And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—
This verse continues a lot of the topics that we’ve been discussing. Lots of good (and confusing!) stuff here!
And because of the intercession for all
We’re working here, then, with a universal aspect of the atonement. The passage continues an emphasis on “all”—as we saw last week in v. 9, “he shall make intercession for all the children of men,” and here the “all” is repeated. It’s interesting to note that it’s used in three different constructions in v. 9-10: “all the children of men,” “all,” and “all men”—a repetition which I think emphasizes that Lehi’s not kidding around when he says “all”; it really is everyone. And while in v. 9, this was followed by a conditional requirement that humans act in a certain way—”they that believe in him shall be saved”—v. 10 focuses on what happens to everyone, regardless of what they have or haven’t done.
What exactly is meant by “intercession”? It’s not a word used often in the BoM; the only other passages where I can find it come in Abinadi’s discourse in Mosiah: first when he’s quoting Isaiah: “and he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (14:12, channeling Isaiah 53) and then in the following chapter, in his own words: “And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained victory over death, giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—” (15:8).
If you’re going to intercede, you need to have two parties that need to be reconciled, but it’s not always clear to me what those are. Humans and the law? Humans and justice? Humans and God? Here it’s possibly the third of those options, since the result is that everyone comes to God. But how is this connected to the law (which comes up later in the verse)?
all men come unto God; wherefore they stand in the presence of him
And thus the Fall is reversed: humans were cut off from the presence of God, and are now brought back into it. But how exactly does the intercession of Christ bring everyone to stand in the presence of God? And since we’re showing up to be judged (to be discussed shortly), wouldn’t you think that the intercession of Christ would take place at the judgment? But here it seems that the intercession actually enables the judgment. That’s interesting. What if salvation isn’t about escaping judgment, but about being brought to it?
to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him
So. Judgment. It’s a term that often has negative connotations; in looking it up in the Topical Guide, for example, I noted that it refers you to both “condemnation” and “excommunication” – but strikingly not really to anything positive.
In looking at various scriptural passages on judgment, I was particularly interested in some aspects of Alma’s sermon to Corianton. He talks about it going both ways—when you’re judged, if your works and the desires of your hearts are good, then you’ll be restored to good, and if evil, to evil. (Alma 41:3-4) Sounds straightforward enough. Except that we know that the atonement has to play some role somewhere, because in our natural state, our works and the desires of our hearts are pretty messed up. But in this particular narrative, there isn’t a redeemer jumping in at the last minute to rescue you just as the jaws of hell are about to gobble you up. I’m thinking it would make more sense to read passages like this (about being judged for our works) in the context of the atonement as something that’s been at work all along (if we’ve allowed it), transforming our desires, rather than something that only kicks in at the end to balance the books. Because notably, everyone (righteous or wicked) gets judged; as I said earlier, far from getting you out of the judgment, the atonement sends you there.
There’s a parallel, of course, in which Christ was judged by us—”the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world” (1 Nephi 11:32)—and now we’re judged by God. But while the world’s judgment of Christ was unrighteous, God’s judgment is a righteous one. It’s “according to the truth and holiness which is in him.” I find this phrase fascinating, though I’m not entirely sure what it means. I notice that I’m prone to think of judgment in terms of courtrooms and law—and because of that, it’s easy to impose a legalistic framework on such passages. But while the law comes up in this verse, it’s not stated that the law is the means by which God judges, only that the ends of the law are answered. And strikingly, it doesn’t describe judgment as an evaluation of whether you followed a particular moral code. Rather, it’s grounded in holiness and truth. And not in any potential holiness and truth in us, but the truth and holiness in God.
Why both truth and holiness? And what exactly do those terms mean? I’m thinking that holiness is likely related to the assertion that no unclean thing can dwell with God. Perhaps similarly, un-truth can’t be in the presence of God. From this angle, judgment seems more implicit than explicit—in the presence of perfect truth and holiness, our own self-deceptions are stripped away, and we cannot hide from our sin. But I don’t want to lose track of the possibility that this judgment can be a saving judgment, and not only a damning one. If we let it, an encounter with truth can be not a condemnation, but a call to something better. Is it possible that judgment isn’t so much God’s final verdict on us, but an encounter in which we see things as they really are: who God really is, and who we really are—and the judgment comes in how we respond to this, according to the desires of our hearts?
