“I have dreamed a dream,” Lehi announces to his family, “or, in other words, I have seen a vision” (1 Nephi 8:2). In this manner the prophet, poet, and patriarch introduces his vision of the tree and its miraculous fruit, “desirable above all other fruit” (v. 12), as recorded by his son Nephi. Though comprising but one chapter early in the Book of Mormon, Lehi’s dream is one of the most important chapters in the entire book, both theologically and structurally. In terms of the former claim, as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland writes, “at the very outset of the Book of Mormon, in its first fully developed allegory, Christ is portrayed as the source of eternal life and joy, the living evidence of divine love, and the means whereby God will fulfill his covenant with the house of Israel and indeed the entire family of man, returning them to all their eternal promises.”[1] And, regarding the latter, literary critic Bruce W. Jorgensen writes in his essay about Lehi’s dream, “we find that the key to understanding [the Book of Mormon’s] typological or figural unity is . . . Lehi’s dream of the Tree of Life.”[2] As is often the case, however, even with a symbol as important as the tree in Lehi’s dream, a close analysis of the text will not only yield a better understanding of the symbol but may also cast aside long-held assumptions.

Readers first encounter what many call the “tree of life” in the Book of Mormon in Nephi’s written account of Lehi’s dream, or vision, in 1 Nephi 8. However, while the chapter heading in the current Latter-day Saint edition of the Book of Mormon begins with “Lehi sees a vision of the tree of life,” and it is common among members and writers in the Church to refer to the tree in the dream as the “tree of life,” nowhere in this account does Lehi refer to the tree in that manner. In fact, Lehi never identifies the tree with a title or label; he only calls it “a tree” when he first sees it (1 Nephi 8:10) and “the tree” each time afterward (vv. 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25). One might wish to conjecture that “Lehi could not have failed to see the symbolic confluence of his tree and fruit with the tree of life in the Garden of Eden”;[3] however, finding evidence in 1 Nephi 8 that Lehi did in fact see such a connection with the tree in his dream and the tree in the Garden of Eden is a difficult enterprise at best. Likewise, Nephi refers to it as “the tree,” and not as “the tree of life,” in that same account (v. 30).

In this essay, I will first briefly address how we might be justified in viewing the tree in Lehi’s dream as the tree of life. I will then present the argument that the tree in Lehi’s dream should best be viewed not in terms of the portrayal of the tree of life in Genesis but rather in light of the depiction of the tree of life in Revelation 22. By shifting the framework of our understanding of Lehi’s tree from Genesis to Revelation, we can greatly broaden our appreciation for the symbolism of the tree and the truly Christ-centered nature of his vision.

Lehi’s Tree in Nephi’s Vision

When the Spirit asks Nephi what he desires, he replies, “I desire to behold the things which my father saw” (1 Nephi 11:3). What follows is Nephi’s own vision—a vision that appears to be much more expansive than his father’s. While scholars may disagree as to precisely how Lehi’s dream and Nephi’s vision may compare, [4] there are a number of key points in the former for which we can turn to the latter for aid in interpretation. For example, Nephi writes that the meaning of the tree that his father saw is that “it is the love of God” (v. 22) and that the rod of iron in his father’s vision “led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God” (v. 25; emphasis added). It is significant that the concept of the “love of God” connects the tree that his father saw to the tree finally being identified as the “tree of life.” This is the first time in the Book of Mormon the term “tree of life” is used. While it may at first glance appear confusing that Nephi is apparently equating the fountain of living waters and the tree of life, since both elements of the vision are “a representation of the love of God,” it makes sense symbolically that the two can be spoken of as being equivalent.

From the beginning of Nephi’s vision, his divine guides are focused on conveying a message to him about the tree. When he tells the Spirit of the Lord that he desires to see what his father saw, the Spirit replies with a statement that does not appear to necessarily follow the flow of the discussion: “Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?” (1 Nephi 11:4). Once Nephi testifies that he believes all the words of his father, the Spirit replies, “Blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God” (v. 6). This statement can be interpreted to mean that there is a direct relationship between the tree that Lehi saw and the Son of God. Perhaps such a relationship signifies that believing Lehi saw the tree is the same as having faith in Christ.

Further strengthening the connection between the tree from the prophet’s dream and the Lord, the Spirit continues by giving Nephi a “sign.” He instructs Nephi that he will see the tree that bore the fruit that his father tasted in his dream and will “behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall [he] witness; and after [he has] witnessed him [he] shall bear record that it is the Son of God” (v. 7). The tree is a sign for Nephi that the man he will soon see is the Son of God, the divine being whose love is symbolized by that very same tree.

Though Lehi does not call the tree in his vision the “tree of life,” it is clear from Nephi’s vision that we are justified in understanding the tree to indeed be a symbol of that tree. Additionally, we learn that the tree in Lehi’s dream symbolizes the love of God. Naturally, calling the tree in Lehi’s dream “the tree of life” automatically creates a significant connection to the tree in Genesis; that point is not in dispute. However, we have yet to see any textual evidence that connects the tree in the prophet’s dream to how the tree of life is depicted in the story found in Genesis.

