   |
|
|
41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it. Mosiah 3:1 1 And again my brethren, I would call your attention, for I have somewhat more to speak unto you; for behold, I have things to tell you concerning that which is to come.
The initial transitions simply plays on the opposition of good and bad in the next life. Where the previous section ended with the awful state of the wicked, Benjamin now wants his people to "consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments." Having made this transition, however, in 3:1 he now seems to start something new again (the reason the modern editor made the division in the chapters). What is he doing? The important part of verse 1 is "I would call your attention." Benjamin has been addressing his people, and rather in passing declared their new king (Mosiah 2:30). They would not have been surprised at the person selected as king, even if they might have been surprised at the timing – though the invitation to assemble apparently indicated that a new king would be selected (Mosiah 1:10) as well as the name of the king. Therefore, while important, the announcement of the king was nothing to which they needed to pay particular attention. In the discussion of the fate of the enemies to God, those who might have fallen in that category would have been pricked to listen intently, but the majority of the audience would have considered this a review of information, and not of personal impact (remembering that those who had really wanted to follow the "evil spirit" had already defected to the Lamanites – this was a crowd consisting of believers, with only a possible few who might have still had some sympathy for the old ways – the "old men" who were the direct targets of Benjamin’s muted discussion of eternal penalties). Imagine the possible situation. It is during the day, probably in the fall after the harvest when food sufficient and time sufficient for a festival were available (and the traditional time of the feast of Tabernacles). In the Mesoamerican setting, it would still be a warm day. With the gathered people and the shining sun we would have a pleasant day, perhaps a little warm, with a lot of people gathered around. Children were present, and just as they are at a stake conference, they would be restless as Benjamin continues speaking. For many, while they might be able to hear Benjamin, they would hear much more clearly the rustling of moving and shifting people around them, perhaps brushing against the lean-tos they had created (their "tents"). In such a scenario, it is certain that Benjamin would want to make sure that all attention were paid to the more important parts of his sermon. Thus he clearly calls for their attention, a point where they would be at least temporarily shaken from their attentions to children and noises around them, and re-called to focused attention on Benjamin’s words.
2 And the things which I shall tell you are made known unto me by an angel from God. And he said unto me: Awake; and I awoke, and behold he stood before me. Mosiah 3:3 3 And he said unto me: Awake, and hear the words which I shall tell thee; for behold, I am come to declare unto you the glad tidings of great joy.
To understand the contrast Benjamin might be making, a couple of background notes are important here: "Shamans are specialists in ecstasy, a state of grace that allows them to move freely beyond the ordinary world- beyond death itself- to deal directly with the gods, demons, ancestors, and other unseen but potent beings. Shamanic ecstasy can last moments, hours, or even days, but the amount of time spent in trance is less important than the knowledge of its existence." (Freidel, David, Linda Schele, Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos. William Morrow and Company, 1995, p. 33). "If the Precolumbian Maya practiced bloodletting and sacrifice to sustain the cycle of the soul, they also did it to enter trance and commune with the gods. Recall that the Vision Serpents conjured up by the ancients in trance rituals have names. Some, like the great War Serpent, the Waxakiahun- Ubah-Kan, have special roles in Maya cosmology that we can identify. When the Vision Serpents open their jaws, they convey the gods and the ancestors into the land of the living. One of the most masterful representations of this rite to have survived from Classic times is the beautiful Lintel 25 (Fig. 4:23), commissioned by Shield-Jaguar of Yaxchilan. The scene depicts the principal wife of this king conjuring up the founder of her husband’s lineage during his accession rites. Wearing the costume of a Tlaloc warrior, this ancestor emerges from the jaws of a frightening, double-headed beastie with a hall-flayed body decorated with feather fans. He is Waxaklahun-Ubah-Kan, the Maya War Serpent" (Freidel, David, Linda Schele, Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos. William Morrow and Company, 1995, p. 207-8). While the method of achieving the trance, and the serpent as the conduit to the spirits may be very foreign to us, it would have been an acceptable mode of spiritual communication for the greater Mesoamerican world. It is similar to Benjamin’s experience only in that Benjamin is the king and he has had contact with the "other" world. Nevertheless, Benjamin’s experience was qualitatively different, and he may have been attempting to define that difference. Let’s return to the replication of the command to "awake." Benjamin has the angel saying "awake" twice. Surely a prophet of Benjamin’s caliber would not need to be told twice! Nevertheless, here we have it. As a pure and unadorned repetition of the words of the angel, there is no good explanation for the duplication. Benjamin would not have required the information, and there is very little literary support for this particular repetition. However, in the context of Benjamin’s speech and the Mesoamerican connotations of a vision trance, Benjamin may be specifically highlighting the fact that while the vision may have begun in a dream, the communication occurred while he was awake. It did not occur when he was in a trance – or a trance-like sleep. Literary: The angel brings a message of "glad tidings of great joy." This is an echo of Luke 2:10: "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." Even with the change of "good" to "glad," the correspondence is very high. The Book of Mormon is consistent in using "glad tidings of great joy" (see Alma 13:22 and Helaman 16:14). It appears that there is a fairly typical way in which an angelic messenger might at ease the person to whom he appears. That this greeting might be expressed in terms similar to the KJV (where glad tidings is also a known phrase) is not at all surprising. It is most likely that the closeness of the translation has to do with the similarity of the message, and Joseph’s familiarity with KJV wording.
