�鶹��ý

On Sunday morning, November 17, 1957, Martin Luther King Jr. was told by a doctor that he should not preach. Regardless, Dr. King stood at a pulpit in Montgomery, Alabama, to deliver a sermon called “Loving Your Enemies.”[1] The doctor allowed him to preach only if Dr. King would “immediately go back home and get in the bed.”[2] King based his sermon on Matthew 5:43–45, where Jesus taught his disciples, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). In explaining why one should love their enemies, Dr. King said, “Hate for hate only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. It just never ends. . . . Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.”[3] Dr. King’s message teaches that we cannot use hatred to end wickedness in our families and communities—that would simply add more suffering to the world. The way that we seek to eliminate evil matters immensely. Ultimately, the only way to defeat wickedness is through Christlike love.

In a world that is increasingly more divisive, contentious, and fractured, Latter-day Saints need to identify principles that allow us to overcome evil in the Savior’s way. Elder Robert D. Hales taught, “When we do not retaliate—when we turn the other cheek and resist feelings of anger—we too stand with the Savior. We show forth His love, which is the only power that can subdue the adversary and answer our accusers without accusing them in return. That is not weakness. That is Christian courage.”[4] The Book of Mormon contains numerous examples of prophets and disciples confronting wickedness in Christlike ways.

In this essay I will show that Alma and Amulek act as types of Christ in the way they triumph over evil while imprisoned at Ammonihah. To do so, I will demonstrate that Alma and Amulek typify the Savior in overcoming evil in three ways. First, Alma and Amulek respond peacefully to the attacks inflicted by the people of Ammonihah. Second, Alma and Amulek indirectly expose the moral corruption of the Ammonihah leadership. Finally, Alma and Amulek ultimately defeat evil at Ammonihah by allowing wickedness to collapse on itself.

Establishing Types

In seeking to establish intentional types of Christ in a text, we have to be careful not to succumb to “parallelomania” (suggesting unfounded or excessive parallels). Obviously, there are differing opinions on how a text may or may not relate to the Savior.[5] In addition, we have all been subject to teachers or writers who force us to squint to see how a text, event, or scriptural character points to Jesus Christ. However, seeing correspondences between scripture and Jesus is at the very heart of what it means to read scripture as a believer. For example, as New Testament scholar Richard Hays points out, “All four of the four canonical Evangelists, in interestingly distinct ways, embody and enact [a] figural christological reading.”[6] In a similar manner, in this essay I will seek to show how the language used in Alma 14 suggests parallels between the events surrounding the Alma and Amulek imprisonment at Ammonihah and the life and mission of Jesus.[7] In so doing, I will not seek to definitively demonstrate that Mormon or Alma are responsible for the language that depicts Alma and Amulek as types. It’s impossible to know how much Mormon or Alma knew about the Savior’s ministry to highlight parallels between the Ammonihah prison narrative and Jesus. In addition, I am not claiming to prove if all the following similarities I identify between the Savior and Alma and Amulek are intentional. Considering the number and specificity of some of the parallels, it seems at least plausible that some of the following types may be intentional. Regardless, the Book of Mormon is an ancient prophetic Christian text that teaches, “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). Ultimately, whether intentional or not, the way that Alma and Amulek overcome evil in Ammonihah can certainly embody the principles and manner in which Jesus defeated evil through his suffering, death, and resurrection.

Although the debate has a long and nuanced history around the definition of typology and allegory,[8] in this essay I will use the following definition of a type: “A person, thing, or event that prophetically foreshadows another person, thing, or event of greater magnitude.”[9] In this sense we are simply looking for ways that the story of Alma and Amulek in Ammonihah might point to and teach us something about the mission of Jesus Christ. For modern readers, it may be surprising to think that certain highlighted typological details may have been included intentionally. However, the ancients reported stories in extremely thoughtful and deliberate ways to add layers of meaning to their narratives. The Book of Mormon is no exception.[10]

Responding Peacefully to Persecution

During his mortal ministry, Jesus never hurt any other person. Even when false accusations, hatred, and physical suffering were inflicted upon him, the Savior responded with peace. As C. Terry Warner said, “He absorbed the terrible poison of vengeance into Himself and metabolized it by His love.”[11]

