
                                                      my tribulation in the wilderness
  
  therefore I was taught somewhat in all the
       learning of my father;
  
  and having seen many afflictions in the        And behold, in thy childhood thou hast
       course of my days...                           suffered afflictions and much sorrow,
                                                      because of the rudeness of thy brethren.

This parallel is all the more striking if one continues with 1 Ne 1:1 and into 2 Ne 2:2:

  nevertheless, having been highly favored       Nevertheless, Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness,
       of the Lord in all my days;
  
  yea, having had a great knowledge              thou knowest the greatness of God;
       of the goodness and the mysteries
       of God...
  
                                                 and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.

The parallels between these two passages are worth drawing out at length because of the richness of what Nephi does in the (textually) earlier passage. Though the commentary there should ultimately be consulted, it is worth pointing out here that the parallel passage draws on a fourfold structure (divided up by the repetition of the word "having") that nicely lays out Nephi's life as following a creation-fall-atonement-veil pattern. The connections between this fourfold pattern and the temple are obvious enough (and are discussed at some further length in the commentary at 1 Ne 1:1), and Nephi even appears to suggest that his entire record (1-2 Nephi) is structured by the same fourfold pattern. This complex allusion to the temple, worked into the first verses of the present chapter under consideration, is of some importance given not only the theological content of the discourse Lehi is here delivering, but also because of the "calling" to be extended to Jacob in verse 3: Jacob is eventually to be given to the "service of God," which would seem to have reference to his becoming a priest in the temple (see the commentary below for verse 3; also the commentary for the mention of consecration in verse 2). There would be reason, it seems, to see this chapter as saturated, from the very start, by temple patterns, language, and theology.

This focus on the temple is of further importance given the near disinheritance at work in 2 Ne 1:29: only a few verses earlier, one finds Lehi telling his "actual" first-born that his blessings are to be given to Nephi if Laman and Lemuel do not "hearken unto him." Inasmuch as Nephi is thereby designated not for the service of the temple but for the more "political" work of governance, it falls to Jacob to head up the spiritual, ritual side of Nephite culture (two first-borns, perhaps two messiahs: Nephi the king, and Jacob the priest). That these two first-borns are to work side by side is not only stated explicitly in verse 3 ("thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi"), but the parallels between this address to Jacob and Nephi's own self-introduction in 1 Ne 1:1, worked out above, are indicative of this same division of labor of sorts. And this pairing is of broader exegetical importance in Nephi's text: Nephi's birth, as announced in the first chapter of 1 Nephi, and Jacob's birth, as announced in the eighteenth chapter (1 Ne 18:7), function as the two ends of the stretch of Nephi's text that falls under the rubric of "creation" (in the fourfold pattern he takes as the template for his record). And all of these hints of the parallel roles of Nephi and Jacob, quite subtly at work here, point to the two records Nephi will soon be making, with their differing purposes (see 1 Ne 6; 19; and 2 Ne 5).

It is of some consequence—and is a marked irony—that Jacob is linked to Nephi precisely as he is linked to Laman: through his being addressed as the "first-born." That Nephi is never referred to directly by this title, while Jacob is so referred to twice in just the first part of this chapter, is significant: it would appear that Lehi was trying to deflect some of the animosity usually reserved for Nephi to Jacob. Put another way, it would seem that Lehi takes the occasion to establish the pairing of Nephi and Jacob as a righteous parallel to the rebellious Laman and Lemuel (though what Lehi is doing with Joseph in chapter 3 still remains to be discussed). This is done, at the end of this first verse, with an explicit mention of "the rudeness of [Jacob's] brethren." The tension of the moment should not be missed. It is a tension, however, that is nicely taken up in the next verse.

• 2 Ne 2:2: Parallels with verse 26. There seem to be interesting parallels in this verse and in 2 Ne 2:26, viz., "fulness of time" and the idea of "salvation unto men" here with "redeem the children of men" in verse 26. (See the link below for more details on this parallel, along with several others between vv. 3-6 and vv. 26-27.)

• 2 Ne 2:2. Given the connection with 1 Ne 1:1, worked out above, this verse begins with an already rich "nevertheless." But it is followed immediately by what seems somewhat oddly placed: a repetition of "Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness." At least in part, this doubles or sustains the tension introduced by the announcement of this title in the first verse: Jacob is again caught up in tension with Laman through a paired opposition between Nephi/Jacob and Laman/Lemuel (now perhaps in an even more tense reference, given its significant proximity to "the rudeness of thy brethren" at the close of verse 1). But the significance of this repetition is hardly thereby exhausted. In fact, it is worth pointing out that there is a kind of logical movement between the two instances of the title in these first two verses, one that might be read on the one hand as an abridgment and on the other hand as a progression toward identity. Abridgment: what is in verse 1 "Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my first-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness" becomes in verse 2 "Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness." It is almost as if Lehi goes through and snips out parts of the longer version in verse 1: "I speak unto you: Thou art" and "in the days of my tribution." Progression toward identity: whereas in verse 1 "Jacob" functions as an already given name and "first-born... in the wilderness" functions as a title that is being given (through the "Thou art"), in verse 2, the title is already as given as the name is. "My first-born in the wilderness" is now as "automatic," so to speak, as is the common name "Jacob." In the end, of course, it must be admitted that this abridgment and this progression toward identity are two sides of the same coin. And it is of the utmost significance that this is accomplished specifically by putting Jacob, along with Nephi, in tension with Laman and Lemuel.

It is also quite significant that this full-blown identity, this already-givenness of the title with the name, is given expression precisely as Jacob is said to know the greatness of God. The point deserves careful attention.

• 2 Ne 2:3. Lehi says that he knows his son Jacob has been redeemed because of the righteousnes of thy Redeemer and then goes on to explain why "salvation is free" (v. 4). The emphasis here seems to be on what God has done to make redemption possible. In this context, the mention of Jacob's afflictions seems to set the stage for the later discussion of opposition (rather than, say, establishing a direct relationship between Jacob's personal trials and redemption).

Of curious interest in this verse is Lehi's blessing upon Jacob of being dedicated to "the service of thy God." The word "service" in the Old Testament is almost universally used in reference to the work of the temple priests. That Jacob clearly goes on to be associated quite closely with the temple (see 2 Nephi 6-10, and of course Jacob 1-3) perhaps suggests that this is precisely what is at work here: Lehi sets Jacob the task of becoming a temple priest. If this is the case, then the whole of this chapter might be re-read according to temple themes: Lehi discusses the creation, the fall, and the atonement. Moreover, this perhaps clarifies the consecration Lehi promises in verse 2: Jacob's negative experiences will somehow work to his benefit as a temple priest.