The Genesis and 1 Nephi 8 Portrayals Compared

Though the tree in Lehi’s dream may well be the tree of life, it does not necessarily follow that it best aligns with the tree of life as portrayed in the book of Genesis. Writers have made the argument, however, that such is the case. For example, Corbin Volluz observes that Nephi writes of how Lehi “saw that the justice of God did also divide the wicked from the righteous” (1 Nephi 15:30). Volluz connects this statement, by means of Alma’s teachings (see Alma 12:21; 42:2–3), to the Lord’s placing of cherubim and a flaming sword at the entrance of the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve fell.[5] “Thus it seems possible that when Lehi saw the tree of life in his dream, he was in reality seeing a representation of that same tree which existed in the midst of the Garden of Eden, and which continues to exist for the future enjoyment of the faithful in the paradise of God (Revelation 2:7).”[6] David Calabro takes Volluz’s argument much further, concluding that “the setting of Lehi’s dream, as described in 1 Nephi 8 and expanded in 1 Nephi 11–14, is best understood as the Garden of Eden. In terms of its fundamental features, this setting is basically the same as the biblical Eden. However, in many matters of detail, it differs from the way Eden is described in Genesis.”[7]

As Grant Hardy reminds us regarding these details, “Lehi’s tree is not in a garden, there is no angel guarding it, and it does not confer eternal life (according to 1 Ne. 8:25–28, it is possible to eat of its fruit and then fall away).”[8] Even more succinctly, Brant Gardner writes that Lehi’s “vision does not repeat Edenic imagery.”[9] To a certain extent, the determination of whether one accepts the tree in Lehi’s dream as corresponding to the representation of the tree of life in Genesis depends on how willing one is to accept the discrepancies among those details.

The nature of the accounts

One of the most fundamental differences between the tree in Lehi’s dream and that in Genesis can be found in the nature of the accounts. The Genesis tree of life may be understood as being portrayed as an actual tree that existed in history, in the time and space of reality. While some may argue that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is meant to be allegorical, the story may still be read as being presented in the text as a factual account of an actual historical event. On the other hand, the tree in Lehi’s dream is part of an experience that Lehi both called a dream and equated with a vision (see 1 Nephi 8:2); it is not intended to be read as an account of an actual experience Lehi had with a real tree in the real world. Lehi’s dream is part of what can be termed visionary literature,[10] a highly symbolic genre, and as such can properly be analyzed within the framework of that genre.[11]

The fact that visionary literature is symbolic does not mean it cannot contain elements that correspond with actual events that have occurred or will occur. As Leland Ryken notes, “This is not to say that the things described in visionary literature did not happen in past history or will not happen in future history. But it does mean that the things as pictured by the writer at the time of writing exist in the imagination, not in empirical reality.”[12] For example, one may be justified in reading Lehi’s dream as being centered on his family. As Joseph Spencer writes, “The whole purpose of the dream seems to be to reflect on the long-term implications of what’s taking shape within Lehi’s family: the budding rebellion of his two oldest sons. In fact, right at the outset of the dream account, Lehi says he’s thinking about the long term. He says that the dream is about his sons ‘and also many of their seed’ ([1 Nephi] 8:3).”[13] Even though Lehi says that because of what he has seen, he has reason to rejoice for Nephi and Sam and to fear because of Laman and Lemuel (see 1 Nephi 8:3–4), thus relating his vision to reality, his family did not have the actual experience of seeing such a tree bearing miraculous fruit with a rod of iron leading to it. Additionally, while an interpretation of the dream that corresponds to actual historical events involving those four sons may be accurate, considering the nature of visionary literature, all that the dream might mean would not need to be limited to that interpretation.

The settings

It is instructive to compare the settings of the two accounts of the trees. Lehi’s visionary dream, for example, does not begin with the tree but with a “dark and dreary wilderness” (1 Nephi 8:4). After he travels for many hours in darkness, then prays for mercy, he beholds a “large and spacious field. And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy” (vv. 9–10). This is the first time he sees the tree, and it is significant that he immediately mentions the fruit along with the tree. He also speaks of how the fruit is “desirable to make one happy,” instantly identifying the fruit by the righteous desire created within him. Lehi also notes that he “beheld a river of water” that was near the tree and at the head of which his family stood (vv. 13–14). Water imagery will appear later in the vision in a negative manner when some who do not appear to even desire to partake of the tree are “drowned in the depths of the fountain” (v. 32). As mentioned above, Lehi does not discuss the tree as a “tree of life” anywhere in his account of his dream, nor does he ascribe to the tree any of the characteristics of the tree of life in Genesis, other than the fact that it bears fruit—a characteristic that many trees share. Since the tree is introduced as being seen from the vantage point of a large and spacious field, and no other setting for the tree is described, most likely the tree is also in that field.

In contrast to the tree in the spacious field, in Genesis we find the tree of life “in the midst of the garden” (Genesis 2:9), specifically the Garden of Eden. This difference in location of each tree is not inconsequential. A field that is described as large and spacious, with no indication of cultivation, can be understood as representing freedom and lack of restraint. By contrast, a garden is usually tame and cultivated, involving careful planning and maintenance.[14] In fact, some scholars have noted parallels between what the Lord instructs Adam to do when he places him in the Garden of Eden, “to dress it and to keep it” (v. 15), with “the same words normally used to describe the work of the priest in the temple.”[15] Hence, the biblical text presents the tree of life in an organized, orderly setting that may be read as pointing toward the temple, while the Book of Mormon offers a setting for the tree in Lehi’s dream that is much more free, wide-open, and organic, as liberating in form as the spirit of visionary revelation can be in both feeling and substance. A part of this garden setting in Genesis is the mention of the river that “went out of Eden to water the garden” and that divided into four rivers (v. 10). While the text names each of the four rivers, the rivers do not play a major role in the narrative other than their potential geographical importance.[16]

The trees and their fruits

Another difference between the two trees is the fact that the Genesis tree is one of a pair of trees, while the tree in Lehi’s dream is singular. The tree of life in the Garden of Eden is balanced, so to speak, with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve are free to partake of the former tree before the Fall; they are forbidden to partake of the fruit of the latter if they wish to avoid the penalty of death (see Genesis 2:16–17). In Lehi’s dream, though, there is only the one tree, bearing the white fruit, with no other tree mentioned. Of course, as a prophet, Lehi would be fully aware of the account in Genesis of the two trees in the Garden of Eden. In addition to that account, the brass plates, which Nephi took from Laban and which Lehi’s family carried with them on their journey to the Americas, included the “five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve” (1 Nephi 5:11). And Lehi specifically taught about the two trees in the Garden of Eden: “even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life” (2 Nephi 2:15). Lehi could have either identified the tree in his vision as the tree of life or, at least, compared it to that tree when he offered his account of his dream to his family. We have no record that he did so.

Partakers of the fruits

Interestingly, with the Lord instructing Adam, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” (Genesis 2:16), he and Eve may eat freely of the fruit of the tree of life, at least before the moment they partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Though the fruit of the tree of life grants them immortality, it appears to be treated like any other fruit from any other tree in the garden, besides that of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—it is as though the fruit is a source of nourishment or pleasure to be consumed at will. The fruit of the tree in Lehi’s dream, however, does not seem to be available to anyone at any time. Though there is no explicit direction in the text limiting anyone from partaking the fruit, likewise there is no general invitation parallel to Genesis 2:16 to those present that they may “freely eat.”

Lehi beholds the tree and its fruit, but only after praying to the Lord for his mercy. Since he realizes that the fruit is “desirable to make one happy” (1 Nephi 8:10) and experiences what he does after partaking of it, it is reasonable to read the account as portraying the act as inspired and approved by the Lord. Those who next partake of the fruit—Sariah, Sam, and Nephi—do so only after an invitation by Lehi, the family patriarch and Lord’s prophet. The only other people who partake of the tree’s fruit in Lehi’s dream are two groups: one group who “cling” to the rod of iron, partake of the fruit, and ultimately fall away (see vv. 24–28); and a later group who, “continually holding fast to the rod of iron,” make their way to the tree, fall down, partake of the fruit, and do not fall away (v. 30). Both groups use the rod of iron to take them to the tree and partake of the fruit. We learn from Nephi’s vision that the rod of iron represents the “word of God” (1 Nephi 11:25), meaning that those people had to follow the word of God to the tree in order to partake of the fruit. In summary, there is no instance in Lehi’s vision of people freely partaking of the fruit as though they were in a garden, walking up to an apple tree and plucking off an apple for nourishment. In every case, those who partake of the tree’s fruit are led to the tree by the “the word of God” in one form or another.

After the Fall, in order to prevent Adam and Eve from partaking of the fruit of the tree of life, the Lord cast them out of the garden and “placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” (Genesis 3:24). However, in Lehi’s vision, despite the fact that everyone in the dream is a fallen person, no one is barred from partaking of the fruit. Lehi partakes of the tree without hesitation (see 1 Nephi 8:12); he calls to Sariah, Sam, and Nephi “with a loud voice that they should come unto [him], and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit. And it came to pass that they did come unto [him] and partake of the fruit also” (vv. 15–16); Lehi desires Laman and Lemuel to partake of the fruit of the tree, but they will not (see vv. 17–18); and Lehi sees “numberless concourses of people,” some of whom partake of the tree, while others do not (see vv. 21–33). If the tree in Lehi’s vision were described in the same manner as the tree of life in Genesis, one might surmise that just as Adam and Eve could not partake of the tree after they had fallen, so would fallen people be prohibited from partaking of the tree in Lehi’s dream.

Purpose of the fruits

While both trees bear fruit, two of the most important differences between the Genesis tree and Lehi’s tree are the meaning and function of those fruits. In Genesis, the fruit of the tree of life provides immortality to those who partake (see 3:22). Of the fruit in his dream, however, Lehi explains only that it was “desirable to make one happy” (1 Nephi 8:10) and that, once he has eaten it, “it filled [his] soul with exceedingly great joy” (v. 12). Once again, we can gain a deeper understanding of the symbolism by turning to Nephi’s account of his vision:

And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul. (1 Nephi 11:20–23)

While we have already established that the tree is the love of God, this passage helps us realize another important meaning of the tree in Lehi’s dream. Because Nephi understands the meaning of the tree by seeing the Christ child as he is held by the Virgin Mary, one may be justified in interpreting this passage as signifying that the tree represents not only the love of God but the Savior himself. And while it may be tempting to wonder if these verses, with their important explication of meaning, might pertain only to the tree that Nephi saw in his vision, a tree that was only “like unto the tree which [his] father had seen” (1 Nephi 11:8; emphasis added), the angel specifically asks Nephi, “Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?” (v. 21).

This essential difference between the Genesis tree and Lehi’s tree—that the Genesis account has the tree provide immortality while the 1 Nephi narrative presents the tree as representing the love of God and the Savior—is not just theoretical. In Genesis, the Lord guarded the tree of life with cherubim and a flaming sword “lest [Adam and Eve] put forth [their hands], and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). Alternatively, if the tree of life in Genesis held the same purpose and meaning as the tree in Lehi’s vision, if partaking of it did not grant immortality but rather provided happiness and great joy, and if it represented the love of God and even Christ himself, it would seem there would be no danger in Adam and Eve’s partaking of its fruit in their fallen state. Or, perhaps, they could repent of their transgression and then partake of the tree of life. However, according to the account in Genesis, once Adam and Eve fell, they were cut off from the tree of life.

The 1 Nephi 8 and Revelation Portrayals Compared

While it is understandable that readers who come across the phrase “tree of life” naturally think of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, it is important to remember that the concept of a tree of life is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.[17] Most relevant to this discussion is John’s seeing the tree of life in his vision and writing of it in the book of Revelation.[18] In fact, Nephi’s companion vision to his father’s closes with his seeing John (see 1 Nephi 14:19–27), illustrating how closely related the three visions are. As we begin our comparative analysis of the tree in 1 Nephi and the tree in Revelation, it is helpful to remind ourselves that while the tree of life in Revelation may be referring back to the tree in Genesis, it is not the tree itself we are concerned with but how its representation aligns with that of the tree in Lehi’s dream.

