The Conceptualization of Deity in the Hebrew Bible in Cognitive Perspective

Daniel O. McClellan (PhD cand.)'s MA dissertation, "'You will be like the Gods': The Conceptualization of Deity in the Hebrew Bible in Cognitive Perspective" is now available online here. A lot of very interesting information on the concept of "deity" in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. Highly recommended! Be sure to also check out his blog.

The NET on John 3:13

The doctrine of the (creedal/Latin) Trinity is an issue I have addressed on a number of posts on this blog. One resource I enjoy using is that of the NET. While it is a conservative Protestant commentary, one of the things I appreciate about this text is its intellectual honesty about the alleged “proof-texts” that have been used (read: abused) by Trinitarian apologists, even to the modern era.

One such text is John 3:13, particularly the phrase, “the Son of Man which is in heaven”; as early as AD 382, the Tome of Damasus used this phrase as "proof" that Jesus was in heaven with the Father while he was on earth.—however, as with many other texts (e.g., 1 Tim 3:16), this is a corruption of the original New Testament manuscripts:

Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A^[*^] Θ Ψ 050 ƒ^{1, 13} Û latt sy^c,p,h), have at the end of this verse "the one who is in heaven" (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ho on en to ourano). A few others have variations on this phrase, such as "who was in heaven" (e sy^c), or "the one who is from heaven" (0141 pc sy^s). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (î^{66, 75} ‌א‎‏‎ B L T W^s 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: "who was in heaven," "the one who is from heaven," and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator's comments rather than Jesus' statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. Joh 3:13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist's statement, "the one who is in heaven" could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, ὁ ὤν, is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus (Joh 1:18; Joh 6:46; Joh 8:47). It may be looking back to the LXX of Exo 3:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν). Especially since this exact construction is not necessary to communicate the location of the Son of Man, its presence in many witnesses here may suggest authenticity. Further, John uses the singular of οὐρανός (ouranos, "heaven") in all 18 instances of the word in this Gospel, and all but twice with the article (only Joh 1:32 and Joh 6:58 are anarthrous, and even in the latter there is significant testimony to the article). At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally speaking, if other factors are equal, the reading of such MSS should be preferred. And internally, it could be argued that ὁ ὤν is the most concise way to speak of the Son of Man in heaven at that time (without the participle the point would be more ambiguous). Further, the articular singular οὐρανός is already used twice in this verse, thus sufficiently prompting scribes to add the same in the longer reading. This combination of factors suggests that ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is not a genuine Johannism. Further intrinsic evidence against the longer reading relates to the evangelist's purposes: If he intended v. Joh 3:13 to be his own comments rather than Jesus' statement, his switch back to Jesus' words in v. Joh 3:14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still seen as in the future) seems inexplicable. The reading "who is in heaven" thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, "The Text of Joh 3:13, " GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66.

Polygamy, Deuteronomy 17:17, and Jacob 2:24

Richard Packham, an atheist who left the LDS Church in 1958, and whose arguments have been discussed a few times on this blog, wrote the following as part of a paper entitled, “Major Contradictions in Mormonism”:

What is God's attitude toward David and Solomon having more than one wife?

Notice that it is not a question of whether different people at different times might be commanded or permitted or forbidden to practice polygamy; it has only to do with God's view of specific acts of polygamy. And remember that God is unchanging! (BoM, 3 Nephi 24:6)

§  BoM, Jacob 2:24 says that God considered David's and Solomon's polygamy as "abominable before me." (See also Jacob 1:15, 3:5.)

BUT:

§  At D&C 132:38-39 God says that David and Solomon did not sin in having more than one wife, and David's wives were "given unto him of me."

§  At 2 Samuel 12:7-8 God says, through the prophet Nathan, that David's wives were given to him by God.

One has to give some credit where it is due to Packham—he does not claim that Jacob 2 is a complete denunciation of plural marriage per se and focuses on the polygamy (or, to be more correct, polygyny) of David and Solomon. Indeed, Jacob 2:30 has long been cited as a text allowing for the practice of plural marriage if and when the Lord commands:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hoses, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [monogamy]

What is often overlooked in this discussion is that Jacob 2: 24 is based on Deut 17:17, a text dealing with the ideal king from the perspective of the Deuteronomists:

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (Jacob 2:24)

Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deut 17:17)

The Deuteronomy text warns against a Davidic king “multiplying” the amount of possessions he has, including gold, silver, and horses (see v.16). Contextually, it should be obvious that what is being condemned is not a linear increase of such things, including wives, but an exponential and/or forbidden increase thereof. In the case of King Solomon, he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kgs 11:3 [which also resulted in his embracing their idolatrous practices]), while David had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, whom he would later marry as a polygynous wife, after murdering her husband to cover his tracks. Combined together, they truly had “many wives and concubines,” something condemned by Deut 17:17 and Jacob are unbecoming of a true Davidic king. That is what is abominable vis-à-vis the polygyny of David (and Solomon), not their polygyny per se, let alone the practice of polygyny in general.

Further Reading

David T. Lamb, Righteous Jehu and His Evil Heirs: The Deuteronomist's Negative Perspective on Dynastic Succession (Oxford, 2008)

Jamie A. Grant, The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy's Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms (SBL: 2004)

Brian Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy, vol. 3: Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013)

The FAIRMormon page on the popular claim that D&C 132 and Jacob 2 are in conflict with one another can be found here.

Robert Morey on Sola Scriptura and 1 Corinthians 4:6

I just recently came across this video by Robert Morey of “Faith Defenders”; Morey was, at one time, a very popular Reformed apologist, but in recent years, his credibility has taken a huge hit. I have read three of his books: The Trinity: Evidence and Issues; How to Answer a Mormon and Death and the Afterlife. Even on issues I would agree with him on (e.g., that conditional mortality is not biblical), his eisegesis, abuse of scholarly sources, ignorance of non-Reformed traditions, and just overall lack of intellectual integrity forces me not to take him seriously on any issue he discusses. For a penetrating review of his book on conditionalism, see Edwin Fudge’s review of Morey’s volume here.

Indeed, many of Morey’s fellow Calvinists have called him up on his utter nonsense; James White (of all people!) has openly criticised Morey’s claim we should bomb the Kaaba in Mecca as “stupid” (see the video here).

In this video, Morey attempts to present the biblical evidence for the formal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation, Sola Scriptura. In it, he discusses the difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura, with him summarising the latter view, which he holds to, as being "The final say on whether a doctrine is true, 'is it clearly taught in Scripture?' If it isn't, it isn't mandatory to believe it". However, he then attempts to provide biblical support for this doctrine, which is an ultimate failure, exegetically-speaking.

He quotes an obscure translation of the Bible, The God’s Word Translation (1995), of 1 Cor 4:6, which reads, in part, “not to go beyond what is written in Scripture.” The underlying Greek of this phrase, however, does not support this translation. The Greek reads μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται, which means “not to go beyond what is written”; there is no mention in any Greek manuscript of this verse which adds “in Scripture”—such is an addition to the text by the translators. Evangelical Protestant translations such as the NIV; 1995 NASB; ESV and other, older Reformed translation, such as the Geneva Bible, render this phrase accurately, without the (eisegetical) addition, “in Scripture.” Morey, in his books, often uses Greek and Hebrew, so he should know better.

In reality, 1 Cor 4:6 does not support Morey’s contention that this verse teaches that “The Bible alone is the final court of appeal; the final authority . . . and that is what the text is saying." I have discussed this passage previously on my blog; do compare Morey’s eisegetical abuse of this verse with the following posts to see if his claims hold up under exegetical scrutiny:

 "Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? part 9: 1 Corinthians 4:6" (a response to Matt Slick of CARM)

"Notes on the textual difficulties surrounding 1 Corinthians 4:6"

It should also be noted that John Calvin himself did not find this verse to be definitive evidence for Sola Scriptura; in his comments on 1 Cor 4:6, Calvin wrote:

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

Questions for a former LDS Revert to Roman Catholicism

Back in late-2013, I had a brief exchange with a Latter-day Saint who was struggling with Roman Catholic apologetic works, especially on the topic of how biblical and ancient the Mass was (he had previously been RCC). Part of my email response is available here (under “2014 update”) where I discussed common eisegetical mistakes Robert Sungenis and other leading RCC apologists on the Mass engage in. Sad to say, he would later revert to Roman Catholicism as evidenced by this post and others.

A few months ago, I left a message on this page, but it is still awaiting moderation. I am here reproducing what I wrote in the hope it will help anyone struggling with Roman Catholic claims to see what the true issues are, and the insurmountable problems Roman claims to authority truly are; I would also recommend another blog post I did, "Tim Staples, Mormonism, and Questions for Catholics”:

Hi J, long time no chat. Hope you are doing well.

Out of curiosity, how do you justify your acceptance of Rome’s Marian Dogmas, such as the Bodily Assumption and Immaculate Conception, especially in light of the fact that such beliefs were unknown in the early Church, and, ergo, were not “apostolic traditions.” For instance, early writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies (3.16.7 [same book in Against Heresies where he made the Mary/Eve parallel]) in his comments on John 2:4 argued that Mary was guilty of personal sin, as did John Chrysostom in his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, XXI; as for the assumption, see Stephen Shoemaker’s book, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford University Press, 2003) documenting the origins and development of this belief. or just read Ludwig Ott’s discussion on the development of the IC in his *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*

I am aware that Luke 1:28 is often touted as “proof” of such a belief from the New Testament, but a careful study of *kecharitomene* shows it does not have any indication of Mary being free from the stain of original sin and/or personal sin (see http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/08/luke-128-and-evidence-for-immaculate.html)

Keep in mind, according to Rome, these and many other beliefs, are defined dogmas that one must, under pain of anathema, accept as definitional of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I do honestly hope and pray you will reconsider your adherence to Rome’s false gospel.

You have my email address, so if you ever want to discuss these issues in any more depth, always feel free to drop me a line.

The Counterfeit Christ of Jason Wallace

Jason Wallace (anti-Mormon activist; pastor at Christ Presbyterian Church in Magna, Utah) posted a programme of “The Ancient Paths” he did on the topic of “The Mormon Jesus.” One can find it here:

I previoulsy interacted with some of Wallace's "arguments" on a blog post entitled Examination of "Christ Presbyterian Church Issues 95 Theses Against Mormonism"

Here, I will make a few brief comments about the presentation on LDS Christology:

Around the 18 minute mark, Wallace shows his lack of intellectual integrity by claiming that the “Mormon Jesus” is just a “superman” and that 1 Kgs 8:27 (cf. 2 Chron 6:18) contradicts LDS theology:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house I have built! (ESV)

Firstly, in Wallace’s Christology, Jesus remains embodied; such is part-and-parcel of the Christology of Chalcedon in AD 451, so his rather (pathetic) comments on LDS Christology would also come back to bite him vis-à-vis his Trinitarian Christology. Furthermore, the word “contain” in Hebrew does not refer to the temple not having space to contain God (the sense that God’s size is so immense it cannot contain him [how to make sense of that in light of divine simplicity and “spirit” being immaterial in “mainstream” theology is a wonder to behold . . . ]) but to the power of Yahweh—the Hebrew term is  כול and carries the meaning of “restrain”; an analogy would be how a paper bag cannot “contain” a grenade and its power once the pin is pulled.

He also butchers John 1:1c (discussed here) around the 19:30 mark; Wallace’s use of Greek is just a smokescreen covering up his butchering of this text. As for the JST of this verse, the JST represents a Midrash-like expansion, something that is rather common to the JST, as has been discussed by Kevin L. Barney and other JST scholars; furthermore, Joseph Smith preserved the “traditional” reading of this verse, with the “word” (λογος) in D&C 93:8 being predicated upon Jesus.

The “Isaiah teaches strict monotheism” “argument” is simply presented without any exegesis; for exegesis of these texts, see here. And of course, the time-worn canard and great piece of yellow journalism (“Mormons believes Jesus is Satan’s brother!”) is discussed. As usual, Wallace does not deal with texts such as Job 1 that support this theology. Furthermore, Wallace harps on “only-begotten”—the Greek term means “unique” (μονογηνες), a term also used of Isaac's relationship to Abraham, notwithstanding Abraham having another, older son, Ishmael (Heb 11:7). For someone trying to “show off” his Greek knowledge to throw sand in the eyes of those watching the show, Wallace shows his ignorance on this issue.

