Jacob’s powerful essay in Jacob chapters 4–6 ends with this statement: “I bid you farewell, until I shall meet you before the pleasing bar of God, which bar striketh the wicked with awful dread and fear. Amen” (Jacob 6:13). The essay represents Jacob’s teachings as a Nephite priest concerning the centrality of Christ in the religious and doctrinal framework of his Nephite congregation. It fits within the greater structure of the book of Jacob, which appears to be governed by Nephi₁’s instructions concerning what should be included on the small plates. Recorded by Jacob in Jacob 1, the instruction suggests that only “preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying” should be written on the plates, and that Jacob should then “touch upon [these teachings] as much as it were possible” (v. 4). The inclusion of the last instruction implies that the purpose of the record is to be pedagogical—to assist Jacob in teaching correct doctrine.

Most of the book of Jacob can be identified as fulfillment of this instruction. Jacob 2–3 is the transcript of a sermon Jacob gave at the temple of Nephi. It incorporates revelation (Jacob announcing that God had made the congregation’s minds known to him; see v. 5) and prophecy (Jacob explaining the consequences of the congregation’s behavior; see vv. 9–10), and it is certainly a sermon. Though a written discourse rather than a speech delivered orally to the congregation, Jacob 4–6 also fits the parameters of the instruction. It exhibits the same characteristics as those found in Jacob 2–3, namely revelations and prophecy, the last explicitly mentioned in the first few verses of chapter 6. Exhortations, both in chapter 4 and chapter 6, can certainly be interpreted as preaching, even if the audience is meant to read rather than hear the sermon. Sandwiched between the two is Jacob’s copy of the words of the prophet Zenos, itself a prophetic allegory concerning the historical trajectory and purpose of covenant Israel. Jacob uses this allegory as a second witness to his own prophetic discourse.

The subject of Jacob’s essay is the Christological theology understood by his religious community. Yet Jacob’s frequent and explicit expressions of continuity between his congregational teachings and the teachings of earlier, biblical prophets, as well as confirmation that his community kept the law of Moses as they understood it within a Christological framework, suggest that one purpose of the essay may have been as a defense or apology against accusations from others that Jacob’s community had strayed from true biblical worship. This defense concludes in Jacob 6:13, the seemingly parting comments acting as an appropriate ending to the book as a whole. But the book does not end at the conclusion of the essay. Instead, the reader encounters a subsequent chapter.

Jacob 7 is unique to the rest of the book, as it does not really contain a sermon, revelation, or prophecy. Instead it is for the most part a narrative that recounts a confrontation between Jacob and Sherem, who represents a more normative form of Israelite religion rejecting the Christological elements of Jacob’s worship community that Jacob had just elaborated on in chapters 4–6. Thus even though it does not truly follow the instructions given by Nephi₁ as to what should be included on the plates, the narrative described in chapter 7 validates the apologia, or defense, made by Jacob concerning his particular system of worship. In light of this, chapter 7 appears to be an addendum to the book overall, and its purpose appears to be validating the teachings and system of worship outlined in 4–6, an essay which itself serves as an apologia to the theology of Jacob’s religious community and as a reaction to presumed accusations of improper worship by those outside of the faith.[1]

Jacob’s Christology, the Role of Revelation, and Condescension

As noted above, unlike Jacob 2–3, Jacob 4–6 does not appear to be a transcript of an oral presentation by Jacob. Instead, it seems to have been deliberately planned out as a written text, its focus being the centrality of Christ within the worship of Jacob’s community. Thus it may be understood as a written discourse or essay, similar in form to Paul’s letter to the Romans. Jacob begins chapter 4 by noting that even as it is difficult to write on plates, the effort is worth it as it provides later generations with “a small degree of knowledge . . . concerning their fathers” (v. 2). In particular, Jacob declares his desire for future generations to know “that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming” (v. 4). Jacob continues, noting that this knowledge was shared with “all the holy prophets which came before us.” These individuals, Jacob declares, “believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name” (vv. 4–5). Thus within the first few verses of the discourse, Jacob explicitly associates his congregation’s worship of Christ with earlier prophetic understanding, notably that of the Old Testament prophets mentioned in the Nephite scripture, the brass plates. Jacob also places their worship of Christ within the framework of worshipping the Father, an aspect that will be discussed in greater detail below.

Jacob similarly frames their adherence to the law of Moses, suggesting that adherence is not salvific in nature but rather a demonstration of their willingness to obey: “And also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son” (v. 5). As the verse suggests, according to Jacob, adhering to the law of Moses reflected two functions of the law. First, the law points to “him” (v. 5).

It is unclear from the text itself as to what the antecedent for this pronoun should be. The immediate nominal precedent to which the pronoun could refer is “his name,” suggesting that the clause could be understood as alluding to Christ; this results in a reading in which the law of Moses was to be kept because it pointed one to Christ. Yet verses 4–5 are meant to frame the worship of Christ within the larger worship of the Father. If this is still the overall intent, then one could read the clause as highlighting how adherence to the law of Moses points one to the Father, not just to Christ.[2] If this is the case, then Jacob is framing adherence to the law of Moses within worship of the Father, just as he earlier does with the worship of Christ. In light of this pronoun’s ambiguity, it is possible that both interpretations are valid. As we will see in Jacob 7, Sherem criticizes Jacob’s community because of their reverence for Christ, which he claims is leading away “much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way” (v. 7). This accusation suggests Sherem believed that reverence for Christ had supplanted the proper place of God, or the Father, in Nephite worship.[3]

Jacob also suggests that he and his congregation understand that the primary purpose of the law of Moses was to worship God through belief in Christ. Expanding on this further, Jacob explains that the purpose of the law is to “point” one to “him” (either Christ or God the Father; see above discussion), and performance of the law was “sanctified unto [them] for righteousness” (Jacob 4:5).[4] As such, it was a physical demonstration of the Nephites’ willingness to obey God’s will. By way of example, Jacob compares his congregation’s adherence to the law of Moses with Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. Abraham’s sacrifice, too, was not inherently salvific, but it did sanctify him by demonstrating his willingness to obey God in all things. In similar fashion, performing the different aspects of the law of Moses demonstrated one’s willingness to obey God.[5] Regardless, by the end of the verse, Jacob has stressed that regardless of the presumed differences in intent, his worship community adheres to and practices the law of Moses as part of their worship of the Father.

Jacob then discusses another aspect of his community’s worship, that being the acceptance of continuing revelation: “Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy” (v. 6). The conjunction beginning this declaration suggests that Jacob’s earlier statements—that they worship the Father in the name of Christ and keep the law of Moses in manner that they did—naturally point to the Nephites’ own personal study of the scriptural text in whatever fashion it would have been available to them.[6] Related to the practice of scripture study, Jacob then notes the role of continuing revelation, with the community as a whole receiving revelation and prophecy independent of the prophetic writings themselves. Though this suggests a potential for a worship praxis, or a system of performances, that could diverge from established praxis, by associating the reception of revelation and prophecy with the prophets (individuals who did engage in these two activities in the scriptural text), Jacob reinforces his first point, namely that his worship community was in line with the established praxis of biblical prophets.

These worship elements, Jacob then declares, give the community an unshakeable hope, the same hope he mentioned at the beginning of the essay, which in turn gives the community divine power: “And having all these witnesses [presumably the law of Moses, the scriptural text, and the revelations/prophecies received] we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea” (v. 6). While we have no account of such events actually occurring in Jacob’s record, this verse suggests that they are to be understood as the evidence to the legitimate worship praxis of Jacob’s community, with emphasis placed on the power received through God’s grace—what Jacob refers to as God’s “great condescensions unto the children of men” (v. 7).

Though Jacob does not explicitly define condescension, his allusion to Christ’s “condescensions” reflects a unique Christological principle. This principle was first introduced by Jacob’s brother Nephi₁ in the recounting of his vision recorded in 1 Nephi 11–14.[7] The vision sequence appears as a series of images or scenes shown to Nephi₁ and, at least initially, angelic questions apparently meant to engage Nephi₁ in understanding. Nephi₁ is asked by the angel, “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” (1 Nephi 11:16). Nephi₁ answers that he knows God loves his children, but is unsure as to whether or not this is the right answer, whereupon he is shown Christ’s incarnation.[8] Nephi₁ is then asked what the tree means, and this time he answers that the tree “is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men” (v. 22). Thus in this sequence, the tree of the dream, the love of God, and condescension all become associated with one another.