• 2 Ne 2:4: Free. It is interesting that Lehi uses the word free two different ways in describing the atonement in this chapter. Here, the meaning is probably #11 in Webster's 1828 dictionary: "gratuitous; not gained by importunity or purchase." See v. 26 for the other useage.

• 2 Ne 2:4. Lehi says "salvation is free." Lehi means salvation is free to us. In 1 Cor 7:23, Paul tells us our salvation is "bought with a price." Since Christ has paid the price for our salvation, it is free to us in the sense that we do not have to suffer as Christ did for our own sins if we repent (see D&C 19:16 and surrounding verses).

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:1: Jacob. Why did Lehi name this son Jacob? Is the name somehow related to the circumstances of his birth? Does naming his son Jacob somehow cast Lehi in the role of Isaac? What might this mean? The name Jacob means "supplanter" in Hebrew--how might Lehi see this Jacob as a supplanter?

• 2 Ne 2:1: My first-born. Why does Lehi choose to see Jacob (his fifth son) as some sort of first-born? How does the theme of a first-born prefigure the later discussion here of Christ and first-fruits?

• 2 Ne 2:1: Days of my tribulation. If Lehi sees his son born in the wilderness as a first-born, does that somehow mean that these days of tribulation somehow mark a new beginning for Lehi? What are tribulations? How does the concept of tribulations contextualize or prefigure the later discussion here?

• 2 Ne 2:1: In the wilderness. What does Lehi mean by wilderness? Is it important that his tribulations occur in a wilderness? How are Lehi's "days of tribulation in the wilderness" separated from or related to his pre-existent days in Jerusalem or his later days in the paradise of the promised land? Does Lehi somehow see his whole journey as a type of our premortal, mortal, and post-mortal existence?

• 2 Ne 2:1: My tribulation vs. thy childhood. What might Lehi be trying to say by mentioning/paring/comparing/contrasting his tribulations with Jacob's childhood?

• 2 Ne 2:1: Afflictions. What are afflictions and how are they related to the theme of this discourse?

• 2 Ne 2:1: Sorrows. What are sorrows and how are they related to the theme of this discourse?

• 2 Ne 2:1: Rudeness of thy brethren. What does Lehi mean by rudeness? If rudeness can be read as something like roughness or violence, how might that relate to the theme of this discourse? Is it important that afflictions and sorrows can be seen as coming from other actors in the story, even by brothers?

• 2 Ne 2:2: Nevertheless. How does this word shift the grounds of Lehi's discourse and reconfigure Jacob's experience? Can we see the whole nature of Christ's redeeming work in this act of bringing consecration, gain, blessings and safety in spite of ("nevertheless") our afflictions and sorrow?

• 2 Ne 2:2: Thou knowest. What does Lehi mean by this? How does Jacob know, and how does Lehi know that Jacob knows?

• 2 Ne 2:2: Past, present, and future. What is happening here as Lehi moves from the past (hast suffered) to the present (knowest) to the future (shall consecrate)? How does knowing "the greatness of God" in the present influence our past and future?

• 2 Ne 2:2: The greatness of God. What does this mean? What is "the greatness of God"? How can the greatness of God be known?

• 2 Ne 2:2: Consecration. What does it mean to have afflictions consecrated for one’s good? To think about that, we probably have to think about what the word “consecrate” means. In Webster’s dictionary of 1828 (a dictionary that reflects American usage of Joseph Smith’s time), the first definition of consecration is the one that comes from the Latin roots of the word: “to make or declare something sacred.” If we take that meaning, what does it mean for affliction to be made sacred? How does that occur? Is it connected to somehow knowing the greatness of God?

• 2 Ne 2:2: For thy gain. How can our afflictions be made for our gain? What does it mean to gain? What do we have to gain? Does the Atonement of Christ somehow make it so our afflictions somehow provide some kind of gain to our eternal souls? If so, how do our souls gain from this experience?

• 2 Ne 2:3: Wherefore. What does this wherefore ("because of that") refer to? Is knowing the greatness of God still relevant to this taking place?

• 2 Ne 2:3: Thy soul. What does Lehi mean by soul? Is it our modern view of a united body and spirit, or something else?

Jacob is blessed that he will be safe and that he will spend his days in the service of God. How often do we think of our service as a blessing? We speak of our service in terms of our callings (which makes a lot of sense) but do we sometimes think of it as a duty rather than a blessing? What is the difference, and what difference does that make?

Notice that Lehi says, “I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer.” We sometimes speak as if our obedience brings our redemption. In the New Testament, Paul warns against thinking in those terms. But Paul’s doctrine isn’t only New Testament doctrine. Here we see Lehi attributing redemption to Christ rather than to us. (Joseph Smith said, “that man was not able himself to erect a system, or plan with power sufficient to free him from a destruction which awaited him is evident from the fact that God [. . .] prepared a sacrifice in the gift of His own Son who should be sent in due time, to prepare a way, or open a door through which man might enter into the Lord’s presence, whence he had been cast out for disobedience” (Teachings 58).) How do we square what Lehi says here with our usual understanding? What does it mean to say that the righteousness of the Redeemer redeems us rather than that he does? What does it mean to say to Jacob, still a young man, that he is redeemed rather than that he will be?

• 2 Ne 2:4: The ideas in this verse move from “you have seen Christ in his glory” to “your experience is the same as that of those who will know him when he comes to earth” to “the Spirit is the same at every time” to “the way for salvation has been prepared from the beginning and salvation is free.” It is not difficult to see the connection of the first three ideas, but how is the fourth idea connected to the three that precede it? Why is it important to know that the way is prepared “from the fall"? What does Lehi mean when he says “salvation is free"? How does that fit with what he says in v. 3?

• 2 Ne 2:5: What does Lehi mean when he says that men are instructed sufficiently to know good from evil? Where and when do we receive that instruction? When is the law given to us? Is it given to everyone? If so, what does Lehi mean by “law” here?

• 2 Ne 2:5: What does it mean to be justified? What does justification have to do with justice? Is it relevant that both words have the same root? Lehi says that we are cut off from that which is good by the law, both by the temporal and by the spiritual law. What does it mean to be cut off from the Father by the temporal law? by the spiritual law? What is Lehi referring to when he says “that which is good"? If he means “the presence of the Father,” why does he put it this way rather than that?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:3. See this post by Jacob J. at the New Cool Thang blog for parallels between vv. 3-6 and vv. 26-27.

