Perfect Paradox - Chapter 2: To Answer the Ends of the Law

Having set forth the Father’s supremacy in the Plan of Happiness, I now turn to Christ, the “desire of all nations” (see Haggai 2:7), for salvation is in God, the Redeemer. He is the great whole into which the Father has circumscribed all truth. “If we are to envision our Lord’s true status and glory,” wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1981), “we must come back to the pronouncement of pronouncements, the doctrine of doctrines, the message of messages, which is that Christ is God. And if it were not so, he could not save us” (p. 98). Thus said Lehi to his son Jacob:

Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

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 (2 Nephi 2:6-7).

Few verses teach so much about the doctrine of atonement in so few words. What is this law of which Lehi spoke? What are the ends of this law? And how did Christ answer the ends of this law? These questions should pique the interest and attention of every gospel student, for it is within the answers to these questions that a more complete understanding of the atonement rests.

Gratefully, but not surprisingly, the Book of Mormon “provides the most comprehensive explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement” (Benson, 1986, p. 5). We are indebted to it for providing complete answers to these questions. Without this book written for our day, we would be as those carried about by every wind of doctrine and ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth. This “seed” that contained the fulness of the gospel lay in the earth until, at last, it sprouted in fertile soil and was “sent forth” out of the earth “to sweep the earth as with a flood” (see Moses 7:62) to swallow the creeds and lies that had swept the earth as with a flood (see Revelation 12:16) for nearly two millennium.

Turning now to the doctrine of atonement and the ends of the law—like many, I had heretofore considered the expression ends of the law in a generic sense. Adhering to this approach, this expression simply means “the objectives of the law,” or the purpose for which the law was given. Suited to this approach, the 1854 Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase as “a final cause; an object for which the thing exists; the purpose for which it is designed or instituted.” I suggest that this is a correct and sufficient definition for most practical purposes.[1] Aside from this generic definition, it is interesting to explore whether the expression can be pragmatically viewed? In other words, does the law identified by Lehi have two ends—like a yardstick—that should be thoughtfully examined?

Although pragmatism might be a less than ideal method to view gospel concepts, in this instance I think it helps in order to develop the framework that strengthens our doctrinal understanding of the atonement. One author (Nyman & Tate, 1988), in taking this literal approach, has suggested that the ends of the law are “love and mercy” (p. 303). Another (Callister, 2000) writes that “the Atonement ran the full gamut of the law, end to end, mercy to justice” (p. 314), suggesting that mercy and justice rest at the ends of the law. Without diminishing these insights or suggesting they are incorrect, I propose that the expression ends of the law might be most thoroughly developed by looking to the identity of the law and the principles upon which it operates.

Adding to what Lehi taught concerning the ends of the law, Nephi, Lehi, Alma, and Amulek set forth doctrine that confirms the relationship between law, justice, judgment, punishment, and happiness. In his early writings, Nephi taught that the justice of God is expressed in and through Christ, the Eternal Judge (see 1 Nephi 12:18).[2] Lehi further noted that there is a punishment affixed to law opposite that of the happiness that is also affixed (see 2 Nephi 2:10).[3] In an attempt to persuade his wayward son of the certainty of justice, Alma then brought Nephi’s and Lehi’s teachings together into a precise declaration of doctrine: “But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted,” he wrote, “which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law,[4] and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:22; emphasis added). And finally, Amulek named this law of which the earlier prophets spake and called it “the whole law of the demands of justice” (see Alma 34:16).[5]

From the foregoing verses and commentary given elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1) The JUSTICE OF GOD is vested in Christ. He is the “word (i.e., the Divine Expression) of the justice of the Eternal God” (1 Nephi 12:18). He separates light from darkness and the righteous from the wicked. His brightness is “like unto the brightness of a flaming fire, which ascendeth up unto God forever and ever, and hath no end” (1 Nephi 15:30). To Him, the Father has committed all judgment (see John 5:22)—He shall stand to judge the nations.

2) A distinction can be made between the LAW OF THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE and the JUSTICE OF GOD that “executes” or invokes the LAW.

3) Although they are distinct expressions, it is clear that the DEMANDS OF JUSTICE, mentioned by Alma, are the ENDS OF THE LAW identified by Lehi.

4) MERCY, which has the power to satisfy the DEMANDS OF HIS JUSTICE (see 2 Nephi 9:26), is innately tied to a BROKEN HEART and CONTRITE SPIRIT.

5) HAPPINESS and PUNISHMENT are affixed to the ENDS OF THE LAW opposite each other.

6) PUNISHMENT, or misery, is the proximate result of God’s penalty[6] and HAPPINESS, or joy, is the proximate result of God’s reward.

According to Millet, McConkie, and Top (1992), all of Heavenly Father’s children, Christ included, answer the demands of justice, or the ends of the law, in one of two ways:

1) by perfect obedience to gospel law to which happiness and a reward is affixed, or

2) by disobedience to gospel law to which punishment and a penalty is affixed (p. 340).

Commenting on these two ways, Elder Gerald N. Lund (Nyman & Tate, 1989) taught:

Remembering the two principles that constitute the law of justice, i.e. obedience brings joy, violation brings suffering, then one could say that there are only two ways to satisfy the demands of that law. The first is to keep the law perfectly, that is, never to violate it in any degree. A second way to satisfy the demands of the law of justice would be to pay the penalty for any violations of it (p. 91).

Based on these insights, I suggest that one end or demand of the Law of the Demands of Justice is PERFECTION, to which HAPPINESS and a reward is affixed, and that the other “end” or demand of the law is BROKEN LAW, to which PUNISHMENT and a penalty is affixed. It may be helpful to visualize the relationship of these concepts as illustrated in Figure 1 below:

FIGURE 1.

Christ answered both ends of the law—He kept the law perfectly and, contrary to the demands of the law and notwithstanding His perfection, He was also punished for broken law. Focusing on Christ's compliance to law, Elder Lund (Nyman & Tate, 1989) continues:

What did the Messiah do to meet both those conditions [i.e., to answer the ends of the law]? He kept the law perfectly. Not once in his entire mortal life did Jesus violate the law in any way. He was the Lamb without spot or blemish. He was perfection and that perfection answered the law; that is, the law had no claim on him. But Christ did more than this . . . . Not only did Christ keep the law perfectly for himself, but he suffered the penalty for all violations as though he himself were guilty of them. Thus he satisfied the law of justice in both dimensions (Nyman & Tate, pp. 91-92).[7]

“The law was broken; Jesus died that justice might be satisfied” (Nicholson, 1985, p. 174). It is within this ultimate contradiction—the Innocent unjustly suffering the penalty for broken law—that mercy is born. It is also because of this benevolent act that Christ, on conditions of faith unto repentance (see Alma 34:16), has power to bring all men unto Him (see D&C 18:12; compare Helaman 5:11). So important was the mission of Jesus Christ in fulfilling this single commission of answering the ends of the law that Lehi exclaimed:

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, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved (2 Nephi 2:8-9).

With love that never faileth, Christ inviteth all who will (see 3 Nephi 9:14) to come unto Him, “for he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all those who have faith in him” (Moroni 7:28).

WORKS CITED

Benson, E. T. (1986, November). The Book of Mormon--Keystone of Our Religion. Ensign.

Callister, T. R. (2000). The Infinite Atonement. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.

McConkie, B. R. (1981). The Promised Messiah: The first coming of Christ. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company.

McConkie, J. F., Millet, R. L., & Top, B. L. (1992). Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Vol. 4). Salt Lake City: Bookcraft.

Nicholson, J. (1985). While of These Emblems We Partake. Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 174.

Nyman, M. S., & Tate, J. C. (Eds.). (1988). The Book of Mormon: First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation (Vol. 1). Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center.
Nyman, M. S., & Tate, J. C. (Eds.). (1989). The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure (Vol. 2). Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center.

ENDNOTES
[1] The Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (2004) explains that the expression refers to the “consequences of the Fall and to the ‘punishment that is affixed’ for disobedience to God’s commandments (2 Nephi 2:5, 10)” (p. 26).
[2] Compare 1 Nephi 15:28-30, Mosiah 2:28; Mosiah 15:27, and Alma 10:20-21.
[3] A reading of 2 Nephi 2:10 makes it clear that the “opposition in all things” spoken of by Lehi in verse 11 of that same chapter as a necessary component to the existence of good and evil is not opposition in the context of material things such as light versus dark, sound versus silence, or bitter versus sweet as sometimes portrayed in various commentaries and over church pulpits. Rather, I suggest this opposition is a specific reference to the opposition that exists between punishment and happiness.
[4] Notwithstanding, we learn from modern revelation that God executes all things (see D&C 88:40). Thus, God, who is justice, executes the law that He devised.
[5] This law—the Law of the Demands of Justice—has two close gospel relatives known as the Law of the Harvest, which declares that whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap (see D&C 6:33) and the Plan of Restoration, which teaches that men should be judged and, depending upon their works in this life, have good or evil restored unto them (see Alma 41:3-4). These three gospel cousins are governed by, and each are equally requisite with, the justice of God.
[6] God’s punishment consists of “justice and judgment” (see D&C 82:4).

[7] See also McConkie (1991, p. 251).