Nephi's teachings about baptism were intended for future generations

The strongest evidence against the proposition that "Alma introduced baptism to the Nephites" is to be found in 2 Nephi 31. This post will deal with that chapter and attempt to reconcile it with that theory.

This chapter is part of an extended discourse by Nephi, beginning in Chapter 25, where he explains that he is writing not to his contemporaries but "unto all those that shall receive hereafter these things which I write" (2 Ne. 25:3). That this anticipated "hereafter" is specifically in the Christian era is implied by his statement that he writes "that our children may know . . . after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne. 25:27).

As further evidence that Nephi is writing to an anticipated audience that will live after the prophecies of Christ have already been fulfilled, he repeatedly refers to Jesus and his baptism in the past tense, even though he himself is writing in the 6th century before Christ:

And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Know ye not that he was holy? . . . Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him (2 Ne. 31:6-8)

This is a strange way of speaking of events that are predicted to happen in the distant future, but he clearly is talking about what are from his own point of view future events. He goes on to tell his "beloved brethren" of the importance of "following your Lord and Savior down into the water" (2 Ne. 31:13), but how are they "following" him if they go down into the water hundreds of years before he does? Clearly the instruction to be baptized is addressed to future readers in the Christian era, not to people in Nephi's own time.

However, there are parts of this chapter where Nephi seems to include himself among those who need baptism:

And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water! (2 Ne. 31:5)

My interpretation of this would be that by we Nephi means "we ordinary mortals" -- everyone other than the prophesied Lamb of God -- rhetorically including himself because otherwise it would sound like he was accusing his future readers of being particularly unholy. He doesn't actually mean that he, Nephi, needs to be baptized centuries before that rite has been introduced.

Another passage also seems to imply that Nephi himself was commanded to be baptized:

And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do (2 Ne. 31:10-12).

When Nephi reports that Jesus "said unto the children of men: Follow thou me," his use of the past tense is again referring to events which are future to him but will be past to his readers. "Follow thou me" is something Jesus says to Simon Peter in John 21:22; it is never addressed broadly to "the children of men" because thou is a singular pronoun. If we omit the word thou, Jesus says "Follow me" some 18 times in the Gospels.

We have no account of the Father saying anything like, "Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son," but this may also be something Nephi foresees the Father saying in the future and believes he will already have said before the time of his anticipated readers.

In v. 12, though Nephi says, "the voice of the Son came unto me" -- that is, unto Nephi in the 6th century BC -- saying "follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do" -- meaning baptism -- and promising that the gift of the Holy Ghost would follow.

If this is what it seems at first glance to be -- the voice of Jesus Christ speaking directly to Nephi and telling him to be baptized -- we would expect Nephi to go on to tell us of how he was baptized and received the Holy Ghost. Instead, the next thing he says is this:

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost (2 Ne. 31:13).

What Nephi gets from this message from Jesus is not that he himself should be baptized, but that his "beloved brethren" in the future should do so. He twice refers to this as following the Son -- which, as I have already said, cannot logically mean doing something centuries before the Son. A few verses later, Nephi says, again addressing future generations:

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost (2 Ne. 31:17).

Here Nephi clearly states that the reason he was shown a vision of the future baptism of Christ was not so that he, Nephi, would know that he needed to be baptized, but so that he could tell future generation that they needed to be baptized. Granted, Nephi is addressing future generations and is thus focused on them rather than on himself, but if he and other early Nephites had been practicing baptism, he would surely have mentioned it. But we have not the slightest hint that any Nephite was baptized until Alma centuries later.

How did Nephi know what Jesus would do and say in the future? The information was given to him in visions and locutions. When he says in v. 12 that "the voice of the Son came unto me," he may just mean that -- not that Jesus addressed him directly, but that he perceived paranormally what Jesus would say to others in the future.

