Behold,
I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye
shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3
Nephi 15:9)
There has recently been a
controversy online due to this verse in the Book of Mormon as Jesus says “I am
the Law of Moses” in The Chosen, and this has triggered a number of Protestants.
According to some, this is evidence of the Law of Moses, in the theology of the
Book of Mormon, being salvific and/or not being abrogated with the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, this is false for many reasons.
Even during Old Testament times,
when they were under the Law of Moses, the Book of Mormon prophets were
explicit that the Law of Moses was not salvific. For instance, Abinadi
stated that:
And
now ye [the critics of Abinadi] have said that salvation cometh by the law of
Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses
as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be
expedient to keep the law of Moses. And moreover, I say unto you, that
salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement,
which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that
they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. (Mosiah
13:27-28)
Speaking of converted Lamanites
who would join the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, we read that
Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them. Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come. (Alma 25:15-16)
Nephi, writing centuries earlier,
understood that salvation came through Christ and not the Law of Moses,
notwithstanding the people having to keep the Law of Moses as they were still
under the Old Covenant. On this, as well as the meaning of “after all we can
do,” see my friend James Stutz’s article, “After
All We Can Do” as a reference to the Law of Moses.
With respect to 3 Nephi 15:9, let
us read the verses prior to such for context:
And
now it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he cast his eyes
round about on the multitude, and said unto them: Behold, ye have heard the
things which I taught before I ascended to my Father; therefore, whoso
remembereth these sayings of mine and doeth them, him will I raise up at the
last day. And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived
that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would
concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things
had passed away, and that all things had become new. And he said unto them:
Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all
things had become new. Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that
was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted
with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come
to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end. Behold, I do not destroy the
prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you,
shall all be fulfilled. And because I said unto you that old things have passed
away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are
to come. For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all
fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me. (3 Nephi
15:1-8)
Brant Gardner offered the
following commentary:
[vv.
3-5]:
The
old things (the law of Moses) have “passed away”—not by being removed or torn
down but by being fulfilled or completed. Indeed, it might be more accurate to
say that they have been transformed. They are still the law but are transformed
into something new: the law of the gospel.
Yahweh-Messiah
explains that, since he is the lawgiver, he has the right and power to fulfill
and transform it. Of course, much of the Nephite understanding of God already
presaged this change, so little in the gospel would have been surprising to
them. The change would more likely affect ritual practices than individual
religious understanding or devotion.
[vv.
6-7]
Jesus
echoes the language of 3 Nephi 13:17 where he had also indicated that he had
come to fulfill, not destroy, the law. He now links that promise to the concept
that old things have passed away—a transformation rather than a destruction.
Jesus explains that he is fulfilling and transforming that which had been “spoken
concerning things which are to come.” Living the law of Moses affected how a
person would face God at the end. That ultimate judgment has not changed.
Indeed, the Messiah’s gospel exchanges our ability to stand transformed, or
fulfilled, before God at that last day.
[vv.
8-9]
Jesus
explains verse 7 more explicitly in the connection between these two
statements. The law of Moses is fulfilled; and in Jesus-as-fulfillment, we may
eventually have eternal life. Thus, while changes in practice may occur, the
goal does not. Indeed, the gospel improves our ability to reach the ultimate
goal of eternal life. Believers would no longer attempt to achieve eternal life
by observing the law of Moses but rather by living the gospel and enduring to
the end or persisting until the process is complete. (Brant A. Gardner, Second
Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6
vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 5:474-75, comments in square
brackets added for clarification)
Interestingly, Charles Haddon
Spurgeon, “the prince of preachers,” used similar language to describe Jesus. In
a sermon "Jehovah
Tsidkenu-The Lord Our Righteousness" he taught that
the
text speaks about righteousness too—"Jehovah our righteousness." And
he is so. Christ in his life was so righteous, that we may say of the life,
taken as a vehicle, that it is righteousness itself. Christ is the law
incarnate Understand me. He lived out the law of God to the very full, and
while you see God's precepts written in fire on Sinai's brow, you see them
written in flesh in the person of Christ.
While one disagrees with Spurgeon
attempting to support imputed righteousness in his sermon (see Response
to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness), I don’t think anyone
in their right mind would charge Spurgeon with the charge of believing the Law
of Moses was not abrogated with the death and resurrection of Jesus, that the
Law of Moses is salvific, etc.