The “Mormons believe God the Father had sex with Mary” canard is raised, but Barry Bickmore refuted this. As with many other topics, Wallace ignores meaningful LDS responses to this issue. Another example of his lack of research skills and intellectual integrity (see the section, “Virgin Birth” beginning on p. 246). 

I do agree with Wallace that some early LDS were wrong in stating that Jesus was the bridegroom in John 2, as Jesus and his disciples were called to the wedding (v. 2), so Wallace can be right at times, just like a broken watch can tell the time twice each day . . .

Wallace’s butchering of Col 1:16 have previously been answered in my paper, “Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus.” In reality, Wallace and other Trinitarians are the ones who preach a false, man-made conception of Jesus, one that falls under the condemnation in 2 Cor 11:3-4, not the Latter-day Saints and our Christology.

An Examination of Isaiah 29, John 10:16, and the Book of Mormon

Latter-day Saints have been known to use a number of “proof-texts” to support the idea that the Bible predicts, rather explicitly at times, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; such texts would include Ezek 37:15-19 and Isa 29:1-4. I have discussed Ezek 37 here. One of the many exegetical problems with Isa 29:1-4 being applied to the Book of Mormon is that the New World is not in view, but the Old World, as evidenced by v.1:

Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

Ariel, of course, was the ancient name for Jerusalem.

Some may object, and state that what is being said about the Old World is then applied to the New World in v. 2, where we read that Yahweh “will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto men as Ariel.” However, this is a Semitic parallel in Hebrew that doubles up as being a pun; here is the Hebrew:

וַהֲצִיק֖וֹתִי לַֽאֲרִיאֵ֑ל וְהָיְתָ֤ה תַֽאֲנִיָּה֙ וַֽאֲנִיָּ֔ה וְהָ֥יְתָה לִּ֖י כַּאֲרִיאֵֽל

The term לַֽאֲרִיאֵ֑ל means “to Ariel (Jerusalem)”; the term כַּאֲרִיאֵֽל is a combination of the prefixed preposition meaning “like/as” with אֲרִיאֵֽל which means the hearth of an altar, an apt simile for the then-forthcoming divine judgement against Jerusalem, and one that plays on the various meanings and nuances of the Hebrew אריאל term.

Furthermore, the “book” in Isa 29 is not an actual, literal book; the “book” in view is clearly a simile, as evidenced by v. 11 ("as the words of a book" [KJV]; "like the words of a sealed document" [NRSV]).

Notwithstanding the problems with the common LDS interpretation of Isa 29, critics of LDS usage of this chapter are oftentimes guilty of eisegesis of their own. Consider the following from Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine, when they discuss the term "familiar spirit" in v.4:

·       Did you know that every single reference to a "familiar spirit" in the Old Testament relates to necromancy or spiritism?

·       Did you know that in passages like Deuteronomy 18:9-12 God condemns anyone who relates in any way to a familiar spirit?

·       In view of this, what do you make of the claim by Mormon leaders that the Book of Mormon has a "familiar spirit?" (Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers], 97-98).

Despite this claim, the Hebrew word the KJV translates as "familiar spirit" ( אוֹב) does not directly relates to necromancy. The biblical expression "familiar spirit" often refers to a ghost, and the KJV takes great liberty in construing statements about "them that have familiar spirits" as referring to spirit mediums, even when that is not always intended in the underlying Hebrew. The Hebrew word comes through in the KJV in terms like these:

"Them that have familiar spirits" (Lev 19:31; Isa 8:19; 19:3)

"Those that have [or had] familiar spirits" (1 Sam 28:3, 9)

"The workers with familiar spirits" (2 Kgs 23:24)

"Counsel of one that had a familiar spirit" (1 Chron 10:13)

"Familiar spirits" (2 Kgs 21:6)

In the case of Isa 29:4, the underlying Hebrew is best read as "thy voice shall be as a ghost out of the ground"--it has nothing to do with spirit mediums or other elements of the occult. Notice how the NRSV translates this verse:

Then deep from the earth you shall speak, from low in the dust your words shall come; your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost, and your speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Alternatively, note how the 1985 JPS Tanakh renders the verse:

And you shall speak from lower than the ground, Your speech shall be humbler than the sod; Your speech shall sound like a ghost's from the ground, Your voice shall chirp from the sod.

