Because the covenant is voluntary, some might choose to reject it. Benjamin clearly declares the choice to be either/or. There is no blending of options, no middle ground. Since the only name through which salvation comes is Yahweh-Messiah, if one refuses to be called by that name, one cannot be saved. Thus, one is called by Yahweh-Messiah’s name and sits on Yahweh’s right hand (and is one of the covenant people), or one is called by some other name—a name which has no power to save—and therefore will be on Yahweh’s left hand (symbolically out of the covenant).
Vocabulary: The symbolism of the left and right hand is ancient and widespread. Given the statistical predominance of right-handedness, the right hand has long been associated with truth, good, and “right.” The left hand symbolizes the opposite. The word “sinister” comes from the Latin sinistra, meaning “left hand.” Thus, sitting on the right hand of God is very good, while being on the left hand of God is equivalent to being excluded from his presence entirely.
Literature: Verses 10–12 form a very nice chiasm, as John W. Welch has noted:
a And now it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ
b must be called by some other name
c therefore he findeth himself on the left hand of God
d and I would that ye should remember also that this is the name that I said I should give unto you
e that never should be blotted out
f except it be through transgression
f therefore take heed that ye do not transgress
e that the name be not blotted out of your hearts
d I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts
c that ye are not found on the left hand of God
b but that he hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called
a and also the name by which he shall call you.
This particular chiasm clearly exhibits a reversal of elements. Nevertheless, it does not readily exhibit all of the characteristics attributed to classical chiasmus. Welch explains: “Chiasmus is the literary technique of creating double structures in which the second half of a composition mirrors and balances the first half, but in reverse order. In general, the device is useful for several literary purposes, especially for concentrating attention on the main point of the passage by placing it at the central turning point rather than in a topic sentence at the beginning of a paragraph, as is the trend with modern writers.”
In this particular example of reversed parallelism, the central point is transgression in which the passage’s clear intent is to focus on the power of the name. We have a reversal of elements that does not emphasize the theme in the classical way. In this case, Benjamin is creating a logical progression and reverses the order so that, in this particular case, the emphasis rests on the first and last element rather than the center elements. This structure does not deny the chiasmus but simply warns against assuming that all chiastic structures should be interpreted in precisely the same way.
Welch analyzes the entire structure of Benjamin’s discourse as chiastic, suggesting an organizational framework that had been previously constructed for the oral discourse. The use of chiasms to order an oral discourse shows forethought, not spontaneity. In Benjamin’s discourse, finding overarching chiastic structures requires accepting that the entire discourse was outlined before its presentation; yet this finding is contradicted by the evidences of orality in the second half of the sermon. Its spontaneity and dependence on the audience’s reaction suggest, rather, the absence of an outlined chiastic structure.
Furthermore, Welch’s chiastic arrangement includes conceptual structures that he has placed in chiastic relationship to each other that contradict the contextual interpretation in this commentary. For instance, the “what is man” category covers elements that might be read into that category for a modern man but which do not harmonize with the contextual meaning of the passages. Welch positions Mosiah 2:10–11 as part of the “what is man” theme, while I see it as part of a set of contrasts to external rulers.
Authentic chiasms definitely appear as literary structures in the Book of Mormon, but others may be artificially created. Those that cast the widest net by dealing with conceptual categories are the most difficult to sustain; identifying themes is subject more to modern than ancient interpretation. The reader should read Welch’s full article about the chiastic elements he has identified in Benjamin’s speech and evaluate the evidence personally.