The nature of the accounts

One of the most fundamental similarities the trees in Lehi’s dream and in the book of Revelation share is the fact that they both appear in visions. As noted above, the account in 1 Nephi 8 is Nephi’s written version of what Lehi told his family of his dream, which he also identified as a vision (see v. 2). The book of Revelation is largely an account of a revelation (more specifically a vision) that the Apostle John received from the Lord.[19] John writes that “[he] was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind [him] a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book” (Revelation 1:10–11). Because both accounts of the trees are of visions, they can be analyzed through the lens of visionary literature with its emphasis on symbolism, among other literary devices.[20]

The settings

In terms of the settings of the two visions, there are similarities and differences. As in Lehi’s vision, Adam and Eve are not present in John’s vision, nor is there a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Likewise, no cherubim connected with the tree of life are mentioned in Revelation. And, like Lehi’s vision, John’s does not share a garden setting with Genesis. The setting in John’s vision is the city of the New Jerusalem, described as being of “pure gold, like unto clear glass,” complete with a city wall built of “jasper” with foundations “garnished with all manner of precious stones” and twelve gates that were “twelve pearls” (Revelation 21:18, 19, 21). All this ornate imagery in the vision is purposefully symbolic: “the description of the New Jerusalem is a combined image of the adorned bride and a description of a utopian city”;[21] it is “the bride, personifying the community that follows the Lamb.”[22] There is also a natural component to the scene, however, with a “pure river of water of life, clear as crystal” (22:1), and “on either side of the river, was there the tree of life” (v. 2). However, “the water imagery also fits urban motifs, because an effective ruler would ensure that water was brought into a city.”[23]

This hybrid setting in Revelation for the tree of life is somewhat similar to the setting for the tree in Lehi’s dream. The tree is not in a garden similar to that of Genesis, but it is in a natural setting of a field with a river. However, the introduction of the rod of iron after Lehi and his family have had their chances to partake of the tree’s fruit (see 1 Nephi 8:19) brings into the vision an element foreign to the pastoral scene, one that would be more likely to be seen in a city.

The trees and their fruits

Paramount to both John’s and Lehi’s visions, at least in terms of this discussion, is the fact that each portrays a tree of life. The phraseology in Revelation can be confusing when it states, “On either side of the river, was there the tree of life (22:2). Some scholars interpret “tree” to be “a collective referring to numerous trees found along both banks of the river.”[24] Alternatively, I agree with Craig Koester’s view that understanding the verse to mean “a single tree of life as in Genesis” is the most likely interpretation “given the paradisiacal imagery in the context. Just as the river flows from beneath the throne of God and the Lamb, it flows under the tree of life, whose roots extend to both banks.”[25]

As we discussed above, the tree in Lehi’s vision can be interpreted to represent the love of God and even the Savior. The text of Revelation, by contrast, offers no direct evidence for interpreting its tree that way. Because that tree of life appears in a vison of the New Jerusalem, set in the future world of promise for those who righteously follow the Lord, we might understand the tree to be not only “an image of immortality and eternal life in heaven” but “the supreme image of future splendor and paradise regained.”[26] One might certainly argue that the tree in the New Jerusalem, because it can represent eternal life in heaven, can be connected to a representation of the Savior indirectly because he is the source of eternal life through his atonement.

Closely related to the trees as symbols is what their fruits might represent. While both trees bear fruit, the fruits are quite different. The fruit in Lehi’s dream is “desirable to make one happy” (1 Nephi 8:10) and fills Lehi’s soul with “exceedingly great joy” (v. 12) once he has eaten it. Since “bearing fruit is an archetype for righteous living in OT wisdom literature,”[27] and the tree in Lehi’s dream can be read as the love of God and the Savior, the fruit can also be understood to be the works that naturally result when people have the love of God in their hearts, or when people follow the Savior in their lives.

The text in Revelation is not explicit regarding the meaning of the fruit of the tree of life, though it describes the fruit when it states that the tree “bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month” (22:2). The number twelve is clearly significant. For example, Koester writes that “Revelation uses the number twelve for God’s people, including the tribes and apostles.”[28] Interpreting the fruit of this tree of life as representing the Twelve Apostles is supported by the context of this vision since we read that “the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (21:14). Additionally, “the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (22:2). Though it is the leaves and not the fruit that are for the healing of the nations, the leaves are closely connected to the fruit, just as the apostles are closely connected in the narrative of the New Testament with healing.[29] Thus, what began as an important symbol because of the twelve tribes of Israel in the Old Testament perhaps reappears in John’s vision as a representation of the apostles as well. Indeed, the New Testament’s “adoption of symbolism of twelve is testimony to the enduring power of this [Old Testament] image. Underlying this interest in the number twelve is the conviction that ultimately God will fulfill his promises of redemption.”[30]

