One way the Book of Mormon bears witness of Jesus Christ is by testifying of the eternal nature of his saving work. In the Book of Mormon, Christ identifies himself as the giver of the law of Moses and the Sinai covenant (3 Nephi 15:5). The connection between Jesus and the law of Moses starts from the beginning of the Book of Mormon. When Lehi₁ and his family came to the promised land from Jerusalem they bring with them the brass plates, which contained the law of Moses (1 Nephi 4:15–16).[1] Early in the Book of Mormon, the Lord begins to reveal to Lehi₁ and his family about his bodily coming to earth to save the world through his sacrificial blood atonement. Edward J. Brandt has shown that there are three separate revelational periods where Jesus Christ is specifically introduced by name to the Nephites before his post-resurrection appearances.[2] These occasions are composed first of the grouped revelations of Lehi₁, Nephi₁, and Jacob. Then, when the specific knowledge of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice appears to have been lost among the general Nephites, there are separate but roughly contemporaneous revelations, first in the book of Mosiah by King Benjamin, and then by Abinadi.[3] These revelations each explicitly connect with the law of Moses, because Jesus Christ and the atoning blood of his sacrifice are inextricably connected with the law of Moses.

Thus, the revelation about Jesus Christ from the beginning of the Book of Mormon down to his coming did not supersede either the ethical and moral belief system or the ritual practices of the law of Moses. Rather, the introduction of Christ and the understanding of his blood atonement complemented and completed the law of Moses. The Nephites looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ not so he would save them from the law of Moses but rather that he would fulfill the law of Moses as the ultimate and final blood atoning sacrifice to complete all the other animal blood sacrifices called for from the time of Adam and Eve up through Jesus Christ’s mortal life (see Alma 34:9–13).[4]

The Law of Moses

The book of Exodus records that after Jehovah had rescued the Israelites from Egypt, he brought them to Mount Sinai and there offered to them his covenant. In Exodus 19:5–6 Jehovah states the purpose of the law: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people . . . and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” The people agreed to the offered covenant, and this became the basis for the relationship between Israel and Jehovah.[5] The various commandments of the law of Moses were designed to help Israel become holy, in the way that Jehovah himself was holy (Leviticus 11:44).[6]

As a covenant path designed to give the ancient Israelites the means to be a holy people, the law of Moses provided a complete religious system for them. This included both ritual (including sacrificial) and ethical/moral systems. Although Jesus Christ would end many of the ritual and sacrificial aspects of the law, many of the ethical and moral ideas are eternal.[7] This is why commandments such as the Ten Commandments are still binding on Christians today, although the law has been fulfilled through Jesus Christ. While the sacrificial system was a complex system that included the sacrifices of various animals such as birds, bulls, and male and female goats, it also served as a valuable teaching tool, much as ordinances do for Latter-day Saints today.[8] These sacrifices taught the Israelites to give up material possessions and to learn how to consecrate themselves to Jehovah.[9] They also effected atonement for the ancient Israelites (see, for example, Leviticus 4:20).[10] In fact, in the King James Version of the Bible, of the eighty-one times that the word atone and its variants appear in the Old Testament, seventy-seven of those are in the law of Moses (Genesis–Deuteronomy).[11]

The Sinai covenant was the standard way in which the children of Israel interacted with and worshipped Jehovah throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. In his mortal ministry, Jesus himself continued to live the law of Moses.[12] Among the earliest members of Jesus Christ’s church in the Old World, there were some who continued to live the law of Moses, while non-Jewish converts did not need to (see Acts 15:22–29). Because the question of living the law of Moses generated a lot of discussion in the partially Jewish and partially non-Jewish early church, the New Testament sometimes makes strong statements against the law of Moses (such as Galatians 3). These strong statements made by inspired individuals such as Paul need to be read alongside the indicators that even after Jesus, early Christians continued to live the law of Moses. For example, Paul goes to the temple to offer sacrifices and pay his vows, specifically to show people opposed to Christianity that he still lived the law (Acts 21:20–26).[13] The law of Moses was part of the religious experiences of God’s covenant people up to and even after the coming of Jesus, which helps to explain the ways in which the Nephites both believed in Jesus and lived the law of Moses.[14] The close connection between Christ and the law of Moses in Nephite religious thought begins at the very beginning of the Book of Mormon, and it is to Lehi₁ and his children that we turn to next.

Jesus and the Law in the Small Plates

The Lehites begin their relationship with Jehovah through the Sinai covenant from the very outset, but Nephi₁ preserves a record of the process of revelation where Lehi₁ and his family gradually learned about the coming of Jesus Christ. The first few chapters of 1 Nephi contain references both to a coming Messiah[15] (1 Nephi 1:19) and the need to live the law of Moses (1 Nephi 4:15). As the Book of Mormon progresses and the Nephites begin to receive more knowledge about the coming of Jesus Christ, they work to incorporate their knowledge into their existing religious systems. The small plates do not indicate that the increased knowledge about Jesus possessed by Nephi₁, Jacob, and Jacob’s descendants led them to stop living the law. In fact, the evidence in some places suggests the opposite. Not only does the Book of Mormon show that Nephites worshipped Jesus through the law of Moses, but the specific name Jesus Christ is used precisely when the authors in the small plates are talking about the law of Moses.

Because of the abbreviated nature of Nephi₁’s abridgment of his father’s record, we do not have much of Lehi₁’s early teachings in the Book of Mormon, but Nephi₁ does preserve a record of their growing understanding of Jesus Christ. In the current Book of Mormon, the terms Jesus and Christ do not appear in the text of 1 Nephi at all. Jacob is the first to use the distinctive title of Christ in 2 Nephi 10:3, while Nephi₁ is the first to use the complete name Jesus Christ as a set phrase, in 2 Nephi 25:19.[16] Before 2 Nephi 10 (and often after it), Lehi₁, Nephi₁, and Jacob would use other titles, such as Redeemer (1 Nephi 10:5‑15) and Holy One of Israel (1 Nephi 19:14–15).[17] After the names Christ and Jesus Christ are revealed to the Nephites through angelic ministration, these specific names become the framework through which the Nephites build their relationship with Jesus.

Although Lehi₁ never uses either distinctive name, the process of learning about Jesus Christ’s mission begins with him. From the very outset, Lehi₁ “testified that the things which he saw and heard . . . manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah” (1 Nephi 1:19). Usually when Messiah is used in the Old Testament, it means the king. In Lehi₁’s day, the primary meaning of Messiah would have been King Zedekiah, and this seems to be the understanding that Lehi starts out with.[18]

After his vision of the tree of life, Lehi₁ prophecies that the Lord God would raise up a prophet (1 Nephi 10:4). Lehi₁’s language is highly reminiscent of prophecy now found in Deuteronomy 18:18–19, where Jehovah promises Moses, “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”[19] The biblical tradition looks forward only to a new Mosaic prophet.[20] Lehi₁ makes an intriguing expansion to the understanding of the Mosaic prophet, however, by continuing in 1 Nephi 10:4, “Even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.” This shows that, for Lehi₁, the prophet like Moses will be a Messiah, which in his ancient Judahite context meant a king. This king and prophet will be a savior of the world, which in 1 Nephi 10:6 Lehi₁ indicates will be a salvation from a “lost and . . . fallen state.” The connection between the coming kingly Messiah and prophet like Moses is the thread that will underscore the teachings in the small plates.

Following his father's lead, in 1 Nephi 22:20, Nephi₁ paraphrases Deuteronomy 18:18–19, changing the pronouns around so that it is Moses speaking of a prophet, rather than the Lord to Moses. Nephi₁ makes his own intriguing connection to the prophet like Moses in the immediately following verse, “And now I, Nephi, declare unto you, that this prophet of whom Moses spake was the Holy One of Israel; wherefore, he shall execute judgment in righteousness” (1 Nephi 22:21). Nephi₁ explicitly connects the prophet like Moses with the Holy One of Israel. Within the confines of the Old Testament, the Holy One of Israel was Jehovah, the covenant God of Israel (Isaiah 48:17 // 1 Nephi 20:17 is one example). In his version of his father’s dream, Nephi₁ learned about the “condescension of God” (1 Nephi 11:16), including and especially the coming of Jehovah in the flesh. Nephi₁’s connecting his father’s coming Messiah and prophet to the coming of Jehovah is a natural progression of the Nephites’ learning about Jehovah’s coming in the flesh to save his people.

In his final address to his children, Father Lehi continues this line of thinking, calling the coming salvific figure “the Holy Messiah.” This phrase is unique in the scriptures to Lehi₁ and is an example of Lehi₁ connecting the Messiah as king and savior of the world with the sacrificial system under the law of Moses. In many ways this title is a combination of the kingly Messiah and the prophet like Moses. According to Lehi₁, this Messiah “offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered” (2 Nephi 2:7). This explicitly connects the kingly idea of the Messiah to the atoning and sacrificial ideas from the law of Moses.

The Nephites’ growing belief that Jehovah would come as a Holy Messiah who would save them from their sins did not change their commitment to living the commandments under the law of Moses. This is made clear by Nephi₁ building a temple after the manner of the temple of Solomon (2 Nephi 5:16). Solomon’s temple was a place of animal sacrifice under the law.[21] From an ancient Israelite perspective, the primary reason to build a temple was to keep the law of Moses, just as in this dispensation our temples are built to perform ritual ordinances.

As part of this, Nephi₁ ordains Jacob a priest, whose primary responsibility would have been to administer the ordinances described in the law of Moses at the temple built by Nephi₁ (2 Nephi 5:26).[22] In his role as a priest, Jacob teaches the people in a sermon (2 Nephi 6–10) that is heavily rooted in concepts from the law of Moses such as “holiness” and “atonement.” As part of his sermon, Jacob first introduces the idea of “infinite atonement” (2 Nephi 9:7). In the sacrificial system of the law of Moses, atonement was effected by animal sacrifice.[23] By introducing the Lord’s saving sacrifice as an infinite atonement, Jacob is explicitly connecting it to animal sacrifice and implicitly contrasting the temporary nature of the law with the eternal nature of salvation. Jacob divides his sermon into two different days, and in between the first and the second day, he receives revelation through an angel that the coming saving figure would be named Christ (2 Nephi 10:3).

Christ derives from the Greek word for “anointed,” so in one sense, the title of Christ is not different from the title Messiah. The Book of Mormon clearly differentiates between Christ and Messiah, however, often using them side by side in the same chapter. This means that it is likely the name revealed to Nephi₁ and Jacob was not Hebrew, which would have been something like Yehoshua ha Mashiah, or Mashiah, but something specific that was related to or perhaps sounded like Greek Christ. The Nephites then seem to prefer this term, perhaps because it does not have the associations with Judahite kingship of Messiah, which would have been largely negative to Lehi and his family.[24] Not only have Lehi₁ and Nephi₁ been teaching about the coming Messiah in terms of Moses and the law but the first explicit revelation of the name Christ to the people in the Book of Mormon as we now have it is part of a sermon heavily rooted in the law of Moses.

