March 26—Mosiah 18-24
REPENTANCE
“We repent when upon reflection, with a stronger will, clearer insight, or deeper desire, we wish to choose differently.To be outside the reach of forgiveness and change, one would have to choose evil, to reject the love of a vulnerable God and His suffering son.”
“For redemption to be permanently beyond reach, one would have to choose to put oneself beyond reach.”
The God Who Weeps,Teryl and Fiona Givens
PENTECOST
“Fifty days after Passover on the ancient Israelite calendar was the festival of Pentecost, which the law of Moses required the children of Israel to observe.
It was an agricultural holiday sometimes called the Day of the Firstfruits. It was a pilgrimage festival, with a “holy convocation,” rejoicing in the bounty of the spring, especially the new wheat. Just as Passover marked a time of poverty and bondage, Pentecost exulted in a time of bounty, with offerings of leavened bread baked from the new crop of wheat and of the choicest firstfruits.
About this same time of the year was the day when Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai.Thus, Pentecost probably also celebrated the giving of the law by God to Moses.The connection between Pentecost and the giving of the law is well-documented in the Talmud. Psalm 50:16-21 shows that Pentecost also became a day of stern admonition.”
“Against this, the story of Abinadi in Mosiah 11-17 now comes vividly to life. Consider the following points:
1.Timing would have been important to Abinadi. He had already been expelled once from the city, two years earlier. His reentry on a festival day would have given him a ready audience.
2. Both of Abinadi’s speeches deal with the themes of Pentecost. He reversed the festival’s blessings and rejoicing, and turned them into curses and predictions of gloom.At the time when a bounteous grain season would have been at hand, Abinadi cursed the crops: he prophesied that hail, dry winds, and insects shall ruin “their grain” (Mosiah 12:6).While Israel’s deliverance from bondage was traditionally being celebrated,Abinadi called upon Exodus terminology to proclaim that bondage and burdens would return to the wicked people in the city of Nephi.
3.At precisely the time when Noah’s priests would have been hypocritically pledging allegiance to the Ten Commandments, Abinadi rehearsed to them those very commandments (see Mosiah 12:33). On any other day this might have seemed a strange defense for a man on trial for his life, but not on Pentecost—the day on which the Ten Commandments were on center stage!”
4. Indeed, the connection with Pentecost could hardly have been more graphic than when Abinadi’s “face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses’ did while in the mount of Sinai, while speaking with the Lord” (Mosiah 13:5, compare Exodus 34:29-30).This divine manifestation was quintessentially pentecostal.
5.There are further connections between Abinadi and Exodus 19. For example, cursing Noah to be like a “garment in a hot furnace” may well recall the fact that Mt. Sinai became a furnace (see Exodus 19:18) and that people whose garments were not clean were not “ready” for the Lord (see Exodus 19:10-15). The tongues of fire that appeared when the apostle Peter spoke on the Feast of Pentecost in Acts 2-3 likewise recall the burnings on Mt. Sinai.
6.The ancient festival appears to have been a three-day event (see Exodus 19:11), which may explain why Abinadi’s trial was postponed for “three
days” (Mosiah 17:6).
7. Finally, there are intriguing parallels between Abinadi’s piercing rebukes and Psalm 50, identified by [scholars] as a psalm of Pentecost.
John W.Welch, Gordon C.Thommason, Robert F. Smith, Abinadi and Pentecost
ABINADI’S RESPONSE
“Abinadi’s rebuttal was an extensive and brilliant explanation of the true essence of redemption and how it brings good tidings to those who accept Christ. His words comprise an intricate and elaborate commentary, on the text from Isaiah 52 that the priests quoted. His position was based on solid ground.
Casual readers might wonder if Abinadi’s speech was responsive to the
specific question posed to him by the priests, but on close examination it is
clear that his answer is constructed around specific words and phrases in
Isaiah 52. Indeed, Abinadi’s speech responded precisely and thoroughly to the
priests’ interrogatory. His remarks were completely relevant to the strategy
employed against him at this stage in his trial.
Abinadi also raised affirmative counterclaims, accusing the priests themselves
of pretending to teach the people, of misunderstanding the spirit of prophecy,
and of perverting the ways of the Lord. In effect,Abinadi accused the priests of
lying about their own behavior, of denying true prophecy, and of leading people
into apostasy, countering their claims but at the same time adding to the very
charges brought against himself.”
John W.Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-legal-cases-in-the-book-of-mormon/
ABINADI’S TRIAL BY ORDEAL
“Although ordeals are not mentioned as often in ancient Israelite law as they are in ancient Near Eastern law, they were normal parts of biblical jurisprudence, where they often served to validate the innocence of the accused. Submitting to an ordeal was often an accused’s last hope of establishing his innocence or vindicating his testimony. In Abinadi’s case, he offered to suffer whatever pain Noah desired to inflict upon him:“I will suffer even until death” (Mosiah 17:10). Abinadi also asserted that if he were to die in the ordeal, two witnesses would then remain against Noah: first, Abinadi’s words “[would] stand as a testimony,” and second, Abinadi’s innocent blood would “also stand as a testimony” (v. 10).”
“Noah would have understood well the force of having these two witnesses stand against him. [The witness of Abinadi’s testimony and his blood] Adding Alma’s testimony would make a total of three witnesses—enough to satisfy even the extra three-witness rule of Deuteronomy 19:15. Noah would also have comprehended the legal risk involved in allowing Abinadi to subject himself to a divine ordeal should he come out victorious: if Abinadi were vindicated by the suffering inflicted upon him, Noah would have to set him free, which would undoubtedly trigger civil unrest in the city of Nephi and bring an end to his political and religious regime. Noah was foiled and frustrated. His effort to rid himself and his city of Abinadi’s ominous prophecies had failed.The legal effect of Abinadi’s offer to endure whatever the king chose to inflict upon him was to assert again his total innocence and to require Noah to make the next move in the trial. He chose not to submit the matter to some kind of divine determination or inquisition by ordeal.
Upon Abinadi’s refusal to recall any of his words, Noah’s accusation of blasphemy and his death sentence (Mosiah 17:7–8) became unconditional. Noah fearing the seriousness of having Abinadi’s testimony confirmed by ordeal or by his innocent blood, virtually reversed the verdict and “was about to release” Abinadi,“for he feared his word; for he feared that the judgments of God would come upon him” (v. 11).”
John W.Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-legal-cases-in-the-book-of-mormon/
No comments:
Post a Comment