Nephi'S Beheading Of Laban

[Maidservant]

Martin Abegg, “Paul, ‘Works of the Law’ and MMT,” in Paul, Jewish Law, and Early Christianity, ed. M. Warker (Wash., DC: BAS, 2012), 28 (re Numbers 25:1- ,

When Phinehas the priest catches an Israelite in flagrante delicto with a foreign woman, he spears the couple through their bellies with a single spear. And the plague is lifted. For his deed, we are told in Psalm 106, Phinehas was regarded as eternally righteous:

“Then Phinehas stood up and interposed;

And so the plague was stayed.

And it was reckoned to him as righteousness,

from generation to generation forever.”

(Psalm 106:30–31)

Should we give equal time to condemnation of the priest Phineas for this horrible execution? As much time as we devote to condemning Nephi?

And subsequently discarding the entire collection of Psalms or the Bible whole? . . . .

[Samlam]

I would add a couple things, Cucumber. Welch points out that 1. Nephi originally shrank from slaying Laban; and 2. Being commanded of God was considered, at least in part if not totally, to be "legal cover" (my phrase; that is, it makes what otherwise would be an unjustifiable act justifiable).

I also wanted to expand on this shrinking Nephi theme.

Often I have encountered those that wish to diminish the stature of the man Nephi by focusing on the use of the words “And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him. As I considered upon this concept I began thinking upon the scriptures again to see what other situations might exist that could be used as an overlay to understand Nephi more accurately.

I start with pondering through known scriptural situations where God has required someone to do a very difficult thing and then they hesitate before completing the task. A few examples that I thought had an element of criteria of shrunk were as follows and I weeded through them trying to find one that was as Nephi appears to be using it.

I’ve got Jonah, who doesn’t even start the journey until strongly encouraged. Not the same.

I’ve got the 12 spies sent to scout out the territory they are to conquer. Ten of them shrink after a fashion and give weak reports and loose the favor of God. Two did not shrink. However, neither of these two samples of addressing the task quite fit the Nephi scenario.

I’ve got Gideon in the Old Testament who has been called to lead an attacking unit at the Lords request. He requests a sign of confirmation of the Lord in the form of dew on a piece of wool experiment. Now this one is actually getting closer but still somewhat different but if I didn’t have anything better I might stop here and try to develop this further. Still, I keep reviewing…

The David and Goliath story provides some fodder for consideration...nobody in Israel to fight Goliath-a bunch of shrinkers, except for a young boy who does not appear to shrink at all – there are possibilities and perhaps this one might work but is there something more appropriate?

I consider a scripture which appears to convey the appearance of shrinking just a bit and it really to me seems the best fit to lay up against the Nephi scenario. Nephi, a sincere committed servant, who desperately desires to be obedient to God’s commandments, is presented with a dilemma that is more than he has adequately considered before this moment. Now, in the example that I find, the “Shrinking” person has known for a while what was coming but even with that he has never undergone what is asked of him and it causes the same sense of discomfort in this individual that I sense in Nephi. Here is the verse…

Luke 22:42

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

The core of this experience seems a perfect fit. A situation that is at the very edge of that person’s capacity to give has been asked of both Nephi and Jesus Christ. They struggle with what is asked of them. They suffer for it. And even more remarkable they both need some help to get them over the hump that has caused them this moment’s pause to reflect upon what is being asked of them. Consider:

Luke 22:43

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

Is this a reasonable comparison? After all Nephi is not being asked to die – he potentially could die as he is a great risk but that is clearly not a focal point of the Nephi / Laban narrative. It is clearly a life or death situation in Nephi’s case, so in that fashion his willingness to give everything including his life is a significant point of common ground. Even more interesting, if we look at the Matthew 26 rendition we find that while in the Garden, Christ pleaded to have his requirement removed on three separate instances. Is this shrinking? Hardly the kind of shrinking that would cast dispersions on the character of the Lord and from my viewpoint hardly the type of shrinking that would cast dispersions on Nephi.

This shrinking in both the Nephi and Christ case is not a fullness of shrinking if you will. It seems to only describe a moment of withdrawal from engaging in what is a very difficult task. It is a process of weighing the extreme difficulty of a near overwhelming task required at the hand of God. Consider the final verse that I thought played into this discussion.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:18

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

The term shrink as Nephi uses it to describe his hesitancy and hope for an alternative option feels just like the Luke and Mathew portrayal of Christ’s personal battle with pleading 3 times for his father to remove the burden that he has been asked to bear. The nature of these two events seems to be in the same genre of challenge. When we put all of the passages together they are close enough in nature and flow and connected by terminology and similar applications of the terminology to resemble each other[1].

What Nephi proves and we all must understand is that wrestling with the spirit is only a wrestle between the will of man and the difficulty in putting our will aside and subjecting our will to God’s. More than anything this story provides a backdrop for how difficult this task of choosing God’s will is over choosing our own.

