Translation: Verse 24 and 25 obviously reflect the vocabulary of Paul:
Rom. 7:4
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Gal. 2:19
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
The concept of contrasting a “dead” law and a “living” Christ is uniquely Pauline. The vocabulary is found only in Paul and in Nephi. There should be no doubt that the vocabulary in Nephi owes a debt to Paul. What is the nature of that debt? Is this a Pauline sentiment long before Paul, or is this another artifact of Joseph’s vocabulary? It is the latter.
The evidence that there are two different concepts couched in similar terms comes from the contrast in the meaning for Paul and Nephi of the concept of the “dead law.” In both, the law is “dead” because it does not provide salvation. Both Paul and Nephi understand that salvation comes through Jesus Christ. The crucial difference lies in the import of this shift in the nature of the law and what it means. While for both it is a celebration of the mission of the Savior, the impact on the social structures of the communities is diametrically opposite.
The key lies in 2 Nephi 25:25. After making the dead/alive difference, Nephi notes that they “keep the law because of the commandments.” Thus in Nephi we have a Jewish community continuing to abide by the law while looking to Christ as their ultimate salvation. The Nephite resolution of Torah and Christ is to keep both. The Pauline resolution is to declare the end of the special laws of Torah, particularly circumcision and dietary laws (neither of which is mentioned by Nephi).
In Paul, the original context of the dead/alive dichotomy is precisely the severance of Christian from Torah:
Rom. 7:1-6
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Paul’s argument begins with the example of marriage, with a particular purpose. Paul is using the understanding of the permanence of marriage to become the symbol of the permanence of Torah. Marriage is a binding relationship between husband and wife - so long and the man lives. After that, however, the wife is freed from the marriage, and may marry another.
Paul sees Torah as a binding relationship between covenant people and God only so long as Torah lives. When Torah becomes “dead” the “marriage partner” is freed from the binding relationship, and is able to go to another. In this analogy, Paul creates division between Torah and a Christianity not bound by Torah. Were the passage in Nephi informed by the meaning of Paul rather than just the language of Paul, we would expect to see in Nephi a polemic against circumcision, or against any other form of Torah observance. Not only is this absent, but we have in Nephi precisely the opposite reaction. Nephi’s people continue in their relationship with Torah, adding on to it the realization that it is the Messiah who will save, and not Torah.
In the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s religious vocabulary was used to develop certain themes. In this case, Joseph was familiar with Paul, and uses Paul’s vocabulary to describe Nephi’s intent. The structure of that intent, however, differs despite the similarity in the usage of vocabulary.