This is the Messiah, and we are here told that the resurrected dead, as a consequence of his intercession, will be judged by the law which he has given. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, expresses the same thought: "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom. 2:12-16. Compare Words of Mormon, v. 11) The title, "the Holy One," and particularly, "the Holy One of Israel," is frequently applied by Isaiah to our Savior. It occurs 25 times in the book that bears his name, and only six times elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Is. 29:23 the title is, "the Holy One of Jacob," followed by this explanation, "the God of Israel." Jacob and Israel were two names of the same patriarchal ancestor.
There is a reason why the Prophet Isaiah prefers this title. When he was called to the prophetic office, he saw, in a vision, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and he heard the attendant seraphim crying, one to another, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." (Is. 6:1-4) To Isaiah our Lord after that was "The Holy One," or, "The Holy One of Israel," or "Jacob." The use of this title by Lehi in an address to his son Jacob, who was named after the patriarch, is appropriate and full of meaning. In Rom. 8:1-8); nor abide in his presence. It should be noted that this title is found in the latter part of Isaiah, from chapter 40 to chapter 60, and not only in the first part; which should go far to prove the unity of the book, both in design and authorship.
Opposition in all Things. Here the prophet seems to refute the theory of monists who maintain that all existences may be considered as ultimately belonging to only one category. They find in this view an escape from what appears to be contradictions, conflict, war and confusion between the natural forces of the universe; for, they argue, if there is but one fundamental essence, one principle, there can be no fundamental conflict. But Lehi teaches that there is an opposition in all things. If not, he says, there would be neither righteousness nor wickedness; neither good nor bad; and, consequently, no responsibility, and neither rewards nor punishment.
Were there no law, there would be no sin, no virtue, no happiness and even no God. But, if there were no God, we ourselves would not exist, for there would have been none that could have given us existence.
That is an inevitable conclusion from the premises of an absurd philosophy.