Nephi₁ continues to expand this thread of understanding the coming of Christ through the law of Moses. In commenting on Jacob’s sermon, he states, “Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him” (2 Nephi 11:4). For Nephi₁, the law points toward, not away from, Jesus Christ. Nephi₁ further explores this when he also notes that he “delight[s] in the covenants of the Lord” (2 Nephi 11:5), which in Nephi₁’s day referred to the Sinai covenant. Nephi₁’s statement that the purpose of the law was to prove the coming of Christ is a clear development from his revelation of the condescension of God.

In 2 Nephi 25, Nephi₁ continues his close association between Christ’s coming and the law of Moses. In his commentary on the teaching of Isaiah that he just quoted, Nephi₁ prophecies about the Lord’s bodily coming to earth using the names or titles Christ (first seen in Jacob’s sermon) and Messiah (the preferred term of his father). In 2 Nephi 25:19, Nephi₁ uses the full name and title Jesus Christ for the first time in the Book of Mormon as we currently have it, telling us that, like Jacob, he learned the name from an angelic revelation. Like Jacob’s teachings, Nephi₁’s teachings here are also explicitly connected to the law. In 2 Nephi 25:24, Nephi₁ says, “And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.”[25] Nephi₁ and Jacob both receive divine manifestations through angels of specific names for Jesus Christ, and they reveal them to their people in contexts that are associated with the law of Moses. This is because for the Nephites, the coming of Jesus, and especially his sacrificial blood atonement, is part and parcel of their living of God’s law as revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.

The explicit connection between the law and Christ does not appear to have been universally accepted among the people of Nephi₁, however. Jacob’s encounter at the end of his life with Sherem illustrates that Nephi₁ and Jacob’s teachings on the law and its relationship to Christ are not the only teachings current among the Nephites. On the contrary, Sherem teaches “among the people” that “there should be no Christ” (Jacob 7:2).[26] Much ink has been spilled about the identity of Sherem and his relationship to the Nephites.[27] For the purposes of the present discussion, it is sufficient to observe that whoever Sherem was and wherever he came from, he was a fervent believer in the efficacy of the law of Moses, but not in a Christ/Messiah who would atone for the sins of the world.[28] Indeed, he accuses Jacob (and, by extension, Nephi₁), saying, “Ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence” (Jacob 7:7). There are two intriguing elements to Sherem’s denunciation. The first is that Jacob has led away “much” of the people, suggesting that there were Nephites who kept the law of Moses, but did not necessarily accept Nephi₁ and Jacob’s Christ-centered approach to the law. This is closely related to his second claim that Jacob had changed the law of Moses into the worship of Christ. There is some legitimacy to Sherem’s accusation against Jacob, but this is the point of the distinctive revelations that Jacob and his brother have received. Simply put, for Nephi and Jacob, they are not transforming the law of Moses into the worship of another being—they are properly using it to worship Jehovah in his role as Jesus Christ and his promise to come bodily to the earth and atone for the world.

Despite the evidence of Sherem illustrating that there were some Nephites who did not use the law of Moses to look forward to Jesus, the record of Jacob’s descendants through the remaining small plates shows that they preserve at least some knowledge of Jesus Christ. Enos is told by God that salvation from sin comes from his faith in Christ (Enos 1:8), and he closes out his record with a memorial to his commission to preach “the truth which is in Christ” (Enos 1:26). Jarom reverts to the usage “Messiah,” stating that “the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers” teach the law of Moses, connecting it with the coming of the Messiah (Jarom 1:11), although he himself does not appear to be a priest teaching it. Jarom’s son, Omni, describes himself as “a wicked man” (Omni 1:2), but there still seems to be preservation of the knowledge of Jesus Christ through this Jacobite record. The last keeper of the small plates, Amaleki, testifies of Jesus using language reminiscent of Lehi₁ and Nephi₁, stating, “And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved” (Omni 1:26). From all this we can see that even though the keepers of the small plates were not all direct preachers of Christ or the law of Moses, they did preserve a memory of it through their generations.

King Benjamin

At the beginning of what we currently have of Mormon’s summary of the large plates, King Benjamin reigns over the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla almost five hundred years after Lehi₁ and his family left Jerusalem. Amaleki, contemporaneous with Benjamin, closes out the small plates by stating his intent to give the plates to Benjamin (Omni 1:25).[29] All we know for sure about what happens to the plates is what Mormon tells us:

After I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.

And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ. . . .

Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record. . . .

Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin. (Words of Mormon 1:3–5, 10; emphasis added)

This quote by Mormon indicates that the small plates contain more explicit prophecies of the coming of Christ than those found in the large plates to this point. It also indicates that Benjamin placed the plates with other records, but not whether he made a close study of them.

When Benjamin delivers his speech, he first gives what he calls “my words which I shall speak unto you” (Mosiah 2:9), but when he begins what is now Mosiah 3 Benjamin states that the things he is now saying come directly from an angel (Mosiah 3:2). Then the rest of his sermon, including the name and atoning mission of Jesus Christ, comprises the words of that angel. That Benjamin receives the name of Jesus Christ and his blood sacrifice by angelic revelation suggests that this was not general knowledge among the Nephites living in Zarahemla. This further indicates that the small plates were not in general circulation among the people of Zarahemla.

Benjamin calls his people to come to the temple to hear his message (Mosiah 1:18), and there “they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses” (Mosiah 2:3). This shows that the populace was still living the law of Moses, including the sacrificial laws, even if the people had not retained the full understanding of the law of Moses and its connection to Jesus Christ. It also shows that Benjamin will reveal the angel’s message of Jesus’s name in a temple and therefore a law of Moses context.

