|
MDC Contents
|
|
|
 Alma
11:1
1 Now it was in the law of Mosiah that every man who was a judge of the law, or those who were appointed to be
judges, should receive wages according to the time which they labored to judge those who were brought before them
to be judged.
Textual: This
verse is part of the unit that was begun in Alma 10:31-32. Specifically, it follows the comment: "Alma 10:32
Now the object of these lawyers was to get gain; and they got gain according to their employ."
Verse 1 begins the explanation of the way the lawyers got gain. This odd little side trip into Nephite economy
is Mormon's preface to verse 22 where the value of an ontie becomes important.
Alma
11:2
2 Now if a man owed another, and he would not pay that which he did owe, he was complained of to the judge; and
the judge executed authority, and sent forth officers that the man should be brought before him; and he judged
the man according to the law and the evidences which were brought against him, and thus the man was compelled to
pay that which he owed, or be stripped, or be cast out from among the people as a thief and a robber.
Social: This
verse provides some of the best information available on the functioning of the greater Nephite judicial system.
While the context is specifically Ammonihah, Mormon does not indicate that this system is unusual nor unique to
Ammonihah. It is probable that this is the general system that prevailed wherever the political system fell under
the Zarahemla reign of the judges.
This verse is the first time that we find clear evidence of any form of police force among the Nephites. It is
not surprising to find it, as the cities are of sufficient size that some organized means of enforcement would
have been necessary. The process of judgment was that the wronged person would come before the judge and lay his
claim. The judge then decided if the offender should appear, and if he/she should, then the officers were sent.
The "evidences" were brought against the man, and a verdict rendered. What is missing in this recitation
is the role that the lawyers played in this process. It is clear that they were involved, for it is this judicial
process that generates income for them - billable time, in the modern vernacular. If we return to the speculation
about the nature of the lawyers being closer to the Jerusalem model than the modern model, then the function of
the lawyers was not to argue the case, but probably to consult the records. As scribes, they would have the access
to the written tradition, against which the judgements would be rendered.
The punishments rendered are also interesting. For non-payment of a debt there are three levels of punishment listed:
forced payment ("the man was compelled to pay that which he owed"), humiliation ("be stripped"),
or banishment ("be cast out from among the people as a thief and a robber.")
One may suspect that the preferred settlement was to pay what was owed. This would provide the best result for
the person bringing suit. However, if the person were unable to pay, then one of the next two punishments were
meted out. It is possible that of the presentation of the possibilities is another place where the lawyers would
serve in the judicial system, by consulting the records to find the appropriate punishment.
The last two punishments are interesting because they are so different. One is personal humiliation. The second
was, in some communities, virtually a death sentence. The banishment of a person from the city meant that the person
was cut off from not only his means of support, but also from his support group. He was banished from his local
kin. Thus the person no longer had the means to provide for himself, nor anyone socially required to assist him.
It is possible that such a person might have kin in a different city willing to help, but it is also possible that
the entire kin group would hold firm in the banishment because it had been levied against the kin in one city.
This was an extremely serious punishment.
The seriousness of this punishment contrasts with the relative simplicity of the "stripping." Why would
there be two very different penalties for the same crime? It may be assumed that paying what was owed was no punishment,
but rather the enforcement of justice. The stripping was a penalty, but clearly not of the significance of banishment.
Why should personal humiliation be a punishment?
It is probable that the punishments were different because they were meted out to different social classes. The
lower class would receive banishment, and the upper class would be humiliated (a rather severe blow to their pride
and standing in the community). This dual system of justice is reflected in punishments delivered by the Aztec
judges in a later time period. In the case of the Aztec justice system, the harsher penalty appears to have applied
to the nobility rather than to the commoner (Soustelle, Jacque. The Daily Life of the Aztecs. Stanford University
Press. 1961, p. 143).
Alma
11:3
3 And the judge received for his wages according to his time-a senine of gold for a day, or a senum of silver,
which is equal to a senine of gold; and this is according to the law which was given.
The logical progression
of Mormon's interjected comments is that he begin to discuss the compensation received by the judges and the lawyers.
