Brenton in his translation of the LXX, renders the verse thusly:
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor speak ill of the ruler of thy people.
There have been many attempts to downplay the theological implications of this verse; for instance, some commentators, both historical (e.g., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan) and modern (e.g., the NET Bible) have argued that this refers to human judges, notwithstanding the fact that אלהים does not mean "judge(s)."
In his 2009 PhD dissertation, The Problem of Blasphemy: The Fourth Gospel and Early Jewish Understandings, Jerry D. Truex discusses the various interpretive possibilities of this verse in the LXX (pp.100-5), and argues that the most plausible interpretation of the “gods,” as understood by the LXX translators, within the matrix of Second Temple Judaism, are divine intermediary figures; on pp. 103-4, we read:
[I]n in the immediate context of 22:27, another intermediary figure is introduced by the Lord:
I am going to send an angel in front of you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him (NRSV; Exod 23:20-21, my emphasis)
There are two Jewish traditions that allude to Exod 22:20-21 and both may shed light on who is blasphemed in Exod 22:27a. The first comes from the Apocalypse of Abraham, which can be dated between 70 and 150 C.E. In this text, God commands an angel called Yahoel to consecrate Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 10:3-4). The angel, whose name is thought to be a combination of Yahweh and El, is indwelt by God’s ineffable name (Apoc. Ab. 10:8) and is given powers of divine administration (Apoc. Ab. 10:8-14). In this way, the Apocalypse of Abraham seems to allude to Exod 23:20-21, where God promises to send an angel to lead Israel and warns the Israelites not to disobey the angel, for my name is in him. The second tradition comes from Philo, who, in his commentary on Exod 23:20-21, describes the angel that leads Israel as the Logos. The Logos is the μεσιτης or mediator of God’s gifts and benefactions, who is elsewhere given the title of God. What is striking is that the identification of certain figures as gods is not exceptional in first-century Jewish literature . . . Inclusive monotheism, in our judgment, provides a plausible theological context for reading verse 27a during the first century.
On p. 104, n. 538, we read, in part, that:
Outside the [Dead Sea Scrolls], there are exalted figures who, if not directly called gods, are described in god-like terms. For example, Enoch, like God, is placed on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 62:5; 69:29), identified as the majestic “son of man” (1 Enoch 71:14), and considered worthy of worship (1 Enoch 48:5).
In a previous post,, I have dealt with the popular claim forwarded by some Catholic apologists (e.g., Robert Sungenis; Peter D. Williams) that the Greek term translated "remembrance" or "memorial" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24-25 (αναμνησις) means "memorial sacrifice," and, therefore, the Eucharist is itself a propitiatory sacrifice, commensurate with Roman Catholic dogmatic teaching on the Mass. Max Thurian, in his work on the Lord's Supper (the "Sacrament" in LDS nomenclature) offers the following on the meaning of αναμνησις vis-a-vis the institution narratives of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament, which is spot-on:
Douglas Jones seems disturbed by those writers who
accord the word “memorial” a primarily sacrificial meaning. In this I am in
agreement with him. The twofold meaning of the word must be emphasized, in that
it can mean both a recalling to men and a recalling to God, in praise and
supplication. When it is applied to the Eucharist, the term means first of all
the presence of the divine activity on behalf of His people, as a recalling to
the believer, and the presence before God of what He has done in the course of
the history of salvation, as a recalling in praise and supplication. The term
memorial also has a secondary meaning which refers to the sacrificial
understanding of the Eucharist. It does not have this as its primary meaning,
but when it is used of the Eucharist it shows how and in what sense it can be
conceived as a sacrifice, i.e. only in the sense that it is an act of
proclamation, a memorial before men and before God, a presence and an
actualization of the unique sacrifice of Christ. (Max Thurian, The Eucharistic Memorial, Part 2: The New
Testament [trans. J.G. Davies; London: Lutterworth Press, 1961], 81 n. 1)
Many biblical texts portray Jesus being
subordinate to the Father, even after his ascension and exaltation (e.g., 1 Cor
15:20-28; Heb 1:3). Another powerful example of Jesus' subordination to the
Father, post-ascension/exaltation is that of Rev 1:1, which reads:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his
servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his
angel to his servant. (ESV)
The text is rather clear that God (θεος) is the
person of the Father in this verse (note the differentiation, not just between
the persons of the Father and the Son, but God
[θεος] and Jesus), but that the Father gave this revelation to Jesus; Jesus did not simply give this to an
angel who mediated it to the author of Revelation.