Like with the vision where Nephi first sees the condescension of God, the angel speaking to Benjamin also goes through the Lord’s birth to Mary and his ministry, healings, and death.[30] Unlike with Nephi’s vision, the angel visiting Benjamin continues beyond this to explain to Benjamin, “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” (Mosiah 3:8). The angel details out what Christ shall do, by noting that “salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name” (Mosiah 3:9) and that he shall be crucified: “And he shall rise the third day from the dead” (Mosiah 3:10). Then the angel makes the connection between Jesus Christ and the law of Moses: “For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam. . . . For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 3:11–12). This explicitly connects Jesus Christ’s death with the law of Moses that the people of Zarahemla are already keeping. Blood atonement is a common principle in the law of Moses, and the people of Zarahemla, who had just barely brought sacrifices to the temple to be killed, would have immediately understood and connected Jesus Christ’s blood atoning for their sins to how priests sacrificed animals to atone for their sins under the law of Moses.

The angel continues in Mosiah 3:14 to say, “Yet the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of Moses.” This could be used to show that the law of Moses is a law only given because of sin, and that perhaps if the Israelites had been righteous when Moses went up Mount Sinai that they would not have received the law of Moses. Yet, taken in context, the next verse gives an insight into how the law of Moses itself is not what is inferior, but when the Lord’s people “hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood” (Mosiah 3:15), that is the problem.

The angel brings together the name of Jesus Christ and the law of Moses notion of atonement through blood with his climactic statement: “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. . . . Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent” (Mosiah 3:17–18). Benjamin’s speech as delivered to him by an angel is foundational for revealing to King Benjamin’s people not only the name of Jesus Christ but also Christ’s atoning blood sacrifice through his own death. This sacrifice is inextricably connected with the law of Moses, illustrating that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate fulfillment of that very law. Benjamin’s teaching his people of Jesus Christ and his atoning blood is an epochal moment that, along with Abinadi’s preaching of Christ to Alma₁, who then founds the church of Christ, will provide the basis of understanding for Nephite belief in Jesus Christ for the rest of the Nephite civilization until Jesus himself comes.[31]

Abinadi

Later in the book of Mosiah, but earlier in chronology than the speech of King Benjamin,[32] Mormon directly quotes the record of Zeniff, which tells about the group of Nephites that Zeniff took back to the land of Nephi. These people separated from the main group in either Mosiah₁ or King Benjamin’s reign.[33] Zeniff’s people, like the general Nephites of their time, do not seem to be aware of Nephi₁ or Jacob’s revelations on the name and mission of Christ, as the words Jesus, Christ, and Messiah never appear in Zeniff’s record in the Book of Mormon. The people still live the law of Moses—in fact, the temple and priesthood are central to the reign of even the wicked king Noah. They do not understand the coming of Christ, and so, like with Nephi₁, Jacob, and Benjamin, the Lord sends a messenger to reveal Christ’s name and salvation through his atoning blood. In those cases, it was an angel, while Abinadi in Mosiah 15:21 does so as a prophet. As we will show in this section, Abinadi does not assume his audience knows Christ’s name.

The Lord sends Abinadi to preach warning and repentance to the people of Zeniff, now under the rule of Zeniff’s son Noah and his decadent priests. In his first preaching, there is no mention of Christ or his mission—what we see instead is a mission preaching repentance like many Old Testament prophets. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that Abinadi was himself a priest through Zeniff and then later was put down by Noah.[34] The people of Noah have a temple and priests, and those priests speak of keeping the law of Moses.[35] Yet they do not seem to be aware of a specific figure named Jesus Christ who would come and save them through his sacrifice and fulfill the law of Moses.[36] This could theoretically be a forgetting because of wickedness, but it is as likely that it simply was not preserved among the people of Zeniff.[37]

Even though Abinadi’s speech in his second mission comes in response to a question about the writings of Isaiah from the priests of Noah, he spends most of his sermon discussing first the law of Moses and then introducing Christ and his salvific sacrificial role in connection with that law. Grant Hardy even observes ways in which Mormon presents Abinadi as a new Moses.[38] Abinadi’s emphasis on the law can be seen in elements of his speech, such as his quoting the entire Ten Commandments. Abinadi castigates Noah’s priests for not keeping or teaching the law of Moses, but he does not condemn them for not understanding that salvation does not come by the law of Moses. He even says if you keep the commandments in the law of Moses you will be saved (Mosiah 12:25–33). In fact, he ends his entire argument with a specific statement about still teaching the law of Moses, showing that even though he has testified of Christ, the expectation is still of keeping the law along with the new understanding that redemption comes through Christ.

In response to their question, Abinadi begins to lay out for the priests the doctrine of salvation, Christ[39], and the law of Moses.

And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. (Mosiah 13:27–28)

Like Benjamin in his speech, Abinadi then discusses how the law of Moses was a strict law for a stiff-necked people but notes that they “understood not that there could not any man be saved except it were through the redemption of God” (Mosiah 13:32). Abinadi speaks of how prophets have prophesied of God and his redemption and then quotes what we have as Isaiah 53 in the current Old Testament, focusing before and after this chapter on how God will be oppressed when he will “come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people” (Mosiah 15:1).

