[From Deidre!]
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit—and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. 8a Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth! That they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God save it be through the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah
The idea of Christ answering the law is significant—he is responding to a question, a demand
“unto none else can the ends of the law be answered”—the preposition “unto” is strange here: why not use the word “by”? What does it mean to say the law is answered unto Christ, rather than by Christ?
“save it be” a beautiful wordplay, nothing can take place regarding the salvation of human persons except through the Savior, save it be through the Savior
Cross-References
a) TG Jesus Christ, Atonement through; Sacrifice, self-sacrifice
It is significant that the Topical Guide uses “Jesus Christ, Atonement through” as a topic heading rather than, for example, “Jesus Christ, Atonement of” highlighting that Christ makes reconciliation between human beings and God possible, but not inevitable or in a way that does not require the appropriate, agentic response of human beings
b) 1 Samuel 2:2 (1-10) Hannah praises Lord after giving Samuel to the Lord; “There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God”
It is notable that Hannah speaks of Christ in the context of sacrificing her own son
c) Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth”
Again here the preposition “to” strikes me as odd, why not “for”?—what is significant about “to/unto” instead of “for”? “To/unto” implies to me setting something at its limit, on a boundary, so that it is not given by reaching over that boundary but offered and must be received. It impresses me as establishing a meeting place, a point at which two distinct entities come together, they do not cross over, but come together both bringing their own offering
8) a) 2 Nephi 25:20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err. And as the Lord God liveth that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt, and gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations after they had been bitten by the poisonous serpents, if they would cast their eyes unto the serpent which he did raise up before them, and also gave him power that he should smite the rock and the water should come forth yea, behold I say unto you, that as these things are true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved.
2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
Mosiah 4:8 And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you
Mosiah 5:8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
In light of my discussion above about the preposition “to” and the idea of a boundary and a meeting point, I want to highlight here the verb “take”—it is something we choose to receive, it is not bestowed against our will. It is not merely given; rather, it is offered and is something we actively take up should we choose to do so.
Alma 21:9 Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood
Alma 38:9 And now, my son, I have told you this that ye may learn wisdom, that ye may learn of me that there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness.
Again, here, it is only through Christ that we are not saved—not by Christ, but through.
Jacob 2:10 is not referenced, but bears comparison here: When Jacob decries men who are erroneously living in polygynous relationships, he expresses regret that he has to rebuke them in front of their wives and children, but feels impelled to do so anyway. He states, “notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.”
Other scriptures that bear comparison:
2 Nephi 10:23-25 Therefore, acheer up your hearts, and remember that ye arebfree to cact for yourselves—to dchoose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.
24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, areconcile yourselves to thebwill of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the cgrace of God that ye are dsaved.
25 Wherefore, may God araise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the batonement, that ye may be received into the ceternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine. Amen.
Note that we must be reconciled unto God—bring ourselves to the meeting point by our own acts of willing repentance, by our own broken hearts and contrite spirits and then it is through grace, the atonement of Christ, that we are saved
Returning to 2 Nephi 2:7, the use of the preposition “unto” instead of “by” in verse 7: “and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.” First we read that Christ answers the end of the law, but now it seems that the law is answered unto Christ. Why is not answered by Christ? For Christ to answer the law would connote something that is complete, but if the law is answered unto Christ, just as in the cross-reference Romans 10:4 where “to” is used instead of “for”: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth”—these prepositions strike me as significant in two ways—they imply something that is temporally incomplete, that cannot be merely unidirectional; moreover, they seem to imply spatially the establishment of a boundary, a borderline—the law is answered unto Christ, and the end of the law is Christ to every one that believeth; the Atonement is not merely something given, but is something that is offered—it is set before us, but it must be received, it must be appropriated by the believer. Free agents must receive it, appropriate it, make it efficacious; the individual must meet the Atonement where it lies—must make personal effort, must traverse the distance between herself and the Atonement, it is not merely bestowed, it must be taken up by each individual
This idea is illuminated by the use of the preposition “through” which Jacob himself uses to depict the relationship between the Atonement of Christ and individual agents: “Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection” (Jacob 4:10)—we are not reconciled by the Atonement, but through the Atonement, this implies that the atonement is not something efficacious prior to our active response and reception of it
The preposition “for” in connection with the atonement recurs in Helaman 5:9, where Helaman implores his sons to remember the words of Benjamin that “man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, who shall come” and in Moroni 10:33, where Moroni states “if ye by the grace of God are prefect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye may become holy, without spot”
Perusing “Jesus Christ, Atonement through” in the Topical Guide, I found some representative examples of the preposition “for” versus the preposition “unto”
FOR
Luke 22:19 19 ¶And he took abread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my bbody which is cgiven for you: this do in dremembrance of me.
John 6:51 I am the living abread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bbread that I will give is my cflesh, which I will dgive for the elife of the world.