The
Greek underlying the phrase, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave him" is Αποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς. The term
"gave" (εδωκεν) is the aorist indicative active of διδωμι which means
"to give" or "to pass/hand down." The text is crystal clear—God
the Father gave this revelation (i.e., the book of Revelation) to Jesus; it did
not originate with Jesus Himself or from Jesus ex nihilo, if you will.
Even
in his highly exalted station, Jesus is subordinate to the Father, something
which is part-and-parcel of the entirety of New Testament Christology, though
such is at odds with so-called "Orthodox" formulations of
Christology.
In Romans 6:1-14 the ritual of baptism is explicitly
interpreted as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus in which
the baptized person appropriates the significance of that death for himself or
herself. In this understanding of the ritual, the experience of the Christian
is firmly and vividly grounded in the story of the death and resurrection of
Christ. These qualities of reenactment of a foundational story and the
identification of the participant with the protagonist of the story are
strikingly reminiscent of what is known about the initiation rituals of certain
mystery religions, notably the Eleusinian mysteries and the Isis mysteries.[71]
One of the distinctive features of Roans 6
is that Paul avoids saying “we have risen” with Christ; rather he speaks of “newness
of life.” The implication of Paul’s restraint is that the transformation is not
complete. There is still an apocalyptic expectation of a future, fuller
transformation into a heavenly form of life. This expectation fits with Paul’s
use throughout the passage of the imperative alongside the indicative. “Newness
of life” is a real, present possibility, both spiritually and ethically, but
the actualizing of that possibility requires decision and commitment as well as
grace.[72]
Notes for the Above:
[71] For the story or ιεροςλογος of the Eleusinian mysteries, see the Homeric
Hymn to Demeter. An English translation of this hymn, along with an introduction
and bibliography has been published by Arvin W. Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (New York: Harper & Row,
1987), 17-30. For an account of the initiation into the mysteries of Isis, see
Apuleius, The Golden Ass, Book 11. See also Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris. Meyer
has include book 11 of the Golden Ass and selections from Plutarch’s work
(ibid., 176-93 and 160-72).
[72]
Note that the author of Colossians does not hesitate to say that Christians
have risen with Christ (2:12, 3:1). Baptism is also linked to the resurrection
of Christ in 1 Pet 3:21. See also the related interpretation of baptism as rebirth
in John 3:3-8 and Titus 3:5.
Source: Adela
Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology
in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill,
2000), 237.
I recently had a brief exchange on facebook with Jen Johnson, a former Latter-day Saint who converted to Evangelical Protestantism, and another Evangelical on the question of whether it is proper to remember the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith as well as if it is proper to sing hymns such as "Praise to the Man" that lauds the life and accomplishments of the Prophet; one can find the exchange here. I do believe it shows the lack of intellectual integrity some (not all) Evangelicals have when it comes to discussing "Mormonism"; as for Johnson, she has a reputation of being grossly ill-informed about theology and the Bible, as well as the LDS Church--a well-deserved reputation if you ask me.
Daniel C. Peterson has a very good, short essay entitled, "Today, 171 years ago" remembering the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in Carthage Jail. I did find the final paragraph to be nicely done:
I declare, today, my own conviction that God lives, that Jesus is the resurrected, atoning Savior of humankind, and that, in the nineteenth century, in a grove of trees not far from Palmyra, New York, they appeared to the young farm boy Joseph Smith, calling him as a prophet and commencing the restoration of the Gospel and the Church.
All I can say is "Amen" to the above. Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Speaking of the role in creation that
Jesus played, Paul wrote in Col 1:16:
For in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all
things have been created through him and for him. (NRSV)
The Greek terms translated as "were
created" and "have been created" are ἐκτίσθη and ἔκτισται, the
third person indicative aorist passive
and perfect passive of the verb κτίζω,
meaning "to create."
In Rev 4:11, speaking of the role the
Father plays in creation, we read:
You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power,
for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. (NRSV)
The figure addressed is clearly the person
of the Father, as Jesus is later presented as being distinguished from this
figure on the throne, as seen in Rev 5:5-6. Furthermore, the terms translated
as "you created" is ἔκτισας, the indicative aorist active of κτίζω.
Why is this important? The differences in
voices (active vs. passive) show that there were different roles the Father and
Son played, wth, the logical implications of such being very strongly
anti-Trinitarian when one applies modus tollens:
First Premise: If Jesus is God within the Trinitarian understanding of
Christology, he played an active role in the creation, just like the Father.