Having laid the groundwork for understanding that God should atone for the sins of his people through his blood (with a direct connection to the law of Moses) and that God is the suffering servant that Isaiah talks about in Isaiah 53, Abinadi tells how the prophets are the ones who will declare his generation (see Mosiah 14:8 // Isaiah 53:8) and that the prophets and those who hear them are those who will publish peace, which the priests first asked Abinadi about (see Mosiah 12:20–24 // Isaiah 52:7–10). It is in this discussion that Abinadi reveals the name of God who will come down, die as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of his people, and be resurrected again, “And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ—for so he shall be called” (Mosiah 15:21; emphasis added). This verse makes clear that Abinadi assumes that the priests of Noah do not already know the name of Christ, illustrating that this knowledge had been generally lost at some point after Nephi₁ and Jacob.

Abinadi finishes the end of his sermon by reiterating what he has taught the priests: “Therefore, if ye teach the law of Moses, also teach that it is a shadow of those things which are to come—teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen” (Mosiah 16:14–15). Thus, for the second time chronologically and the third time in the canonical order of the Book of Mormon, the Lord reveals to his people in the Americas Jesus Christ’s name and mission as the Redeemer through his atoning sacrifice. All three times that Jesus Christ is revealed as their savior to the Nephites, it is done in connection with the law of Moses because with his own sacrificial death he makes the blood atonement that will be the end of the law.

After Abinadi finishes his sermon, King Noah and his priests, who outwardly follow the law of Moses’s legal precepts, despite their lack of practicing that law, look for a reason to put Abinadi to death under a rule of law.[40] The reason they come up with for their justification shows again that the knowledge of Jesus Christ had been lost among the Nephites while the law of Moses from the brass plates had remained. They tell Abinadi he is being killed for preaching “that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death” (Mosiah 17:8), showing that they believe that is a justifiable case of blasphemy that would stand up among the people of Zeniff, who therefore can also be seen as generally not knowing about Christ or his prophesied coming.

Yet Abinadi’s message of Christ and his redeeming blood atonement as the fulfillment of the law of Moses is not lost with his death. One of the priests of Noah, Alma₁, repents when he hears Abinadi’s sermon and founds the church of Christ based on Abinadi’s teachings. When Alma₁ and his people later unite with the rest of the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla, the church of Christ is founded among the entire populace (Mosiah 24). Thus, the teachings about Jesus Christ are not lost again like they were at some point after Jacob’s time, and knowledge of Christ and his redeeming blood atonement continues down to the coming of Jesus Christ himself to the Americas.

From Alma₁ to Jesus Christ

We have shown that there are three separate examples where the Nephites receive specific revelation about the name and mission of Jesus Christ before his coming to the Nephites. These revelations to the Nephites not only revealed to them important truths about Jesus Christ but did so through the law of Moses. Although this can be unusual to us looking backward from two thousand years of Christian history, this should not be surprising because the Sinai covenant was how Israelites understood their relationship with Jehovah. After Benjamin and Abinadi, however, we see a continuation up to the coming of Jesus Christ. The church founded by Alma₁ preserves the teachings about the coming of Jesus Christ in ways that do not seem to be the case previously, but they do not stop keeping the law of Moses as part of their covenant relationship with God.[41]

Two examples in the Book of Mormon show the staying religious power of the Sinai covenant among the Nephites, even with a church focused on the teachings of Benjamin and Abinadi about Christ.[42] The first is the conversion of the former Lamanites who become the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. They are converted by a preaching mission led by the sons of Mosiah₂, and this mission is explicit in its basis in preaching salvation through the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Ammon explains to Lamoni about Christ in Alma 18:39 and Aaron similarly teaches Lamoni’s father in Alma 22:13–14.[43] When Lamoni’s wife comes out of her spiritual coma, she cries out, “O blessed Jesus, who has saved me from an awful hell!” (Alma 19:29). Because the sons of Mosiah₂ left the land of Zarahemla after the return of Alma₁ and his church, their understanding of the coming of Jesus Christ comes through both the revelations given to Benjamin and Abinadi, as discussed previously.[44]

The explicit conversion of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to Jesus makes Mormon’s historical note in Alma 25:15–16 intriguing. There Mormon describes the converted Lamanites as beginning to keep the law of Moses after their conversion. This presumably included the sacrificial and purity components. Although Mormon tells us that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies did not “suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses” (with echoes of Abinadi’s teachings here), he also claims, “The law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ” (Alma 25:16). Rather than taking away from their belief in the coming Jesus Christ, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies saw living the law as an enhancement to their faith.

The other example between Alma₁ and Jesus Christ is the negative example of the Zoramites. The creation of the church among the people in the land of Zarahemla had created space for other religious organizations, such as the order of Nehor.[45] The Nehorites were different from the Zoramites, because the followers of Nehor appear to have continued to keep the law. Mormon tells us about the Zoramites: “But [the Zoramites] had fallen into great errors, for they would not observe to keep the commandments of God, and his statutes, according to the law of Moses. Neither would they observe the performances of the church, to continue in prayer and supplication to God daily, that they might not enter into temptation” (Alma 31:9–10). The Zoramites rejected both the church and the law of Moses, which astonished Alma₂ and his companions and fed their desire to return the Zoramites to both church and law. This helps to explain Amulek’s discussion to the Zoramites of Jesus Christ’s mission in connection with the atoning sacrifices of the law of Moses (Alma 34:9–14). The Nephite church continues to teach the specific teaching about Jesus Christ’s coming and to live the law of Moses as part of their worship of Jesus.

Jesus Christ’s Post-Resurrection Ministry to the Nephites

Jesus’s interactions with the law of Moses during his visit to the Nephites are in continuity with what we have seen from the earliest stages of Lehi₁ and his family up to the special revelations given through Benjamin and Abinadi. When Jesus does come, he teaches about himself and his mission in connection to the law of Moses. Jesus’s statements about fulfilling the law should not be seen as denigration against the law, because Jesus actively connects his life and ministry to the law of Moses.

