Rhetorical: Alma follows up his first contradiction of expectations with another. These people have come because they are unhappy with their exclusion from the place of worship. They have come because they consider this a bad thing, and now Alma tells them that “it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues.” Alma again presents them with a situation that is completely the opposite of the assumptions they began with. What Alma is doing is attempting to awaken them to a complete change in perspective. What Alma must do is reeducate their understanding of the nature of religion. Alma understands that this is a people who are ready to have such a dramatic change because their disappointment with the current state is so great that they are willing to look for hope, even if that hope completely changes their mental world.
How is it that this people has been “brought to be humble?” It is tempting to focus on their poverty and to assume that it is the state of poverty that leads to humility. This would be a mistake. As we have already noted, Alma was preaching to a different group who were on the hill Onidah. The rural setting rather precludes that other group from having been of the higher class, and so we must assume them to be farmers as well. While the newly arrived ones are specifically pointed out to be poor, it is quite unlikely that the first group was much better off economically or socially. Given the probable clan organization we see in the new arrivals, we probably have two clans represented on the hill, one who is still not humble, and one who is. Alma stops preaching to one group and begins with the other not because he notices their poverty, but because he notices their humility.
What creates humility? If we use this clan of Zoramites we can begin to pull out some of the conditions that are essential to generate humility. First, we must understand what the result of this type of humility might be. For Alma, it is that the people are able to learn wisdom. Alma’s implication is that in a state of humility, they may learn wisdom, and in the state of non-humility, they cannot learn wisdom. Thus what Alma is telling them is that humility is the ability to open themselves to the possibility of a change in the way they see the world, the possibility of accepting the gospel.
The key to humility and the state that creates humility is this concept of change. It is a transformation from a prior understanding (not-wisdom) to a new understanding (wisdom). In the case of this Zoramite clan, the “not-wisdom” was their assumption that worship was tied to a particular place and time. “Wisdom” would be changing that fundamental assumption and rethinking the way that they see religion so that it might include all places and times. This is a fundamental and diametric shift in their understanding of how the religious world worked, and would be a difficult change for most people. In their state of humility, however, they are not open to that dramatic change in their worldview.
This is a people who have been brought to be humble, they are open to a world that is very different from the one that they currently believe. What has brought them to this point where they are willing to turn a part of their world upside down? First, we must understand that it is not their poverty that brought them to this position. The easiest way to see this is to contrast the one clan with the other. We may suspect that both are of similar economic and social classes based on their location. The ancient world did not have that many class distinctions, and the higher class would have been located in the city, not in a place where congregating on a hill would be preferable to congregating in a designed public area around a temple.
There are many people in the world who might wish that they were more wealthy than they are, but there are many people who also assume that such a change is not even possible. Indeed, there are many who accept their position and have no desire to change their way of life, but perhaps only to have a greater share in economic well-being. When we remember that we are dealing with farmers here, these are people who do have the fundamentals of life. They have food; they have shelter. What they do not have is costly apparel and access to the places of worship.
The critical difference between the two groups Alma has addressed on the hill Onidah is that one appears to be content with their situation, and the other wants a change. It is this desire for change that is the thing that leads them to humility, not their economic circumstances. These people do not say, “we wish we had fine clothing,” they say “we want access to worship.” Their discontent and desire for change is not economic, it is religious. What brings them to the brink of being willing to change (to exchange not-wisdom for wisdom) is their exclusion from worship, not their exclusion from wealth.
This Zoramite clan has wanted something, access to worship, and they have been denied this desire. Their desire for worship is strong enough that they do not accept their exclusion, and they are willing to seek ways to find worship. What they find in Alma is one who will tell them how to worship and gain their goals, but that ability will come at the cost of a dramatic change in the way these people have previously seen the world. They had previously understood that proper religious worshipped happened at a particular place and time, and this fundamental understanding must change. Their humility is their ability to entertain this fundamental change.
If this humility is the result of desire for a change, and a willingness to entertain it rather than a result of economic deprivation, how do we understand the many occasions in the New Testament that appear to make just this economic division between the humble and the not-humble?
In Luke’s version of some of the beatitudes we find the following:
Luke 6:20-21
20 ¶ And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
Where Matthew has “poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3), Luke preserves the more likely original saying that it is the poor who are blessed. This blessing for the poor is highlighted in the next two “blessings.” The first is for the hungry, and the next for those who weep. Particularly in Jesus’ world, these are descriptions of a class of people. These are hungry poor. These are poor who deal with sadness on a regular bases. These are people who Jesus calls “blessed.” This is a very similar contrast to that which Alma used to catch the attention of the Zoramite clan. Jesus is presenting a situation that is completely opposed to their experience. In Israel at this time, the poor were anything but blessed, they were hungry, and they endured sorrows. What Jesus is telling them is that something important can change, and that their hunger can be filled, and the tears dried. This will not come, however, from a change in their participation in economic benefits, but rather through a change in their participation in religious benefits.
The blessing of the poor is contrasted with a rather blanket condemnation of the rich in the New Testament:
Mark 10:25
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
There are no qualifications on this statement, only the rather shocking image of the impossibility of the camel and the eye of the needle suggesting the impossibility of the rich entering heaven. Is this really a condemnation of wealth? Is Jesus’ message really one of poverty as preferable over wealth? An answer to that might be seen in the events leading up to this declaration:
Mark 10:17-23
17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
The situation is that a man desires to improve his religious life. He asks what he might do, and asks this of the Savior, not of the Sadducees or Pharisees. This is not a bad man. He is, however, a rich man. What Jesus asks of him is the divestiture of his belongings, and the man leaves sadly. Jesus concludes that it is difficult for those with riches to enter the kingdom of God. While this appears to be a continuation of the dichotomy between poor and rich in the kingdom, there is a different motivation. What the young man has is an insufficient desire. He may want something (eternal life as Jesus has taught it) but he is unwilling to make a change sufficient to achieve it. The real emphasis here is not on the riches, but on the nature of the person’s desire to change.
The difficulty with the rich in the kingdom is not the wealth, but the impedance to change that comes with wealth. The difference between poor and wealthy is the theoretical cost of the change required. For the poor there is little danger in a change of beliefs. For the wealthy, and particularly the wealthy of the ancient world, there was a great danger that a true change in their beliefs would interfere with their wealth.
Perhaps our best contrast here is between Alma and the elite of the Zoramites. The Zoramite elite are city people. Alma is a city dweller. The elite of the Zoramites are those who have political leadership in Antionum. Alma was the chief judge before voluntarily relinquishing that position. The difference is not in power, but in the social stratification. In this non-monetary economy, wealth has a very different definition that it does in today’s world. The city dwellers ate the food of those who grew it, but in an independent, non-tributary city, the producers of the food would eat as well as those who were the city dwellers. The economic world of ancient Mesoamerica was not that of Israel under Roman rule, which did actively feed the wealthy and powerful to the detriment of the producers. Alma could be easily considered an elite by the location of his typical dwelling and his social position. Alma, however, had none of the trappings of social distinctions, the equality of man being a major tenet of Nephite religion.
In the end we return to the essential nature of humility. Humility is the desire for a change, and the willingness to entertain even a major change. The young man in Mark could not make the change of divesting himself of his goods, even though the apostles had done so after a similar invitation (see Mark 10:28). The Zoramite clan on the hill was willing to change fundamental understandings of religion. Humility opens us to tremendous change.
Being brought to humility, or the point where we are willing to make tremendous change, comes through our desire for something we do not have that is sufficient to allow us to make entertain the tremendous change. Our economic and social status may influence our willingness because of certain costs that we believe too high, such as the young man discovered. Nevertheless, the humility is not in the economics, but in the willing state of mind to entertain the tremendous and transforming change.