Are there any “valid” (read: exegetically sound) texts Latter-day Saints have pointed to that do indeed serve as meaningful evidence for the Book of Mormon? I would be the very first to state that there is no explicit verse or pericope about the Book of Mormon in the Bible, but that is not a problem, unless one works under the false assumption that something must be explicated in the Bible for it to be true; if Latter-day Saints truly held to that view, then one must embrace some form of sola scriptura, a doctrine that I have discussed, and thoroughly refuted, on this blog, as have many other LDS and non-LDS apologists and scholars. Further, there is nothing in the Bible that teaches for “x” to be true “x” must be mentioned, even implicitly, in the Bible. So even if no direct or indirect prophecy of the Book of Mormon were to be found in the Bible, such would not be problematic.

As for the related topic of 2 Nephi 27, the JST, and their relationship to Isa 29, see the essay, "Isaiah 29 and the Book of Mormon" by Robert A. Cloward in Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 191-247, a pdf of the book being available here.

Perhaps the best verse Latter-day Saints can, and indeed, have, pointed to is John 10:16, where the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are referenced:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The historical Christian/non-LDS interpretation of this verse is that the “other sheep” in view are the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would “hear” Christ’s voice through the preaching of the gospel (cf. Matt 28:19). To be fair, this is not an exegetical stretch by any imagination, and if I were not a convinced Latter-day Saint, I would hold to this view, as it is the majority view of all respected commentators and scholars on the Gospel of John (FWIW, I did my undergraduate dissertation on the Gospel of John under Michael Mullins, one of Ireland’s leading New Testament scholars).

In the LDS view, among the “other sheep” Christ had in view were His covenant people in the New World; indeed, we get this identification from Jesus Christ Himself when he appears in ancient Mesoamerica to the Nephites at Bountiful after his resurrection:

Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who are a remnant of the house of Joseph. And behold, this is the land of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you. And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. And now, because of the stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my words; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice--that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 15:12-23)

On page 195 of their book, Rhodes and Bodine offer the following criticisms directed to an imaginary LDS interlocutor, in conjunction to their citing Eph 2:1-22 and other texts discussing the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles (emphasis in original):

Would you please read aloud from John 10:16?

·       Since Jesus' words in John 10:16 were addressed specifically to Jews, does it not make sense that when He referred to "other sheep" who were "not of this fold," He was talking about non-Jews who were not of the "fold" of Judaism?

·       Please demonstrate from the context of John 10 that the references in verse 16 deals with "sheep" in America?

The attempted bombardment of the Bible notwithstanding, the critic will have to do a better case to disprove the LDS thesis and prove his thesis. Nowhere in the biblical texts will one ever come across people who are labelled God or Christ's "sheep," at the time the term is being used of them, who are unbelievers. Sheep, by definition, are following the shepherd at the time the term is predicated upon a person or a group. Matthew clearly tells us that the Lost Sheep are of the House of Israel (Matt 10:6). Further, John 10:4, 27 says that the “Sheep” are Christ's followers because they "know" Christ (οιδα is used in v. 4; the more potent term γινωσκω in v.27 [cf. its usage in John 17:3]), suggesting not just intellectual ascent, but inter-personal knowledge and commitment to Jesus Christ. Such descriptions do not fit the Gentiles at the time Jesus spoke the words of John 10:16; instead, it refers to people who had already accepted Him and had been following Him, which fits the interpretation offered by none other than Christ Himself  in the Book of Mormon.

Notice another a propos instance of προβατον being used in the Gospel of John:

A second time he said to him, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep (προβατον). he saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep (προβατον). (21:16-17)

Outside the Gospel of John, Matthew has the highest instances of the usage of προβατον in any singular book of the New Testament (11 instances, where John has 15). Sometimes, it is coupled with ως or ωσει (“like/as”) when discussing false prophets or those who are not true believers in the Gospel (Matt 10:16; cf. 7:15) or when being used purely as a simile to discuss the movements of a crowd (Matt 9:36), but it is also used to describe people who, at the time it is used of them, are true believers, not then-future converts (Matt 10:16; 25:32-33; 26:31; cf. 15:24), again fitting the Book of Mormon and the historical LDS interpretation of John 10:16.