In Nephi’s straits the spirit does what the spirit does; it teaches. In the consistent pattern of the spirit, it educates him and he overcomes the real concern he has for his own soul. Shrinking is not resisting. Shrinking is shrinking. Or the process of pulling away from the eagerness of a moment ago. According to Brigham Young, paraphrasing, the Lord has little need for blind obedience[2]. He needs those who manifest a will but are willing to submit their will to the Lord.

The rules of scripture evaluation are important to keep our standard or to provide the boundaries of our thoughts. Thus while this scenario is often used by some to undermine Nephi, by making our comparisons to other scriptural events, we find in the sacrifice of our Savior a perfect guardrail around our conclusions as we overlay it on Nephi’s shrinking moment. The two common themes together create a standard of evaluation. By pivoting each of these separate incidences against any further conclusions that are not explicitly stated in the text of the two events I have created a standard that will keep my conclusions within boundaries that help sustain the intent of both events.

In other words, whatever I say about one should be applicable to or form a distinction between these two examples. Each one is a pair of eyes observing the same principle from differing venues. Now, I’m not sure that the last sentence makes any sense without some explanation, so I am going to explain everything in a way that will shed some light on this just in case. This goes back to the concept of understanding the things of the Jews and using that as an aid in understanding scripture.

Now, to me here is the test for determining the validity of any conclusions that I might want to read into this scenario from this point forward. Whatever conclusions I reach must be compatible with both samples which I am using as the boundaries of ponderings and conclusions. This is another element of Jewish scripture interpretation and is a significant protection against fanciful renderings of scriptural interpretation.

In conclusion of this comparison, I have chosen the Christ sample of dealing with his challenge as the best to help us understand the nature of what Nephi is trying to accomplish. There are several key points upon which to make that selection. Nephi is a Christ type. Both Christ and Nephi manifest the same desire to be obedient. Both receive some form of comfort from a heavenly source. Both accept the end requirement while clearly manifesting they would choose a different path if it was their choice that took precedence. Both are dealing with salvation; unless the act under evaluation takes place, either an entire nation shall perish – Nephi, or an entire world will perish – Christ.

The distinctions are that Christ must die and Nephi is not required to. That is a fair distinction potentially, however, both have been condemned to die and Nephi has charged into a very dangerous situation without overriding concern for his own life. However, to further the work of the Lord an actual forfeit of his life would frustrate the ongoing aims of our Father in Heaven. So, as a second witness goes this is the best example, and a good one, I can find in all of scripture. Nephi’s shrinking is not an unwillingness to be obedient but is a common challenge of submitting his will to the Fathers even as Jesus Christ was required to accomplish in providing for the salvation of all mankind.

[1] Isolating scriptures based on content and common word use is a Jewish Hermeneutics principle: the following 3 can apply in varying degrees to the comparability of Jesus’ request and Nephi’s request.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12936-rules-of-hillel-the-seven - Seven Rules of Hillel

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12935-rules-of-eliezer-b-jose-ha-gelili-the-thirty-two -

The Thirty-two Rules of Eliezer B. Jose Ha-Ge-lili

The Thirty-two Rules of Eliezer B. Jose Ha-Ge-lili

7. Gezerah shawah: Argument from analagy. Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications.

8. Binyan ab mi-katub ehad: Application of a provision found in one passage only to passages which are related to the first in content but do not contain the provision in question.

The Seven Rules of Hillel

6. Ka-yoze bo mi-makon aher: Similarity in context to another scriptural passage.

[2] I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150).

[mrmandias]

That said, the beheading of Laban story was one of the first things to make my eyebrows go up, even as a youngster. I could not imagine it. All the blood, the ruined clothing that shortly thereafter fooled Zoram. How had Nephi managed to behead an adult male without making a mess?

 

 

A lot depends on the beheading style, I'm thinking.  In a guillotine style swift blow, there's not great quantities of blood because the heart stops beating.  When you butcher animals, if you want to drain the blood and you're killing them by cutting the throat, you have to be careful to cut the jugular vein but not the carotid artery for the same reason.  Also, if you're careful about how you position the animal when you slit its throat, you can do it while hardly getting any blood on yourself or on the beast.

 

Whether or not Nephi did any of this or whether Laban's clothing and Laban and Nephi himself already stank enough to cover any unusual smell of blood or whether Nephi just stank of blod but nobody happened to remark it, I can't say.

[Questing Beast]

Nephi said he took Laban by the hair of the head and smote off his head. Tricky! That really was one heckuva sword, and one "large in stature" youth. Not impossible, surely, but very hard to visualize, then and now, for me at any rate....

[Kenngo1969]

No he's not... He's asking a question about how we would respond today if a similar event were to occur.

 

Fine, but if that's true, I don't see the point of the thread.  Shut 'er down, Clancy!  She's pumpin' mud!  (And we can all go home now.)

[JamesBYoung]

If you read Nephi's beheading of Laban in light of Deuteronomy 19:16-19 then there is nothing shocking or controversial about it. Laban beared false witness, branded Nephi's brother, Laman, a robber and attempted to have him killed, therefore under the Law Laban deserved to be put to death. As it was God's Law, and God, through the angel, ordered Nephi to do it, where's the problem?

