Justification, Sanctification, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

1 Cor 6:9-11 reads:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of god. And this is what some of you used to be. but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God.

The verbs απολουω, αγιαζω, and δικαιοω are all in the aorist. The term “washed” is clearly a reference to baptism (cf. Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5); indeed, this text shows that both justification and sanctification are effected through baptism, another biblical proof of baptismal regeneration. What is significant, however, is that, not only is δικαιοω in the aorist tense, but so is the verb αγιαζω. Why? In Reformed theology, only justification is a once-for-all event; sanctification is an on-going process. However, Paul speaks of sanctification in the aorist. Absolutising this verse, as many do with Rom 5:1, means that one will have to hold that sanctification, too, is an external, once-for-all event that is static in the life of the believer (unless one wishes to hold to "Hyper-Calvinism").

Equally significant is that Paul treats "sanctification" and "justification" as virtually interchangeable--the context supports such an interchange, since it deals exclusively with the conduct of the Corinthian congregation, not the appropriation of an alien righteousness. The pericope also refutes the Reformed ordo salutis as one would expect "justified" to precede "sanctified," but the opposite occurs in the text (in fact, in the New Testament, the verb form δικαιοω never precedes αγιαζω).

As a final note on 1 Cor 6:9-11, there are many texts in the New Testament where the word "sanctified" or "sanctification" are used when one would expect to see "justified" or justification" (e.g., Acts 26:18; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Thess 2:13; Heb 10:29).

With respect to Rom 5:1, Protestant apologists are guilty of reading too much into the use of δικαιοω being in the aorist passive participle (δικαιωθέντες).

The purpose of the Greek aorist participle is not to make a definitive statement that the justification only occurs in the past, but to indicate that the justification precedes, not in time but logical order, the distribution of the "peace" that Paul says we attain as a result of this justification. This makes perfectly logical sense as one cannot have peace with God unless one is justified.

In Rom 5:5, we read the following:

And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

Paul here uses the perfect passive tense for the verb εκχεω, which has strong sacrificial connotations in the LXX. The meaning of this tense is that the "pouring" is a completed act that has continuing effects in the future. When v. 1 is read in light of this verse, one can conclude that, just as God can perform an independent act of pouring love into our hearts in the past and continue to do such in the present and future, so God can begin our justification at a specific time in the past but continue to manifest and increase it throughout our lives.

The Origins of "Xmas"

Often one will hear well-meaning individuals who claim that "Xmas" is irreverent at best; blasphemous at worse. However, such is without warrant. The following is an article I tend to post on facebook just before Christmas every year which discusses the term's origins (available here).

Is the Book of Mormon Dependent upon the Spurious Comma Johanneum?

Carlos Xavier, an online Unitarian apologist (and son-in-law to Sir. Anthony Buzzard, author of Unitairan works such as Jesus was not a Trinitarian [for a thorough refutation of this book, see here]) recently posted an image on facebook in the Socinian-themed group, “Restoration Fellowship”:

No doubt, Xavier is attempting to portray the Book of Mormon as being textually dependent upon the spurious 1 John 5:7-8. Notice, however, 3 Nephi 11:35-36 is not a quotation of the Comma Johanneum. Moreover, that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) (1) bear witness to one another and (2) are "one" (though not within a Trinitarian or Modalist understanding) are themes found in non-contested texts n the Johannine literature (John 8:18; 10:25, 30; 17:11, 21-22).

As with many arguments against the Book of Mormon, this one does not hold up under any scrutiny.

Gregory L. Smith, "Cracking the Book of Mormon's 'Secret Combinations'?"

Since the Book of Mormon's initial publication in 1830, critics have argued that the locution, "secret combinations" as a veiled reference to Masons in a very negative sense, reflecting, they argue, the anti-Masonic sentiment in the 1820s. One of the earliest critics of the Church, Alexander Campbell, forwarded this argument in his 1831 review, "Delusions." The leading proponent of this thesis in recent years is Dan Vogel.

There have been many cogent responses to the thesis of Vogel et al. One recent example is the article by Gregory L. Smith, "Cracking the Book of Mormon's 'Secret Combinations'?" which is available online here. This article disproves the claim forwarded by Vogel that there are no instances of the locution in a non-Masonic context.

1 Timothy 3:16: Further evidence of δικαιοω having a transformative meaning

Speaking of Christ and His glorious resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote:

Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory (1 Tim 3:16 NRSV)

The underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also has a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.

Particularity in John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 is a favourite text by many, and is one of a few texts that all people, regardless of how “biblically literate” they are, know and can often recite. As with many precious texts, this is one that has often been abused, both historically and in modern times.

One should note that the phrase “whosoever believeth” is not a completely accurate translation of the underlining Greek. The Greek is ὁ πιστεύων which is a participle, properly translated as “the ones believing.” This shows that the “belief” John is speaking about it not a superficial belief, or a faith that only lasts momentarily, as one finds with Antinomian and “No-Lordship Salvation” camps; instead, it is an on-going belief in the life of a believer, and one that perseveres until the end.