Second Premise: Jesus played a passive role in the creation, as opposed
to the active role in creation played by the Father.
Conclusion: Jesus is not God as understood within the framework of
Trinitarian Christology.
Similar logical and exegetical
implications can be seen in texts such as 1 Cor 8:4-6. This is all the more ironic as Col 1:16 is often seen as definitive "proof" of Trinitarian Christology.
I am heading to the London LDS temple later this week, so won't be blogging again until early next week. However, before I fly off, I do wish to recommend a great article by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw(*), "Freemasonry and the Origins of the Modern Temple Ordinances."
One of the strongest texts supporting the
salvific efficacy of water baptism is Rom 6:3-4 (see my exegesis here).
Commentators of all theological persuasions, including those who hold to a
strictly symbolic view of baptism, are forced by the proper rules of exegesis,
that the apostle Paul is discussing water baptism, notwithstanding the protestations
of some who desperately distort the meaning of the term βαπτιιζωto
support their traditions (see this post responding to John Greer, current moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster on this very issue).
I recently encountered this passage from a
Reformed author who, personally, based on his denomination’s teachings, rejects
baptismal regeneration, but has the intellectual integrity and honesty to admit that (1)
water baptism is being discussed in Rom 6 and (2) it is the instrumental meanings
through which one is “united” with Christ and participates in the death and
(new) life of Christ. Commenting on Rom 6:5 ("For if we have been united
with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a
resurrection like his" [NRSV]), he writes:
The explanatory γαρ in 6:5
links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with
Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that
believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism
proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual
death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have
been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism
that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21])
and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with
Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his
physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being
baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλακαι) participate in a physical resurrection just
as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just
as Jesus died = τωομοιωματιτουθανατουαυτου)
will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been
resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ
Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish
Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015],
178).
In a previous post, I discussed the
exegetical difficulties 1 Tim 2:4 poses for Reformed theology; another “problematic”
text is that of 1 John 2:1-2. The ESV renders the verse as follows (emphasis
added):
My little
children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
In this verse, John is speaking to Christian
believers of his time, and states that, not only was/is Christ an atoning
sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins, but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their
then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Reformed soteriology, when an
individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future
sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will.
However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but
such sins will have to be repented of, and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is
brought out when one looks at the Greek:
The
phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present
text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος,
which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their
place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied
into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we
find in a host of biblical texts, such as:
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather,
that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable
priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto
God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)
We see a
very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:
And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts,
and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven
horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all
the earth.
In this
passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is
presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek
term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as)
coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore,
depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role,
paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not
sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3),
namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of
His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we
learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders
have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our
prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our
mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).
The term “he is the propitiation for our
sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV
and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice
(“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17, where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a
present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true
believers.
1 John
1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness;
verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness
(i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the
remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all
sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and
10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages
the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns use indicate that the
author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in
repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.
John
continues by qualifying the scope of
Christ’s atoning sacrifice—He is not just the propitiation for the sins of
believers (“our sins”) but also but also "for the whole world." The
term "whole world" translates the Greek του κοσμου. The term κοσμος
in all 17 occurrences in 1 John does not have the restrictive meaning that is
required by Reformed theology which states that Christ died only for the elect and makes
intercession only for the elect
(Limited Atonement [AKA Particular Redemption], the”L” in the TULIP):
Let us
quote from some representative examples, again from the ESV, as it is a popular
translation among many Reformed Protestants:
For all that is in the world (κοσμος)--the desires of the flesh and the
desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the
world. (1 John 2:16)
But if anyone has the world's (κοσμος) goods and sees his brother in
need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? (1
John 3:17)
They are from the world (κοσμος); therefore they speak from the world
(κοσμος), and the world listens to them. (1 John 4:5)
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the
Saviour of the world (κοσμος). (1 John 4:14).
The
latter texts is interesting as the title “Saviour” (σωτηρ)
is predicated upon Jesus and His role as a Saviour is said to be for the world,
not just a select few arbitrarily chosen by God in the eternal past (cf. John
4:42). Some Reformed apologists try to answer the implications of the phrase,
"the whole world" by claiming that John is writing to Jewish converts
to Christianity, and is simply stating that Christ has elect from among both
the Jews and the Gentiles, so "the whole world" should mean "Jew
and Gentile." However, such is a complete and utter stretch--for Jews,
there were only two ethnic categories one belonged to; one was either a Jew or
a Gentile--so everybody would be in
view.