Before seeing how Alma and Amulek respond in like manner, it’s important to note that Alma and Amulek are persecuted and mocked in similar ways to the Savior during his final sufferings. For example, Mormon reports that the leadership at Ammonihah “did withhold food from [Alma and Amulek] that they might hunger, and water that they might thirst” (Alma 14:22). John indicates that one of the statements Jesus said from the cross was “I thirst” (John 19:28). Instead of satisfying that thirst, Jesus was offered “vinegar . . . mingled with gall” (Matthew 27:34). When the judge in Ammonihah confronted Alma and Amulek, he said, “Know ye not that I have power to deliver you up unto the flames?” (Alma 14:19). With similar language Pilate asked Jesus, “Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?” (John 19:10).

Mormon also explains that the Ammonihah leadership “did take from [Alma and Amulek] their clothes that they were naked” (Alma 14:22). After Jesus was crucified, the Roman soldiers “parted his garments” (Matthew 27:35). A modern translation reads, “They divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots” (Matthew 27:35 New Revised International Version). Latter-day Saint scholar John Hilton III explained, “While complete nudity was not part of all crucifixions, the general lack of clothing was a physically and emotionally painful aspect of this method of execution.”[12]

In addition, Alma and Amulek “were bound with strong cords, and confined in prison” (Alma 14:22). After Jesus suffered in Gethsemane, “a great multitude with swords and staves . . . laid their hands on [Jesus], and took him” (Mark 14:43, 46). Mormon reports that the leadership spat upon Alma and Amulek while they were in prison (Alma 14:21). Likewise, when Jesus was brought before “the chief priests and all the council” (Mark 14:55) “some began to spit on him” (Mark 14:65). Finally, Alma and Amulek were mocked “for many days” (Alma 14:22) while in prison. Jesus was mocked by “the men that held” him (Luke 22:63), by “Herod with his men of war,” who “arrayed him in a gorgeous robe” (Luke 23:11), and by the soldiers at the cross (Luke 23:36–37). In light of all these similarities, it seems possible that Alma and Amulek are intentionally depicted as types of Christ in the way they experience suffering and persecution.

Responding with silence

However, Alma and Amulek typify the Savior not only in the way they suffered but also in the way that they peacefully respond to the persecution heaped upon them by the Ammonihah leadership. After witnessing the horrific murder of many women and children by fire, Alma and Amulek were asked by the Ammonihah chief judge if they were going to continue to preach the doctrine of hell (Alma 14:14). The judge smote Alma and Amulek on “their cheeks and asked: What say ye for yourselves?” (Alma 14:15). In response, Alma and Amulek “answered him nothing” (Alma 14:17). Following three days of imprisonment, Alma and Amulek were questioned again by “many lawyers, and judges, and priests, and teachers, who were of the profession of Nehor,” and again “they answered them nothing” (Alma 14:18). This led the judge to arise and say, “Why do ye not answer the words of this people? . . . And he commanded them to speak; but [Alma and Amulek] answered nothing” (Alma 14:19). This may be a surprising response to evil, but as Elder Neil L. Andersen has taught, “There are times when being a peacemaker means that we resist the impulse to respond and instead, with dignity, remain quiet.”[13]

Similarity, when Jesus was accused of claiming that he was “able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days” (Matthew 26:61), the high priest asked, “Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?” (Matthew 26:62). In response, Matthew simply says that “Jesus held his peace” (Matthew 26:63). Later, when Jesus was accused in front of Pilate by “the chief priests and elders, he [again] answered nothing” (Matthew 27:12). In the Book of Mormon and New Testament accounts, the authors highlight that both Alma and Amulek and the Savior respond to multiple accusations by remaining silent.

