Non-Levitical Kohens and the Etymology of Cumorah

A few years ago, Mitchell Pacwa, a Jesuit priest and Old Testament scholar, released a CD set entitled “Answering Missionaries at your Door” critiquing Latter-day Saints (as well as JWs). In one segment of his talk, he claimed that “Cumorah” in the Book of Mormon is derived from a Hebrew word, but that it derives from the term komer, which refers to an idolatrous priest, as distinct to that of Kohen. In a debate on the Catholic priesthood in 2003, Pacwa also claimed that the only figure in the Hebrew Bible called a kohen who was not a Levite was Melchizedek (Gen 14:18; cf. Psa 110:4). However, both “criticisms” are faulty.

On the latter, Pacwa is incorrect in stating that Melchizedek is the only non-Levite who is called a כֹּהֵן. Other examples include the Egyptian priests in Gen 47:22 and Jethro, a Midianite, in Exo 18:1:

רַ֛ק אַדְמַ֥ת הַכֹּהֲנִ֖ים לֹ֣א קָנָ֑ה כִּי֩ חֹ֙ק לַכֹּהֲנִ֜ים מֵאֵ֣ת פַּרְעֹ֗ה  וְאָֽכְל֤וּ אֶת־חֻקָּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֙ר נָתַ֤ן לָהֶם֙ פַּרְעֹ֔ה עַל־כֵּ֕ן לֹ֥א מָכְר֖וּ אֶת־אַדְמָתָֽם׃

Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharoah gave them,: wherefore they sold not their lands. (Gen 47:22)

  וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע יִתְר֙וֹ כֹהֵ֤ן מִדְיָן֙ חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֵת֩ כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֙ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ כִּֽי־הוֹצִ֧יא יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃

When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father in law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. (Exo 18:1; cf. Exo 2:16; D&C 84:6)

With respect to the Hebrew term  כֹּמֶר John A. Tvedtnes and Stephen D. Ricks dealt with this issue in their article, “The Hebrew Origin of Three Book of Mormon Place-Names”:

A more plausible etymology for Cumorah is Hebrew kəmôrāh, “priesthood,” an abstract noun based on the word kômer, “priest.” This form is based on the Hebrew noun pattern (mišqal) peʿullāh,[6] with the vowel of the second consonant of the root, “m,” lengthened “compensatorially” from “u” to “ō/ô” because the third consonant of the root, “r,” cannot be doubled.[7] Kōmer/kômer and kəmôrāh may be compared in both form and meaning with the Hebrew nouns kôhēn, “priest,” and kəhunnāh, “priesthood.”[8]

Some have privately objected that this explanation is unlikely because the term kômer is always used in the Old Testament in reference to false priests (see 2 Kings 23:5; Hosea 10:5; Zephaniah 1:4), while the word kôhēn is used to denote Israelite priests.[9] But this objection fails to note that both terms are used together in the Zephaniah passage. It seems more likely to us that the term kômer was simply used to denote a priest who was not of the tribe of Levi, while kôhēn in all cases refers to a Levitical priest. Since Lehi’s party did not include descendants of Levi, they probably used kômer wherever the Book of Mormon speaks of priests.

Notes for the Above

[6]. See James L. Sagarin, Hebrew Noun Patterns (Mishqalim): Morphology, Semantics, and Lexicon (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 33–34.

[7]. See P. Paul Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome: Institut biblique pontifical, 1923), 54.

[8] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974), 464; compare also Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 279, who defines the neologism kəmôrāh as “Christian clergy, priesthood,” but also notes the Hebrew noun pattern peʿullāh upon which it is based.

[9] One suggestion was that this would give a meaning of “priestcraft,” rather than “priesthood” to the name Cumorah were it to derive from kômer. But note that 2 Nephi 10:5 indicates that it would be “because of priestcrafts . . . at Jerusalem” that Christ would be rejected. The “chief priests” who opposed Christ were descendants of Levi and were designated by the term kōhēn. See the definition of “priestcraft” in 2 Nephi 26:29.

John Calvin on 1 Corinthians 4:6

In a previous post, I provided a brief exegesis of 1 Cor 4:6, showing that, contra Matt Slick et al., the verse does not “prove” sola scriptura. Interestingly, John Calvin, an ardent proponent of sola scriptura, did not interpret this verse as being a strong “proof-text” in favour of this doctrine. The following comes from his commentary on this verse from his multi-volume commentary on the Bible (taken from Bibleworks 9):

The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways—either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.

G.K. Beale on Revelation 3:14

Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ·

And to the angel in the church in Laodicea write: "The words of the Amen, the true and faithful witness; the beginning of the creation of God." (My translation from the Greek)

Much ink has been spilled about the meaning of Christ’s title in this verse, “the beginning of the creation of God.” Odds are, if you interact with groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, you will come across this verse, as they sometimes appeal to it to support their Arian Christology. Here is what one leading scholar of the Apocalypse writes on this verse:

Despite what most commentators think, the titles in 3:14 do not link Jesus to the original creation, but are an interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection drawn from 1:5. His resurrection is viewed as the beginning of the new creation, which is parallel with Col 1:15b, 18b; cf. “first-born of all creation” (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως) in Col 1:15b, which may refer to the original creation in Genesis, and “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” in v 18b (αρχη, πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων). The latter phrase refers to the resurrection as a new cosmic beginning (as evident from the link not only with Col 1:15-17 but also with 1:19-20, 23). This is parallel with 2 Cor 5:15, 17, where Paul understands Jesus’ resurrection as bringing about a “new creation” (cf. the lining of ωστε [“so that”]; see also Eph 1:20-23; 2:5-6, 10) . . .That is, Christ as “firstborn from the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth” in 1:5 is interpreted in 3:14 as designating Christ as the sovereign inaugurator of the new creation. Consequently, the title “beginning of the creation of God” refers not to Jesus’ sovereignty over the original creation but to his resurrection as demonstrating that he is the inauguration of and sovereign over the new creation.

G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 298. Emphasis in original.

Alma 49:4 and "casting" arrows

Alma 49:4 is rather an unusual verse in the Book of Mormon, were we read that the Lamanite warriors “cast their arrows” over the Nephite fortification walls. The use of the verb “cast” is rather unusual, and seems out of place. However, in light of the Ancient Near Eastern background of the text, alongside the Mesoamerican setting of the volume, the verse make perfect sense.

In Mesoamerica, a primary weapon of war in Mesoamerica was the atlatl. This implement consisted of a carved stick about eighteen inches long that was grasped at the user’s right hand as he extended his throwing arm behind him. The end of a relatively long, heavy arrow was placed with its blunt end against a notch at the far end of the atlatl, while two fingers of the user’s hand held the projectile parallel to the throwing stick. When the user cast his arm and the weapon forward, the length of the atlatl served to increase the propelling power of the thrower’s arm. That gave the thrower greater leverage to increase the velocity and range of the missile. If the Nephites and the Lamanites used the atlatl, we could understand why such would pose a problem for attackers if they attempt to “cast” their “arrows” into the stronghold, just as the wording in the account in the verse neatly states.

Furthermore, the expression in the verse could stem from use of the Hebrew root yrh, which means “to throw.” When the word is applied to arrows in biblical usage, the English translation literally reads “to throw” (e.g., 1 Sam 20:20, 36-37).

(The following was based upon John L. Sorenson, “Joseph Smith and Ancient American Civilisation,” in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch [Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002], 261-306, here, pp. 295-96]).

BTW, to see the atlatl in action, check out this video on youtube (also notice how the term "sword" is used to describe the macana):

"Sabaoth" in the Doctrine and Covenants

According to critics such as Richard Packham, Joseph Smith gave the incorrect interpretation of the word “Sabaoth.” The term means “hosts,” yet in D&C 95:7 we read (emphasis added):

…The Lord Sabaoth, which is by interpretation, the creator of the first day, the beginning and the end.

In the New Testament (Rom 9:29; Js 5:4) and in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 87:7; 88:2; 98:2), it usually denotes armies, whence it is rendered "hosts" in many Old Testament passages. Especially notable are the words of David to Goliath, "Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied" (1 Samuel 17:45). In this passage, the same Hebrew term is rendered "hosts" and "armies." If the word denotes armies, how could the Lord have told Joseph Smith that it meant creator? For an explanation, we must turn to the earliest occurrence of the Hebrew term in the Bible, in Gen 2:1, which sums up the creation by saying, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." In this passage, the term is clearly connected to creation rather than warfare. In his commentary on Gen 2:1, E. A. Speiser noted that the term rendered "hosts" was an allusion to all that God had created, not to angelic armies as some had supposed (Genesis, vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible, p. 7).

The verbal root of the Hebrew noun means, "to gather, to assemble," which is what armies do in time of war. But it is also a process of creation and, in the context of Genesis 2:1, it might best be translated "assemblage," in reference to all of God's creation. When Isaiah wrote of the "Lord of hosts," he added, "thou hast made heaven and earth" (Isa 37:16). Understood in this way, one can better understand why the prophet Isaiah heard the heavenly beings surrounding the throne of God cry out, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of HOSTS: the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3). All of God's creations reflect his glory, as we read in Psalm 19:1, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork" (cf. Pss 57:5, 11; 89:6; 108:5; Hab 3:3). A third- or fourth-century A.D. Jewish copper amulet found near Kibbutz Evron, Israel, has a Greek inscription that speaks of "the One who made the heavens and founded earth and established sea who made everything, Iao Sabaoth" [Jehovah of Sabaoth], confirming the meaning. After describing the sun, moon, stars, and the earth, the Lord told Joseph Smith, "Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power" (D&C 88:47; cf. D&C 84:101). So, in fact, the passage in question is really great evidence for Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. Indeed, as one scholar put it:

Most of Joseph Smith’s teachings could not be verified during his own lifetime, and it took great faith on the part of others to accept his message. Generally speaking, this is true even today. Yet there is a dimension that has been added in recent times. Many of Joseph Smith’s teachings are now known from ancient Jewish and Christian documents that were unavailable to him. (Joseph Smith and the Ancient World [copy of unpublished manuscript in my possession])

Further Reading:

Matthew L. Bowen, “'Creator of the First Day': The Glossing of Lord of Sabaoth in D&C 95:7," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 22 (2016): 51-77

Romans 4:9 and the Justification of Abraham

In Reformed theology, one is declared (not “made”) righteous based on the alien imputed righteousness of Jesus. However, the verse immediately after one of their favourite “proof-texts” (Rom 4:1-8) disproves this theory. In Rom 4:9 we read (emphasis added):

Ο μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν; λέγομεν γάρ· ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

The “blessedness” of Abraham (his “justification”) is not based on imputed righteousness, but Abraham’s faith. Indeed, based on the strict grammar of the Greek of this verse and Rom 4:5, 22 refute Reformed soteriology and its understanding of the “ground” of justification.

Catholic Apologists, Matthew 1:25, and εως ου

Tim Staples, a popular Catholic apologist, has a forthcoming book on the Marian Doctrines entitled Behold your Mother (Catholic Answers, 2014). In the past number of years, he has written a number of articles defending Roman Catholicism’s Marian dogmas, including the following two articles on the perpetual virginity:

  

The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Mary Worshippers Need not Apply

In this post, I will focus on Staples’ attempt to defend perpetual virginity with respect to the phrase “until” (εως ου) in Matt 1:25.

For those who do not know, Catholic apologists for decades have focused on trying to show that the bare term εως does not, in and of itself, necessitate the cessation of the main clause (e.g. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism [1988]). However, Matt 1:25 does not use this term, but εως ου. For a full-length study of this term, see the opening chapters of Eric D. Svendsen’s book, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism, a book endorsed by leading Matthean scholars such as Craig Blomberg.

Catholic apologists have cited two alleged instances of εως ου being used wherein the main clause continues. To quote Staples in "The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity":

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary.Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

In this article, “Mary Worshippers need not apply,” Staples provides another alleged instance:

Pastor Bob responds by pointing out that the text in Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until,” whereas the texts you alluded to use heos alone. “The words heos hou together indicate the opposite is true after the ‘until’ is fulfilled,” Pastor Bob declares. 

Having heard that one before you quickly quote 2 Peter 1:19: “And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

“This text uses heos hou for ‘until,’” you say. “Now, I ask you, what is the prophetic word referring to in this text?” you ask rhetorically. “Prophecy doesn’t refer only to future events foretold. It simply means ‘the mind of God spoken forth.’ Does this text mean there will come a time when we won’t have to pay attention to the Word of God? Obviously not!”

Let us examine these two texts.

Acts 25:21

The Greek (followed by the NRSV) reads as follows (emphasis added):

τοῦ δὲ Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν, ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς Καίσαρα.

But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his Imperial Majesty, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to the emperor."

Catholic apologists such as Staples, Sungenis, Pacheco, and Albrecht who appeal to this text miss the point of this passage completely. Firstly, the Greek does not say that Festus held Paul in custody. The Greek word used here is simply "kept/held" (τηρεω) and the verse simply states that Festus "held" Paul until he could send him to Caesar. The question becomes, "Kept where or in what way?" The plain meaning in context is that Festus "held" Paul in Caesarea as opposed to sending him back to Jerusalem (contrary to the request of the Jews) to stand trial (vv. 15-20). The point here is not one of "custody," but location. Obviously, once Paul had been sent to Caesar (Rome) he was no longer "kept" in Caesarea. Hence, εως ου in this verse functions in its normal way, indicating cessation of the action of the main clause once the "until" has been reached.

2 Peter 1:19

καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν.

So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Staples (and other Catholic apologists) again miss the point of this verse. Peter is not addressing truth as a category, but specifically "the word of the prophets" that are subsequently inscripturated (vv. 20-21). Scripture then is compared to a "shining light." The "dark place" is this present age through which the Scriptures give us safe passage. The phrase "day dawns and the morning star rises" is doubtless a reference to the parousia (final coming of Christ), after which it will no longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets as a guide which navigates us through a dark place, since Christ Himself will supersede any such need. Hence, once the εως ου is reached at Christ's coming, we will no longer "see through a mirror darkly," or "know in part"; rather we will "see face to face" and "know fully just as we also have been known" (cf. 1 Cor 13:12). Once again, when we read the passage correctly, we see that εως ου retains its normal usage.

The Catholic response to the use of εως ου in Matt 1:25 are to be found wanting, exegetically. Latter-day Saints are on firm biblical-grounding for rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Odes of Solomon: Evidence of the Antiquity of Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

Some Catholic apologists have appealed to a pseudepigraphical text called the Odes of Solomon, dating from the late first/early second century as evidence for the antiquity of the perpetual virginity of Mary. For instance, Gerry Matatics, who was once a traditionalist mainstream Catholic (now a Sedevacantist) has appealed to Ode 19 as evidence that the perpetual virginity is taught in this text, evidencing both its antiquity and apostolicity within early Christianity.

While not a Gnostic text[1] they do provide evidence of being tinged with Gnosticism, such as the Protoevangelium of James and similar works such Gnosticism and other heretical concepts (even from Roman Catholicism’s perspective), and this comes out in Ode 19 itself[2]:

A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness. The Son is the cup, and the Father is he who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is she who milked him; because his breasts are full, and it was undesirable that his milk should be released without purpose. The Holy Spirit opened her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. Then she gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand. The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth. So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies, and she laboured and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation and possessed with great power. And she loved with all salvation, and guarded with kindness, and declared with greatness.

Hallelujah.

Notice a few things—

Firstly, Ode 19 presents the Holy Spirit as a woman, which is antithetical to Catholic theology.

Secondly, the Ode presents God the Father as having breasts which the Holy Spirit milked.

Thirdly, with respect to the Virgin Mary, it is not said that she remained a perpetual virgin, but that she did not experience labour pains during the birth of Jesus, which is very docetic in its Christology.[3]

The more careful Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologist for the perpetual virginity of Mary should avoid using this text as evidence in favour of this particular teaching of their Mariology. Furthermore, Latter-day Saints and others are in the enviable position of privileging the biblical texts over later traditions and letting the plain meaning of the pertinent texts and the underlying Greek speak for themselves (e.g., Matt 1:18-25; 12:46-48; 13:55-56; John 7:1-5)

Notes for the Above

[1] See the discussion in J.H. Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrpha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985), ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2:725

[2] Ibid., 752-53.

[3] At best, one could argue that this text shows that Mary’s hymen remained in tact post partum which is part of the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Of course, such screams of Docetic tendencies which the biblical authors would reject (cf. 1 John 4:1-3).

Logical Proof that Calvinism makes God the author of Sin

God created all things ex nihilo.

Therefore, the ultimate source and origin of one’s will is God.

God’s foreknowledge is exhaustive, not contingent (as it is within certain systems, such as Socinianism).

Related to the above, God’s foreknowledge is active, not passive—that is, God decrees all things, including sinful acts, and such events will infallibly take place, and not simply foreknows events passively (as one finds within simple foreknowledge and other theories of foreknowledge).[1]

Therefore, God is the author of sin.

Only by explicitly rejecting at least one of the above premises can a Calvinist consistently claim that God is not the author of sin. However, all the following premises are part-and-parcel of Reformed theology.

Notes for the above

[1] On the relationship between God creating ex nihilo and one’s will, consider the following from Blake T. Ostler, The Problems of Theism and the Love of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 410:

If the causes of our acts originate from causes outside of our control, then we are not free and cannot be praised for blamed for what we do resulting from those causes. If the causes of our actions are outside our control, then our acts that result from such causes are not within our control either. Thus, a person must be an ultimate source of her acts to be free. By an ultimate source, I mean that some condition necessary for her actions originates within the agent herself. The source of action cannot be located in places and times prior to the agent’s freely willing her action. The source of the action is the agent’s own will that is not caused by events or acts outside of he agents but from the agent’s own acts of will. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is contrary to such a view of agency on its face. Consider that: (1) If a person is created from nothing, then he is never the ultimate source or first cause of her choices. If we assume that (2) all persons are created from nothing, then it follows from (1) and (2) that (3) no person is the ultimate cause or source of anything. This argument does not require any particular concept that God acts in relation to humans or brings about their acts through cooperative grace. All it requires is the notion of creation ex nihilo. If the libertarian demand that we must be the ultimate source of our choices to be morally responsible for them it sound, then God cannot create morally responsible persons ex nihlo. In some sense, persons must be co-creators, first causes, unmoved movers of their own wills, and the source of their own choices

Moroni 10:32 (and various New Testament texts) as being aspirational

Moroni 10:32 reads as follows:

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

These words are mirrored in another work authored by Moroni in Ether 12:26-27:

And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying, Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; and if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

Some critics of LDS theology holds that this is a command and that LDS theology is “salvation: mission impossible.” Funny thing is that many of these critics hold to the Bible being the infallible, inerrant word of God, the same text which contains texts such as Matt 22:37 (cf. Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27):

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

In reality, such texts and similar ones in the New Testament are aspirational, similar to Moroni 10:32.

Just consider the following quotes:

In the Bible, Christ says "follow me", "be ye therefore perfect", “sell all and give”, and keep my commandments".  Like the Moroni 10 passage you ask about, these commands seem quite absolute, but they are just as easily understood to be aspirational in nature. (Stephen E. Robinson, Believing Christ, 89-90).

Evangelical Christian scholar Millard Erickson says something similar:

Certain difficulties attach to assuming [we can achieve freedom from sin], however.  One is that it seems contradictory to repeatedly exhort Christians to a victorious spotless life unless it is a real possibility.  But does this necessarily follow?  We may have a standard, an ideal, toward which we press, but which we do not expect to reach within a finite period of time.  It has been observed that no one has ever reached the North Star by sailing or flying toward it.  That does not change the fact that it is still the mark toward which we press, our measure of “northerliness.”  Similarly, although we may never be perfectly sanctified within this life, we shall be in eternity beyond and hence should presently aim to arrive as close to complete sanctification as we can.” (Christian Theology. p. 986)

Therefore, Moroni 10:32 in the Book of Mormon should be interpreted as one interprets similar admonitions in the Bible, that is, they should be understood, not as prerequisites for salvation, but as goals reflecting God's standards.

Does Genesis 15:6 prove Reformed Soteriology?

Many who hold to Reformed theology point to Gen 15:6 as biblical “proof” that Abraham was justified once-for-all at Gen 15:6:

And he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him as righteousness.

The Hebrew and Greek of this verse reads as follows (emphasis added):

וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן בַּֽיהוָ֑ה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ לּ֖וֹ צְדָקָֽה

καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην

In the view of many Reformed apologists (e.g. James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy [1996]; The God Who Justifies [2001]) this text proves that justification is an external, forensic act where one is declared (not made or recognised to be [intrinsically]) righteous/just, and, furthermore, that justification, unlike (progressive) sanctification is static; it is not a process and cannot be lost by the individual.

While many topics could be discussed, in this post, I will limit myself to the phrase, “and it was reckoned/credited to him as righteousness" and whether the biblical authors interpreted Gen 15:6 in a way that is commensurate with the Reformed/Calvinistic reading of this verse.

Does the phrase, “And it was reckoned to him as righteousness” support Sola Fide?

In the Old Testament, only two individuals are said to have had righteousness reckoned to them. Abraham in Gen 15:6 and Phinehas in Psa 106:30-31.

For background on Phinehas, we have to turn back to Num 25 in which some of the men of the Israelite camp were engaging in cultic sexual intercourse with Moabite and Midianite women (e.g., Num 25:2-3, 6), resulting in God commanding Moses to kill them (Num 25:4), resulting in 24,000 who died in the plague (Num 25:9). In defiance of this divine command, and Israelite man brought a Midianite woman to his tent, more than likely to engage in such cultic sexual intercourse. Phinehas, a priest, saw this happen and took the following action:

And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israelite into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. (Num 25:7-8)

Not only did Phinehas’ actions propitiate the wrath of God, but the psalmist, recounting the incident in Num 25 (Psa 106:28), and the meritorious act of Phinehas, wrote:

Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations. (Psa 106:31)

The only difference between the phrase used in Gen 15:6 and Psa 106:31 is that the former uses the Qal form of the verb חשׁב ("to reckon/credit"; LXX: λογιζομαι) as opposed to the Niphal form in the latter with no significant change in meaning. The phrase in both verses read identically in the LXX. The problem this poses to Reformed theology is that Phinehas is the recipient of this righteousness, not due to faith, but meritorious good works!

There has been no end of scrambling by Reformed apologists to answer this. One response is to dismiss this text as relevant simply because Paul did not appeal to it (this is the “response” by James White in his book The God Who Justifies and in his 2000 debate versus Catholic apologist, Robert A. Sungenis [available online here]). A similar response comes from Reformed author, John Murray:

For if he [Paul] had appealed to Psalm 106:31 in the matter of justification of the ungodly, then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction and would have demonstrated justification by a righteousness and zealous act . . .Genesis 15:6 is dealing with justification, as Paul shows. Psalm 106:31 is dealing with the good works which were the fruit of faith. (John Murray, Commentary on Romans vol. 1 p. 131 as cited by Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, 246)

Sungenis (Ibid., 247-48) answers this charge rather cogently:

Murray’s claim that Paul’s quoting of Ps 106:31 would have “created a contradiction” is only true if one’s theology predisposes one to view Abraham’s crediting of righteousness as a forensic imputation — a mere considering of righteousness that is not inherent — rather than as a manifestation of infused righteousness inherent within the individual and appearing at a specified time. Murray’s theological presupposition forces him to put Paul in the dubious position of having purposely to ignore the only other time the phrase “credited with righteousness” is used of an individual in Scripture (Ps 106:31) just to prove a point and avoid a contradiction in his own theology. In fact, the only thing, according to Murray, that saves Paul from contradiction is Paul’s deliberate refusal to bring Ps 106:31 into the discussion. Though Murray makes a valiant attempt to salvage his own theology, he inadvertently puts Paul at odds with Scripture. This is a highly untenable situation in biblical hermeneutics since it has long been accepted by responsible theologians that Scripture is one cohesive whole which does not contradict itself. It also puts Paul at odds with himself, since it was he, inspired by the Holy Spirit, who quoted incessantly from obscure Old Testament passages — for example, Paul’s quote from the obscure passage of Hk 2:4 in Rm 1:17 — to prove to his audience what was not immediately obvious about the gospel and its relationship to the old covenant. Moreover, it was Paul himself who said that “All Scripture was inspired and profitable for teaching...” (2Tm 3:16), Ps 106:31 presumably included. Murray’s words, “For if he had appealed to Ps 106:31...then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction...” show the desperate lengths faith alone theologians will go to protect their presupposition. Can we imagine Paul ever teaching someone not to appeal to a certain Scripture — a Scripture that is so intimately related to the topic at hand — because it would contradict one’s interpretation of another Scripture? In the annals of biblical revelation, there is no such suggestion ever made by any of the sacred writers. Moreover, Murray’s claim that the work of Phinehas was merely the “fruit of faith,” does not offer him an escape from the clear language of Ps 106:31. If he can claim that Paul could not have used Ps 106:31 to prove his point about justification in Romans 4, then he must also admit that the Psalmist chose the wrong terminology to describe Phinehas’ righteousness, since under Murray’s hypothesis the specific words “credited with righteousness” may only refer to imputed righteousness. Murray cannot have it both ways, that is, he cannot, on the one hand, say that the language of Ps 106:31 is so strong toward teaching justification by works that Paul was forced to ignore the verse to avoid a contradiction, and, on the other hand, say that Ps 106:31 refers only to the fruit of faith but not justification proper. In the first suggestion he attempts to make the verse very strong, in the latter suggestion he attempts to make it very weak. Both cannot be true. Hence, someone is wrong, either the Psalmist or Murray. The evidence is against Murray, since his position argues from silence whereas the language of Ps 106:31, like the language of Gn 15:6, is clear and unambiguous. The Holy Spirit, through inspiration, assigns the work of Phinehas the same justifying nomenclature that is given to Abraham, i.e., “credited with righteousness.” Granted, Paul has a major point to make in Romans 4 concerning the crediting of righteousness to Abraham, but Paul sets the context of Romans 4 in opposition to the concept of legal obligation and the incessant boasting of the wayward Jews, not in opposition to God-glorifying and grace-prompted works such as those done by Phinehas. In effect, Murray’s error exposes the false notion in Protestant thought which understands work only as the qualifier of faith, rather than as an independent virtue which when added to faith has power to justify under the grace of God. Hence, the “inherent contradiction” Murray predicted is merely a contradiction in his own theology.

There are many other flaws in such an approach to the phrase, but let us consider just one more.

In Reformed theology, there is the doctrine of “Total Depravity,” which states that, although we are not as evil as we can be (due to the Spirit of God restraining our hearts), there is nothing inherently good within us, and until we are regenerated, justified and given true (“saving”) faith, we are evil in the eyes of God, and, furthermore, until we are irresistibly drawn to God by His efficacious calling (the “I” in TULIP being irresistible grace), we can do nothing good in the eyes of God, and any religious motivations we do are idolatrous, not righteous, in his eyes. However, this poses problems to Calvinism vis-à-vis the life of Abraham. We must ask that, if Abraham was justified once-for-all in Gen 15:6, which would mean that prior to this time he was “dead in sin” (per the Reformed understanding of this phrase from Eph 2:5), why did Abraham not only engage in pious religious activities but God accepted them? Consider the following which is not just textually prior to Gen 15:6, but chronologically prior to Gen 15:6, too:

And the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land; and there builded he an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him. And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord. (Gen 12:5-6)

Do notice that Abraham did have an “object of faith,” namely Yahweh and the promises He made to Abraham (some will claim that Abraham did not have any “object” of faith, but any study of the life of Abraham preceding Gen 15:6 shows this to be a desperate ploy to avoid the obvious ramifications of this and similar verses have for Reformed soteriology).

What is even more devastating for James White et al., is that the New Testament refutes such a view, ascribing “saving faith” to Abraham and his wife in Gen 12, not 15:6(!)

Recounting many great heroes of faith, the author of Hebrews hearkens back to the Book of Genesis and the lives of Abel, Enoch, and Noah:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him; for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Heb 11:4-7)

In the above pericope, Abel, Enoch, and Noah, by their faith, are said to have pleased God. There is no question that this is not a “so-called” or “false” faith, but what Protestants would label a “true” or “saving” faith that, in their theology, appropriates the alien righteousness of Christ (per the historical Reformed interpretation of James 2). The problem, however, are the verses that follow:

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whether he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promise. (Heb 11:8-11)

The author of Hebrews, in the above pericope, ascribes “saving faith” to both Abram and Sarah. However, the incident in their life pertains to Abraham being called out of his homeland to the Promised Land, as recounted in Gen 12:1ff. This proves that the biblical authors believed Abraham had “saving faith” prior to Gen 15:6, refuting further Reformed theology. As is the case in so many instances, Reformed apologists and authors have to go against the Bible to prop up their made-man theology (e.g. imputed righteousness; sola scriptura; purely symbolic understanding of baptism; creedal/metaphysical Trinitarianism, etc.).

