Abinadi reaches the crux of his discourse. He has declared that the priests’ teachings are not correct, has recited a succinct catalog of the Mosaic law’s prescriptions, and has recognized that the priests claim that these are precisely the things they say they have taught. How will Abinadi testify that the priests have not taught what they claim to have taught?
He first asserts that salvation comes through the law of Moses. This is an essential point; if the law were sufficient for salvation, then the priests’ teachings would be correct. His first instruction confirms the value of the law: “It is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet.” “Expedient” indicates a response to temporary conditions, which “as yet” underscores. Future conditions will be different. We can hear in Abinadi’s argument an echo of Christ’s own explanation of his approach to the law: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17).
Abinadi is blunter, however, in spelling out the fact that, at some future point, they will not need to obey the law of Moses. This is a different concept from Christ’s message, which emphasizes the continuation and transformation of the law—that he will not destroy but fulfill it (Matt. 5:17, 3 Ne. 12:17). In contrast, Abinadi suggests that the law is good now but will not be in the future.
On their face, the two statements seem contradictory, but both express the revealed reality. Jesus calls it “fulfilling,” but that operation required abandoning some features of the law in accepting the gospel. Abinadi also explains the future nonoperational status of the law of performances but acknowledges its transformation. He did not bother to couch his message in more subtle terms, as Christ did, apparently feeling no compunction about further antagonizing his captors.