Latter-day Saint Seminar Volume 4, Number 18 May 7, 2000 ________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents ________________________________________________________________________ GD18 - Mosiah 12-17 Article 1 - Comments by S. Kurt Neumiller kurtn@cybcon.com Article 2 - Structure by D. Lynn Johnson dlj5@voyager.net ________________________________________________________________________ Comments, by S. Kurt Neumiller ________________________________________________________________________ General Comments on Mosiah 12-16 These chapters contain Abinadi's second set of public sermons (cf. 12:1-8, cp. 11:20-26 for his first set) and his final private sermon to king Noah and his priests (cf. 12:17- 16:15). Aside from the surrounding dramatic events, the sermon itself is quite dramatic. Overall, Abinadi's private sermon addresses two main issues: the contents and nature of the Law of Moses (cf. 13:11-26), and the condescension of the Lord as the Messiah (cf. 13:27-15:31). He connects the two themes, showing the Law of Moses and Prophets do in fact present the Lord as a condescending and redeeming Messiah (cf. 16:13-15). Addressing the more overtly dramatic portions of the text, the general setting is one of a formerly religious society gone decadent and secular. It is clear from his comments in 11:27 Noah does not know or fear the Lord. His "priests" are apparently somewhat familiar with the Law of Moses, but are more secular lawyers than spiritual teachers (note in 24:1-5 these priests end up abandoning the Law of Moses and completely secularized when they become the intelligentsia of the Lamanites). As such, when Abinadi comes on the scene again his spiritual approach to the Law collides head on with their secular approach. The result is violence on the part of the secular majority over the religious minority. This pattern is repeated so often in the Scriptures it should be easily recognized. Another pattern commonly employed by prideful, unrepentant people is to employ irrelevant personal insults (cf. 13:1), irrational arguments (cf. 17:8), and, most tellingly of all, threats of physical violence (cf. 11:28, 13:1, 17:1, 17:7) in order to avoid admitting their error and taking responsibility. As Abinadi himself points out, these people are "carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them" (16:3). Thus, by their fruits ye shall know them. This is what ultimately leads to the martyrdom of Abinadi, and a great many others as well. The entire text of these chapters is highly structured, as a review of Lynn's arrangement evidences plainly. We would expect this of the portions of the text which are Abinadi's, but even the reactionary and negative statements of the people are structured as well (cf. 12:9-16). This suggests a later editing hand was applied to the text. We know Alma documented Abinadi's words (cf. 17:4), and presumably some of the related historical events as well. But, the text of these chapters is not presented in the first-person with Alma writing, as was the case with Zeniff in ch. 9-10. Instead, it follows the typical third-person style of Mormon's editorial hand. Thus, in all likelihood in composing the text of these chapters Mormon applied rhetorical and textual devices as he went. In the case of 12:9-16, note how the people quote Abinadi in v. 9-13 and then flatly contradict him in v. 14-16. Thus, Mormon's intent would have been to characterize the people as being spiritually rebellious while ingratiating themselves to the king to curry his favor. One would assume the quotes provided are accurate, just arranged such that they fit Mormon's intended pattern. A speculative side issue is the composition of the body of Noah's priests. In 17:2 it says "there was one among them whose name was Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi. And he was a young man...". This suggests that his being a Nephite and young were atypical for the priests. If this was the case, then we can see a little better what is happening among them. If they were predominantly of Mulekite extraction and were older, then they would have been more influenced by their Mulekite heritage, which we know from Omni 1:17 was secularized. And the general context of king Benjamin's speech was to persuade the Mulekite descended majority to accept a Messianic approach to the Law of Moses, they not having the same benefit the Nephites had of being taught such things over time. Abinadi is pushing the same Messianic approach (cp. ch. 16 with ch. 3), but with considerably less success. These things taken together suggest Noah made up his priests largely of "old school" Mulekites who were quite secularized to begin with. And a final point regarding the normative and traditional approach to this text. Looking at the painting by Arnold Friberg, the one included in the blue missionary