Michael Biggerstaff and Dr. Jared Ludlow, Ancient Scripture

“Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him” (2 Nephi 11:4). These words of Nephi, concerning the Law of Moses typifying Christ, are echoed by several other Book of Mormon authors, including Lehi, Jacob, Jarom, King Benjamin, Abinadi, Amulek, and Mormon. More authors could be added to this list if it included those who spoke of Christ’s fulfilling of the Law of Moses. Latter-day Saints, and Christians in general, believe, almost as a basic tenet of faith, that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. But herein lays the question: how did the atoning sacrifice of Christ fulfill the Law of Moses?

I approached my research with the historical understanding that the Book of Mormon begins in Jerusalem—the hub of Israelite religious practice. This is important because the religion of the day was the Law of Moses, which consisted of over 600 statutes (according to Jewish tradition) and strict purity regulations. Any breach, intentional or unintentional, distanced an individual from God. As such, the heart of the Law of Moses became the law of sacrifices (contained in Leviticus) which provided the means whereby the individual could be rectified towards God. These sacrifices took place at the temple, located in Jerusalem. Being from Jerusalem, Lehi was probably very familiar with the Old Testament worldview of sacrifice. His familiarity would have influenced his teaching of his children, which in turn could have influenced his grandchildren, and so on through the generations of the Book of Mormon.

From there I began an in-depth study of the Law of Moses, focusing on the laws of sacrifice because it was the sacrifice of Christ that fulfilled the Law of Moses. Leviticus 1-6:7 describes five distinct sacrifices: burnt (1:1-17), grain (2:1-16), peace (3:1-17), sin (4:1-5:13), and trespass (5:14-6:7). In examining the laws of sacrifice, I was looking primarily at the function of blood and the process of atonement, for King Benjamin declares that the “law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his [Christ’s] blood” (Mosiah 3:15).

As I proceeded in the study I became intrigued by two occurrences of atonement. The first occurs in the burnt offering, where provision is made for atonement after the offerer places his hand upon the head of the offering (Lev. 1:4). Elsewhere in the sacrifices, atonement is mentioned at the end of the ritual, as a result of performing the ritual. Here it is associated with the laying on of hands as opposed to the entirety of the ritual (the verb “to make” that appears in the King James Version is not required in the Hebrew). The second appears in a graduated form of the sin offering, where flour can be offered to effect atonement (Lev. 5:11-13). That a non-animal, and therefore non-blood sacrifice could produce atonement not only intrigued me but seemed to counteract the Christian notion that atonement is wrought through Christ’s blood, nothing else. The more I studied atonement and its supposed dependence on blood, the more I found myself in the midst of a greater argument: what exactly is atonement.

The word “atonement” is an English word of late date used to translate the Hebrew root kpr. Modern scholarship on Hebrew kpr is quite revealing as to the uncertainty of a direct translation. Scholars use the context in which the word is found in the Hebrew Bible as well as cognate languages in efforts to pin down a meaning for the word. The results merit numerous possible meanings, none of which seeming to meet with universal acceptance by scholars. While the specific meaning of kpr is debated by linguists, the context within the laws of sacrifice seems to yield a general meaning of setting right. That setting right could be through a ransom, washing, purging, covering, or wiping off of sin stains. Whatever the specific case may be, the general meaning seems to be little affected.

However, as I have begun to shift my focus away from the Old Testament and toward the Book of Mormon, I have come to realize that the ambiguity in the specific meaning for kpr may bear significant weight to a study of atonement in the Book of Mormon. Assuming the majority of authors understood Hebrew, then kpr could have been more prevalent in the original record than atonement is in the current English, appearing in a grand total of 34 verses (I do not know how kpr would have translated into Reformed Egyptian, but that could be part of what Morm. 9:33 is referring to). Such being the case, I read through the entire Book of Mormon marking every occurrence in which the concept of atonement is taught noting the key words, some of which happen to also be suggested translations of kpr. I found that atonement is taught far more often than the word appears.

Currently this is where my research lies. After I began my research I realized just how vast of a topic I proposed. The more I study, the more questions I have to answer. As such, I am still in the process of analyzing the data and drawing conclusions. Thus far I can say that atonement as taught in the Book of Mormon differs from that taught in the laws of sacrifice in that there is a very obvious typifying of Christ in the Book of Mormon. If the laws of sacrifice in the Old Testament are seen as typifying Christ, it is because the reader already knows about Christ, rather than any explicit references. I have also found that in the sense of Christ “fulfilling” the Law of Moses, He did not seem to do away with it as much as modify it. For example, sacrifice is still required. While Christ did away with the need for such sacrificial rituals as described in Leviticus, he specifically commands the sacrifice of a “broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Ne. 9:20). Furthermore, the 10 commandments are still in full force, though elaborated upon by Christ.

My research for this ORCA has thus far merited a 33-page paper focused on analyzing the relationship between the sacrificial offerings and the effects produced. Furthermore, my research led to a paper proposal which was accepted for presentation this November at the National Society for Biblical Literature conference held in Atlanta, Georgia. I am continuing my research and writing until I have satisfactorily completed a paper worthy to submit to The Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture.