Evidence Sixty-five:
The Book of Mormon Stresses an “Atoning Messiah”
Rather than a “Triumphal Messiah”©
Revised: 19, 21, 22 January 2020.
Revised: 19, 21, 22 January 2020.
In my personal study for this year’s Sunday School emphasis on the Book of Mormon, I’m reading a 2015 book by Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History.(1) I am finding it a very thoughtful treatment and came across something this morning that was both interesting and profound. Let me set his idea up with a little background.
In the period before Lehi left Jerusalem, two kings of Judah initiated religious reforms. The first was Hezekiah who lived about the time of Isaiah. It appears he was trying to eliminate pagan Canaanite influences on Israelite theology, worship, and society, by removing structures that were temple-like or associated with temple worship, largely among rural Israelites. There was a move toward centralization of worship at the Jerusalem temple. His reforms didn’t last long because his son Manasseh restored the old ways after his father died. The second king, Josiah, initiated similar reforms just at the time of Lehi, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets. Gardner mentions 1 Nephi 13 where there is a discussion of the history of the Bible once it came forth from among the Jews. It says some plain and precious things were left out or taken out of the Bible.
According to Margaret Barker, British expert on the Old Testament and student of the early "Temple Theology", an important element of the early theology which was absent was the concept of the atonement. In May 2003 she gave a forum address at BYU. She answered the question, “What did King Josiah reform?" She made the following remarks about the atonement:
According to Margaret Barker, British expert on the Old Testament and student of the early "Temple Theology", an important element of the early theology which was absent was the concept of the atonement. In May 2003 she gave a forum address at BYU. She answered the question, “What did King Josiah reform?" She made the following remarks about the atonement:
Atonement is missing from Deuteronomy; the festival calendar in Deuteronomy 16 describes Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles–but no Day of Atonement. The final form of the Pentateuch, compiled under the influence of Josiah’s party, denies that atonement is even possible. After Israel had sinned and made the golden calf, Moses went back up the mountain to offer himself as an atonement for their sin. The Lord said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Exodus 32:33). Why had Moses thought that his self-sacrifice could have been an atonement for sin? Presumably there had once been a time when such things were thought possible.(2)Gardner thinks there were some in Jerusalem who were opposed to certain aspects of Josiah’s reforms which may be hinted at in 1 Nephi 13, and that Nephi stressed this important element of Israelite theology that was being de-emphasized, neglected, or rejected. Here is Gardner’s assessment:
Nephi was not concerned with textual integrity but theological integrity. [He is referring to Nephi’s discussion of what happened to the Bible as recounted in 1 Nephi 13.]
Although we have only this hint of what Nephi thought might have been removed, we do have the testimony of what he wrote. If we hypothesize that he would have wanted to restore that which was missing from the record as it proceeded from “the mouth of a Jew,” we have a clear candidate: Nephi’s very strong emphasis on the atoning mission of the Messiah. This atoning function of the Messiah differs in both time and mission from the end-time triumphal Messiah who comes as King. The atoning Messiah comes to earth in the meridian of time as a humble man who nevertheless performs the ultimate act of atonement for humankind.
Lehi preached the mercy of God, and Nephi preaches the atoning Messiah. Both do so after a similar vision of the Savior and the twelve apostles. I argue that both Lehi and later Nephi saw the de-emphasis on the atoning mission of the Messiah as an unfortunate result of Josiah’s reforms. Lehi preached against the removal, but Nephi restored it by emphasizing it in his own version of the Tree of Life vision.(3)
I have long believed that one of the major differences between the Palestinian Jews and the Nephite Jews was their different perceptions of the Messiah. The Palestinian Jews looked “beyond the mark” to the Messiah of what Christians call the “Second Coming”–the Messiah who came as a triumphal king. The Messiah was seen as a political king that would save Israel from political enemies dominating it.
A very similar point to this was made by Joseph Spencer in a 2017 article about the historical background of 1 Nephi 1:18-20, which says that the book the angel gave to Lehi “manifest plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.” Jewish reaction seemed strange to Spencer, because verse nineteen also says that the Jews mocked him for testifying of their wickedness, but verse twenty says when he taught them of “a Messiah” they wanted to take his life. Spencer thinks the reactions would normally be reversed, so he asks the question, “Was there anything in Jerusalem society in this period that would have led to such reactions?"