editions of the BofM which shows Abinadi as an old man confronting Noah with stunned and toppled guards behind him, it clearly presents the guards as the ones who attempted to take Abinadi in 13:2. Note the priests are behind the latticework. However, a careful examination of the text makes it clear Noah tells the priests to take Abinadi in both 13:1 and 17:1. They are thwarted both times, first by the Lord's power in Abinadi and then by Alma's dissension. It is not until after Alma flees and Noah sends his servants after him that Noah has the guards surround and take Abinadi (cf. 17:5). The guards and servants were probably not present at all prior to 17:3 or 5, as why would he tell the priests to take Abinadi if there were guards or servants present? In 13:5 it says "the people of king Noah durst not lay their hands on him". Can "the people" refer to the guards or servants? Perhaps. But, still, why would Noah command the priests to take Abinadi if there were guards or servants present? The only people identified as present are the priests, Noah, and Abinadi. In 12:17 it says Noah held a council with the priests, suggesting it was just himself and them, and then they decide to summon Abinadi to cross-examine him. No others are mentioned until 17:3 and 5. So, while Friberg's painting is quite nicely done, it does not accurately reflect what is happening in the text. Presenting the priests as the agressors creates a somewhat different picture as to how angry they were and how violent their reaction was to Abinadi's statements. It also shines greater light on their motives in 17:12. A breakdown of these chapters by subject is as follows: 12:1-8 Abinadi returns to preach repentance and imminent destruction 12:9-16 The people reject Abinadi's warning and turn him over to the king, bootlicking the king and slandering Abinadi 12:17-24 King and priests react to Abinadi, they try to find fault with him through questioning, they then ask him what a quotation from Isa. 52:7-10 means 12:25-37 Abinadi initially ignores the question on the quotation and instead questions their alleged expertise on the Law and Prophets, he then rails on them for their many gross sins, identifying this as the reason they know nothing concerning the Law or Prophets 13:1-10 Stung by the accusation, they cannot defend themselves, so they resort to insults and attempt to have him executed, but he withstands them with the power of the Lord and warns them whatever they do to him will happen to them 13:11-26 Abinadi then recites the Ten Commandments, the core of the Law of Moses, and states they have not taught the people to obey them 13:27-15:31 Abinadi then turns his attention to answering the question they asked regarding Isa. 52:7- 10, and in the process of doing so presents the doctrine of the condescending Lord as Messiah 16:1-15 Abinadi concludes his speech by summarizing his condemnation of their sinful nature and telling them the Law of Moses points to Christ and without Christ they are damned Comments on Mosiah 12 v1-12 Having previously been rejected by the people some two years earlier (cf. 11:20-26), Abinadi comes among them in disguise to preach. He warns them the Lord will destroy them if they do not repent (v. 1). They will be made captive and killed by the Lamanites (v. 2, 5), and the king's life will be worthless (v. 3). Then the people will be struck with famine, disease, and plagues of insects (v. 4, 6-7). Unless they repent, they will be annihilated, and leave behind only a record of their sin to expose it to other nations (v. 8). v2-7 The various curses they are threatened with are classic OT covenant curses, cf. Lev. 26, Deut. 28. While some of the curses do ultimately come to pass among them, others do not. The subsequent chapters make no mention of hail, disease, famine, or insects, and the people are not annihilated. This is because under Limhi's leadership and the great afflictions, the people do repent. So, the imminent disaster is averted. This is the purpose of covenant curses, to get people to repent, cf. Lev. 26:40-45. Once they truly repent, the curses stop and the blessing start. v2 "vultures...dogs...wild beasts", cp. Lev. 26:22, 2 Kings 2:24, Alma 2:38. v8 "they shall leave a record behind them", this is probably the source of Limhi's considerable curiosity in the 24 gold plates discovered among the Jaredite ruins, cf. 8:12-20. v9-16 The people are incensed at Abinadi's rebuke so they bind him and take him to king Noah (v. 9). They then repeat what Abinadi has said, but they characterize it as being a personal attack against the king (v. 10-12). They then flatly contradict Abinadi's testimony with their own testimony flattering the king (v. 13-15). Then they feign impartiality by turning Abinadi over to him to "do with him as seemeth thee good" (v. 13). v9 "a man before thee who has prophesied evil", when the society becomes secular what is "evil" becomes relative and self-serving. Anything unpleasant that happens to them is "evil" and anything they do is "good". Thus, even though they are gross sinners according to the Law, they consider themselves "good" and when Abinadi tells them they are about to be destroyed then that's "evil", cp. Isa. 5:20. The same thing happens today when religiously minded people reject self-destructive behaviors and are branded "intolerant", "hateful", or "bigoted" for it. All the while the people who engage in the name calling are in fact guilty of what they accuse. They are intolerant of the religious viewpoint, they hate religion, and are bigoted against religious people. v10-14 Note the way the people twist Abinadi's words so as to pit him against the king. Everything in their comments is geared towards "thy people...thy life...thou...thou...thee...O king... thou...thy people...O king...thou...O king...you". They are catering to a massive ego. This sheds greater light on why the king is so easily persuaded in the manner he is in 17:12. To a person with such an enormous ego, this kind of praise simply becomes a means of manipulation. v10-12 The threat recounted in v. 10 is documented as actually being said in v. 3, but the threats recounted in v. 11-12 are not actually documented. While the end of v. 8 says Abinadi said many other things as well, given the gross bias against Abinadi, one has to wonder if these people inflated their accusations to the point of bearing false witness against him. v13 The people do not suggest any punishment overtly, instead they leave it up to the king to decide his fate. But, clearly, their grossly biased recounting of Abinadi's speech and their ingratiating attitude towards the king indicates their motives. In all probability they remember his statement some two years earlier that Abinadi should be brought to him for execution, cf. 11:28. v17-24 Noah has Abinadi thrown in prison and summons his high priests to a council (v. 17). The priests tell king Noah to have Abinadi brought forth and they will question him (v. 18), so they can use sophistry to trip him up and find fault with him. But, Abinadi does not fall victim to their treachery, and they are surprised at his ability to withstand them (v. 19). As the questions wear on, one of the priests quotes Isa. 52:7-10 and asks him what it means (v. 20-24). v20 Mormon gives us no specific insight into why this particular passage is chosen by the priests. It is plain from Mormon's comment in v. 19 the priests intent is to trip him up and they just can't seem to do it. Assuming their motives haven't changed, once would assume they chose this passage because it is eschatological, hadn't been fulfilled and has mixed figurative and literal elements. Thus, it would have been relatively easy to adopt the opposite position of whatever Abinadi presents and attack it using sophistry. Aside from this, there may have been some other implications to using this quote. Verse 21, the quotation of Isa 52:7, praises those who herald good news about salvation to Zion. Perhaps their implicit message is Abinadi is contradicting Isaiah here by cursing them, and thus they seek to find fault in him. Or, their intention might be to fault the text itself. The passage they quote is one of redeemed Jerusalem. As they knew from their Israelite history, Jerusalem was sacked and their ancestors were forced to flee, hence their presence in the New World. If this is the case, then how can Isaiah be talking about a redeemed Jerusalem when it is lying in waste under Babylon's rule? If they have secularized, then this approach would make sense as they were looking for justification to reject the prophetic portions of the text based upon the apparent lack of fulfilled prophecies. It could have been a combination of all three, and they were just lying in wait to spring one of them on Abinadi in the event he failed to address it in his interpretation. When people are eager to find fault they will resort to any tactic to accomplish that goal. v25-37 Abinadi initially ignores the question (he later addresses it in ch. 15) and instead turns his attention to what he considers the core issue, namely their apostasy. They have changed the subject away from what he is there to do, and he appears to have grown tired of their sophistry. Abinadi rails on them for feigning their priesthood when they do not teach the people and do not even understand spiritual things (v. 25). He casts woe upon them for perverting the ways of the Lord, because either they don't understand something they should understand, or of they do understand it they aren't teaching it (v. 26). He says they have no desire to understand the Scriptures, and are therefore unwise. He then asks them what it is they teach the people (v. 27). They say they teach the Law of Moses (v. 28), and Abinadi rails on them for their hypocrisy in not living it because they worship their riches as idols, are sexually immoral, and have led the entire people astray (v. 29). They know what he is saying is true, so they ought to fear God and humble themselves before Him (v. 30) because He will punish them for their hypocrisy. He then asks them if salvation comes by observing the Law of Moses (v. 31), since they think they are observing it. They say that salvation does come by the Law (v. 32). And Abinadi agrees with them that salvation does come by keeping the commandments, but the commandments of the Law include prohibitions of worshiping other things before the Lord when they should be putting the Lord first (v. 33-36). He tells them plainly they have not kept this commandment of the Law, and have not taught the people to keep it either. v29 Abinadi repeatedly characterizes their secularized materialism as a form of idolatry (cf. 12:29, 12:35-36, 13:12-13; Mormon does the same in 11:6-7). There is nothing in the text to suggest literal idolatry, so Abinadi is attacking them for spiritual idolatry, for loving their wealth more than God. This strikes at the heart of the matter, at what people's motives are and where they really come from. People love their wealth, or any other sin, more than God, so they abandon God for their wealth and adopt a secular view that they believe substantiates their position. Noah rejected the priests of his father (cf. 11:5) and consecrated new priests who shared his love of wild living. Which then came first? His love of wild living, or his secularized viewpoint? He adopted the latter in an effort to legitimize the former. v31-32 Abinadi gets them to admit observing the Law is essential for salvation, and then points out to them they are not observing major points of the Law. Comments on Mosiah 13 v1-2 "he said unto his priests, Away with this fellow.... And they stood forth and attempted to lay his hands upon him", it is the priests who try to mob Abinadi not the soldiers, as depicted in Friberg's painting. v1 "what have we to do with him, for he is mad", instead of confessing he is right and repenting or responding in some rational manner, they instead resort to personal attacks. What exactly they mean by "mad" isn't clear, they may be accusing him of being a religious fanatic, out of touch with reality, or insane. v4 Compare 1 Ne. 16:1-3. v9 It is unclear to me what Abinadi is saying. He may be saying it doesn't matter to him if they kill him after he delivers his message, and is therefore a statement of defiance. Or, is he saying that he knows he is spiritually confidant of his exaltation so he doesn't care what they do to him? v11 "and now I read unto you...the commandments...for I perceive that they are not written in your hearts", the usage of "read" is unusual as it doesn't seem likely Abinadi has a copy of the Torah with him he is literally reading from. However, when taken in context with the imagery he is using, it becomes more clear what he is referring to. He says he will "read" them the commandments because they are not "written" upon their hearts. So, what he is alluding to is the commandments being "written" upon his own heart, so he may therefore "read" them from his heart to them. The "heart" is the seat of ones emotions and desires in Semitic thought. If the Law is not upon their "hearts", then what it means is they do not desire to know or live it. v12-24 Abinadi's rendition follows the KJV Exod 20:3-17 version almost verbatim. v28, 34 The statements Abinadi makes here concerning the Lord's atonement and His incarnation are pretty blunt. There are no statements in the OT as we have it that are so blunt. There are passages in Isaiah which do make such implications, cf. Isa. 43:23-24. Comments on Mosiah 14 See my comments on Isa. 53 at: http://www.cybcon.com/~kurtn/exegesis.html Comments on Mosiah 15 In this chapter Abinadi is using the term "God" pretty loosely. Generally, when LDS persons speak they use "God" to refer to the "Father" and "Lord" to refer to the "Son" so as to avoid confusion. This is carried even further when "Eloheim" is applied to the Father and Jehovah is applied to the "Son" as though they were proper nouns. In the Scriptures, the names are not proper nouns and are used ambiguously as name-titles instead. The same goes with "God" here. Abinadi is obviously speaking most often of "God the Son". v1-5 Abinadi's statements here are somewhat confusing. For a simplified distillation of what he said see 7:27. v2-3 God the Son becomes both the Father and Son because of his mixed divine and mortal parentage. He inherits his divinity from this Father and his mortality from his mother. Thus, he has the power of the Father, but is inferior to the Father because of his mortal aspect, hence the Son. v4 "they are one God", I would assume Abinadi is saying that the Father and Son are "one", both in unity and numerically, in the person of Christ. I don't see this as a unity statement of the God the Father and God the Son being at unity as the preceding v. 1-3 are all referring to God the Son and how God the Son personifies both the Father and the Son. v5 "And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit", given license I would change the capital "S" in "Spirit" to a lowercase "s" just as the "f" in "flesh" is lowercase. The capital "S" leads one to automatically assume the Holy Ghost is being referenced, when the subject is Jesus' flesh body being subject to his spirit body. Yes, Jesus' spirit was completely in accord to the Holy Spirit, but that's not the subject here. The subject is the uniqueness of Christ in that he mastered his flesh such that it was always in complete subjection to his spirit. No other mortal did so. v10-25 Now that Abinadi has finished what he was supposed to tell them (cf. 13:3), he now answers their question concerning the Isaiah quote originally posed in 12:20-24. Those who are born again to be the spiritual children of Christ (v. 10-12), including the prophets (v. 13), are those who publish peace and say to Zion "Thy God reigneth!" (v. 14). Abinadi then praises the past (v. 15), present (v. 16), future (v. 17), and even eternal persons (v. 17) who publish peace and herald Zion (v. 18). He then discusses the physical salvation brought about by the Resurrection (v. 19-25). v15-17 On the reference to the feet contrast 1 Ne. 13:37 which omits "feet" from a similar statement. For a more thorough discussion of the feet and the passage in general, see my comments on Isa. 52 on the LDS Seminar archive. v28-31 deal with the rest of the Isaiah quote in 12:22-24 and place the fulfilment in a Millennial setting. Comments on Mosiah 16 This chapter contains a similar subjects to that of king Benjamin's speech in ch. 3, particularly the negative portions of ch. 3. This shouldn't be too surprising since this group never heard Benjamin's speech having departed previous to then, cf. Omni 1:27-30. One of the subject that is made particularly clear is that the resurrection is what brings a spirit back into the presence of God to the be judged, cf. v. 10-11. This is a doctrine consistently and clearly taught throughout the BofM, but which is obscure at best in the Bible. v12 The imagery of the Lord's arms being extended for mercy but being rejected is probably drawn from Isa. 9 and 10. v13-15 is Abinadi's summary and finale. It succinctly distills his entire message, condemnation, and admonition into 3 verses. Comments on Mosiah 17 v1 "commanded that the priests should take him", as in 13:1 Noah first attempted to have the priests take Abinadi. It is not until v. 5 of this chapter that the guards are told to take Abinadi. v2 "Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi. And he was a young man, and he believed the words", the text sets up Alma as not being like the others in that he believes Abinadi. But, it also adds the descriptors of being a Nephite and younger, suggesting the other priests were in general Mulekites and older. v4 "he...did write all the words", we would presume this is how we got such a detailed record of Abinadi's confrontation with Noah and his priests. Alma was a first-hand witness of the entire proceedings and he documented it, subsequently making it available to Mormon. Other details were probably filled in by record keeping derived from Limhi and others who survived and ultimately rejoined the Nephites. v6-8 It takes the priests three days to fabricate an accusation against Abinadi they are hoping will cause him to recant his testimony against them. They primary interest here is to get him to recant, so they want to use an accusation that is religiously based so as to appeal to his strong religious convictions. And, they are attempting to cast doubt on his previous statements concerning the Messiah, so they are seeking to undercut his logic so he will doubt himself in the moment his life is in jeopardy. They are hoping his fear of death in combination with their counter argument that it is blasphemy to suggest God will condescend to flesh will raise enough doubt in him to get him to recant. v11-12 Noah initially backs off from the threat of execution because of Abinadi's warning (v. 11). However, when the priests realize he is backing down they appeal to his pride and arrogance and get him to follow through with it (v. 12). These two verses do a great deal to show the real character of these people and what their relationship was really like. Noah is extremely prideful, and the priests are using this as a means of manipulation to get what they want. The priests are a group of self-promoters who have learned to get what