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Chapter 2                      Next page: Verses 2:6-10

Home > The Book of Mormon > Second Nephi > Chapters 1-5 > Chapter 2 > Verses 2:6-10
Previous page: Verses 2:1-5                      Next page: Verses 2:11-15

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Relationship to Chapter 2. The relationship of Verses 2:6-10 to the rest of Chapter 2 is discussed at Chapter 2.

Story.

Message. Themes, symbols, and doctrinal points emphasized in Verses 2:6-10 include:

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:7-10: Ends. The phrase "ends of the ___" is used with 3 nouns in the Book of Mormon: "ends of the law," "ends of the atonement," and "ends of the earth." It is difficult to tell from context exactly what the "ends of the law" are or the "ends of the atonement." On the other hand, it is pretty clear what the "ends of the earth" means from context. In 2 Ne 29:2 the Lord's voice hisses forth "unto the ends of the earth." The meaning here is that it it hisses forth all the way to the ends of the earth. With this phrase Nephi tells us that the Lord's voice hisses forth to the entire earth. In the same way the phrase "unto the ends of the earth" is used many times in the scriptures to represent the whole earth. Even when the "unto" is dropped, "ends of the earth" still means the whole earth. Moro 7:34 and Mosiah 12:24 are good examples.

One might ask why the phrase "the ends of the earth" is used in these cases to mean "the whole earth" rather than simply saying "the whole earth." The answer may be as simple as the poetic language typical of the scriptures. In this synecdoche, the "ends" represent the whole. The phrase creates a more visual image of something moving toward and achieving completion--imagery not created through the use of the word whole. One way to think about this is that the meaning of unto is preserved even in those cases where it is dropped.

The "ends of the law" and "the ends of the atonement" can be understood, similarly, to mean the whole law and the whole atonement. It may be helpful to imagine adding back the unto here as well. To verse 7, imagine the phrase "ends of the law" as "all the way to the ends of the law." This definition of "ends" as "whole" is not at all in conflict with the concept of ends as purpose. The end of something is where it is going and where it finds completion. Its completion is its purpose. The harmony of these two meanings is most clear in verse 10 where "ends of the law" means both "the whole law" and "the purpose of the law" and similarly for "ends of the atonement."

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:6: This verse begins with “wherefore,” or “because.” Redemption comes through the Messiah because the law cuts us off. What does that teach? And it comes to us through him because he is full of grace and truth. Presumably the contrast is between Christ and us: as fallen beings, we are not full of grace or truth, but he is. What is grace? What is truth? What does it mean to say that Christ is full of them? What does it mean to say that we are not?

• 2 Ne 2:7: What are the ends of the law? “Ends” usually means “purposes.” Does it mean that here? What does “to answer the ends of the law” mean? Why does Lehi tell us that we must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit to partake in Christ’s redemption? Why doesn’t he mention obedience or ordinances if they are necessary?

• 2 Ne 2:8: Jacob is in the wilderness of a new land and presumably has little chance to tell very many others this gospel. So why does Lehi tell Jacob that it is important to make these things known to everyone?

• 2 Ne 2:8: Why does Lehi connect resurrection to redemption? What does the phrase “merits, and mercy, and grace” mean? Should we understand each of those three terms separately, or should we understand the phrase as a unit? To think about what is being said here, ask yourself what it means to rely only on the merit of the Messiah. Then ask yourself what it means only to rely on his mercy. And then on his grace.

• 2 Ne 2:9: Why is the Savior said to be the firstfruits? Notice that in the Old Testament, the word is mostly used to describe the first grain or other produce to ripen. How is that description appropriate? Is it related to his title of First Born? What meaning does the phrase “unto God” add to “firstfruits"? Lehi tells us that Christ is the firstfruits inasmuch as, or because, he intercedes. How does his intercession make him the firstfruits?
  • Suggested answer: Jesus said, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." [John 12:24] Because of the intercession of Jesus Christ, his suffering death in our behalf, he was the first to resurrect and thereby was the first fruit. It was because of the atonement, that he is able to bring forth much fruit.

• 2 Ne 2:10: Notice that this verse speaks of the law as something that the Father has given. What does that mean? Sometimes Latter-day Saints speak of the law as something to which even the Father is subservient. Is that compatible with what Lehi says? (Those wishing to pursue the theology here (rather than the scriptural teachings) may wish to read Brigham Young’s response to Orson Pratt’s teaching of related doctrine: in James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1833-1964, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 233-240, 214-223.)

• 2 Ne 2:10: According to this verse, what are the ends of the law?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:1-5                      Next page: Verses 2:11-15

Home > The Book of Mormon > Second Nephi > Chapters 1-5 > Chapter 2 > Verses 2:11-15
Previous page: Verses 2:6-10                      Next page: Verses 2:16-30

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Relationship to Chapter 2. The relationship of Verses 2:11-15 to the rest of Chapter 2 is discussed at Chapter 2.

Story.

Message. Themes, symbols, and doctrinal points emphasized in Verses 2:11-15 include:

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:11-13: The import of Adam's fall. Verse 11 indicates that "life" was not possible without the opposing forces introduced in the fall; such things as righteousness and wickedness, good and bad, health and sickness, holiness and misery. Adam would not have ceased breathing if he'd not eaten of the forbidden fruit. In our usual sense of the word, he would have been alive, but in another sense, life is strictly required to involve change; either growth or decay. (health and sickness, life and death) Adam's state, as a closed system, was unchanging, as was Eve's. He could not progress and he could not decay.

In verse 12, if Adam could not die, then he could not truely live or progress, and since the earth was created for the express purpose of enabling man's progress, Adam's mortality (and, by extension, ours) was necessary in order to bring about the earth's purpose. Otherwise, all of creation would have been a thing of naught.

IN verse 13, such a state of things would belie an imperfection in the wisdom of God who had purposed the creation. (Likewise his inability to bring about his purpose would imply an imperfection in his power and by extension, many of his attributes.) Since God is, at least in part, defined as a being of perfect wisdom, then, if Adam had not fallen, then our God would not be a God and we would therefore have no God at all.

• Adam, like Christ, was willing to die in order to bring forth much "fruit". Adam was not deceived, but knowingly and willingly partook of the fruit in order "that man may be".

• 2 Ne 2:11. This verse has often been referred to as the most philosophically sophisticated passage in the Book of Mormon. It deserves very close scrutiny.