His historical review of the period focuses on king Josiah. In 2 Samuel 7, Nathan’s oracle to David promised an “everlasting dynasty” to the great king. Josiah was the latest king in that dynasty. The Judaic kings were anointed, which meant they were a messiah. The Davidic dynasty was looked to by the people to deliver them from foreign domination. When he threw off the remnants of the Assyrian yoke in the mid-sixth century B.C. Josiah appeared to be the only one since David who could do so. However, Israel was like a nut in a nut-cracker between Babylon who filled the void of the Assyrians, and Egypt. Unfortunately Josiah was killed by the Egyptians in the battle of Meggido. Spencer hypothesizes that with Jewish hopes dashed and new Babylonian overlords in town, talk of a resurgent messiah would have been extremely dangerous therefore Lehi’s fellow Jerusalemites sought to shut him up.(4)
But the Nephite Jews understood the mortal Jesus as a spiritual Messiah. He was the Messiah during his first coming, not as a political Deliverer, but as a spiritual Deliverer. However, I had not seen clearly the difference which Gardner makes above–that is, that the mortal Messiah, was really the “atoning Messiah", in contrast to the “Triumphal Messiah” of the Second Coming.(5) Of course the Messiah’s most important spiritual duty was his atoning mission. I was 85% there, but just didn’t quite have it clear. My gratitude to Brant Gardner. What a helpful insight.
A very similar point to this was made by Joseph Spencer in a 2017 article about the historical background of 1 Nephi 1:18-20, which says that the book the angel gave to Lehi “manifest plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.” Jewish reaction seemed strange to Spencer, because verse nineteen also says that the Jews mocked him for testifying of their wickedness, but verse twenty says when he taught them of “a Messiah” they wanted to take his life. Spencer thinks the reactions would normally be reversed, so he asks the question, “Was there anything in Jerusalem society in this period that would have led to such reactions?"
His historical review of the period focuses on king Josiah. In 2 Samuel 7, Nathan’s oracle to David promised an “everlasting dynasty” to the great king. Josiah was the latest king in that dynasty. The Judaic kings were anointed, which meant they were a messiah. The Davidic dynasty was looked to by the people to deliver them from foreign domination. When he threw off the remnants of the Assyrian yoke in the mid-sixth century B.C. Josiah appeared to be the only one since David who could do so. However, Israel was like a nut in a nut-cracker between Babylon who filled the void of the Assyrians, and Egypt. Unfortunately Josiah was killed by the Egyptians in the battle of Meggido. Spencer hypothesizes that with Jewish hopes dashed and new Babylonian overlords in town, talk of a resurgent messiah would have been extremely dangerous therefore Lehi’s fellow Jerusalemites sought to shut him up.(4)
But the Nephite Jews understood the mortal Jesus as a spiritual Messiah. He was the Messiah during his first coming, not as a political Deliverer, but as a spiritual Deliverer. However, I had not seen clearly the difference which Gardner makes above–that is, that the mortal Messiah, was really the “atoning Messiah", in contrast to the “Triumphal Messiah” of the Second Coming.(5) Of course the Messiah’s most important spiritual duty was his atoning mission. I was 85% there, but just didn’t quite have it clear. My gratitude to Brant Gardner. What a helpful insight.
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one. He is the Eternal God “manifesting himself unto all nations.” He is also preeminently an atoning Messiah. We learn more about him and the atonement in the Book of Mormon than any of the other Standard Works, including the New Testament and the book of Romans.
The vast majority of the twenty-six times the word Messiah is used in the Book of Mormon occur in First and Second Nephi. Examples that illustrate Gardner’s idea may be found in 1 Ne. 1:19; 10:4-5, 7, 9-11, 14, 17; 12:18; 15:13 (2); 2 Ne. 2:26; 25:16, and 18(6). Here are several examples with the connection highlighted in italics:
The vast majority of the twenty-six times the word Messiah is used in the Book of Mormon occur in First and Second Nephi. Examples that illustrate Gardner’s idea may be found in 1 Ne. 1:19; 10:4-5, 7, 9-11, 14, 17; 12:18; 15:13 (2); 2 Ne. 2:26; 25:16, and 18(6). Here are several examples with the connection highlighted in italics:
And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world. (1 Ne. 1:19.)
Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lor God raise up among the Jews--even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world. (1 Ne. 10:4)
“And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.” (2 Ne. 2:26)
And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.(2 Ne. 25:16.)
Wherefore, he shall bring forth his words unto them, which words shall judge them at the last day, for they shall be given them for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah, who was rejected by them; and unto the convincing of them that they need not look forward any more for a Messiah to come, for there should not any come, save it should be a false Messiah which should deceive the people; for there is save one Messiah spoken of by the prophets, and that Messiah is he who should be rejected of the Jews.(2 Ne. 25:18.)
Note that 1 Ne. 10:4 actually defines the word Messiah as the Savior of the world! This is precisely where the emphasis should be–on the Atonement of Jesus Christ. That speaks well for both the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith who translated it. I purposefully chose the language, “the Atonement of Jesus Christ,” to conform to an important observation by President Russell M. Nelson:
It is doctrinally incomplete to speak of the Lord’s atoning sacrifice by shortcut phrases, such as “the Atonement” or “the enabling power of the Atonement” or “applying the Atonement” or “being strengthened by the Atonement.” These expressions present a real risk of misdirecting faith by treating the event as if it had living existence and capabilities independent of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Under the Father’s great eternal plan, it is the Savior who suffered. It is the Savior who broke the bands of death. It is the Savior who paid the price for our sins and transgressions and blots them out on condition of our repentance. It is the Savior who delivers us from physical and spiritual death.