Partakers of the fruits

Related to this understanding of the path, and in support of it, is the explicit understanding of who may partake of the tree. In John’s vision, what qualifies those who may partake of the tree of life is set forth plainly, for the speaker tells John, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Revelation 22:14), explaining that those who keep the commandments of the Lord are the people who may partake of the tree of life.[31] In effect, this means that the “reward for the victorious Christian is the privilege of eating (the fruit) of the tree of life in the paradise of God.”[32] To eat from the tree of life is to have “everlasting life in God’s presence.”[33] This appears to be the same requirement for those who may partake of the tree in Lehi’s dream, particularly if we equate keeping the Lord’s commandments to following the word of the Lord, which, within the context of Lehi’s dream, can be understood to mean holding on to the rod of iron, which is the “word of God” (1 Nephi 11:25). It is significant, for example, that Lehi and the righteous members of his household partake of the tree, with Lehi speaking the “word of God” as his prophet and with Lehi’s righteous family members following the “word of God” as they hearken to his word and partake of the fruit, while the unrighteous Laman and Lemuel do not partake.[34] Later in the dream, a group that succumbs to the temptations of the devil and does not hold on to the rod of iron (i.e., the word of God) never partakes of the fruit (8:21–23); a group that “clings” to the rod of iron partakes of the fruit but later falls away “into forbidden paths” because of the mocking of the people in the large and spacious building (see vv. 24–28); a group that catches “hold of the end of the rod of iron” and “continually hold[s] fast to the rod of iron” eventually partakes of the fruit of the tree (v. 30); others feel their way toward the building, drown in the depths of the water, or wander “in strange roads” (see vv. 31–32). In both John’s and Lehi’s visions, those who “have right to the tree of life” are those who hearken to the word of God.[35]

The path as symbol

The image of the path, or street, is important in each vision and a significant symbol throughout much of literature. “The human use of the inorganic world involves the highway or road as well as the city with its streets,” Northrop Frye writes, “and the metaphor of the ‘way’ is inseparable from all quest-literature, whether explicitly Christian as in The Pilgrim’s Progress or not.”[36] While initially there is no path in Lehi’s dream, once it appears it plays a very significant role, leading people to the all-important tree. “And I also beheld a strait and narrow path,” Nephi quotes his father as saying, “which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world” (1 Nephi 8:20). He then sees “numberless concourses of people . . . pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree” (v. 21). The people “commence in the path” (v. 22) but lose their way once the mist of darkness appears (see v. 23). Though the path is not explicitly mentioned again in the vision, its presence is implicitly felt as Lehi speaks of other groups who make their way to the tree and partake of the fruit.

Lehi also observes other paths of a negative sort. These are paths that he calls “forbidden paths,” followed by people who taste the fruit and then feel ashamed because of the mocking of the prideful people in the great and spacious building (v. 28). Similarly, later in the vision Lehi speaks of “strange roads” that many who have not partaken of the fruit wander down, becoming “lost from his view” (v. 32). This use of the archetype of the path in both a positive and negative manner is not unusual; as Leland Ryken writes, “Archetypes of literature . . . fall into a dialectical pattern of opposites. The two categories of archetypes form a pattern of ideal and unideal experience, wish and nightmare, tragedy and comedy. Together they are a vision of the world that people want and do not want.”[37]

Whereas John does not use the word path in writing of his vision, he does speak of an image that performs an identical function if we consider the street in John’s city to be equal to the path. As he describes the city, he writes that “the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass” (Revelation 21:21). We later learn that in “the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life” (22:2).

Significantly, though both visions have paths, their nature is quite different. The street in John’s vision is peaceful, serene. This, of course, makes sense because this is a street of pure gold in the New Jerusalem, a heavenly street set in a heavenly city, a reward for the righteous. This street has the tree of life beside it, but it is not a path to the tree. By contrast, the path in Lehi’s dream is a path that leads to the tree, and the journey along that path is difficult. The “mist of darkness” arises, “even an exceeding great mist of darkness” (1 Nephi 8:23), and people lose their way as a result. We later learn from Nephi’s vision that “the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost” (12:17). This difference between Lehi’s path and John’s street is in keeping with the nature of the visions, however, because Lehi’s path is leading to the tree and such a path represents a different experience than the path or street in the New Jerusalem. As the noted philosopher and writer Mircea Eliade explains,

The road is arduous, fraught with perils, because it is, in fact a rite of the passage from the profane to the sacred, from the ephemeral and illusory to reality and eternity, from death to life, from man to the divinity. Attaining the center is equivalent to a consecration, an initiation; yesterday’s profane and illusory existence gives place to a new, to a life that is real, enduring, and effective.[38]

Despite the differences between the two paths, however, there is an important similarity. Though the path in Lehi’s dream can be difficult, owing to the mist of darkness that makes keeping to the path a challenge, we learn from Nephi’s vision that the path can be understood to be a path leading to Christ. Similarly, especially since the street is in the New Jerusalem and appears in a vision after the ministry of the mortal Christ, its interpretation can be understood in light of the fact that “early Christians found the pathway to be a fertile symbol, representative of the final salvation that God had brought. Each of the Gospels cites Isaiah 40 in a figurative relation to the preparatory ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:2–3; Lk 3:4–5; Jn 1:19–25). This preparatory ‘way’ finds its fulfillment in Christ.”[39] Therefore, a reader may be justified in understanding each path, the path in Lehi’s dream and the street in John’s vision, to be a symbol of a path to Christ, the path to salvation.

Water symbolism

The water imagery in both Revelation and Lehi’s dream is quite significant. Keeping in mind that both Lehi and John are biblical narrators, it can be said that what Ryken writes concerning water imagery and the Bible may offer insight to both Lehi’s dream and John’s vision: “Water figures in the Bible in three main ways—as a cosmic force that only God can control and govern, as a source of life, and as a cleansing agent. We can also detect a polarity at work in the six hundred biblical references to water: water can mean both life and death, blessing and affliction, order and chaos.”[40] For example, when Lehi sees the river near the tree, we may understand this image on the positive symbolic side of life, blessing, and order. In fact, in Nephi’s account of the vision, he equates the tree of life with “the fountain of living waters” and explains that the “waters are a representation of the love of God” (1 Nephi 11:25).[41] Water is often an element thought of as connected to the tree of life; for example, in “Mesopotamia the Cosmic Tree was brought into relation with the primal waters as the source of all life.”[42]

Later in his dream, however, Lehi sees that many people do not follow the path leading to the tree and are “drowned in the depths of the fountain” (1 Nephi 8:32). This scene exemplifies Ryken’s mentioning of the use of water imagery to represent death, affliction, and chaos. Similarly, Nephi witnesses in his vision a “fountain of filthy water” that represents the “depths of hell” (12:16).