In this brief analysis, we have been that the claim that Gen 15:6 supports Reformed theology to be wanting, and that such a soteriology is in clear opposition to the clear teachings of the biblical texts about the meaning of the term, “it was credited to him as righteousness” and the walk with God Abraham had, as recounted in Gen 12 and Heb 11.

Calvinism vs. God's desire to save all men

Some Calvinists interpret [texts such as 1 John 2:1-2] as saying that God has a desire to save only various ethnic groups in the world, not each and every individual within those groups; or that God’s desire to see men saved can refer only to the “elect” since they are the only ones eventually saved. Both interpretations take their liberties with the context that are simply not justified. The inspired author’s stress on individuals through the use of “everyone” and “anyone” in 1 Timothy 2:1 and 2 Peter 3:9 clearly indicates that God is interested in saving individuals and suggests nothing about ethnic groups. Moreover, to say that God’s desire to save applies only to the elect contradicts other passages, e.g., Ezekiel 18:21-32; 33:11; Acts 17:25-26, in which God sincerely pleads with all the wicked to turn from their evil ways. That such misinterpretations could persist in light of these contrary Scripture passages show how important it is to give Scripture its full weight and meaning, without dilution or misrepresentations, in understanding the subject of predestination and free will. It is much too tempting to “read into” each passage one’s particular bias or presupposed theology.

Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification (Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997), 438 n. 30

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

One of the distinctive beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is their contention that Jesus and Michael are the same person(*). In JW Christology, Jesus pre-existed as Michael and now exists as the spiritually re-created archangel Michael (JW theology does not hold to a physical resurrection, so Christ/Michael is “only” a spirit). For a booklet providing an overview of what (and why) JWs believe what they do, see What does the Bible Really Teach, a booklet JWs pass out while engaging in their witnessing activities.

There are many responses to this Christology one can offer to the JWs one will encounter, whether at work or, more often than not, when they come to one’s door on a given Saturday. While I am critical of much of his Christology, Sir Anthony Buzzard presents a good discussion of the problems with the JW appeal to Michael being called a “prince” in Dan 10:21 as evidence for their theology here:

Moreover, such a Christology is at odds with the very first chapter of Hebrews, where the author (who I believe to be the author of Luke-Acts, not Paul) alludes to and quotes from a series of Old Testament texts in an attempt to prove, among other things, that Jesus is greater than any of the angels. As archangels (in my experience, JWs claim there is only one archangel, Michael, though I am not sure if that is “official” JW teaching) and angels are the same ontological class. In effect, JW Christology answers the questions the author of Hebrews claims there are no answers to and that the author was wrong in his assertions. Consider the following (quoting the JW’s very own New World Translation [NWT]):

For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "you are my son; I, today, have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"? (Heb 1:5)

But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him." (1:6)

Also, with reference to the angels he says: "And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire." But with reference to the Son: "God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." (1:7-8)

But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? (1:12)

In these texts, Christ is presented as (1) distinct from all angels and (2) superior to all angels. To read them in the way that JW theology dictates makes the entire Christology and apologetic arguments of the author of Hebrews of the supremacy of the New Covenant over the Old to be internally inconsistent! One cannot engage in any meaningful exegesis of these texts and hold to a Christology that teaches Michael and Jesus are the same person. If any Latter-day Saint gets into a theological conservation with a JW acquaintance, they would do well to ask questions based on this issue to get them thinking about this central issue than "peripheral" issues such as the propriety of celebrating birthdays or blood transfusions.

(*) Some individuals and groups have associated Michael as a "Christophany" (OT appearance of the premortal Jesus), but such was/is interpreted within a Trinitarian framework (e.g. Charles H. Spurgeon). The JWs hold to an Arian Christology and interpret their identification of Jesus with Michael within that framework (e.g. non-eternal personal pre-existence), differentiating them from the Seventh Day Adventists who hold the "OT Christophany" view (at least from my, albeit limited, readings of SDA literature). So, unlike some other individuals and groups who make this association (and therefore hold that Jesus is ontologically "deity"/"God"), the JWs hold that Jesus is, ontologically, an angel.

“As Far as it is Translated Correctly” and the Geographical Details in the Gospel of Mark

The Articles of Faith are 13 articles that briefly sum up the very basic points of Latter-day Saint doctrine. They can be found in the Pearl of Great Price in the LDS canon (an online edition from the Church’s Website can be found here).

The eighth article of faith states the following (emphasis added):

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Historically, there have been no consensus among Latter-day Saints what this phrase means—some LDS believe this refers to the translation, from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into another language being correct, while others hold that the term “translated” refers to the redaction of the biblical texts (informed by things such as textual criticism). My own view has been to take this article of faith to be both. However, this post will briefly look at correctly translating the underlying original language texts of the Bible.