Another abuse of this text is that it teaches God has no particular love for any individual or group; instead, he loves all people equally the same. This is, at best, a half-truth. Yes, God loves all people insofar as Christ died for all men without distinction (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-4, which, contra Calvinists, teaches universal atonement). However, just as we have different types of “love” for different people (how I love my pet dog clearly differs from the love I have for my parents), God has a special or “salvific” love to true believers.

That John is teaching a particularity vis-à-vis God’s love in John 3 can be seen in verses 3-5, where Jesus teaches the need for baptism to enter the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Pet 3:21). Furthermore, John’s use of the Old Testament is also further evidence of this. John presents Jesus as the antitype (the fulfilment of a type) of the brazen serpent in verse 14:

And as (καθος) Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.

John hearkens back to Num 21, where God commands Moses to forge a serpent made from bronze (KJV: brass) to counteract the fiery serpents that invaded the Israelite camp:

And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. (Num 21:6-9)

The Book of Mormon also speaks of the brazen serpent as an Old Testament “type” that would be fulfilled in the then-future atoning sacrifice of Christ:

Behold, he was spoken of by Moses; yea, and behold a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live. And many did look and live. (Alma 33:19)

Of course, not all the Israelites looked upon the brazen serpent and died, notwithstanding the provision being made for all the Israelite camp (Amulek, in Alma 33:19, states that “many,” not “all,” the Israelites looked upon it). John, in discussing the Father’s giving of his unique Son, shows that the Father does not just have a salvific love for national Israel, but for the entire world, but to read into John 3:16, in light of its Old Testament background, universal salvation or other theologies, is to engage in eisegesis.

Why the “vindication” or “demonstration” meaning of James 2:22-24 Fails

(1)   If James were teaching a concept of vindication, he could have chosen a word that solely and clearly refers to a vindication or exoneration, rather than a word that is commonly used and understood in Scripture to refer to salvific justification. Such words are commonplace in Koine Greek. For example, James could have used such words asδοκιμαζο, δεικνυμι, παριστημι, περιαζω, συμβιβαζω, φανερος..

(2)   The addition of “and not by faith [alone]” in Jas 2:24 introduces a specific element and direction to James’ argument, for it clearly shows that his primary concern is to show that faith alone cannot justify a man, not merely to suggest that Abraham was vindicated by works. If his concern were to teach that works are added to faith only as a demonstration of a previous justification, there would be no reason to add “not by faith only,” for “faith [alone]” is not demonstrating anything in order to be negated, and thus it would be unnecessary to eliminate it from the works that are being demonstrated.

(3)   If James were arguing for Abraham’s vindication, this line of argumentation would only make sense if in the context of Jas 2 one of James’ opponents had claimed that Abraham was “vindicated by his faith only.” If so, James would have easily refuted the argument by saying something to the effect of “you see, a person is vindicated by his works and not by faith alone.” But this phraseology would have required James to use the notion of “vindicated” in the early part of his argument (vv. 14-23) in order for him to use it in the latter part (v. 24); otherwise, the concept of vindication would have no referent in the context. Moreover, the syntactical structure of Jas 2:24 would require that the phrase “not by faith only” have its referent in “is vindicated,” and thus the text would have to mean: “you see, a man is vindicated by works and not vindicated by faith only.” It would assert that one is vindicated not only by faith but also by works. Consequently, by injecting the concept of vindication into Jas 2:24, the Protestant argument has actually done more damage to its case than would have otherwise occurred, for the concept of vindication must then apply to both faith and works, which then destroys faith itself as being salvific.

(4)   The Protestant argument must assume that Paul and James are using two entirely different definitions of justification, the former referring to a forensic and salvific justification, the latter referring to a demonstrative vindication of a prior justification. But two definitions are unsupported by the context. This is noted as James quotes from Gen 15:6 (“And [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness”) in Jas 2:23. Gen 15:6 is the same passage from which Paul quotes in Rom 4:3. The Greek word for “righteousness” in both passages is δικαιοσύνην. Since both James and Paul quote from Gen 15:6, both must have the same definition and understanding of the word δικαιοσύνην. That being the case, it would be totally incongruous for James to suddenly inject a different meaning of δικαιοσύνην’s verbal form, δικαιοω (“justified”), which appears in both Jas 2:21 and 2:24, and surrounds the reference to δικαιοσύνην in Jas 2:23. To support its thesis, the Protestant argument is forced to conclude that James begins with a definition of the δικαιοω word group which means vindication (Jas 2:21), switches to another meaning which refers to salvific justification (Jas 2:23), and then switches back to the meaning of vindication (Jas 2:24).

(5)   That vindication cannot be James’ meaning of the word δικαιοω is proven further by his addition of Rahab to the discussion of justification. As James opens up the review of Rahab, he introduces her account by the phrase, “Likewise” or, alternatively, “in the same way” (Jas 2:25). By this wording, James is equating the justification of Abraham to the justification of Rahab and declaring that they are the same. We must conclude then, that there is no theological difference in the way these two people were justified in the eyes of God. If there were a difference, then God would have two systems of justification, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles, but this cannot be, for God shows no favouritism between Jew and Gentile, and there is only one name under heaven by which men and women are saved. The importance of understanding the correspondence between Abraham and Rahab’s respective justifications becomes clear when we consider that James certainly does not view Rahab’s justification as a vindication. Using Protestant terminology, we cannot say that Rahab was given a forensic imputation of justification prior to the hiding of the Israelite spies. Rahab was a prostitute who lived an immoral life until she encountered God through the Israelites. Her justification comes on the heels of her acceptance of the God of Israel and his laws, which would necessitate that she immediately repent of her evil ways and decided to live righteously. An active event took place in Rahab’s relationship with God, not a demonstration of a previous justification. Hence, if Rahab is not vindicated but is salvifically justified during her encounter with the Israelite spies, and since James insists that Abraham was justified “in the same way,” then we can only conclude that both Abraham in Gen 22 and Rahab in Josh 2 was salvifically justified before God, not vindicated.