4 For the Lord hath heard thy prayers, and hath judged of thy righteousness, and hath sent me to declare unto thee that thou mayest rejoice; and that thou mayest declare unto thy people, that they may also be filled with joy.
Literary: Verse 3 has the angel announcing tidings of great joy. In this verse, Benjamin is told that he may rejoice, and may declare this message to his people that they also may rejoice. Thus in two verses, we have the conception of "joy" presented three times. In this case, the repetition is literary, and focuses the joy differently as the triplet expands. In the first declaration, the message itself is "tidings of great joy." The contents of the message in and of themselves contain "joy." In the next two phrases, that "joy" is applied to first Benjamin as the king, and then extended to his people. Thus the joy is being transferred and focused, first from the message, second to the king, and third to the king’s people.
5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.
Mosiah 3:5-11 is a catalog of the earthy ministry of Jesus, capped by the eternal saving mission he accomplishes during that mission. With the announcement of good tidings of great joy to Mary she received information she did not know. Did this happen to Benjamin? Not entirely. There are some details of Jesus’ ministry that appear in the Book of Mormon for the first time with Benjamin’s speech. However, much of the substantive content of this revelation was already known, and available at least through the small plates of Nephi. The differences in the material indicate that Benjamin received a vision of Jesus’ ministry, and that he is reporting his own experience rather than citing scripture for the small (and probably large) plates of Nephi. Even where there is thematic overlap, Benjamin is giving the information in a fresh way. Certainly the prophetic vision Benjamin received would be most prominent in his recollection, even though he is certain to have read similar experiences from earlier prophets. Still, the fact of the vision to Benjamin and the particular citation of that experience in this very public speech require more investigation. When Nephi had a similar vision, he received it as a response to his personal question. Benjamin receives this information as a result of his personal righteousness, but "that thou mayest declare unto thy people, that they may also be filled with joy" (Mosiah 3:4). Where Nephi’s experience was personal, Benjamin’s is explicitly public. It is hard to imagine that the revelation of Jesus Christ would be new to Benjamin’s people. Certainly the teaching of Christ was prominent among the Nephites before they left the city of Nephi, and because it was the believers to left, they would surely have continued that teaching. The Zarahemlaites explicitly had lost the knowledge of their creator (see Omni 1:17) and would likely never have known of the specific and detailed revelations the Nephites received concerning the Christ. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that these things were not taught, and believed, by at least those who elected to remain with Benjamin. They are gathered on this occasion because they observe the law of Moses (Mosiah 2:3) and the Nephite version of the law of Moses had been tempered with the hope of Christ since the days of Nephi (2 Nephi 25:24). If the "glad tidings" of Christ are not entirely new to this people, why does it figure so prominently in Benjamin’s discourse (other than, of course the supreme importance of the subject)? I submit that the answer lies in the phrasing of verse 17 – that salvation comes through the name of Jesus Christ. When we combine this theological point with Benjamin’s desire to give a new name to his people – and that the name they will adopt is that of the Christ – herein lies the message. Benjamin is setting up his covenant with a powerful reminder of the importance of the name that they will bear. Internal Reference: While the evidence will suggest that Benjamin is citing his personal revelation, nevertheless many of the themes are available in the small plates of Nephi. For the healing of the sick Nephi noted: "1 Nephi 11:31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out." The similarity is apparent, but so are the differences. Benjamin specifically mentions raising the dead, and the blind and deaf. Those specifics are not available from what Nephi wrote (though they were certainly part of what Nephi saw). External Reference: "A fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q251), from about 100 B.C., contains the following similar messianic expectations: "And when the Messiah comes then he will heal the sick [make the blind see], raise [or resurrect] the dead, and to the poor announce glad tidings"… For a text to speak more than a hundred years before the time of Christ so explicitly about the miracles to be performed by the Messiah is news to most of the world; but to those who see continuity between the Old Testament and the New, this text, which named three of the four points also found in Mosiah 3:5, sounds quite familiar" ("Complete Text of Benjamin’s Speech with Notes and Comments." In: King Benjamin’s Speech. FARMS 1998, p. 546-7).
