Alma 32:37-43

Sorry this got a little long. . .

(I decided to include the verses for convenient reference.)

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

Notice the repetition of the four-fold sequence of (1) nourish, (2) root, (3) grow up, and (4) fruit. In both, (2), (3), and (4) are seen as the results of (1). The first instance is introduced with “ye will say” and the second is Alma’s words affirming that it will in fact happen. So the verse makes a neat parallel between what ye (the audience) will say and what Alma in fact says. We, the audience, are invited to do what Alma does. I also note that both iterations are reminiscent of the creation narrative in that someone “says” and then it happens; the audience is invited to do what God does as a creator. In this case, it is faith/knowledge that is created.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

Although it isn’t stated explicitly, the nourishing care of the tree must be to adequately water it—if that isn’t done, the sun will scorch it. The unmentioned but essential element here is water. It is tempting to develop a negative theology of Jesus-as-living-water, but I wonder why Alma doesn’t mention it explicitly here.

The language is strongly reminiscent of Jesus’ parable of the four soils (see Mark 4:6: “But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.”) Both involve a teacher teaching multitudes about developing faith using very similar parables, but Jesus mentions four types of ground and encourages His audience to identify itself with the fertile ground. In Alma, only two scenarios (not four) are included and the audience is to identify with the farmer, not with the soil. Further, in Jesus’ parable, the problem is that the seed fell on stony ground; in Alma’s the problem is that the seed wasn’t nourished.

The natural result of a scorched plant is the need to “cast it out.” This language isn’t new in this chapter; the audience had been cast out of the synagogues. We discussed last week how their experience prepared them to hear this parable. Were they not nourished because of their poverty? Did they wither because they weren’t nourished? They certainly were cast out.

Notice the (interrupted) repetition in these two verses:

A And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say:

B Let us nourish it with great care,

C that it may get root,

D that it may grow up,

E and bring forth fruit unto us.

A And now behold,

B if ye nourish it with much care

C it will get root,

D and grow up,

E and bring forth fruit.

A But if ye neglect the tree,

B and take no thought for its nourishment,

C behold it will not get any root;

D and when the heat of the sun cometh

E and scorcheth it,

The first two strophes set up an expectation of a four-fold sequence for the third. But in this third strophe, the B and C lines mention nourishment and root (albeit negatively), then expectations are violated in the D and E lines where bringing forth fruit is replaced with being scorched.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

I can almost “hear” Alma saying “this is not because you were not good, neither is it because you were not capable of producing good fruit, but because your clothing was poor, because they refused to provide for you, therefore they cannot enjoy your fruit.” Remembering that the root of the problem here is their poor clothing, it seems significant that the crux of the parable is about where the fault lies—in the thing itself or in how the thing is treated.

Here’s this verse with positive and negative statements indicated:

-Now, this is not because the seed was not good,

-neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable;

+but it is because your ground is barren,

-and ye will not nourish the tree,

-therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

It’s a nice arrangement that emphasizes the real problem: barren ground. But the ground isn’t inherently or unchangeably barren; it is barren because it wasn’t nourished.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

I find it interesting that Alma drops the pretense of the parable and says “nourish the word” instead of “nourish the tree.” This is the first time that the fruit is identified: we have obvious parallels to the creation story. But in that story, the fruit of the tree of life is something God provides; humans don’t need to plant a seed or nourish it or anything. Why do humans have to work for *this* tree of life? “Eye of faith” is an interesting phrase; there are only two other BoM references; I’m not at all sure what it means.

Note in v38 that the same verb—pluck—is used for removing the scorched tree. Is Alma making the point that the actions are similar? If so, why?

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

There is an interesting progression of ideas in this verse and the previous two: v39 ends with reference to the fruit, v40 to the fruit of the tree of life, and v41 to the tree of everlasting life. Each of the three verses begins with the need to nourish the word and ends with increasingly specific references to what exactly the fruit is/does.

Other trees: Garden of Eden, Nephi’s vision, end of Book of Revelation. How do these all relate? Or is that the wrong question to ask?

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

So the tree grows IN you and then you eat of its fruit. Is this where the parable breaks down? If not, what does it mean to consume a fruit grown within you? Is it just another way of saying that eternal life is an inside job? What else might it mean?

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

Does the reaping happen while the waiting happens? That seems to be the most natural reading of this verse.

General Comments on Alma 32

I want to make a few general comments about the discourse because I want to be sure that our “a few verses per week” approach doesn’t mean that we miss sight of the big picture.

