In 1 Nephi
15:21-22, Nephi explains the meaning of the "tree" Lehi saw in a
vision:
And it came to pass that they did speak unto
me again, saying: What meaneth this thing which our father saw in a dream? What
meaneth the tree which he saw? And I said unto them: It was a representation of
the tree of life.
In other words, the tree in
Lehi’s vision is said to represent a tree. This might seem unusual, but to ancients, it is perfectly
acceptable. Commenting on Tertullian and other early Christian writers, J.N.D.
Kelly wrote:
Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms, “body” and “blood” may after all be merely symbolic. Tertullian, for example, refers to the bread as “a figure” (figura) of Christ’s body, and one speaks of “the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.” Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern
fashion.According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, retained its original significance of ‘to make present.’ All that language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) dogma that the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine” (emphasis his), (Early Christian Doctrines, [5th ed.; London: Continuum, 1977], 212)
fashion.According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, retained its original significance of ‘to make present.’ All that language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) dogma that the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine” (emphasis his), (Early Christian Doctrines, [5th ed.; London: Continuum, 1977], 212)
It would not be unusual, therefore, for an ancient like Lehi et al., to
think that a sign/symbol in the form of a tree signified a tree, not something else.
