Comments on 1 Nephi 2 This chapter presents three groups with three different reactions to the present situation: Lehi (v. 1-8), Laman and Lemuel (v. 9-14), and Nephi and Sam (v. 16-24). With respect to this first leg of traveling into the wilderness the events covered in chapters 1-7 probably took two to four months. The distance from Jerusalem to the Red Sea is about 150 miles, or about 10-12 days journey. They traveled out once, and then two round trips were made (once for the plates and once for the wives). Or course, it is not clear how much time transpired between trips, but the text suggests things happened in fairly rapid succession. That Nephi would be measuring time in days (cf. 1 Ne. 2:6, 1 Ne. 16:13) suggests that things are happening at the pace of days, as opposed to months. It isn't until 1 Ne. 16:15 and 1 Ne. 16:33 that Nephi starts glossing over time, and he skips entire years in 1 Ne. 17:1-5. One would assume that once they had what they needed from Jerusalem they would have left on short order and kept moving so as to discourage Laman & Lemuel from turning tails and heading back. However, once traveling started in earnest there would have been interruptions for the Sabbath, Sabbath festivals, various ritual impurities as well as childbearing. v1-8 Lehi has another vision wherein the Lord blesses him for his faithfulness, and warns him there are people out to kill him for it (v. 1). The Lord instructs him to move out into the wilderness (v. 2). Lehi does so (v. 3), abandoning all of his considerable wealth (v. 4), heading into the wilderness by the shores of the Red sea (v. 5). After three days of traveling they set up camp by a river (v. 6), and Lehi builds an altar and offers sacrifices (v. 7). He names the river "Laman" (v. 8) and the valley "Lemuel" (v. 14). v2 "into the wilderness", we have to remember the "wilderness" here is an arid scrubland with only seasonal rains. v4 Unlike the ancient Exodus (cf. Exod 12:35-36), Lehi abandons all of his wealth when he leaves for the wilderness. This sets the stage for the later attempted purchase of the plates in ch. 3. According to 3:16-18 Lehi foresaw their traveling to a destination where things such as this had no value, as is subsequently revealed to Nephi, and so he left it behind in favor of "provisions", i.e., things with utility. This abandonment of material wealth becomes a point of contention with Laman and Lemuel in v. 11, and therefore serves to differentiate Lehi's spiritual view with their material view. v5 "family", Nephi does not identify any sisters at this point, but later does in 2 Ne. 5:6. Perhaps they were born later along with Jacob and Joseph. v7 Lehi's offering sacrifice was contrary to the custom among the Jews at that time, as it was generally prohibited to offer sacrifice anywhere except the Temple proper in order to avoid problems with idolatrous worship. However, Lehi has been sent off from Jerusalem by the Lord. Lehi clearly sees his departure from Jerusalem, and therefore the Temple, as permanent. The nature of the offering is not clear. Usually, we would assume a sheep or something to that effect, but unless Lehi kept sheep and subsequently herded them out into the desert, he couldn't be offering one. Verse 4 says "provisions, and tents", no mention of flocks being driven, although no mention is made of camels either and they almost certainly had camels. But, 16:15- 18 makes it clear they are hunting wild game as they go, and end up going hungry when nothing is caught. If they had flocks, wouldn't they take from the herd in a pinch, but there is no suggestion of that. Rather, they go hungry. Thus, we would assume there were no sheep to sacrifice, so the offering was probably a grain offering or something to that effect. v9-14 Laman and Lemuel's less than enthusiastic response to abandoning the family estate is made manifest. Lehi exhorts them to be strong and firm in keeping the commandments (v. 9-10), because they are stiff-necked and murmuring against him (v. 11). Laman, being the eldest, would inherit a double portion of the wealth, and take over as family patriarch, and so he is particularly displeased (v. 12). Neither of them are particularly religious, and do not believe the prophecies spoken by Lehi and the other prophets concerning Jerusalem's destruction (v. 12-13). The situation deteriorates to the point that Lehi must confound them by the Spirit in order to silence their complaining and get them to go along with the plan (v. 14). v9-10 Nibley, in _Lehi in the Desert_ identifies these two statements by Lehi as "qasid" (elsewhere called "quasida"), which are Arabic motivational poetic devices which draw on impressive natural features for emphasis. v15 Nephi makes reference to it repeatedly in connection to living in this valley named after Lemuel, cf. 9:1, 10:16, 16:16. He makes references to Lehi's tent ten times in addition to these. Living in the tent follows the Exodus theme, as discussed above. Additionally, Nephi's intent may be to draw parallels between Lehi and Abraham (note in v. 6-7 Lehi pitches the tent and then sacrifices on an altar, as did Abraham in Gen. 12:8). But, with Nephi's repeated references to the tent there must be something more to it than simple symbolic connections. Nibley, in _Lehi in