6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.
Internal Reference: 1 Nephi 11:31 specifically mentions the casting out of devils.
7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.
The specific information of Jesus bleeding from every poor is a more active image, and appears to be new to the Book of Mormon with Benjamin’s speech. For possible cultural implications for mentioning the blood from every poor, see verse 11 below.
8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
The association between the Messiah and Jesus is explicit in earlier prophets (such as 2 Nephi 25:19). As with the earlier passage in Nephi, the use of "Jesus Christ" as a name is problematic as "Christ" is more properly a title. See the comment on 2 Nephi 25:19 for a discussion. Vocabulary: A specific title is here given to Christ that is unique to the Book of Mormon. Christ is "the Father of heaven and earth." This title makes its first appearance in Nephi’s writings: "2 Nephi 25:12 But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks." After Benjamin’s time, the title is also used by Alma (Alma 11:39) and by Helaman: "Hel. 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name." There are some similarities in this title to titles from the Bible: "Gen. 24:3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:" The Genesis usage has Lord in the place of Father, but conceptually it is the same, emphasizing the creative role. The creative role is not explicitly assigned to the Messiah, but rather to the Lord. However, this term is not nearly as formulaic as that of the Book of Mormon. The closest to the Book of Mormon "formula" is in Matthew: "Matt. 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." This one is interesting because it preserves the Old Testament usage of "Lord of heaven and earth" and places the words in Jesus' mouth - directed to his father. This particular usage is quite in opposition to the Book of Mormon formula that consistently refers to Jesus rather than his Father. In both 2 Nephi 25:12 and Mosiah 3:8 the label "Father of heaven and of earth" follows another label "only begotten son" or "son of God." Thus we have in the Book of Mormon that very interesting problem of the Father and the Son being terms that refer to the same person (note that I am not suggesting that God the Father and Jesus are the same, nor that the Book of Mormon teaches that - but only that the epithets appropriate to Jesus included both). In the Book of Mormon, the emphasis for the Messiah is on two aspects - of course his mission, but also his divinity. He is proclaimed as divine, and listed as the creator. Thus for Nephi's people, Jesus is being proclaimed as Jehovah. That probably doesn't surprise many LDS, but I think it would have been foreign to the Old Testament conception of Messiah where the tradition was most firmly established with a Davidic descendant/replicant. It appears that the Messianic expectations of the Old World and the New World have a significant difference. The Old World expected a king to reign. That king in the Davidic tradition was conceptually divided from the Lord (as in Psalms, where the anointing/establishment of the King comes through the Lord). In the Book of Mormon, the Messianic image is altered to become the Lord himself who will come. From Nephi on, the Messianic expectations of the Book of Mormon peoples seem to have a different feel from those of the Old World Israelites. I suggest that Nephi's vision established the person of Jesus with the pre-mortal person of Jehovah, and with that connection shifted the expectation from ruler to deity for the expected mission of the Savior. The Book of Mormon is replete with Messianic expectations, but they are salvific, not regnal. The Book of Mormon expects a redeeming Messiah, not a military conqueror.
9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.
10 And he sha1l rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.
11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.