When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows
that (1) Christ is a present
propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not
forgiven at justification, and as result (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit, and (4) Christ is the atoning sacrifice, not just for
Christians, but the everybody.
John McLeod Campbell, a 19th
century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution,
captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:
And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is
not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a
past fact. He is the propitiation.
Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides
in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return
and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the
Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a
work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do
know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping
Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s
commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the
Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the
claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,”
that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments
is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him
verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love
accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk
even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in
original).
This is yet another text which shows, with
great perspicuity, that Latter-day Saint theology is more reflective of
“Biblical Christianity” than Reformed theology, which most of our Evangelical
Protestant opponents subscribe to.
In my previous post on 1 Tim 2:4, I discussed how πας ("all") only have a restrictive meaning when coupled with ordinals, and referenced Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon; here is the entry under πας in the abridged lexicon (emphasis added):
πᾶς,
Π /ΑΣ,
πᾶς
Π /ΑΣ, πᾶσα,
πᾶν: gen. παντός, πάσης, παντός: gen. pl. masc. and neut. πάντων, fem. πασῶν, Ion. πα¯σέων, Ep. πα¯σάων
[σα¯]: dat. pl. masc. and neut. πᾶσι, Ep. πάντεσσι:-Lat. omnis, all, when
used of many; when of one only, all, the whole:
I. in pl. all, πάντεςτεθεοὶπᾶσαίτεθέαιναιIl.; τῶνΣαμίωνπάντεςThuc.; ἅμαπάντες, πάντεςἅμαall together, Il., etc.
2. with a Sup., πάντεςἄριστοιall the noblest, Lat. optimus
quisque, Hom.
II. all, the whole, πᾶσαἀλήθειαall the truth, Il.; χαλκέηπᾶσαall of bronze, Hdt.; ἦνἡμάχηἐνχερσὶπᾶσαall hand to hand, Thuc.; ἡπᾶσαβλάβηnothing but mischief,
Soph.
III. = ἕκαστος, every, Hom., etc.;
πᾶςχώρειlet everyone go,
Ar.:-also, πᾶςἀνήρSoph., etc.; πᾶςτιςevery single one,
Hdt., etc.; πᾶςὅστις. . Soph.; πᾶνὅσονAesch., etc.
B. When the Art. is used, it is generally put after πᾶς, πᾶσαντὴνδύναμινall his force, Hdt.; πᾶσαντὴνἀλήθειανThuc.
II. πᾶςis put between the Art. and Subst., to
denote totality, ὁπᾶςἀριθμόςAesch.; τὸπᾶνπλῆθοςThuc.
III. as a Subst., τὸπᾶνthe whole, Aesch.; τὰπάνταthe whole, Id.
C. With Numerals it marks an
exact number, ἐννέαπάντεςquite nine, full nine, no
less, Od.; δέκαπάντατάλανταIl.; but, κτήνεατὰθύσιμαπάντατρισχίλιαἔθυσε3000 of all kinds, Hdt.
II. with the Article, in all, οἱπάντεςεἷςκαὶἐννενήκονταId.
D. Special Usages:-in dat. pl. masc. πᾶσι, with or in the judgment of all, Il., Soph.
2. πᾶσιas neut., in all things, altogether, Soph.
II. πάνταγίγνεσθαιto become all things, i.e.
assume every shape, Od.; εἰςπᾶνἀφικνεῖσθαιto venture everything, Xen.
2. πάνταεἶναίτινιto be everything to one, Hdt., Thuc., etc.
3. πάνταas Adv. for πάντως, in all points, entirely, wholly, Od., Soph., etc.:-but, τὰπάνταin every way, by all means,
altogether, Hdt.
III. neut. sing. τὸπᾶνthe whole, one's all, περὶτοῦπαντὸςδρόμονθέεινId.; τοῦπ. ἐλλείπεινAesch.:- τὸπᾶνas Adv., on the whole, altogether, Soph., etc.; with a negat. at
all, Aesch.
2. πᾶνeverything, anything, πᾶνμᾶλλονἢστρατιήνanything rather than an army, Hdt.; πᾶνποιῶνby any means whatever, Plat.; so, πάνταποιῶνDem.
3. ἐπὶπᾶνon the whole, in general,
generally, Plat.
4. παντὸςμᾶλλονabove all, absolutely,
necessarily, Lat. ita ut nihil supra, Id.:-in answers, π. γεμᾶλλονyes, absolutely so, Id.