Further evidence against the "Gentile" reading is summed up by one Protestant apologist:

There are two major problems with this interpretation. First of all, if men are sheep before they believe then they already have eternal life: “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28). If the sheep were never goats then how can they be born “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1)? No one among the unsaved Gentiles is ever called sheep. Try pigs and dogs (Mat. 7:6; 15:26-27; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22). The Gentiles were “without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). Can one of God's sheep go to hell? Why then must God's sheep believe on Christ?
            The second problem concerns the identification of the sheep. Who are the sheep? According to Micaiah (1 Kgs. 22:17), Asaph (Psa. 74:1; 78:52; 79:13), the Psalmist (Psa. 44:11, 22; 95:7; 100:3), David (Psa. 119:176), Isaiah (Isa. 53:6), Jeremiah (Jer 23:1; 50:6, 17), Ezekiel (Eze. 34:6, 11, 12), and Jesus Christ (Mat. 10:6: 15:24): the sheep are Israel. Notice the condition of Israel in the Old Testament:
 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace (Jer. 50:6) My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every hill: yea, my flock, was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them (Eze. 34:6). Then notice a forgotten prophecy from the Lord:
 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in  the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel.  I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the ¹ strong; I will feed them with judgment. (Eze 34:11-16) Note also the New Testament counterparts:
 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat. 10:6) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat. 15:24) When Christ came, his sheep—like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Annas (Luke 2:36-38), Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 2:8-20), and the disciples (John 1:40-49)--knew him (John 10:14), followed him (John 10:27), and received eternal life (John 10:28). We have here the separation of the Jewish sheep from the goats and the drawing of them to the Messiah. (Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism Rev. Ed. [Vance Publications, 1999], 339-40)

Which much more could be said about this and related issues, the Latter-day Saint interpretation of John 10:16 is not an exegetical stretch, and is perhaps the best passage in the Bible relating to the Book of Mormon and its peoples.

Matthew Gordley on the use of passive verbs for Christ in Colossians 1:16

[T]he creation language of [Psa 32:6, LXX] maintains the passive construction found in the Hebrew. It reads: 

τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν. 

 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firmAnd by the breath of his mouth all their power. (Ps 32:6 LXX)

 This passive construction is analogous to the language of the Colossian hymn where Christ’s role in creation is depicted through the use of passive verbs. Though Christ is the subject of the passage as a whole, in Col 1:16 the subject of the sentence is “everything in the heavens and on the earth.” Christ’s involvement in their creation is presented though the use of εν with the dative so that all things were created “in him.” 

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς . . τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται 

 For in him everything in the heavens and upon the earth were created . . . All things were created through him and for him. (Col 1:16)

 Just as in Ps 33 (32 LXX) where the word of the Lord does not create, but is the means by which God created, so in the Colossian hymn Christ does not create, but is presented as the one in whom, through whom, and for whom God created all things. (Matthew E. Gordley, The Colossian Hymn in Context [Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 61-62 [square brackets my own for clarification]).

Do the many "Lords" and "Gods" in 1 Corinthians 8:5 have ontological existence?

[W]e should note that in [1 Cor 8:6] it is possible to see the inclusion of Jesus Christ in the identity of the God of the Old Testament, but there is no exclusion of the existence of other beings that might in some sense be considered divine. Paul takes seriously the existence of those beings, but he is clear that Christ is far above them in authority, surely more in the category of the one God than of the lesser powers, demi-gods, so to speak . . . Paul does not question [their] existence.(George Carraway, Christ is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the context of Romans 9-11 [Bloomsbury, 2015], 87, 89 n. 141, comments in square bracket added for clarification).

"This is my Body": Proof of Transubstantiation?

I recently came across the above meme on a Catholic Website; it reflects, albeit in a comical manner, the common Roman Catholic claim that the phrase, "this is my body," as well as "this is my blood" is to be taken "at face value" (i.e., everything but the outward appearance of the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus). How does this argument hold up to exegesis?