When he announces the end of animal sacrifice, he does so with a quotation from Psalm 51.[46] This psalm is fundamentally about contrition and the sorrow of repentance. Towards the end of the psalm, the psalmist makes this remarkable statement: “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else I would give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (Psalm 51:16–17). Jesus references this passage with his statement to the Nephites, “And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:20). Christian readers of these verses in the psalm have sometimes seen this as a statement that God never actually wanted animal sacrifice, even under the law of Moses, but this cannot be maintained from the psalm. Indeed, the psalm ends by noting after the sinner’s forgiveness, “Then shalt thou [God] be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar” (Psalm 51:19). Psalm 51 makes it clear that it is the psalmist’s wicked state that prevents him from being able to offer sacrifices. Animal sacrifice without the proper penitence is empty and worthless, which accords especially well with the teachings of Abinadi that the law of Moses points to salvation through Christ (Mosiah 16:14–15).

When Jesus comes, he delivers a sermon very similar to the New Testament Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7).[47] After finishing this sermon, Jesus revisits his role as the giver of the law of Moses. Specifically, there were some Nephites who were wondering about Jesus’s statement in 3 Nephi 12:47, “Old things are done away, and all things have become new.” The Nephite confusion about what to do with the law of Moses suggests that it was not simply a cut-and-dry circumstance where the Nephites were simply happy to get rid of the “lower” law. There was place for some confusion.

In answer to their question, Jesus reiterates his statement that “the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses” (3 Nephi 15:4). He then explains his relationship to the law, and with that his authority to fulfill the law, “Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end” (3 Nephi 15:5). Jesus here explicitly connects himself with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, reminding the Nephites that as the giver of the law, it is his law, and not really the law of Moses at all but rather the law of Jehovah. Even at this point in Nephite history, the destruction of the law of Moses is not what was on Jesus’s mind here, because he himself gave that law. He is the God of Israel, revealing himself and his covenant to his people.

Conclusion

It is no accident that all three times the Lord introduces the knowledge of the coming of Jesus Christ to the Nephites, he does so explicitly in conjunction with the law of Moses and Jesus’s atoning sacrifice. Jesus Christ and his atonement is not simply something better instead of the law of Moses. In the book of Moses, the Lord sent an angel to tell Adam and Eve to keep a sacrificial law of animal sacrifice as a sign of his coming (Moses 5:6–8). Jesus Christ as Jehovah gave the law and covenant on Mount Sinai, something he reminds the people of in the New World (3 Nephi 15:5). Although scripture indicates that the ancient Israelites received a lesser law because of their own actions (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:23–26), the “lesser” part of this law is not the system of animal sacrifice nor the ethical and moral commandments that are also integral to the law of Moses such as the Ten Commandments, which were never rescinded and that we still keep and believe today. What is lesser in the law of Moses seems to be the Israelites’ ignorance of the fullest significance of the law pointing to a great and last sacrifice by Jesus Christ. Jehovah revealed that knowledge to the subsection of Israelites he led away to the promised land. Lehi₁, Nephi₁ and Jacob, King Benjamin, and Abinadi all received revelation about Jesus Christ. These revelations were not separate from or instead of the law of Moses and Sinai covenant. Instead, Jesus Christ and the knowledge of his coming was explicitly bound up in the law of Moses the Nephites were already keeping. Within the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ and his mortal life, atonement, sacrificial death, and resurrection are inextricably connected with the law of Moses and Jehovah’s covenant purposes for his children.

This can help explain what Jesus means both by the law being fulfilled as well as what it means that it has an end. Jesus is the lord of the everlasting covenant, and our relationship to him is a covenant relationship, as it has always been. There are aspects of the law of Moses and the Sinai covenant that are still operative and binding on Latter-day Saints to this day. We still live and try to keep the commandments, like the two great commandments to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18). Latter-day Saints are a covenant part of the house of Israel, which is why it matters to us that it was Jesus Christ as Jehovah who covenanted with Israel. The Book of Mormon revelations of Jesus Christ’s name in connection with his blood sacrifice is something that we encounter every week as we take the sacrament and take upon us the name of Jesus Christ and drink in remembrance of his blood (Moroni 5:2). We ourselves are in continuity with the Nephites and the law of Moses as we also experience the name and blood of Jesus together during the sacrament. All of this reminds us that salvation only comes through Jesus Christ, not through specific ordinances or commandments in any dispensation. It is Jesus Christ himself who teaches us, “Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life” (3 Nephi 15:9).

Notes

[1] The form of the content on the brass plates is subject to scholarly discussion. John L. Sorenson argued that it derived from traditions from the northern kingdom of Israel. See John L. Sorenson, “The ‘Brass Plates’ and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10, no. 4 (1977): 31–39; Robert L. Millet, “The Influence of the Brass Plates on the Teachings of Nephi,” in Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 207–25. See further Avram R. Shannon, “The Book of Mormon and the Documentary Hypothesis,” in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, eds. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2022), 249–75.

[2] See Edward J. Brandt, “The Name Jesus Christ Revealed to the Nephites,” in The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 201–6. Brandt identifies the three different revelations to Nephi₁ and Jacob, Abinadi, and Benjamin, but does not indicate why there needed to be these revelations of the name of Jesus. As we discuss later in the paper, Jesus Christ identifies as the fulfillment of these prophecies. According to Ether 3:14, he also identified himself as Jesus Christ to the brother of Jared, but the Jaredite records were not generally known among the Nephites. See Alma 37:21–29.