John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so aknow I the Father: and I lay down my blife for the sheep.
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he aloved us, and bsent his Son to be the cpropitiation for our sins.
UNTO
Philippians 2:8 And being found in afashion as a man, he bhumbled himself, and became cobedient unto ddeath, even the edeath of the cross.
Hebrews 5:9 And being made aperfect, he became the bauthor of eternalcsalvation unto all them that obey him;
AMBIGUOUS EXAMPLES
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath aset forth to be a bpropitiation through faith in his cblood, to declare his righteousness for the dremission of sins that are past, through the eforbearance of God;
Romans 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the aatonement.
Broken Heart and Contrite Spirit
What is the significance of this?
McConkie and Millet write, “Salvation is not promised to those glib of tongue but rather to those with a back bent by the burdens of the kingdom (see Matthew 24:46-51). As there is no salvation without truth, so there is no salvation without obedience—without a ‘broken heart and a contrite spirit.’” (1:193).
Nibley highlights that keeping the law is not enough, but a broken heart and contrite spirit are necessary on tops of this (Nibley, 1:264)
Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard pseudonymously writes about the unhappiest person: this person is the one who is furthest from herself (EO1, 222). One who is absent to herself is the most unhappy—employing the language of 2 Nephi 2, she is “miserable” like the devil. We are estranged from ourselves through sin and our own fundamental brokenness. It is through the Atonement, through making it efficacious by bringing forth a broken heart and contrite spirit that we can know the joy of realizing God’s intention for our individual lives.
As we humble ourselves, and repent of our brokenness we can be reconciled through the Atonement. What motivates us to do this? What motivates us to actualize the healing effects, the unifying effects of the Atonement in our lives? Perhaps it is the Atonement itself; perhaps it is the picture, the image of Christ’s literal, physical brokenness (the abject) that highlights our own spiritual brokenness. We are motivated by Christ’s suffering to be willing to break our own hearts. As Christ breaks himself to fulfill the law, fulfill his destiny and provide the atonement for humanity, each individual Christian must break themselves to receive and make the atonement efficacious and be enable to fulfill our own divinely appointed destinies.
For Kierkegaard, the most common form of despair—the sin we are guilty of when we fail to be the self God created us to be—in the world is ignorance of it (SUDP, 75). I suggest that it is not our own state of sin, but beholding the broken and suffering Christ that can help us wake up to the reality of our own fundamental brokenness. In Christ’s abjection we recognize our own. Theologian Anne Joh develops Julia Kristeva’s notion of the abject: “As a compromise between ‘condemnation and yearning,’ the abject marks the boundaries and the borders of the self. Transgressing borders, the abject is a witness to society’s precarious hold over the fluid and disorderly aspects of individual and collective psyche. As Kristeva brilliantly observes, ‘abjection is above all ambiguity.’ Thus, the abject haunts the subject at its inner boundary, which unwillingly gets transgressed so that the abject is ‘something rejected from which one does not part.’ The return of the abject is thus a constant reminder that we are fragmented and furthermore that our problem of the abject is not the Other but within ourselves” (The Heart of the Cross, 90)
It is through the vision of the abject, the horror of the suffering Christ, that awakens us to our own sinful state, that moves us to compassion with his suffering, gratitude for his suffering, and renders our own hearts broken, knowing his suffering is intended only to alleviate ours.
As theologian Wendy Farley puts it, “Compassion…begins where the sufferer is, in the grief, the shame, the hopelessness. It sees the despair as the most real thing. Compassion is with the sufferer, turned toward or submerged in her experience, seeing it with her eyes. This communion with the sufferer in her pain, as she experiences it, is the presence of love that is a balm to the wounded spirit. This relationship of shared, sympathetic suffering mediates consolation and respect that can empower the sufferer to bear the pain, to resist the humiliation, to overcome the guilt” (Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: A Contemporary Theodicy, 81; quoted on p.88)
As we behold the suffering Christ, knowing that the suffering of the Atonement is intended for us, we experience compassion. His brokenness motivates our broken hearts.
Returning to Kierkegaard, it is through Atonement that one becomes a unified self. As the prototype, Christ is a promise: by continually coming to resemble the prototype by holding fast to God, the Christian moves beyond self-effacement to become herself more and more (CD, 40-42).
On this trajectory, the Atonement works as we submit to God. As we imitate Christ in submission and humility, we become willing to be ourselves, reconciled to ourselves, and realize ourselves. For Kierkegaard, this means that we rest transparently, faithfully in Christ (SUD, 82). As Anti-Climacus defines it, “the formula for faith: in relating to itself and in wanting to be itself, the self is grounded transparently in the power that established it” (SUDP, 79). Such faith requires utter submission of the will to God, just as the act of the Atonement did for Christ: “In the relationship to God…it is the case both for the man and for the woman that self-abandonment is the self, and that the self is acquired through self-abandonment” (SUDP, 81, footnote). It is a willing submission: “Faith is: that the self in being itself and in wanting to be itself is grounded transparently in God” (SUDP, 114)
Anti-Climacus quotes Romans 14:23 “whatsoever is not of faith, is sin” and underscores that “the opposite of sin is not virtue but faith” (SUDP, 115).
