Victor L. Ludlow on Isaiah 11:1/2 Nephi 21:1: "A Rod Out of the Stem of Jesse"

 

 

2 Nephi 21:1 “A Rod Out of the Stem of Jesse”

 

The first verse of chapter 21 continues a theme begun in the previous chapter, which ends with a symbolic description of the fate of the wicked. In 2 Nephi 20:33, the Lord reveals that the “haughty” and “high ones” (the wicked and the proud) will be lopped off and hewn down like branches and trunks of trees. While chapter 20 ends on a note of despair, chapter 21 begins with a message of hope. After the wicked have been removed from positions of influence and power, the Lord will raise up righteous servants to fulfill great and important tasks preceding the Second Coming. Instead of trees being hewn down, new branches and growth will come forth.

 

To understand the message contained in verse 1, we must look at each phrase individually. After we are familiar with each separate unit, we can develop a greater understanding of the verse’s collective meaning. The following words and phrases are used by Isaiah to describe key, distinct individuals.

 

Jesse. Jesse is the father of David, the boy who would slay Goliath and become king of Israel. Through Jesse’s lineage came many of the great kings of Israel, including David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and ultimately the King of kings—Jesus.

 

Stem of Jesse. The stem of Jesse is a descendant of Jesse and a rightful heir as the king of Israel. From modern revelation, we learn that this particular descendant of Jesse is Jesus Christ (D&C 113:2). Many scriptures add additional support to this revelation. Matthew 1:1-16 highlights the genealogy of the Savior, tracing Him back through David and Jesse. Similarly, John 7:42 explains that “Christ cometh of the seed of David>” While Christ’s political heritage is notable, His true ancestry is even more impressive, for as John reveals, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Thus, Jesus Christ is the son of mortal kings as well as the literal Son of the King of heaven and earth, Heavenly Father.

 

Although the word “stem” does allude to an ancestral relationship between Jesse and Christ, it also has a more symbolic meaning. The term “stem” comes from the Hebrew root geza—the trunk or stump of a tree. The stem, or trunk, is the most powerful portion of a tree, providing support for the network of branches and twigs growing from it. Christ, as the stem of Jesse, acts as the center of strength and nourishment, for the figurative branches and twigs (symbolizing His faithful followers) that have developed from His care. We can be part of this network of branches if we choose to be grafted in through the ordinance of baptism and obedience to the commandments of God.

 

The Rod. Isaiah also speaks of a “rod [coming forth] out of the stem of Jesse” (v. 1). The verse identifies this individual as “a branch . . . out of [Christ’s] roots.” A careful study of the scriptures provides helpful information concerning this individual. In the Hebrew texts, the word “branch” is natzar, a word also found in Daniel 11:7. This prophecy from Daniel states that “out of a branch [natzar] of her roots shall one stand . . . which shall come with an army . . . and shall prevail.” This branch will be a man of great power, Jeremiah reveals more about the identity of this person: “I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper . . . In his days Judah shall be saved” (Jeremiah 23:5-6). Similarly, Hosea reports that after the people of Israel live for many years without a king, and after the lost tribes return, they shall “seek the Lord their God, and David their king . . . in the latter days” (Hosea 3:5). Both the stem (Christ) and the rod (the servant) will be welcome sights to the children of Israel in the last days.

 

Modern revelation also provides a revealing look at the possible identity of this servant. When Joseph Smith asked about the identity of the rod, the Lord revealed that he “is a servant in the hands of Christ . . . on whom there is laid much power” (D&C 113:4). Concerning this servant, Joseph Smith reported, “Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood . . . The throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:253). This future ruler will be given power from the Lord to perform many great and marvelous things in the events preceding the return of the Redeemer (See also “David, Prophetic Figure of the Last Days,” in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:360-61).

 

Verse 1 provides a revealing look into the identity and life of two pivotal individuals in the last days: Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, and a powerful servant of the Lord who will come from the lineage of Jesse to rule in righteousness and play a key role in the preparation for the Lord’s millennial reign. (Victor L. Ludlow, Unlocking Isaiah in the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003], 166-69)

 

Nicholas J. Frederick on D&C 93, John 1:1, and the Eternal Personal Pre-Existence of Jesus and All of Humanity

  

In Johannine studies of 1:1, the linking verb ην has drawn a great deal of attention. Keener notes that “For John, the Word was not only ‘from the beginning,’ but ‘in the beginning.’ Many commentators have laid heavy stress on the verb ην: in contrast to many Wisdom texts which declare that Wisdom or Torah was created ‘in the beginning’ or before the creation of the rest of the world. John omits Jesus’ creation and merely declares that he ‘was.’ The verb (ην) may thus suggest the Word’s eternal preexistence” (Keener, The Gospel of John, 1:369). Joseph Smith's point in D&C 93 seems to be something similar. First, note the clear, if not awkward, presence of “was” in D&C 93:8, as if the author went to pains to emphasize the “was” by altering the expected word order of John 1:1, “in the beginning was the word.” If we allow the meaning of the Greek verb ην to be carried over to the “was” of D&C 93:8, it again re-enforces not only a pre-earthly but also an eternal existence for the Word. Note as well D&C 83:29, that “Man was also in the beginning with God.” This repetition of “in the beginning” takes the reader back to verses 7 and 8 and suggests that humanity shared a similar pre-earthly existence as the Word did, by implication “eternal” rather than just “pre-earthly.” (Nicholas J. Frederick, The Bible, Mormon Scripture, and the Rhetoric of Allusivity [Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2016], 125 n. 45)

 

Further Reading

Is Latter-day Saint Christology "Arian"?

The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence

 

W. Jeffrey Marsh on Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the United States

  

The Constitution of the United States

 

In December 1833, the Savior affirmed in a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith that he had established the Constitution “by the hands of wise men whom I raised up into this very purpose” (D&C 101:80). He also told the Saints that they were justified in befriending the constitutional laws of the land (see D&C 98:5-10). And in the 1837 dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple, the Prophet pled, “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54).

 

In another revelation, the Savior further declared that this Constitution was given for the “rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I [God] have given him, that every man may be accountable” for his own actions (D&C 101:77-78).

 

Shortly thereafter, the governor of Missouri issued an extermination order against the Saints in that state. They were mercilessly murdered and driven from the state by mobs during the winter of 1838-39; the Prophet Joseph and others were unjustly imprisoned in the ironically named Liberty Jail. Despite these unlawful and unconstitutional assaults, the Prophet Joseph later affirmed his faith on the Constitution: “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of its liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun . . . The Constitution of the United States is true” (Smith, History of the Church, 3:304).

 

The Prophet was inspired to warn, however, that if such abuse of the law were to continue unchecked, it would lead to the loss of much freedom and liberty. The first known statement of Joseph in this regard was made July 19, 1840: “Even this nation will be on the verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the Constitution is on the brink of ruin this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (Joseph Smith Papers, Church History Library, Box 1, March 1, 1844, as cited in D. Michael Stewart, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, June 1976, 64-65).

 

Eliza R. Snow later recalled: “I heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say, if the people rose and mobbed us and the authorities countenanced it, they would have mobs to their hearts’ content. I heard him say that the time would come when this nation would so far depart from its original purity, its glory and its love of freedom and protection of civil and religious rights, that the constitution of our country would hang as it were by a thread” (Eliza R. Snow, quoted in Edward W. Tullidge, Women of Mormondom [New York: Gullidge and Crandall, 1877], 401). As early as 1843, Joseph noted that the Constitution was already under siege: “The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 279).