As with Lehi’s dream, the water imagery in Revelation is brief, but it is powerful. John records that his angelic guide shows him “a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:1–2). In broad strokes, this image clearly falls on the side of life, blessing, and order; there is nothing negative about this archetypal portrayal of water. As Craig Koester notes, “On one level the water brings life by quenching human thirst for God, . . . [and] on another level the water suggests cleansing from sin.”[43] The water can also be interpreted as “a portrayal of eternal life.”[44] And, of course, it is significant that the tree of life, with its twelve manner of fruits and its healing leaves, is located near this water.

We can find this image of the water of life throughout the Book of Mormon and the New Testament. For example, Alma speaks of the “waters of life” in his important sermon to the people of Zarahemla, speaking prophetically as the Lord and saying, “Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely” (Alma 5:34). Note that he invites the people to “partake of the fruit of the tree of life” while also speaking of eating the bread of life and drinking the waters of life freely. Later, when teaching his son Corianton of the salvation and the redemption of humankind, Alma explains that “whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely” (42:27). And, in the New Testament, the Lord proclaims to the Samaritan woman at the well that if she knew “the gift of God, and who it is that saith to [her], Give me to drink; [she] wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given [her] living water” (John 4:10), and that the water he can offer is “a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).[45]

While the rivers listed in Genesis may be of geographical interest, the water imagery in the two prophetic visions serves to bind them together. As we have noted above, Nephi equates the tree in his father’s dream with the “fountain of living waters” and the waters with “a representation of the love of God,” explicitly teaching that “the tree of life was a representation of the love of God” (1 Nephi 11:25; see v. 22). Similarly, as we discussed above, the tree in Lehi’s vision can not only represent the love of God but also be understood to symbolize the Savior himself (see the discussion regarding 1 Nephi 11:4, 6–7). This interpretation, combined with what we have explored concerning the water imagery in Revelation 22 and the pattern of such imagery elsewhere in the Book of Mormon and New Testament, confirms the strong connection between Lehi’s dream and John’s vision.

The man in the white robe

Perhaps one of the strongest ties between Lehi’s dream and John’s revelations is a component of each vision that is not directly related to the tree of life. At the beginning of Lehi’s account of his dream, he notes that he thought he saw in his dream “a dark and dreary wilderness” (1 Nephi 8:4). This statement sets the stage for his dream, presumably identifying the scene he finds himself in. He then explains that he “saw a man, and he was dressed in a white robe; and he came and stood before me” (v. 5). The man bids Lehi to follow him, and oddly, once Lehi does so he finds himself in a “dark and dreary waste” (v. 7) and the man in the white robe is nowhere to be seen. Lehi travels for many hours, prays to the Lord for mercy, and then beholds the field where he sees the tree with its fruit, “desirable to make one happy” (v. 10).

We expect the man in the white robe to deliver Lehi from the dark and dreary wilderness, not to lead the prophet to a dark and dreary waste. However, this reversal of what we would expect is in keeping with the genre of visionary literature. As Ryken observes, “The motifs of transformation and reversal are prominent in visionary literature, and they lead to this principle of interpretation: in visionary literature, be ready for the reversal of ordinary reality.”[46]

Significantly, a man in a white robe appears later, during the vision Nephi is granted when he tells the Spirit of the Lord, “I desire to behold the things which my father saw” (1 Nephi 11:3). When Nephi is about to write the part of his experience that would constitute his apocalyptic vision, he beholds “a man, and he was dressed in a white robe. And the angel said unto [him]: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been. And he shall also write concerning the end of the world” (14:19–22). The angel forbids Nephi to continue writing his version of the apocalypse, “for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them” (v. 25), and tells Nephi that the apostle’s name is “John” (v. 27).

Though the man in the white robe in Lehi’s dream is not identified, I believe one possibility is that the man is John the Revelator. As I have written elsewhere, “We find John greeting Lehi at the beginning of his vision and serving as his guide, taking him to the point when Lehi can turn directly to the Lord and see a vision. . . . Thus, when reading 1 Nephi 14:25 . . . we are not surprised that the Lord would appoint the man he ordained for that purpose to begin and end the vision of the tree of life in the Book of Mormon.”[47] If, indeed, John the Revelator appeared in Lehi’s dream and acted as a guide, this key role for him in Lehi’s vision could be interpreted as a strong bond connecting the two visions and the two trees.

Conclusion

As we read Lehi’s dream of the tree and learn from Nephi’s vision that the tree is the tree of life, it is natural that our first impulse may be to identify the tree with the tree of life in the story of the Garden of Eden. However, the symbolic meaning of the tree in his dream is not constrained by what we know. Through a comparative analysis of the tree in Lehi’s vision and the tree in John’s, we may come to a deeper understanding and appreciation for how the Christ-centered symbolism of the tree in Lehi’s dream finds a closer parallel with the symbolism in Revelation than in Genesis.

Notes

[1] Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 162.

[2] Bruce W. Jorgensen, “The Dark Way to the Tree: Typological Unity in the Book of Mormon,” in Literature of Belief: Sacred Scripture and Religious Experience, ed. Neal A. Lambert (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1981), 219.

[3] Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 1, First Nephi (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 172.