Does it mean anything significant that we judged not “by” him, but “of” him?
A couple more thoughts on judgment. We have, of course, Matthew 7:1, “judge not, that ye be not judged,” and the JST which adds the qualification, “judge not unrighteously.” (Though it’s interesting that in 3 Nephi 14:1, the “unrighteously” qualification isn’t there.) But regardless, we know that we can get into trouble with judgment, because “with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:2) The mote/beam imagery which follows also suggests that we should be very careful in judging because of our inability to see clearly, our own blind spots.
So should we ever judge? Is there such a thing as (human) righteous judgment? That’s a minefield that’s probably worth its own seminar. But I did want to mention a couple of brief thoughts. If God’s judgment is grounded in holiness and truth, that would be the model for us to follow in our dealings with one another. Not as in, judging whether people are sufficiently holy and true (however fun that might be), but if we are in a position that we have to judge, to think in those terms instead of legalistic ones.
I have to admit that I’m not sure exactly what that looks like. But going back to Alma’s sermon to Corianton, he says “see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually.” (Alma 41:14) Mercy, justice, righteousness, and doing good are all linked here. And, continuing Alma’s restoration theme in this chapter, if you exercise them, you get them restored to you. What’s really interesting, given that Alma is about to launch into an extended, quite complex, discourse on the relationship between justice and mercy, here they are mentioned as part of the same general orientation: in your dealings with others, be merciful, deal justly, judge righteously. That might tell us something about the nature of God’s judgment.
I’m getting pretty far afield from 2 Nephi 2. So getting back to verse 10,
Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—
I’m having a hard time following the syntax here:
the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given
So we have a law, given by the Holy One, for some particular ends.
unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed
The (ends of the law?) lead to punishment; this punishment is affixed (by the law? to the law?).
which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed
This punishment is the opposite of happiness, which is also affixed (by the law? by the atonement?).
to answer the ends of the atonement
It sounds like happiness, then, is affixed by (or to) the atonement. (?)
And then we go on to the much-anticipated “opposition in all things” discussion. So the most basic point I can see here is that the law is tied to punishment, and the atonement is tied to happiness. It’s interesting that it doesn’t sound like an inherent relationship; rather, it’s something that’s been “affixed”—presumably by God? Significantly, the law here is something that God has given (not something self-existent to which God is subject).
The statement begins with a “wherefore,” which I think refers back to everyone coming into the presence of God and being judged. The confusing thing (or one of them!) is that the subject “the ends of the law” doesn’t ever get a verb; we just have “wherefore, the ends of the law . . .” and then all the clauses about punishment and things being affixed. But we can say that the “ends of the law” have something to do with God’s judgment (though as I mentioned earlier, I’m interested that it doesn’t actually say that God uses the law to judge).
We’ve already had a lot of good discussion about what the law might be, and what the ends of the law might be. Does this verse contribute anything to that? Just to review, we know from v. 5 that no flesh is justified by the law, that it cuts us off both spiritually and temporally, and from v. 7 that Christ’s self-sacrifice is to answer the ends of the law. Then here we have the statement that God gives the law, and the law has to do with punishment being affixed. The verse does not clarify, however, to what exactly the punishment has been affixed, which adds to my confusion. Affixed to sin? Or is it affixed to the law itself (or to the ends of the law)?
The “ends of the atonement” phrase always strikes me as a little out of the blue, maybe because the term “atonement” hasn’t been used yet. But what are the ends of the atonement, and are they different from the ends of the law? It looks to me like the law and the atonement are being set up as opposites (especially considering the next verse). That would make sense in terms of the law causing us to be cut off, and the atonement allowing for reconciliation. But in the end, aren’t they working for the same thing? (Presumably God gave the law for salvific purposes.)
I’m starting to think in circles, so I’m going to end there and await your insights.
Lehi's Discourse 
Sheila –
Lots of great stuff here. I’ll begin this morning by responding to a set of issues you raise in the first half of your post. And then I’ll have to turn tomorrow to the questions you raise about the incomplete sentence that takes up the second half of the verse.
You say:
Yes! Yes! That is:
I hear in your words the indication of two reversals of our usual thinking about the plan of salvation. First (from the second stretch I’ve quoted from you), the atonement has to be recognized as an enabling power that has worked on us from the beginning (this, I take it, is the whole point of Lehi’s later “ye are free according to the flesh” business), not as a conquering power that comes to us only at the end (at the end of our becoming worthy, at the end of our works, at the end of the judgment, what have you). Second (from the first stretch I’ve quoted from you), the atonement is what delivers us to not from judgment.
These reversals are, I’m convinced, the beating heart of Nephite thinking about atonement—thinking that’s being launched in this sermon from Lehi. Christ’s salvific intervention possibilizes, transforms our very flesh so that we can do good (where “doing good” means “doing something without a basic orientation to ourselves” not “doing things we consider good” or “not doing things we consider bad”). That, I take it, is why Lehi is so profoundly focused in these verses on the resurrection (isn’t it significant that he never refers to what we usually call the atonement here, only to the resurrection event and its effects?). It’s the way the resurrection transforms our very flesh that’s at the core of the atonement for the Nephites. Lehi seems not at all to be concerned about questions of sins being forgiven, only about how we can be set free from our self-obsessions.
The resurrection, further, overcomes the separations that keep us from judgment. Judgment, it seems, is nothing more than coming into God’s presence. There the relationship we’ve sustained to the God who has delivered us from ourselves comes fully to light. How do we respond to His presence? All our genuine desires are revealed there. Have we taken our freedom-through-the-resurrection as the source of all our misery, as reason to rebel against life by continuing to cling to our death—to the one thing that remains ours in light of the resurrection? Or have we praised God in the freedom granted us, given ourselves to the work of building the kingdom? The judgment is the moment where all that becomes clear. (Is this why Jacob, in 2 Nephi 9, will speak of “perfect knowledge” in the moment of reunion and judgment? We’ll know exactly what we really want, and that’ll be either devastating or the source of the greatest joy.)
Okay, I’m soap-boxing now, but I think you couldn’t be more right here. This is the Nephite theory of atonement.
And then it gets complicated by all this law business. I’ll see what I can say in response to your thoughts on this tomorrow.
Sheila, like Joe said, lots of great stuff here. Just wanted to apologize for not getting my thoughts together earlier—responding here is my first priority tomorrow!
Sorry I’m just getting back to this. I’ve been surprisingly busy this past week!
The second half of verse 10, it seems to me, can be approached broadly in at least four different ways, all motivated by the lack of a verb (which you point out):
(1) We might take “wherefore” to be, somewhat loosely, used in something like the way we sometimes use the word “hence.” We’d then read the middle part of verse 10 as follows: “Everyone ends up in God’s presence to be judged according to God’s truth and holiness. Hence the ends of the law.” That’s not crazy talk, but it’s less than satisfying.
(2) We might play with the possibility that either Nephi failed to write or Joseph failed to pronounce or Oliver failed to write or Oliver failed to copy over a verb that Lehi did in fact say. Perhaps there should be an “are” before “unto the inflicting of the punishment.” Or perhaps there should be an “are” before “to answer the ends of the atonement.” Or some other verb in some other place. This isn’t impossible, but Royal Skousen has given us some reasons to be wary about going this route (see the appendix entry on 2 Nephi 2:10 in his Analysis of Textual Variants, volume 6).
(3) We might play with the possibility that there’s dittography in this passage, an accidental repetition of “the punishment which is affixed” in the form of “which punishment that is affixed.” If the latter “repetition” is removed, we get: “Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement.” In one way, that’s really satisfying, but again it’s Royal Skousen who points out its pitfalls. If it is dittography, it’s not strict dittography, since “the” is replaced by “which” and “which is replaced by “that.” Oliver quite likely wouldn’t have done that. But Skousen doesn’t play with the possibility that Nephi, in an original language whose translation into English wouldn’t reflect it exactly, produced a dittography that we’re still dealing with. That remains an intriguing possibility—though not an unproblematic one (note, for instance, that the singular “is” doesn’t match up with the plural “ends of the law” like it does with the singular “punishment that is affixed” if we don’t emend the text).
(4) The simplest and, in a certain way, most likely explanation is simply that we have here a really tortured sentences that gets interrupted by the aside of verses 11-13 and to which Lehi (or Nephi, in his reconstruction) never gets back to. There are other examples of this phenomenon in the Book of Mormon, so it wouldn’t be at all surprising to find it. Indeed, it’s quite characteristic of the almost “oral” quality of much of the Book of Mormon. And perhaps we could play around with the possibility that Lehi cut off his sentence because he could see the way some of his sons were reacting to what he was saying about opposition already.
I’ve been convinced of every one of these at one time or another. At present, I’m most swayed by option (4). I like it because it suggest thats Lehi ties himself up in a complete knot when he begins to expound the idea of opposition—as if Lehi realizes that he’s constructed an impossible sentence and so abandons it to start anew, and much more basically (and philosophically!), in verse 11. It’s as if the second half of verse 10 just has Lehi saying, just after mentioning the judgment, something like: “Opposition!”
Of course, we can dig out a good deal more than just that from the passage, which Sheila has already begun to do. I’ll add the following systematization, just to clarify things for me:
Basic Elements
At the Punishment Extreme
The Law
The Ends of the Law
Punishment
The Inflicting of the Punishment
At the Happiness Extreme
The Atonement
The Ends of the Atonement
Happiness
“That of” (the “Inflicting” of?) the Happiness
Between the Extremes
Affixing Punishment
Affixing Happiness
Opposition
Basic Relationships the Elements
At the Punishment Extreme
The Law —— > Its Ends —— > Infliction of —— > Punishment
At the Happiness Extreme
The Atonement —— > Its Ends —— > That of (Inflicting of?) —— > Happiness
Between the Extremes
Punishment (Affixed) < —— Opposition —— > Happiness (Affixed)
Maybe something like that? At any rate, these seem to me to be the basic elements and relationships that have to be determined. Obviously, it remains to e determined exactly what "that of" refers to on the happiness extreme. It also remains to be decided what the actual significance is of the fact that "that of" (rather than "happiness" pure and simple) is apparently what is opposed to the affixed punishment. And none of this is even to begin to ask really difficult questions—some of which we've begun to discuss—like those regarding the actual meaning of "ends of the law" and "ends of the atonement," etc.
Sheila, thank you for your insightful post. In response to your discussion of the universal aspect of the atonement and the use of “all,” I like how you balance this with Abinadi’s quotation of Isaiah 53: “he bore the sins of many”—this highlights our earlier discussion on 2 Nephi 2:7—there is a universal aspect of the atonement in terms of resurrection and the availability of redemption, but the atonement is only efficacious to those who bring forth a broken heart and contrite spirit, who repent and receive salvation.
I also like your discussion of atonement as being ongoing in our lives—it is a process of sanctification. As it reads in Moroni 10:33, “And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.”
I like the point that the world’s judgment of Christ was unrighteous, God’s judgment on the world is righteous.
My favorite aspect of your discussion is when you take about God’s final judgement not being his verdict on us, but about us seeing God and ourselves as we really are. This comes down to a discussion of charity. 1 Corinthians 13: 12 “For we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” I have always thought this verse is in a discourse on charity for a reason—it is through charity that we come to see God, others and ourselves as we really are. This ties into your point about being judged of Christ instead of by Christ. Christ’s love becomes the standard we measure ourselves by and that God measures us by. The Book of Mormon is clear that charity is absolutely crucial to our salvation: Alma 34:29 “Therefore, if ye do not remember to be charitable, ye are as dross, which the refiners do cast out, (it being of no worth) and is trodden under foot of men” and further Moroni 7:47 states, “But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.” Christ’s atonement saves those who become like him, who develop charity, who live up to the standard of Christian love.
Deidre, I found your association of 1 Cor. 13:12 with the context of God’s judgment here really useful and interesting. I had never thought of that verse that way before, but I think your reading brings the force of charity into the discussion of judgment quite strongly.
Yes, Jenny’s quite right. I want to think further about what you’re spelling out here (I’ve been working quite a bit on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians lately), and about what it suggests about Paul’s larger analysis of knowledge in that letter….
Ok, finally have some time at the computer today! I, like Joe and Deidre, really think that part of what is fascinating (and important) in your reading here is seeing salvation as being brought to judgment. In thinking through this “Nephite” (perhaps better to say “Lehite”) understanding of the atonement, I can’t help but wonder if part of the power of this understanding—that their flesh will be enabled to rise and stand in the presence of God through the atonement—has anything to do with their time: that is, pre-resurrection. Is there any evidence in the Book of Mormon of a kind of shift in emphasis from the wonder of the resurrection to the wonder of grace (/forgiveness) that would pivot around the witness received of the reality of the resurrection? Would the pitfall be that whatever side of the resurrection you’re on temporally the temptation would be to undervalue the power of the other side?
