When constraining Nephi to slay Laban,
the Spirit gave the sober justification that "it is better that one man
should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1
Nephi 4:13). Alma invoked this same justification when reluctantly subjecting
Korihor to divine punishment (see Alma 30:47). This principle runs sharply
contrary to modern liberal jurisprudence, but a different view prevailed in
certain cases under biblical law.
A pivotal example is found in 2 Samuel
20. King David sought the life of Sheba, a rebel guilty of treason. When Sheba
took refuge in the city of Abel, Joab, the leader of David's army, demanded
that Sheba be released to him. The people of Abel beheaded Sheba instead, and
Joab retreated. This episode became an important legal precedent justifying the
killing of one person in order to preserve an entire group.
Another Old Testament case, preserved
more fully in the Jewish oral tradition, involved Jehoiakim, the king of Judah,
who rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar went to Antioch and
demanded that the great Jewish council surrender Jehoiakim or the nation would
be destroyed. Jehoiakim protested, "Can ye sacrifice one life for
another?" Unmoved, the council replied, "Thus did your ancestors do
to Sheba the son of Bichri."' (Genesis Rabbah 94:9) Jehoiakim was
released to Nebuchadnezzar, who took him to Babylon (see 2 Chronicles 36:6),
where presumably he was executed. Because Zedekiah became king less than four
months later (see verses 9-10), at the time the Book of Mormon account begins
(see 1 Nephi 1:4), Nephi was probably keenly aware of how the "one for
many" principle was used to justify Jehoiakim's death. Clearly, the cases
of Laban and Korihor fit within this tradition.
Over the years, the proper balance
between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community was debated
in Jewish law. On one extreme, the Pharisees held that no individual was ever
to be surrendered for the good of the community. On the other extreme, the
Sadducees, who often cooperated with the Romans, argued that so long as the
authorities named a specific victim, that was all that was necessary. This
ruling, known as the Hadrianic Resolve, is found in the Jerusalem Talmud. (Terumot
8:10, 46b)
Taking a middle position, most rabbinical
scholars have accepted the "one for many" principle, but they limit
it to cases like Sheba's in which (1) the demand was made by a recognized
leader, (2) the person requested was already guilty, (3) the person was
identified by name, (4) the people in the group were innocent, and (5) the
group faced certain destruction if they refused.
Of course, the "one for
many" principle was also invoked, ironically, by Caiaphas (a Sadducee)
when he argued for Jesus' death (see John ll:49-50). (See Roger David Aus,
"The Death of One for All in John 11:45-54 in Light of Judaic
Traditions," in Barabbas and Esther and Other Studies in the Judaic
Illumination of Earliest Christianity, South Florida Studies in the History
of Judaism, no. 54 [Atlanta: Scholars, 1992], 29-63) While the audience
evidently knew this familiar principle, as Sadducees and Pharisees they were
probably divided on its application.
Based on the New Testament alone, the
"one for many" principle in the Book of Mormon might have appeared
anachronistic. Yet the fuller picture shows that this principle operated much
earlier in Israelite culture, notably in Nephi's own day. This was something
that Joseph Smith would have had no way of knowing, and it is a point that few
legal historians are aware of even today. (John W. Welch and Heidi Harkness
Parker, "Better than One Man Perish," in Pressing Forward with the
Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J.
Throne [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1999],
17-19)
The
Aus essay referenced by Welch and Parker is very well done; there is a relevant
quotation on Aus’ discussion of 2 Sam 20:1-22:
. . .
5. One Life for
Others
In 2 Sam 20:21 Joab tells the wise
woman of Abel Bethmaacah that he does not intend to destroy the whole city.
However, because Sheba has rebelled against King David: “Give him up alone (לבדו),
and I will withdraw from the city.” Thereupon, following the counsel of the
wise woman, the inhabitants cut off the head of Sheba and throw it out to Joab
before the city wall. He then returns to Jerusalem.
The life of one person, innocent of
any violent action against King David, is thus sacrificed for the good of the
whole city, the whole people.
This motif from the Samuel narrative
is employed in the Jehoiakim midrash, where Nebuchadnezzar demands of the
Jerusalem Sanhedrin only the rebel king: “Give him up to me, and I will go
away,” almost a literal borrowing from 2 Sam 20:21. Then, in a debate on
whether it is right to sacrifice one life in order to preserve others, specific
mention is made of Jehoiakim’s ancestress, the wise woman of Abel, who killed
Sheba in such a context.
The same motif is emphasized in John
11:50, where the high priest Caiaphas, head of the Sanhedrin, states: “it is
expedient for you that one man (εις ανθρωπος) should die for the people, and
that the whole nation should not perish.”. . . (Robert David Aus, “The Death of
One for All in John 11:45-54 in Light of Judaic Traditions,” in Barabbas and
Esther and Other Studies in the Judaic Illumination of Earliest Christianity (Studies
in the History of Judaism; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 48-49)