I have always been confused by the blessings of Lehi to his posterity in the 4th chapter of 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon. For one, there is the obvious blessing that is missing: Nephi’s. For another, there seem to be mixed messages. Laman and Lemuel have a blessing, but it may be removed? What does Sam get? Who is the actual new leader- Nephi or Laman?
In an article titled Lehi’s Last Will and Testament: A Legal Approach, John Welch goes into great detail on the legality and custom of Lehi’s blessing, and answers all of the above questions. I’d encourage anyone interested to read his whole article. It strengthened my testimony of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and reminds us of the real world that Nephi was a part of.
I want to go over some highlights from John Welch’s article that explain Lehi’s blessing in its cultural context. Credit also goes to Alan C. Miner who put together the points I found most relevant to the above questions.
Inheritance and succession was an important aspect of near eastern culture. It was a way of “preserving and transmitting the family estate from one generation to the next” (John Welch). Typically, the eldest son of the father’s first wife inherited his estate. The leadership of the family was also an important inheritance given. Faulk points out, “a father was free to choose a younger son as his successor, if he found the eldest unworthy of the office.” Sound like this fits Laman and Lemuel much? The father passed this leadership of the family on often through a special blessing (Deuteronomy 21:17), like we see in 2nd Nephi chapter 4.
There are many examples of this spiritual or ruling leadership being given to a younger son including:
- Abel
- Seth
- Jacob (Israel)
- Ephraim
- David
- Solomon
In each of these cases older sons were passed over as the spiritual leaders of the family.
So, we have property inheritance and ruling inheritance. There was a third category sometimes handed down from the father: priestly duties. This is what happened with Lehi giving Jacob the priestly authority in the Book of Mormon. Another example of this was Jacob/Israel’s blessing in the Old Testament. Israel blessed Judah with the ruling authority (Genesis 49:10), Joseph of Egypt receiving a double portion through Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:22), and Levi inherited some priestly rights to the priesthood.
As time passed in ancient Jerusalem, it became common custom for the eldest son to automatically receive a double portion of the inheritance. As noted, there were times that younger sons received different portions, or rights to rule, or increased inheritance. This was the exception, not the rule.
This basic background information brings us to our fascinating story in the Book of Mormon. We have an eldest son, Laman, who was the eldest son of, what appears to be, a relatively well-off citizen of Jerusalem. This family leaves behind their land and property, to venture off to a promised land, a promised land Laman seldom showed faith in attaining. This family spends years in the wilderness, potentially months on a ship, and eventually land in the promised land. This elder brother is now over the moon with joy and enthusiasm. He will inherit all that his father has and be the leader and now king of a new nation.
But what about Nephi? It was Nephi from the start that helped the family in the wilderness. It was Nephi that went back and got the plates so they could remember God and how to read and write. It was Nephi who built a ship to get them to the promised land. Nephi led the family, physically and spiritually to the promised land. He was the natural leader of the family and deserved to inherit the leadership, and kingship, of this great new nation.
Lehi has a bit of a conundrum. How was Lehi going to handle Laman’s expectation to receive a double portion from his father? How was Lehi to handle the expectation from Laman that, as the oldest son, it was his RIGHT to inherit everything, despite his lack of leadership throughout the journey. Especially when Nephi had been declared a “ruler and a teacher” (1 Nephi 2:22, 3:29) by God Himself.
This brings us to our blessing, and to the answer to the questions I always had.
Lehi needed to appease Laman while attaching appropriate contingencies to his blessing. The main contingency was that Laman’s blessing would be applicable as long as he hearkened unto Nephi. This same admonition was given to Lemuel, Sam, and the sons of Ishmael. If they refused to follow Nephi, their blessings would be null and void.
So Lehi employed three ways to diminish Laman’s blessing and role as the firstborn son. In diminishing Laman’s role Lehi enhanced Nephi’s. This leads us to the questions:
First, why was Sam’s portion linked with Nephi’s? Why were there no Samites?
Combining Sam’s inheritance with Nephi’s was similar to Joseph of Egypt’s blessing being doubled through his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Sam’s share of the land was linked to Nephi’s and therefore Nephi’s portion was doubled through Sam’s faithfulness, loyalty, and devotion he would show to Nephi as he always had.
Welch discusses a second way Lehi diminished Laman’s blessing as found in 2 Nephi 4:5-9, “He [Lehi] blessed his firstborn’s children to the effect that their sins and cursings would be answered upon the heads of their parents. This could not have been flattering to Laman.”
The third way Laman’s authority and blessing was reduced, Lehi referred to Jacob three times as his “firstborn…in the wilderness” and applied the priestly duties to him. By naming Jacob as another version of the “firstborn,” Lehi subtly took away from Laman’s claims as the firstborn son. As we remember, the custom in ancient Jerusalem was for Laman to receive the inheritance by default because he was the firstborn son. But, with Jacob also receiving a form of the title, “first born son,” Laman lost some claim on this exclusive title.
Laman was warned that if he was disobedient, to God and to Nephi, that his blessing would be revoked. Lehi was, in a way, willing to give Laman the cursory “honor” of the blessing while putting many safeguards in place to keep Laman from actually ruling.
This background context gives us additional insight into how the Nephites (followers of Nephi) and Lamanites (followers of Laman) could so quickly devolve into war and contention. The peace was kept as long as Lehi, the official patriarch, was around. Custom in Jerusalem was to love and respect the father (Exodus 20:12). But as soon as Lehi died, it was chaos. Laman was never one to heed faith or blessings, so the warnings from his now passed father were of no concern to him. He wanted to rule.
To conclude, Alan C. Miner states, “Thus, John Welch has provided a plausible cultural background and answer as to why there were no “Samites.” His words also give testimony to the fact that the ancient world of which Lehi and Nephi were proposed to be a part of in the pages of the Book of Mormon was a very real world.” The confusing nature of the blessing adds to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Lehi’s blessing is consistent with the pattern an ancient Israelite may use in blessing his children.
I bear testimony that the Book of Mormon is a true historical account of families that originated in Jerusalem and eventually settled in the Americas. The more I read and study the book the more obvious it becomes. God has given us a second witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and I’m grateful for it. I’m grateful for a book that has been tested for 200 years and still holds up. I’m grateful to know God is still invested in us and our lives. I’m grateful for the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