Δικαιοω having a transformative meaning

For many Protestants, especially those within the Reformed camp, the δικαι-word group are declarative, not transformative in their meaning. For a thorough refutation of this contention, see Chris Vanlandingham’s book, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, a work that also thoroughly refutes Sola Fide and other false theologies.

That δικαιοω can and does have a transformative, not just a declarative, meaning, can be seen in many passages. For instance, notice Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13):

Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.

Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).

As Derek Flood, in his book, Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012), pp. 103-104 notes:

Even where dikaioo appears to mean “declare righteous” linguistically in Romans, I would argue that it nevertheless always includes the restorative sense of God making-righteous the unrighteous in Paul’s thought. We can see this connection explicitly drawn out in Romans 5 where Paul juxtaposes two parallel formulations:

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification (dikaoisis) and life for all people. (v.18)

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (v. 19)

Here we can see that, whatever Paul understands dikaioo to mean, he directly connotes that meaning with our being “made righteous” in this parallel verse. The NET renders the Greek dikaiosin zoes (literally “the making right of/from life”) as “righteousness leading to life” (v. 18). Justification is an act of God that results in life because it “makes righteous.”

When Paul says that “God justifies the ungodly,” he is not proposing [that] God is a participant in the kind of legal fiction that the Old Testament expressly condemns [Isa 5:23; Exo 23:7]. Indeed, one of Pau’s central points in Romans is to demonstrate that God was not unjust in showing mercy to sinners rather than punishing them. The way that God demonstrates justice is not by acquitting the unrighteous, but by making them good. It is a gospel of God’s act of restorative justice in us. God’s actions are life-giving and transforming.

Virgin or Young Lady? An Examination of Isaiah 7:14 (2 Nephi 17:14)

Richard Packham, a former member of the LDS Church, and a long-standing critic thereof, wrote in his article, "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism,” wrote the following under the heading of “More King James Mistranslations in the Book of Mormon":

"virgin" - 2 Nephi 17:14 = Isaiah 7:14

The Book of Mormon preserves some demonstrable mistranslations of the King James Version of the Bible.   One notable example is Isaiah 7:14, which in the KJV is translated "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."     This is copied word for word into the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 17:14.   The problem is that the Hebrew text has the word 'almah,' which does not mean "virgin," but "young woman": the Hebrew word for "virgin" is 'bethulah,' and most modern Bible translations do not use "virgin" to translate Isaiah 7:14.   (Some Christians, including the author of Matthew 1:22-23, view this passage as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus from the virgin Mary, but that ignores the entire context of that chapter: the purpose of the prophecy was to answer King Ahaz' question about the outcome of his upcoming war with Syria and Israel.)

The error can be traced back to the fact that the King James translators relied heavily on the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible by Jerome, from the 4th century A.D.   Jerome, in turn, relied on the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Old Testament.   In Greek there is only one word for both meanings ("virgin" and "young woman"), making the Greek translation from Hebrew ambiguous.   But why would Nephi be confused?   He was (supposedly) in possession of the original Hebrew text, which would have had the word 'almah,' not 'bethulah.' But he mistranslates the passage just as Jerome and the King James translators mistranslated it many centuries later.

It is true that the Book of Mormon speaks of Mary being a “virgin,” both in its quotation of Isa 7:14 in 2 Nephi 17:14, as well as various other texts speaking of the then-future mother of the Messiah (1 Nephi 11:13, 15, 18, 20; Alma 7:10). However, there are problems with the argument from Packham.

Firstly, עַלְמָה (young lady) can and is used interchangeably with בְּתוּלָה (virgin). Notice the description of Rebekah in Gen 24:16, 43 (from the 1985 JPS Tanakh translation):

The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתוּלָה) whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up . . . As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman (עַלְמָה) who comes out to draw and to whom I say, "Please, let me drink a little water from your jar."

Indeed, in most instances, a “young lady” would be expected to be a “virgin,” so it is essentially an issue of semantics.

Furthermore, we see this interchangeability of the terms in other Northwest Semitic languages (same language family as Hebrew).

In an Ugaritic poem recounting the marriage between Nikkal and the lunar goddess, we find the following:

tld btl[t]

[lk]trt lbnt hll [snnt]

hl lmt tld b[n]

The first and third lines can be translated thusly:

The virgin (bethulah) bears

. . .

Behold, the young woman ('almah) shall bear a son.

This text is strikingly similar to Isa 7:14.