5. with Preps., ἐςπᾶνκακοῦἀπικέσθαιto all extremity of ill, Hdt.; so, εἰςπᾶνἀφικέσθαιXen.; ἐςτὸπᾶνaltogether, Aesch.:- ἐνπαντὶἀθυμίαςεἶναιin all extremity of despair, Thuc.:- περὶπαντὸςποιεῖσθαιto esteem above all, Lat. maximi facere, Xen.:- διὰπαντὸς(sc. χρόνου), or as one word διάπαντος, for
ever, continually, Soph., Thuc., etc.: but also, altogether, Thuc.,
Plat.
There are no major textual variants in this verse; all of the variants are reflective of spelling mistakes by scribes and do not affect the meaning at all (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus has ανθρωπου, without the terminal sigma [ς]). An alternative translation could be:
Who wills all men to be saved and to come into a knowledge of the truth. (my translation)
One can understand why, based on a prima facie reading of this verse, many conclude that this verse refutes Reformed theology, as Calvinistic soteriology states that God, while commanding all people, without distinction, to repentance, only grants the ability to repent to a select few (the “elect”); that Christ only died efficaciously for the elect and only intercedes for the elect; and that men can only be saved by the efficacious (salvific) calling of God (“irresistible grace”)--all these theological concepts are refuted if such a prima facie reading holds true.
[We] see the
childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to
predestination. "If God say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to
be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to
salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for
saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even
then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for,
although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when
he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that
he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every man.
But I say nothing
on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the
Apostle simple means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is
excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be
proclaimed to all without exception. ow the preaching of the gospel gives life;
and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake
salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to
individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number of
princes and foreign nations.
In other words, for Calvin and most Reformed interpreters of this passage (e.g., R.C. Sproul; D.A. Carson; James R. White), God desires members of all classes of men to be saved, not all individuals within those categories. There are a host of exegetical issues with this response.
Firstly, some Reformed interpreters appeal to vv.1-2 to support the Calvinist interpretation of v.4; they read as follows:
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
As “kings” and “[those] that are in authority” are classes of men, thus, they reason, the “all men” that God desires to be saved in v.4 are members of all categories of mankind, not all the individuals of humanity.
Such an interpretation is without merit, especially based on the Greek. The idea that πας ("all") can alone mean "all kinds" in a restrictive sense like Calvin et al. demands is simply false--they are playing as fast and loose with πας as the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses does vis-a-vis Col 1:16. Furthermore, v.4 is not grammatically related to vv.1-2, as the former contains what Paul wants Christians to do, while v.4 contains what God wants for the world--even allowing the restrictive reading Calvinists desire for vv.1-2, the texts have different contexts; only by engaging in gross eisegesis and fallacious reasoning can one read vv.1-2 into v.4.
Indeed, with respect to πας, only when used in conjunction with numerals, ever has the "restrictive" sense Calvinists need it to have in 1 Tim 2:4, according to lexical sources such as Liddell and Scott.
Additionally, there are several words Paul could have used if he wanted to convey the meaning that only "kinds" of men will be saved, but none appear in the context; indeed, Paul goes out of his way to avoid such a notion, as seen in v.6, when he writes about the extent of Christ’s atonement:
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
The phrase "for all" is υπερ παντων, and literally means "for/on behalf of all," without any qualifications to the meaning of παντων (the genitive plural form of πας).
Had Paul wanted to "limit" the atonement, terms such as "some" (τινες) could, and should, have been used, but Paul did not. Interestingly, Calvinists who try to play fast-and-loose with 1 Tim 2:4 proves they only play superficial lip-service to the "perspicuity of Scripture."
Moreover, there is no place in the entirety of the Bible where Paul or any other inspired author teaches that God desires "all kinds" of men, as opposed to all men without exception, to be saved. One rule of interpretation, forwarded by those who hold, as Calvinists do, to Sola Scriptura, is that an "unclear" verse is to be read in light of the "clear," "explicit" verses--unfortunately for the Calvinist, there is no verse that is as explicit or clear as this "difficult" text (i.e., 1 Tim 2:4), so yet again, the Reformed lip-service to a key tenet of sola scriptura is displayed with great perspicuity (pun intended!)
Finally, Calvinists tend not to consider the possibility that Paul's initial expression "all men" in v.1 is for the purpose of saying that Christians should pray for all men without distinction, and that it logically follows that, when he mentions "kings" and "those in authority," such is merely a request for us to especially pray for those in positions of government in our lands, as they are in direct control of whether on can lead a peaceable life and live one's faith without persecution, which was a major problem for the New Testament church. This grammatical possibility is given short-shrift from many Reformed interpreters as their hermeneutic demands they do such do their theology is not caught in a blatant contradiction to the biblical texts.