While we do not know the actual terminology used by Nephi₁ and later by Jacob, in 1830 the English term condescension meant “voluntary descent from rank, dignity or just claims; relinquishment of strict right.”[9] As the definition suggests, condescension was more than a simple physical descent; it reflected an act of agency, in that such a descent was voluntary. In Nephi₁’s vision, interestingly, although he is asked about the condescension of God and sees a subsequent scene of Christ as an infant, Christ’s premortal state is not witnessed. Instead, it is the transformation of Mary from virgin to mother that suggests the act of condescension.[10] Verse 26 again highlights the concept of condescension as the angel shows Nephi another condescension scene: “Look and behold the condescension of God!” The scene associated with this angelic imperative is the baptism of Christ, with the Holy Ghost descending out of heaven (see v. 27). In light of the above definition, it is possible that the scene represents condescension in two ways. First, the Holy Ghost is described as coming down out of heaven, a literal condescension.

Another instance of condescension presented in the scene is the baptism of Christ itself. Baptism requires one to descend and be immersed in water to symbolize death and rebirth, so the baptism figuratively represents Christ’s descent into mortality. Nephi₁ also seems to have understood the act to demonstrate Christ’s obedience to the Father, suggesting that condescension includes not just physical movement but submission to God’s will as well. Finally, Nephi₁ would allude to condescension in 2 Nephi 4:26. There, Nephi₁ sums up the numerous divine and revelatory experiences he has received as evidence of God’s condescension: “I have seen so great things, . . . the Lord in his condescension unto the children of men hath visited men in so much mercy.” In this instance, Nephi₁ appears to associate divine condescension with direct, interactive revelation.

Jacob also references divine condescension in his speech recorded in 2 Nephi 6–9. Following the recitation of Isaiah 49–52, Jacob gives commentary (chapters 9–10), beginning that commentary with the observation that he has read Isaiah so that “[his people] might know concerning the covenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the house of Israel” (2 Nephi 9:1). The day’s sermon ends with his final observation: “how great the covenants of the Lord and how great his condescensions unto the children of men” (v. 53), suggesting that the principle of condescension includes God’s covenantal relationship with humanity, Israel specifically. In light of the above, though Jacob does not define the “great condescensions” later on in Jacob 4, it is possible to understand them as divine interaction in the giving of direct, interactive revelation to humanity; the covenants entered into defining the relationship between God and mortal; and most importantly, Christ’s role in making it possible to fulfill those covenants. It is this last understanding that apparently differentiated Jacob’s worship from that of others, as we shall see when we encounter Sherem’s accusations.

Back in Jacob 4, Jacob continues noting the necessity of revelation across verses 8–10. He begins by explaining that “it is impossible that man should find out all [God’s] ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God” (v. 8). Knowing God’s will requires continuing revelation, not just the law given. In fact, as Jacob notes, no one can truly know God’s will without revelation, hence the importance of recognizing its significance in one’s worship. Moreover, Jacob explains, God’s words are a reflection of his cosmic omnipotence: “For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word” (v. 9). In light of this power, the Nephites should “seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand” (v. 10). Thus over the course of these three verses, Jacob stresses the importance of revelation and, more importantly, of accepting revelation. As with his emphasis on the worship of the Father, Jacob’s emphasis on the necessity of revelation suggests he is in part responding to criticisms laid against his religious community and the role revelation plays in their worship.[11]

“A Resurrection” and Prophecy

The congregation’s relationship with the Father is addressed again following Jacob’s discussion on revelation: “Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:11). The antecedent to the pronoun “him” is “Lord” in verse 7, yet the context of the pronoun in verse 11 suggests that it represents the Father, not Christ. Thus it is possible to read all the Deity titles from verses 7–10 as referents to God the Father. If this is the case, then the discussion of revelation should be placed within the context of worshipping God the Father through Christ.[12] In any case, by verse 11, Jacob introduces the significance of Christ within their worship—namely, that it is through Christ’s atoning act that one can become reconciled with God. As to what that reconciliation looks like, Jacob continues: “Ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh” (v. 11). Jacob’s emphasis on a specific resurrection as opposed to a general resurrection suggests a particular understanding of reconciliation.[13]

To describe this specific resurrection, Jacob terms those who receive it as the “first-fruits.” This is the only reference to firstfruits in the Book of Mormon. The term itself is biblical, found first in the legal codes of the Old Testament concerning the first items of a given harvest which were to be offered up to God (see Exodus 23:16; 34:26; Leviticus 2:12, 14; 23:10; Numbers 18:12). In the New Testament, the term is used to describe resurrection. First Corinthians 15:20 includes a description of Christ as the “firstfruits of them that slept,” alluding to Christ as the first resurrected being. James also uses the imagery, though not in an allusion to resurrection but rather to the saints’ conversion: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (James 1:18). The term is also used in Revelation 14:4, where it refers to the “elders” who are able to be in the presence of God: “These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.” Though this last citation does not mention resurrection, it does associate firstfruits with exaltation and being in the presence of God, which is the ultimate reconciliation. Based on these references, the firstfruits would reflect the first, and therefore the best, of what has been cultivated.[14] In terms of resurrection in Jacob, then, the imagery would indicate a resurrection in which one is presented to God and associated with the reception of a “good hope of glory” that had already been received prior to the resurrection itself (Jacob 4:11).

Jacob also references “hope of [Christ’s] glory” earlier, in verse 4 of chapter 4. There, it demonstrates the congregation’s awareness of Christ’s ministry “many hundreds of years before his coming.” In both instances, “hope” appears to be understood as knowledge that one has of a future fulfillment to a given promise. In verse 4, Jacob observes that his people already “knew of Christ” and had a “hope of his glory” before he actually came, and in verse 11, the “good hope of glory” is obtained by the believer before Christ comes in the flesh. Mormon uses the word hope in a similar fashion elsewhere in the book of Mormon. In Moroni 7, Mormon begins his sermon by speaking to those who he calls “the peaceable followers of Christ, . . . that have obtained a sufficient hope by which [they] can enter into the rest of the Lord” (v. 3). Similar to Jacob’s usage of the term, Mormon speaks of hope as something that has been obtained—in this case, a sufficient hope by which one can enter into the rest of God. Even though the individuals Mormon is speaking to have obtained this hope, they have not yet entered into the rest of God. Thus hope in this context is the knowledge or confirmation that they will do so in the future. Jacob’s congregation had a hope of Christ’s coming, meaning they had knowledge or confirmation that he would come hundreds of years later.[15] Their belief in Christ also allowed for the acquisition or confirmation of future glory before their resurrection as firstfruits, suggesting a revelatory experience on the part of the individual concerning their promised resurrection prior to the resurrection itself. In other words, Jacob appears to have exhorted his people to receive such revelations and to have their callings and elections made sure (see 2 Peter 1:10).

This revelatory knowledge that one can become reconciled with God and thereby receive exaltation as a “firstfruit” is alluded to further in Jacob 4:12: “And now, beloved, marvel not that I tell you of these things; for why not speak of the atonement of Christ, and attain to a perfect knowledge of him, as to attain to the knowledge of a resurrection and the world to come?” The rhetorical nature of the question highlights that Jacob is not simply explaining the doctrine of a general resurrection, but instead speaking of what belief in Christ can offer. One can attain “a perfect knowledge”—a knowledge from direct, revelatory experience—as to the reality of Christ and thereby achieve reconciliation with God the Father. Thanks to Christ and his sacrifice, it is possible to obtain a supernal, profound knowledge of both Jesus Christ and one’s own future exalted state. Jacob’s exhortation, then, is to not limit oneself with regards to what is possible. The worship of Christ opens up the divine realm to his disciples in ways that no other worship could.

Not only does this possible experience highlight the significance of Christ in one’s worship, it also appears to have been an example of prophecy that Jacob had earlier observed to be a crucial part of his community’s religious experience.[16] Following his rhetorical question, Jacob further exhorts his audience regarding prophesy: “Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. . . . Wherefore, these things are manifested to us plainly, for the salvation of our souls” (v. 13). As noted earlier, prophecy was an integral part of Jacob’s worship community, with the “spirit of prophecy” defining the community itself (v. 6). The direct interaction with the Spirit allowing one to prophesy is an outcome of the worship praxis. Thus one of the benefits to Christologically oriented worship is the direct interaction one has with the divine, both in terms of being able to prophesy and in terms of receiving revelation, even the “good hope of glory” mentioned earlier. As before, Jacob legitimizes these claims by asserting commonality with the “prophets”: “behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old” (v. 13). This assertion emphasizes yet again that such worship was not unique to the Nephites but was in fact part of a longstanding worship tradition that aligned with the scriptural witnesses.