The suffering servant and Alma and Amulek

Many scholars today recognize that the New Testament authors may have intentionally highlighted this detail about Jesus remaining silent to point to certain passages in Isaiah commonly referred to as “the servant songs.”[14] At the end of the nineteenth century, a German theologian named Bernhard Duhm identified four passages (or songs) in Isaiah that speak of a servant (see Isaiah 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–7; 52:13–53:12) who suffers vicariously on behalf of Israel. In the last of these passages, the suffering servant (who is identified as Jesus by both traditional Christians and Latter-day Saint interpreters) is depicted as both “oppressed” and “afflicted” (Isaiah 53:7). However, in response to this persecution, Isaiah writes that the suffering servant “opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,[15] so he openeth not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). Earlier in this same suffering servant passage, the servant is depicted as standing before “kings” (Isaiah 52:15). Consequently, early Christians would have been reminded of the suffering servant when Jesus repeatedly answered nothing during his persecution and when he was brought before Pilate (Matthew 27:11–14).

It seems that Alma and Amulek typify Jesus as suffering servants. One can identify at least five reasons to support this claim. First, like Jesus, Alma and Amulek do not respond to accusations. Of all the aspects of the imprisonment story Mormon could have emphasized, it’s surprising that Mormon highlights this detail multiple times. Second, as mentioned above, Alma and Amulek experience persecution in similar ways to the suffering servant. Both the suffering servant and Alma and Amulek are struck (Isaiah 50:6; Alma 14:14), spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Alma 14:21), and shamed (Isaiah 50:6; Alma 14:22). In addition, Mormon uses the word “suffer” when he points out that Alma and Amulek “suffered for many days” (Alma 14:23; emphasis added) and when Alma cries out, “How long shall we suffer these great afflictions, O Lord?” (Alma 14:26; emphasis added). Third, like the suffering servant who stands before kings (Isaiah 52:15), Alma and Amulek are depicted as standing before those who hold power (Alma 14:15). Fourth, both the suffering servant and Alma and Amulek are both eventually vindicated (Isaiah 50:8; Alma 14:28). Fifth, since Alma and Mormon had access to Abinadi’s teachings, we know that there is a possibility they would have been aware of the similarities between the Ammonihah prison narrative, Isaiah’s servant songs, and the life of Jesus. Additionally, the servant songs play an important role in Book of Mormon history. For example, Nephi (1 Nephi 21), Jacob (2 Nephi 7), Abinadi (Mosiah 14), and Jesus (3 Nephi 20) all quote from the servant songs.

Responding with prayer

Besides remaining silent in the face of persecution, the only other behavior that Alma and Amulek are described doing in the Ammonihah prison is offering prayer. After being imprisoned for many days, Alma said: “O Lord, give us strength according to our faith which is in Christ, even unto deliverance” (Alma 14:26). Ultimately, Alma and Amulek do not rely on their own potential strength or show of force to escape prison, but instead they rely on the power of God to deliver them. In other words, they respond to persecution and accusation with the peaceful practice of prayer. Interestingly, when Alma the Elder’s people were threatened with an attack from the Lamanites in the land of Helam, Alma taught his people “that they should remember the Lord their God and he would deliver them” (Mosiah 23:27). In response, the people “began to cry unto the Lord that he would soften the hearts of the Lamanites” (Mosiah 23:28). Rather than respond to an attack from the Lamanites with force (as did King Limhi’s people), Alma instructed his people to pray. Eventually, Alma’s people were delivered through nonviolent means when “the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites” (Mosiah 24:19), allowing Alma’s people to escape. Perhaps Alma the Younger learned from his father that prayer can be an effective response to violence.

Like Alma the Elder and Alma and Amulek, Jesus demonstrated prayerful trust in God during his hours of greatest distress. In Gethsemane, Jesus offered this prayer: “Take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mark 14:36). On the cross, Jesus was mocked for his reliance on God: “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him” (Matthew 27:43). Finally, according to Luke, the last thing that Jesus said on the cross was “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). In moments of profound distress and persecution, both Alma and Amulek and the Son of God respond with trusting prayer instead of returning hatred for hatred.

