It is a crisp autumn day outside as I sit contemplatively on my couch in front of my laptop. A gentle breeze swirls through the air, carrying with it the colorful, dying leaves that mark the season. Summer is over, the weather is cooler, and it’s time to settle back into the routine of this project I undertook over a year ago. I’ll confess that I’ve been dragging my feet slightly because the next chapters in 2 Nephi involve copies of multiple chapters in Isaiah, and these tend to be heavier chapters than others.
The book of Isaiah itself is an incredible, intricate, and thought-provoking book. The prophet Isaiah is the most prolifically quoted one in the New Testament. Grasping Isaiah involves understanding ancient Jewish history, cultural practices, and theology. It also involves a good working knowledge of the New Testament. Multiple scholarly commentaries have been written on Isaiah, and choosing the best ones involve some research. If deeply studying the book wasn’t difficult enough, I now have to track down LDS sources that discuss what the Mormon interpretation of these passages is and compare it to biblical scholars. Because these chapters tend to pack a lot of information, I will be breaking this up into 2 parts to make it a little easier to absorb.
As always, I will be citing my sources. To make it easier, however, I will simply list them and link them now and simply put last names or abbreviations in parenthesis to indicate which one I’ve used. For the Isaiah commentaries, I will be using John N. Oswalts “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39” of the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series as well as Matthew Henry’s commentary on Isaiah 2, which can be read online in the Blue Letter Bible: Commentary on Isaiah 2 by Matthew Henry. My Mormon sources will be Gospel Doctrine (2 Nephi 12 | Gospel Doctrine) and an essay by S. Brent Farley, which you can view on Brigham Young University’s site here: Nephi, Isaiah, and the Latter-day Restoration | Religious Studies Center. I will quote the KJV when the text of 2 Nephi 12 differs from it.
2 Nephi, Chapter 12
Isaiah sees the latter-day temple, gathering of Israel, and millennial judgment and peace—The proud and wicked will be brought low at the Second Coming—Compare Isaiah 2. About 559–545 B.C.
1 The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:
2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.
Both Oswalt and Henry seem to agree that this is not necessarily a prophecy about only the end times. Other more modern translations use the phrase, “in future days” as opposed to “the last days.” So, it concerns the establishment of the Christian church, with the partial fulfillment of the second coming of Christ beginning at Pentecost. Oswalt points out that the Hebrew phrase used here literally means “in the afterward of these days.” He writes: “The Hebrews did not face the future as we do. Rather, they faced the past and backed into the future. So the past was before them and the future behind them. Thus this phrase is not a technical one in the OT referring to a millennial age or even a period beyond that.” He points to other OT passages that use it in the same way, and others that use it in a more technical sense to indicate the consummation of history. Based upon the context in which this phrase is used here, he asserts that “it cannot be said that this passage can only refer to a millennial age. In a more proximate sense it can relate to the Church age when the nations stream to Zion to learn the ways of her God through his incarnation in Christ. To be sure, we await Christ’s second coming for the complete fulfillment of this promise, but the partial fulfillment began at Pentecost.”
Henry also makes the case that this verse is speaking about the establishment of the Christian church. He asserts that “Gospel times are the last days, for, 1) they were long in coming, were a great while waited for by the Old-Testament saints, and came at last. 2) We are not to look for any dispensation of divine grace but what we have in the gospel, Gal. 1:8,9. 3) We are to look for the second coming of Jesus Christ at the end of time, as the Old-Testament saints did for his first coming; this is the last time, 1 Jn. 2:18.” He then goes on to explain that Christianity will be the mountain of the Lord’s house. The Christian church will then be how God grants instruction on his ways, just as He did in the old temple of Mount Zion.
Both Oswalt and Henry make the argument that the landscape described here is likely figurative. Henry points out that this language is used to convey the message that Christianity shall be openly preached to all. He points to Christ’s disciples being compared to a city on a hill in Jn. 18:20. He goes on to compare the works of the apostles to a lighting of a beacon. Oswalt brings attention to the cultural context surrounding Isaiah’s language. “Many ancient religions saw their gods as dwelling on a high mountain. What Isaiah was asserting was that one day it would become clear that the religion of Isreal was the religion; that her God was the God. To say that his mountain would become the highest of all was a way of making that assertion in a figure which would be intelligible to people of that time.”