What is true for Christ is true for each individual, that utter obedience and utter willingness are necessary for fulfillment of the divine intention in our lives: A writes in EO: “The identity of an absolute action and an absolute suffering is beyond the powers of aesthetics and belongs to metaphysics. This identity is exemplified in the life of Christ, for His suffering is absolute because the action is absolutely free, and His action is absolute suffering because it is absolute obedience” (EOP, 149). Here, Kierkegaard highlights agency and that is where I want to go next.
Connecting 2 Nephi 2:7-8 to 2 Nephi 2:3 and 2:10
In verse 3, Lehi says he knows that Jacob is redeemed because of the righteousness of his Redeemer—there is a causal relationship and temporal relationship being expressed: Christ’s righteousness and obedient atonement precede ours. In verse 10, we read that because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God—Christ’s intercession enables our reconciliation to God. Arguably, both 3 and 10 imply a degree of passivity in the relation of human individuals to Christ and God vis-à-vis the Atonement.
This language is helpful in illuminating the way in which the Atonement is a gift that is offered to us as human agents. That Christ gives the gift of death is enough to humble us and break our hearts.
2 thoughts on Atonement as gift:
Kierkegaard characterizes the atonement as sheer gift. He reflects, “The suffering and death of Christ has been made pure gift; by letting all obligations and commitment be removed, all Notabenes have been disposed of, and thus Christianity has become utterly and outrightly an outright gift, a present” (Journals and Papers 3:224 entry 1855 (Pap XI3 B 115 n.d., 1855).
Jacques Derrida further illuminates how the infinite gift presents us with our own finitude. Asking what makes one tremble in the mysterium tremendum and answers that it is “the gift of infinite love, the dissymmetry that exists between the divine regard that sees me, and myself, who doesn’t see what is looking at me; it is the gift and endurance of death that exists in the irreplaceable, the disproportion between the infinite gift and my finitude, responsibility as culpability, sin, salvation, repentance, and sacrifice” (The Gift of Death, 2nd ed., 2008, 56-57). In the face of Christ’s suffering, we see the paltriness of our offerings, this helps us to become even more broken and contrite.
Returning to the text of 2 Nephi, we find that by contrast, verse 7 highlights our agency in accepting and utilizing the Atonement: Christ’s offering being made efficacious is contingent on our action, our free choice to make our own offering of a broken hear and a contrite spirit—as we offer our hearts, our souls, then His offering for sin facilitates and enables our reconciliation
The Atonement is contingent on us and this stands out in verse 7; in verse 10 we read that Christ acts so as to “to answer the ends of the atonement.” Human agency reflects Christ whose Atonement answers the law; as Christ is confronted with the law and answers to it, we are confronted by the crucifixion and must answer to it.
Human agency and its parallel to Christ’s action is illuminated when we read this verse in light of Doctrine and Covenants 59:8, “Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord they God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” Christ’s sacrifice is the Atonement, ours is our own broken heart and contrite spirit. We have to meet each other. Both Christ and each individual must offer their offering. They meet at the boundary line. And one cannot cross the other—one cannot do Christ’s part in Christ’s stead and Christ cannot wrest from us a broken heart and contrite spirit. They are demarcated from one another, distinct in their inability to do the other’s task, yet the tasks and the agents who perform them are able to reach each other and meet one another. According to Martin Heidegger, the boundary “becomes the place from which something begins its presencing” (Poetry, Language, Thought, 141-60). As individuals we become present to the Savior and the Savior becomes present to us as we offer our distinct, yet equally necessary, sacrifices to one another.
As we become present to one another, we enter into real relationship with one another which entails unpredictability, doubt and risk. Muslim Feminist Fatima Mernissi in her semi-autobiographical novel, Dreams of Trespass writes about the frontier, the liminal or ambiguous realm outside her control. She observes, “Anxiety eats at me whenever I cannot situation the geometric line organizing my powerlessness” (3). The dynamic relation between Atoner and the one Atoned for is rife with risk but neither is able to control the other. It requires trust in the unknown on both sides, not just the human side. In fact, arguably, the relation is much more risky for Christ than for us (Helaman 12:7-8). Out of deference to human freedom, Christ risks the Atonement being made inefficacious. He further risks the damnation of the beloved if they choose to respond to it by rejecting it. Yet there is the possibility that we will meet Him. That when confronted with the horror of the crucifixion, when we realize that Christ gave everything, gave himself on our behalf, that we will meet him, we will come unto Him, meet his offering with our own offering. We give ourselves by bringing forth broken hearts and contrite spirits and meet Christ at the boundary line. There we find that although divine love asks for everything, it does so only for our own salvation, only to empty ourselves sufficiently to receive the gift of Atonement, the gift of Christ, the gift of salvation.