A basic problem divides the standard interpretations of this verse into two camps. At issue is the status of "wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one." One camp takes this to be a restatement in new words of the opening sentence ("for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things"). In other words, one camp takes "all things must needs be a compound in one" to be a summary of the way things actually are (and, indeed, should be). The other camp, however, takes this to be the conclusion of the sentence that immediately precedes it ("if not so," etc.), the result being that it is itself restated in what follows it ("wherefore, if it should be one body," etc.). In other words, the other camp takes this to be a summary of the way things are not (and shouldn't be). It is best to solve this problem first and then to move on to interpretation of the verse more generally.

• Structure. A number of clues suggest that there is a deliberate structure to Lehi's words in this verse:

  For it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things.
  
     If not so, [series of opposites: righteousness/wickedness, happiness/misery, good/bad], could not be brought to pass.
  
  Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one.
  
     If it should be one body, [series of opposites: life/death, corruption/incorruption, happiness/misery, sense/sensibility], must needs remain as dead.

Verse 11 thus appears to have a basic ABAB structure, with a deliberate parallel set up between "it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things" and "all things must needs be a compound in one" (with ties marked by italics and bolding above), and another deliberate parallel set up between the "if not so" and "if it should be one body" sentences (with ties again marked by italics and bolding).

This structure alone suggests that there is a kind of equivalence between "it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things" and "all things must needs be a compound in one." This structure, and its interpretive implication just noted, will guide all further interpretation of this verse.

• It must needs be that. It is worth noting that Lehi says "it must needs be that there is" rather than "there must needs be." This appears a minor difference, but it seems to mark the gap between what philosophers call ontological or metaphysical necessity and logical necessity. Had Lehi said simply that "there must needs be an opposition in all things," he would seem to have been saying only that there is a logical necessity, a necessity about the way things appear, bound up with opposition. But because he said that "it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things," he seems rather to have been saying that there is an actually ontological necessity, a necessity about the way things are, bound up with opposition. The basic inconsistency ("opposition") Lehi identifies apparently runs right down into being, whether or not it appears in the world.

• There is. It is worth noting also that Lehi says "it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things" rather than "it must needs be that an opposition is in all things." Again this appears a minor difference, but it marks the difference between topological localization and unlocalized universality.

• An opposition. It is further worth noting that Lehi speaks of "an opposition" rather than "opposition" pure and simple. Lehi thus seems to have reference not to opposition as such, opposition in general, to the category of opposition, but rather to a particular opposition, a specifiable opposition, a singular opposition.

• In all things. It is also worth noting that Lehi speaks of "an opposition in all things" rather than "an opposition for all things." Lehi highlights a kind of interiority rather than an exteriority with this one minor choice of word. It is not that there is some opposition that is brought to bear on things so much as an opposition that is at work within things, internal to them.

• All things. Before any further interpretive work can be done, it is necessary to determine what Lehi means when he speaks of "all things." There are at least three distinct possible meanings.

• Compound in one vs. one body. Although, at first blush, it may seem that "compound in one" and "one body" are very similar concepts (emphasizing oneness), it seems here they are being juxtaposed in a way that emphasizes the duality (or multiplicity) inherent in the term compound (cf. Alma 43:13 where compound refers to the Lamanites as an amalgamation of peoples). The idea of one body can be read here as a contrast to this oppositional nature of the word compound. The implication seems to be that if Adam's fall had not occurred, things would have remained in a state of unity. Interestingly, the word atonement also seems to presuppose a fusing together. (See also Gen 2:24 where man and woman are commanded to leave their parents and then to cleave to each other.)

• 2 Ne 2:13. This verse tells us that if there is no sin there is no righteousness. This doesn't mean that in order to be righteous one must sin. Clearly, Christ's example shows us that this is false. We might read then this as saying that sin has to be known (someone has to sin) in order for there to be righteousness. Or maybe this means simply that sin has to be possible--man must be enticed (see verse 16). That reading would suggest that Christ had to be tempted in order for him to be righteous, but he didn't have to give in to temptation.

• 2 Ne 2:14. Note that between verses 11 and verse 14, Lehi switches from addressing Jacob only to addressing his sons collectively.

• 2 Ne 2:14. The first part of the verse answers the string of if-then statements in 13: Verse 13 says “if this, then not that,” etc. Verse 14 begins by saying “but that is true.” It follows that the first “this” in v. 13 isn’t true.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:11: In the ancient Mediterranean Basin and Near East, many religions understood the world as a continuum: ultimately there is no difference between the lowest insect and the highest god; there is a unity of all-in-all, a state that could be described as “compound in one.” Some religions today hold similar beliefs. Perhaps Lehi has such religions in mind here. If so, why would he think it important to teach Jacob that they are false?

• 2 Ne 2:11: If there must be opposition in all things for there to be good, why are those who oppose God’s law punished?

• 2 Ne 2:11: What does “opposition” mean, “contrariety” or “difference"?

• 2 Ne 2:11: One meanings of “opposition” is “contrast.” Could that be the meaning here? Does that change our understanding of the verse?

• 2 Ne 2:11: Does it follow from what Lehi says here that there must be evil acts?

• 2 Ne 2:11: What does it refer to in the phrase "if it should be one body"?

• 2 Ne 2:12: Why would the world have been created for nothing, without purpose, if there were no opposition?

• 2 Ne 2:12: Why would that “destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God"?

• 2 Ne 2:12: What is God's wisdom?

• 2 Ne 2:12: What is God's purpose?

• 2 Ne 2:12: What is God's power, mercy and justice?

• 2 Ne 2:12: Does Lehi mean this phrase to be understood as one thing, or does he mean us to understand each thing separately?

• 2 Ne 2:12: What does “destroy” mean in this case?

• 2 Ne 2:12: The phrase “no purpose in the end of its creation” is odd since “purpose” and “end” seem to mean the same thing in this case. What do you make of that odd phrasing?

• 2 Ne 2:13: Look at each step in the chain of this argument. Can you explain why each step is true? For example, why is it that if there is no righteousness, then there is no happiness?

• 2 Ne 2:13: To what does “these things” refer in the phrase “if these things are not there is no God,” to righteousness, happiness, punishment, and misery, or only to the last two?

• 2 Ne 2:13: Variations of the phrase “to act and not to be acted upon” occur in several places in Lehi’s address (v. 14 and v. 26). If we are affected by something, we are acted upon, so if we have bodies or emotions, we are acted upon. Since Lehi doesn’t deny that we have bodies or emotions, he must mean something different. What does “acted upon” mean to him? What things act? What things are acted upon?