"Blood was the mortar of ancient Maya ritual life. The Maya let blood on every important occasion in the life of the individual and in the life of the community. It was the substance offered by kings and other nobility to seal ceremonial events… After the birth of an heir, the king performed a blood sacrifice, drawing his own substance as a offering to his ancestors. Human sacrifice, offered to sanctify the installation of a king in office, was in some cases recorded as a vital part of accession imager… At death, Maya kings were placed in richly furnished tombs that often displayed the imagery o the watery Underworld, their walls painted the color of blood or in blood symbols. In the Maya view, none of these behaviors was bizarre or exotic but necessary to sustain the world (Schele, Linda and Mary Ellen Miller. The Blood of Kings. George Braziller, Inc. 1986. p. 14-15). While we understand that the best evidence upon which this conclusion rests was post-Book of Mormon, yet the seeds appear to have gone deep, and it is not hasty to assume that these conceptions about the vital power of blood would have been part of the Mesoamerican cultural milieu at the time of Benjamin. In Benjamin’s discourse, the emphasis is on the atoning power of Jesus’ blood. While his people would have been culturally disposed to attribute other-worldly power to blood, this particular function was not part of the Mesoamerican use. Thus Benjamin is separating this aspect of Christ’s mission from the possible associations with the other conceptions of the power of blood among his people. It would be very easy for them to assume that Christ’s sacrifice fit into the mold of the kingly sacrifices of the Mesoamerican kings. That would be a grave mistake, and Benjamin reiterates the atoning power of the Messiah in association with his blood, which would be understood as a medium that made the atonement effective. Scriptural: Benjamin notes that Christ’s sacrifice is universal. It covers even those who know nothing of it – those who might be described as "without law." The specific mention of those who sin in ignorance relates specifically to this type of person who may commit sins according to the law, but may be forgiven such transgressions because they never knew of the law. While there may be sins so heinous as to constitute a universal law, these are not the focus here, and the conception of sin relates to the will of the person who sins. It is less the action than the choice of the individual. Where the correct choice is known, not making the correct choice is imputed as sin. Where the correct choice is not known, the action may not be considered sin. Therefore the real focus of sin is not, nor should be, on the specific action, but rather on the intent and will of the actor. As has been noted before, this emphasis on the intent rather than the action is the main focus of the Savior’s discourse on the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 5).
12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.
In this case, it may be directly related to theme immediately prior. In verse 12 Benjamin teaches that Christ performs an atoning sacrifice. In verse 12, the second sentence tells us that this is the only means to salvation. In between setting up an atonement and assuring us that it is the only means of atonement, Benjamin has discussed the blood and given a warning against open rebellion. The only context in which the atonement and open rebellion would come up is if the reference to blood carried the suggested cultural weight, and therefore the pronouncement of the wo was directed once again to those in the assembly who might still harbor feelings for the other religion – the one with an emphasis on blood, but with no power to atone. In this cultural context the mention of blood triggers the association with the rebellious and provides the link to Benjamin’s condemnation, an association that would seem to be missing in any other context. Of course this could be simply an aside that occurred to Benjamin as he spoke. The speech is so carefully crafted, however, that a hasty insertion contradicts the rest of the carefully argued text.
13 And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them.
In this transition, Benjamin does two things. The first is that he makes sure that the covenant with Christ is open to all peoples. This is critical to the success of his new covenant because he must include the blood-line gentiles that are in the group. This would include those of the Zarahemlaites that intermarried with their surrounding peoples in the last 500 years, as well as the lineal gentiles among the people of Mosiah who came from the city of Nephi. It should be remembered that there were indications in the city of Nephi that there was a significant gentile population. Indeed, the sensibilities of the Book of Mormon for inclusiveness of religion at a time when the living of the law of Moses in the Old World was very exclusive is another indicator of the importance of the integration of the gentile into the religious community – a facet of religious/political life that was important in the New World long before Peter opened the gospel to the gentiles in the Old World. Benjamin’s specific wording that demonstrates this openness is the mission of the prophets "[to] all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue." His second point is to highlight the importance of the Messiah, even before the mortal mission of the Messiah. Where the preaching of Christ in the New World is salvific, it perforce depends upon the atonement that will not be performed for yet another 100 years from Benjamin’s time. With a future act of salvation being declared as the only means of salvation, what is one to do today? Benjamin’s response is that his people (the believers) "might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them." The future atonement is of current validity. The sacred promise of the atonement from the beginning of the world creates the situation where those who lived prior to the physical event may yet have the full benefit of the spiritual event. While we do not know all of the nature of the religious contentions with which Benjamin had to deal, we do know that the issue of a distant Messiah was one of the arguments Sherem had used against Jacob (Jacob 7:2). It is entirely possible that this theme of the distant Messiah being of no benefit to the current people would have continued to be an argument used against Benjamin’s religion.