[3] John W. Welch discusses ten individuals who bear testimony of Jesus in the Book of Mormon. Welch’s focus is on how these various testimonies both teach the same basic doctrine and reflect their own experiences. John W. Welch, “Ten Testimonies of Jesus Christ from the Book of Mormon,” in A Book of Mormon Treasury: Gospel Insights from General Authorities and Religious Educators (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Young University, 2003), 316–42. Welch discusses Nephi₁ on 324–5, Jacob on 325–7, Benjamin on 329–31, and Abinadi on 327–29.

[4] We do not see the Abinadi as “untethering” the law of Moses from salvation but argue in this paper that instead of disconnecting salvation from the law, Abinadi is simply clarifying how the law and salvation are connected. For an alternative perspective, see Belnap, “The Abinadi Narrative: Redemption and the Struggle of Nephite Identity,” in Abinadi: He Came Among Them in Disguise, ed. Shon D. Hopkin (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018), 27–66, discussion on 41–44.

[5] There is a very nice overview for Latter-day Saints in Daniel L. Belnap, “The Law of Moses: An Overview,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 19-34.

[6] This continues in the Restoration, where the Saints who receive celestial glory are promised that they will be “priests and kings” (D&C 76:56). For a discussion of notions of consecration and holiness in the Old Testament law see Avram R. Shannon, “‘Be Ye Therefore Holy’: Consecration in the Sinai Covenant,” in Old Testament Insights: The Sacrifice of a Broken Heart and Contrite Spirit, eds. Kenneth L. Alford, Gaye Strathearn, and Mary Jane Woodger (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2021), 79–87.

[7] See Kerry Muhlestein, Joshua M. Sears, and Avram R. Shannon, “New and Everlasting: The Relationship between Gospel Covenants in History,” Religious Educator 21:2 (2020): 20–40.

[8] For a description of the sacrificial system as described in the book of Leviticus, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 133–378. There is an accessible discussion focused on Latter-day Saints in Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, and David Rolph Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2009), 219–25.

[9] Shannon, “Consecration in the Sinai Covenant,” 83–6.

[10] Milgrom, Leviticus, 1079–84; T. Benjamin Spackman, “The Israelite Roots of Atonement Terminology,” BYU Studies Quarterly 55,1 (2016): 39–64.

[11] The Hebrew verb that “atone” translates (Q/P/R) appears 101 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it is not always translated using “atone” or variants in the KJV. For example, it is translated as “purge” in Psalm 79:9 and Proverbs 16:6. It is translated as “forgave” in Psalm 78:38.

[12] On Jesus’s Jewish background see Trevan G. Hatch, A Stranger in Jerusalem (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2019); Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Readings of the Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1981); Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels; David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1956). On the background of Jesus and his specific teachings about how to teach the law of Moses, see Philip Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007).

[13] Paul’s relationship to the law and to Judaism is a fairly fraught question. As with Jesus, scholarly opinion on Paul’s position vis-à-vis Judaism and the law of Moses runs the gamut from being a Torah-faithful Jew to rejecting Judaism entirely in favor of the new religious system. The New Testament presents a fairly nuanced version of Paul’s relationship to the systems of the law of Moses. For a perspective that focuses on Paul’s essential Jewishness, see Kimberly Ambrose, Jew Among Jews: Rehabilitating Paul (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015). See also David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: the Western Tradition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2013), 53–66.

[14] Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “What Jesus Taught the Jews About the Law of Moses” in The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, volume 2: From the Transfiguration through the Triumphal Entry, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 2006), 176–207.

[15] Hebrew “anointed one,” referring to the specific ceremony involved in the creation of the ancient Israelite king. See 1 Samuel 10:1 and the poetic parallelism in 1 Samuel 2:10.

[16] This statement needs to be nuanced a little bit. In the initial translation of the Book of Mormon, an angel reveals to Nephi the name of Jesus Christ in what is now 1 Nephi 12:18. In preparation for the publication of the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith edited “Jesus Christ” to say “Messiah.” Royal Skousen suggests that “Jesus Christ” should be maintained, since he sees 2 Nephi 25:18 as referring back to 1 Nephi 12:18. This observation is legitimate, but it does not explain why Jacob then needs to be told by an angel in 2 Nephi 10:3. This observation also does not diminish the relative prominence of titles such as Redeemer or Messiah in the small plates relative to the rest of the Book of Mormon. If Skousen is right, this simply shows that even the revelation of the name Jesus Christ through Nephi₁ does not make the name universal among the Nephites. See Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon: Part One, 1 Nephi 1–2 Nephi 10, The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, vol. 4 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 259.

[17] As an example of this, the title Messiah appears thirty times in the small plates, but only twice in Mormon’s abridgement (and both of those examples are quoting Moses). These are Mosiah 13:33 and Helaman 8:13.

[18] See the discussion in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 103–6; Marinus de Jonge, “Christ,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons (Leiden: Brill, 1999),192–200, discussion of the Old Testament notion of Messiah at 193–4; David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely, “Jesus the Messiah: Prophet, Priest and King,” in Jesus Christ: Son of God, Savior, ed. Paul H. Peterson, Gary L. Hatch, and Laura D. Card (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2002), 248–69, discussion of anointing kings on pages 252–53). This kingly definition means, among other things, that Lehi could be construed as preaching treason against Zedekiah in 1 Nephi 1 by promising the coming of another king.

[19] For discussions of this prophecy, see RoseAnn Benson and Joseph Fielding McConkie, “A Prophet . . . like unto Thee,” Religious Educator 12, no. 3 (2011): 109–27; “‘A Prophet like Moses’ (Deuteronomy 18:15–18) in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41 (2020): 266–80, originally published as David R. Seely, “‘A Prophet like Moses’ (Deuteronomy 18:15–18) in the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017), 359–74.

[20] See Jeffrey Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 36–69, 136–40; Benson and McConkie, “Prophet . . . like unto Thee,” 110–11.

[21] See Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, and David Rolph Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2009), 219–25.

[22] Jacob’s teachings and writings are pervaded with ideas and doctrine coming out of the law of Moses. Avram R. Shannon, ‘After Whose Order?’: Kingship and Priesthood in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 4 (2021): 75–91, discussion on pages 80–82.

[23] See, for example, Leviticus 1:1-4.

[24] See Brandt, “The Name Jesus Christ,” 201–2.

[25] In 2 Nephi 25:25, Nephi₁ makes the statement that the law had become dead to the Nephites, but this seems to be less a statement against the law, and more an acknowledgement of their living it in connection with their expectation of Jesus. Although it is not recorded in the Book of Mormon, Nephi₁’s use of fulfilled in 25:24 shows that the Nephites have been given the understanding that some of the ritual portions of the law will be ended.

[26] For a discussion of Sherem and the legal issues in his interaction with Jacob, see John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 107–38.

[27] There is a discussion and overview of previous scholarship in A. Keith Thompson, “Who was Sherem?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 1–15. Thompson argues that Sherem was a member of the original Lehite party whose identity Jacob has suppressed.

[28] John W. Welch, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, 109–11.

[29] There is some evidence that Benjamin read from at least Jacob’s work, although we do not know what that looked like or whether Benjamin shared that with others. John Hilton III, “Jacob’s Textual Legacy,” Journal of Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 52–65. Hilton does an excellent job showing places where language that first appears in Jacob again appears in Benjamin’s speech, but without the plates it remains difficult to say much about Benjamin’s source for Jacob. It is possible, for example, that the allusions to Jacob found in Benjamin’s speech could come from the large plates. It is clear from the angelic revelation that the knowledge of Jesus Christ was not general among the Nephites in Benjamin’s day.

[30] See also 1 Nephi 11:13–33. According to the earliest versions of the Book of Mormon, Nephi learns Jesus Christ’s name through angelic revelation in 1 Nephi 12:18. See the discussion in note 16. Either way, Nephi’s vision is also based on law of Moses ideas, which is made clear from his constant reference to the “Lamb of God.”

[31] See Helaman 5:9, recalling Helaman teaching his sons to remember the words of King Benjamin teaching how salvation comes “only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.” This is especially of note because Helaman names his sons Nephi₂ and Lehi₂, showing his knowledge and reverence for his ancestors, while still basing his knowledge of Christ dating from Benjamin’s speech. (Note that not just Jesus Christ was retained, but also Christ’s connection with the law of Moses.)

[32] Alma₁ is 19 years older than Mosiah and is a “young man” when he hears the words of Abinadi (Mosiah 17:2). See Hilton, “Abinadi’s Legacy,” 107–8.

[33] Omni 1:27–30.

[34] See John A. Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar (Salt Lake City: Cornerstone Publishing, 1999), 323–4; Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Enos through Mosiah (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books), 260. Abinadi is able to quote from memory the beginning of the Ten Commandments, showing a deep familiarity with scripture that in the ancient world only priests would have.

[35] After the death of Noah, the temple retains its importance, and Limhi summons his people to the temple in Mosiah 7:17.

[36] Hugh Nibley described the people as having “well-nigh forgotten” the doctrine of the coming of Christ. Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 121.

[37] When Limhi tells Ammon₁ about everything that has transpired among the people of Zeniff, he notes that Abinadi prophesied about the coming of Christ and was killed for saying that Christ is God (Mosiah 7:26–27). Since this is precisely what Nephi₁ taught, this shows that the people of Zeniff did not accept this. The fact that Abinadi actually reveals the name of Christ in 15:21 suggests that they were unaware of it.

[38] Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 157–60.

[39] Like Benjamin, Abinadi uses other words before coming to the revelation of the specific name of Christ. Abinadi prefers “God himself.”

[40] Welch, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, 200.

[41] Kerry Hull discusses the founding of the Nephite church and compares it with the experience in the New Testament. See Kerry M. Hull, “Two Case Studies on the Development of the Concept of Religion: The New Testament and the Book of Mormon,” Religious Educator 17, no. 1 (2016): 40–63.

[42] Mosiah 18:1 makes it clear that the teachings of the church founded by Alma₁ were based on what he had heard from Abinadi. Alma₂ bases his teachings on what he learned from his father, making the teachings of the church of Christ from Alma₁ to Jesus firmly rooted in the teachings of Abinadi before Noah and his priests.

[43] Aaron is one of the few individuals in the Book of Mormon who use the priestly word “atonement” to describe Jesus Christ’s saving work in his preaching in Alma 21:9. The others are Lehi₁, Nephi₁, Jacob, Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma₂, Anti-Nephi-Lehi, Amulek, Helaman₂ (quoting Benjamin), and Mormon.

[44] Aaron seems to quote Abinadi in Alma 22:12–13. See Hilton, “Abinadi’s Legacy,” 101–2.

[45] Shannon, “Kingship and Priesthood,” 84–5.

[46] For a discussion of the Psalms in the Book of Mormon broadly, see John Hilton III, “Old Testament Psalms in the Book of Mormon,” in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament (2013 Sperry Symposium), ed. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Matthew J. Grey, and David Rolph Seely (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 291–311.

[47] Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 193–4.