This is not a novelty among Protestants and others. 16th-century German Protestant theologian Johann Pistorius, in 1553, wrote that:
Lex est sapientia Dei; Christus est sapientia Dei; ergo Christus est lex (English: The Law is the Wisdom of God; Christ is the Wisdom of God; therefore, Christ is the Law)
Source: "Johannes Pistorius til Paul Noviomagus, Wittenberg, 27 June 1553," in A. Andersen, comp., Quattuor Centuriae Epistolarum: Provst Johannes Pistorius' Brevsamling 1541-1605 (1614) (Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, 1971), 50
Same Protestants who are
triggered by this:
say “Amen” to the following:
Update: Dan Lioy on Jesus as the Torah in the Gospel of John
The
following is taken from:
Dan
Lioy, Jesus as Torah in John 1-12 (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2007),
6-10
Recognizing
Jesus as Torah in the Fourth Gospel
In the previous section, the Lord
Jesus was referred to as the divine, incarnate Torah. Casselli helps establish
the rationale for this designation noting that in the Fourth Gospel, the
Evangelist presented the Messiah “in a way that is consistent with the Judaisms
of his day.” The depiction one encounters is “profoundly Torah centered.”
(Casselli, “Jesus as eschatological Torah,” 16) Furthermore, in keeping with
the Evangelist’s end-time theological perspective, he portrayed the Son as the
“eschatological Torah itself.” In point of fact, the entire “scope of Jewish
theology” is re-read “through the lens” of the Savior’s “death, resurrection,
and ascension.” (Casselli, Jesus as eschatological Torah,” 17) Likewise, the
“interpretive traditions” that form the historical and cultural backdrop of the
Fourth Gospel must be viewed through the Torah-fulfillment prism of Jesus’
redemptive mission. (Casselli, “Jesus as eschatological Torah,” 18)
According to Keener, Jesus as the
perfection of the gift of the Torah is a recurrent theme first introduced in
John 1:1-18 and reiterated throughout the Fourth Gospel. [23] While there are
other conceptions of God—including those of Wisdom [24] and the Word [25]—none
of these eclipses that of Torah to convey the “thought of one who was divine
yet distinct from the Father.” [26]
With the advent of the Son, the Father
did not just break His “prophetic silence” and speak again. More importantly,
the incarnation of the divine torah “means that all God had already spoken was
contained in Jesus, the ultimate embodiment of all God’s Word.” (Keener, John,
1:361) In short, Jesus as Torah functions as dominant leitmotif (together with
Logos) to conceptualize the totality of the person and work of the Son.
Moreover, it is a powerful Christological symbol that illumines all the other
major themes appearing in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus as Torah is the center from
which the divine plan of redemption, as conveyed in John’s Gospel, is
fulfilled.
Notes
for the Above
[23] Keener, John, 1:278. He
explains that the “prologue presents Jesus as Torah, greater than Moses”
(1:51). Also, the role the Son plays in the Fourth Gospel mirrors that of the
Torah “in contemporary Judaism” (1;361). With respect to the latter, Jaffee
(“Torah,” 13:9231) states that “in Judaism,” the word tôrâ was “the
quintessential symbol.” In like manner, Sanders (“Torah and Christ,” 381) notes
that by the first century of the common era, the “Torah was . . . the symbol
par excellence, incomparable, indestructible, and incorruptible, of Judaism.”
Indeed, the Torah “meant Judaism’s identity and way of life” (cf. Sir 45:5;
John 5:39; Rom 7:10; Gal 3:21). Marshall (“Johannine theology,” 2:1085) adds
that “rabbinic Judaism” spoke of the Torah “in personal terms,” declared it to
be “preexistent and an agent in creation,” and referred to the Torah as “the
giver of light and life” to humanity. In the view of Davies (Torah, 93),
the Fourth Gospel epitomizes Jesus as “the personalized Torah” of Judaism.
[24] Reed (“How Semitic was John”),
based on his study of the Old Testament Apocrypha, concludes that an
“amalgamation evolved between the Greek sophia (wisdom) and the Greek logos
(word)” in which the two terms were viewed as “synonymous” (716; cf. Wis
9:1-2; 2 Enoch 3:8). Over time, “the rabbis parted with wisdom and settled for
Torah, or law” (719). Correspondingly, Glasson’s examination of the rabbinic
writings from the Second Temple period of Judaism suggests that Wisdom was
believed to have its source in the Torah (cf. Sir 15:1; 19:20; 39:1). In
addition, Wisdom was so identified with the Torah that there was a transference
to the Torah of what had been ascribed to Wisdom (Moses, 87-88; cf. Bar
3:29-4:1; Gab Rab. 17;5; 31:5; 44:17; Lev Rab 11:3; 19:1; 4 Macc 1:16-17; Sir
24:1, 23-24; 34:8; Wis 18:15). Carson (John, 1:354) proposes that the
Evangelist favored “Logos because ‘Word’ had broader OT connotations more apt
to conjure up the image of Torah,” yet “without excluding the common nuances
his readers would have associated with Wisdom.” Also cf. Beyler, Torah,
127-30; Coloe, God dwells with us, 62, 214; Epp, “Wisdom, Torah, Word,”
132-33, 135; Evans, Word and glory, 130; Heschel, Heavenly Torah,
681-82; Lincoln, John, 96; McGrath, John’s apologetic Christology,
151-52, 154, 177; Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 34;
Thompson, God of the Gospel of John, 130-133; Whitacre, John.