It should also be noted that The Testament of Joseph, found in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, a pseudepigraphic text dated from the 2nd to 3rd century B.C. (though some scholars argue it evidences some later Christian interpolations, so caveat lector), speaking of the then-future Messiah, speaks of his mother as being a "virgin."[1]

At the very least, the contention of Packham that the Book of Mormon follows a KJV “error” in 2 Nephi 17:14 is not as clear-cut as they like to make it out to be; indeed, there is good evidence that Isa 7:14 should be understood as a Messianic text about a virgin, not just a young lady, giving birth to the Saviour.[2]

Notes for the above:

[1] See "The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York, Doubleday: 1983-1985), ed. J.H. Charlesworth, 1:775-828.

[2] While I disagree with some elements of his comments about the Hebrew, see Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010).

Is 2 Maccabees 7 an interpolation?

2 Macc 7:28 is often touted as proof that creation ex nihilo was taught before the 2^nd/3^rd centuries when many scholars believe the doctrine first came about. As I wrote in a previous post:

Indeed, the closest text accepted by Christians as canonical would be 2 Maccabees 7:28, part of the Catholic canon: “I ask you, son, look to heaven and earth and, seeing all things in them, be aware that God made them from non-being and the race of men began in this matter.” But in the phrase, “God made them from non-being,” this “non-being” dos not express absolute non-existence, only the prior non-existence of the heavens and earth. They were made to exist after not existing. In Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, the author speaks of God’s “all-powerful hand which created the world out of formless matter” (Greek: amorfos hyle). This term does not mean the world was created out of nothing, as scholars, such as Jonathan Goldstein state that there is no pre-rabbinic Jewish text that can be proved to assert the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (see his “Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements,” in Journal of Jewish Studies 38/2 [1987]).

However, another possibility is that the text might teach creation out of nothing, but the entire chapter is a later interpolation. To read an interesting, well-argued article on this very issue, see Daniel O. McClellan, "A Reevaluation of the Structure and Function of 2 Maccabees and its Text-Critical Implications” (available online here).

N.T. Wright, "The Cross and the Caricatures"

N.T. Wright, a leading New Testament scholar, and author of books such as Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, wrote an article in 2007 interacting with recent works on the topic of penal substitution, including Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. The article can be found here.


Here is just one of many interesting paragraphs in Wright's article:

What then do I mean by saying that Pierced for Our Transgressions is deeply unbiblical? Just this: it abstracts certain elements from what the Bible actually says, elements which are undoubtedly there and which undoubtedly matter, but then places them within a different framework, which admittedly has a lot in common with the biblical one, but which, when treated as though it were the biblical one, becomes systematically misleading. An illustration I have often used may make the point. When a child is faced with a follow-the-dots puzzle, she may grasp the first general idea – that the point is to draw a pencil line joining the dots together and so making a picture – without grasping the second – that the point is to draw the linesaccording to the sequence of the numbers that go with each dot. If you ignore the actual order of the numbers, you can still join up all the dots, but you may well end up drawing, shall we say, a donkey instead of an elephant. Or you may get part of the elephant, but you may get the trunk muddled up with the front legs. Or whatever. Even so, it is possible to join up all the dots of biblical doctrines, to go down a list of key dogmas and tick all the boxes, but still to join them up with a narrative which may well overlap with the one the Bible tells in some ways but which emphatically does not in other ways. And that is, visibly and demonstrably, what has happened in Pierced for Our Transgressions, at both large and small scale.

An Exegetical Note on Luke 1:34

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Since the time of Augustine (Of Holy Virginity, 3), many have interpreted this verse as evidence that Mary, prior to the Annunciation, took a vow of perpetual virginity. Some commentators ask, why would Mary ask a question like this, using the present tense, if she planned on having normal sexual activity upon marrying Joseph, to whom she was espoused? However, this is reading too much into the use of the present tense of Luke 1:34.

On pages 532-33 of his book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace provides a discussion of the "Perfective Present," wherein the present tense may be used to emphasise the results of a past action that are still continuing; in Luke 1:34, this would refer to Mary being at the time of the Annunciation, a virgin; there is no grammatical justification to read into this verse a vow of life-long virginity (especially in light of texts that speak of "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus, for e.g.).

As we read in Wallace's (ibid. p. 532):

There are two types: one lexical, the other contextual. The lexical type involves certain words (most notably ηχω, which almost always has a perfective force to it). The other type is contextual. This use of the present is especially frequent with λεγει as an introduction to and OT quotation. Its usual force seems to be that although the statement was spoken in the past, it still speaks today and is binding on the hearers.

Other instances of this "perfective present" in the Greek New Testament include:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel, for Esaias saith (λεγει), Lord, who hath believed our report? (Rom 10:16)

Wherefore he saith (λεγει), When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Eph 4:8)

For the scripture saith (λεγει), Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treateth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. (1 Tim 5:18)

And we know that the Son of God is come (ηχει) . . . (1 John 5:20)

In this light, all that Luke 1:34 says is, at the time of the visitation of Gabriel, Mary was a virgin; there is no exegetical warrant to read into her words as evidence of a previous vow of perptual virginity; instead, it simply reflects Mary thinking Gabriel meant that she would get pregnant, prior to "coming together" with Joseph (cf. Matt 1:18, 25) at the time of the angelic announcement.

For another discussion of this verse, see John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 200-254.

The Jewish Study Bible on Deuteronomy 32:7-9

The NRSV of this pericope reads:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.