Critics of Jacob’s Christology and the Problem of Plainness

Even as Jacob relies on the authority of “the prophets of old” to legitimize his community’s worship system, he also emphasizes individualization of prophetic and revelatory experiences that could be had by anyone. His essay suggests that the experiences of the prophets could be had by anyone in the community. As will be evidenced by Sherem’s condemnations, uneasiness concerning the expansion of those who could experience prophecy and revelation appears to have been present among another Nephite worship community. Those groups that were antagonistic to Jacob’s worship community appear to be the focus of Jacob’s next section.

The emphasis of Jacob’s congregation’s harmony with the prophets of old is contrasted with that of the “Jews”—presumably the contemporary audiences to those prophets who, Jacob noted, could be defined by their rejection of “the words of plainness,” which rejection resulted in the killing of the selfsame prophets and in the opposition’s own “blindness” (v. 14).[17] Even though Jacob here makes reference to an older community antagonistic to the prophets of old, in light of the analogue made between those prophets and Jacob’s own community, Jacob appears to have been alluding to those in his own society opposing his worship community. The association of “words of plainness” with Jacob’s earlier claim that the things of the spirit are “manifested unto [the people] plainly” (v. 13) suggests that, to the believers, prophecy, revelation, and belief in Christ are considered to be “plain” truths. Those who disagreed therefore “despised the words of plainness.” Since the plainness is revealed to believers through the Spirit, Jacob’s implicit accusation is that those who are in opposition to belief in Christ deny the Spirit.

Unfortunately, as Jacob opines, such rejection would ultimately lead to the Jews’ destruction: “wherefore, because of their blindness . . . they must needs fall” (v. 14). Because of their rejection, God would give them “many things which they cannot understand . . . that they may stumble.” It is unclear from the text itself what Jacob means here. There appear to be at least two ways to read this. The first would be that because the Jews reject the words of plainness, which are associated with the prophets of old and prophecy in general in verse 13, they are given other “things.” These things could be the introduction of false prophets and an increased dependence on divination—though it is unlikely that Jacob is referring to the use of these institutions as God-given.

In a second reading, perhaps Jacob’s interplay between prophetic plainness and things difficult to understand alludes to difficult prophetic messages. Such a reading suggests that Israel had at one time prophets who taught “plainly”—that is, simply, bluntly, and clearly. These individuals were killed and their message was despised, thus God sent prophets who taught in more convoluted and poetic manners. An example of such a prophet could be Isaiah, who was presumably told by God: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed” (Isaiah 6:10).[18] The verse suggests that Isaiah’s ministry was to speak in such a fashion that the people would find it difficult to follow. Yet this doesn’t fully fit, since prophetic individuals like Isaiah were also persecuted, even killed because of their prophetic responsibilities. Moreover, in the case of Isaiah, this reading conflicts somewhat with Nephi₁’s feelings concerning Isaiah, specifically that he found Isaiah’s words easy to understand and delighted in them (see 2 Nephi 25), as well as with Christ’s declaration that “great are the words of Isaiah” (3 Nephi 23:1).

Another possible reading of Jacob 4:14 is that Jacob is referring to the reception of the law of Moses. The Sinai account described in the book of Exodus does suggest that the law might not be what was originally given to Israel. According to Exodus 19, the initial offer to Israel was to see God and become a kingdom of priests. Exodus 20 suggests that Israel rejected this offer and as a result received the Mosaic law instead. In fact, Jacob references this event earlier in his record. In Jacob 1:7, using language first used by his older brother Nephi, Jacob states, “We labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest, lest by any means he should swear in his wrath they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness.” Jacob seems to be using language from Psalm 95, which notes that Israel’s “provocation” led the Lord to swear “in [his] wrath” that the Israelites would not enter into God’s “rest” (vv. 8, 11). What is meant by God’s rest is not clear from the context, the psalm assuming that the reader grasps the meaning, but the concept of “rest” is associated with the Sinai and wilderness narratives.

In Exodus 33:14, as part of his promise to Moses concerning the future state of the Israelites, God promises, “My presence [literally, ‘my face’] will walk [presumably with the Israelites], and I will cause you to have rest” (author’s translation). The Hebrew term translated here as rest refers to the state of rest that God gives. In this instance, rest is understood as the cessation of conflict with Israelites’ neighbors that will accompany the Israelites’ settlement in the promised land. The same meaning is associated with rest in Joshua, and both references discuss the rest given to the Israelites.[19] Following the settlement, the term is often found in the context of the temple. Psalm 132:8 invites God to arise and come into his rest, along with the ark, while in verses 13–14, the reader is told that God chose Zion for his “habitation,” saying, “This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.” In a similar manner, in Isaiah 18:4, God’s rest is associated with his dwelling place, whereas in Isaiah 66, God’s resting place is paralleled with his house. The verbal form is also associated with the immanence of God’s presence, with both the cloud and God’s spirit resting at certain places and on certain individuals. If this rest is what is meant in Psalm 95, then the provocation could be understood as an event in which the Israelites rejected God’s invitation to enter his presence, leading to a divine decree that they would not enter into God’s rest, presumably in the foreseeable future.[20]

The JST adds to this reading of the events from Exodus 19–20 by including information concerning a second set of stone tablets in Exodus 34:1–2:

Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first . . . ; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them. But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage.

The additional material suggests that the provocation was a rejection by Israel of the direct, personal interaction with Deity that Jacob had just said was possible in verses 11–12.[21] Thus Jacob 1:7 is the first hint of the worship structure Jacob engages in. He and the other congregation leadership seek, like Moses, to bring his people to this type of engagement with divinity. A reading of Jacob 4:14 informed in such a manner by Jacob 1:7 would suggest that the law of Moses was difficult to understand for the Israelites, since they had rejected the “words of plainness,” which had initially invited all of Israel to a direct, physical interaction with Deity.

Such a reading would make sense of Jacob’s earlier claim as to what the law of Moses could and could not do regarding salvation and could therefore explain the primary contention between Jacob’s worship community and an alternate, biblically based community, represented eventually by Sherem. As noted earlier, Jacob states that his congregation keeps the law of Moses, but its observation is not understood to provide salvation. Instead, the sincere performance of it is meant to “sanctif[y them] for righteousness,” with obedience to the law understood in the same way as Abraham’s obedience concerning the killing of his son. If verse 14 informs Jacob’s admission in verse 5, then the law was given precisely because it was difficult to understand, Israel having rejected that which was plainly offered. Yet even as the interplay between Jacob 1:7, 7:5, and 7:14 suggests that the law may be one of the “things which [the Jews] cannot understand” mentioned in Jacob 4:14, Jacob’s congregation is clearly keeping the law of Moses. Moreover, no prophet was killed in the reception of the law of Moses.

A possible solution may be found in Nephi₁’s mention of plain prophecy in 2 Nephi 31–32. Nephi₁ begins his final discourse by declaring the following: “The things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying” (2 Nephi 31:2). The association of plainness with prophecy reflects both Jacob’s exhortation to his congregation—to prophesy things that have been manifested “plainly”—and the teaching style of prophets of old, who prophesied “words of plainness” (Jacob 4:13–14). This suggests that Jacob may have deliberately written in a manner to suggest continuity between his ministry and that of his brother.

In any case, in 2 Nephi 31 Nephi₁ notes: “My soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (v. 3). From this verse it appears that Nephi₁ understands plainness to encompass both the speaker’s attempt to communicate a message and the comprehension of that message by the recipient. Nephi₁ also equates prophetic plainness with divine behavior, noting that this is a primary means by which God interacts with humanity, speaking to them “according to their language” so that any given individual can understand the message being communicated.