He begins with the compensation of the judges. Mormon never specifically gives the "wages" of the lawyers,
though they clearly participate in this process. There are two possibilities, and we do not have the data to decide
which of the possibilities was the system used in Zarahemla or Ammonihah. The first is that the lawyers received
some amount of compensation that was in addition to that of the judges, and that Mormon simply does not mention
it. The second possibility is that the judge received the compensation, from which he paid the lawyer(s) who worked
with him. It would be most likely in a scribe/lawyer system that one scribe/lawyer worked with one judge, and that
the two might share in the compensation for the judicial process.
Alma
11:4
4 Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value.
And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem;
neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according
to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having
been established by king Mosiah.
In order to understand
the nature of the bribe that will be given to Amulek, Mormon takes a rather long aside to describe the monetary
system of the Nephites. He feels the need to make this description because he assumes that it is a unique system
that his reader may not understand. While Mormon may have had some understanding of the modern Western society
that would eventually read the Book of Mormon, it is most clear that he considered that he was writing to his Lamanite
descendants. If he assumes that he must explain Nephite means of exchange to them, it is quite likely that this
is not the system common among the Lamanites. Authors do not explain the things they consider to be obvious. When
Mormon speaks of travel, he never indicates the mode of travel. He assumes that we will known that they travel
on foot. He is not aware that we have multiple modes of conveyance, and might interested in the particular mode
the Nephites use. For Mormon, this is simply too obvious to state. In this case, however, Mormon is very explicit
in describing the mode of exchange. This very detail suggests that he considered this information unique, and therefore
not to be assumed.
There are several parallels between this system that is established by Mosiah and similar situations in the Old
World:
"Ancient kings typically implemented their economic progress by means of official decrees. In this light it
is interesting that King Mosiah's statute contains similarities to other ancient law codes antecedent to the Nephite
system. For example, similarities appear almost effortlessly in the law code of Eshnunna, which was compiled about
1800 b.c. in a Babylonian city by that name that lay approximately 50 miles northeast of Baghdad in modern Iraq.
In fact the similarities are rather striking. First of all, the opening lines in the law code of Eshnunna set out
an important equivalency that becomes the basis for commerce: "one kor of barley is equal to one shekel of
silver." A similar conversion between silver and barley was also used among the Hittites. Perhaps it is coincidental,
but the law of Mosiah begins with a comparable ratio of value stated in similar phraseology: "a senum of silver,
which is equal to a senine of gold, . . . and either for a measure of barley" (Alma 11:3, 7).
A second parallel has to do with the basic reason for establishing values for various goods. At Eshnunna, this
valuation was designed to allow merchants to deal in a variety of commodities, each one being convertible into
either silver or barley, sesame oil, wool, and other things. Thus precious metal and grain measures were interchangeable.
Correspondingly, the Nephite system allowed traders to convert from silver or gold into many other goods: "also
for a measure of every kind of grain" (Alma 11:7).
Third, one of the motives behind the laws of Eshnunna was apparently to create a kind of standard rate of compensation
for drivers of wagons or for boatmen, as well as to set the penalties for damages or the daily rates for renting
different means of transport, such as boats and wagons. In the case of the Nephites, the system was likewise linked
to a standard daily wage, in this instance for judges. Both systems are consistent with the ordinary workings of
ancient economies." (Welch, John W. "Weighing & measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon."
In: Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 8:2).
Alma 11:5
5 Now the reckoning is thus-a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.
Alma 11:6
6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.
Alma 11:7
7 A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of
every kind of grain.
Alma 11:8
8 Now the amount of a seon of gold was twice the value of a senine.
Alma 11:9
9 And a shum of gold was twice the value of a seon.
Alma 11:10
10 And a limnah of gold was the value of them all.
Alma 11:11
11 And an amnor of silver was as great as two senums.
Alma 11:12
12 And an ezrom of silver was as great as four senums.
Alma 11:13
13 And an onti was as great as them all.
Alma 11:14
14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning-
Alma 11:15
15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.
Alma 11:16
16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.
Alma 11:17
17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.
Alma 11:18
18 Now this is their number, according to their reckoning.
Alma 11:19
19 Now an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons.
Larry E. Dahl has summarized
this system of comparative values based on weights:
GOLD SILVER MEASURE/GRAIN DAY'S WAGE
leah .125
shiblum .25
shiblon .5
senine senum 1.0 1.0
antion 1.5
seon amnor 2.0
shum ezrom 4.0
limnah onti 7.0
(Dahl, Larry E. "The Plan of Redemption - Taught and Rejected." In: Studies in Scripture: Volume Seven,
1 Nephi to Alma 29. Deseret Book, 1987, p. 318).
The chart shows the relative values of the pieces that are mentioned. A note should be made on the day's wage.
The original has a typographical error indicating 1,000 rather than 1.0. The value of a days wage is based on verse
3 which very clearly states that it is one senine or senum that is the wage. The next point that should be made
is that the senine/senum per day may or may not be the wage of the judge alone. It is actually more probable that
this is the value that is given to the position of judge, and supports the judge and his lawyer/scribes. If we
assume only a single senine/senum per day, then Zeezrom's bribe of 6 onties would only be wages for 42 days (Dahl,
p. 318 and Welch, John W. "Weighing & measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon." In: Journal
of Book of Mormon Studies. 8:2). While this is a large number, it does not appear to be overly large, and perhaps
not sufficiently large to be as overwhelmingly tempting as Zeezrom appears to believe it to be. If, however, that
sum were the wage for more than one person, then the offer to Amulek becomes much more impressive in its size.
Another interesting facet of the Nephite monetary system is the replication of values for silver and gold, but
with different names. The value remains the same, but the name of the value includes the metal of which the "piece"
is made. This is an odd feature. The modern coinage of the US might have, at one time, had "coppers"
and "silvers," but such a terminology did not develop because "silvers" could have referred
to dimes, quarters, dollars, etc. Of course the newest system makes all such naming impossible, but the fact that
it never arose stems from the separation of the symbolic value from the intrinsic value. In the case of the Nephite
monetary system, these are symbolic equivalencies based on a bushel of barley, and for some reason the nomenclature
required a different description for the unit based on the metal the piece was made of.
Alma
11:20
20 Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore,
they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more
employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did stir
up the people against Alma and Amulek.
Textual: It
is interesting that Mormon is clearly antipathetic to the lawyers and judges in Ammonihah. He shows no such antipathy
to judges in any other location, and we hear of the lawyers only in Ammonihah, and then later in 3 Nephi. It is
possible that lawyers were an Ammonihahite innovation, or that the system in Ammonihah was particularly corrupt,
and Mormon's disparaging comments about the lawyers and judges apply only to Ammonihahite lawyers and judges. We
do not know how Mormon might have known that the lawyers and judges stirred up the people to get more "business."
It is quite doubtful that they would have left any official documents describing such activities. It appears that
we are seeing one of Mormon's interpretations, and as we saw with King Noah, when Mormon takes a dislike to one
of his subjects, he makes to effort to be neutral, but rather allows his antipathy to show through clearly.
Alma
11:21
21 And this Zeezrom began to question Amulek, saying: Will ye answer me a few questions which I shall ask you?
Now Zeezrom was a man who was expert in the devices of the devil, that he might destroy that which was good; therefore,
he said unto Amulek: Will ye answer the questions which I shall put unto you?
Textual: We
have the possibility of seeing in this verse some of the editorial process the Mormon is using. We have seen that
his greatest interest is in the inserted speeches that he has selected. In most cases, we have the general form
of an inserted speech linked to a minimal recitation of the history that gives it context. In this case, we have
an intercalated statement. Very certainly, the original (whatever we might understand that to be) had only the
quotation: "will ye answer me a few questions…" What we have in this verse is that phrase written twice,
with an interjection between them. That interjection was either in the original source that Mormon is copying,
or is part of Mormon's editorial process.
While it is possible that it was in the source Mormon copied, it is not likely. Mormon would be using an official
document here, and it is not likely that the document would have informal asides. Our experience with other texts
does show that this means of interjection is part of Mormon's technique, and we may be fairly certain that it is
Mormon himself who has added this phrase discussing Zeezrom's motivations.
Mormon certainly was not present when the speech was given (it was given some 400 years before Mormon's time) so
we are getting his opinion. Mormon's opinion is formed before he begins to write this phrase, because it is necessarily
dependent upon the rest of the text. What this tells us is that Mormon has read all of his sources, knows them
fairly well, and has definite opinions about them. He feels a personal relationship to the information that he
is writing, such that he admires the prophets, and despises those who contend against them. As with his editorial
actions during the writing of the story of Noah, we see a Mormon who has taken a dislike to one of the characters
he writes about, and he is not shy about letting that antipathy show.
Translation: Zeezrom is given these words: "Will ye answer the questions…" This tells us something
about the translation process that is worth noting. It has been quite obvious that the Book of Mormon is written
in King James style English. This verse makes it clear that the style is an affectation rather than something with
which Joseph Smith was very familiar. He makes a grammatical mistake here that is due to his lack of true understanding
of the thee/thou forms. Grammar assigns various attributes to how words and used, and two of them are the number
(I/we; he/they) and another is the part of speech (I/me; we/us).
Zeezom is asking a question, and therefore needs an indirect pronoun. In modern English, we have lost the distinction
between "you" as a subject and "you" as an indirect object. Without the affected style, Zeezrom
is asking "will you answer the questions…."
The Book of Mormon text would be grammatically accurate if he were speaking to both Amulek and Alma, as "ye"
is the plural form of the indirect object. However, the context makes it clear that only Amulek considers himself
the object of the request. Thus grammatically, this should be a singular indirect object, which is "thou."
The text should say (making a similar correction in the verb) "wilt thou answer the questions…"
There will be many readers of the Book of Mormon who will not notice this type of grammatical error, as modern
English has lost this usage long enough ago that most of us do not use the form any better than Joseph Smith did.
However, many of those who have learned English as a second language will see such forms and notice the error immediately.
This is only further evidence that Joseph's understanding of language and grammar influenced the text we have.
It is much easier to see Joseph as the one who creates these ultimate forms of the language than it is to explain
grammatical mistakes that depend upon errors of a native speaker of English than to pose any other suggestion.
Alma
11:22
22 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, if it be according to the Spirit of the Lord, which is in me; for I shall say
nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord. And Zeezrom said unto him: Behold, here are six onties of
silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a Supreme Being.
Amulek agrees to answer
questions, and the first thing Zeezrom does has nothing to do with asking questions. Why does Zeezrom ask if Amulek
will answer questions, and then not ask one? In a sense, he does ask a question. He asks how serious Amulek is
about the message he is delivering. Had Amulek accepted the money, the questioning would be over, and the controversy
effectively ended. Mormon understood the importance of this opening ploy, and prepared us for it by setting up
our understanding of an onti, so that we might have a concept of what was being offered and declined.
Verse 13 above places an onti as the largest measure of silver. The measures increased in terms of two or four.
What is offered is six onties, which might be analyzed as a "full set" of four and half of another. What
is offered would be considered large indeed, regardless of the actual purchasing power, simply based upon the mathematical
exaggeration of the number. In our modern economy, no doubt it would be similar to being offered a million dollars.
Regardless of the actually purchasing power, the emotional impact of the number itself is important. It is likely
that six onties had a similar emotional impact as well as a real value.
Alma 11:23
23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such
temptations?
Alma 11:24
24 Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest
that lucre more than him.
Rhetorical:
Amulek turns his righteous wrath on Zeezrom, for as we shall see in the next verse, Amulek has perceived a hidden
agenda in Zeezrom's opening move. Amulek first declines, vehemently, the offer of the six onties. The next thing
he does is to turn the questioning process back on Zeezrom. Amulek asks a question. However, he does not wait for
an answer, but rather answers it himself.
Amulek does this because he knows that Zeezrom will have some smooth way out of the accusation. What Amulek does
is to question whether or not Zeezrom believes in God, and then acknowledges that he does. However, Amulek uses
the offer of the onties as proof that Zeezrom loves lucre more than God. Amulek is suggesting that Zeezrom believed
Amulek might have accepted the onties precisely because Zeezrom would have considered it a tempting offer. Amulek
is using Zeezrom's offer to accuse Zeezrom of the very thing that Zeezrom would have accused Amulek.
Alma
11:25
25 And now thou hast lied before God unto me. Thou saidst unto me-Behold these six onties, which are of great worth,
I will give unto thee-when thou hadst it in thy heart to retain them from me; and it was only thy desire that I
should deny the true and living God, that thou mightest have cause to destroy me. And now behold, for this great
evil thou shalt have thy reward.