There is no amorphous entity called “the Atonement” upon which we may call for succor, healing, forgiveness, or power. Jesus Christ is the source. Sacred terms such as Atonement and Resurrection describe what the Savior did, according to the Father’s plan, so that we may live with hope in this life and gain eternal life in the world to come. The Savior’s atoning sacrifice—the central act of all human history—is best understood and appreciated when we expressly and clearly connect it to Him.(5)
Thus Lehi, Nephi, Moroni, and others in the Book of Mormon continually remind us where our faith should be placed–in the Holy Messiah and his attributes. Lehi testified:
Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. (2 Ne. 2:8, emphasis added)
Nephi taught:
And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. (2 Ne. 31:19, emphasis added.)
Moroni explained:
And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith. (Moroni 6:4, emphasis added.)
Thank God for the Book of Mormon! Thank God for thoughtful students of that book! Thank God for Joseph Smith!
Let’s think together again, soon.
Notes:
1. Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History. Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015.
2. Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, edited by John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, Jo Ann H. Seely, 533-34. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004.
2. Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, edited by John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, Jo Ann H. Seely, 533-34. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004.
3. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers, 73, emphasis added.
4. Joseph M. Spencer, “Potent Messianism: Textual, Historical, and Theological Notes on 1 Nephi 1:18-20,” in A Dream, a Rock, and a Pillar of Fire: Reading 1 Nephi 1, edited by Adam S. Miller, 47-74. Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2017. See especially pp. 57-67 for the ideas I have described. Spencer is a philosopher and the last third of his paper explores in arcane philosophical language and idea, what a “potent Messiah” is and does. Unfortunately, he never seems to grasp Gardner’s point about an atoning Messiah. He interprets the phrase at the end of 1 Ne. 1:19, "also the redemption of the world," as a political term and does not consider its religious connotations, which seem to me to be obvious when read in conjunction with the other statements about a Messiah found in 1 and 2 Nephi, which I have quoted above.
5. Interestingly, in an article published in 2004, David Seely refers to “the Messiah and his atoning mission,” and earlier in the article says “Lehi and Nephi both prophesied of the coming of the Messiah. Lehi received a knowledge of ‘the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world” (1 Nephi 1:19) and prophesied “a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews–even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world” (1 Nephi 10:4),” but he does not develop these ideas further than to refer to subsequent prophets in the Book of Mormon who spoke of the atoning mission of Christ. None of this is said in reference to Josiah’s reforms. See, David Rolph Seely, “Sacred History, Covenants, and the Messiah: The Religious Background of the World of Lehi,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, edited by John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely, 381-420, especially 415 and 419. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004. Further note that Margaret Barker’s BYU Forum address, “What Did King Josiah Reform?”and Kevin Christensen’s, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker,” appeared in this same volume. The latter is a lengthy article but it’s emphasis is on the temple and it does not deal with an “atoning Messiah” even in the brief discussion on “Sacrifice and Atonement,” found on pages 475-77.
4. Joseph M. Spencer, “Potent Messianism: Textual, Historical, and Theological Notes on 1 Nephi 1:18-20,” in A Dream, a Rock, and a Pillar of Fire: Reading 1 Nephi 1, edited by Adam S. Miller, 47-74. Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2017. See especially pp. 57-67 for the ideas I have described. Spencer is a philosopher and the last third of his paper explores in arcane philosophical language and idea, what a “potent Messiah” is and does. Unfortunately, he never seems to grasp Gardner’s point about an atoning Messiah. He interprets the phrase at the end of 1 Ne. 1:19, "also the redemption of the world," as a political term and does not consider its religious connotations, which seem to me to be obvious when read in conjunction with the other statements about a Messiah found in 1 and 2 Nephi, which I have quoted above.
5. Interestingly, in an article published in 2004, David Seely refers to “the Messiah and his atoning mission,” and earlier in the article says “Lehi and Nephi both prophesied of the coming of the Messiah. Lehi received a knowledge of ‘the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world” (1 Nephi 1:19) and prophesied “a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews–even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world” (1 Nephi 10:4),” but he does not develop these ideas further than to refer to subsequent prophets in the Book of Mormon who spoke of the atoning mission of Christ. None of this is said in reference to Josiah’s reforms. See, David Rolph Seely, “Sacred History, Covenants, and the Messiah: The Religious Background of the World of Lehi,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, edited by John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely, 381-420, especially 415 and 419. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004. Further note that Margaret Barker’s BYU Forum address, “What Did King Josiah Reform?”and Kevin Christensen’s, “The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker,” appeared in this same volume. The latter is a lengthy article but it’s emphasis is on the temple and it does not deal with an “atoning Messiah” even in the brief discussion on “Sacrifice and Atonement,” found on pages 475-77.
6. Russell M. Nelson, “Drawing the Power of Jesus Christ into Our Lives,” Ensign (May 2017): 40, emphasis added.