However, Nephi₁ closes his discourse with a regretful indictment: “And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be” (2 Nephi 32:7). Nephi₁ makes the striking observation that he is not allowed to speak more of the doctrine of Christ because some would not understand what he was plainly saying because they refused to search for that meaning. In other words, Nephi₁’s words are plain in transmission but will not be plain in reception, because Nephi₁’s audience will not seek to plainly understand them. Again, there appears to be a relationship between this discourse and Jacob’s essay. As noted above, Jacob speaks of his people searching the scriptures, which leads to revelation, even the supernal revelation of a “good hope of glory.” In light of Nephi₁’s discourse, it is possible that Jacob’s essay, indeed his entire book, is meant to demonstrate his community’s fidelity to Nephi₁’s prophecies.[22]

If Jacob’s understanding of what constitutes plainness is the same as Nephi₁’s, then it is possible to read God’s delivering unto the “Jews”—or, by extension, all those that would reject the “words of plainness”—“many things which they cannot understand” as God giving them nothing more than the prophetic teachings, including the law (Jacob 4:14). In other words, Jacob isn’t saying that God gives those who reject his prophecies and revelations different messages that are more difficult to understand. Instead, God gives such people the same message; the only difference is that the people have lost the ability to comprehend the message’s plainness. The problem was not with what God gave, but rather with the people’s understanding of what was given. Or perhaps more accurately, they would not understand and therefore could not, just as Israel had done in the days of the provocation (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:23–24). Nephi₁ suggests that this was because of their unbelief, wickedness, ignorance, stiffneckedness, and finally their unwillingness to study and search the scriptures. Jacob describes their state as one in which they “sought for things that they could not understand.” In other words, their lack of understanding is not because of the message itself, but because of their own inability to understand even plain messages that taught of Christ and the supernal experience with Deity made possible by him.

The Allegory of the Olive Tree

Even as Jacob critiques those who threatened his community’s worship, he holds out hope that they will eventually come to know the truth that Jacob’s community already knows. Referring to the detractors’ inability to accept the “words of plainness” (that is, to recognize the significance of Christ, the importance of prophecy and revelation, and the sacred experience associated with gaining a perfect knowledge of Christ and a “good hope of glory”) as “stumbling,” Jacob then prophesies that such detractors will reject the “stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation” (v. 15). Yet, Jacob notes, the scriptures foretell that the stone will become the foundation, indeed the only foundation, upon which the detractors could build. Jacob then asks rhetorically: How will this happen? His answer begins with the transcribing of an entire text—Zenos’s allegory of the olive tree.

Interestingly, the allegory does not, on an initial read, appear to be explicitly related to the subject at hand. Changing imagery, Jacob does not discuss stumbling blocks or foundation stones. Instead the allegory speaks of Israel (as a nation, not the Jews specifically) as a tree dying from what appear to be natural causes, not from rejection of the prophets. Yet central to the allegory is the production and harvest of “good fruit,” perhaps demonstrating thematic continuity between the allegory and Jacob’s exhortation to become the firstfruits of the resurrection. The allegory itself traces the fortunes of the primary tree referenced as Israel, with its initial state being one of decay. Alongside the tree/Israel, the allegory includes a lord of the vineyard and the lord’s servant, both of whom are involved in the preservation of the tree.[23] According to the allegory, upon seeing that the mother tree is decaying, the lord of the vineyard embarks on a program to rehabilitate the tree by pruning some of the branches and saplings and planting them elsewhere in the vineyard.[24]

While this work initially improves the situation, eventually all of the trees begin producing bad fruit. The lord of the vineyard explains to the servant, who has been involved with the maintenance of the primary tree, that the “wild branches have grown and have overrun the roots,” producing so much bad fruit that the tree is starting to die (v. 37). The servant recognizes the same problem throughout the entire vineyard, asking his master: “Have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves” (v. 48).

As the above demonstrates, the allegory highlights the constant awareness and work of the lord of the vineyard regarding the health of the entire vineyard. It is the lord of the vineyard who determines what is to be done in rejuvenating the mother tree. It is the lord’s plan to both scatter and restore the tree’s branches in order to save the tree while creating new opportunities for growth and influence in the vineyard. In light of his active and explicit role, it is possible that his work is representative of prophetic plainness.[25] The lord’s program to save the tree would be the obvious, plain procedure. The challenge here of course is that the trees themselves are seemingly unaware or uncaring of what exactly happens to them. The servant, on the other hand, does. In fact, the servant is depicted as not understanding the plan of the lord of the vineyard.

At the beginning of the allegory, the servant is called and given one responsibility—to care for the mother tree following the pruning and grafting in of the wild olive tree branches. Having met this responsibility, the lord of the vineyard invites the servant to visit with him the pruned branches that have been grafted elsewhere. At one of the locations, the servant notes that the ground in which the sapling was planted is the “poorest spot in all the land of the vineyard” (v. 21). When asked why the lord of the vineyard planted the sapling there, the lord responds: “Counsel me not; I knew that it was a poor spot of ground” (v. 22). The exchange between the Lord and the servant highlights an important principle, namely that even though the servant doesn’t fully understand all the reasons for the lord’s actions, the lord does have his reasons. The lord of the vineyard’s response reflects Jacob’s admonition in 4:10. He exhorts “his brethren” to not counsel the Lord, but instead to take counsel from him. Taking such counsel would lead to the reconciliation promised, which in turn suggests that part of despising the words of plainness was seeking to counsel the Lord rather than receiving what he had to give. It is the servant’s behavior then, that was to be the example of a true worshipper.

If this reading is taken into account, with its similarities to Jacob 4, then the allegory answers Jacob’s question concerning the stumbling/foundation by presenting the servant’s actions as what Israel or the Jews should be doing, namely following God’s counsel even when they don’t fully understand it. Both readings—Israel/the Jews as tree and Israel/the Jews as servant—may be seen in Jacob’s commentary following the presentation of the allegory. This commentary in Jacob 6 may be further divided into two units. The first is a prophetic element comprising verses 1–4. The second is a series of exhortations from verses 5–13 that conclude his essay.

Jacob’s Prophecy and “Final” Exhortations

The prophetic unit in Jacob 6 begins with Jacob declaring that he will prophesy, the prophecy itself arising from the allegory. Jacob notes that the events following the lament, verses 41–48 of the allegory, “must surely come to pass” (v. 1), and that they correspond to God’s setting his hand “again the second time to recover his people” (v. 2). Jacob’s use of the term recover to describe God’s saving work may allude to earlier usages by Nephi₁ and himself, both perhaps borrowing from Isaiah 11:11: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.” The Hebrew term translated as “recover” in Isaiah 11:11 is found some eighty times in the Hebrew Bible. Most of the references reflect a meaning of “purchase” or “to buy,” often within the context of property or land. Yet it connotes more than simply purchasing something; it includes an aspect of ownership or responsibility over something.[26] Thus the term appears to describe God’s work in providing a purpose for Israel, or perhaps his establishing a supervisory relationship between himself and Israel. Thus God’s recovering acts could be understood as re-establishing a relationship which had been lost, reaffirming Israel’s place and function within the larger sphere of God’s work.

This appears to be Jacob’s prophetic interpretation of the allegory. The lord of the vineyard’s reconstituting of the trees, bringing them back to producing good, natural fruit, as well as his expanding the influence of the trees on the entire vineyard, would qualify as a recovery by this definition. Similarly, the transformation of the servants into individuals resembling the lord of the vineyard, eventually sharing of the harvest and having joy with the Lord, anticipates the eventual status of becoming a firstfruit unto God, recovered into his presence. Both readings are also alluded to in Jacob 6:3, with Jacob declaring that “blessed are they who have labored diligently in his vineyard; and how cursed are they who shall be cast out into their own place!” Though he does not explicitly identify these two groups, the blessed nature of those who labor in the vineyard suggests the believers described in chapter 4, with those rejecting the Christology and the reality of prophecy/revelation likened unto the branches that will be cast out and burned up.

The prophetic unit ends with Jacob praising God’s mercy and condemning those who reject this mercy: “For he remembereth the house of Israel, both root and branches; and he stretches forth his hands unto them all the day long; and they are a stiffnecked and a gainsaying people; but as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God” (Jacob 6:4). Again, the prophecy appears to provide Jacob’s interpretation of the allegory. In this case, he interprets the allegory’s imagery in terms of Nephite migration, the roots and the branches being Old-World Israel and the branches representing different Israelite communities scattered elsewhere, including the Nephites in the New World. This reading emphasizes the Lord’s work, as reflected in the remainder of verse 4. To describe this work, Jacob utilizes a somewhat common image of God with stretched-out hands.