[25] Reed (“How Semitic was John”)
points out that “several times the LXX uses logos (word) to refer to the
Torah either literally or in an abstract form” (cf. Exod 35:1; Deut 1;1; Ps
119:105). He suggests that “some Jewish writers and translators had no qualms
about replacing logos with nomos.” In effect, the “two terms
became synonymous in Jewish thought” (718). In like manner, Casselli (“Jesus as
eschatological Torah”) argues that when the Evangelist employed the Greek noun logos
(cf. John 1:1, 14), he was thinking of the Old Testament phrase rendered
“the word of the Lord” (25). In light of the connections between the Fourth
Gospel and the “Pentateuchal tradition,” it is quite probable that the
Evangelist considered logos to be “basically interchangeable with Torah”
(26). This supposition is confirmed by the Septuagint referenced to the Ten
Commandments (which the Lord gave to Moses on Mount Sinai) as tous deka
logous or the “ten words” (Exod 34:28; Deut 10:4; cf. Exod 24:3; Deut
32:47). Further confirmation is found when the Septuagint version of the
following Old Testament verses are considered: Isaiah h1:10, in which logon
kyriou (“word of the Lord”) and nomon theou (“law of God”) are used
in synonymous parallelism; Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2, in which nomos
(“law”) and logos kyriou (“word of the Lord”) are used in synonymus
parallelism; Isaiah 5:24, in which nomos kyriou (“law of the Lord”) and logion
(“word”) are used in synonymous parallelism; and Jeremiah 6:19, in which logion
(“words”) and nomon (“law”) are used in synonymous parallelism; and
Jeremiah 6:19, in which logon (“words”) and nomon (“law”) are
used in synonymous parallelism; cf. Beyler, Torah, 121-22. There is
enough precedent to conclude that both logos and nomos denote
“the “independent personified expression of God” (Danker, Greek-English
lexicon, 610).
[26] Keener, John, 1:281. He
proposes that the Evangelist addressed a “community of predominately Jewish
Christians” who, due to their “faith in Jesus,” had been “rejected by most of
their non-Christian Jewish communities.” One can imagine the religious elite of
the day making the following claims: (1) Judaism is a “religion of Torah”; and
92) the “prophetic, messianic Jesus movement has departed from proper
observance of God’s Word (particularly from orthodox monotheism)” (1:364). The
Evangelist responded in the Fourth Gospel with these counterclaims: (1) the
Messiah is the “full embodiment of Torah” and completes “what was partial (but
actually present) I Torah”; (2) the Son “embodies the hope of Judaism” (1:417);
(3) the decision to become a follower of the savior “entails true observance of
Torah”; and 94) because “Jesus himself is God’s Word,” no person is able to
“genuinely observe Torah without following Jesus” (1:364). Keener’s proposal
helps us explain why, as Whitacre (Johannine polemic, 29) observes,
“every explicit dispute in John makes reference to Moses and/or the Law” (cf.
1:17, 45; 2:22; 5:39, 45-47; 6:32; 7:19, 22-28; 8:17; 9:28-29; 10:34-35; 12:34;
13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36-37; 20:9). Also, cf. Ellis, Genius of
John, 4-6; Evans, Word and glory, 184-86; Lincoln, John,
77-78; Whitacre, Johannine polemic, 1-2, 5-6, 10-11.
Elsewhere (ibid, 199), we read the following about the use of Zech 9:9 in John 12:14:
As the “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6), the Messiah will one day bring peace and manifest God’s glory throughout creation—even to the heights of heaven (cf. Luke 19:38). This truth mirrors that the shepherds heard on the night of the Savior’s birth. They were greeted by a chorus of angels who gave glory to God and announced peace for all who received the Lord’s favor (cf. 2:14). John 12:14 quotes Zechariah 9:9 to reinforce the providential way in which Jesus as Torah was the realization of all that the Hebrew sacred writings foretold concerning the divine plan of redemption. John 12:16 notes that at first Jesus’ disciples did not grasp the deeper meaning of the incidents connected with the Redeemer’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Like the exuberant crowd, the disciples thought that Jesus was the Messiah; but also like them, they did not comprehend the true nature of His mission. After Jesus was raised into His glory, however, His disciples came to realize that the Old Testament messianic prophecies were about the Savior. They also began to recognize what they themselves had done for their Lord. (Dan Lioy, Jesus as Torah in John 1-12 [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2007], 199, emphasis in bold added)