One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the DSS has the reading "sons of god" or, as ANE scholars understand the term, "gods."

In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:

Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.

Old Testament Practices and Mormonism

In a chapter in their book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (5^th ed.: Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), “Old Testament Practices,” Jerald and Sandra Tanner wrote:

Animal Sacrifice

Animal sacrifice after the death of Christ is another Old Testament practice that has found a place in Mormon beliefs. It was Joseph Smith himself who taught this doctrine: “. . . it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice . . . was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets . ..

“THESE SACRIFICES, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built . . .be fully RESTORED AND ATTENDED TO in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. “ (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 211)

In the Journal of Wandle Mace the following is found:

“Joseph told them to go to Kirtland, and cleanse and purify a certain room in the Temple, that they MUST KILL A LAMB AND OFFER A SACRIFICE UNTO THE LORD which should prepare them to ordain Willard Richards a member of the Quorum of the Twleve Apostles.” (Journal of Wandle Mace,” page 32. Microfilmed copy at the Brigham Young University Library).

Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth President of the Mormon Church, still upholds the doctrine of animal sacrifice after the death of Christ. He states as follows:

“Now In the nature of things, the law of SACRIFICE will have to be RESTORED . . . Sacrifice by the SHEDDING OF BLOOD was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity WILL HAVE TO BE RESTORED.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 4, page 94)

It is interesting to note that even though the Mormon Church teaches animal sacrifice after the death of Christ, they cannot find any support for this doctrine in the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Book of Mormon condemns it in the strongest terms. In 3 Nephi 9:19 Jesus was supposed to have said the following:

“And ye shall offer up unto me no more THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD; yea, YOUR SACRIFICES AND YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS SHALL BE DONE AWAY, FOR I WILL ACCEPT NONE OF YOUR SACRIFICES AND YOUR BURT OFFERINGS.” (p. 372, emphasis in original)

In a number of texts dealing with the then-future New Covenant, various Old Testament prophets predicted that animal sacrifice would be, in some way, connected with the practices of this covenant. Consider the following:

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. (Isa 56:7)

Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. (Jer 33:13)

In Ezek 40-47, the prophet sees a vision of the eschatological temple, and many texts speak of a then-future figure, the “prince,” offering a sacrifice to the Lord. In Ezek 45:17, 25, we read:

And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the Sabbaths, and in all the solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel . . .In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering and according to the oil.

This, of course, begs the question as to why would future sacrifices be offered in this temple, as well as the promised sacrifice under the auspices of the Levitical Priesthood (Jer 33:17-21; cf. Mal 3:3; D&C 13)? Perhaps one could argue that such will remind the world of the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ, being a memorial/placard of his work of redemption. Moreover, just as in the past, the regular daily and weekly offerings pointed to the need for continual recognition of Israel’s need for forgiveness and atonement, so in the future these offerings will extend that message to all the nations of the world.

The following from Thomas Williams, The World's Redemption (Advocate Publishing House, 1913), pp. 111-12 adds some interesting food for thought on this issue:

Some offer objections to the future fulfillment of these promises because a renewal of the sacrifices is predicted, as for instance in the verse just quoted (Jer. 33: 18) it says, “Neither shall the Levites want a man before me, to offer burnt-offerings, and to kindle meat-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.” The objection here raised is that Christ being made the one great offering, “once for all,” no sacrifices can be offered in the age to come. But Israel’s laws in the past required offerings to be made pointing to Christ, and those offerings were intended as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. While this was fulfilled to a limited extent, it fell short of absolute fulfillment, for Israel, as a nation, did not receive the instructions of the schoolmaster, and were, therefore, not led to Christ, and therefore did not recognize Him. When they are brought into the bond of the broken covenant they will be willing to do God’s commandments, for He says, “My people shall be willing in the day of my wrath,” and what they failed to do in the offerings under the law prospectively, under Christ in the age to come they will do retrospectively. What a grand sequel this is. The very nation which crucified Christ, notwithstanding that all their sacrifices pointed to Him, shall yet look unto Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for Him. Therefore those sacrifices which by their wickedness they had wrested out of their true meaning, shall yet be offered in the real and true sense in which they were intended to be offered, pointing to, centering and focalizing, as it were, in Christ. They will then, repenting of their sins, heartily acknowledge and memoralize Him who was the type and the substance of the shadow of the broken law.  

For a more elaborate and clearer prophecy of this memorial system of offerings, in the rebuilt and beautiful temple which is to adorn the land of Israel, the reader is referred to the prophecy of Ezekiel, where a description of the temple and the Divine service is given, which has never yet found its fulfillment in the history of the world. The description is there by inspiration. It is there to be fulfilled. And fulfilled it will be as surely as it has been written. Then Israel, as a nation, in relation to the civil and the ecclesiastical government of the world, will be, as Moses declared, the head and not the tail, the highest of all nations; the forces of the Gentiles shall be brought unto them, and the dark night which has obtained since Israel’s sun went down will be dispelled by the morning of an unclouded dawn when the “sun of righteousness” will illuminate and bless the world, and “fill the earth with the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

Henry Sulley (1845-1940) wrote the following about the restoration of animal sacrifices based on his study of the eschatological temple in Ezek 40-47:

APPENDIX B.