The phrase, "this is my body" translates the Greek phrase τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου literally, "this is the body of me." A rather technical argument has been made to support transubstantiation by some Catholic writers. The argument is that as the demonstrative "this" τουτο is a demonstrative neuter singular, it cannot refer to the term "bread" αρτος which is masculine, but the noun "body" σωμα which is neuter. As a result of this, and the fact that it is coupled with the verb ειμι "to be," Christ is teaching that the bread becomes the body of Jesus, with an alternative translation being, "this [new entity] is the body of me."

It is correct that the referent for the demonstrative "this" is "body." However, to read "is" in a literalistic way as to argue that Transubstantiation is in view in the narratives is vacuous.

In Greek grammar, there is what is called an "interpretive ειμι," wherein the verb ειμι, often in conjunction with τουτο or τι, has the definition of "meaning" or "[this] means."

Two notable instances of such can be seen in Matthew 27:46 and Luke 18: 36--

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli Eli, lama sabachthani, that is [τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν] to say, My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

 And hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant [εἴη τοῦτο]. (Luke 18:36)

A symbolic meaning of "this is my body" can still be retained, notwithstanding claims to the contrary. Furthermore, taking "is" in such a literalistic manner that many who hold to the dogma of Transubstantiation, or something similar, such as the Eastern Orthodox view do, results in some inanities if one were to be consistent in their approach to the verb ειμι. For instance, in Luke 22:20, both "cup" (ποτηριον) and the demonstrative are singular neuters. However, in Catholic theology, it is not the cup, but the contents thereof (i.e., the wine) that become transubstantiated into the blood of Christ. Of course, just as "this is my body" is a literary device (the interpretative ειμι) and should not be taken in a literalistic fashion, neither should "this cup" be interpreted as being the [blood of] the new covenant; in reality, it too, is a literary device (synecdoche).

Another related argument is that the use of τρωγω in John 6:54f is "proof" of Transubstantiation; for a refutation, see my post here.

Of course, a close identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ is not problematic for LDS theology and Scripture; consider the following from the Book of Mormon (which records the very words of Christ Himself):

And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you. And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you . . . And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily when ye shall minister it; for whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore it ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him. Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood. (3 Nephi 18:6-7, 28-30)

Acts 3:13 versus the Trinity

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. (Acts 3:13 NRSV)

I recently came across this verse being used against Latter-day Saint Christology on facebook from a Trinitarian. This blog post will be an examination of this verse.

Before we begin, we should note a few things. Firstly, in Trinitarian theology, there is, albeit ambiguously, a tolerance for a distinction between the persons of the Trinity—the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father. However, there is no toleration for a distinction between “God” or any of the divine titles predicated upon deity and any of the divine persons. We will return to this point below.

Secondly, the early apostolic preaching, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is strongly non-Trinitarian. Notice the following examples:

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which we now see and hear. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:32-33, 36)

Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. (Acts 5:31-32)

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. (John 5:26)

In these texts, Jesus was exalted by the Father post-ascension (cf. Phil 2:9); was made Lord and Christ, and is presented, even in his exalted state, as being subordinate to the Father. Furthermore, not only are there distinctions between the persons of the Father and the Son (serving as strong refutations of Modalism), but also distinctions between “God” (θεος) and Jesus, something not tolerated by Trinitarian Christologies.

Such a distinction is also seen in many so-called “proof-texts” for the Trinitarian dogma, such as Col 1:16 (cf. Rev 4:11) and 1 Cor 8:4-6. In spite of a lot of eisegesis by popular expositors and apologists, as well as modern inventions such as the nonsense of Richard Bauckham’s “divine identity,” the Trinitarian dogma is nowhere to be found in the pages of the Bible.

Now, let us return to Acts 3:13.