The LDS sources, naturally, insert themselves into this prophecy. They believe, for absolutely no solid reason whatsoever, that Isaiah was prophesying about Joseph Smith restoring the Gospel. From Farley’s article: “Nephi, like Isaiah, would become a “prophet of the restoration,” as many of his inspired writings dealt with latter-day events leading to the establishment of the kingdom of God upon the earth and the eventual destruction of evil. The prophet who would open that latter-day mission, whose role was foreseen by both Nephi and Isaiah, was another great seer who would add his witness to their vision of the Redeemer (JS-H 1:16–17; D&C 76:20–23). Joseph Smith, the prophet of the dispensation of restoration, would bond with Nephi and Isaiah, the predictors of that restoration.” That’s right, everyone. An ancient Hebrew prophet, who had no idea at all that the Americas even existed, was specifically prophesying about a white guy on that continent “restoring” a Gospel that never needed restoring, because we already had the whole thing in the New Testament.
Gospel Doctrine insists that “the mountain of the Lord’s house” must be referring to the LDS temples built in the Rocky Mountains. So, they believe this verse is talking about a literal temple on a literal hill or mountain. As GD states, “If Isaiah were speaking only of the temple in Salt Lake, he could have used the phrase, “the Lord’s house shall be established in the valley amongst the top of the mountains.” Isaiah is making reference to the mountain of the Lord’s house. That means that these temples will be built on a hill or mountain to represent the spiritual journey toward God. As Hugh Nibley stated, “And the temple in Jerusalem was on the temple mountain, on Mt. Moriah. We find all the sacred places are the mountains, and they are very important here as the place of pilgrimage.” (Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, Lecture 16, p. 3). It is incredibly interesting to me that, as Oswalt pointed out, the false, pagan religions viewed their gods as literally dwelling on high mountains.
3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
This is referencing believers encouraging one another and others to come learn the truth of God. Henry writes, “Their pious affections and resolutions shall be so intermixed that they shall come in in one full stream. As, when the Jews from all parts of the country went up thrice a year to worship at Jerusalem, they called on their friends in the road and excited them to go along with them, so shall many of the Gentiles court their relations, friends, and neighbours, to join with them in embracing the Christian religion.” They excitedly embrace God’s teachings that they will learn in His church.
Oswalt makes a very interesting observation on the conjunctions of the clauses “that he may teach us… and that we might walk…” (he was using a translation other than the KJV). He brings attention that there’s a connection not only between the clauses, but also with the preceding cohortative “let us go.” He writes: “It appears that this connection is one of purpose. Thus the going is for the purpose of being taught, and the being taught is for the purpose of walking. There is a profound truth here. Those who will not leave their own self-sufficiency and come to God cannot learn his (and their own) ways. But learning is for the purpose of living…Unless God teaches we cannot walk, but unless we come he cannot teach.”
Regarding the last part of this verse “for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” Oswalt stresses that the placement of Zion emphasizes the fact that there is only one way to heaven: “by means of truth which has been mediated through the historical experience of the people whose life has come to be centered upon Jerusalem. One does not need to give the acutal city some sort of semi-eternal status to recognize the point of the saying. Jerusalem has become a symbol of God’s self-revelation through history, and there is no life apart from him who has revealed himself supremely in that context.” Henry wrote that the New Testament law, the Gospel, is what is being referenced here. He points out that the apostles preached the Gospel first in the temple on Mount Zion, as recorded in Acts 5:20. He further stated, “This honour was allowed to Jerusalem, even after Christ was crucified there, for the sake of what it had been. And it was by this gospel, which took rise from Jerusalem, that the gospel church was established on the top of the mountains. This was the rod of divine strength, that was sent forth out of Zion, Ps. 110:2.”
As I’ve come to expect, the LDS interpretation of this verse is wildly at odds with the Christian one. They insist upon ripping Isaiah completely out of context so they can force it to be a prophecy about themselves and their religion. Farley writes that this is foretelling people going to the temple in Salt Lake City. He goes on to egregiously write: “Continuing Isaiah’s prophecy, “for out of Zion shall go forth the law” (2 Nephi 12:3), Elder Petersen said: What goes on in a conference . . . is a direct fulfillment of the prophets of old. What our speakers give is the law of the Lord, it is the Gospel of Christ. It is the way of life, the straight and narrow way. When Isaiah spoke of this, so long ago, who could have realized the means of fulfillment? Who could have known how extensive would be the coverage?” Well, I suppose anything is possible when you make things up.
