“And He Was Anti-Christ”: the Significance of the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges, Part 2 Daniel Belnap

Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2019 “And he was Anti-Christ”: The Significance of the Eighteenth earY of the Reign of the Judges, Part 2 Daniel Belnap [email protected] Daniel L. Belnap Daniel Belnap Dan Belnap Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Belnap, Daniel; Belnap, Daniel L.; Belnap, Daniel; and Belnap, Dan, "“And he was Anti-Christ”: The Significance of the Eighteenth earY of the Reign of the Judges, Part 2" (2019). Faculty Publications. 4482. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/4482 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. “And he was Anti-Christ”: The Significance of the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges, Part 2 Daniel Belnap For the Nephites, the sixteenth year of the reign of the judges was tremendously difficult. The arrival of the people of Ammon, in itself an incredible disruption of Nephite society, precipitated a battle, which Mormon describes as a “tremendous battle; yea, even such an one as never had been known among all the people in the land from the time Lehi left Jerusalem” (Alma 28:2). The dead, we are told, were not counted due to their enormous number. These events com- pounded the pre-existing struggles that resulted from the sociopolit- 1 ical fallout from the reforms of Mosiah2. Though Alma 30:5 suggests that all is well in Zarahemla during the seventeenth year of the reign of the judges, the events of the next year and half, the eighteenth year, belie this peace. Within this span, the Nephites exploded in two separate, but related, political conflagrations: (1) the secession of the inhabitants of Antionum from the greater Nephite community, and (2) the civil war spearheaded by Amalickiah. But prior to both of these events came Korihor. 1. See Dan Belnap, “‘And it came to pass . .’: The Sociopolitical Events in the Book of Mormon Leading to the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014): 101–39. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 28, 2019, pp. 91–136 © 2019 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois JBMS_28.indd 91 5/1/19 12:50 PM 92 Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Korihor appeared toward the latter end of the seventeenth year of the reign of the judges, and the rapid favorable response to his teachings suggests that he tapped into a sense of unease and insecurity expe- rienced by at least some portion of the Nephite population. Korihor found an audience that believed that the current system of leadership— in particular the ecclesiastical structure—was flawed at best, and cor- rupted at worst in regard to its relationship to the Nephites’ ability to exercise their rights and privileges. While it does not appear that Kori- hor’s teachings led directly to the politically divisive events that would follow a few months later, there is no question that the teachings, as we have them now, outlined an ontological and epistemological philosophy that threatened the Nephite social and cultural traditions, legal and political systems, and church.2 “And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor” We are introduced to Korihor by name in verse 12 of Alma 30, but he is referenced earlier in verse 6, where he is termed “Anti-Christ.” This designation, according to Mormon, is given because “he began to preach unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken 2. Contra both Welch and Gardner, who see no real threat in the figure of Korihor. Welch writes: “Indeed, the text wants readers to see Korihor as an isolated individual defying the foundation of collective responsibility that undergirded the concepts of justice, ethics, prosperity, and well-being in Nephite and Israelite societies” (John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon [Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press and The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008], 273). Also, Gardner: “Looked at realistically, Korihor probably has little impact on Nephite history. Unlike Nehor, he creates no organized movement. He may have influenced some in the first city where he preached, but failed utterly in Jershon and Gideon. Korihor’s greatest value comes in Mormon’s use of his story. Literarily, Korihor serves two functions. First, the failure of his mission to teach false doctrine contrasts with Yahweh’s power in strengthening the missionaries who taught true doctrine and reaped an impressive harvest. Second, and more important, Mormon juxtaposes Korihor, the Anti-Christ, to Alma, the Messiah’s defender and prophet” (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: An- alytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4: Alma [Sandy, UT: Greg Kofford, 2007], 418). JBMS_28.indd 92 5/1/19 12:50 PM Belnap / “And he was Anti-Christ” 93 by the prophets, concerning the coming of Christ” (Alma 30:5). While the original Nephite word used for this designation is unknown, it may be assumed that Joseph Smith felt that the term “Anti-Christ” best com- municated the original Nephite intention. Smith likely would have been familiar with the term from its origins in the Johannine Corpus in the New Testament. It is comprised of two Greek elements, the first being the prefix “anti.” “Anti” signifies “opposite, against,” but in the sense of “counterfeit, or simulating,” as in antivenom, which is similar to venom, but opposite to it in effect, or the star Antares, which is similar in size, color, and luminosity to Mars (Ares) but is not, of course, that planet.3 The second element in the designation is the Greek word christos, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew māšîaḥ, or “the one who has been anointed.” Thus, an anti-Christ is one who is in opposition to Christ, but does so by being similar to or by simulating Christ’s characteristics. It is this quality of similarity that makes anti-Christs dangerous and also acts as the impetus for assigning the title to Korihor. Though Korihor’s teachings are explicitly against Christ, as we shall see, Korihor appears to understand himself as a deliverer for the Nephite population. The question regarding what Korihor and that segment of the Nephite population adhering to his tenets believed the Nephites needed redemption from can be understood by looking more closely at Korihor’s ministry itself. Yet before the actual narrative of Korihor begins, Mormon makes an intriguing editorial decision to insert five verses concerning Neph- ite law. Much has been written concerning this text both in regard to 3. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), s.v. “αντί”: “In its basic meaning of ‘over against’ it does not occur in the NT, but is mostly used in the sense of . ‘in place of.’ . In this respect it makes little difference whether the word denotes an actual replacement, or intended replacement, or a mere equivalent in estimation.” See also Glenn L. Pearson and Reid E. Bankhead, Building Faith with the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1986), 74: “The Greek preposition anti, roughly translated, means instead of. It also carries the meaning of ‘face to face’ or mirror image. The image in the mirror, looking back at you, is face to face with you. It looks like you. Yet it has no substance. It is a counterfeit of you, in a sense. It only appears to be you.” JBMS_28.indd 93 5/1/19 12:50 PM 94 Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Nephite law generally and to the Korihor narrative specifically.4 But this section is not so much an explanatory passage of Nephite law as it is an explanation of one specific negative right: that no law should punish a man for his beliefs. We are told that no law existed that for- bade or prevented a man from his beliefs, and that there should be no such law because it went “contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on unequal grounds” (Alma 30:7). This explanation suggests that the legal history concerning this right could be found in the commandments of God, and specifically in the law of Moses—and indeed the law of Moses does clarify the legal rights of individuals to such things as fair trials, the need of witnesses for judgments made, and so on.5 But Mormon does not quote a passage of the legal material; instead, in Alma 30:8, he provides a paraphrase of Joshua 24:15: “For thus sayeth the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.” The specific context of the biblical verse finds Israel at Shechem at the behest of Joshua, who, prior to his death, wished to bestow his final instruction. His declaration mentioned above follows a recitation of God’s delivering acts on behalf of Israel and is itself followed by a cove- nantal renewal event by Israel. Though similar to other covenant-mak- ing or covenant-renewal events, this particular one differs in that it does not emphasize or even mention the negative consequences for failure to participate in the covenant.6 Joshua does warn the Israelites of the 4. Particularly, see Welch, Legal Cases, 273–309. 5. See Exodus 23:1–3, 6–8; Leviticus 19:15–18; Deuteronomy 17:8–13; 18:15–20; 19:15–21.

Load more