Much more could be said, but it should be obvious that the Reformed interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4 is based on reading a series of man-made traditions back into the text (eisegesis) as opposed to meaningful exegesis based on the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.
[W]e should not say we say that Jesus got his “male
humanity” from Mary. If Jesus’s human nature had been derived solely from
Mary’s physical body, he would have been her clone, and therefore he would have
been a woman. The doctrine of the virgin birth must be understood in a way
consistent with Matt. 1:20, which says, “That
which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirt.” What was conceived in
Mary’s womb was a human baby, and it was “from the Holy Spirit,” which suggests
that half of the genetic material that Jesus received was miraculously created
by the Holy Spirit, and half was from Mary. (Wayne Grudem, “Doctrinal
Derivations from Evangelical-Feminist Arguments about the Trinity,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence,
Distinction of Person, Implications for Life, eds. Bruce A. Ware and John
Starke [Wheaton, Illin.: Crossway, 2015], pp.17-45, here, p. 26 n. 18; emphasis
in original).
I agree with Grudem to claim that there was no genetic contribution from another person other than Mary results in a perverted understanding of the humanity of Jesus; the New Testament, after all, emphasises the true, full humanity of Jesus Christ, and condemns those who reject such (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). Of course, in LDS theology, it is the person of the Father, not the Holy Spirit, that is the “father” of Jesus vis-à-vis His humanity. With respect to Matt 1:20, such has to be read in light of the parallel text in Luke 1:35:
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (NRSV)
The term translated as “Most High” is ὕψιστος which corresponds to the Hebrew עֶלְיוֹן which is a title of God (the Father) in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature. This is further strengthened by the fact that Luke is borrowing language from the LXX that speaks of God's glorious presence at work:
Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Whenever the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, the Israelites would set out on each stage of their journey. (Exo 40:35-36 NRSV)
The term translated as "settled upon [the tent]" is επισκιαζω, the same verb translated as “overshadow” in the Lucan text.
The same holds true of Psa 91:4 (90:4, LXX):
He will cover (επισκιαζω) you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. (NRSV)
Some, such as James Dunn (Christology in the Making) and Raymond E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah), among others, have argued that the person of the Holy Spirit is not in view in Luke 1:35, but it is to be understood as a form of parallelism, with “holy Spirit” and “Most High” being synonymous with one another, and the locution, “holy Spirit” to be interpreted as the operational presence of God, not the person of the Holy Spirit. In light of the Bible’s penchant of synonymous parallelism, as well as other types of parallelism, such is more than plausible an exegesis of the text.
The person of God the Father is presented as being the one who “overshadows” Mary, through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, no doubt, in part, to allow Mary to withstand the presence of deity (cf. D&C 67:11); in that respect, it is plausible to also understand God the Father as being the “father” of Jesus, vis-à-vis His humanity, with the same “genetic contribution” from the Father as Mary, Jesus’ biological mother (without going into “how” such genetic material was created [ex nihilo or some other means]).
In what has to
be one of the most poorly-researched anti-Mormon books I have ever read (and
yes, I include The Godmakers among
such volumes in that prestigious list), Richard E. Carroll writes:
Mormons do not discuss the deity of Joseph Smith with
outsiders; however, they consider him as a god and equal to God the Father in
every respect. (Mormonism and the Bible
[Mustang, Okla.: Tate Publishing 2015], 37)
As with Carroll’s
claim that LDS Christology is Arian, this is another lie; I wish I could say it
is down to an innocent misinterpretation due to a misreading of a text or a
language barrier between Reformed Protestants and Mormons, but not in this
instance.
Of course the
only critic to lie through his teeth about the role Joseph Smith plays in LDS
theology and soteriology. One can read email exchanges between LDS apologists and
scholars, such as Mike Parker and Daniel Peterson, with members of Reachout
Trust, including the late Doug Harris, on this very issue.
One of the
arguments forwarded by some (less than honest) critics is that LDS theology
holds that, if it were not for the shedding of Joseph Smith’s blood, the
restoration would not be in full-force (cf. D&C 135:5), which they claim is
an affront to Heb 9:17-18 and Jesus’ fulfilment thereof:
For a testament (alt. covenant [διαθηκη]) is of force
after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator
liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
After
the martyrdom, the Saints sought to make sense of the deaths of Joseph and
Hyrum. The Lord addressed this matter in a revelation to Brigham Young at
Winter Quarters: "Many have marveled because of his death; but it was
needful that he should seal his testimony with his blood, that he might be
honored and the wicked might be condemned" (D&C 136:39).