 

In our society, the problem is that We the People do not recognize that "God's Law" as directed "through the angel" can be used as defense in court.

[JamesBYoung]

Nephi said he took Laban by the hair of the head and smote off his head. Tricky! That really was one heckuva sword, and one "large in stature" youth. Not impossible, surely, but very hard to visualize, then and now, for me at any rate....

 

I can envision Nephi grabbing the drunken Laban by the hair of the head and stretching L's body so that the "large in stature" youth could get a good two-handled grip on the handled and chopped off the head as it he were chopping fire wood.

[ZelphtheGreat]

Murder committed during the course of a burglary and justified by 'better for one to perish than a nation to dwindle in unbelief'... and then the nation dwindles in unbelief anyway.

 

This murder is used to justify ANYTHING, and is not a good thing at all.

 

Just as Abraham failed the test in offering to kill his own son instead of standing firm and saying NO, both of these were failures by the individuals involved. Their excuses have been used by evil people for centuries, from despots to Orrin Porter Rockwell trying to murder Governor Boggs to Hitler trying to wipe out so many he did not like. All with the same justification, a sick one at that.

[smac97]

Here is my response to Cobalt's comment:

 

> Yes, various mythological stories include a beheading motif. Joseph Smith was certainly familiar with the Goliath myth, but at least the Goliath myth took place during a battle. 

 

==And yet Goliath was still killed while unconscious and lying on the ground.  He was no immediate threat, but David killed him anyway.  Moreover, the account in 1 Samuel does not actually indicate that David was acting under divine direction ("Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith...").

 

==Moreover, Joseph Smith did not believe the David & Goliath story to be a "myth," but an actual history.  And Joseph Smith did not claim to have created a "myth" involving a fellow named Nephi, but rather claimed to have recited a factual recounting of actual events.

 

> Smith's own 19th century Laban myth 

 

==Again, Joseph Smith did not characterize this as a "myth," or a story coming from the 19th century.

 

> depicted the Christian God as telling Nephi to take the law into his own hands by executing a man 

 

==Okay.

 

> in cold blood 

 

==This phrase figuratively refers to acting without feeling or with cruel intent.  The narrative does not support, and in fact rebuts, such a characterization.

 

> so that he could impersonate him, 

 

==Yes.

 

> steal his property, 

 

==Well, no.  While the possession of the Brass Plates was not in dispute, the right to ownership apparently was.

 

> and kidnap his manservant, 

 

==Uh, no.  No kidnapping.

 

> all for a "higher purpose." 

 

==Well yes, but not at all like how you characterize it.  The following article inclues some useful resources: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705384881/Michael-R-Ash-Nephi-Laban-and-the-brass-plates.html?pg=all

 

> Unlike the ancient myths, this 19th century myth is a justification for vigilante murder, theft, and kidnapping when the ends justify the means. 

 

==No, it's not.

 

> It is breathtakingly relativistic and therefore thoroughly modern, and as such is completely out of place among ancient myths.

 

==Ironic, this last statement.  You impute modern notions of justice and law on a situation in ancient Israel, gauge that situation according to those anachronistic notions, then declare that ancient situation "completely out of place."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[iriemon]

If it is only a product of Joseph Smith, what would be his motivation of adding that in as a foundational myth?

 

Easy, it's a story that helps sell books, which is what Joseph Smith tried to do with the Book of Mormon Patent.

[Maidservant]

Easy, it's a story that helps sell books, which is what Joseph Smith tried to do with the Book of Mormon Patent.

 

Okay, thank you for your insight.  I daresay he miscalculated on that, then.  That the Book of Mormon was saleable, I mean.  That didn't turn out so well.

[Glenn101]

Easy, it's a story that helps sell books, which is what Joseph Smith tried to do with the Book of Mormon Patent.

 

 

I didn't know the Book of Mormon was atented. Maybe copyright is what you meant?

 

Glenn

[volgadon]

Easy, it's a story that helps sell books, which is what Joseph Smith tried to do with the Book of Mormon Patent.

 

 

Sounds like a hasty theory, Kevin.

[mrmandias]

What's remarkable about the parallels Volgadon and Welch found is how it makes Laban a type of Christ--Nephi is saved by taking Laban's name and clothing himself in Laban's garments.  If Joe Smith, patent holder, composed the Book of Mormon, it took a certain amount of brilliance and even moxie to reverse-engineer Caiaphas' statement and then make Laban(!) into the Christian symbol.

 

Elaboration here:

http://www.jrganymede.com/2013/08/28/take-upon-you-the-name-of-laban/

Edited August 28, 2013 by mrmandias

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like a hasty theory, Kevin.

Man, you're quick!

 

"I can name that troll in...... 2 posts!"  and you named the troll.

 

But I have to admit that BOA comment was a dead giveaway.

[volgadon]

Man, you're quick!

 

"I can name that troll in...... 2 posts!"  and you named the troll.

 

But I have to admit that BOA comment was a dead giveaway.

 

 

Oh, I picked up on it from the first post, but wondered if anyone else would notice.