Part 17 - Christology

I feel a little out of my depth in writing this post, but I believe that this is an interesting and valid direction of inquiry.  I consider this post to be more of a conversation starter than the final word.  Ideas about Jesus in the Book of Mormon do not fit into the historical and cultural context of the time period that Lehi was supposed to have left Jerusalem, around 600 BCE.  Another way of saying this is that the Book of Mormon presents a Christology that was not fully developed until as late as the fourth century CE.  I will present a few specific details that show this to be the case.  Most of the ideas I present about the early Christian church come from books and lectures by New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman.

Christology is the study of ideas about the divine and human natures of Christ.  The Apostle Paul is the earliest Christian writer, predating the earliest Gospels by as much as 15 years.  According to Ehrman, Paul held to an incarnation Christology, meaning that Paul believed that Jesus was a preexisting divine being who became a man.  In contrast, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) present an exaltation Christology.  In this view Jesus was a man who was later elevated to the status of the Son of God.  Sometimes these contrasting views are called high Christology (as in from above for incarnation Christology) and low Christology (as in from below for exaltation Christology).

The synpoptics, consistent with exaltation Christology, emphasize the humanity of Jesus.  The fourth Gospel, John, was written much later than the synoptics, possibly as late as 90-100 CE.  John emphasizes the divinity of Jesus.  Which nature, human or divine, predominated during Jesus' life was a subject of controversy within the early church.  In 325 CE the First Council of Nicea attempted to reconcile these views by declaring that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

Jewish ideas about the Messiah bear little resemblance to the Christology of the early church.  The Jewish Messiah was to be a descendant of David who would usher in a period of peace and gather the scattered Israelites back to their home land.  The suffering Messiah was not a Jewish idea, but rather an early Christian idea that developed out of necessity, because Jesus' death did not fit into the Messianic expectation of the Jews.  More information about the Jewish Messiah can be found in this article.

The death of Jesus created a quandary for his followers.  How could Jesus die if he was the Messiah, and how could he die if he was without sin?  The belief that Jesus was resurrected and that his sufferings were not for his own sins, but for the sins of others, helped to resolve these issues in the early church.  These ideas did not appear all at once, but were developed over time beginning in the first century with Paul and the Gospel writers and continuing through the fourth century when the early church councils decided which first-century writings to canonize.

When trying to research the Christology of the Book of Mormon I have run into a problem.  Most everything that comes up when I search for "Book of Mormon Christology" does not truly discuss Book of Mormon Christology.  Most of the information I found discusses Mormon Christology as held by the current church, not the Christology of the Book of Mormon specifically.  These are not the same because Mormon theology evolved throughout the life of Joseph Smith.  Because I could not find any analyses that limited themselves to the Book of Mormon, I will present my own by analyzing two key passages from the early part of the Book of Mormon that were supposed to have been written between 600 and 592 BCE.  The first one is from 1 Nephi 11:16-18.

And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

The above quote is from the modern Book of Mormon.  The first edition of the Book of Mormon contained the phrase "mother of God" rather than "mother of the Son of God."  The term "condescension of God" seems to imply an incarnation Christology as first developed by Paul and elaborated by John in the first century.  The phrase "mother of God" from the first edition also implies incarnation Christology.  The second passage is from 1 Nephi 11:32-33.

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.  And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

Once again there is difference between the modern edition and the first edition.  The first edition contained "everlasting God" rather than "Son of the everlasting God."  This passage emphasizes both the divine nature and human nature of Jesus by calling him the everlasting God and showing that he had the capacity to die.  Ideas that reconcile these two natures did not appear until 325 CE as discussed earlier.  Furthermore, the idea that Jesus died for the sins of others was not developed until the writings of Paul.  It was not a concept held by the Jews at all prior to the beginning of Christianity.  The expounding of these ideas in the Book of Mormon by a supposed Jewish author of 600 BCE is anachronistic.

The usual apologetic response to this and other anachronisms is that Book of Mormon authors received these ideas through direct revelation.  However, there are no precedents for such elaborate ideas suddenly springing into existence completely out of cultural context.  Records from the old world clearly show the historical development of Christological ideas beginning in the first century, and these ideas make no sense in the context of ancient Jewish culture rather than first century Christian culture.  The apologetic argument strikes me as too convenient to be plausible.  Of course, the Christology of the Book of Mormon makes perfect sense within the context of the 19th century, which adds yet another strand to the many lines of evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon originated in the 19th century rather than anciently as the Mormon Church claims.