I’m still digesting the post, much to ponder here, but I want to make a brief comment about the “unto” in verse 7.
What if we read the text this way:
“Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit—and unto none else [other than all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit] can the ends of the law be answered.”
Under this reading, the second unto performs the same role as the first unto. Thus, the sacrifice of the Holy Messiah answers the ends of the law, but it is being answered unto or toward a particular group of persons, namely those who have a broken heart and contrite spirit. Thus, the “none else” is a placeholder for the beneficiaries to whom the law is answered, rather than “none else” being a placeholder for the benefactor who answers the law (i.e. no one else other than the Holy Messiah could answer the ends of the law).
Connected with my comment above, I think the “none else” in 2 Ne. 2:7 is akin to the “none else” in Alma 11:40: “And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.”
Therefore, we have this kind of specificity of who will be saved (“none else” in 2 Ne. 2:7; Alma 11:40) but also specificity of who will do the saving as you have pointed out (“no other” or “none other” in Mosiah 4:8; Mosiah 5:8; 2 Nephi 31:21; 2 Nephi 25:20; Alma 38:9; Mosiah 3:17; Helaman 5:9).
I really like your discussion about the sacrifice that God offers in relation to the sacrifice that man is commanded to offer: a broken heart and contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18; 51:17; D&C 59:8; 97:8 and 3 Ne. 9:20). We get Christ himself repeating this when he visits the Nephites:
“And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings. And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” (3 Ne. 9:19:20; see also 12:19).
This may be a tangential point, but I wonder what happens to Lehi’s teaching about offering a broken heart and contrite spirit as a sacrifice. It doesn’t seem to play a major role. Nephi alludes to this in a somewhat indirect way. (2 Nephi 4:32). Jacob discusses “broken heart” but in a very different sense. (Jacob 2:10, 35). Again, its interesting Lehi’s view of the law is very negative, and yet the Nephites continue to find a role for the law of Moses (2 Ne. 25:; Jacob 4:5).
Conceptually similar to sacrifice of spirit and heart is offering of soul (I know you use this language above) and we do see this language being used in the texts: “offer your whole souls as an offering unto him” (Omni 1:26). Although not directly on point, Nephi says “worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul” (2 Nephi 25:29). Abinadi reverses this when talking about the Son and his soul being an offering for sin. (Mosiah 15:10, Mosiah 14:10, Isaiah 53:10). I’m really trying to resist using the word “reciprocal” for some obvious reasons, but I like what you are saying about relationship, that there is a kind of mutual relationship, where God makes an offering and we make an offering, God makes a sacrifice and we make a sacrifice. Perhaps a kind of imitatio Christi life is what I’m thinking about. Does this idea get muted by King Benjamin’s rhetoric? “I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.” (Mosiah 2:21).
Deidre –
I’ve got to wind my way from the text—really, from the difficulties the text presents me with in terms of basic interpretive issues—to the fascinating discussion you offer regarding the mirroring relation between human and divine sacrifice. How to get from the set of questions plaguing me (in particular: Does Lehi accept a strictly sacrificial interpretation of the atonement? and What on earth is meant by this “answering the ends of the law” business?) to the chiastic intertwining of two broken hearts?
If I don’t quite get to the latter in this comment, recognize that I’m on the road that leads there.
All –
There are several reasons I’m nervous about how to interpret Lehi’s use of the word “sacrifice.” First, none of Lehi’s theological heirs presents a sacrificial interpretation of the atonement. Indeed, the only subsequent Nephite to present something like a sacrificial (or penal-substitutionary) view of the atonement is Amulek, and I’m convinced he has a problematic place in the development of Nephite thinking about atonement. Second, there are theological reasons to worry about a sacrificial view of the atonement (what to say about a God who is bound to violent sacrifice by an inflexible law that supposedly stands outside His own power?). All this makes me ask whether Lehi really means sacrifice in a strong sense when he uses the word.
As for my other major question, that regarding “the ends of the law,” it’s just a question of trying to figure out what on earth the text itself means. I wonder if it isn’t crucial to sort this out in order to get to what Lehi really means when he speaks of “sacrifice.”
How to get at that phrase, “answer the ends of the law”? I took the liberty of using Google Books to see if it appeared in literature that would have been available to the translator of the Book of Mormon, and I found some fascinating results (see here, here, here, and here). The language of “answering the ends of the law” seems to have been in relatively accessible circulation at the time Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, so I think it’s probably best to assume that such usage would help us understand what Lehi means, at least as those words are directed, through translation, to their nineteenth-century readers.