Amulek now exposes
Zeezrom's ploy. Amulek tells Zeezrom (and not coincidentally, the crowd) that Zeezrom had no intention of paying
off the bribe had Amulek accepted it. To translate the situation into one that makes more cultural sense to us,
we might have a modern Zeezrom who is well-to-do, but certainly not a multi-millionaire, and an Amulek, who is
also well-to-do. When the modern Zeezrom offers a million dollars, those who know him would understand that he
really didn't have the wherewithal to make good on the offer. What he would be doing is tricking Amulek into saying
that he accepted, whereupon he would be arrested on other grounds, such as false preaching, or whatever other law
the modern Zeezrom might find.
This is the situation in Ammonihah. Six onties was clearly considered a large sum, and (as noted above) was more
probably a psychologically large number as well as a number large in value. Amulek's acceptance would have signaled
his lack of dedication to the cause he had espoused, and by having exposed Amulek as a fraud, Zeezrom could have
imprisoned and discredited him without having to deliver on the promise. It is for this reason that Zeezrom began
the "questioning" with this very important beginning. It would have ended things very quickly, and cost
him nothing.
Alma
11:26
26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
Alma 11:27
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
Rhetorical:
Now the debate begins in earnest. While there is great doctrine to be learned from Amulek's defense before Zeezrom,
we should understand that this was much more of a context than a doctrinal explication. That Amulek is able to
teach us is to our great benefit, but his immediate purpose was much more important. Amulek was in a debate for
the minds of the people, and had the added incentive of his own personal safety. Zeezrom's victory would not only
signal the defeat of God's message, but surely also signal the incarceration (or worse) of both Alma and Amulek.
This is no impassive conversation between to pastors of different churches. This is a brutal fight fought with
words in a battle for the hearts of the people of a city.
In this phase of the verbal battle, Zeezrom calmly picks up Amulek's opening question and turns it back on Amulek.
Amulek has both asked and answered for Zeezrom, so Zeezrom finds it appropriate to begin with that same question
of Amulek as he begins his questioning in earnest. For Zeezrom, however, there will be no answering himself. He
is quite anxious that Amulek answer the questions, because he intends to find in the way that Amulek answers the
fuel to throw on the flames of crowds already incited passion against Alma and Amulek.
Alma
11:28
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
Alma 11:29
29 And he answered, No.
Rhetorical:
This is no accidental question on Zeezrom's part. It is most probable that Zeezrom knows very well what Amulek's
answer will be. This is a debate between Nephite religion and the order of Nehor. Even though Ammonihah has chosen
the order of Nehor, they surely understood the Nephite religion. Zeezrom chooses this particular issue because
he is building a case with which he believes he will trap Amulek. He asks about multiple gods not because there
were other religions that believed in multiple gods (although it is also rather certain that Zeezrom also knew
of such religions) but precisely because he knows that Amulek believes in only one God. Zeezrom wants this admission
out of Zeezrom to use against him, as we will see as the argument develops.
Alma
11:30
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
Alma 11:31
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
Rhetorical:
We don't immediately see the agenda behind this particular question. Zeezrom is setting Amulek up for a contradiction.
By appealing to an angel he must appeal to something other than tradition or the established sources. He is not
appealing to a great teacher, to a well-respected person on whom the audience can easily agree should lend weight
to the argument. What he has appealed to is mystical, and we cannot tell how well the audience accepted the validity
of that experience, though we may assume that they didn't hold it in very high esteem, or the confrontation would
not have proceeded to this point.
Alma
11:32
32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
Alma 11:33
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
Rhetorical:
The next question strengthens the trap Zeezrom has laid for Amulek. Zeezrom asks about the coming Messiah. Zeezrom
certainly knows what Nephite religion preaches about the Atoning Messiah, and he knows that the Atoning Messiah
is termed the Son of God. He asks this question precisely because he knows the answer, and wants to use that answer
against Amulek. Amulek does what both Zeezrom and Amulek know that he must do, which is acknowledge that the Son
of God is the one who must come.
Alma
11:34
34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say
unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.
Zeezrom is going to
lay two accusations at Amulek's feet in verse 35. He sets up the second accusation there. Zeezrom opens one of
what must have been a great theological issue between the Nephite religion and that of the order of Nehor. The
question about the function of the Messiah is one that had been debated by Abinadi before Noah's priests. The need
for an Atoning Messiah was called into question by the man Nehor himself:
Alma 1:4 And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they
need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men,
and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.