GD places more emphasis on what they believe to be the physical place of Zion: The New Jerusalem which will be built in Jackson County, Missouri. It then states the following: “When Christ comes to reign on the earth, the political administration of his kingdom will come from this Zion. The ecclesiastical direction during the Millenium will come from the Old Jerusalem. These two great cities shall be the world capitals in the Millenium. Temples will be built in both locations and will be built upon the tops of hills or mountains, in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.” GD goes on further to quote a passage in Messages of the 1st Presidency 1:239-261, originally published in 1845. In it, there are declarations that one theocracy will be established over all North and South America, that Jesus will visit it in person, and this city of Zion will “constitute a standard which will put an end to jarring creeds and political wranglings, by uniting the republics, states, provinces, territories, nations, tribes, kindred, tongues, people, and sects of North and South America in one great and common bond of brotherhood….Americans!”
That sounds quite a bit like a theocratic dictatorship to me. It also sounds suspiciously similar to the promises made by communists when discussing a classless, stateless, moneyless utopia. This utopia, however, is religious in nature and could only function if all other beliefs, religions, political ideas, and personal liberties were dissolved and every other country in the Americas was taken by force. I also can’t help but think of Revelation 17, an end times prophecy that describes a one world, false religion as a sign of the end times. Now, I HIGHLY doubt that the one world religion is going to be Mormonism, but it’s incredibly bizarre that a group that demands to be called Christians would view the idea of a one world religion favorably. Also, Jesus says in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Christ is not interested in a theocracy.
4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks—nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
I love Oswalt’s take on this verse within the broader context. What is the cause of conflict, war, and hatred? “It is unbridled self-aggrandizement,” he writes. Anytime a person or nation becomes the sole arbiter of what their needs are and how those needs must be met, anyone weaker are oppressed and defeated through violence. What, then, is the opposite of this? What is the cause of peace? “From the recognition that God is the source of all good, that our needs and our destiny can be submitted to his judgment, and from the knowledge that he does all things well.” When one person, knows this, they can know true peace. When two people know this and submit to God, they can dwell in peace together, having the assurance that God knows their needs and will supply them in his infinite wisdom. If entire nations follow this principle, then world peace can result. “However,” he cautions, “the thought of producing peace on any other ground is folly (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). Until persons and nations have com to God to learn his ways and walk in them, peace is an illusion.” He also argues what this means for the Church: “This does not mean that the Church merely waits for the second coming to look for peace. But neither does this mean that the Church should promote peace talks before it seeks to bring the parties to a point where they will submit their needs to God.”
Henry wrote that, in the first part of this verse, “He shall, in wisdom and justice, order and overrule the affairs of the world for the good of his church, and rebuke and restrain those that oppose his interest. By his Spirit working on men’s consciences he shall judge, and rebuke shall try men and check them; his kingdom is spiritual, and not of this world.” As a result of Christ’s order and the success of the Gospel, peace will be enjoyed by all. He argues that this was fulfilled in part with the coming of Christ to earth, during a peaceable time when most wars had largely ceased. Also, the very nature of the Gospel compels people to love one another and treat each other fairly. He also mentions that both Jews and Gentiles were brought together by the Gospel and that the early Christians were widely known for their brotherly love, even by their enemies.
In true Mormon fashion, GD confidently asserts that this prophecy is specifically about the 1,000 year reign of Christ and the judgment and rebuke described here will be accomplished by wars, famine, earthquakes, and famines. They believe this is referring to the destruction of the wicked before the Millennial reign. Curiously, they make and observation that this verse also seems to be addressed to people after the Second Coming. This is how they explain it: “A common misconception is that everything will be perfect as soon as the Lord comes. The truth is that outside of Zion and Jerusalem, there will still be many who don’t believe. Not everyone will immediately join the church. Others will commit sin, even without the temptations of Satan. The glory and order of Zion will not prevail over the entire earth. The heathen nations will need direction, and that direction will come from Zion and Jerusalem.” So, the Mormons really do want world domination, and Joseph Smith himself has no issue with this being accomplished through violence: “There will be wicked men on the earth during the thousand years. The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth.”