If I’m reading rightly (it’s taken me a fair bit of work to decide I’m understanding all these texts), it looks like “the ends of the law” refer to the purpose of the law in creating a certain conviction. (Note that “the ends of punishment” refer, instead, to the purpose of balancing justice or some such thing. It’s fascinating that Lehi never speaks of the ends of punishment, only of the ends of the law and the ends of the atonement.) If this is right, then it seems that Lehi describes Christ as offering Himself “a sacrifice” precisely in order to ensure that the law serves its convicting purpose, something that, it would seem, only happens for those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
Trying to make sense of all this, I think I’d suggest the following. Contrary to the idea that Christ offers Himself a sacrifice to satisfy the ends of punishment (that is, to balance some sort of abstract offended justice that has, cosmically, to be balanced), Lehi claims that Christ offers Himself a sacrifice to satisfy the ends of the law (that is, to ensure that the law doesn’t lose its affective force). The law is put in place, and by it all are cut off. That’s less than satisfactory, so God arranges to remove that consequence. But a simple removal of that consequence without further ado would undo the original purpose of the law (I’m beginning to see a gesture in the direction of verse 13 here). Rather than simply removing the law—forgiving the law’s offenders by dispensing with the law—God arranges for a certain enforcement of the law but without that enforcement effecting a punishment for the law’s offenders. The law remains in force even as it is rendered inoperative. The real force of the law remains for anyone who sees what Christ has done, but the sting of its punishment has no way of afflicting them. Orienting to the self-sacrificing one, those with broken hearts and contrite spirits feel the force of the law but are free from its paralyzing sting.
I think I’m not explaining any of this well enough.
At any rate, I think all this allows for a rereading of Lehi’s reference to “sacrifice.” Rather than Christ being made a sacrifice (i.e., by the Father) in order to meet some kind of transcendent demand (i.e., abstract justice), Lehi speaks of Christ offering himself as a sacrifice (i.e., by Himself) in order to meet a certain immanent desire (i.e., giving the law its opposition-creating force). Out is the idea of a strict penal substitution; in is the idea of a divinely-invested law with genuine potency that nonetheless is without any actual operativity.
Why Lehi would be interested in such a thing, however, may not become clear until the question of opposition is introduced….
Joe, I think this is a useful way of setting the stage for where Lehi is going to go in a few versus. I like how it elevates the identity of Christ as the law giver—”giver” here takes on almost a maternal sense, “birther” or the like, no? Also, I think this ties back to the previous discussion of justification and what it means to be justified. Couldn’t we say, following your reading, that the law is brought into the correct alignment or brought into the position of being fully effective, in full force through Christ’s sacrifice?
Yeah, it’s something like this that I’ve got in mind. The philosophically fascinating irony would be, though, that the law is only made fully effective when its stripped of its power to punish. There’s something of a Pauline gesture there: the law is fulfilled in the Messiah’s triumph, but it becomes full only at the moment that it’s de-activated.
There is quite a bit to respond to here Joe.
First, I’d like to consider the 19th century references that you point out. We’re looking for a specific connotation in the phrase ”answering the ends of the law” or any derivatives; anything that points to this phrase being theologically loaded with a common understanding of the day, that if we put as the background of Lehi’s sermon, provides greater coherence.
John Wesley argues against those who say “preaching the Gospel answers all ends of the law.” (Note that it is the preaching that does the answering in his statement). Wesley seems to be reacting to preachers, who take a literal reading of New Testament passages, and who claim to “preach Christ” but fail to preach the law. This seems to me why Wesley argues one end of the law is this protreptic effect to “convict the sinner.” He suggests that unless you preach the law (having the effect of convicting the sinner) that people won’t see the need for Christ (the solution). So Wesley concludes “to preach Christ, is to preach all things that Christ hath spoken; all his promises, all his threatening and commands; all that is written in his book. And then you will know how to preach Christ.”
Incidentally, Lehi somewhat fits this pattern. As a general observation, Lehi preaches the problems with the law (all men are cut off), and then he unveils the the solution (wherefore, redemption) as Christ. (I think Sheila suggested Lehi is somewhat more nuanced than this, so feel free to chime in Sheila). Yet, Lehi’s message seems to me unconcerned with exactly how preachers are trying to preach the Gospel. For Wesley the way to answer the ends of the law is to preach the law. This seems to me to be a different message from Lehi who is saying that Christ is answering the ends of the law.
As a side note, what was Wesley’s theory of atonement? In his commentary on Romans 3:25 he wrote “A propitiation – To appease an offended God. But if, as some teach, God never was offended, there was no need of this propitiation. And, if so, Christ died in vain.” (Explanatory notes upon the New Testament).