• 2 Ne 2:13: In what sense are the forbidden fruit and the tree of life opposites?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:13-14. David A. Bednar, "And Nothing Shall Offend Them," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 89–92. Elder Bednar says it is "ultimately impossible for another person to offend" us because it is "a choice we make [and] not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us. ... To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation."

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:6-10                      Next page: Verses 2:16-30

Home > The Book of Mormon > Second Nephi > Chapters 1-5 > Chapter 2 > Verses 2:16-30
Previous page: Verses 2:11-15                      Next page: Chapter 3

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Relationship to Chapter 2. The relationship of Verses 2:16-30 to the rest of Chapter 2 is discussed at Chapter 2.

Story.

Message. Themes, symbols, and doctrinal points emphasized in Verses 2:16-30 include:

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:16: Act for himself. This verse says that "man could not act for himself save it be that he was enticed." There seems to be a fundamental tension in this phrase since to "act for himself" suggests that man acts independently, yet the word "enticed" suggests that this acting is not independent, at least not completely independent.

This issue pertains to a fundamental theological question about the devil: does evil originate from the devil or is evil something that is "man-made" in the absence of God's presence? Verse 18 suggests that the devil plays at least some role in enticing us toward evil. This raises the following follow-up theological question which this passage seems uninterested in addressing: if evil originates from the devil, what or who "enticed" the devil to be evil?

Also see this comment and surrounding discussion at the T&S blog regarding this issue.

• 2 Ne 2:21. Prolonged seems to be a reference to the fact that though God told Adam "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Adam does not die right away but is given time to repent. Note though that the subject here is not Adam but "the children of men." Since for Lehi here Adam represents all of us, this change is natural.

The second (and last) sentence in the verse requires some interpretation. Here we learn that the Lord showed unto us all that we were lost because of the Adam and Eve's transgression. It isn't clear what event is being referred to when the Lord shows this. It could be that the Lord shows us that we are lost if we don't repent by living a perfect life (though in Lehi's time that hadn't happened yet). It could be that simply giving the commandment to us to repent shows us that we are all lost if we don't, or it could be that along with the commandment the Lord taught Adam and Eve so that they were lost without repentance.

What does it mean though to say that we all are lost because of Adam and Eve's transgression? Does this mean that we would be punished for sins we don't accomplish because of our sins? These questions don't seem to be where Lehi is going with the point and he doesn't address it directly. Mormon in Moro 8:8 does deal with this question. See the exegesis there. In short, it is because of Christ that we aren't punished for our own sins. He takes away this "curse of Adam." And, though Lehi doesn't say this directly here, the point is the same. Lehi is telling us here as well about the situation we would be in without Christ--we all would be lost.

• 2 Ne 2:21. Verse 22 tells us that if Adam had not transgressed, he would have remained in the garden of Eden in the same state without end. The most natural reading of this seems to be that what Adam had to do in order to not remain in the same state without end, was to disobey God's law.

Some believe that there was a way for Adam and Eve to progress without disobeying the Lord's command. In that line of thinking it was the proper role for God to give Adam and Eve the fruit at the right time, and Satan was trying to usurp that role by jumping in and doing what God was supposed to do. The appeal of this belief is that it suggests that God did not put Adam and Eve in a position where it was best for them not to obey God. However, at least on the face of it, this verse would seem to argue against that line of thinking. Those who hold the belief, in spite of this verse, see Lehi's point here as explaining the necessity of gaining knowledge of good and evil. They read Lehi as saying that without gaining that knowledge Adam and Eve could not make progress. In that line of thinking, Lehi is misunderstood when we try to import his arguments here for the necessity of opposition, into an argument about whether God prepared a way for Adam and Eve to progress without disobeying his commands. See related exegesis on Moses 5:11.

• 2 Ne 2:26: Free. It is interesting that Lehi uses the word free two different ways in describing the atonement in this chapter. Here, the meaning is probably #1 in Webster's 1828 dictionary: "being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral." See v. 4 for the other usage.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:15-25: Why is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden such an important scriptural story, so important that it is repeated for us more often than any other if we attend the temple regularly? If we think in types, how does their story give us a type for understanding our own lives?

• 2 Ne 2:16: Or. Why is the word "or" used here? Wouldn't "and" make more sense? That is, to "act for himself" doesn't man need to be enticed by two things, not just one thing, as the word or seems to suggest?

• 2 Ne 2:17: Why does Lehi add, “according to the things which I have read"? Does this perhaps suggest that he wasn’t familiar with the story of Adam and Eve until he read the brass plates?

• 2 Ne 2:17: What did the devil seek that was “evil before God"? Are there times when we seek something similar? How?

• 2 Ne 2:17: Needs suppose. Why does Lehi (or should we say Nephi?) use the word "suppose" here? Is he deducing what he is saying? showing some sort of logical structure in the material he is presenting? something else?

• 2 Ne 2:17: An angel. Why does Lehi say "an angel" here (and "a devil"), but refers "that old serpent, who is the devil" in verse 18? What is going on here?

• 2 Ne 2:18: Why is the devil called “the father of lies"? Why use the metaphor of fatherhood? What is the devil’s lie? (Compare what he tells them with Gen 3:22 and Moses 4:28.)

• 2 Ne 2:23: This verse connects having children directly to the necessity of opposition, with being able to have joy and being able to sin. What explicitly is the connection? Why is it that if Adam and Eve could not have had children they could not have known what joy was (because they wouldn’t know misery) and they couldn’t have done any good (because they wouldn’t know sin)?

• 2 Ne 2:23: Why "would" Adam and Eve not have had children had they remained in the garden? This verse doesn't suggest the impossibility of that ("would" vs. "could") as I'd heard before.

• 2 Ne 2:24: Does v. 14 shed any light on what this verse means by "knoweth all things"? Does v. 18 shed any light on what it means to say that God knows all things?

• 2 Ne 2:25: Isn’t there a sense in which this is a restatement of v. 23? If so, each might help us understand the other. Does this verse tell us what Adam intended to do in falling or what the Lord intended him to do? Is the word "Adam" being used here of only Father Adam, or is it being used as it is used in Gen 1:27, "God created man [adam] in his own image, male and female created he them"?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Are redeemed. Why does Lehi use the present tense here: “They are redeemed from the fall"? How does redemption make us free? Lehi seems to equate three things, being free, knowing good and evil, and acting for oneself rather than being acted upon. How are those the same? What understanding of free agency does Lehi seem to have here?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Free, yet a servant of Christ. In 1 Cor 7:22-23, Paul says that since Christ has "bought [us] with a price" we are free ("a freeman"), but then goes on to say "he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant." In what sense does Christ make us free if a disciple of Christ becomes his servant?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Is knowledge a result of tree or atonement. Does the phrase "knowing good and evil" continue the "because" clause, implying such knowledge is a result of the redemption of the fall, or did knowledge of good and evil obtain as a result of partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Also see this comment posted by Jacob (and follow-up comment #85) for an argument why the knowledge of good and evil is a result of the atonement.

• 2 Ne 2:27: Why interlude in vv. 11-26. In this verse Lehi returns to a theme he took up in verses 6-10, the Messiah. Why was the interlude in verses 11-26 necessary?

• 2 Ne 2:27: According to the flesh. What does it mean to be free “according to the flesh"? Is that different than being free to act rather than to be acted upon? Lehi says “all things are given them which are expedient unto man.” Then he says that we can choose life through Christ or death through the devil. Is that the choice to which “all things [. . .] which are expedient” refers? What does this verse tell us about free agency?

• 2 Ne 2:27: Misery of devil. Why is the devil miserable? Does the answer to that say anything about [[2 Ne 2:25|v. 25]?

• 2 Ne 2:28: When Lehi began, he was speaking to Jacob. Now he is speaking to all of his sons (cf. v. 30). How would you explain that?

• 2 Ne 2:28: Earlier Lehi referred to Christ as the Redeemer. Now he refers to him as the Mediator (here and in v. 27). Why?

• 2 Ne 2:28: Are “hearken unto his great commandments” and “be faithful unto his words” parallel? Does the word “hearken” suggest anything that “obey” might not?

• 2 Ne 2:29: Verse 28 spoke of choosing “eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit.” Here Lehi speaks of choosing “eternal death, according to the will of the flesh.” How would you explain what those two according-to phrases mean? Lehi says that the will of the flesh has evil in it. What is that will? (Compare [[Mosiah 3:16|Mosiah 3 v. 16 and 19.) How does the will of the flesh give the devil power to take us captive?

• 2 Ne 2:30: Lehi says he has “chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet.” What does he mean by saying that he has chosen the good part? What does “according to the words of the prophet” add to what he says? Is he referring to a specific prophecy or to something else?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:11-15                      Next page: Chapter 3

Home > The Book of Mormon > Second Nephi > Chapters 1-5 > Chapter 2 > Verses 2:16-30
Previous page: Verses 2:11-15                      Next page: Chapter 3

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Relationship to Chapter 2. The relationship of Verses 2:16-30 to the rest of Chapter 2 is discussed at Chapter 2.

Story.

Message. Themes, symbols, and doctrinal points emphasized in Verses 2:16-30 include:

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:16: Act for himself. This verse says that "man could not act for himself save it be that he was enticed." There seems to be a fundamental tension in this phrase since to "act for himself" suggests that man acts independently, yet the word "enticed" suggests that this acting is not independent, at least not completely independent.

This issue pertains to a fundamental theological question about the devil: does evil originate from the devil or is evil something that is "man-made" in the absence of God's presence? Verse 18 suggests that the devil plays at least some role in enticing us toward evil. This raises the following follow-up theological question which this passage seems uninterested in addressing: if evil originates from the devil, what or who "enticed" the devil to be evil?

Also see this comment and surrounding discussion at the T&S blog regarding this issue.

• 2 Ne 2:21. Prolonged seems to be a reference to the fact that though God told Adam "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Adam does not die right away but is given time to repent. Note though that the subject here is not Adam but "the children of men." Since for Lehi here Adam represents all of us, this change is natural.

The second (and last) sentence in the verse requires some interpretation. Here we learn that the Lord showed unto us all that we were lost because of the Adam and Eve's transgression. It isn't clear what event is being referred to when the Lord shows this. It could be that the Lord shows us that we are lost if we don't repent by living a perfect life (though in Lehi's time that hadn't happened yet). It could be that simply giving the commandment to us to repent shows us that we are all lost if we don't, or it could be that along with the commandment the Lord taught Adam and Eve so that they were lost without repentance.

What does it mean though to say that we all are lost because of Adam and Eve's transgression? Does this mean that we would be punished for sins we don't accomplish because of our sins? These questions don't seem to be where Lehi is going with the point and he doesn't address it directly. Mormon in Moro 8:8 does deal with this question. See the exegesis there. In short, it is because of Christ that we aren't punished for our own sins. He takes away this "curse of Adam." And, though Lehi doesn't say this directly here, the point is the same. Lehi is telling us here as well about the situation we would be in without Christ--we all would be lost.

• 2 Ne 2:21. Verse 22 tells us that if Adam had not transgressed, he would have remained in the garden of Eden in the same state without end. The most natural reading of this seems to be that what Adam had to do in order to not remain in the same state without end, was to disobey God's law.

Some believe that there was a way for Adam and Eve to progress without disobeying the Lord's command. In that line of thinking it was the proper role for God to give Adam and Eve the fruit at the right time, and Satan was trying to usurp that role by jumping in and doing what God was supposed to do. The appeal of this belief is that it suggests that God did not put Adam and Eve in a position where it was best for them not to obey God. However, at least on the face of it, this verse would seem to argue against that line of thinking. Those who hold the belief, in spite of this verse, see Lehi's point here as explaining the necessity of gaining knowledge of good and evil. They read Lehi as saying that without gaining that knowledge Adam and Eve could not make progress. In that line of thinking, Lehi is misunderstood when we try to import his arguments here for the necessity of opposition, into an argument about whether God prepared a way for Adam and Eve to progress without disobeying his commands. See related exegesis on Moses 5:11.

• 2 Ne 2:26: Free. It is interesting that Lehi uses the word free two different ways in describing the atonement in this chapter. Here, the meaning is probably #1 in Webster's 1828 dictionary: "being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral." See v. 4 for the other usage.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:15-25: Why is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden such an important scriptural story, so important that it is repeated for us more often than any other if we attend the temple regularly? If we think in types, how does their story give us a type for understanding our own lives?

• 2 Ne 2:16: Or. Why is the word "or" used here? Wouldn't "and" make more sense? That is, to "act for himself" doesn't man need to be enticed by two things, not just one thing, as the word or seems to suggest?

