Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Jerry D. Grover on the Mesoamerican Context of Abinadi's Appeal to Isaiah 52:7

  

Postclassic Yucatan the town was a quadrilateral space with four ritual entrances located on the sides of the town. These entrances were marked by piles of stone that represented the mountains of the grandfather deities. Idols representing these gods were found on top of these symbolic mountains. In addition to man-made locations, the Maya believed that the mountains and caves in the vicinity of the community also represented the four mythological mountains. These mountains and their deities defined the safe space of the community. By replicating the mountains of the horizon in their towns and designating sites in the natural landscape, the Maya created locations where offerings could be made to the deities to ensure the safe continuation of life. This ritual activity was not only structured according to the cosmological model but constantly validated that model (Sosa 1985).

 

Since it was necessary for Abinadi to explain the true meaning of the scripture, it is apparent that the priests of king Noah had another meaning in mind than that provided to them by Abinadi. They must have presumed that Abinadi was going to respond in a manner that would entrap him into blasphemy contradicting their concept of God. Welch (2008), Pike (1998), and Warby (2003) proposed that the attempt to find something upon which to accuse him was the premise that the beautiful and true prophet brings good tidings and publishes peace, not prophecies of doom and gloom. This explanation is lacking in many regards. First, the pre-Exilic Old Testament has many prophecies that do not bring good tidings, including many in Isaiah and even Noah of the Old Testament. This type of question is easily rebutted without defaulting to blasphemy. Second, since many witnesses had already documented that Abinadi preached this very thing, why would this additional question be necessary in order to trap him? Third, after the question he proceeded to discuss more doom and gloom prophecies, yet this concept is never raised as a basis for Abinadi’s death. This concept is thus not supported by the actual Book of Mormon record. In addition, it assumes that king Noah and his priests were operating completely under the law of Moses. We know, and Abinadi knew, that they were not, so it is not reasonable to assume that there would not be differences in the religion and the administration of the religion from the Hebrew tradition or even the Nephite tradition.

 

Importantly, when Abinadi answers the question, he does not address that issue at all; he provides a lengthy sermon defining who “the feet of him” is talking about that is standing on the mountain, concluding that this refers to the prophets testifying of the Son of God and the Son of God himself. Abinadi also provides an explanation of who the Son of God is in relation to the Father and talks about the following topics:

 

1. God redeems his people

2. Coming of the Messiah where the Son of God would come down and take upon him the form of a man

3. God would bring about the resurrection

4. The Son of God would be oppressed, afflicted, sacrificed and slain

5. The carnal nature of man

 

Curiously, the only item deemed to be blasphemous in this sermon from Abinadi, according to Limhi, is that man was created in the image of God and that God should come down in flesh and blood among men and go forth upon the face of the earth.

 

A comparison of what and was not blasphemous with the Maya religion, especially in light of the New Year event, is illustrative as to the nature of the syncretic Noah-Maya religion. There does not seem to be a conflict with God and his manifestation as the Son, or the fact that there is a Father and a Son. Abinadi ends the sermon with the statement that “redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father” (Mosiah 16:15) which has a reasonable textual interpretation of the god-manifestation concept in the Maya religion. Thus the Itzamna-Bacab god complex is consistent with that premise.

 

There is no issue with regards to the carnal nature of man with redemption by God, as this is not inconsistent with the Noah-Maya syncretic religious thought. The concept of the sacrifice of the Son of God is not problematic, which is consistent with Maya religious concepts of god-figures being killed or sacrificed as happened to Hun Hunahpu and Vucub Hunahpu, the father and uncle of the Maya mythological Hero Twins. Hun Huanahpu is equated to the Maya maize god. As previously mentioned, in the Maya New Year’s ceremonies the maize god is depicted as being beheaded and then reborn or resurrected. Resurrection of a god would clearly not be blasphemous, especially in light of the concept that the rebirth of the whole world was a principal purpose for the Maya New Year rituals. While the Maya belief does not include resurrection of persons, Abinadi’s references to that may have been considered wrong but would not have been considered blasphemy as they did not directly involve a god.

 

The two areas which were considered blasphemous were the contradiction of the creation stories of the Nephite and the Noah-Maya religion, and the coming down of the Son of God going upon the face of the earth. As has been mentioned, with the Bacab being equivalent to the Son of God, for such a thing to occur (Bacab leaving their post) would mean the destruction of the world.

 

It would seem that the priest of Noah who posed the Isaiah question referencing the “feet of him” that was “upon the mountains” was interpreting that portion of the scripture to be referring to the skybearer Bacabs and the mythical mountains at the cardinal points where the Bacabs stood supporting the heavens. The later scriptural reference that the “holy arm” was “in all nations, and all the ends of the earth” could also reasonably be attributed to the dominion of the Bacab. Thus the posing of the scripture in Isaiah by the priest of Noah was successful in providing sufficient contradiction to the syncretic Noah-Maya religion to constitute blasphemy to justify the killing of Abinadi. (Jerry D. Grover, Jr., Evidence of the Nehor Religion in Mesoamerica [Provo, Utah: Challex Scientific Publishing, 2017], 48-49)

 

Further Reading:


Abinadi's Interpretation of Isaiah 52:7: Evidence for Book of Mormon Antiquity

Blog Archive