I think the reference closer in language to Lehi is the one by Richard Baxter (1615 – 1691):
“As he was a sacrifice for sin, he answered the ends of the law which we violated, and which condemned us, as well as if we had been all punished according to the sense of the law: and therefore did thereby satisfy the Lawgiver: and thereby also merited our pardon and justification; so that his obedience as such, and his sacrifice (or whole humiliation) as satisfactory by answering the ends of the law, are conjunctly the meritorious cause of our justification.”
Baxter suggests that Christ is punished as if we had been all punished, but he goes a step further to say that this satisfied the Lawgiver. Now, Lehi doesn’t use the word satisfy in his discourse. Lehi says that Christ answers the law but he doesn’t say Christ satisfies the law. Abinadi and Amulek use the phrase “satisfy the demands of justice’” but Lehi does not, so I want to avoid rewording Lehi to say there is a kind of satisfaction being performed. I think technically that would be connoting more in terms of atonement theory than Lehi is saying. Maybe Lehi would agree with this language anyway, but I don’t want to fill in he gaps and risk implying more than he does.
Here is another reference to “answering all ends of the law” from Matthew Poole (1624–1679)
“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us: here is another end of God’s sending his Son, as before; it was that he might perfectly fulfil the righteousness of the law in or for us, which for us ourselves to do in our own persons was utterly impossible; and yet upon which (as being imputed unto them, and accepted of God on our behalf) we shall be accounted just and righteous, as if we had done it ourselves. Christ’s being a sacrifice for sin was not sufficient to answer all the ends and demands of the law; there must be doing of what it commanded, as well as suffering of what it threatened: therefore Christ was sent for both, and both were accomplished by him; and what he did and suffered is accounted unto us as if we had done and suffered it. This is the imputed righteousness which was so often spoken of, Romans 4:1-25; and in reference to this he is said to be made righteousness for us, 1 Corinthians 1:30, and we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him, Romans 5:19 2 Corinthians 5:21.”
Poole introduces the idea that one end of the law is for it to be obeyed, and another end is for punishment in the violation of it. Christ’s sacrifice for sin answered the end of the law dealing with punishment, but not the end of the law dealing with obedience, Christ’s life did that. In contrast to Poole, Lehi never argues that the end of the law is that it needs to be obeyed and that Christ answers that end of the law.
In the end, I’m not sure I see really any inherent meaning in “the ends of the law” in as much as Wesley, Baxter, and Poole and each posit a different end of the law and argue how it is answered or satisfied. Some of this language sounds derivative of the English in “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Romans 4:10), the telos of the law, and it seems that the definitions of “end” in the 1828 edition of Webster’s (13 and 15) seem to fit the text well.
I read Lehi to say that the ends of the law is to inflict punishment and to inflict that punishment at the great and last day. (2 Ne 2:10, 25). I think this is important because the ends of the law happens when men are brought before God to be judged. There is no protreptic ends of the law for Lehi, no overtones of the law as pedagogue, and he doesn’t focus on those ends being met by preaching. Perhaps Lehi doesn’t use the term “ends of punishment” because the infliction of punishment itself is the end of the law. The punishment is affixed to the law and by the law men are cut off. Lehi suggests there is a way to escape being acted upon or punished by that law at that great and last day. The ends of the atonement, on the other hand, is happiness.
I’d like to draw another contrast in case it comes up. Nephi says that “for this end was the law given” or that they “know for what end the law was given” (2 Ne. 25:25-27). The “end” here is that they “may look forward unto that life which is in Christ.” Lehi and Nephi are speaking of different ends to the law in different contexts. Nephi, it seems to me, is explaining that the law is dead in a salvific sense, but the reason they keep the law, at least in part, is because it is propaedeutic. Nephi is speaking to what end the law was given to the Nephites and what that does in during their days of probation. Lehi is talking about the ends of the law at that great and last day.
Thanks for these thoughts, Rico. Some responses:
On Wesley: I’m not sure Wesley’s emphasis on preaching distances his use of the phrases in question from Lehi too much. However Wesley thinks the particular end of the law in question is accomplished, the identity of the end remains as it is. The debate in Wesley is over the means to the end, and Lehi—perhaps—has a different means in mind, but the end remains the same, or so I’m suggesting. I might note further, though, that the interpretation I’m putting forward wouldn’t be terribly irrelevant to the Wesleyan emphasis on preaching: Christ’s self-sacrifice, on the reading I’m offering, is a kind of performative preaching of the law, one that gives it to its “threatening” end while—and here’s the paradox—nonetheless removing its sting (but only for the contrite). (That Wesley had a theory of atonement at odds with what Lehi spells out is similarly irrelevant, however interesting. The question I’m asking here concerns only the received meaning of “the ends of the law” or of “answering the ends of the law.”)