President Wilford Woodruff acknowledged that he was one who had
"marveled":
I used to have peculiar feelings about his death and the way in
which his life was taken. I felt that if, with the consent and good feelings of
the brethren that waited on him after he crossed the river to leave Nauvoo,
Joseph could have had his desire, he would have pioneered the way to the Rocky
Mountains. But since then I have been fully reconciled to the fact that it was
according to the programme, that it was required of him, as the head of this
dispensation, that he should seal his testimony with his blood.20
Elsewhere Woodruff more explicitly said, "If I were to tell
what I think about it, I would say it was ordained of God that our Prophet and
head should be sacrificed in the manner that he was."21Decades later, President Stephen L
Richards, a grandson of Willard Richards, expressed the conviction "that
Joseph of his own volition gave his life for the cause entrusted to him, which
is the real essence of martyrdom." But he added, "I believe the
martyrdom was inevitable. By that I mean that it was foreordained and in the divine
plan."22
President Brigham Young taught that if the Prophet had
"been destined to live he would have lived."23If the world in general had accepted
his testimony, according to Young, the Prophet's martyrdom might have been
avoided. But because he was largely rejected, the Prophetdidseal his testimony with his blood, and
it is in force in the world.24On another occasion Young stated that
the Prophet "sealed his testimony with his blood, consequently we can,
with impunity, believe on him a little better than if he were living. When he
was living, his testimony was not in force upon the people as it is now."25
The
efficacy of Joseph's martyrdom as a pure witness to those living in the
dispensation of the fulness of times depends partially on those of us who are
not required to die as martyrs. Elder Henry D. Moyle maintained: "We who
through the inspiration of the Almighty have received his testimony and that of
his faithful brother Hyrum, are charged with responsibility to accept and to
perpetuate and add our solemn witness thereto, that the blood of this
generation shall not be upon us."26
Elder Delbert L. Stapley, sidestepping mere allusion, positively
identifies the Prophet's martyrdom with the language of Hebrews 9:16–17:
"Where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of a testator,
and surely this was a testament unfolding and revealing again God's kingdom
with all of its saving ordinances, principles, and divine powers. A testament
is not of force until after men are dead. The Prophet gave his life to seal
that testimony, and thus the sacrifice of his life becomes a witness to all men
of the truth and power of his holy calling and ministry."27
As seen above, the passage in Hebrews 9 deals primarily with the
legitimizing of covenants, with a supplementary reference to wills or
testaments. The Christian world divides the Bible into the Old and New
Testaments. Now, in addition to those witnesses, church leaders have subtitled
the Book of Mormon "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." All three of
those works could appropriately be known alternatively as
"covenants." John Taylor explicitly says in the first verse of
Doctrine and Covenants 135: "To seal the testimony of this book [that is,
the Doctrine and Covenants] and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom
of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch." On the title
page of the Book of Mormon, Moroni describes one of the book's purposes:
"to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the
Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the
Lord, that they are not cast off forever." In his 1842 letter to John
Wentworth, editor of theChicago
Democrat, Joseph Smith quoted the angel Moroni as telling him in
his initial visit that he was "sent to bring the joyful tidings, that the
covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled."28A
perusal of the Book of Mormon reveals that covenants figure prominently. So it
is clear that Joseph and Hyrum as testators have ratified the scriptural books
of covenants that pertain to our own dispensation.
Although Hebrews 9:16–17 refers to a general principle, it is
meant in its context to refer to Christ's consummation of a new testament or
covenant through the enactment of the atonement. In his role of atoner, Jesus
is absolutely peerless. But since several of the apostles who survived Joseph
Smith have applied the role of testator to him, is there a subordinate sense in
which that passage also pertains to him? A few church leaders have so taught.
Speaking of the Prophet, Elder Erastus Snow affirmed that "the Lord
suffered his enemies to destroy him in the flesh, to take away his life, and he
was made an offering—what shall I say? an offering for sin. Not in the sense in
which the Savior was offered, but he was made a martyr for the truth and his
blood was shed to attest the testimony that he bore to the world."29
President Joseph F. Smith summarizes the zenith of the Prophet's
mortal mission in the following statement: "Joseph Smith was true to the covenants
that he made with the Lord, true to his mission, and the Lord enabled him to
accomplish his work, even to the sealing of his testimony with his shed blood.