Nehor and those of the same religious beliefs apparently believed in God and the Mosaic Law (as we saw with the
priests of Noah) but denied the need for the Atoning Messiah. They believed in the Triumphant Messiah of the last
days, but denied the need for a Messiah to come to save us. They believed that the God who made man had already
redeemed him, and there was no need for any further redemption. Zeezrom asks this question of Amulek so that Amulek
will have to admit to his belief which is contrary to that held by his audience.
Alma
11:35
35 Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he
saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people-as though he had authority to command God.
Rhetorical:
Zeezrom now springs the trap. It consists of two admissions by Amulek that Zeezrom considers to be sufficiently
contradictory to what the people believe that they will agree that Amulek should be detained.
The first of these is to contrast the belief in one God with Amulek's admission that there is a Son of God. Although
Zeezrom does not explain his reasoning here, it is easy to read between the lines, particularly as he picks up
this line of reasoning in verse 38. Zeezrom is saying that while Amulek believes in one God, he nevertheless believes
in two Gods because he believes in a Son of God, and therefore must believe in a Father for that Son. Thus there
would be two Gods, and Amulek has lied.
The second accusation is that Amulek has like about the mission of the Atoning Messiah. Amulek claims that the
Son of God is the "coming one" and yet he is not coming to save us in our sins. Zeezrom claims this a
another contradiction in Amulek's logic, an Atoning Messiah who doesn't atone.
Alma
11:36
36 Now Amulek saith again unto him: Behold thou hast lied, for thou sayest that I spake as though I had authority
to command God because I said he shall not save his people in their sins.
Alma 11:37
37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said
that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the
kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.
Rhetorical:
Amulek deals with the second accusation. Zeezrom used the device of claiming that Amulek was speaking for God as
a means of shocking the audience and reducing Amulek's argument to an absurdity. Since Amulek had claimed authority
through an angel, Zeezrom is attempting to discredit Amulek's spiritual credentials by having him appear to be
blasphemous. In this case, to decide that the Atoning Messiah won't atone.
Of course the key to this issue is the idea that man would be saved "in his sins." It is that phrase
with which Amulek has the theological issue, not with the mission of the Atoning Messiah. Amulek makes it clear
that salvation cannot occur without a remission of sin. Since no unclean thing can enter into heaven, no man with
sin can enter. As Amulek points out, how can one be saved except in the kingdom of heaven? Amulek answers this
charge by pointing out that Zeezrom has made an error in his language. Amulek has answered truthfully and with
straightforwardness. It is Zeezrom who has muddied the issue.
Alma
11:38
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
Rhetorical:
Zeezrom apparently has conceded this last point to Amulek, and now attempts to hammer home the one that he is sure
he can win, and the one that Amulek appears to have skipped, which is the contradiction between the one God and
the Father/Son of God. For this reason he asks if the Son of God is the very Eternal Father. As we have seen in
other locations in the Book of Mormon, this was a tenet of Nephite believe, even though some of the verses that
stated so have been modified to clarify the issue for modern readers. Nevertheless, this equivalence of Father
and Son is essential if we are to understand Zeezrom's rhetorical attack.
Alma
11:39
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in
them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
Alma 11:40
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those
who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.
Rhetorical:
Amulek testifies that the Atoning Messiah is also known as the Father. Rather than accept the trap of attempting
to justify the mathematical question, Amulek rather takes the opportunity to further explain the mission of the
Atoning Messiah. Rather than redeeming all men, or saving men in their sins, this Atoning Messiah that will come
will "take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name, and these are they that shall have
eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else." Amulek testifies that the Atoning Messiah's mission will
require some participation on our part, and that without such participation, we cannot be saved. What Amulek has
done is say to Zeezrom that Zeezrom will not be saved. What Amulek has done is say to the crowd that they will
not be saved. Amulek has turned the trap into a condemnation of those who were trying to trap him.
Textual: Amulek includes the phrases "he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
Whatever the text on the plates, this particular formulation depends heavily on the alpha/omega imagery from the
book of Revelations (Revelations 22:13; 21:6; Rev. 1:11, 17; 2:8.)
Alma
11:41
41 Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands
of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according
to their works.
Alma 11:42
42 Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this
temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death.
Rhetorical:
It is most probable that the order of the Nehors understood that the Messiah would be involved in a loosing of
the bands of death. They may have conflated the resurrection with the idea of salvation. Since all were loosed
from death, they presumed that all were therefore saved. Amulek will tell them that salvation from death is not
salvation from sin.
Doctrinal: Amulek makes clear the various aspects of the mission of the Atoning Messiah. One of the aspects
is to atone for temporal death. Amulek defines temporal death as the death of the body. The Atonement will rectify
this problem, and death will be defeated.
When Paul explained this same concept to the Corinthians he underlined the reversed parallel between Adam and the
Christ:
1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul introduces Christ as begin risen from the dead. The "firstfuits" is Paul's recognition
that Jesus is the first to ever rise form the dead. What Paul does is contrast this with the situation with Adam.
Where Adam was the first to die, Christ is the first to rise. Paul goes further than this, however. He indicates
that all men followed the example of Adam, the first to die. He concludes that therefore all men will follow the
example of Christ, and shall rise, or "be made alive."
This exact reversal of elements is intentional. Paul is emphasizing both the resurrection and the universality
of the resurrection. This breaking of the bands of death is given to all men. There are no conditions attached,
just as there were no options our of death from Adam to Jesus.
Amulek calls the death of the body the temporal (related to time) death. He also recognizes that there is a complete
and unconditional Atonement for this death. However, he also recognizes that there is another problem. In addition
to the bands of death, there is the problem of sin. What Amulek declares in verse 41 is that those sins may remain
even though the body may live again. The resurrection of the body does not in and of itself have any effect on
the sins of the soul accumulated while in that body.
Alma
11:43
43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to
its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as
we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.
Amulek continues with
his explanation. This resurrection, this coming back to life, will bring together the spirit and the body, with
the body "restored" to the way it is now. Even with this complete restoration of body and soul, with
nothing missing in the body, we will still come before God with a "bright recollection of all our guilt."
Amulek is continuing to mark the difference between the temporal (physical) death and the problem of salvation.
As part of his explanation, Amulek uses the term "restored." This is a concept that will become very
important in Alma chapter 41, but is clearly part of Amulek's understanding at this point. It is sufficient to
note that this is an important term that references a concept that will more fully explained in Alma 41.
Alma
11:44
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both
the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing
shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before
the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according
to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.
Rhetorical:
Verse 44 is a functional duplication of verse 43. There are two elements in each of the two verses. The first element
is the universality of the resurrection, and the second is the inapplicability of the resurrection to the atonement
from sin. The duplication of the two verses is an intentional repetition for emphasis.
Literary: The particular phrasing "bond and free" no doubt owes a debt to the translation of Paul:
Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for
ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Alma
11:45
45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection
of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even
from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be
divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.
Literary: While
the general language of this passage clearly owes a debt to Paul, there are important differences:
1 Cor. 15:42-44
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body.
Amulek shares the contrasting themes between death and resurrection, with similar vocabularies, but there is an
important difference in the vocabularies used that show that what Joseph is translating is no simple restating
of Paul. Both Paul and Amulek use contrasting terms natural/spiritual (Paul) and temporal/spiritual (Amulek). The
difference is that those contrasts refer to completely different concepts. For Amulek the temporal/spiritual contrast
deals with the difference between resurrection and the atonement for sin. For Paul, the natural/spiritual refers
to the two states of the body, the mortal and the resurrected. While the language may be similar, the concepts
encoded by that language are very different.
Alma
11:46
46 Now, when Amulek had finished these words the people began again to be astonished, and also Zeezrom began to
tremble. And thus ended the words of Amulek, or this is all that I have written.
Textual: Mormon
prematurely shuts down his inclusion of Amulek's sermon. We don't know how much longer it might have gone on, although
Amulek does appear to have answered most of Zeezrom's questions. Nevertheless, it is not without cause that Mormon
notes that "this is all that I have written." For his own reasons, he stops the discourse here, and doesn't
copy through the end of his source. Perhaps he is eager to get on to Alma's follow up discourse in the next chapter.
This is the end of the chapter in the 1830 edition.
|