The fruits of peace

There are at least two ways that Alma and Amulek’s peaceful response[16] to persecution ultimately helped to overcome evil in Ammonihah in a manner that typified Jesus. First, if Alma and Amulek had responded by an inappropriate show of force, there was a high likelihood they would have been killed. In the same chapter (Alma 14) we see that those who held power in Ammonihah could be violent to those they opposed. Although their lives were not guaranteed (many presumably nonviolent individuals were killed in Alma 14), Alma and Amulek left open the possibility of deliverance by responding nonviolently. Jesus himself warned of escalating violence when he was arrested the night before his crucifixion. After Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, Jesus said, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Second, by offering prayer instead of using force, Alma and Amulek permitted God to provide a miraculous liberation. Instead of taking justice into their own hands, they allowed God to act on their behalf to accomplish his righteous purposes. Likewise, when Jesus submitted to suffering and death, he was providing means for the defeat of sin and triumphant resurrection. In these ways, we can see how peaceful response to persecution is ultimately an act of trust in God. By responding with nonviolence, Alma and Amulek and Jesus were showing faith that their Father in Heaven would provide a way for redemption.

Indirectly Exposing Lack of Moral Authority

Another way that Alma and Amulek overcome evil in Ammonihah is to indirectly expose the Ammonihah leadership’s lack of moral authority and character. There seems to be at least two ways that the narrative highlights this in a manner that can typify Jesus. First, just as those who put Jesus to death were shown to be corrupt by convicting an innocent person, so the Ammonihah leadership is seen as evil by condemning the guiltless Alma and Amulek. Second, during both the crucifixion and Ammonihah prison narrative, the accused are mockingly invited to demonstrate the power of God to deliver themselves. In both cases, the power of God is manifested so the innocent parties are rescued—thus showing the corruption of the persecutors.

The innocent wrongly accused

Alma and Amulek are clearly innocent of any crime (legal or theological) that would justify casting them into prison. Obviously, the fact that Alma and Amulek were inspired by God (Alma 8:32), preached to an apostate group (Alma 8:9), did not respond with violence (Alma 14:15–29), and were ultimately vindicated (Alma 14:28–29) demonstrates that they were undeserving of the punishment they received. Likewise, in Luke’s Gospel the innocence of Jesus is repeatedly emphasized. Pilate stated three times that he could find no fault in Jesus (Luke 23:4, 14, 22), one of the malefactors crucified with Jesus said, “This man hath done nothing amiss” (Luke 23:41), and the centurion at the cross said, “Certainly this was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47), which a modern translation renders, “Certainly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47 NSRV). In speaking of this final comment, N. T. Wright said, “Just in case anyone in Luke’s audience, perhaps an educated Roman, might comment that if Roman justice executed Jesus then there must have been some reason, Luke presents his Roman witness to make it clear . . . that Jesus was not guilty, that he had done nothing worthy of death.”[17]

Whenever one reads a narrative where the innocent are wrongly convicted, we consequently see the accusers as corrupt. The false charges against Alma and Amulek illustrate that the people of Ammonihah were wicked. Likewise, as one scholar pointed out regarding Jesus’s trial, “Given the self-interest of the alliance of Rome and the leaders, and the bias of ‘justice’ toward the elite and against low-status provincials, Jesus cannot receive a fair trial. The chapter exposes the self-serving agenda of Roman ‘justice.’ ”[18] When Alma and Amulek and Jesus are falsely accused, we can’t help but see the corrupt nature of those who hold power in Ammonihah and Judea.

If

A second way that the Alma and Amulek narrative seems to typify Jesus in indirectly exposing evil is in the use of the word if. While in prison, Alma and Amulek were asked, “If ye have such great power why do ye not deliver yourselves?” (Alma 14:20; emphasis added). Later, the chief judge asked Alma and Amulek, “If ye have the power of God deliver yourselves from these bands, and then we will believe that the Lord will destroy this people according to your words” (Alma 14:24; emphasis added). In like manner, Satan asked Jesus in the Judean wilderness, “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (Matthew 4:3; emphasis added) and “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down” (Matthew 4:6; emphasis added). While Jesus was hanging from the cross some of the people passing by said, “If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross” (Matthew 27:40; emphasis added). The chief priests, scribes, and elders also said, “If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him” (Matthew 27:42; emphasis added). The use of the word if in both the temptation and crucifixion narrative is something that appears to be deliberately highlighted by Matthew.[19] The leadership in both narratives claim that they would come to belief if Alma and Amulek or Jesus demonstrated their power by delivering themselves. The repetitive and central use of the word if might indicate that there is a deliberate connection between the Alma and Amulek prison experience and the story of Jesus.