Next question: I know that this may be opening up a can of worms given the academic dating of the various Isaiahs, but I wonder if the context you point out for the word “intercession” in any way points to any type of theological connection between Lehi and Isaiah? I’ve been struck several times over the past few years by the kind of literary “ghost” Lehi plays in the Book of Mormon. And I wonder if Nephi’s own love for Isaiah’s writings and their style (in which Lehi had Nephi educated) points towards Lehi’s own affinity for Isaiah, either stylistically (from the snippets Nephi shares of Lehi’s visions I think there’s some fascinating overlap) and/or theologically.
Third point: you make a parenthetical comment right at the end: “(Presumably God gave the law for salvific purposes.)” I just wonder if there’s any interpretive space opened up by flipping this assumption on its head—something like “Presumably God did not give the law for salvific purposes.” Because what I see over and over in the texts is that the law cannot save, the law does not save, the law will not save, etc. So perhaps its purpose is not salvific, but rather something different … instructive? Corporeal? Something between the two? The law as teaching mankind to see so that they might recognize the Messiah as he dabs mud in their eyes? Obviously I’m spitballing here (no irreverence intended in the pun), but what if the ends of the law are markedly different, perhaps even categorically distinct, from the ends of the atonement?
And the last point: Your discussion of the atonement as being at work all along throughout our lives, performing a gradual yet continual transformation, reminded me strongly of an excellent talk/article by Elder Bednar from 2006/7, “Seek Learning by Faith.” In it, Elder Bednar makes a significant connection between our own action—choosing to exercise faith, to act, to seek learning—and the resulting change in our own natures:
“The learning I am describing reaches far beyond mere cognitive comprehension and the retaining and recalling of information. The type of learning to which I am referring causes us to put off the natural man (see Mosiah 3:19), to change our hearts (see Mosiah 5:2), to be converted unto the Lord, and to never fall away (see Alma 23:6). Learning by faith requires both “the heart and a willing mind” (D&C 64:34). Learning by faith is the result of the Holy Ghost carrying the power of the word of God both unto and into the heart.”
The type of learning that Elder Bednar describes here is explicitly not a passive consumption of facts, but rather an experiential learning that at its heart continually invites the Holy Ghost to witness truths as we undergo the processes of putting off the natural man, changing our hearts, and being converted to the Lord. I see these processes as both physically and spiritually literal; the work of the atonement in our lives is just that: a lifetime of conversion, change, and the burning of dross. And I find it interesting that we still have an active ecclesiastical rhetoric of this type of change today.
Jenny, could you say more about your first paragraph here? I’m not exactly sure I understand the distinction between the two attitudes you mention. (And, to be fully disclosive, my question is rooted in my conviction that there’s a kind of atemporality to Nephite theories of atonement….)
In the meanwhile, let me thank you for especially your second and third points here. I like the way you describe Lehi’s influence on Nephi here—and it might be worth noting that something similar seems to be at work in 1 Nephi 10, where Lehi uses Isaiah’s words to frame his prophecies—and I like your Zizekian inversion of Sheila’s parenthetical a good deal.
Sure Joe. What I’ve been seeing in terms of thematic emphasis as we go through this chapter is a marked focus on the resurrection aspect of the atonement. I think we can view the atonement through different “lenses” so to speak: redemption from the grave through resurrection, redemption from sin through forgiveness. (Personally, I think that seeing the “whole” would be redemption through grace.) I see the Nephites as focusing more on the “redemption through resurrection” aspect theologically. And I’m speculating / wondering if this has anything to do with their temporal location: pre-resurrection.
I wonder if prophetic attitudes pre-resurrection might focus on the thing that seems most impossible because it has never been seen before: in this case, resurrection of the flesh. And, correspondingly, if attitudes post-resurrection shift to a focus on redemption of sin because once the resurrection becomes a past event temporally, the thing that seems the most impossible is atoning forgiveness.
This is not to say that the other aspect(s) of the atonement are ignored, but rather that they just are not apparently in as much focus theologically.
Maybe. I’m not committed to this reading; just wondering if there’s any evidence for it beyond the emphasis on resurrection here 2 Ne. 2. And I’d really like to hear more about how you see a kind of atemporality at work in the Nephite theories of atonement, so please take my ramblings as an invitation to expand!
Also, re: Lehi, yes, I think the same kind of thing is going on in 1 Ne. 10. And again in 1 Ne. 1. Nephi’s description of Lehi’s prophetic calling as it were (we actually don’t know if he was called as a prophet prior to this, but the text seems to indicate that this may be his first visionary experiences; at the very least, it’s significant that Nephi is presenting us to Lehi in the text itself in terms of a prophetic experience and thus providing a kind of literary prophetic calling to Lehi’s character) shares what I think are significant themes and images with Isaiah 6 (and a little with Isaiah 8).
• Fire / burning imagery
• Book / scroll imagery
• Destruction
• Preaching to people who will not understand and will reject the message and messenger (for Lehi this is both those at Jerusalem and then again in his own family)
• Angels / Seraphim praising God
• The theme of the remnant / our knowledge that Lehi’s family will be a remnant
Given how intimately Nephi is acquainted with Isaiah’s writings, it seems like this initial presentation of Lehi is not merely accidental in its Isaianic associations; I’m interested in seeing how 2 Ne 2 (and other chapters) might play into further strengthening this association, especially in terms of theology and doctrine.
Thank you for the thought-provoking post Sheila. As I read the post and comments, I’m very curious about what we mean when we say atonement and what we mean when we say resurrection. What are the conceptual boundaries for these terms? Are they ultimately interchangeable? Is resurrection merely a sub-set of the atonement? Does one lead to the other or cause the other? I feel like there is some conceptual murkiness here. For example, you use the phrase “universal aspect of the atonement” where I would be more inclined to say “universal aspect of the resurrection.” Do the Nephites or the text draw a distinction between resurrection and atonement?
I like how you point out this is the first time the word “atonement” is used in the text, and I would add this is also the first time “resurrection” is used in the text. (Although we have conceptual precursors: the Messiah is said to “rise from the dead” in 1 Ne. 10:11 and “redemption of the world” in 1 Ne. 1:19.) This makes me want to tease out how these terms are being used.
Several passages in the Book of Mormon seem to draw a clear distinction between the atonement and the resurrection.
Jacob seems to consistently make this distinction: “Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement” (2 Ne. 10:25). And again: “the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.” (2 Ne. 9:12). “[B]e reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God. . . for why not speak of the atonement of Christ, and attain to a perfect knowledge of him, as to attain to the knowledge of a resurrection and the world to come?” (Jacob 4:11-12).
An overwhelming majority of passages directly link the atonement with sins but not resurrection: “[T]he atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people” (Abinadi in Mosiah 13:28); “[T]herefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.” (Alma in Alma 34:12); “[E]xcept an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world.” (Alma in Alma 42:15). Alma makes this distinction clearer when he discusses both atonement and resurrection in the same passage: “he shall suffer and die to atone for their sins; and that he shall rise again from the dead, which shall bring to pass the resurrection.” (Alma in Alma 33:22). Notice it isn’t the death of Christ that brings to pass the resurrection, it is that he rises from the dead. Christ doesn’t break the bands of death by dying but by rising from the dead. I think this statement by Alma is very precise.
For this reason I probably would not connect Lehi’s reference to “intercession” with Isaiah 53 or Mosiah 14:12. Lehi seems to be using “intercession” to apply to the resurrection of the dead and not to transgression. As Lehi explains, the Messiah makes intercession as the “firstfruits unto God . . . being the first that should rise” from the dead. I would answer that the Messiah makes intercession between death and man. This fits with Mosiah 15:8 “And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men.” But I would conceptually sequester this from intercession between sin and man.
There seem to be other reason to keep atonement and resurrection distinct. Lehi does not speak of any need to judge whether man is worthy to be resurrected from the dead. The Messiah makes intercession for the dead for all. This universal resurrection, without any conditions, and universal judgment I might add, stands in contrast to conditions of salvation in verse 7: “unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit—and unto none else.” But I don’t know if there is universal reconciliation, unless even the unrepentant sinner is reconciled to God upon being damned.
Now, I’ve identified at least two passages that seem to run counter to all the rest of the passages above: 1) Alma states that “the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead” (Alma 42:23) and 2) Jacob states: “Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption.” (2 Nephi 9:7). Alma’s usage above seems to greatly broaden atonement to include Christ rising from the dead in a way that I don’t really see repeated by anyone or elaborated later in the Nephite tradition. The sentence has a logic to it given Alma’s progression as he crafts his sermon, but it seems to me to be an outlier. Likewise, Jacob’s usage seems a little surprising because it is Christ rising from the dead that allows corruption to put on incorruption, not his atoning for sin. Even the unrepentant will be resurrected. This sentence seems somewhat tortured and goes against the clear distinction between the atonement and the resurrection Jacob makes several times elsewhere. So, these seem to be two cases that I can find where we get a broader definition of atonement, but only against the rest of scripture that seems to define atonement to not encompass the resurrection. I’m not sure how to account for this. Alma, for example, does not repeat Jacob’s usage of “infinite atonement” but limits it to atoning of sin.
What might make this more confusing is the usage of “plan of redemption.” Again, here the phrase seems to be limited to redemption from sin. “[T]herefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.” (Alma 34:16). “[I]f ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.” (Alma 34:31). “[T]he plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state” (Alma 42:13). This seems to be a consistent articulation of the plan of redemption, but we do have at least one verse that takes a broad view of the plan of redemption: “Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken.” (Alma 12:25). Again, not sure how to explain this given the otherwise consistent usage of the phrase.
The term redemption in the vast majority of cases points to a redemption from sin. For example, “Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death.” (Alma 11:41). “[T]he resurrection of the dead, and the redemption of the people, which was to be brought to pass through the power, and sufferings, and death of Christ, and his resurrection and ascension into heaven.” (Mosiah 18:2). But there are at least two places where the text speaks of redemption from death. Most notably “[T]his is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep.” (Moroni in Mormon 9:13). And also: “[T]he redemption which the Lord would make for his people, or in other words, the resurrection of Christ.” (3 Nephi 6:20). Clearly not all men are redeemed from sin because of the conditions of repentance, so Moroni cannot mean redemption from sin.
And of course, I think we blur the atonement and resurrection because its common to use all-encompassing definitions of atonement as found in the LDS Study Helps. In more than one place we get this sentence “The atonement of Jesus Christ conquered death so that everyone will be resurrected (1 Cor. 15:21–23)” and this sentence “Because of the Atonement, everyone will be resurrected from the grave,” or this sentence “Jesus’ atonement redeems all mankind from physical death.” Technically, I don’t think these are accurate statements unless we expand the meaning of atonement to mean everything Christ does including the resurrection, but I do not think the scriptures use the term this way. I get the sense this is more of a gloss on the Atonement. Again, scripture generally doesn’t articulate the atonement or the resurrection in this fashion. And 1 Cor. 15 is not speaking about atonement for sin but the resurrection, so I can’t see how this verse supports the sentence in front of it. I also feel we have a cultural tendency in Mormonism to make the Atonement the ultimate doctrine, but I don’t know that the scriptures articulate it so. I know it is common to cite Joseph Smith as teaching that “all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages” to the Atonement, but this gloss is not entirely accurate. The full quotation is: “What are the fundamental principles of your religion?” The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven”; and all other things, are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.” (History, 1838–1856, volume B-1, pp. 249-250). This statement surely includes the resurrection: “rose on the third day.” It is fascinating that this is how Atonement is defined but I wonder whether we are reading this conceptual shorthand back into the text.
For our purposes, I just want to clarify our usages of these terms so that I can avoid misunderstanding everyone’s responses. So for example, I would say there is a universal aspect of the atonement but only if by atonement we really mean resurrection. And, it follows, I would probably say it is not the atonement which sends us to the judgment, but the resurrection.
Metaphorically, I’m willing to say that the resurrection could be deemed a kind of at-one-ment in that it brings the body and spirit back together as one, as the atonement brings man and God together as one, but I don’t recall the scriptures drawing this analogy or using atonement to mean the joining of the spirit and body. That’s reserved for the resurrection. Granted that the resurrection brings man and God back together in that man stands in the presence of God, and thus one might term it an at-one-ment, man is being brought to the presence of God to be judged, not to dwell with God or be reconciled with God. I think there is a difference between dwelling in the presence of God (house) and standing in the presence of God (courtroom). So I can’t see the resurrection in terms of man being brought back into Eden, unless we are only taking about the part in Eden where God is passing judgment upon Adam and Eve for their actions.