[4] For example, Grant Hardy concludes that the father and son basically saw the same things but recognizes that Nephi’s account is more extensive while acknowledging that there is the possibility that we do not have all that Lehi may have said: “The report of Nephi’s vision is more extensive than Lehi’s (or at least Nephi’s retelling is more extensive—it is always worth a sigh when we remember how much was lost in the book of Lehi, in the 116 pages that disappeared with Martin Harris), but they saw the same imagery, more or less. Even so, they seem to have perceived things slightly differently.” “Prophetic Perspectives: How Lehi and Nephi Applied the Lessons of Lehi’s Dream,” in The Things Which My Father Saw: Approaches to Lehi’s Dream and Nephi’s Vision, ed. Daniel L. Belnap, Gaye Strathearn, and Stanley A. Johnson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 201. Offering another perspective, Dana Pike postulates that Nephi saw much more than his father did:

Although some have claimed that Lehi dreamed essentially what Nephi later saw in his vision, it appears that Nephi actually envisioned things that went well beyond what Lehi had seen, even taking into account that Nephi did not include “all the words of [his] father” in reporting Lehi’s dream (1 Nephi 8:29; see also 8:36; 9:1; 10:2, 15). For example, Nephi in his vision specifically requested of the Spirit of the Lord “to know the interpretation” of the tree (1 Nephi 11:11). What was shown to Nephi in response to his desire to understand the symbolism of the tree—the mortal ministry and sacrifice of God the Son (1 Nephi 11:11–36)—does not seem to have been shown to Lehi (otherwise why would Nephi have asked?), nor does it fit the style of Lehi’s dream. Nephi’s report of Lehi’s dream presents it as a spiritual allegory, while Nephi’s account of his own vision has a chronological, God-in-history orientation to it. Thus, although the content of Lehi’s dream and Nephi’s vision overlaps, there are differences in content and style, further emphasizing the need for a divinely given interpretation of the symbolism in Lehi’s dream. (Dana M. Pike, “Lehi Dreamed a Dream: The Report of Lehi’s Dream in Its Biblical Context,” in Belnap, Strathearn, and Johnson, The Things Which My Father Saw, 95.)

[5] Corbin T. Volluz, “Lehi’s Dream of the Tree of Life: Springboard to Prophecy,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 2 (1993): 34–35.

[6] Volluz, “Springboard to Prophecy,” 35.

[7] David M. Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream and the Garden of Eden,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 26 (2017): 20.

[8] Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 54.

[9] Gardner, Second Witness, 1:172.

[10] I am making a distinction between the genre of visionary literature and that of apocalyptic literature primarily in that while all apocalyptic literature can be considered visionary, not all visionary literature is apocalyptic. John J. Collins writes, “An apocalypse is defined as: ‘a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar is it involves another, supernatural world.’” The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 4. I have chosen to utilize the framework of visionary literature because both Revelation 22 and 1 Nephi 8 fit within that framework, whereas only the former would be considered apocalyptic literature. While it is true that 1 Nephi 8, when studied through the interpretive lens of Nephi’s vision, might be considered apocalyptic as well, it would be difficult to consider it explicitly apocalyptic when studying the chapter independently.

[11] For a discussion of Lehi’s dream as visionary literature, see Charles Swift, “Lehi’s Vision of the Tree of Life: Understanding the Dream as Visionary Literature,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2005): 52–63, 74–75.

[12] Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature . . . and Get More out of It (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 165.

[13] Joseph M. Spencer, 1st Nephi: a brief theological introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020), 29.

[14] Though the Genesis account is not written as a vision, as we analyze the portrayals of the two trees with our focus on that of Lehi’s dream, the account in the Old Testament acts as a foil to that in the Book of Mormon and necessitates our understanding how elements in both might be interpreted symbolically.

[15] Julie M. Smith, “The Beginning and the End: Echoes of Genesis 1–3 in Revelation 21–22,” in Latter-day Saint Readings of Revelation 21–22, ed. Julie M. Smith (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2009), 11.

[16] For a discussion of scholarly commentary on the significance of the rivers, see Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1–15 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 1:64–66.

[17] “Between the enveloping references in Genesis and Revelation to the tree of life are several evocative metaphoric references in the book of Proverbs. Here we read that wisdom ‘is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her’ (Prov 3:18 RSV), that ‘the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life’ (Prov 11:30 RSV), that ‘a desire fulfilled is a tree of life’ (Prov 13:12 RSV) and that ‘a gentle tongue is a tree of life’ (Prov 15:4 RSV). Here the tree of life becomes a general image of blessing and fulfillment, a touchstone for what one would desire.” Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Westmont, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 890.

[18] It should be noted that several biblical scholars remark on the similarities between John’s writing of the New Jerusalem and Ezekiel’s vision, particularly as recorded in Ezekiel 47. For example, David E. Aune interprets the first part of Revelation 22:2 as “an allusion to Ezek 47:12.” Word Biblical Commentary: Revelation 17–22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 52C:1177. G. K. Beale views the “scene of a future, permanent fertile land with a river and trees whose leaves have healing properties [to be] based on Ezek. 47:12.” The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 1106. However, while there are similarities between John’s vision and Ezekiel’s, the latter’s vision does not include a tree of life. His vision does include trees, but none are identified as a tree of life. As Ezekiel scholar Daniel I. Block writes, “Few doubt that Ezekiel’s vision of a life-giving stream has been influenced, at least in part, by Gen. 2:10–14, which portrays paradise as a garden, rendered fruitful by a river flowing out of Eden and dividing into four branches, and which Yahweh visits daily (3:8).” The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 2:696. Note that the emphasis is placed on Ezekiel’s vision of a life-giving stream with no mention of a tree, and the influence he recognizes from Genesis is that of the river, not the tree of life. He later characterizes Ezekiel’s vision by the stream once again, writing, “Ezekiel’s vision of the stream also lives on in the NT,” and notes that “the connection in Rev. 22:1–2 is obvious.” Book of Ezekiel, 698; emphasis added. Though the two visions share some important symbols, because the Ezekiel vision does not explicitly contain a tree of life, I have decided not to include it within the scope of this essay.