Then, there’s this gem: “Isaiah is a Millenialist. He often prophesies of the great and peaceful state of affairs during the Millenium.” Except, Isaiah absolutely was NOT a millennialist. He never once prophesied about any 1,000 year reign of Christ. How do I know this? Because the entire concept of it wasn’t brought forth until Revelation 20 and was never a part of any 8th century BC Hebrew prophetic categories. Different Christians see his writings through whatever eschatological lens they subscribe to. These differing views are a result of viewing his writings within the greater context of the whole Bible, especially the book of Revelation. Therefore, ascribing modern eschatological labels to Isaiah is strange, because he had no idea what those various labels even were. While he and other Old Testament prophets certainly described characteristics of this peaceful time, none of them ever mentioned a period of 1,000 years.
5 O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord; yea, come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his wicked ways.
The KJV actually reads: “O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.” That’s it. Anything after that was added by Joseph Smith, because he apparently thought he knew better than Isaiah. The Bible doesn’t need dressing up. It’s fine the way it is. Had Isaiah wanted to say what Smith added, he would have written it himself.
This verse seems to be an attempt by Isaiah to motivate the people to return to God by perhaps stirring up a holy jealousy. It is reflecting back on verse 3, in which Gentiles are calling one another to “Come, let us go up… that he may teach… and that we might walk.” Oswalt points out: “The emphatic position of ‘House of Jacob’ and its correlation to ‘God of Jacob’ in v. 3 supports this contention. Surely, he seems to be saying, if the Gentiles will come seeking the truth we have, if they will come to the light we hold, then we ought to walk in that light.”
Henry also touches on this point. He observes that the “house of Jacob” can either mean Isreal according to the flesh, or a spiritual Israel. Regarding the first possibility, Henry writes, “Let them be provoked by this to a holy emulation, Rom. 11:14. “Seeing the Gentiles are thus ready and resolved for God, thus forward to go up to the house of the Lord, let us stir up ourselves to go too. Let is never be said that the sinners of the Gentiles were better friends to the holy mountain than the house of Jacob.” Thus the zeal of some should provoke many.” If it refers to a spiritual Israel, which Henry defines as everyone who is brought to God, he writes, “Shall there be such great knowledge in gospel times (v. 3) and such great peace (v. 4), and shall we share in these privileges? Come then, and let us live accordingly. What ever others do, come, O come! let us walk in the light of the Lord.” Both of these scholars, then, who existed a few hundred years apart, agree on the premise of this verse.
The LDS sources have very little to say on this verse, other than mentioning that Isaiah is telling the people they have turned away from God… which he didn’t actually do here, because Smith added that part in.
6 Therefore, O Lord, thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and hearken unto soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.
This is a rather abrupt shift from the previous verses. In more modern translations, the word “for” would help to explain the relationship between this verse and the preceding ones. It is pointing out WHY it is imperative for the people to learn to walk in the ways of the Lord. It’s because God has forsaken them presently. As Oswalt observes, “They cannot, in their expectation of some ideal future, continue to live in their sin. Rather, that expectation ought to motivate them to deal with the realities of the present.” The next part of this verse is pointing out why God has forsaken them: they adopted the ways of their pagan neighbors and allowed themselves to become completely corrupt. The translation used by Oswalt uses the phrase “with the children of foreigners they clap hands,” and it may mean making alliances with these foreign nations with some tacit recognition of their gods.
Henry expounds upon their corruption further, noting that God had set Israel apart from everyone else to be his chosen people. Rather than remain that way, Henry writes: “they were replenished from the east; they naturalized foreigners, not proselyted, and encouraged them to settle among them, and mingled with them, Hos. 7:8. Their country was peopled with Syrians and Chaldeans, Moabites and Ammonites, and other eastern nations, and with them they admitted the fashions and customs of those nations, and pleased themselves in the children of strangers, were fond of them, preferred their country before their own, and thought the more they conformed to them the more polite and refined they were; thus did they profane their crown and their covenant.” He also warns that this principle has modern implications. Those who associate with and placate strangers to God will become strangers to him as well.
Surprisingly, the Mormon sources agree with this assessment.
7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots.
8 Their land is also full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made.
These two verses go into more detail about what has corrupted the nation of Israel. Their wealth, armed forces, and idols are reminiscent of Deuteronomy 17:16-17, where the accumulation of military power and wealth by the king was forbidden by God because he knew their allegiances would then be to materials and not to him. This is what happened to Solomon (see 1 Kings 10:26-11:8). The true downfall of these things is driven by valuing those things over God. As Oswalt writes: “But unless that wealth and power were understood to be God’s gift alone and not the work of human hands through idols,it would finally prove to be a curse. For idolatry is ultimately the creation of God in man’s image for the purpose of achieving human ends. It is thus the utmost exaltation of mankind.” Henry echoes this observation, clarifying that “It is not having silver and gold, horses and chariots, that is a provocation to God, but, desiring them insatiably, so that there is no end of the treasures, no end of the chariots, no bounds or limits set to the desire of them. Those shall never have enough in God (who alone is all-sufficient) that never know when they have enough of this world, which at the best is insufficient.”
9 And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not.
This is absolutely not what Isaiah wrote. The KJV reads thus: “And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. My guess is that Smith couldn’t be bothered to figure out what this verse actually means, so he inserted the word “not” twice in order to make it mean what he thought it should mean.
So, what is the meaning of the real verse in Isaiah and not this counterfeit one? Henry explains what the “mean man” and the “great man” are doing: bowing down and humbling themselves before idols. They were completely debasing themselves with these acts: “It becomes the mean man to bow down to his superiors, but it ill becomes him to bow down to the stock of a tree, ch. 44:19. Nor is it only the illiterate and poor-spirited that do this, but even the great men forgets his grandeur and humbles himself to worship idols, deifies men no better than himself, and consecrates stones so much baser than himself. Idolaters are said to debase themselves even to hell, ch. 57:9.”
Oswalt focuses on the phrase “forgive them not.” Isaiah is here expressing a sense of deep sadness and despair over the condition of his people. And yet, he seems to worry that God will violate his own sense of justice, forget these horrendous sins, and relent. Oswalt observes, “As such, this phrase exposes the problem of sin. it cannot simply be forgotten, it must be punished; otherwise, the whole chain of cause and effect upon which the world is built would be broken. But the punishment for playing god can be no less than banishment from God, a denial of God’s purpose in creating human beings– fellowship with himself.” A solution to this problem is not named until much later in this book. But whatever the answer may be, pretending the sin wasn’t committed certainly isn’t it.
As I observed two paragraphs above, this verse in Nephi does not match the one in Isaiah, and my speculation turned out to be correct. GD admits this: “The footnote to chapter 12, verse 2 states, “Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as KJ V.” This particular verse is a good example of how the changes made in the Book of Mormon version make more sense. In the Isaiah version this passage reads, ‘the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.’ The Book of Mormon passage makes a lot more sense when describing the proud and haughty men of the last days which will be cut down by the power of the Lord. They will be humbled by the Lord because they would not humble themselves.”
This alteration changes the intended meaning of the real verse! Isaiah was speaking to the immediate state of Israel. This verse is clearly not meant as an end times prophecy, and he was describing the act of bowing down and worshipping idols. He was not discussing the act of not bowing down to God. Simply not humbling oneself before God is bad enough; idol worship is a particularly egregious and offensive sin. It is not a mere matter of ignoring God, but of molding him exactly how you want him to be so he will fulfill your own selfish desires. It is knocking God off his throne and replacing him with an image of yourself. That is arguably worse than simply choosing not to submit to God. The horrific nature of that sin, then, puts Isaiah’s words “forgive them not” into perspective, as Oswalt demonstrated.
This is exactly what Joseph Smith has done, and what LDS continue to do. They have put Joseph Smith above the authority of God and his word. They mold God’s holy, inspired word into something they think is better. Even further than that, they teach the doctrine of exaltation, which means that faithful Mormons get to become gods themselves (Doctrine and Covenants 132:20). I am sure I will have the opportunity to discuss this concept in greater depth at a later date.
For now, it is time to close up shop on Part 1 of this chapter. I will be back in about a week with Part 2.
Leave a Reply