• 2 Ne 2:17: Why does Lehi add, “according to the things which I have read"? Does this perhaps suggest that he wasn’t familiar with the story of Adam and Eve until he read the brass plates?

• 2 Ne 2:17: What did the devil seek that was “evil before God"? Are there times when we seek something similar? How?

• 2 Ne 2:17: Needs suppose. Why does Lehi (or should we say Nephi?) use the word "suppose" here? Is he deducing what he is saying? showing some sort of logical structure in the material he is presenting? something else?

• 2 Ne 2:17: An angel. Why does Lehi say "an angel" here (and "a devil"), but refers "that old serpent, who is the devil" in verse 18? What is going on here?

• 2 Ne 2:18: Why is the devil called “the father of lies"? Why use the metaphor of fatherhood? What is the devil’s lie? (Compare what he tells them with Gen 3:22 and Moses 4:28.)

• 2 Ne 2:23: This verse connects having children directly to the necessity of opposition, with being able to have joy and being able to sin. What explicitly is the connection? Why is it that if Adam and Eve could not have had children they could not have known what joy was (because they wouldn’t know misery) and they couldn’t have done any good (because they wouldn’t know sin)?

• 2 Ne 2:23: Why "would" Adam and Eve not have had children had they remained in the garden? This verse doesn't suggest the impossibility of that ("would" vs. "could") as I'd heard before.

• 2 Ne 2:24: Does v. 14 shed any light on what this verse means by "knoweth all things"? Does v. 18 shed any light on what it means to say that God knows all things?

• 2 Ne 2:25: Isn’t there a sense in which this is a restatement of v. 23? If so, each might help us understand the other. Does this verse tell us what Adam intended to do in falling or what the Lord intended him to do? Is the word "Adam" being used here of only Father Adam, or is it being used as it is used in Gen 1:27, "God created man [adam] in his own image, male and female created he them"?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Are redeemed. Why does Lehi use the present tense here: “They are redeemed from the fall"? How does redemption make us free? Lehi seems to equate three things, being free, knowing good and evil, and acting for oneself rather than being acted upon. How are those the same? What understanding of free agency does Lehi seem to have here?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Free, yet a servant of Christ. In 1 Cor 7:22-23, Paul says that since Christ has "bought [us] with a price" we are free ("a freeman"), but then goes on to say "he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant." In what sense does Christ make us free if a disciple of Christ becomes his servant?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Is knowledge a result of tree or atonement. Does the phrase "knowing good and evil" continue the "because" clause, implying such knowledge is a result of the redemption of the fall, or did knowledge of good and evil obtain as a result of partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Also see this comment posted by Jacob (and follow-up comment #85) for an argument why the knowledge of good and evil is a result of the atonement.

• 2 Ne 2:27: Why interlude in vv. 11-26. In this verse Lehi returns to a theme he took up in verses 6-10, the Messiah. Why was the interlude in verses 11-26 necessary?

• 2 Ne 2:27: According to the flesh. What does it mean to be free “according to the flesh"? Is that different than being free to act rather than to be acted upon? Lehi says “all things are given them which are expedient unto man.” Then he says that we can choose life through Christ or death through the devil. Is that the choice to which “all things [. . .] which are expedient” refers? What does this verse tell us about free agency?

• 2 Ne 2:27: Misery of devil. Why is the devil miserable? Does the answer to that say anything about [[2 Ne 2:25|v. 25]?

• 2 Ne 2:28: When Lehi began, he was speaking to Jacob. Now he is speaking to all of his sons (cf. v. 30). How would you explain that?

• 2 Ne 2:28: Earlier Lehi referred to Christ as the Redeemer. Now he refers to him as the Mediator (here and in v. 27). Why?

• 2 Ne 2:28: Are “hearken unto his great commandments” and “be faithful unto his words” parallel? Does the word “hearken” suggest anything that “obey” might not?

• 2 Ne 2:29: Verse 28 spoke of choosing “eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit.” Here Lehi speaks of choosing “eternal death, according to the will of the flesh.” How would you explain what those two according-to phrases mean? Lehi says that the will of the flesh has evil in it. What is that will? (Compare [[Mosiah 3:16|Mosiah 3 v. 16 and 19.) How does the will of the flesh give the devil power to take us captive?

• 2 Ne 2:30: Lehi says he has “chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet.” What does he mean by saying that he has chosen the good part? What does “according to the words of the prophet” add to what he says? Is he referring to a specific prophecy or to something else?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:11-15                      Next page: Chapter 3

Home > The Book of Mormon > Second Nephi > Chapters 1-5 > Chapter 2 > Verses 2:16-30
Previous page: Verses 2:11-15                      Next page: Chapter 3

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Relationship to Chapter 2. The relationship of Verses 2:16-30 to the rest of Chapter 2 is discussed at Chapter 2.

Story.

Message. Themes, symbols, and doctrinal points emphasized in Verses 2:16-30 include:

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:16: Act for himself. This verse says that "man could not act for himself save it be that he was enticed." There seems to be a fundamental tension in this phrase since to "act for himself" suggests that man acts independently, yet the word "enticed" suggests that this acting is not independent, at least not completely independent.

This issue pertains to a fundamental theological question about the devil: does evil originate from the devil or is evil something that is "man-made" in the absence of God's presence? Verse 18 suggests that the devil plays at least some role in enticing us toward evil. This raises the following follow-up theological question which this passage seems uninterested in addressing: if evil originates from the devil, what or who "enticed" the devil to be evil?

Also see this comment and surrounding discussion at the T&S blog regarding this issue.

• 2 Ne 2:21. Prolonged seems to be a reference to the fact that though God told Adam "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Adam does not die right away but is given time to repent. Note though that the subject here is not Adam but "the children of men." Since for Lehi here Adam represents all of us, this change is natural.

The second (and last) sentence in the verse requires some interpretation. Here we learn that the Lord showed unto us all that we were lost because of the Adam and Eve's transgression. It isn't clear what event is being referred to when the Lord shows this. It could be that the Lord shows us that we are lost if we don't repent by living a perfect life (though in Lehi's time that hadn't happened yet). It could be that simply giving the commandment to us to repent shows us that we are all lost if we don't, or it could be that along with the commandment the Lord taught Adam and Eve so that they were lost without repentance.

What does it mean though to say that we all are lost because of Adam and Eve's transgression? Does this mean that we would be punished for sins we don't accomplish because of our sins? These questions don't seem to be where Lehi is going with the point and he doesn't address it directly. Mormon in Moro 8:8 does deal with this question. See the exegesis there. In short, it is because of Christ that we aren't punished for our own sins. He takes away this "curse of Adam." And, though Lehi doesn't say this directly here, the point is the same. Lehi is telling us here as well about the situation we would be in without Christ--we all would be lost.