I studied Hebrew and Greek at both an undergraduate and postgraduate level in a Catholic theological institution, and continue to have an interest in these languages (especially Greek) since then, and find such things to be “fun” (probably more of an indication of my being a theology nerd than anything else . . .) as well as being of great benefit as one who enjoys scriptural exegesis and LDS apologetics. Often one finds that the English translation one uses sometimes misses some of the nuances of the text, resulting in some of the purported “errors” in the biblical texts one finds in some of the literature (for the record, I reject inerrancy of Scripture [not just the Bible], but find some of the “proofs” of errancy with respect to the purported original texts to be wanting). I found the following note in a book by Robert H. Stein, Jesus, the Temple, and the Coming Son of Man (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2014), p. 51 n. 8 that highlights the importance of reverting back to the Greek of the New Testament:

One of the alleged geographical errors of Mark is found in 7:31. Here Mark refers to Jesus returning from the region of Tyre “by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.” If one looks at a map of these areas it would be like going from Portland to Denver by way of Seattle and the Great Plains . . . However, in describing the journey Mark first lists the place of departure (Tyre), then the goal of the journey which is indicated by “toward” (eis) (the Sea of Galilee) and that this was “by way of” Sidon and the Decapolis. We have the same claim that Mark erred geographically in 10:1 where we read, “He left that place [Capernaum, 9:33] and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.” Once again we should note that mark first lists the point of departure (“that place”), then the goal of the journey “to” (eis) (the region of Judea), by way of the eastern side of the Jordan River. (This was a frequent route used by Jews travelling from Galilee to Judea or the reverse in order to avoid going through Samaria.) A final example is found in 11:1 where Jesus and the disciples “were approaching [eis] Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives.” If one again observes that Mark mentions Jerusalem first because it is the ultimate goal of their journey, not because it is the first place they will come to, the alleged error disappears.

I also found the following warning about being careful that one’s attempt at “harmonisation” of Scripture is not just harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation, but to be exegetically sound and consistent (p. 107 n. 12):

The present writer once experienced a young doctoral student seeking to harmonise two apparently contradictory biblical passages and heard the professor dismiss his explanation saying “Das is nur Harmonizerung!” No reasons were presented as to why the explanation was flawed or incorrect. It was enough to say “That is simply a harmonisation” to dismiss the argument. Suggested harmonisation or explanations of biblical passages are neither right nor wrong because they are harmonisations. The rightness or wrongness of such attempts depends on the rightness or wrongness of the reasoning of such explanations.

The Greek of John 8:58 and the Personal Pre-Existence of Jesus

Latter-day Saints, as with the majority of those within the broad Christian spectrum, hold to the personal, conscious pre-existence of Jesus Christ (one potent, explicit example from uniquely LDS Scripture would be D&C 93:10-11). However, there are small groups that hold to what one would label a “Socinian” Christology, one that holds that Jesus did not have personal pre-existence, instead hold that he pre-existed in the “mind” or “plan” of God (“ideal” or “notional” pre-existence). Groups that hold to this perspective would include the Church of God Abrahamic Faith and the Christadelphians.

Much has been written on John 8:58 and whether it teaches Jesus is Yahweh based on the “I am” (εγω ειμι). However, another debate within Christology is whether John 8:58 teaches the personal pre-existence of Jesus.

To watch a Socinian (so-called “Biblical Unitarian”) perspective on this, see the video by Anthony Buzzard, a member of The Church of God, Abrahamic Faith General Conference (his arguments are a summary of those found in his 1998 book, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound)

However, Buzzard must go against the majority of exegetes and the rather plain meaning of the underlying Greek to argue against Christ pre-existing. To give just one example, the following comes from Greek grammarian, K.L. McKay:

Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to present time: Lu 13:7 ιδου τρια ετη αφ ου ερχομαι ζητων καρπον . . . και ουχ ευρισκω, it is now three years since I have been coming looking for fruit . . .and not finding it; Lu 15:29 τοσαυτα ετη δουλευω σοι, I have been slaving for you all these years; Jn 14:9 τοσουτον χρονον μεθ υμων ειμι . . .; have I been with you so long . . .?; Ac 27:33 τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατην σημερον ημεραν προσδοκωντες ασιτοι διατελειτε, today is the fourteenth day you have been continuing on the alert without food; Jn 8:58 πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born. This is a form of the continuation realisation of the imperfective aspect, and similar uses are found with the imperfect tense and with imperfective participles. (K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach [Studies in Biblical Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 1994], 41-42; emphasis in bold my own.)

On this vein, I would highly recommend the article by David L. Paulsen, Jacob Hawkens, and Michael Hansen, "Jesus was not a Unitarian,"(*) a review of another book by Buzzard, Jesus was not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus (2007)—I once joked to a friend of mine that I tend to agree with the titles of Buzzard’s works, but not much else ;-)

(*) A lengthier version of the article is available. If anyone wants a copy, email me at irishlds87atgmaildotcom