Mosiah 18:16-20
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
The Book of Mormon > Mosiah > Chapter 18
| Previous (Mosiah 18:11-15) | Next (Mosiah 18:21-25) |
Contents |
Questions
Verse 16
- What does it mean for the people to be "filled with the grace of God"? How is grace something that can fill you?
Verses 19-20
- There are several places in the scriptures where teachers are counseled to teach nothing but repentance and faith on the Lord. Verse 20 here is one example. How literally can we interpret this? Is it applicable to us today in all situations where we are teaches? Or just some?
- Did these priests have access to written scriptures in order to teach that "which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets" or were they dependent on Alma and oral transmission of teachings?
- How can we preach "nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord"?
- What does Alma mean here by "redeemed"?
Lexical notes
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes
Exegesis
Verse 17
Despite the fact that the word "church" appears a good number of times before this point in the Book of Mormon, this verse marks the first reference to an official Nephite church, or, in other words, this is the first Nephite church mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Mosiah 25:18 seems quite clearly to confirm this, as it mentions Mosiah II's authorization of Alma to create like churches throughout the land of Zarahemla, the suggestion being that there were none before that time. But even as this cross-reference seems to confirm the origins of the Nephite church in this passage, it also clarifies what the word "church" means here: if Alma was to go on to found a number of churches, then this "church" is not a system of faith, but a congregational organization, a regional gathering of people. From the very start, churches among the Nephites seem to have been a question of a number of people who worship together in a sort of gathered community.
Also interesting to the meaning of the word "church" as used in the Book of Mormon is the attribution of the name "the church of God, or the church of Christ," in this verse, to some unnamed source: those gathered by Alma were simply "called" so. Because the phrase uses the passive voice "they were called," what would otherwise be the subject (the one or the ones doing the calling) escapes notice, and the author of the passage can leave ambiguous the source of the title. In other words, whereas the author might have said that "Alma and his people called themselves the church of God, or the church of Christ," he rather says that "they were called" so, the implication being simply that someone besides those of the church called them that. It remains entirely unclear whence the epithet comes. There is a hint in all of this, then, that "church" was a term used somewhat commonly among the Nephites, that it was not a term that those gathered into the church specifically rooted out of, say, Nephi's writings in order to proclaim their justified foundation or any such thing. Rather, it seems, the concept of a church was not unfamiliar to the Nephites, and this gathering was simply so named because others recognized an already common structure among them.
All these details come together somewhat paradoxically: it seems that Alma is at once doing something entirely unprecedented and also doing something completely familiar to outsiders. The paradox is, however, quite understandable: an idea that has been around for quite some time, and something the people generally are familiar with, but Alma takes upon himself the overwhelming task of actually accomplishing it. Everyone knew what he was doing, but that does not at all mean that it was a common proceeding: Alma has done something rather radical in forming a church. He himself has grounded it by an ostensibly granted authority (see verse 13), and this verse adds that anyone "baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his [meaning God's] church." The implication is clear: Alma's radical movement is his authorized development of something everyone has been expecting for nearly five hundred years, but no one has felt authorized to do.
Now, it might be asked why no one had created a church before this time, even as the idea seems to have been completely familiar to everyone. Or it might be asked more specifically why God had not authorized any to accomplish the task. The answer, however, seems to be buried in a few details of the following story, as well as in some major events that happen later (see verses 31-33 of this chapter, and then especially the complex development that extends across Mosiah 25-29). The answer, put quite simply, is this: the existence of a monarchical system seems to exclude not only the need for churches, but also the possibility of churches. Under the monarchy, the cult seems to have been performed under the auspices of the king and a royal priesthood, but the church assumes a sort of local priesthood, a regionalism replacing the universal authority usually claimed by a king. In other words, since a monarchy seems to have obtained from the very start of Nephite civilization, there has never been need or room for churches. Alma's formation of this first church is taken quite specifically as an act of rebellion, and when he is given royal authority in Zarahemla to establish a number of churches, it leads rather quickly to the dissolution of the monarchy. Perhaps all of this is considered rather simply in a single, weighty phrsae in the following verse: the church is a question of "the kingdom of God."
Verse 18
As soon as there is a unity in this plurality--as soon as the church is a church--Alma ordains a local priesthood. The move may be what most incites the cry of rebellion from Noah by the end of the chapter. The move to ordain priests is a rather complex one, and it must be understood in the right light, lest it be considered from an entirely too protracted view. First to be said about the ordination of these priests: the ordination cannot be understood--culturally, historically--to have been a natural consequence of the gathering of the baptized, but rather should be understood as a radical innovation that ultimately redefines for the Nephites the very meaning of priesthood, and this altered meaning ultimately calls for a restructuring of the entire government. This ordination is ultimately the first step toward undoing the Nephite monarchy, though it happens among a small gathering on the outskirts of a Nephite settlement in Lamanite territory. But regardless of the broadest implications of the action, there seems to be a sort of pragmatism about the verse: the ordination was not an act of defiance, but an act of charity, a way of strengthening those baptized so that they might move from church to kingdom (the kingdom of God).