On Baxter: The language of satisfaction can be ignored, I think, in trying to fix the meaning of “the ends of the law,” here. What’s important is that direct punishment is not among the ends of the law if they’re answered through vicarious punishment. The point is that the ends of the law are answered even though punishment for the actual violators isn’t effected. Although the actual ends of the law aren’t specified here, it seems clear enough that punishment—at least of the actual violators—isn’t among them. It may be, of course, and some other passages in Baxter suggest this, that the ends of the law include punishment of some sort, but the significance of that’s still to be shown.
On the variously authored commentary on Paul’s epistles: This reference is, I think, key. Here the authors argue that the ends of the law wouldn’t be met if some kind of punishment weren’t effected, though the ends of punishment remain distinct from the ends of the law. From the larger discussion, it seems clear to me that the primary end of the law here is a certain seriousness, a certain validity. If the punishment isn’t effected, the law won’t have been a law, and that means that the atonement will be without effective meaning. The punishment has to be effected so that the law remains a law—but that punishment might be inflicted on the innocent, such that the law remains a law without the ends of punishment being accomplished. The law remains law but without a certain force.
On Poole: Is Poole equating “ends” and “demands” here? If so, then I think your comments raise certain difficulties. If not, I’m left wondering about a number of things. It is clear that, as you say, Poole sees these two… functions… of law as being answered by Christ’s life and sacrifice respectively, but is it clear to what “the ends of the law” refers? I guess I remain a bit ambivalent about that.
In the end, at any rate, I think it’s clear that for Lehi one of the major purposes or ends of the law is the establishment or maintenance of opposition (we’ll be dealing with this in verses 11-13, obviously). I think the reading I’m offering fits well with that as well. There’s something about the enforcement of the law—albeit in this strangely oblique way (through the punishment of the innocent)—that allows the law to retain its opposition-creating power while nonetheless losing the sting of punishment for the contrite. The sting, presumably, remains for those who refuse. The point, then, would be to ensure that those who are forgiven remain within the oppositional or differential structure of the law even as the law is rendered inoperative.
Or something like that….
As to your other concern, it is possible that Lehi simply does not offer a coherent theory of atonement or unaware of the implications of suggesting that the Messiah offers himself a sacrifice for sin.
The earliest description of Lehi’s teachings is that “of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.” (1 Ne. 1:19). Lehi’s teachings are further elaborated in 1 Ne. 10: “a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world . . . all mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer.” So far, so good. According to Nephi, Lehi refers to this Messiah as “the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world.” (1 Ne. 10:10; cf John 1:29). What’s going on here? Is this a paschal lamb reference? Is this take away as in carry away sins? I think this verse really complicates matters on several levels. Sure, there is the issue of Book of Mormon translation and how John ends up here, but making sense of this statement in John in terms of atonement theory turns out to be something of a challenge. Nephi then experiences his own vision and says “And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.” (1 Ne. 11:33). Now we have slaying being connected with sin. It isn’t clear exactly what Lehi or Nephi understand in terms of atonement theory at this point (or at any point), but it would seem these are the precursor texts for Lehi’s statement “he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin.” I’ll have to come back to this point.
What about this language “broken heart and contrite spirit”? Would it be fruitful to consider that Lehi is drawing upon the language in Psalms 51 here? ”For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” (Psalms 51:16-17). In terms of dating Psalms 51, there is no consensus, but a few scholars take the position that Psalms 51 is pre-exilic or late pre-exilic, although verses 18-19 were added after the destruction of the temple.
Some scholars read Psalms 51 as a critique on animal sacrifice or as attempts to spiritualize the cult. I should point out that some atonement theorists argue that it it was problematic when Paul decided to Christianize the sacrificial ritual that had been attacked by several prophets and psalmists. This is one reason why we end up with less than desirable atonement theories. In some ways, I find both Lehi and Paul to be faced with same problem, that is, how to understand the death of the Messiah given the pervasive background of the Hebrew cult. Paul mixes and conflates metaphors to the consternation of atonement theorists. I wonder whether we should expect Lehi to be more careful or cognizant of the implications of his metaphors than Paul.
Now, others scholars suggest that the psalmists weren’t so much aiming to repudiate animal sacrifice, but to point out that whether accompanied by animal sacrifice or not, one’s inner orientation is key. In that vein, some suggest that Psalms 51 was even possibly used in the temple to assist in directing the supplicant’s mind, to avoid falling prey to the risks of ritual and routine. If Lehi is using Psalms 51:17, would this particular choice be significant?
Whatever Lehi means by his negative portrayal of the law, the Nephites went ahead and built a temple and continued to “keep” the law of Moses. But they are always rationalizing why they keep the law. Nephi says that the law is “dead” to them but that by knowing the “deadness of the law” they look to the life of Christ (2 Ne. 25:24-30) and Jacob explains that “for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him” (Jacob 4:5). Perhaps Lehi’s language gestures at the proper orientation for the supplicant. Perhaps we can see Lehi’s greater theological concern as that of linking atonement with this inner orientation rather than making an overture at a kind of atonement theory.