I’m struck by how many references there are to Alma saying something (“I say unto you”) and references to the audience saying something (“ye will say”) in this chapter. The phrase “I say unto you” is completely unnecessary: of course the speaker is saying to the audience what the speaker is saying to the audience! One wonders how this phrase (or variants) made it into this chapter 14 times; I suspect it must be doing something besides the obvious. Here’s a chart with the actual phrases on the right and my simplification of them on the left:

OTHER (asks) Thy brother hath said . . .

I SAY (ask) I say unto you . . .

I ASK I would ask . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID As I said unto you . . .

OTHER (says) There are many who do say . . .

I ASK Now I ask . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID Now as I said . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID As I said . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID As I said . . .

YOU SAY Ye will begin to say . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

YOU SAY Ye will say . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

YOU SAY Ye will say . .

Notes on this:

(a) The sequence begins with the ‘other’ and ends with ‘you.’ The point of Alma’s discourse is to get them away from thinking that the others (=the leaders who have kicked them out) matter and into thinking that what they choose to do matters. The audience literally gets the last word in determining what will happen. In a discourse on the word, addressed to people who have been isolated from “the word” by their leaders, this seems significant.

(b) The first chunk consists of three questions; the last chunk of Alma’s consists of three “sayings,” which may imply that the questioning that begins the discourse ends with the certitude of statements in a symbolic as well as a literal way.

(c) The material appears to move through three stages: first, asking alternates with saying; next, saying alternates with “having said;” finally, Alma’s “saying” alternates with what ‘you’ “say.” So the progress is from questioning, to the dialogue between past and present, to that between Alma and the audience. The audience takes the place (if you will) of Alma’s past as his discussion partner; they are invited to ‘be a part of history’ as it were, as questioning is replaced by . . . them. The three stages of the material are also characterized by different discussion partners: (1) other-Alma, (2) Alma’s past—Alma’s present, and (3) Alma—the audience.

(d) The first time the “you” says anything, it is “ye will begin to say.” That makes obvious sense. But it also point up the fact that at that moment, the audience has begun to interact with the word. And the thing that you will begin to say is that the seed is good.

(e) When Alma says that the audience “will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us,” the emphasis isn’t just on the nourishing process but also on the saying process. That is, the decision by the people to verbalize their plans, or even just to have those plans, is the primary constituent of their faith. Back to the Korihor story, I wonder if we need to read more into his muteness as a symbolic sign and not just a punitive sign. And I also wonder how all of this “saying” relates to the “word.”

(f) The point is to show the back-and-forth of faith development by casting it as a process that swings between what Alma says and what the people say. I note that the larger discourse is in reality an answer to the question posed by the people and that that answer consists them of a lot of hypothetical sayings by the people.

(g) One final thought: Or maybe my “of course the speaker is speaking to the audience” was a little hasty: the Zoramite poor have gotten used to be treated as non-entities. Maybe this relates to the physical “turning” I noted early on; maybe the phrasing is meant to remind them that Alma really is speaking to them—the opposite of kicking them out.

Another general comment: there are three phrases that are each repeated (in whole or in part) at least three times in this chapter:

Swell	Sprout	Begin to grow
Swell	Sprout	Begin to grow
Good seed	Sprout	Begin to grow
Swell	Sprout	Begin to grow
Swell	Sprout	Begin to be enlightened
Nourish	Root	Grow up		fruit
Nourish	Root	Grow up		fruit
(no) nourish	(no) root	Wither		Pluck it out
(no) nourish	Looking forward with eye of faith			Never pluck
Nourishing	Root			pluck
Faith	Great diligence		Patience
Diligence	Faith		Patience
Faith	Diligence		Patience	Long-suffering

We talked about the first bunch last week, although I don’t think we noted the way that “begin to be enlightened” parallels the “begin to grow” phrase. As for the next chunk of repeated phrases, I addressed those above. I would note here that the chart suggests that “looking forward with the eye of faith” is what “taking root” and “growing up” allude to, but I’m still not entirely sure what that means. The final chunk is more literal and less a part of the parable. I note that the terms don’t occur in the same order but I don’t know if that is significant. While there is some overlap between the second set and the third, the order of the repetitive phrases is remarkably stable. It may be that they are used to mirror the growth process. Not sure—I sense that there is something else important going on here but that I haven’t quite pinned it down.

Another big picture item: in v10, Alma asks, “Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?” Inasmuch as the parable of the seed teaches a process by which eternal life can be grown within you, it makes it clear that the synagogue is not necessary for worship.

Another thing: We know that the audience is poor, but I’m wondering if there are any clues to their specific situation that I have missed. I ask because an urban street beggar (for example) would read this parable quite a bit differently than a subsistence farmer. Anyone?

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Tomatoes