His testimony is now, and has been, in force among the children of men as
verily as the blood of Jesus Christ is in force and a binding testimony upon
all the world, and it has been from the day it was shed until now, and will
continue until the winding up scene."30Brigham Young testified, "God
suffered him to be slain for His testimony, that it might become a law through
being sealed by his blood, which was the case the moment his blood was spilled,
the same as with the law of Jesus Christ when he spilled his blood. Then the
testimony became in force. It must be so; God suffered it."31
Again, it should be emphasized that the Prophet's martyrdom is
not on the same level as Christ's universal atoning sacrifice, but the law of
witnesses as it relates to the shedding of consecrated blood is at work here.
The violent death of the Prophet was necessary to enforce the spiritual powers
of the restoration, his death thus indirectly ratifying the atonement, which is
universal. It is interesting to note that a few days before his death the
Prophet exclaimed that he was "going like a lamb to the slaughter"
(D&C 135:4), a simile redolent of the sacrificial imagery found in Isaiah
53:7. This chapter of Isaiah is associated in Christian circles with Jesus as
the "suffering servant," or the vicarious sacrifice for sin. Several
of the General Authorities, as noted in this essay, have spoken of the Prophet's
murder as a sacrifice. Joseph Smith was witnessing to the truth of those
aspects of the everlasting gospel that pertained specifically tohisrealm or stewardship. Some prophets in
past dispensations also sealed their testimonies with their blood by dying a
martyr's death and thus left their generations without excuse. An example of
this is Abinadi, whose death at the hands of King Noah and his priests (except
Alma) bound them to his testimony, for which they were and are required to
answer. Even indirectly, we are also held responsible for his witness since it
has come to us through the Book of Mormon. In other words, either we accept his
teachings and repent and become clean or we "assent unto his death"
and share blame with those who killed him. All prophets in the history of the
world who have laid down their lives as a witness have been under the auspices
of the atonement; it is the atonement that makes their sacrifices binding.
Notes for the Above
20. Wilford Woodruff, in Journal of Discourses, 24:54 (27
January 1883).
21. Ibid., 22:232 (26 June 1881).
22. Stephen L Richards, "Joseph Smith,
Prophet-Martyr," in The Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons, 1:103 (speech
given 7 December 1952).
23. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 13:95 (2
January 1870).
24. Journal of Discourses, 11:262 (12 August 1866).
25. Journal of Discourses, 18:242 (23 June 1874).
26. Henry D. Moyle, "The Greatest Gift," Improvement
Era 60 (June 1957): 412.
27. Delbert L. Stapley, Conference Report, October 1954,
49; see also Delbert L. Stapley, "An Unwavering Faith," Improvement
Era 73 (June 1970): 75–76.
28. Published in Times and Seasons 3 (1 March 1842): 707.
29. Erastus Snow, in Journal of Discourses, 25:33 (2
February 1884).
30. Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, October 1917, 3.
31. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 4:352 (7
June 1857).
Some critics
have charged Latter-day Saints of engaging in an unhealthy veneration, if not
worship, of Joseph Smith due to the hymn, “Praise to the Man,” though that is
yet another error; I have discussed such an issue in a previous post here.
However,
Latter-day Saints have to realise how shocking our claims about Joseph Smith truly
are—in fact, on the face of things, they are simply outrageous. Not only do we
claim that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God who saw God and Jesus
Christ, as well as numerous heavenly visitors; found ancient golden plates and,
through a miraculous manner, translated therefrom, and produced the Book of
Mormon and other authoritative scriptures, which alone is an affront to our
modern secular society where naturalism is the norm, but we would claim, to the
horror of the so-called Christian world, that such events happened in space and
time, and are not simply parables to instil in us a greater morality, and,
furthermore, that they are part-and-parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and
that Joseph Smith is just as much of a prophet and apostle of God as Isaiah,
David, Peter, James, etc, and that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants,
and Pearl of Great Price are just as “God-breathed” (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) revelation
as the Bible is. Of course, the message about Jesus is just as shocking (e.g., the
idea that a bloodied, mutilated Jewish criminal’s death on a cross is somehow effecting
salvation is preposterous on the face of things). In that respect, we have to understand
and appreciate how truly difficult it is for many to accept our faith’s
teachings about the person and work of Joseph Smith, though at the same time,
not to shy away from them and to teach them forcefully and truthfully.
As for the
Carroll’s of the world, I do have a final statement that will be shocking to
them—I truly hope and pray for the day when you can sing this hymn with me:
