Abinadi’s comment echoes Paul’s similar explanation of the relationship between the law of Moses and the law of the gospel: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). Although the two statements mean essentially the same thing, their perspectives are different. Paul’s statement is more positive: The law was necessary, but it was simply a teacher; the gospel would bring a more important way. Abinadi’s statement is less positive, showing the law as necessary for a “stiffnecked” people. As a “law of performances and ordinances,” it allowed these “children” to learn slowly, with rigid instructions about daily practices keeping them from error. This rigidity of practice will be replaced by the freedom of the gospel.
It is easy to understand why the two prophets explained the law in different terms. Paul was trying to win converts and nurture newly converted members; therefore, he focuses on a smoother transition from one law to the other. Abinadi, in contrast, is condemning false teachers who are placing the law above the gospel. He is harsh in order to be clear. He wants to show the priests how and why they are mistaken in eliminating Christ from their teachings. Therefore, he must show that the law of Moses is not as powerful or salvific as they preach.