• 2 Ne 2:21. Verse 22 tells us that if Adam had not transgressed, he would have remained in the garden of Eden in the same state without end. The most natural reading of this seems to be that what Adam had to do in order to not remain in the same state without end, was to disobey God's law.

Some believe that there was a way for Adam and Eve to progress without disobeying the Lord's command. In that line of thinking it was the proper role for God to give Adam and Eve the fruit at the right time, and Satan was trying to usurp that role by jumping in and doing what God was supposed to do. The appeal of this belief is that it suggests that God did not put Adam and Eve in a position where it was best for them not to obey God. However, at least on the face of it, this verse would seem to argue against that line of thinking. Those who hold the belief, in spite of this verse, see Lehi's point here as explaining the necessity of gaining knowledge of good and evil. They read Lehi as saying that without gaining that knowledge Adam and Eve could not make progress. In that line of thinking, Lehi is misunderstood when we try to import his arguments here for the necessity of opposition, into an argument about whether God prepared a way for Adam and Eve to progress without disobeying his commands. See related exegesis on Moses 5:11.

• 2 Ne 2:26: Free. It is interesting that Lehi uses the word free two different ways in describing the atonement in this chapter. Here, the meaning is probably #1 in Webster's 1828 dictionary: "being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral." See v. 4 for the other usage.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• 2 Ne 2:15-25: Why is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden such an important scriptural story, so important that it is repeated for us more often than any other if we attend the temple regularly? If we think in types, how does their story give us a type for understanding our own lives?

• 2 Ne 2:16: Or. Why is the word "or" used here? Wouldn't "and" make more sense? That is, to "act for himself" doesn't man need to be enticed by two things, not just one thing, as the word or seems to suggest?

• 2 Ne 2:17: Why does Lehi add, “according to the things which I have read"? Does this perhaps suggest that he wasn’t familiar with the story of Adam and Eve until he read the brass plates?

• 2 Ne 2:17: What did the devil seek that was “evil before God"? Are there times when we seek something similar? How?

• 2 Ne 2:17: Needs suppose. Why does Lehi (or should we say Nephi?) use the word "suppose" here? Is he deducing what he is saying? showing some sort of logical structure in the material he is presenting? something else?

• 2 Ne 2:17: An angel. Why does Lehi say "an angel" here (and "a devil"), but refers "that old serpent, who is the devil" in verse 18? What is going on here?

• 2 Ne 2:18: Why is the devil called “the father of lies"? Why use the metaphor of fatherhood? What is the devil’s lie? (Compare what he tells them with Gen 3:22 and Moses 4:28.)

• 2 Ne 2:23: This verse connects having children directly to the necessity of opposition, with being able to have joy and being able to sin. What explicitly is the connection? Why is it that if Adam and Eve could not have had children they could not have known what joy was (because they wouldn’t know misery) and they couldn’t have done any good (because they wouldn’t know sin)?

• 2 Ne 2:23: Why "would" Adam and Eve not have had children had they remained in the garden? This verse doesn't suggest the impossibility of that ("would" vs. "could") as I'd heard before.

• 2 Ne 2:24: Does v. 14 shed any light on what this verse means by "knoweth all things"? Does v. 18 shed any light on what it means to say that God knows all things?

• 2 Ne 2:25: Isn’t there a sense in which this is a restatement of v. 23? If so, each might help us understand the other. Does this verse tell us what Adam intended to do in falling or what the Lord intended him to do? Is the word "Adam" being used here of only Father Adam, or is it being used as it is used in Gen 1:27, "God created man [adam] in his own image, male and female created he them"?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Are redeemed. Why does Lehi use the present tense here: “They are redeemed from the fall"? How does redemption make us free? Lehi seems to equate three things, being free, knowing good and evil, and acting for oneself rather than being acted upon. How are those the same? What understanding of free agency does Lehi seem to have here?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Free, yet a servant of Christ. In 1 Cor 7:22-23, Paul says that since Christ has "bought [us] with a price" we are free ("a freeman"), but then goes on to say "he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant." In what sense does Christ make us free if a disciple of Christ becomes his servant?

• 2 Ne 2:26: Is knowledge a result of tree or atonement. Does the phrase "knowing good and evil" continue the "because" clause, implying such knowledge is a result of the redemption of the fall, or did knowledge of good and evil obtain as a result of partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Also see this comment posted by Jacob (and follow-up comment #85) for an argument why the knowledge of good and evil is a result of the atonement.

• 2 Ne 2:27: Why interlude in vv. 11-26. In this verse Lehi returns to a theme he took up in verses 6-10, the Messiah. Why was the interlude in verses 11-26 necessary?

• 2 Ne 2:27: According to the flesh. What does it mean to be free “according to the flesh"? Is that different than being free to act rather than to be acted upon? Lehi says “all things are given them which are expedient unto man.” Then he says that we can choose life through Christ or death through the devil. Is that the choice to which “all things [. . .] which are expedient” refers? What does this verse tell us about free agency?

• 2 Ne 2:27: Misery of devil. Why is the devil miserable? Does the answer to that say anything about [[2 Ne 2:25|v. 25]?

• 2 Ne 2:28: When Lehi began, he was speaking to Jacob. Now he is speaking to all of his sons (cf. v. 30). How would you explain that?

• 2 Ne 2:28: Earlier Lehi referred to Christ as the Redeemer. Now he refers to him as the Mediator (here and in v. 27). Why?

• 2 Ne 2:28: Are “hearken unto his great commandments” and “be faithful unto his words” parallel? Does the word “hearken” suggest anything that “obey” might not?

• 2 Ne 2:29: Verse 28 spoke of choosing “eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit.” Here Lehi speaks of choosing “eternal death, according to the will of the flesh.” How would you explain what those two according-to phrases mean? Lehi says that the will of the flesh has evil in it. What is that will? (Compare [[Mosiah 3:16|Mosiah 3 v. 16 and 19.) How does the will of the flesh give the devil power to take us captive?

• 2 Ne 2:30: Lehi says he has “chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet.” What does he mean by saying that he has chosen the good part? What does “according to the words of the prophet” add to what he says? Is he referring to a specific prophecy or to something else?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

Previous page: Verses 2:11-15                      Next page: Chapter 3