they want by catering to and manipulating the king. v13 "scourged his skin with faggots", as indicated in the next verse this is a death by fire. The term "faggots" refers to bundles of dry twigs bound together. They were used historically to start fires as they caught fire easily and burned quickly when compared to split logs. v15-18 Abinadi continues his warning from 13:10 that what they do to him will be indicative of what happens to them. This was ultimately fulfilled with Noah's death by fire in 19:20, and the death of the priests and their children in Alma 25:4-12. ________________________________________________________________________ Structure, by D. Lynn Johnson ________________________________________________________________________ I will concentrate on chapters 14 and 15, Abinadi’s quoting and commenting on Isaiah 53, because that is where a significant insight came for me after seeing the structure. As usual, the full reformatted text can be found on the LDSS Archive website, http://www.cybcon.com/~kurtn/exegesis.html First let’s look as some of the smaller features. Verses 2-3 look like this: For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Verses 7 and 8 are as follows: He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no evil, neither was any deceit in his mouth. And verse 12 is Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. The overall pattern of chapter 14 is as follows: Mosiah 14:2-12 Inverted A He was despised and rejected of men. // I will divide him a portion with the great. B Surely he has borne our griefs. // He shall bear their iniquities. C We did esteem him stricken, smitten of God (Elohim). // Yet it pleased the LORD (Jehovah) to bruise him. D He was wounded for our transgressions, etc. // For the transgressions of my people was he stricken. E All we, like sheep, have gone astray. // We have turned every one to his own way. In the A's we see he is rejected of men, but chosen of the Father. The B's speak of his bearing our griefs and sorrows, as well as our iniquities. The big insight for me is in the C's. We learn from the Hebrew that the first C says we thought Elohim had smitten Jesus, but the second says it was Jehovah who, knowing that the price for sin must be paid, agreed that Jesus should be the one to pay that price. He then offered to become Jesus. Thus the flesh was subjected to the spirit, or the Son to the Father, as Abinadi explains in 15:1-5. The D's provide the essence of the atonement, while the E's tell why the atonement is so necessary. Having seen the C's, then Abinadi’s discussion of the Father and the Son in 15:1-9 suddenly began to be more understandable. He is, in reality, commenting upon the C's, elaborating upon the dual nature of Jesus as the Father and the Son. We find a double inverted system in Abinadi’s elaboration on this theme. Mosiah 15:1-9 Inverted, double A God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. // Thus God breaketh the bands of death...having redeemed them. B He shall be called the Son of God, and having subjecting the flesh to the will of the Father. // Thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father. C Being the Father and the Son. // Thus becoming the Father and the Son. D The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God. // And the Son, because of the flesh. B Thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father. // The flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. C He shall be led. // He shall be led, crucified, and slain. ________________________________________________________________________ Next Assignment: Mosiah 18-24 ________________________________________________________________________ A note to readers: LDS Seminar Digest [LDSS-D] is a summary of posts made to LDS Seminar, an open forum for discussion on upcoming Gospel Doctrine lessons. LDS Seminar [LDSS] posts are open to exegesis, textual analysis, historical issues, and life applications. Submissions to LDSS will not be edited for content, but not all submissions will be automatically included in LDSS-D. LDSS-D is a one way list, subscribers cannot post to LDSS-D. If you wish to post you must join LDSS. To subscribe to LDSS or LDSS-D, visit the LDSS Homepage and use the automated subscription request form: http://www.cybcon.com/~kurtn/ldss.html LDS Seminar Digest posts are archived at: http://www.cybcon.com/~kurtn/exegesis.html ________________________________________________________________________ The contents of LDS Seminar are copyrighted (c) 2000 by their respective authors. All rights reserved. No part of these posts may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the written consent of the respective authors. Copies may be made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use. ________________________________________________________________________