the Desert_ suggests it is cultural: The editors of the Book of Mormon have given a whole verse to Nephi's laconic statement, "And my father dwelt in a tent" (1 Nephi 2:15), and rightly so, since Nephi himself finds the fact very significant and refers constantly to his father's tent as the center of his universe. To an Arab, "My father dwelt in a tent" says everything. "The present inhabitants of Palestine," writes Canaan, "like their forefathers, are of two classes: dwellers in villages and cities, and the Bedouin. As the life and habits of the one class differ from the those of the other, so do their houses differ. Houses in villages are built of durable material; ...on the other hand, Bedouin dwellings, tents, are more fitted for nomadic life." An ancient Arab poet boasts that his people are "the proud, the chivalrous people of the horse and camel, the dwellers-in-tents, and no miserable ox-drivers." A Persian king but fifty years after the fall of Jerusalem boasts that all the civilized kings "as well as the Bedouin tent-dwellers brought their costly gifts and kissed my feet," thus making the same distinction as the later poet. One of the commonest oaths of the Arabs, Burckhardt reports, is "by the life of this tent and its owners," taken with one hand resting on the middle tent pole. If a man's estate is to be declared void after his death, "the tent posts are torn up immediately after the man has expired, and the tent is demolished," while on the other hand "the erection of a new tent in the desert is an important event celebrated with feast and sacrifice." And the cult of the tent was as important to the Hebrews as well. Indeed, the Hebrew word for tent (ohel) and the Arabic word for family (ahl), were originally one and the same word. "The Bedouin has a strong affection for his tent," says Canaan. "He will not exchange it with any stone house." So Jacob was "a plain man, dwelling in tents" (Genesis 25:27), though, let us add, by no means in squalor: "Casual travelers in the Orient, who have seen only the filthy, wretched tents of the tribeless gypsy Bedouins ...would be surprised, perhaps, at the spaciousness and simple luxury in the tent of a great desert sheik." v16-24 Nephi's reaction is quite the opposite from Laman and Lemuel's. Being young, and therefore inexperienced as to the things of the world and the Spirit, Nephi he is not perceiving the import of the events, anymore than Laman or Lemuel are. But, Nephi's reaction is to humble himself and request enlightenment from the Lord rather than rebel (v. 16). Nephi discusses the spiritual enlightenment he has received with Sam, and Sam believes as well (v. 17). But when he tries to discuss it with Laman and Lemuel they refuse to hear him, and so he leaves his brothers and appeals to the Lord on behalf of his brothers (v. 18). The Lord blesses Nephi for his faithfulness, telling him about the land of promise (v. 19-20). As for his brothers, if they continue to rebel then they will be cut off from the Lord (v. 21). Nephi's view of events is then pushed from a short term (v. 22) to a long term perspective. It is not simply a matter of himself versus Laman and Lemuel, but a matter of their seed versus his seed (v. 23-24). This perspective is much expanded upon in ch. 12-14. v16 "being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature", I would take this to mean Nephi is saying he is physically mature, i.e., through puberty, but still quite naive to the ways of the world, and therefore inexperienced. I would guess he is 16 or 18 or so. We would assume he is of adult stature as he physically restrains Zoram in 4:31. I wouldn't take this to mean Nephi is saying he is a big tough guy, or a linebacker or anything like that. He is contrasting his "being exceedingly young" with his being "large in stature". His intent it not to emphasize his physical stature, it is to indicate that he is young as far as age goes, and therefore a "child", but physically an adult. If Nephi said he was "exceedingly young" without saying he was "large in stature" we would probably assume Nephi was pre-adolescent. Again in 4:31 Nephi refers to himself as a "man large is stature", but he receives "much strength of the Lord" in order to restrain Zoram. If Nephi were a linebacker, why would he need "much strength from the Lord"? v19-24 Nephi apparently leaves the camp and makes his appeal to the Lord in solitude, as 3:1 informs us Nephi "return[s]...to the tent of [his] father". v20 "inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper", this phrase in conjunction with the phrase "cut off" in the next verse becomes a well-used formula in the BofM, cp. 4:14, 2 Ne. 1:20, Jarom 1:9, Mosiah 2:22, Alma 9:13, Alma 36:1, Alma 50:2, Hela. 3:20. The only appearance of a similar statement elsewhere in Scripture is 1 Kings 2:3, and that lacks the negative "cut off" portion. This is one of those unique rhetorical cues for the BofM. v21-24 These verses answer the question of "Why even bother to take Laman and Lemuel along in their first place? Why not just leave them too?" It is because the Lord's view of events is much longer than just the immediate family. The Lord is viewing things as a social engineer of generations. Copyright © 2001 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.