These direct challenges to Alma and Amulek and Jesus which employ the word if all set up to expose the corruption of the elite in both narratives. When those who hold power in Ammonihah say, “Why do ye not deliver yourselves?” (Alma 14:20), they are eventually shown to be in the wrong when, in fact, Alma and Amulek are delivered (Alma 14:28). In addition, the chief judge exposes his own evil when he says if Alma and Amulek demonstrate the power of God by delivering themselves, “then [the elite in Ammonihah] will believe that the Lord will destroy this people according to your words” (Alma 14:24). Two chapters later the Lamanites “began to slay the people and destroy the city” (Alma 16:2).

Mormon also could be emphasizing the inability of the elite in Ammonihah to discern righteousness when he reports the chief judge as saying, “If ye have the power of God deliver yourselves from these bands” (Alma 14:24; emphasis added). Mormon then adds this intriguing detail: “And it came to pass that they all went forth and smote them, saying the same words, even until the last; and when the last had spoken unto them the power of God was upon Alma and Amulek, and they rose and stood upon their feet” (Alma 14:25). One rightly asks, why did Mormon point out that every one of the elite in the prison mocked Alma and Amulek? Brant Gardner suggests “that the physical abuse appears to be ritualized at least to the point that each person not only participates, but repeats the same words.”[20] Whether this is true or not, Mormon later twice identifies that those who persecuted Alma and Amulek were the very ones who were destroyed during the collapse of the prison (Alma 14:27–28). Perhaps the reason Mormon highlighted that the Ammonihah elite “all went forth and smote” Alma and Amulek was to show that everyone in the prison was deserving of the justice they received. In this sense, the fact that all the leadership in prison wrongly mocked Alma and Amulek illustrates they were deeply morally flawed.

Exposing the powers

The elite in Jerusalem who mocked Jesus during the crucifixion (Matthew 27:40) were also eventually shown to be exposed in their corruption and misjudgment when God raised Jesus from the dead. Like the Alma and Amulek story, this indirect exposing of evil had sweeping consequences. The doctrine that Jesus triumphed over and exposed evil during his atonement is something that is repeatedly taught in scripture but is not often emphasized in common discourse in the church. For example, Paul taught the Colossians saints that when the Savior completed his work on the cross, he “spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them” (Colossians 2:15). Two modern commentators describe this verse as saying, “The spirit powers with their hold over human lives have been disarmed, stripped of their authority, and paraded publicly as defeated enemies.”[21]

The Savior himself taught a related principle in John 16. The night before his crucifixion, Jesus, speaking of the Comforter, said, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged” (John 16:8–11). The “reprove” in these verses can also be translated as “prove” (NRSV). Jesus was teaching that the world is wrong in three crucial areas. First, the Comforter proves the world is wrong about the nature of sin because it has rejected Christ. In other words, how could the world claim to know what evil is if they reject the most holy of all? Second, when Jesus said the Comforter proves the world is wrong about “righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more” (John 16:10) he means the world is also mistaken about their conception of righteousness because it did not accept him. Because he has gone to the Father, we know Jesus is vindicated[22] and is thus shown to be righteous. Third, the world is also wrong about judgment as manifested by its incorrect judgment of Jesus. The prince of this world (Satan) “is judged (see also 12:30; 14:30) because evil is shown to be powerless before God.”[23] All this is to demonstrate that Jesus was vindicated through his death and resurrection and that Satan (or the world) is exposed to be in the wrong.

Interestingly, in the Ammonihah prison narrative, the chief judge struck Alma and Amulek and then asked, “Will ye stand again and judge this people, and condemn our law?” (Alma 14:20). At this point in the narrative, Alma and Amulek had prophesied that Ammonihah would be destroyed if they did not repent (Alma 8:10; 9:12). Alma had also testified that those who die in their sins will experience torments “as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever” (Alma 12:17). At stake in this story was who was right about God and judgment (Alma 14:5). When the chief judge falsely accused Alma and Amulek of judging the people and condemning their law, he set himself up for the possibility of being proved wrong. Like the suffering servant and Jesus, Alma and Amulek were vindicated when they responded peacefully and let God indirectly testify (Alma 14:26–28) through their deliverance that they were righteous. Ammonihah, on the other hand, was exposed in its wickedness.

Allowing Evil to Destroy Itself

Not only did the nonviolent response of Alma and Amulek indirectly help convict Ammonihah, but it also provided a space for the corrupt leadership of Ammonihah to cause their own destruction. This principle seems to be a key point of the Ammonihah narrative. While witnessing the appalling burning of women and children at the hands of the people of Ammonihah, Amulek suggested to Alma that they should “stretch forth [their] hands, and exercise the power of God which is in [them], and save them from the flames” (Alma 14:10). In response, Alma explained that the people of Ammonihah “may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of [the people of Ammonihah’s] hearts, that the judgments which [God] shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them” (Alma 14:11). In other words, by not using the power of God to force the agency of the people of Ammonihah, Alma and Amulek were allowing for the judgments of God to “exercise upon them . . . at the last day” (Alma 14:11). In this moment, Alma and Amulek were allowing evil to lead eventually to its own destruction.

Destroyed by their own prison

We also see this principle play out quite dramatically within the prison narrative. After Alma and Amulek cried out with faith in Christ for deliverance and “broke the cords with which they were bound,” the people “began to flee, for the fear of destruction had come upon them” (Alma 14:26). Then “the earth shook mightily, and the walls of the prison were rent in twain, so that they fell to the earth; and the chief judge, and the lawyers, and priests, and teachers, who smote upon Alma and Amulek, were slain by the fall thereof” (Alma 14:27). Quite strikingly, the prison that was used to unjustly hold Alma and Amulek ended up being the very means that destroyed the chief judge, lawyers, and priests of Ammonihah. Mormon could have stated more generally, as he does later, that “every soul within the walls thereof, save it were Alma and Amulek” (Alma 14:28) was killed, but instead he takes time to emphasize that the Ammonihah elite were the ones who slain by the fall of the prison walls.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ uses similar means (at least in part) to overcome evil. Satan inspired wicked people (John 13:27; Acts 2:23) to crucify Jesus, not knowing that this would be the way that God would overcome sin and death. In Corinthians, Paul speaks of the “hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7–8). Additionally, the author of Hebrews states, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14). As one modern theologian explained, “By withdrawing his protection and delivering over his Son to these wicked powers, allowing them to carry out the violence that was in their hearts, the Father caused their evil intentions to recoil back on their own heads (cf. Ps 7:16), thereby using evil to punish evil.”[24]

Pointing to the resurrection

To see another potential link between this principle and the Ammonihah prison narrative, it is important to first note how the resurrection plays a central role in defeating evil. Obviously, it would not have been enough simply for Jesus to suffer for sin and die; God raising him from the dead was integral in overcoming sin and death. As Jacob taught in 2 Nephi 9:8, “For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.” Without the Savior’s resurrection, humankind would never have been set free from the captivity of the devil.

In what might be an allusion to the resurrection, Mormon highlighted that Alma and Amulek were in prison “three days” when “lawyers, and judges, and priests, and teachers . . . of the profession of Nehor” (Alma 14:18) began to question them. Obviously, claiming that the use of “three days” is an allusion to Jesus in the tomb for three days can be written off as simple coincidence. However, when we note how much both Book of Mormon and New Testament writers highlight the use of “three days” in their writing, one can consider the possibility that this detail was intentionally emphasized in this narrative. Although sometimes the use of “three days” or “third day” seems to simply be a detail of the story (1 Nephi 2:6; Alma 8:6; 56:42; 3 Nephi 26:13; Ether 13:28), other times “three days” is used in stories that are arguably typological in nature (1 Nephi 18:13; Mosiah 17:6; Alma 14:18; 17:26; 36:16; 38:8). We know for certain that Book of Mormon writers were aware that Jesus would be in the tomb for three days (1 Nephi 19:10; 2 Nephi 25:13; Mosiah 3:10), so we can at least be open to the possibility that this detail is highlighted typologically. In the New Testament “three days” or “third day” might be highlighted typologically in the story of the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 8:2),[25] turning water to wine (John 2:1),[26] and Paul receiving sight (Acts 9:9). Furthermore, it’s important to remember that the ancients were very intentional with the numbers they highlighted in narrative. It seems at least plausible that “three days” was intentionally mentioned to draw a connection to the resurrection.

There may be at least two other ways that the narrative indirectly points to the resurrection. The first possibility regards the use of language related to the phrase “bands of death.” When speaking to Alma and Amulek, the chief judge said, “If ye have the power of God deliver yourselves from these bands” (Alma 14:24). After Alma prayed for deliverance, Alma and Amulek “broke the cords with which they were bound” (Alma 14:26). This kind of language may allude to phrases like “broken the bands of death” (Mosiah 15:9, 23) and “the bands of death shall be broken” (Mosiah 15:20). Abinadi, who helped convert Alma the Elder, used the phrase “bands of death” at least four times (Mosiah 15:9, 20, 23, 16:7), and Alma the Younger himself used the phrase at least four times (Alma 5:9–10; 7:12; 11:41), including when speaking to the people of Ammonihah. Perhaps this language was meant to intentionally echo the resurrection and therefore point to the ultimate example of evil destroying itself.

Another way this narrative may allude to the resurrection is when Mormon highlighted that “the earth shook mightily” shortly before “the walls of the prison were rent in twain” (Alma 14:27). In Matthew’s account of the resurrection, he described how on “the first day of the week” Mary and “the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) came to the tomb of Jesus. “And . . . there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven” (Matthew 28:2). Again, this may be a small way that this story points to the ultimate triumph over evil by highlighting details that remind the reader of the resurrection.

Theological precedence

Finally, the idea that evil eventually works to destroy itself is taught throughout Book of Mormon history. It seems reasonable that Mormon or Alma the Younger would have noticed this idea when they realized the prison walls destroyed those who falsely accused Alma and Amulek. The Book of Mormon contains multiple instances of evil eventually hurting itself. For example, when speaking of the great and abominable church, Nephi said, “That great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction” (1 Nephi 14:3). Speaking again of the great and abominable church, Nephi said, “The blood of that great and abominable church . . . shall turn upon their own heads” (1 Nephi 22:13). In a related way, Abinadi warned King Noah that “what you do with me . . . shall be as a type and a shadow of things which are to come” (Mosiah 13:10). Later, as Abinadi was being put to death by fire, he warned King Noah by declaring, “Ye shall be taken by the hand of your enemies, and then ye shall suffer, as I suffer, the pains of death by fire” (Mosiah 17:18). Mormon himself wrote this principle and applied it to his own people: “And it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished” (Mormon 4:5). We see this idea manifested with the city of Ammonihah itself when the Lamanites “began to slay the people and destroy the city” (Alma 16:2). The principle that evil will eventually cause its own destruction is taught from the beginning of the Book of Mormon until the end. This concept is powerfully illustrated when the prison that is used to hold Alma and Amulek became the very instrument that destroyed the wicked leadership in Ammonihah.

Conclusion

During a recent Brigham Young University devotional, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland clarified that God never harms or hurts his children. He then added, “Now allowing something is a different matter! God can and will do that if it is ultimately for our good.”[27] In other words, punishment from God comes when he simply allows us to deal with the effects of our own decisions. In many ways, Alma and Amulek embody this principle when they responded peacefully to suffering, exposed the moral corruption of the people of Ammonihah, and allowed evil to collapse on itself.

Modern Latter-day Saints would do well to find ways to follow the example of Jesus and Alma and Amulek in seeking peaceful ways to overcome evil. For example, when people attack our beliefs, sometimes we should clarify misunderstandings and other times we should stay silent. But regardless of what is needed in each situation we should respond peacefully. Also, we would do well to remember that when others offend or hurt us, we indirectly expose their wickedness by responding in authentic, Christlike ways. Finally, we do not need to take ultimate justice into our own hands because evil will eventually destroy itself. Of course, this does not mean we do not work proactively to improve our families, communities, and societies. Rather, we must let Christian love guide whatever methods we use in seeking to eliminate evil and establishing righteousness.

In a classic example of a Christlike response to persecution, Bishop Edward Partridge recorded this incident during the Missouri persecutions:

I was taken from my house by the mob . . . who escorted me about half a mile, to the courthouse, on the public square in Independence; and then and there . . . I was stripped of my hat, coat and vest and daubed with tar from head to foot, and then had a quantity of feathers put upon me; and all this because I would not agree to leave the county, <and> my home where I had lived two years. . . . I bore my abuse with so much resignation and meekness, that it appeared to astound the multitude, who permitted me to retire in silence, many looking very solemn, their sympathies having been touched. . . . And as to myself, I was so filled with the Spirit and love of God, that I had no hatred towards my persecutors, or anyone else.[28]

It is striking that Bishop Partridge’s meekness convicted the multitude who then left in silence. In that moment, Christian love overcame evil and wickedness itself withdrew. In the words of Dr. King, someone had “inject[ed] within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.”[29] Whenever anyone works to overcome evil through self-sacrificial love without allowing themselves to be filled with hate, they too typify Jesus as “The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). As Elder Robert D. Hales said, “That is not weakness. That is Christian courage.”[30]

Notes

[1] Martin Luther King Jr., “Loving Your Enemies” (sermon delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, AL, December 17, 1957), https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church.

[2] King, “Loving Your Enemies.”

[3] King, “Loving Your Enemies.”

[4] Robert D. Hales, “Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship,” Ensign, November 2008, 72–75.

[5] Amy-Jill Levine and Mark Zvi Brettler, The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (New York: HarperCollins, 2020), ix–xii.

[6] Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), 2.

[7] Brian D. Garner, Search These Things Diligently: A Personal Study Guide to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003) 188–90. Garner also sees Alma and Amulek as typological, but there are differences in the types we identify in the narrative.

[8] Peter W. Martens, “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16, no. 3 (2008): 283–317.

[9] Robert James Norman, “Types,” in The Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 768.

[10] Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), xvii.

[11] C. Terry Warner, “Honest, Simple, Solid, True” (speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, January 16, 1996).

[12] John Hilton, Considering the Cross: How Calvary Connects Us with Christ (Salt Lake City: DeseretBook, 2021), 126.

[13] Neil L. Anderson, “Following Jesus: Being a Peacemaker,” April 2022 general conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/15andersen.

[14] Aaron M. Gale, The Jewish Annotated New Testament, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 50; Warren Carter, The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha, ed. Walter Harrelson (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 1795–96.

[15] Or “silent” in the NRSV.

[16] It may be important to point out that the Book of Mormon does not have a simplistic view of nonviolent resistance. Other narratives in the Book of Mormon suggest that the use of force is justified when defending oneself or protecting others (Alma 43:45–46). In suggesting that Alma and Amulek respond nonviolently is not to suggest that there is one single method for overcoming evil. What seems to be essential is that disciples of Christ maintain a heart like Moroni that sincerely does “not delight in bloodshed” (Alma 48:11) and seeks to find peaceful means to resolve conflict whenever possible. For more on how the Book of Mormon presents war, see Kent P. Jackson, “War and Peace—Lessons from the Upper Room,” in To Save the Lost, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 35–59.

[17] N. T. Wright, Luke for Everyone (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 268.

[18] Carter, New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 1796.

[19] N. T. Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 186.

[20] Brant A. Gardener, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on theBook of Mormon, Volume 4, Alma (Sandy, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2001), 240.

[21] M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, The People’s New Testament Commentary(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 630.

[22] N. T. Wright, John for Everyone, Part 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,2004), 82.

[23] Gail R. O’Day, The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard VersionWith the Apocrypha, ed. Walter Harrelson (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 1941.

[24] Gregory A. Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God, volumes 1–2 (FortressPress, 2017), 803.

[25] Boring and Craddock, People’s New Testament Commentary, 142.

[26] Boring and Craddock, People’s New Testament Commentary, 294.

[27] Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Saint Through the Atonement of Christ the Lord” (speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, January 18, 2022).

[28] “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” p. 327, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[29] King, “Loving Your Enemies.”

[30] Robert D. Hales, “Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship,” Ensign, November 2008, 72–75.