Again, as with many other New Testament texts, there is a distinction, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but a distinction between "God" and Jesus. The Greek text refers, not to the being of the Trinity, but the person of the Father as ο θεος (lit. "the God") to the distinction of the Son. Acts 3:13 is presenting Jesus as the "suffering servant" of the book of Isaiah. In Isa 52:13-53:12, the Fourth Servant Hymn, there is a distinction between "God" (Yahweh) and the servant (Jesus). Notice the following key texts:

Behold, my [Yahweh's] servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (Isa 52:13)

He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my [Yahweh's] righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (Isa 53:11)

In addition, the Father is said to have "glorified" Jesus. Why is this problematic? In Trinitarian Christology, Jesus retained the same glory He had in his pre-mortal state; he only "veiled" it during the incarnation. However, Acts 3:13, and a host of other texts (e.g., Phil 2:9) that present Jesus as having received greater exaltation than his previous (mortal and pre-mortal) states. This verse makes nonsense of the Hypostatic Union.

Some may suggest, as this critic did, that this verse is problematic to LDS theology as the Father is presented as being the Lord (Yahweh) of the Old Testament, not Jesus.

It is true that, in the past century, there has been an absolutisation of sorts, where Jesus is presented as being the Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Old Testament in his pre-mortal state, and “Elohim” being the Father; however, such is a recently modern convention to avoid confusion.

In the early LDS Church, the Father was often referred to as Jehovah (e.g., D&C 109:34, 42, 56, 68).

In the Times and Seasons, vol. 2, no. 21, p. 524 from 1841, in an article entitled "Election and Reprobation," we find the following distinction between Jehovah and Jesus:

The Lord (Jehovah,) hath spoken through Isa. (42, 1) saying, behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; evidently referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God chosen or elected by the Father, (1 Peter i. 20, who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God,) to serve him in the redemption of the world, to be a covenant of the people, [)] (Isa. xlii, 6) for a light of the Gentiles, and glory of his people Israel; having ordained him to be judge of the quick and dead, (Acts x, 42) that through him forgiveness of sins might be preached (Acts xiii, 38) unto all who would be obedient unto his gospel (Mark xvi, 16,17)

However, there are other instances, even in the early LDS Church, that “Jehovah” was predicated upon the person of Jesus (e.g., D&C 110:3).

In the 1916 First Presidency statement, "The Father and the Son," we read the following under the section, "Jesus Christ the 'Father' by Divine Investiture of Authority" which helps us understand the agentival relationship between the Father and the Son:

A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).

The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

In conclusion, we have seen in the following that (1) Acts 3:13 is not problematic to Latter-day Saint Christology and (2) this verse is problematic to Trinitarian Christologies.

This is yet another “proof-text” cited in favour of the Trinity dogma that, when examined using the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, and when read in light of Trinitarian theology itself, refutes, not supports, such a doctrine and Christology.

For a further discussion of Latter-day Saint Christology, see my (lengthy) post, "Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus"

Another reason why 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not support forensic justification

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:21 ESV)

In a previous post, I discussed how this verse does not support the doctrine of forensic justification. There is another element, however, of this verse that serves to refute the doctrine of forensic justification.

If the Reformed understanding of the first part of this verse is true, that is, Christ was a penal substitute who had the sins of the elect imputed to him in their stead, then, taking logic of penal substitution to the second half of v.21, one would have to conclude that the elect become the righteousness of God in the stead of Christ(!) Of course, such is a nonsense reading, but it does show the eisegesis Calvinism requires people to engage in to prop up such a theology.

Does Paul's use of υπερ necessitate Penal Substitution?

There are various considerations which weigh against the interpretation of υπερ as αντι (“instead of”) in [2 Cor 5:14-15] . . . [one such example] is the Pauline addition of the aorist passive participle εγερθεντι at the end of verse 15. Using the ινα clause to express purpose rather than result, Paul notes that Christ died for all so that they might no longer live for themselves but for him who died and was raised for them (αλλα τω υπερ αυτων αποθανοντι και εγερθεντι). According to J. Bernard, the substitutional rendering of υπερ is “excluded by the fact that in the phrase υπερ αυτων αποθανοντι και εγερθεντι, υπερ αυτων  is governed by both participles” . . . [I]f the participle is not related to the phrase τω υπερ αυτων, then “the flow of the sentence is broken, leaving us with a translation ‘he died for them and rose’ (for his own benefit). This breaks up the logic of Paul’s argument.” Since it is more natural to see both participles as being associated with τω υπερ αυτων so that Paul’s argument remains intact, the idea of substitution must be absent. (Daniel G. Powers, Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology [Leuven: Peeters, 2001], 62, 63).