If v. 12 were addressed to Nephi, telling him to be baptized so that he could receive the Holy Ghost, that would imply that Nephi had not yet received the Holy Ghost. However, in 1 Ne. 10 -- presumably recounting events that happened before those of 2 Ne. 31 -- we have references to both Lehi and Nephi operating by the power of the Holy Ghost:

And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God -- and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come -- I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men (1 Ne. 10:17).

Lehi received the power of the Holy Ghost "by faith on the Son of God" -- no mention of baptism. Nephi goes on to say that this power "is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him" -- again no mention of baptism -- including those "in times of old." It appears that there have always been ways of receiving the Holy Ghost, but that this did not always involve baptism. Just as King Benjamin's people were able to make the baptismal covenant without being baptized, Lehi and Nephi were able to receive the Holy Ghost without doing so.

In conclusion, I think that, like Jacob, Nephi did not teach that baptism was necessary in his time. His prophecies about baptism were for the benefit of future generations.

There is no Second Coming in the Book of Mormon

One of the reasons my blog Fourth Gospel First has been paused for so long is that I am engaging primarily with the Book of Mormon now, and the perspective of the two books differs enough to raise questions about how to harmonize them and which should really be put "first." One thing they have in common, though, is a virtual silence on the subject of the Second Coming of Jesus -- which is interesting given how important the idea of an imminent Second Coming would become in the movement that came to be associated with the name Mormon. The CJCLDS's Topical Guide entry for "Jesus Christ, Second Coming" lists 57 scripture references, of which zero are from the Fourth Gospel and only one from the Book of Mormon.

Although the Topical Guide overlooks it, I believe there is one reference to the Second Coming in the Fourth Gospel, though it is in the 21st chapter, which was likely not part of the original Gospel:

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved . . . Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, "Lord, and what shall this man do?"

Jesus saith unto him, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, "He shall not die"; but, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (John 21:20-23)

This is at the very end of the Gospel, after Jesus has already lived, died, and risen from the dead, and yet he still speaks of some future time when he will "come." His followers associated tarrying till he comes with not dying, which may imply that they understood the Second Coming to be in the distant future, such that no mortal then living could expect to live long enough to see it. Alternatively, it could mean they expected that those alive at the Second Coming would be "twinkled" into immortality as described by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:51-53 and thus would not die. At any rate, some sort of Second Coming is definitely indicated. However, as noted, Chapter 21 probably isn't really part of the original Fourth Gospel.

The one Second Coming verse listed from the Book of Mormon is 3 Ne. 27:16. Here it is in context:

And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil -- And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world (3 Ne. 27:14-16).

This certainly refers to a future "judgment day," but only if we smuggle in assumptions from outside the Book does that necessarily imply a Second Coming. Jesus says nothing here about his returning to Earth. On the contrary, he repeatedly emphasizes that all men will "stand before" Jesus to be judged because they are "lifted up" by God and "drawn unto" him. In other words, we go to him; he doesn't come to us. It's logically possible that Jesus could be on Earth rather than in Heaven when this happens, but nothing in the text suggests that.

Aside from that one verse, there are a few chapters, quoting Isaiah and Malachi, which are said in the chapter headings added by the CJCLDS to refer to the Second Coming. But, like 3 Ne. 27, they don't, unless you assume they do. As I wrote in "Jesus and the Messianic prophecies: Summary and conclusions" after going through all the Messianic material in the Old Testament, "There is not the slightest hint in Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah will come twice."

To my mind, this passage from the Book of Mormon seems to rule out a Second Coming:

Wherefore, he shall bring forth his words unto them [the Jews], 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).

This is pretty unambiguous: "there should not any [Messiah] come, save it should be" -- Jesus coming back a second time? No -- "a false Messiah which should deceive the people."

I may have missed something, just as the Topical Guide people missed John 21, so if you think there's anything in the Book of Mormon that suggests there will be a Second Coming, do leave a comment.

Update: Almost immediately after publishing this, I did think of a counterexample. I don't know how I didn't think of it before, what with mentioning the Beloved Disciple and "twinkling" and all that.

Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father (3 Ne. 28:7-8).

"When I shall come in my glory" is pretty clearly a Second Coming.