WILL SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS BE MADE IN THE AGE TO COME?

This question ever arises in the contemplation of the things Ezekiel saw in vision. It is not sufficient to point to the fact that an altar of unprecedented size is specified in the prophecy ; nor that the “ flesh of the offerings ” was seen by the Prophet on the tables provided for their preparation. Neither does it suffice to show the circumstantial ritual of the prophecy so full of ordinances and commandments. Notwithstanding: all these, many still doubt the reality of such a restitution. They suppose an end of all sacrifices was made when Jesus shed His blood upon the cross. Such an idea is pardonable, but not tenable. The idea has a semblance of support in some passages of Scripture. It is, however, only an appearance there is not in reality.

The question for us to consider is, Do the Scriptures anywhere plainly foretell the restoration of animal sacrifices ? This is the question at issue. If they do, then all other portions of Scripture, which appear to point in a contrary direction, must be understood in harmony with the general tenor of its plain teaching.

In the consideration of this question, we have a divine rule for our guidance. Peter testifies that the return of Christ will synchronise with “ The restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His Holy Prophets since the world began ” (Acts iii. 20-21). And Jesus, “ That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Himself” (Luke xxiv. 44). Do the prophecies say anything of the restoration of animal sacrifices ?

We may turn first to the prophecy of Jeremiah, chap, xxxiii. No one will deny that this chapter deals with the restoration of Israel. In verse 7 we read, “ I will cause the captivity of Judah, and the captivity of Israel to return, and I will build them as at the first.”

Such a restoration would lack an essential element if sacrifices were not then offered. The prophet further states (Jer. xxxiii., verses 14-18) : —

‘ ‘ Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.

“ In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of Righteousness to grow up unto David ; and He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

“ In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely : and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our righteousness.

“For thus saith the Lord ; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel ; neither shall the priests, the Levites, want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.”

The restoration here foretold involves four things.

1. The budding forth of a righteous Branch unto David. One who should execute judgment and righteousness in the land when all Judah and Israel is restored.

2. His name is to be the “ Lord our righteousness.”

3. From that time David will never want a man to sit upon the throne of Israel because Christ will sit there for ever.

4. Neither shall the priests, the Levites, want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and do sacrifice continually.

Further it cannot be denied that one of the names of Jesus of Nazareth is the Branch. Thus we learn from no less an authority than Himself (Rev. xxii. 16). It cannot be denied that he is the king who will execute justice and righteousness in the land in the era of Israel’s restoration (Is. xlix. 1-5 ; Luke i. 31-33). Neither has there appeared upon the earth any other being who can lay claim to such a holy title as the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. He claims this in saying, “ which of you convinceth me of sin ” (John xiii. 13). If these things be true, if we have here foretold the reign of Christ upon earth, it must also be conceded that the Levites will then, at that same time, offer burnt offerings. Deity testifies, through the Prophet, that if HIS covenant with day and night cannot be broken, then also the covenant concerning Israel and Israel’s king cannot be broken, viz., “ That David should not have a son (Christ) to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites, the priests, my ministers.” Now, without question, priests are not required unless sacrifices are to be offered, and Levites would not find occupation in a Temple which, in the words of the Prophet, was not devoted to “ offering burnt offerings and meat offerings . . . and sacrifice continually.”

Next we may look at the testimony contained in the li. Psalm, 18-19 : —

“ Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion : build thou the walls of Jerusalem.

“Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering, and whole burnt offering : then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.”

At the time David wrote this Psalm, Israel had not reached the zenith of their past glory. The walls of Jerusalem were still intact. No breach had been made therein. The question of re-building therefore had not yet arisen. Hence the Spirit in David foretold the future desolation to be followed by restoration. To what period did he refer ? It could not be the partial restoration of Babylon, because David contemplated a restitution when “burnt offerings, whole burnt offerings, “ and bullocks would be offered in righteousness.” This was just the element in Israel’s offerings which then was lacking. The Father held Himself aloof. The manifestation of glory associated with the offering of the first Temple did not return. The audible voice from behind the veil was silent during all the time intervening between the return from Babylon, and the terrible evil which at last befell the nation at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. No, no. This prophecy has never been fulfilled. The restoration foretold is yet future, and will find its accomplishment in the Temple of Ezekiel’s prophecy “ when the sons of Levi will offer “ unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.”

This introduces us to the testimony of Malachi. In the midst of his prophecy we find these words ; chap, iii. 1-4:—

“ The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His Temple . . . He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver : and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.”

“ Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.”

Here we see that when the Lord comes to His Temple, the sons of Levi will be purified in order that they may “ offer an offering in righteousness.’’ And then shall the offerings be pleasant unto the Lord as in the days of old, and as in the former years. In view of this testimony, how can anyone doubt that animal sacrifices will be restored, and that the era of restoration is the Temple era predicted by Ezekiel ?

“The Lord” has already appeared but not in the aspect spoken of in the prophecy. Levi did not make any righteous offering then. They rather helped to crucify their Lord. Yet “ The Lord,” “ Messiah,” will return, and then this purifying process takes place. The result will be a prepared priesthood ready for the Temple service.

That Temple is to be a magnificent house of prayer for all people. Speaking of that time Isaiah testifies, chap. lvi. 7 : —

“ I will bring them (i.e., Israelites and Gentiles) to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar.”

Jesus quoted this prophecy when he scourged the money changers and traders out of the Temple (Mark

xi. 17). Yet no one will contend the offerings and sacrifices referred to in the prophecy took place then, or that the prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. To what period in the world’s history then does it refer ? When are these Gentile offerings and sacrifices to be made ? Is it not at the second appearing of Christ ? When the isles will listen to Him and all people from far will hearken (Is. xlix. 1).

To the testimony of Isaiah in chapter lvi. must be added the prophecy of chapter lx.

If any have not felt the power of that thrilling apostrophe to Israel, commencing with the words “ Arise “ and shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the “ Lord has risen upon thee,” let him read and ponder. Let him consider every word. Let him weigh every sentence. Upon analysis he will find the whole chapter full of items pertaining to the restoration, and amongst those items prophecy of the restoration of animal sacrifices.

This feature of the case is made perfectly clear in the following epitome : —

1. The glory of the Lord shall arise upon Israel and His glory shall be seen upon them

(verse 1-2).

2. Israel is to be restored. Her sons shall come from far (verse 4) to the name of their Lord and Holy One (verse 9), i.e., to the place which He has chosen to place His name there, even Jerusalem.

3. They are to inherit the land for ever (verse 21).

4. The days of Israel’s mourning are to be ended (verse 20). Violence shall no more be heard in their land, wasting nor destruction within their borders (verse 18).

5. The sons of them that afflicted Israel shall come bending before them. All they that despised her shall bow themselves down at the soles of her feet (verse 14).

6. Instead of being robbed and despoiled, the riches of the Gentiles shall be given to them. Instead of servitude, kings shall minister unto them, and the sons of strangers shall build up their walls (verses 5, 10).

7. They shall become an eternal excellency. A joy of many generations, so that no man will say they are hated and forsaken.

8. The Gentiles shall come to their light, and kings to the brightness of their rising.

9. In addition to all this we read of the offering of flocks and rams upon the altar of the house of Yahweh’s glory, thus (verse 7) : —

“ All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to thee, they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the House of My Glory.”

What further evidence need we that sacrifice and offerings will be restored in the day of Israel’s future glory. This is the day when Deity is exalted in the eyes of all mankind, and the offering of sacrifices is a necessary element in the situation. The shedding of blood is required to convince men of sin. And the Temple of Ezekiel’s prophecy, with its flaying tables, its altar, and its blood-sprinkled service is the crowning piece of God’s arrangement for bringing mankind to their knees before Him. Before His son enthroned in Zion all the earth shall bow, and every tongue shall then confess that he is LORD. (Henry Sulley, The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy [2d ed; 1892; repr., Kessinger Legacy Reprints, n.d.], 101-3)

It is clear that, instead of showing "Mormon" theology to be biblically deficient, the Tanners show that, from the bar of exegesis and biblical eschatology, to be the ones who possess a deficient theology.

Satan in the Book of Mormon

An objection to the historicity of the Book of Mormon is that its demonology is anachronistic. We are told by some critics that, as belief in demons and Satan is unknown in the pre-exilic era among the Israelites, and was only adopted by the Israelites during the exilic period. A number of scholars hold to this view, as do some denominations who reject entirely belief in a supernatural Satan (e.g., the Christadelphians; Church of God, Abrahamic Faith).

It is true that the Old Testament is not very explicit about supernatural evil having ontological existence. However, there are strong hints when one examines some of the original language texts of the OT.

In Lev 17:7, we read in the KJV:

And they shall no more offer their sacrifice unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

The 1985 JPS Tanakh renders this verse as follows:

And that they may offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.

The word translated as "devil" or "goat-demon" is the Hebrew term שָׂעִיר. It refers to a demon in the shape of a he-goat (e.g., Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament).

Dustin Smith, an Unitarian scholar (see his blog here) presented a paper on the identity and nature of Satan and Demons in the biblical texts. In a section discussing the demonology of the Old Testament, we read the following:

Examining the nature of demons, at least within the Hebrew Bible, is not quite as simple as searching for the word and reading the passage. There are quite a few ways in which various demonic entities are described in Hebrew.

1. To start, many of the demons are referred to by name shed or the plural shedim. These instances are as follows:

Deuteronomy 32:17

They sacrificed to demons who were not God, to gods whom they have not known, new gods who came lately, whom your fathers did not dread.

Demons here are paired synonymously with false gods who were sacrificed to. They were considered objects of worship and therefore a legitimate threat to the Israelite community.

Psalm 106:37-38

They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, and shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with the blood.

Demons again are equated with the false idols of the nations, this time directly in the Hebrew text. Since offering a sacrifice is considered an act of worship, the psalmist is feeling remorse for this disobedient act of prostration on behalf of Israel.

2. In the Hebrew Bible one finds the goat-demons20 in four occurrences, coming from the Hebrew sairim.

Leviticus 17:7

They shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations.

The sairim here are depicted as prohibited objects of worship for the children of Israel.

2 Chronicles 11:15

He set up priests of his own for the high places, for the goat-demons and for the calves which he had made.