Okay, getting to this comment now (I ended up unable to return to the blog yesterday…).
Of course it’s possible—even likely—that Lehi had an inconsistent or unsophisticated theology of atonement, if he had one at all. But whatever Lehi himself would have believed is so completely buried in historical context, Nephi’s own redactions (or recreations), subsequent Nephite layering, nineteenth-century recontextualization, and our own “doctrinal” mystifications that I’m not terribly eager to try to unearth what Lehi meant originally. Although I phrased my worry in terms of what Lehi meant when he spoke of sacrifice, my intentions would be better explained if I spoke of what we’re to understand when we read the word “sacrifice” here.
What gets me worrying about hints at penal substitution theories of atonement in the Book of Mormon is not—emphatically not—a set of ethical qualms. (Frankly, I don’t have a lot of ethical qualms generally.) It’s, rather, that there’s so little, almost nothing, in the Book of Mormon indicating such an idea. (Amulek seems to be the only clear exception, and I think there’s a lot to say about that fact.) If Lehi’s brief reference to sacrifice is indeed a gesture in the direction of penal substitution, it’s odd and largely out of place, and it doesn’t fit well with everything else Lehi has to say about atonement (in the verses following).
As a theologian, then, I find that the Book of Mormon generally sets me the task, in reading Lehi, of trying to see how he might be speaking of sacrifice in a non-penal-substitutionary way, if it’s possible. If the best interpretation is indeed to move in that direction, one follows the text. But I’ve got many reasons to suspect that “sacrifice” should be read in some other way. And so I venture. And I think the approach I’m working out makes better sense of the whole chapter than does any penal-substitutionary reading….
Deidre, what a wonderfully provocative post. I hope you’ll be able to participate in the discussions more, because I really enjoyed the threads you teased out here! Here are my responses:
1) Christ as responding to the demands of the flesh: what does the flesh demand? Ultimately, it demands death. Christ’s response is to fill death in such a way that it is satisfied and thus able to be overcome, sidestepped, swallowed, etc.
2) Your emphasis on the word “through” left me thinking. Salvation through implies some sort of conduit (here, Christ) through which salvation moves. With that understanding in place, our concept of salvation is reworked: we have a salvation that always already existed, but that needed a means of reaching us. Reformulated in these terms, salvation links up thematically with Joe’s discussion of Christ’s sacrifice: both seem to presuppose some sort of unorganization that is brought into order through Christ, through the atonement. Salvation is accessible. Law is effective. To me, these are ways of thinking about the atonement as an expression of creation. Or perhaps better, they highlight the Creation facet of the atonement.
3) Finally, I wondered if Lehi might be bringing up the bodily suffering of Christ in order to elicit compassion from his sons? A final attempt to move L&L?
In light of what your reading brings out in terms of gifts and death, I think it’s important to remember the greater context here: Lehi’s reaction to the gift of his own death (i.e., reading this chapter as part of a larger narrative of the process of dying) is to have one last unifying moment with his fragmented family; to bring them to Christ. Receiving death, he unites his family physically (recall the image of the family circle brought up a few weeks ago) in order to bring (move, drag, etc.) them to Christ. I can’t shake the endowment image: Lehi, dying, approaching the veil, instructing his family all the way to give them the same death, the death in Christ.
Jenny, these are all great thoughts! Your #1 is a beautiful encapsulation of the Book of Mormon’s theology of the flesh, I think. Your #2 provides me with a feast for thought. And I think you’re likely right with your #3. Finally, your note on Lehi’s approach to death here makes me embarrassed that I hadn’t asked this sort of question before….
Alright, Deidre: I’m finally getting to the more substantive part of your post (my apologies for my lateness!).
I absolutely love the articulation you’ve given of the broken heart and the contrite spirit—as a kind of mirroring relation between Christ’s divine sacrifice and our own necessary human sacrifice. What strikes me theologically is that it’s only possible to offer this reading if we abrogate the usual (i.e., penal-substitutionary) view of atonement that’s too often read into Lehi’s words here. The sacrifice described here has to have been a self-offering on Christ’s part—not a satisfaction of the eternal, inflexible demands of abstract justice—if it’s to motivate and mirror (and possibilize!) our own self-offering. On the “usual” reading, the mirroring you spell out is too dissymmetrical: an untouched Father, a passively sacrificed Son, and a set of actively contrite human beings. Where the sacrifice is indeed a self-offering without an eye to any “demands of [abstract] justice,” we have the sort of symmetry necessary to your articulation: an actively self-sacrificing God, and a set of actively self-sacrificing human beings.
I don’t know, though, that I’ve got anything to add to your beautiful articulation of the mirroring itself. I’m happy just to thank you for it and hope for opportunities to share it….