The image of God’s hand stretched out is found throughout the Old Testament and is used to connote God’s power and might, primarily in terms of delivering punishments. The Exodus narrative depicts God smiting the Egyptians for their impudence with an outstretched hand (see, for example, Exodus 7:5). Elsewhere, God’s smiting hand is stretched out against a wicked Israel. But the Jacob 5 allegory presents another aspect of God’s stretched-out hand. Part of the Lord’s lament regarding the vineyard includes the following: “I have nourished, and I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it; and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long” (Jacob 5:47). In this case, the image of God’s stretched hand represents his continual efforts to reclaim and support Israel.

The imagery is also used by Jacob in his exhortatory unit, comprising two subunits. Like the prophetic unit, the exhortations rely heavily on the imagery present within the allegory. The first exhortation begins with a plea for repentance: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I beseech of you in words of soberness that ye would repent, and come with full purpose of heart, and cleave unto God as he cleaveth unto you” (Jacob 6:5). The plea starts with the conjunctive adverb wherefore, establishing a relationship between the preceding prophetic material and the pleas that follow. Knowing that God is continually reaching out his arm but only saves those who submit to him, Jacob petitions the reader to repent and “cleave” unto God as he “cleaves” unto them.[27] The English term cleave in this instance reflects its meaning of “to stick, to adhere.” It acts as a perfect description for what one hopes would happen with any graft: the grafted branch adhering, or sticking to, the new tree. The concept of God’s continual outreach is continued in the next line: “And while his arm of mercy is extended towards you in the light of the day, harden not your hearts” (v. 5). The image of God’s outstretched arm was used earlier in the prophetic unit by Jacob. Returning to it here in the exhortation unit provides continuity.

With that said, the terminology is slightly different, with the prophetic unit speaking of God’s stretched-out hand and the exhortation unit speaking of his extended arm of mercy. Jacob 6:5 is the first time in the Book of Mormon that this particular terminology is used in describing God’s ability to deliver his people, but it is found consistently later on.[28] While the image of God’s stretched-out hand can allude to the biblical image of God delivering judgment, God’s extended hand may here allude to a central symbol in Lehi’s seminal dream, which Jacob would have been familiar with. According to Nephi₁’s account of the dream, upon reaching the tree, Lehi also saw a “rod of iron, and it extended along the bank . . . and led to the tree” (1 Nephi 8:19; emphasis added). With regards to the rod’s function, the account says this: “I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree” (v. 24). The extended rod enabled the people to reach the tree.

The conflation of the extended rod of iron with the extended arm of God, both facilitating movement into God’s presence, is found in Alma 5: “Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you. Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life” (vv. 33–34). Christ himself uses this image in 3 Nephi 9. While the people were still experiencing the physical mists of darkness associated with Christ’s death, they heard the voice of Christ, which declared: “If ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive” (v. 14). In this instance, Christ’s invitation reflects the promise of the iron rod in the dream. Christ appears to literally fulfill this promise in his descent, described in 3 Nephi 11: “And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying: Behold, I am Jesus Christ” (vv. 9–10). If these references allude to an association between the iron rod and God’s stretched arm, then this becomes a uniquely Book of Mormon symbol, and it is Jacob who introduced this unique symbol into the lexical repertoire of Nephite prophecy in his first exhortation.

The second set of exhortations in Jacob 6 is couched in a series of rhetorical questions, all centered around judgment. Verse 6 shows Jacob exhorting his people, “Harden not your hearts; for why will ye die?” Jacob continues, asking whether his presumed audience, having been “nourished by the good word of God all the day long, will . . . bring forth evil fruit” (v. 7). This phrasing again references the allegory, this time suggesting that God is represented not in the tree nor the roots nor the lord of the vineyard, but in the nourishment taken in by these things. The rhetorical questions continue with Jacob querying whether the audience would “reject these words . . . the words of the prophets; and . . . all the words which have been spoken concerning Christ” (v. 8). While these questions reflect Jacob’s primary exhortation to the people—that they should cleave unto God—they also reinforce the themes he presented earlier, namely that belief in Christ is not a new, innovative practice by Jacob’s worship community but rather a doctrine understood and taught by the all the prophets prior. Jacob then follows this sequence with another question: “Know ye not that if ye will do these things, that the power of the redemption and the resurrection, which is in Christ, will bring you to stand with shame and awful guilt before the bar of God?” (v. 9). Jacob’s assertion that the power of the redemption and the resurrection make the judgment possible is a prophetic theme that gets picked up in later writings.[29]

The subject of judgment frames the remainder of the essay and echoes the resurrection promise of chapter 4. Having established that resurrection brings about judgment, as noted in verse 9, Jacob warns his audience that rejecting the words of the prophets (that is, the words of plainness) would lead to their standing ashamed and guilty before the bar of God. The image of judgment before the bar of God concludes the essay as well: “Finally, I bid you farewell, until I shall meet you before the pleasing bar of God, which bar striketh the wicked with awful dread and fear” (v. 13). Though the last allusion does not include mention of resurrection, a review of all of Jacob’s teachings makes it clear that he believes resurrection is what makes the judgment possible. As he observes in his sermon in 2 Nephi 6–10, without Christ there can be no resurrection, and all humans would become entities like the devil, even “angels to a devil, . . . to remain with the father of lies, in misery” (2 Nephi 9:9) presumably forever. But with resurrection, Jacob explains, one now has a choice. Either one can receive a resurrection resulting in a negative judgment experience, or one can receive a resurrection resulting in a positive judgment experience.[30]

Jacob 4:11 presents the idea that one can obtain “a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ,” the same power that makes possible the judgment experience described in Jacob 6:9. Judgment is not mentioned specifically in Jacob 4:11, but it is alluded to: those who are reconciled to God may “be presented as the firstfruits of Christ,” implying a positive judgment and therefore a positive resurrection. This idea of a potential positive judgment is also alluded to in the conclusion of the essay, in the description of the bar of God as “pleasing.”[31] Thus the instruction implied in Jacob’s farewell is that, thanks to Christ, one has a choice between resurrections.

In this manner Jacob concludes his apology. It began with his establishing the centrality of Christ in his worship and the ways in which Christ was infused all aspects of that worship, including the roles of revelation and prophecy. It includes a critique of those who attack this worship, using the allegory in Jacob 5 both to represent those who rejected the “words of plainness” and to model those who accepted them. The essay concludes with Jacob engaging in prophecy, reconfirming his worship community’s relationship with the prophets and opening up the potential for reconciliation with the critics. Finally, the essay ends with a series of exhortations related to the allegory and the earlier material of Jacob 4, again centering on the choice of receiving a positive resurrection and therefore a positive judgment. Jacob’s promise to see his audience before the bar of God allows space for reconciliation and reminds his audience of the supernal revelations that Christ makes possible regarding their own salvation.

As written, the apologia is an excellent summation of Jacob’s teachings across the small plates. It also reflects the instruction given to Jacob by Nephi₁ as to what should be on the small plates. That fact that it was originally written rather than spoken also suggests that Jacob may have meant for this essay to finish out his writing. Indeed, the conclusionary scene of Jacob and the audience before the bar of God and the final term “amen” suggests strongly that Jacob was not only finishing his essay, but that he was finishing his book. Yet the book does not end here. Instead, Jacob later adds chapter 7, providing another conclusion.

Chapter 7: The Addendum

Though Jacob ends his book with chapter 7, there are aspects of the chapter that suggest it was not originally intended to be the conclusion. First, Jacob 7:1 explains that the events described therein presumably took place years after Jacob wrote his apologia. It is possible, of course, that Jacob wrote all of his text near the end of his stewardship, but the nature of the apologia’s conclusion followed immediately by the mention of passing years suggests otherwise.

Perhaps more significant is the difference in literary form between the material of Jacob 1–6 and Jacob 7. As noted above, Jacob 1–6 appears to hew closely to the explicit instruction given to Jacob by Nephi₁ as to what the record should contain: sacred preaching, revelation, and prophesying, with at most a light touch regarding history. Jacob 2–6 attests to Jacob’s adherence to those instructions, with 2–3 being a sermon to the Nephites and 4–6 being his apologia for their specific Christ-centered worship. Jacob 7, however, is a historical interlude that includes no real set of teachings, revelations, or prophecies. As such, it would appear to lie outside of the scope of Nephi₁’s instructions.

Yet even as it does not fit in terms of literary form, the historical event described is a confrontation between Jacob and Sherem. Sherem condemns the “doctrine of Christ,” the exact same principles outlined in Jacob’s apologia:

I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ. And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses . . . ; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence. And now behold, I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is blasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot tell of things to come. (Jacob 7:6–7)

Even a cursory perusal of the condemnation reveals the explicit alternative worship model implied throughout the apologia. It is clear that Jacob’s belief in Christ, and the way in which that belief affected adherence to the law of Moses, was considered a perversion by some. Similarly, according to Sherem and his symphathizers, the principles of prophecy and revelation concerning Christ led to blasphemy. Thus Sherem’s condemnation is the embodiment of the alternate biblical worship system Jacob had been implicitly engaging with in his essay.

The rest of the chapter describes the confrontation that follows, which will result in Sherem’s collapse and rejuvenation; and Sherem’s ultimate death. As we shall see, even though the event itself is not a sermon, it is an experience that ends up justifying and validating the Christ-centered worship which is central to the rest of the book, allowing it to fit the parameters of the text outlined in Jacob 1.[32]

Sherem and the Gospel

The narrative begins with an introduction to Sherem. Jacob is silent as to Sherem’s locale or background; instead, focus is placed on Sherem being “learned,” which in context suggests excellence in oration and rhetoric. Stating explicitly that Sherem had “a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech” (v. 4), Jacob emphasizes Sherem’s persuasiveness.[33]

The confrontation between Sherem and Jacob begins with Jacob noting that his own personal witness is unshakeable, established as it is in direct interaction with the divine world: “[Sherem] had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they had ministered unto me. And also, I had heard the voice of the Lord speaking unto me in very word, from time to time; wherefore, I could not be shaken” (v. 5). The ministering of angels is not explicitly discussed in the apologia, but this type of interaction is implied by Jacob’s words, such as his exhortation for the people to receive a “good hope of glory” while in the flesh and his promise of personal revelation for the righteous. As we shall see, it is this type of interaction, implied in the apologia and now explicitly referenced in the addendum, that appears to be the great promise of Christ-centered worship.

Following Sherem’s accusations in verse 7, Jacob described himself as confounding Sherem “in all his words” (v. 8). Though the term confound is often thought of as meaning “to make confused,” nothing in the exchange between Sherem and Jacob suggests that Sherem is confused or is made confused. Instead, the word here appears to mean “to destroy, to overthrow,”[34] with the sense that Sherem’s ideology is being discredited. Significantly, this is not accomplished by any argument that Jacob himself makes but instead by Sherem’s own experience with the divine world. The exchange begins with Jacob asking Sherem if he denies that Christ will come. Sherem retorts that “if there should be a Christ, I would not deny him; but I know that there is no Christ, neither has been, nor ever will be,” an answer that is in line with his rejection of revelation (v. 9). Jacob then asks if Sherem believes the scriptures. With Sherem’s affirmative, Jacob continues: “Then ye do not understand them; for they truly testify of Christ” (v. 11). The prophet then adds, “And this is not all—it has been made manifest unto me, for I have heard and seen; and it has also been made manifest unto me by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, I know if there should be no atonement made all mankind must be lost” (v. 12).

Jacob’s personal experiences with the divine are not explicitly described in his record, suggesting that he did not believe that a description of them qualified as preaching, revelation, or prophecy to be added. Yet their inclusion in the addendum demonstrates their significance to establish Jacob’s authority. Moreover, the nature of the experiences is alluded to in his apologia, in his recommendation to be reconciled with God and attain a perfect knowledge. While Jacob may not have mentioned these experiences, Nephi₁ does in his own record. The first instance is in 2 Nephi 2, with Lehi declaring, “And now, Jacob . . . I know that thou art redeemed, . . . for thou hast beheld that in the fulness of time [the Redeemer] cometh to bring salvation unto men. And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory” (vv. 1, 3–4). Nephi₁ himself uses Jacob’s experience as another witness, next to Isaiah, of the reality of Christ: “And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him” (2 Nephi 11:3). Though Jacob never wrote about his visions, he does allude to hearing the voice of God in Jacob 2–3: “I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word which I shall give thee to this people” (Jacob 2:11).[35] Whether this is an explicit voice from God or whether it represents impressions Jacob received is unclear. Either way, coupled with Lehi₁’s and Nephi₁’s admissions, it is apparent that Jacob has had his own personal experience regarding Deity.

Yet in Jacob 7 we see that Jacob rests his understanding not just on what he has heard and seen but also on the manifestation of the Holy Ghost. This too he discusses in his apologia, promising that the Holy Ghost manifests plainly and teaches truth. Sherem’s response to this particular witness is intriguing: “Show me a sign by this power of the Holy Ghost, in the which ye know so much” (v. 13). It seems that Sherem sought to mock or disparage Jacob’s claim.

What is unclear, however, is what exactly Sherem thought of the Holy Ghost itself. It is possible that the Spirit played no discernable role in the alternate worship system he represented. Indeed, Sherem’s rejection of revelation and prophecy would lend itself to this understanding. Moreover, Sherem appears to ridicule Jacob’s claim to authority based on his witness of the Holy Ghost, the language suggesting that Sherem was disdainful of the type of experience ascribed to the power of the Holy Ghost, described in the apologia, and presumably taught by Jacob. Thus Sherem sought to trivialize the authoritative basis of Jacob’s worship community.

Though no descriptor words are provided as to how Jacob gave his response, the response itself is clear. Replying to Sherem’s mocking treatment of the powerful, supernal experience made possible by Christ, Jacob makes it clear that while he himself will not be giving any sign, if God deigns to “smite” Sherem, then this, the smiting itself, will be the sign. Turning over all consequences moving forward to God, Jacob concludes by saying, “And thy will, O Lord, be done.”[36] Immediately afterward, Sherem collapses and loses consciousness. According to Jacob, he remains in this state for several days. When he finally comes to, Sherem asks that all the people be gathered for his final words the next day. Jacob records that the next morning, Sherem recants what he had taught. Jacob writes that Sherem also “confessed the Christ, and the power of the Holy Ghost, and the ministering of angels. And he spake plainly unto them, that he had been deceived by the power of the devil. And he spake of hell, and of eternity, and of eternal punishment” (vv. 17–18). Sherem concludes by confessing his fear that he had committed an unpardonable sin because he had lied to God in denying Christ while saying he believed the scriptures. Now, on his deathbed, his final confession is that the scriptures, and therefore the prophets within them, “truly testify of [Christ]” (v. 19). Thereafter, Sherem dies (v. 20); those gathered “[are] astonished exceedingly” (v. 21); and the “love of God [is] restored again among the people; and they [search] the scriptures” (v. 23).

While Jacob never explicitly alludes to his apologia in Jacob 7, Sherem’s confession certainly appears to function as a legitimization of it. His admission to the power of the Holy Ghost, his declaration that the scriptures testify of Christ, his confession of Christ, and his presentation of these things done “plainly” (repeated twice) all suggest that Sherem’s confession is meant to be understood as a vindication of Jacob’s worship system. The confounding of Sherem resulted in the utter destruction of Sherem-as-provocateur and the emergence of a guilty, frightened Sherem—one who appears to model the wicked who would stand before God and confess their state.

Yet it isn’t just the verbal confession that validates the apologia. The seeming manner by which Sherem received his new understanding may also have substantiated Jacob’s revelatory and experiential claims. Though Sherem never explains how exactly he came to his new conclusions, his newly found witness to “the power of the Holy Ghost, and the ministering of angels” (Jacob 7:17) suggests that both played important roles in his conversion, just as they had for Jacob. Sherem’s discussion of eternity hints at divine teaching, while his attestation that the scriptures all testify of Christ reflects either his recollection of Jacob’s teachings or of some teaching he experienced while incapacitated. Either way, the experience itself reflects the type of direct divine interaction Jacob promised in the apologia and described for himself in the addendum. Ironically, the very authority that Sherem once mocked, that of the Holy Ghost, becomes the authority of which he testifies. Sherem’s confession is itself an apologia. He too became like one of the prophets, having experienced exactly the sort of plain truth and personal revelation that Jacob had declared all could experience thanks to Christ.

Conclusion

Jacob’s apology is one of the great discourses recorded in the Book of Mormon. His defense of Christ-centered worship against others critical of this worship form uses terminology and imagery that would be used by later writers in their own material. The complexity and interweaving of concepts and subjects within those chapters attests to the care and effort Jacob put into its construction. Similarly, Jacob’s retelling of his confrontation with Sherem may have provided a template to subsequent confrontations in Nephite history. A cursory study of Alma₂’s clashes with both Nehor and Korihor may indicate Jacob’s behavior as a model for Alma₂’s own.

Yet the significance of both passages—the apology and the addendum—is not so much in the way they respond to anti-Christian sentiment, but in their descriptions of the experience at the heart of true Christian worship. Jacob speaks of the great condescensions of God and the opportunity to enter into his rest. The invitation to obtain a “firstfruit” resurrection, having already received a “good hope of glory” while in the flesh and recognizing that the Atonement of Christ makes possible a “perfect knowledge,” is one that continues to define the gospel and doctrine of Christ. Surprisingly, Sherem’s conversion, in which he has that exact experience of receiving a “perfect knowledge,” may be seen as a hopeful example. If even Sherem could obtain this divine experience, then presumably anyone can. In that light, the Jacob 7 addendum becomes a necessary element to understanding this supernal promise and acts as the true conclusion to his powerful essay.

Notes

[1] The idea that chapter 7 was not originally planned as part of Jacob’s book was suggested by Sidney B. Sperry, who believed that the conclusion of chapter 6 represented the original ending: “It is very probable that Jacob meant to end his book at this point [chapter 6.] . . . However, later events caused him to add the historical matter now found in the last chapter of his record.” Sperry, Book of Mormon Compendium (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 266. Brant A. Gardner argues instead that chapter 6’s benediction notes the termination of Jacob’s formal ministerial service as chief priest rather than the original conclusion of his book, with the book’s small introduction, which includes mention of Jacob’s encounter with Sherem; evidence of its inclusion with the original version of Jacob; see Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 2: Second Nephi through Jacob (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 562–63.

[2] Gardner believes that both designations refer to Christ, his reasoning being that elsewhere in the Book of Mormon Christ is given both titles of Father and Son. See Second Witness, 2:512; and “Excursus: The Nephite Understanding of God,” in Second Witness, vol. 1: First Nephi, 214–22. Yet even though the designations Father and Son are both used to describe a single entity, Christ, the Book of Mormon authors did recognize two distinct beings in God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, and they used these designations to refer to the individual deities as well. Thus, not all instances of God as “Father” are to be understood as indicating Christ in his role as Father. As this study will suggest, the authors believe Jacob’s declaration concerning his congregation’s worship of God the Father is the result of accusations that the Nephites are not in fact worshipping “God.”

[3] The designation of God as “Father” in the Book of Mormon is often associated with its relationship to the designation of “Son.” Even if one accepts Gardner’s reading that in Jacob 4 both titles refer to Christ, they still originally imply two beings: a father and a son. But if one did not believe in Christ, as was the case with Sherem, then they would not believe that Christ is the Son. Thus the designation of God as Father would not be acceptable to Sherem (hence Sherem’s reference to God as “God” instead of “Father”). He did not worship the Father (because that would imply a Son), but God, who was distinct and alone.

[4] The role of the Mosaic law in Nephite worship is a subject that Book of Mormon scholarship continues to explore. It is clear that adherence to the law of Moses was expected, but that an end to its performance was understood to take place at some time (see 2 Nephi 25:24–25; Mosiah 13:27–29). As for the rituals performed, they do not appear to be salvific in the same way we today think of rituals such as baptism. A modern comparison may be Latter-day Saint performance of the sacrament. The sacrament does not appear as a salvific ordinance in that it is necessary for attaining exaltation, like baptism or sealing of marriage, but it does allow one to become righteous or maintain a righteous state. See Robert L. Millet, “Sacramental Living: Reflections on Latter-day Saint Ritual,” in By Our Rites of Worship: Latter-day Saint Views on Ritual in Scripture, History, and Practice, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 401–17, esp. 408–9.

[5] It is perhaps worth noting that when Nephi₁ discusses baptism in 2 Nephi 31, he does not frame it terms of salvation, but in showing willingness to follow God—very similar to what we see in Jacob’s argument here.

[6] The language used suggests that the community as a whole is able to read, but it is unclear how literate Nephite society was, or how accessible written material was to any given member of that society. What does seem clear from Jacob 4:6 is that some method of communal scripture study was a part of Jacob’s worship community. For a good overview of this issue, see Gardner, “Literacy and Orality in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter 9 (2014), 29–85.

[7] Andrew Skinner references this in a discourse about King Benjamin’s words in Mosiah 3: “Here King Benjamin is restating, in his own words, the uniquely Latter-day Saint doctrine of the condenscension of God, which derives directly from the Book of Mormon. This doctrine, revealed to King Benjamin by an angel (see Mosiah 3:2), was revealed many hundreds of years earlier, also by an angel, to Nephi, son of Lehi.” Skinner, “Jesus Christ as Father in the Book of Mormon,” in The Fulness of the Gospel: Foundational Teachings from the Book of Mormon, ed. Camille Fronk Olson, Brian M. Hauglid, Patty Smith, and Thomas A. Wayment (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 136.

[8] Elder Bruce R. McConkie understood this to be a representation of the condescension of God the Father: “Thus the condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman.” See McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 155.

[9] Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “condescension,” https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/condescension.

[10] The feminine imagery associated with condescension generally and Mary’s condescension specifically is explored through an ancient Near Eastern perspective in Daniel C. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000): 16–25, 80–81.

[11] “When we attempt to visualize early Nephite communities, it is tempting to depict them as a tight community of believers. Jacob’s two recorded sermons do not support such a picture.” Gardner, Second Witness, 2:559.

[12] Again, Gardner appears to understand this exhortation to reference coming to know Christ through these two designations, rather than Christ leading one to another distinct being, the Father; see Second Witness, 2:516.

[13] “That is, ‘And ye may obtain a glorious resurrection, a resurrection entitling you to exaltation in the celestial kingdom.’ The ancient Saints faithfully endured trial and tribulation ‘that they might obtain a better resurrection,’ or, as Joseph Smith rendered it, ‘the first resurrection’ (JST, Hebrews 11:35), meaning the celestial resurrection.” Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 41.

[14] “It would appear that Jacob’s phrase ‘first-fruits of Christ’ is a description of those souls who have been consecrated and dedicated to his service and who thereby qualify for the highest resurrection and a place in the celestial world.” McConkie and Millet, Doctrinal Commentary, 2:42.

[15] This appears to reflect the definition of hope outlined by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

That kind of redeeming faith, Mormon taught, leads to hope, a special, theological kind of hope. The word is often used to express the most general of aspirations—wishes, if you will. But as used in the Book of Mormon it is very specific and flows naturally from one’s faith in Christ. . . . What is the nature of this hope? It is certainly much more than wishful thinking. It is to have “hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise [Moroni 7:41]. . . . Faith in Christ and hope in his promises of resurrected, eternal life can come only to the meek and lowly of heart.

Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 334–35. Mary Catherine Thomas provides further insight on the nature of hope, saying that it is “A gift of the Spirit (Moro. 8:26), through faith in the redeeming power of Christ, by which one steadfastly desires and anticipates being raised to life eternal (Moro. 7:41).” Thomas, “Hope,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 335.

[16] Prophecy appears to refer to knowledge concerning future things, though not necessarily a prediction of future events. Thus prophecy could include a wide range of descriptions, exhortations, etc., concerning potential future events, such as one being resurrected, having one’s calling and election made sure, or one being admonished to begin exercising faith.

[17] Victor L. Ludlow, “Jew(s),” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, 463–64.

[18] This difficult verse in terms of understanding has been approached historically from a variety of perspectives. Kerry Muhlestein notes that some have suggested a translation of “declare their hearts fat, declare their ears heavy.” Muhlestein, Learning to Love Isaiah: A Guide and Commentary (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2021), 55. This reading is possibly influenced by Matthew 13, which cites Isaiah 6 as part of Christ’s answer as to why he spoke in parables: “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them” (vv. 13–15). This change appears to reflect textual differences between the Masoretic text (used in the KJV Isaiah) and the Septuagint (used in Matthew). The difference between the two readings is that the KJV Masoretic text version suggests that Isaiah is to be obtuse in his language, while the Septuagint Matthean version suggests that the people are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, the text is referring to lack of understanding.

