Text: Verse 19 states that Abinadi withstands the priests’ questions, while verse 20 begins with “and it came to pass.” It seems likely that we do not have a full record of the debate, simply Mormon’s choice of one sample. It is, perhaps, the concluding response of the questioning.
The priests’ quotation of Isaiah 52:7–10 is identical to the King James Version of those verses. The quotation reveals that the Zeniffite expedition brought a copy of all or parts of the brass plates. Even though the record does not say whether the priests read from a written record or quoted this passage from memory, a copy still had to be available, since (even assuming that part of priestly duties was memorizing the scriptures) Noah had removed the former priests and his new priests had to have a way of learning the texts.
Why did the priests ask Abinadi this particular question? Because they were trying to “cross” Abinadi, we can eliminate the possibility that they sincerely wanted to understand the answer. The text must contain a conflict that the priests planned to use against the prophet. But what could this conflict have been?
Context 1: Although any reconstruction must be conjectural, I hypothesize that the contrast is between Noah’s people as a victorious Jerusalem versus Abinadi’s depiction of inevitable calamities. The watchmen are shouting for joy, while Lord “hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.” Noah’s kingdom has won a decisive victory over the Lamanites and is enjoying prosperity and peace. Have the priests used this text as evidence that Yahweh is protecting the people? If so, then Abinadi is denying and rejecting scripture. John W. Welch argues for a similar interpretation: “It appears that the priests intended… to catch him in conflict with that scripture and thereby convict him of false prophecy—a capital offence under the Law of Moses (Deut. 18:20). In essence, they were apparently asking Abinadi why he bore tidings of doom and destruction when Isaiah had declared that the beautiful and true prophet brings good tidings and publishes peace.”
Context 2: This context, also hypothetical, assumes that both the priests and Abinadi knew the context of the verses in addition to the verses themselves. Indeed, Abinadi’s response strongly suggests that he understood the larger context, because he quotes Isaiah 53, which continues the message of chapter 52. Abinadi may be taking advantage of the fact that verse 21 stresses the role of the servant in publishing tidings of peace. Does Abinadi see his role in that context? If so, then this contest may be replicating aspects of the conflict between Sherem and Jacob (Jacob 7). Abinadi’s response clearly proclaims the Messiah. If Noah’s priests understand the Mosaic law in the manner that Sherem did, then they would preach the law of Moses (as they do in verse 28) but deny the role of the Messiah. As Nephites, however, they would surely know of its Messianic emphasis, expect Abinadi to interpret this text messianically, and condemn Abinadi for his “false” interpretation. (See “Excursus: Religion of the Nehors,” following Alma 1.)
It is interesting that the Zeniffites’ return to the land of Nephi not only seems to prompt a revival of polygamy but perhaps also a revival of Sherem’s religious philosophy. Perhaps the local Lamanites had adopted a particular form of religious synthesis with these characteristics.