King Jeroboam installed priests and built high places towards both the sairim and the calves.

Isaiah 13:21

But desert creatures will lie down there, And their houses will be full of owls; Ostriches also will live there, and goat-demons will frolic there.

Isaiah 34:14

The desert creatures will meet with the wolves, the goat-demons also will cry to its kind; yes, the Lilith will settle there and will find herself a resting place.

In the Isaiah passages the sairim are spoken together with the ostriches, howling creatures, and wild animals as a part of apocalyptic texts located in the desert. Some even think that the Lilith figure here is another name for a desert-dwelling female demon.

3. Leviticus 16 speaks of azazel, a Hebrew word that has divided readers as to its meaning. Four times it is mentioned as a goat-demon that lived in the wilderness in reference to the Day of Atonement.21 It is unlikely that the meaning of azazelhere refers to what many translations call a “scapegoat”, a guess based on the assumption that the name derives from ez (“goat”) and azav (“go away”). The problem with this interpretation is that in Lev. 16:8 the goat is said to be forazazel. In 16:10 the goat is sent but it goes to azazel in 16:26. One of the more telling aspects is that 16:8 places “for Yahweh” and “for azazel” in parallel, suggesting that there is best understood as an actual divine being opposed to God.

4. Sometimes the translators of the LXX interpreted the idols as ‘demons.’

Psalm 96:5 MT (95:5 LXX)

For all the gods of the people are idols (LXX δαιμόνια).

This text shows that there were some who understood the false gods (idols) as demons.22

Notes for the Above

20 NRSV translation.

21 Lev 16:8, 10 (twice), 26.

22 This also occurs in LXX Lev 17:7; 2 Chr. 11:15; Isa 13:21, 34:14, 65:3.

Dr. David Bokovoy discussed the question of Satan in the Book of Mormon in a thread on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Forum:

One of the criticisms raised by critics of the Book of Mormon against its authenticity includes the detailed view of Satan witnessed throughout the work. I believe, however, a careful analysis of the use of Satan in the account actually provides evidence for the book's authenticity. I maintain that we can trace historically how the Book of Mormon authors came to understand the Satan concept. The view derives from Lehi's careful analysis of the book of Isaiah. This analysis set the foundation for the way subsequent Book of Mormon authors understood the doctrine of the Lord's Adversary.

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. (2 Nephi 2:17).

This use of suppose in Lehi's commentary is really quite intriguing. Note the 1828 definition of the English word provided in Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language. In Joseph’s day, the term suppose meant to lay down or state as a proposition or fact that may exist or be true, though not known or believed to be true or exist; or to imagine or admit to exist for the sake of argument or illustration. 

Lehi’s use of caution when expounding this doctrine concerning a fallen angel as a concept that was not explicitly known or believed to be true via the information Lehi had read makes perfect sense historically. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is the later theological view of Satan explicitly attested. 

So how did Lehi come to this theological supposition through the things he had read?

The first text which seems to have led Lehi to an understanding of this doctrine is Isaiah 14 which appears cited in 2 Nephi 24. This text includes the following account:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit (Isaiah 14:12-14).

Isaiah 14 presents a taunt directed to the king of Babylon. As I have already shared in this thread, verses 12-15 derive from an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity; see the evidence provided in Mark R. Shipp's Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). Biblical scholar Michael Hesier goes so far as to suggest that the reading can be entirely correlated with the Baal-Athtar myth from Ugarit. See Michael S. Heiser, The mythological provenance of Isa. xiv 12-15: a reconsideration of the Ugaritic material, Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 354-369.

So for Lehi to take this specific taunt as evidence to "suppose" that a member of the divine council, termed an angel in the sermon, fell from heaven for having sought that which was evil before God represents a completely logical deduction on the part of the Book of Mormon prophet. Yet the adaptation of earlier Canaanite mythology is in no way a technique unique to Isaiah 14: 12-15. In the Apocalypse of Isaiah (chapters 24-27), for example, Isaiah adopts the Ugaritic image of Lotan, the twisting serpent as a symbol for God’s eventual apocalyptic victory over chaos. The account reads:

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea (Isaiah 27:1)

Through this statement, Isaiah adapted the North West Semitic mythic symbol of Leviathan, the Great Dragon, that Ancient Serpent, to refer to Yahweh’s eventual eschatological victory over a great and dreadful foe.

If Lehi had access to this passage, it would have been natural for the Book of Mormon prophet to combine the image of God’s enemy in Isaiah 14, who fell from heaven, with the serpent whom Yahweh will eventually defeat and punish in the "last day." A careful reading of Lehi’s continued sermon reveals that this analysis appears to be correct: 

And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil (2 Nephi 1:18)

The Old Testament never discusses the doctrine of Satan in any detail, which of course explains the reason for Lehi’s caution concerning the thing he supposes via the information he had read. Moreover, the Old Testament never explicitly makes a link between Satan and serpent. The connection appears only later in biblical thought as witnessed, for example, in the book of Revelation:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him (Rev. 12:9).

Therefore, it appears from my perspective that Lehi deduced the doctrine of the Devil much like the later New Testament authors, namely through a careful analysis of Isaiah 14 and 27. I find the fact that the account states that Lehi merely "supposed" this concept as evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.