[19] It is worth noting that three primary Hebrew roots are translated as “rest.” God’s rest in the creation narrative is šabat. This term is used throughout Exodus and Leviticus to refer to a time of rest. The term used in Exodus 33:14 is nûaḥ, which may refer to the state of being at rest rather than a time period. This is the root used when describing the rest that God gives (see for instance Deuteronomy 3:20; Joshua 21:44; 2 Samuel 7:1). The final root is šaqa, which is used to describe the actual cessation of activity. Thus, while the land is given a šabat (“rest period”), during which time it is šaqaṭ (“resting”; see Joshua 11:23; Judges 3:11, 30; Ruth 3:18).

[20] Doctrine and Covenants 84 contains perhaps the most explicit Latter-day Saint text alluding to the events in Exodus 19 and 20. Received in 1832, the revelation addresses the nature of the priesthood, noting that the “greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God” (v. 19). The next verse suggests that it is the priesthood ordinances, or physical acts, by which this knowledge can be acquired (see v. 20). With both the ordinances and priesthood authority, one can “see the face of God . . . and live” (v. 22). Having established this principle, God then declares, “Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory” (vv. 23–24). While this passage contains similar terminology to phrases found in Psalm 95 (“harden not your heart,” “his wrath,” “not enter into his rest”), the event referred to here—the Israelites’ refusal to enter into God’s presence—is clearly the Exodus 19–20 narrative.

[21] For more on the significance of the “provocation,” see Daniel L. Belnap and Andrew C. Skinner, “The Promise and the Provocation: The Sinai Narrative,” in From Creation to Sinai: The Old Testament through the Lens of the Restoration, ed. Daniel L. Belnap and Aaron P. Schade (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 483–526.

[22] “Jacob faithfully follows that model, presenting painfully little history, but significant amounts of revelations and sermons.” Gardner, Second Witness, 2:469.

[23] The imagery of the allegory is unique, since Christ in biblical text is often seen as the “groom” and his Church as the “bride.” The symbolism displayed in the account of the olive tree enhances the dynamic of Christ’s relationship to his Church and people. Elder Holland points out, “That single, riveting scene does more to teach the true nature of God than any theological treatise could ever convey. It also helps us understand much more emphatically that vivid moment in the Book of Mormon allegory of the olive tree, when after digging and dunging, watering and weeding, trimming, pruning, transplanting, and grafting, the great Lord of the vineyard throws down his spade and his pruning shears and weeps, crying out to any who would listen, ‘What could I have done more for my vineyard?’” Holland, “The Grandeur of God,” Ensign or Liahona, November 2003, 72.

[24] “Even as the Lord of the vineyard and his workers strive to bolster, prune, purify, and otherwise make productive their trees in what amounts to a one-chapter historical sketch of the scattering and gathering of Israel, the deeper meaning of the Atonement undergirds and overarches their labors.” Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 165.

[25] This is, of course, only one interpretation of the allegory; there are others that are equally valid. However, this interpretation does try to relate the allegory to Jacob’s earlier material. “Jacob 5 resists a single, systematic reading as it seeks to make atonement intelligible in multiple contexts. The multivalence of Jacob 5 affords numerous possible readings. . . . Multiple themes introduced elsewhere in the book of Jacob surface in the context of this allegory.” Deidre Nicole Green, Jacob: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020), 100–1.

[26] In Exodus 15:16, for instance, Israel is described as having been “purchased” or acquired by God, with God then described as planting Israel in the promised land and establishing his house there. Deuteronomy 32:6 uses the term in a more familial setting than paralleling this with God’s creative work: “Is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?” Of course, a father isn’t often thought of in terms of “buying” his children, but rather of having stewardship and responsibility over them. This familial usage appears to be the meaning of Eve’s designation of her son Cain, which is based on the same Hebrew root: “And Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, I have acquired [or bought/purchased/have responsibility for] a male child from Yahweh” (Genesis 4:1; author’s translation).

[27] If Jacob’s “cleaving” clause is an allusion to the allegory, then the reader has yet another interpretive model for the allegory, with Christ as the trunk or body of the tree and all of Israel communities represented as the branches, the covenant conceivably representing the covenant relationship between both. Deidre Nicole Green develops the theological concept of God’s cleaving acts in her study. See Green, Jacob, 97–98.

[28] In Mosiah 1:14, King Benjamin speaks of God’s extended arm in terms of protection against marauding Lamanites: “For I say unto you, that if he had not extended his arm in the preservation of our fathers they must have fallen into the hands of the Lamanites, and become victims to their hatred.” Abinadi uses the same imagery as part of the conclusion to his discourse in Mosiah 16: “Having gone according to their own carnal wills and desires; having never called upon the Lord while the arms of mercy were extended towards them; for the arms of mercy were extended towards them, and they would not” (v. 12). Alluding to the deliverance of the Nephite community in the land of Nephi under the leadership of Limhi, Mosiah₂ describes God’s actions thusly: “He did deliver them because they did humble themselves before him; and because they cried mightily unto him he did deliver them out of bondage; and thus doth the Lord work with his power in all cases among the children of men, extending the arm of mercy towards them that put their trust in him” (Mosiah 29:20). The writer of Alma 19 uses the imagery to sum up the ministerial work of Ammon: “And thus the work of the Lord did commence among the Lamanites; thus the Lord did begin to pour out his Spirit upon them; and we see that his arm is extended to all people who will repent and believe on his name” (v. 36). Alma₂ also uses this image to describe God’s actions regarding him: “I remember what the Lord has done for me, yea, even that he hath heard my prayer; yea, then do I remember his merciful arm which he extended towards me” (Alma 29:10).

[29] Abinadi notes that Christ made possible a redemption that includes a resurrection:

Now if Christ had not come into the world, . . . there could have been no redemption. And if Christ had not risen from the dead, . . . there could have been no resurrection. But there is a resurrection, . . . and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ. He is the light and the life of the world; yea, a light that is endless, . . . yea, and also a life which is endless, that there can be no more death. Even this mortal shall put on immortality, . . . and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God. (Mosiah 16:6–10)

The similarities in terminology, not just in concept, may suggest that Abinadi borrowed (or was at least aware of) Jacob’s essay.

[30] Jacob’s teachings concerning resurrection and judgment parallel Alma₂’s later discussion with his son Corianton in Alma 40–41. Like Jacob, Alma₂ establishes that resurrection is a restoration of both one’s body and one’s moral/ethical being. The moral/ethical restoration, as opposed to the physical resurrection, is determined by one’s works and one’s desires (see Alma 41:4–6). By being “restored,” one would either “stand or fall; for behold, they are their own judges” (vv. 4, 7). Good works (including repentance), alongside “desires of happiness, . . . desires of good, . . . [and] desir[es of] righteousness” will bring about redemption (vv. 5–6).

[31] Royal Skousen has suggested that the description of the bar of God as pleasing here and in Moroni 10 should be amended to “pleading.” See Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part Two: 2 Nephi 11–Mosiah 16 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2005), 1047–52. However, this reading does not take into account Jacob’s recognition of resurrections and therefore of a positive judgment, as noted in this study.

[32] This approach to the confrontation differs from the psychoanalytic approach recently presented in Christ and Antichrist: Reading Jacob 7, ed. Adam S. Miller and Joseph M. Spencer (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2017), which suggests that Jacob 7 presents a Jacob who is scarred by the opposition of his older brothers and who therefore lends himself to aggressive, defensive behavior, misconstruing the perhaps sincere efforts of reconciliation and understanding presented by Sherem. Such a reading requires one to question the narrative voice of Jacob, being, as it is, colored by his own subjective experience. The approach of this paper is that Jacob’s recollection of the event is generally historically accurate, and that Sherem is attempting to accuse Jacob personally and call to repentance the Church generally.

[33] It is possible the emphasis on Sherem’s oration abilities, highlighting his communication skills, sets up an implicit contrast between a true prophet who speaks “words of plainness” and a false one, who uses flattery. In light of this, it is worth noting that John W. Welch believes that implicit behind Sherem’s accusations is the greater accusation of Jacob as a false prophet. See Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 119–20.

[34] Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “confound,” https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/38962. See also Welch, Legal Cases, 121.

[35] The mention of plainness again suggests Jacob’s ongoing theme that divine revelatory experience brings about plainness in prophecy and understanding.

[36] See Duane Boyce, “Jacob Did Not Make a False Prediction,” Interpreter 33 (2019), 161–74, esp. 169.