With the pragmatic character of the ordination drawn out, the differences between this priesthood and priesthood in the restored Church of the latter days are quite clear: Alma does not establish quorums, nor does it appear that he has two separate priesthoods with their several offices, nor again does it appear that these priests wield authority to perform any particular ordinances. The priesthood Alma sets up is, in the end, a rather simple priesthood, a stripped-down priesthood meant to perform the task merely of teaching, though teaching the highest principles, "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." That a great deal happens concerning "the priesthood" between these first ordinations and Alma the Younger's discourse in Alma 13 is obvious: but that development must traced rather carefully and in great detail to accomplish any satisfactory explanation of these questions. At the very least, what is unquestionably clear here is this: by the same "authority" he had to baptize, Alma ordains priests (note that he does not organize a priesthood, per se), and only a rather small number at that (no more than nine would have been ordained by the time the group flees into the wilderness), to take upon themselves the task of preaching and teaching those baptized and gathered together into the church.
Verse 19
If teaching "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" seems an overwhelming task, even a boundless task, this verse imposes some limits on it: these priests are limited to "the things which [Alma] had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets." The verses seems thus rather simple and self-explanatory, but it does raise an issue that ought to be dealt with: one can only wonder why Alma would impose limits at all on the teaching task. In other words, since other scriptures promote a rather radical form of teaching--namely, teaching by the Spirit, taking no thought for the words to say, etc.--this rather limited task, hemmed in by what has been said before, seems conservative to say the least. This may not, however, be a commandment to teach in a manner other than that of teaching by the Spirit: there are at least two ways of reading this, in fact, as a commandment to teach by the Spirit. On the one hand, Alma might be suggesting that the Spirit would only lead one to speak of that which has been spoken before. This interpretation seems somewhat flawed, as the Spirit seems in a number of places to be That which specifically goes beyond previous knowledge. On the other hand--and this seems a more likely explanation--Alma might be suggesting that the role of the Spirit in teaching is precisely to help one to interpret the words of the prophets, that the Spirit enlarges upon those words, rather than providing to the teacher new words in the moment. This interpretation presents a sort of division of labors between priests (whatever priests are here) and prophets: the prophets have experiences beyond the Spirit, but priests are to work in the Spirit so as to interpret the prophetic word. The division and correlation might be compared to the gift of tongues (prophets) and the gift of the interpretation of tongues (priests). At any rate, the suggestion is that the Spirit works upon the teaching priest precisely in his attendance upon the words of the prophets.
With all of these details worked out, there is a rather careful phrasing at work in this verse which is all to easily missed: though one might see Alma equating himself with the prophets, the wording actually suggests that he equates himself with the priests in their division of labor, over against the prophets. The clue is the word "teach": the priests are to "teach" only what Alma had "taught," which suggests that they are to do what he himself has done. If their task then extends to teaching what "had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets," there may be here an implication that Alma's mode of teaching had been quite specifically a work of interpretation (in fact, a work of interpreting Abinadi?). Alma sees himself, according to the language presented in this verse, as a priest, rather than as a prophet. As such, the priests have a model for their work: Alma.
Verse 20
Again the priestly task is clarified, though a different verb appears in this verse: "preach." But the instance of "preach" marks a chiastic structure that runs through verses 18-20:
...did he ordain to preach unto them
and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, etc.
Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were...
Similar, in a manner, to the division of labor implicit in the last verse, there appears here a division of sorts, though it is a division within the priestly task: the priests are to preach and to teach, and these seem to be different things. Preaching, in verse 18, seems to be quite open ended, while the teaching of verse 18 seems to be quite specific (concerning the kingdom of God). Parallel to this, verse 19 offers certain bounds (or at least a sort of regional limitation) for teaching, while verse 20 remains rather open ended about preaching. What this means, however, remains to be worked out in detail.
A brief return to verse 19 would prove helpful. The phrasing there is incredibly negative, and verse 20 follows with a parallel structure: the priests are to preach and teach nothing... save... etc. The point is that it would be better for these to preach absolutely nothing whatsoever than to preach something other than what Alma provides them as a task. As for teaching, verse 19 provides the priests with textual boundaries, as it were: the priests are to teach the words of the prophets (apparently interpreting them according to the Spirit), even as Alma has done, and so their bounds there are ultimately textual, for they are to stay within the texts of the prophets. Preaching, however, is a different matter: the bounds for preaching seem to be practical: only two topics are provided, both of which are really more a question of action than of doctrine. In other words, "repentance" and "faith on the Lord" are probably not here understood as doctrines or principles, but as things to be done. Whereas "teaching" carries with it--inevitably--the implication of an intellectual process of sorting things out, "preaching" seems to carry with it rather the implication of exhortation, of invitation, of praxis.
The task of the priest, then: to urge his hearers to trust the Lord and to repent before Him, and to explore in the Spirit the words of the prophets. In the end, there seems to be no reason to read Alma as trying to keep the priests of his church under his thumb, or limited in what they can say: rather, he sees the work of the priest to be the work of edification according to the Spirit that works upon the prophetic texts and the work of reminding the people continually of their double duty to the Lord (the double duty of faith and repentance).
Related links
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links
| Previous (Mosiah 18:11-15) | Next (Mosiah 18:21-25) |