[19] Many biblical scholars consider the Apostle John’s authorship of Revelation to be problematic. For a thorough discussion of this issue, see Craig R. Koester, The Anchor Yale Bible: Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 38A:65–69. However, members of the Church can rely on passages in the Book of Mormon for further guidance. In his companion vision to his father’s tree of life vision, Nephi is commanded to cease writing of the apocalypse because it is given to the Apostle John to write of it at a future date (see 1 Nephi 14:10–27). And, much later, Moroni will record, “Then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people” (Ether 4:16).

[20] One might claim that since Revelation 22 provides an account of a vision of the New Jerusalem, part of the real world in the future, the tree of life seen in the vision is part of the real world. Similarly, if one argues that the tree of life in Revelation corresponds at some level with the tree of life in Genesis and that tree of life in Genesis is portrayed as a tree that existed in the real world, in time and space, then analyzing the tree of life in Revelation would not truly be an analysis of a tree in a vision. However, regarding both arguments, whether the tree in John’s vision represents to some extent a tree that will exist in a real future world or a tree that existed in the past does not change the fact that the tree exists within the vision John experienced and is, therefore, part of the genre of visionary literature. Since Lehi’s dream is also part of that same literary genre, the same rules of interpretation will guide us in understanding both visions. By contrast, when we read an expository chapter of the Book of Mormon, such as 1 Nephi 4, for example, in which Nephi slays Laban and obtains the brass plates, we do not read it as visionary literature. As a result, we do not read Nephi’s actions with the sword as purely symbolic; we understand the account to mean that he in actuality slew Laban. Revelation 22 is a vision, and we can read the elements of that chapter in terms of visionary literature, with high levels of symbolism. While the tree of life in that vision may or may not correspond to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, that does not mean that readers are required to interpret the tree of life in Revelation 22 as nothing more than a physical tree, just as that same chapter mentions a river and gates without requiring us to think their meaning is limited to the rivers and gates we see in the real world. Nor are we bound to believe that the elements in John’s revelation are meant to convey the pictorial image of what the New Jerusalem will look like without conveying any symbolic meaning. As Ryken writes, “Visionary literature in the Bible is heavily symbolic but rarely pictorial.” Bible as Literature, 173.

[21] Aune, Revelation, 52C:1164.

[22] Koester, Revelation, 38A:827.

[23] Koester, Revelation, 38A:834.

[24] Aune, Revelation, 52C:1177.

[25] Koester, Revelation, 38A:834.

[26] Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 890.

[27] Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 310.

[28] Koester, Revelation, 38A:816. Shon Hopkin makes the connection of the number twelve with the twelve apostles as well. See “Seeing Eye to Eye: Nephi’s and John’s Intertwining Visions of the Tree of Life,” Latter-day Saint Readings of Revelation 21–22 (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship 2009), 41. Hopkin writes about Revelation 21–22 and Nephi’s vision but not about Lehi’s vision.

[29] For example, “And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease” (Matthew 10:1); “And [the apostles] departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where” (Luke 9:6); “There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one” (Acts 5:16).

[30] Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 901.

[31] Alma teaches this same principle: “Come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be partakers of the fruit of the tree of life” (Alma 5:62).

[32] David E. Aune, Word Biblical Commentary: Revelation 1–5 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1997), 52:152.

[33] Koester, Revelation, 38A:842.

[34] Lehi invites his entire family to partake of fruit of the tree, including Laman and Lemuel, but it is instructive that, like everyone else in the vision who is not worthy to partake of the tree, the two elder sons of Lehi do not partake. We can only speculate what would have happened had they actually approached the tree with the intention to partake; perhaps they would have had to repent first.

[35] It should be noted that the same right to partake of the tree of life if following the Lord cannot be said of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. While one might argue that they were allowed to partake of the tree of life freely while they kept the commandments of God and were restricted from partaking of the fruit only after they transgressed the prohibition of partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that would be ignoring the fact that once they had repented, they were still banned from eating the fruit of the tree of life. They were not allowed to return to the garden to partake of the tree of life. Once fallen, they could not partake of the fruit of the tree of life regardless of their good standing before the Lord. However, in both Lehi’s dream and John’s vision, fallen people who follow the Lord can partake of the tree of life.

[36] Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), 144.

[37] Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 26.

[38] Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, trans. Willard R. Trask (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1955), 18.

[39] Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 631.

[40] Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 929.

[41] In fact, as Corbin Volluz points out, the angel gives Nephi an additional prophetic interpretation: “The symbol of the living waters is used to represent the waters of the Jordan River in which Christ was baptized by John the Baptist. Indeed, this is exactly what is shown Nephi in vision immediately after he beholds the living waters (1 Nephi 11:26–27).” Volluz, “Springboard to Prophecy,” 18.

[42] E. O. James, The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1966), 245.

[43] Koester, Revelation, 38A:823.

[44] Beale, Greek Text, 1104. In agreement with Koester regarding the cleansing of sins, Beale also notes that the “water purifies away people’s sins so that they may enter into the intimate presence of God.”

[45] There are also other references to “living water” in the Old Testament (Song of Solomon 4:15; Jeremiah 2:13; 17:13; Zechariah 14:8) and in the Doctrine and Covenants (63:23; 133:29).

[46] Ryken, Bible as Literature, 167; emphasis in original. For a further discussion of transformation and reversal in Lehi’s dream, see Swift, “Dream as Visionary Literature,” 56–57.

[47] Swift, “Dream as Visionary Literature,” 63.