 

Despite the corruption and challenges in our country, modern Presidents of the Church have called the Constitution a “sacred document” and have continued to bear witness of the increasingly important role the divine principles of the Constitution will play for the future of America and for the entire world. During World War II, at the dedicatory prayer for the Idaho Falls Temple in September 1945, President George Albert Smith prayed:

 

As we look about in the world among the various countries, we find philosophies and forms of government the effect of which is to deprive men of their free agency, but by reason of thy timely warning to us, we know that they are not approved of three. Since the God of this choice land is Jesus Christ, we know that his philosophy of free agency should prevail here. Thou didst amply demonstrate this great principle to us by raising up wise men for the very purpose of giving us our Constitutional form of government . . . There are those, our Heavenly Father, both within and without our borders, who would destroy the constitutional form of government which thou hast no magnanimously given us, and would replace it with a form that would curtain, if not altogether deprive, man of his free agency. We pray thee, therefore, that in all these matters thou wilt help us to conform our lives to thy desires, and that thou wilt sustain us in our resolve so to do. We pray thee that thou wilt inspire good and just men everywhere to be willing to sacrifice for, support, and uphold the Constitution and the government set up under it and thereby preserve for man his agency . . .

 

We pray that kings and rulers and the peoples of all nations under heaven may be persuaded of the blessings enjoyed by the people of this land by reason of their freedom under thy guidance and be constrained to adopt similarly governmental systems, thus to fulfil the ancient prophecy of Isaiah that “ . . . out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (George Albert Smith, “Dedicatory Prayer . . . Idaho Falls Temple,” Improvement Era, October 1945, 564). (W. Jeffrey Marsh, “A Prophet-Statesman: Joseph Smith in the Public Square,” in Mark E. Mendenhall, Hal B. Gregersen, Jeffrey S. O’Driscoll, Heidi S. Seinton, and Breck England, eds., Joseph and Hyrum: Leading as One [Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2010], 205-31, here, pp. 215-17)

 

Kent P. Jackson on JST Revelation 12:9

In his "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke" Kent P. Jackson offered the following ways in which one can approach the nature of the JST:

 

One way to look at the JST is to see it as having three categories of changes: (1) blocks of entirely new text without biblical counterpart, (2) revisions of existing text that change its function and meaning, and (3) revisions that change the wording of existing text but not the meaning. Having all three of those categories of changes, Joseph Smith’s Bible revision is radically unlike the translations in the volumes listed above, which contain only the third kind of revisions. Those works provided traditional translations or revisions of earlier texts, either from the Hebrew or Greek originals or from the King James Version. None added new text or changed the function and meaning of existing passages the way Joseph Smith’s revision did. Thus, if one were to discover that the Prophet was influenced in word changes by other published sources, it would be historically interesting but ultimately of little consequence, because the passages in the third category are not the most important parts of his New Translation.

 

In the KJV, Rev 12:9 reads:

 

The great dragon was cast out, the old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan

 

The JST reads differently:

 

The great dragon, who was cast out, that old serpent called the devil and also called Satan

 

The following comes from New Testament Manuscript 2, Folio 4 (click to enlarge):

Commenting on this change in the JST, Kent Jackson (Ibid.) wrote:

 

The reason for Joseph Smith’s revision is quite simple. In the KJV there is a comma after “the Devil” that makes possible the interpretation that Satan is someone different from the devil. The Prophet’s change simply does away with the ambiguity, but it also identifies the terms “great dragon,” “old serpent,” “devil,” and “Satan” as referring to the same being. Wayment makes leaps in reasoning when he states that the revision was “argued for by Clarke.” He says this because in the course of the 400-word commentary on the verse, J. E. Clarke mentions the obvious fact that the terms “devil” and “Satan” both refer to the same thing. But he writes that all of those terms refer not to that being whom Latter-day Saints call Satan but to the Roman Empire, the “heathen power” that persecuted early Christians. J. E. Clarke’s commentary is not about Satan but about Roman emperors and the triumph of Constantine and his family. Wayment’s interpretation would have us believe that Joseph Smith waded through all of that to learn something very simple that he already knew.

 

Needless to say, Joseph Smith’s interpretation has nothing to do with the Roman Empire, and he did not follow Clarke’s commentary here in any way. The revisions in this verse are part of an important reinvention of the text, spanning through verses 7–9, telling the story of the war in heaven and the casting out of Satan and his followers, who continue to make war against God’s children (According to the commentary, “heaven” in the passage means “the throne of the Roman empire, the war in heaven consequently alludes to the breaking out of civil commotions among the governors of this empire.”). Depending on how one counts, the Prophet made about ten significant changes in those three verses, and none of them resemble anything in Clarke’s commentary.

 

Did Joseph Smith Use the "Urim and Thummim" for the Joseph Smith Translation?

  

 In support of their case for the use of the Urim and Thummim in Genesis, Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon cite a man named Lorenzo Brown (1823–1902) supposedly quoting Joseph Smith talking about revising the Bible. (“A Recovered Resource,” 278–79.) They call Brown’s statement “remarkable,” but it is actually very problematic, and its uncertain provenance renders it unusable. Despite the fact that the year 1880 is written on the report of the statement, Wayment says that it is “a journal reference” of a contemporary of Joseph Smith (“Joseph Smith’s Use of Bible Commentaries,” 7; “Making of a Bible Revision,” 21). Instead, the statement is found in a five-page document called “Sayings of Joseph by Those Who Heard Him at Different Times,” perhaps produced around the beginning of the twentieth century. The document contains an unnamed compiler’s collection of statements attributed to Joseph Smith, as reported by several earlier informants. The document does not say when it was produced, how the compiler obtained the statements, what the criteria were for inclusion, or whether he or she compiled them from memory. There is no indication that the compiler was a witness to the informants writing or uttering the quotes. We know that the document is not the original, because a note on it identifies it as a copy. These are Joseph Smith’s purported words according to the Lorenzo Brown statement:

 

After I got through translating the Book of Mormon, I took up the Bible to read with the Urim and Thummim. I read the first chapter of Genesis and I saw the things as they were done. I turned over the next and the next and the whole passed before me like a grand panorama and so on chapter after chapter until I read the whole of it. I saw it all! … (This was spoken at the House of <Benj> Brown N.Y. 1832 Sidney Rigdon being along. Related by Lorenzo Brown 1880). (“Sayings of Joseph by Those who heard him at different times,” page [2], Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.)

 

Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon copied the words of the statement from a secondary source.

 

Brown was nine years old in 1832 when Joseph Smith supposedly said these words, and Brown supposedly related the story 48 years later. In his autobiography Brown first mentions meeting Joseph Smith in 1837, and Brown did not join the Church until 1838. (“Lorenzo Brown Diary and Autobiography,” page [2], L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.) Perhaps Brown remembered the date wrong and a conversation with Joseph Smith took place in 1837, when the Prophet visited his family and Brown was fourteen. If Brown remembered the wrong date in 1880, that gives us even more reason to doubt the reliability of the quoted words.

 

No sources from Joseph Smith or any of his scribes mention the use of seer stones or the Urim and Thummim during the Bible revision. In a recent collection of over 160 early statements regarding Joseph Smith’s use of those devices, Brown’s statement is the only one that mentions them in the context of the Bible revision. (See Michael Hubbard MacKay and Nicholas J. Frederick, Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2016], 181–232.)

 

Another problem with Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon’s use of the Brown quote is that it does not say what they want it to say. The quote never says that it has only to do with Genesis. The Prophet picked up the Bible, started with its first chapter, turned to the next and the next, and the whole passed before him and so on, chapter after chapter, until he read the whole of it. Wayment’s interpretation of this as referring only to Genesis does not come from the text but is imposed on it in support of the idea of a revelatory Genesis revision followed by an academic revision that drew ideas from Adam Clarke. In addition, Brown’s comment is incompatible with the evidence on the manuscripts. Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," footnote 33)

 

Neil L. Andersen on Forgiveness Being a Gift One Cannot Legally Merit

  

Forgiveness Is a Gift

 

We must remember, however, that the divine gift of forgiveness can never be earned; it can only be received. Yes, commandments must be obeyed and ordinances observed to receive forgiveness, but personal effort, no matter how great, pales in comparison to the cost of redemption. In fact, there is no comparison.

 

Forgiveness is a gift, and the only One who can give the gift is the Redeemer and Savior of the world, Jesus Christ (see Romans 5:1–12 and especially 15–18; see also Romans 6:23; 2 Corinthians 9:15; Ephesians 2:8). He offers His priceless gift willingly to all who turn to Him to receive it (see Doctrine and Covenants 88:33).

 

As President Nelson has said, “[The Savior’s] Atonement [is able to] redeem every soul from the penalties of personal transgression, on conditions that He [has] set.”4

 

Let us rejoice in the journey! Our Heavenly Father has given us these words of truth: “If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son; … [and you] shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of [your] sins; and [you] shall enter into my rest” (Alma 12:33–34).

 

As one of the Lord’s Apostles, I promise you that these words of our Father are true. As you embrace them in your life, the Savior will shape forever the divine destiny awaiting you. (Neil L. Andersen, “The Gift of Forgiveness,” Liahona [February 2021]:11)

 

2 Peter 1:19 and "The Prophetic Word"

2 Pet 1:19 is a common "proof-text" for Sola Scriptura. The passage reads as follows:

 

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. (NASB)

 

Protestant apologists who appeal to this verse understand "the prophetic word" to refer to the Bible. Of course, this itself is anachronistic (see the section "Falling at the First Hurdle: Why Sola Scriptura is an exegetical impossibility" in Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura).

 

According to Richard Bauckham, the phrase refers, not to the Bible as a whole, but the Old Testament (interpreted through the Christ event):

 

The phrase τον προφητικὸν λογον (“the prophetic word”), has been held to refer to (1) OT messianic prophecy (2) the whole OT understood as messianic (3) one specific OT prophecy (4) OT and NT prophecies (5) 2 Pet 1:20-2:19 (6) the Transfiguration itself as a prophecy of the Parousia . . . In view of 2 Pet 3:16, where Paul’s writings are called γραφαι (“Scriptures”), it is perhaps not impossible that NT writings are included but against this we should consider: (1) Even Justin does not use the term προφητικος λογος (“prophetic word”) of NT Scripture. (2) Our writer is not likely to be representing Peter as saying that he and his fellow-apostles based their preaching of the Parousia on apostolic writings. The best sense of the whole passage 1:16-19 is that the apostles based their eschatological message on (a) their own eyewitness testimony (vv 16-18), and (b) OT prophecies (v 19). (3) 2:1a, referring to false prophets in the OT period, presupposes that the preceding verses are about the OT Scriptures. (Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter [Word Biblical Commentary 50; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992], 224)

 

That Peter is only speaking of the OT (via a “Messianic lens”) and not the OT and NT is further supported by vv. 20-21:

 

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NASB)

 

The phrase translated as “until” in 2 Pet 1:19 is that of εως ου, the same term that appears in Matt 1:25. Most Latter-day Saints and Protestants today interpret this to mean a cessation of the main clause when the until/εως ου is reached. Interestingly, this would claim that “the prophetic word” ceases to have ultimate authority when Christ returns(!) As Eric Svendsen (Reformed Protestant) wrote:

 

Peter entreats us to pay attention to the word of the prophets “as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises” (2 Pet 1:19)—doubtless a reference to the parousia, after which it will no longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets as a guide which navigates us through a dark place; Christ himself will supersede any such need. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 52)

 

I have added a discussion of 2 Pet 1:19 to Not By Scripture Alone. As some already know, I have been asked by a Reformed Protestant in Utah to debate Sola Scriptura, and I have seen him allude to this verse on his Youtube videocasts on the authority of the Bible.