14 Yet the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of Moses. Mosiah 3:15 15 And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood.
He then clearly lays out the limitations of the law of Moses. While the Mosaic covenant is important, even that covenant depends upon the atonement of the Savior. Benjamin purposefully uses the atoning image of the blood of Christ here. The purpose is multiple, with possible attachments to the Mesoamerican conceptions of blood sacrifice noted above, but very specifically to the blood sacrifices of the Mosaic law. The law of Moses is not without its ritual atonement. The Israelite day of Atonement was "the great day of national humiliation, and the only one commanded in the Mosaic law. The mode of its observance is described in Leviticus 16" (Smith, William. "Atonement, The day of." In: Smith’s Bible Dictionary. Fleming H. Revell Co.. 1970, p. 61). In addition to the well known practice of transferring sin to goats (the origin of the term "scape-goat") the ceremonies of atonement prominently feature blood sacrifice: "[The priest] next sacrificed the young bullock as a sin-offering for himself and his family. Taking with him some of the blood of the bullock, he filled a censer with burning coals from the brazen altar, took a handful of incense, and entered into the most holy place. He then threw the incense upon the coals and enveloped the mercy-seat in a cloud of smoke. Then, dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it seven times before the mercy-seat eastward. The goat upon which the lot "For Jehovah" had fallen was then slain and the high priest sprinkled its blood before the mercy-seat in the same manner as he had done that of the bullock. Going out from the Holy of Holies he purified the holy place, sprinkling some of the blood of both the victims on the altar of incense. (Smith, 1970, p. 61). "Hebrews 13:10-13 clearly equates the sin offering of Ex. 29:10-14 with the atonement of Jesus – including the casting out of the "scapegoat" ("Complete Text of Benjamin’s Speech with Notes and Comments." In: King Benjamin’s Speech. FARMS 1998, p. 554). Since the timing of the day of Atonement was five days prior to the Feast of the Tabernacles, the conceptions of blood and atonement would have been reasonably fresh in the minds of a Mosaic law-abiding people, even though their ceremony would have some differences from the description above (due to differences in time and location – not to mention the difficulty in coming up with bulls and goats). The part of this for Benjamin’s discourse is that blood is associated with atonement, both in the law of Moses, and in the promise of the Redeeming Messiah. What Benjamin has done, in a deft and swift stroke, is to equate the sacrificial blood of the day of Atonement under the law of Moses with the future atoning blood of Christ. For Benjamin, they are the same blood, and it is that future blood of Christ that makes efficacious the ritual blood of the sacrificial animal under the law of Moses. Thus Christ not only supercedes the law of Moses, but is the foundation upon which the law of Moses has its atoning power.
16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.
