These three verses all contribute to the same conceptual unit. The charge to the people is to be the light of the world. Just as they were the salt of the world, they are now the light. The parallel in the two commands is the requirement of some responsibility on the part of the believers. The “salt” command emphasized their value even though there were few. The “light” command emphasized the value of the message, regardless of size. Just as the salt flavors a large pot of food, so too does the flame of a light, a candle, spread the light and benefit of that small flame to a much greater area.
“The evangelist opens with the metaphor of salt. The strength of the metaphor lies in its being a common household ingredient and in its vital role in everyday life. Salt no only served as seasoning for bland food (Job 6:6) but also as a purifying agent and as a preservative. Relying on the inherent significance of salt in the life of his audience, Matthew does not attempt to delineate more precisely how the disciple was like salt. The disciple is to the earth what salt is to food.” (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 126).
After the command we have a series of situations that indicate the responsibility of the people to shoulder this burden. The salt is no salt if it is not salty. The light is no light if it is under a bushel. The implication is that the people might be hesitant to proclaim their message and their belief in the Atoning Messiah. If they believe, but do not show others their beliefs by their actions, they will not be a light to the world, but rather a light that is hidden and therefore useless, just as unsalty salt is useless.
The anomalous phrase in this meaning is “A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.”
“A city situated on a hill. This saying, without parallel in the New Testament, has a more developed form in Pap Oxy 1:7 and Gos Thom 32, “A city built on a high mountain [and] fortified cannot fall nor can it be hidden.” This saying may have been an allusion to the Old Testament role of Jerusalem. For example, Isa 2:2-4 and Mic 4:1-3 speak of the “mountain of the house of the Lord,” the city of Jerusalem, towering above all others and depicting God’s redemptive work for the nations in the day of salvation. Furthermore, the prophet in Isa 60:1 addresses Zion with the command, “Arise and shine, for your light has come and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.” By introducing the saying into this context, the evangelist has combined two symbols for Israel, the concept of light (5:14a) and the city on a hill (5:14b), and applied them to the disciple’s mission in the world.” (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 122).
This may be telling the people that while they might prefer to hide and blend in to the background, they will be know for following the Messiah. The cannot be hidden, so their should accept their role and act as a beacon of light as long as they are going to be seen anyway.
Textual: Some of the same kinds of changes made to the previous verse, including the identical addition of the opening phrase.
Matthew 5:14-16
14 [Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be] (Ye are) the light of [this people] (the world). A city that is set on [a] (an) hill cannot be hid.
15 [Behold] (Neither) do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, [?] (Nay,) but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 [Therefore] Let your light so shine before [this people] (men), that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
The nature of the changes in this verse follow the same pattern as in the previous verse. There is no real change in meaning, only an alteration of the English text to make it read more comfortably. The imperative is removed in the first verse. Interestingly, there is a shift in the focus of the “light.” In the Matthean statement the listeners are the light to the whole world. In the 3 Nephi account, they are the light to “this people.”
This particular shift is interesting, as the comparative size of both believing populations was rather small. However, it is even possible that those who heard the Savior in the New World would have numbered more than those who heard the Savior in the Old World. In spite of the commonality of comparative size, and the disparity in probable absolute numbers, the Old World believers are the light to the “whole world” and the New World appear limited to only “this people.”
The most probable reason for this particular addition is Joseph Smith’s understanding of the influence of the gospel stemming from both peoples. The gospel is the light of the world, not the people, but the world has clearly received Christianity from the Old World, not the New, particularly as the Book of Mormon was being translated. While the message would have been appropriate to the New World as well, Joseph’s understanding of the “whole world” was much more extensive than the Nephite knowledge would have been. For that ancient people, the “whole world would have been quite limited in geography, as indeed it was in conception for the people of the Old World at the time Jesus spoke to them. In both populations on both continents, they were the light of the “whole world” that they knew. The limitation of the Nephite influence would not have come from their understanding, but rather from Joseph’s interaction with the text. As we saw with Isaianic texts, part of the translating process for Joseph was the interaction with the texts that were inserted.
The best place to see and understand Joseph’s relationship to existing text is in his revision of the Bible. In this case, we know for a certainty that he was consulting the English text of the KJV Bible. There is no question about whether he was retranslating the Hebrew or Greek. He called what he was doing a “translation,” but it did not fit the definition of converting one language into another. What Joseph did was “translate” meaning, going through the Bible to make alterations in the text to clarify meaning as he understood it. In many cases, the changes were made at italicized words. In many cases the changes were to make certain theological concepts easier to understand. For instance, he altered any passage that had the Lord repenting. Even though that language was appropriate in Hebrew, the English meaning created the implication that the Lord must have done something wrong of which to repent – which cannot happen by definition of God. (Robert J. Matthews. Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible. Brigham Young University Press, Provo, 1975, p. 311-314)..
All of those traits of the way that Joseph Smith interacted with the Bible are present in the nature of the alterations of the KJV inserted texts in the Book of Mormon. We do not know how the texts came to be inserted, as there is no indication that a Bible was present during the translation. However, we may continue to be certain that the presence of the texts is due to the KJV text, not an underlying original, as the true plate text would have preceded the redactional changes know to have occurred in Matthew. However, even when the Lord allowed/inspired Joseph to insert the texts as they were expected to be by his readers, Joseph was not to shut off his mind and simply copy. The evidence suggests that Joseph continued to think about his text, and to make alterations that would improve the meaning of the text as he understood it.
What becomes equally clear is that sometimes his clarifications actually “broke” certain structural or literary forms from the original text. This further suggests that he was working on the level of the English, without moving to the previous Greek text, in the case of the Sermon on the Mount. This type of alteration of structure occurs in this set of verses. Compare the transitions between Matthew and 3 Nephi:
Matthew 5:14-15
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, nay, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
3 Nephi 12:14
14 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the light of this people. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.
3 Nephi 12:15
15 Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house;
In the Matthean text, verses 14 and 15 are linked. The concept of the city on the hill is directly linked to the example of the candle by the conjunction “neither.” In the 3 Nephi text, that linkage is broken. The alteration to verse 15 is so severe that a declarative sentence must be recast into a question. The meaning is not significantly altered, but the flow of the text is broken artificially. In the 3 Nephi redaction, the city on the hill becames an isolated and “floating” phrase, cut from its dependent surrounding. The Matthean text uses it as an introduction with parallel meaning to the candle saying, but in the Book of Mormon the two phrases are cut apart, leaving the city saying virtually adrift with no reference. In the process of “cleaning up” the English, Joseph inadvertently did small damage to the meaning of the Matthean text.
There would be some who would suggest that such an imperfection in the process must necessarily deny the process. In other words, if Joseph made a mistake, he therefore couldn’t have translated by the power of God, who does not make mistakes. That might sound like an enticing logic, but it is a fool’s logic, of no more true value than fool’s gold. What this tells us is what the process was like. It tells us that the Lord used a human being to further a great work, and that the process of bringing forth the Book of Mormon involved Joseph Smith the person. That is the method. Evidence of how it was done does nothing to diminish the miracle of what was done.