First, Benjamin begins his argument with "if it were possible that little children could sin." This very beginning presumes that the people understand that little children are not capable of sin. Benjamin is not explaining this principle, but simply using it as part of his example. Notice also that he presumes that the people already understand whatever demarcation there is between the "children/not sin" and "not children/sin" age. His next significant comment is that the blood of Christ atones for children (he says that it atones for their sins, meaning those things that they have done that would be sin were they capable of sin). Other than simply stating that Christ atones for children, why is Benjamin bringing this up? It is critical that we remember that this is the first argument after he has declared that Christ is provides the atonement even for the law of Moses. The context Benjamin has set up is one of contrasting the law of Moses to the future Messiah. Right after declaring that Christ is the reason that atonement may be achieved under the law of Moses, he turns to children. Benjamin is carefully crafting his speech, not moving randomly from one topic to another. In this case, the second contrast between the law of Moses and the hope in Christ has to do with children, and presumes an argument not made explicit. In Nephi’s teachings on baptism the emphasis is on the choices that one makes to enter in to the baptismal covenant: "2 Ne. 9:23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. 24 And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it." "2 Nephi 31:5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!" "2 Nephi 31:10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?" In each of these cases, the baptism and gospel covenant require cognizant action. Baptism requires prior repentance, which can happen only upon cognizance of the need to repent. Jesus was baptized as a man, and therefore we follow his example. When we follow Jesus, we must keep commandments, presuming an ability to make the choices needed to follow. In each of these cases, baptism requires the ability to make responsible choices. None of this would appear different to modern LDS, but what of the context of Benjamin’s people? If we remember that Benjamin’s people followed the law of Moses, we must remember that for those under the law, salvation came through the covenant. The covenant was part of the birthright, and signaled physically in the male by circumcision after 8 days. Thus in the law of Moses, salvation in the form of the covenant begins with infants, yet with the redemption of Christ it forcibly comes later in life. For Benjamin’s people, the dissonance between the law of Moses and the hope in Christ concerning children was apparently a point of discussion, even of controversy. What Benjamin is doing with the mention of children is to bring the atonement of Christ into an arena that the dissenters would have claimed as the exclusive domain of the law of Moses -–the salvation of children. Benjamin declares that the atonement has the power to save those who are not yet under sin. While the atonement saves us from sin, it also saves us before sin. Just as the blood of Christ is the effective aspect of Mosaic atonement, so too is the blood of Christ the effective aspect of the salvation of children - not the blood of the circumcision. The rest of Benjamin’s argument is important for understanding verse 19 below. Having noted that children are not capable of sin, he notes that they are still "fallen." Specifically, the language is: "as in Adam, or by nature, they fall." The critical piece of this information is the association of Adam and the fall (which we expect) and the concept of "by nature" which is unique to Benjamin. For Benjamin, "nature" is equated with the Fall. This fall has occurred in children who cannot sin, so the "fall/nature" happens because of the fall of Adam, not a personal defect in the child. This definition is critical to understanding Benjamin’s "natural man" in verse 19.
17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
The next important transition moves from children to all men. Benjamin accomplishes this transition deftly by having salvation come "unto the children of men." This phrase both combines the idea of children which ties to the previous verse, and the metaphorical meaning that allows the phrase to encompass all humanity (as all are "children" of someone). Internal Reference: The idea of the name of Christ being of salvific power was also taught by Nephi: "2 Ne. 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."
18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
The damnation of the men is significant for two reasons. First, it mildly refers to the "old men, young men" that we saw in Mosiah 2:40. Once again, Benjamin is noting that their willful choice can lead to damnation (earlier it was "willful rebellion"). Secondly, Benjamin poses an all-important unless. The purpose of Benjamin’s "unless" is two fold. On one level it is a transition from the damnation to salvation themes. On the other, it is instruction in the characteristics required of men that will allow them to be saved, just as infants are. Fittingly, he has them "become as little children." Literarily, Benjamin is reemphasizing the salvation of the infants, and extending the power that saves them (the atonement of Christ) to the men. Of course the use of "children" is extended metaphorically here, because he notes that they must be humble. Nevertheless, the image of the "blood" has returned, and possibly hints that the salvation of the men lies in the blood of Christ and not in their circumcision, just as the salvation of the infants lay also in the blood of Christ (and not in their circumcision).
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
The natural man is condemned through the fall and through his ability to sin (an ability which is assumed to be exercised). In the state of the ability to sin, the natural or fallen man does sin. Because they make the willful decision to sin, as opposed to the infants who cannot make such decisions. Those men are enemies to God. Once again, we must remember Benjamin’s preaching against those who willfully rebel against God – a good definition of an enemy. Thus Benjamin is consistent in his application of his theme. Those who choose to follow the "evil spirit" or those who choose to sin, are enemies to God. Once again, however, there is an unless. For Benjamin, the unless is couched in the language of transformation: "unless [italics added] he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things". The language Benjamin uses is very descriptive, and instructive. First, while we are "natural man" because of the fall, we are not left alone. The Holy Spirit entices us. The choice to follow God is not one of choosing something distasteful, but rather one of recognizing the joyous taste of the gospel, and choosing to acquire it. Next, to yield to those enticings requires that we put off the natural man, and become a saint. We are required to change our natures from enemy to God to saintly follower of God. We are to transform from natural man to "saintly" child. Benjamin then describes the particular attributes of the "child" we are to become. When we remember that the ancient world made no distinction between religion and politics, the qualifications of the child as submissive take on an extra overtone. Certainly we, as modern men, must also become meek, humble, and submissive, but in the context of Benjamin’s times and contentions, the admonition to submission must be seen as having the added connotation of supporting the new people, the new government, and rejecting any lingering sensibilities with the old religion.
20 And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Mosiah 3:21 21 And behold, when that time cometh, none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent.
The essence of the message is not in the spread of the gospel in verse 20 but in the application of the requirements of the gospel to all peoples in verse 21. Benjamin has made a contrast between the "natural" yet "saved" infants and the "natural" yet condemned "men." Yet the very thing that creates the condition for damnation for the "men" is that they have the knowledge of the gospel, and therefore the choice to obey it ("yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit" v. 19) or live contrary to it ("come out in open rebellion against God" Mosiah 2:37). The key is the knowledge of the gospel. This leaves wide open the salvation of those who are in ignorance of the law, and are not children may yet be saved (Mosiah 3:11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.) In the New World at this time there were more people who did not know the law that there were who did known the law. Benjamin’s people might have considered themselves at some sort of disadvantage in that they were being held to a higher standard, with greater possible condemnation than their Lamanite brethren. To combat this possible misconception, Benjamin must make it clear that eventually all will be under the requirement of the gospel. They may be earlier than others, but eventually "none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent."
22 And even at this time, when thou shalt have taught thy people the things which the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, even then are they found no more blameless in the sight of God, only according to the words which I have spoken unto thee.
The particular phrasing of this verse puts the words in the mouth of the angel, and by implication, all of the preceding part of the discourse. While this is certainly the message of the angel, the couching and delivery of that message are Benjamin’s and adapted to the very specific needs of his people at that time. It speaks volumes to the power and art of this discourse that it should still move audiences worlds away in time and culture from the original setting.
23 And now I have spoken the words which the Lord God hath commanded me. Mosiah 3:24 24 And thus saith the Lord: They shall stand as a bright testimony against this people, at the judgment day; whereof they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil.
25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls. Mosiah 3:26 26 Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever. Mosiah 3:27 27 And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen.
"Mosiah 2:38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. 39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment." Mosiah 3:25 has the phrase "awful view of their own guilt," and Mosiah 2:38 has "lively sense of his own guilt." The phrase "shrink from the presence of the Lord" is in both Mosiah 2:38 and Mosiah 3:25. Mosiah 2:38 speaks of an anguish "like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever," and Mosiah 3:27 has "whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendet up forever and ever." Both Mosiah 2:38 and Mosiah 3:26 speak of the demands of justice, and that when those demands are applied "mercy hath no claim." All of these particular repetitions indicate that Benjamin is intentionally reprising that earlier text. Why? Benjamin is concluding a speech unit that begin with Mosiah 2:31. The unit is divided into two sections, each dealing with a particular type of spiritual culpability. The first unit discusses the religio-political "contentions" that have been put to rest among his people. While this people is a believing people ("I would that ye should do as ye have hitherto done… (Mosiah 2:31) they might nevertheless be enticed by the "evil spirit" (Mosiah 2:33). Those who willingly choose are rebelling against God, and "drinketh damnation to his own soul" (Mosiah 2:33), which precise phrase appears again in Mosiah 3:25. Interestingly, Benjamin places this religio-political culpability on all "except it be your little children that have not been taught concerning these things" (Mosiah 2:34) which appears to be a corollary to the innocence of little children in the second part. The two sections are then quite tightly correlated, with the first emphasizing the current political situation, and the second emphasizing the spiritual expansion of that same principle. The first half of the discourse addresses the temporal now and the second half addresses the spiritual forever. The parallelism between the two sections serves to reemphasize the general principles, and the differences highlights the different temporal and spiritual arenas to which the principles are applied. Textual: This verse ends a chapter in the 1830 edition, as well as in our current edition. This is the conclusion of the first set discourse, beginning in Mosiah 2. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1999 |
Mosiah
2:41
|
|
 |