Monday, February 29, 2016

James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29

On his Alpha and Omega Ministries Website, James R. White has an article entitled, "Hebrews and the Atonement of Christ." This is, in part, a response to pp. 102-7 of Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis' book, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Queenship, 2000) which I myself have critiqued elsewhere on my blog. To see my exegesis of Heb 10:10-14 (a favourite proof-text discussed by White) alongside 2:17, see here.

Near the end of the article, White attempts to interact with one pericope that is often cited, alongside Heb 6:4-6, as proof that a truly justified believer can lose their salvation, Heb 10:26-29. Before we reproduce White's comments, here is the 1995 NASB translation:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer a punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under the foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Sungenis (ibid, pp. 102-3) writes:

This is a significant passage for our present discussion. The use of the word “sacrifice” in this context demands an explanation as to why such a concept is even mentioned, if, as is claimed by non-Catholic opponents, the one-time acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice totally secures and completes one’s justification. How can opponents explain this passage when the ones addressed in the context of Hebrews 10 are practicing Christians? According to Hebrews 10:29, they have already been “sanctified.” Hebrews 10:32-34 adds that they had become noteworthy for having previously “stood their ground in a great contest in the face of suffering;” they had been “publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times stood side by side with those who were so treated;” they “had sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they knew they had better and lasting possessions.” The warning is clear that if they now decide to sin “deliberately,” then no more sacrifice is left or them, rather, “a fearful expectation of judgement.”

In an attempt to avoid the theological implications of this pericope, White (using some projection along the way), writes:

Sungenis follows up these comments with a reference to Hebrews 10:29.  He asserts this passage teaches one can fall away from sanctification.  He does not show any familiarity with the question of who it is who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant in this passage.  The great Puritan scholar, John Owen, wrote concerning who is the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29:

But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, -- to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office.  (John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, vol. 22, p. 676)

I will admit that when I first read White’s comments, it struck me as rather desperate, but forced upon him due to his a priori assumption that Reformed soteriology must be biblical.

In an article responding to White (no longer accessible online, but a copy is in my possession for those who wish to read it), "James White's 'Feature Article' and the Calvinist Dance Around the Book of Hebrews," Sungenis wrote in response:

Obviously, Owen can’t admit that the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29 is a Christian, for that would mean that the Christian could lose his sanctification, and if he lost his sanctification, he would lose his justification, and if he lost his justification, it means he was never predestined to salvation in the first place, and thus, you see, the whole edifice of Calvinism would topple in one fell swoop. Suffice it to say, the only ones who even dare interpret Hebrews 10:29 in the way White is suggesting are the Calvinists.

But, of course, once they make such a claim, then they create other exegetical problems out of which there is no escape. They are stuck with explaining how Christ can be “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” when the word “sanctified” or its derivatives are never mentioned as occurring with or to Christ. Perhaps White would like to start a new religion based on the fact that he thinks Christ was “sanctified,” but it will be a religion that has no basis in the Bible, for the Bible simply does not teach such a heretical idea.

They also must explain how and why the Hebrew writer, in Hebrews 10:29, suddenly shifts from talking about the Christian (“and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant”) to an abrupt reference to Christ in mid-sentence (“by which he was sanctified”). I have searched all my Greek lexical and grammatical aids, and not one of them says that it is grammatically justifiable to say that the “he” of “by which he was sanctified” is anything but the Christian spoken about in “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant.”

In short, this is an outlandish claim of White’s, and it is just as heretical as his suggestion that Christ is the one who is sanctified. But this is what White is reduced to saying of Hebrews 10:29 in order to attempt to save face for Calvinism. It’s obvious why White didn’t cite any Greek grammars to support his claim, since none of them do so. The only thing he could find is some centuries-old Calvinist writer, who didn’t even address the Greek of the passage, as his only authoritative source. That, speaks volumes of the shoddy research and poor exegetical abilities of James White. One fatal flaw leads to another.

While I disagree with Sungenis on the thesis of his book (that the Catholic Mass is both biblical and historical), he is both spot-on in his book in rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as being biblical and this rather desperate attempt to avoid the clear meaning of Heb 10:26-29 from both White and Owen. While the verb αγιαζω can have the sense of "to consecrate" and is used of Jesus in John 10:35-36; 17:19 and 1 Pet 3:15, the meaning in Heb 10:29 is clearly soteriological, so cannot be used of Jesus but of redeemed/justified Christians. If Owen and White were consistent, they would have to argue, as do many Christadelphians, that Jesus offered up a sacrifice for himself for His own sin(s) (in the CD view, the sin of being human [not that White or Owen would hold to such--they would agree that Christ was sinless, but such is the precarious position one is placed with such eisegetical nonsense]).

Indeed, the other Reformed commentators I have examined on this epistle, while agreeing with White’s soteriology and belief a true believer could never lose their salvation, reject this strained reading (i.e., Christ is the one sanctified in Heb 10:29, not a Christian). For instance, one recent commentary wrote the following:

We should also note that the author speaks of the blood “by which” the readers were “sanctified” (ηγιασθη). Here is powerful evidence that those addressed are truly believers, confirming what was argued in 6:4-5, for Jesus’ blood sanctifies, and sets them apart (cf. 13:12 and 2:11). Jesus by his once-for-all offering “perfected forever those who are sanctified” (10:14). Sanctification here is definitive and positional rather than progressive. It is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers, for it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood. Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews (2:11), not the one who is sanctified. Indeed, in chapters 10 and 13 the author clearly states three times that the death of Jesus sanctifies believers (10:10, 14, 12:12). Nor is it persuasive to say that the sanctification is not saving, comparing it to the sanctification under the old covenant (9:13), which only sanctified externally. The argument fails to persuade, for the point in Hebrews is that Jesus’ sacrifice stands in contrast to the sacrifices of the old covenant. His sacrifice is effective and truly brings sanctification. To say that his sacrifice only sanctifies externally, like the sacrifices of the old covenant, misses one of the major themes of the letter. Contrary to OT sacrifices, Jesus’ sacrifice truly cleanses the conscience. (Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews [Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation: Nashville: Holman Reference, 2015], 327)

James White's theological mentor, John Calvin, also believed that those who are said to be "sanctified" in Heb 10:29 are Christians, not the person of Christ:

The blood of the covenant,  etc. He enhances ingratitude by a comparison with the benefits. It is the greatest indignity to count the blood of Christ unholy, by which our holiness is effected; this is done by those who depart from the faith. For our faith looks not on the naked doctrine, but on the blood by which our salvation has been ratified. He calls it the blood of the covenant, because then only were the promises made sure to us when this pledge was added. But he points out the manner of this confirmation by saying that we are sanctified; for the blood shed would avail us nothing, except we were sprinkled with it by the Holy Spirit; and hence come our expiation and sanctification. The apostle at the same time alludes to the ancient rite of sprinkling, which availed not to real sanctification, but was only its shadow or image

As with so many areas, James White fails on (1) biblical-exegetical grounds and (2) presents a marginal interpretation (out of desperation to prop up belief in Calvinism) of Heb 10:29 that is a rejected view even within Reformed circles, both historical and modern.

It should be noted that even White's fellow Reformed apologists who are also fellow anti-Mormons reject White's (and Owen's) eisegesis of Heb 10:29. Robert Bowman, on an LDS/Evangelical facebook page:


I'm not defending White's exegesis. It is a stretch to interpret "in which he was sanctified" to have "the Son of God" as its grammatical antecedent.

As an aside, for a detailed exegetical response to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (a work White is rather fond of), see Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (2d ed; Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1978).

Luther's Unease with the term "Homoousios"

[Luther] declared such a term as ομουσιος to be unallowable in the strict sense, because it represents a bad state of things when such words are invented in the Christian system of faith: “we must indulge the Fathers in the use of it . . . but if my soul hates the word homousios and I prefer not to use it, I shall not be a heretic; for who will compel me to use it, provided that I hold the thing which was defined in the Council [of Nicea] by means of the Scriptures? Although the Arians had wrong views with regard to the faith they were nevertheless very right in this . . . that they required that no profane and novel word should be allowed to be introduced into the rules of faith.” (Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma 7:225; square brackets added for clarification)

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Zelph on the Shelf vs. Jershon

In a blog post on the ever inane “Zelph on the Shelf,” we find this “interaction” with a pro-LDS article:

41. Names in the Book of Mormon

“Jershon, for instance, designates a place that was given to the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi as a “land … for an inheritance” (Alma 27:22). In Hebrew, Jershon means “a place of inheritance.” Reference

Hebrew names are never a slam-dunk. Like the aforementioned names, this one requires a stretch in order to fit the faithful conclusion. The Hebrew word for “inherit” is “JWW.” The transformation to “Jershon” is only possible through a series of potential linguistic exceptions  woven together by apologists.

This is a pretty lame “response,” to be honest (I say that as one who studied biblical Hebrew in a Catholic seminary). Firstly, the Hebrew verb “to inherit” is not transliterated JWW, but yrsh representing the Hebrew characters ירשׁ yod-resh-shin (J is often used to transliterate Hebrew yod [e.g., Joshua]). Furthermore, ון (-on) at the end of a word denotes “place of,” so Book of Mormon Jershon would mean “place of inheritance.” In the mind of this critic, Joseph Smith, who did not know Hebrew (the BOM was published before he studied [Sephardic] Hebrew from Joshua Seixas) could (1) craft a perfectly good Hebrew word and (2) use it in a context that fits perfectly its Hebrew meaning, that is, a place of inheritance:

And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful; and this land Jershon which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance . . . And now behold, this will we do unto our brethren, that they may inherit the land Jershon; and we will guard them from their enemies with our armies, on condition that they will give us a portion of their substance to assist us that we may maintain our armies. (Alma 27:22, 24)

And Alma, and Ammon, and their brethren, and also the two sons of Alma returned to the land of Zarahemla, after having been instruments in the hands of God of bringing many of the Zoramites to repentance; and as many as were brought to repentance were driven out of their land; but they have lands for their inheritance in the land of Jershon, and they have taken up arms to defend themselves, and their wives, and children, and their lands. (Alma 35:14)

Notice the parallelism (representative of Semitic literature) between "Jershon" and "inherit/inheritance" in these two passages, a parallelism that only works in light of a Semitic background. But hey, according to those who post on Zelph on the Shelf, this is just a huge massive coincidence (and they claim LDS apologists are desperate!)

The reality is that the onomasticon of the Book of Mormon provides strong evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon; this post just shows how weak the critical responses to such are.

Further Reading



John Tvedtnes and Matthew P. Roper, One Small Step


Graham N. Stanton, "Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism"

I just recently came across an interesting article that has just been made available online on the importance of one's presuppositions in exegesis and scholarship; I think many will find it of interest:

Graham N. Stanton, "Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism" (.pdf)

Echad does not mean "compound one"

It is rather common to hear from some Trinitarian apologists that the Hebrew ordinal אֶחָד in Deut 6:4 (NASB: Hear, O Israel! the Lord is our God, the Lord is one [אֶחָד]) is a compound or "plural" one, so this "oneness" allows for a plurality of persons within the one God (e.g., Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidences and Issues [1996]). This is perhaps one of the most inane attempts to salvage belief in the Trinity, and one that is not supported by the leading, scholarly lexicons of biblical Hebrew. This nonsense claim has been soundly refuted by Anthony Buzzard, a well-known proponent of Unitarianism. Here is an excerpt from his 2007 book Jesus was not a Trinitarian here. While I disagree with his Socinian Christology, and believe he is grossly ignorant on the topic of “Mormonism,” what he writes is very sound vis-à-vis the meaning of אֶחָד and its abuse by the likes of Michael Brown, Robert Morey, et al.

Here is the entry under אֶחָד from Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), perhaps the Hebrew lexicon on the market at the moment:

312  אֶחָד

) אֶחָד960 x(, Sam.M18 ÁaÒd: < *ÀahÌhÌaÒd < *ÀahÌad )Arb., BL 219g, Beer-M. §59:1(, ï יָחִיד; MHb., Ug. ahÌd, f. ahÌt, Ph. אחד, f. אחת, Arm. ) חַדï BArm. MdD 116a(, Eth. ÀahÌaduÒ, Akk. )w(eÒdu: abs. אֶחָד, and אַחַד Gn 4822 + 5 x )BL 622b(, cs. אַחַד, חַד Ezk 3330 )Aramaism or text error ? Nöldeke Syr. Gr. §242(, pl. אֲחָדִים; fem. ) אַחַת< *ÀahÌadt( abs. and cs., אֶחָֽת Gn 111, 2S 238 Q:

—1. numeral one a( מָקוֹם אֶ׳ one )single( place Gn 19, בְּשָׁנָה אֶחָת Ex 2329, בְּרָכָה אַ׳ Gn 2738, נֶפֶשׁ אַ׳ one soul = one single person Lv 427, אֶ׳ :: שְׁנֵי two :: one Lv 1410; מִשְׁפָּט אֶ׳ the same law Nu 1516, דָּתוֹ אַ׳ the same law is in force Est 411 מִדָּה אַ׳ the same measure Ex 262; אֶחָד י׳ Dt 64 Y is one )Sept., Pesh., Stade Theologie 1:84(; alt.: the one Y, Y alone, Y only; אֶ׳ one and only Zech 149 , the same )?( Jb 3115 alt. one; ï TWNT 3:1079f; vRad Theologie 2:226; Eichrodt Theologie 1:145, Labuschagne 137f; b( part. )VG 2:273aאַחַד הָעָם ( one of the people 1S 2615, הַנְּבָלִים אַ׳ 2S 1313, אַחַת הַנְּבָלוֹת Jb 210 אֲחִיכֶם אֶ׳ one of you brothers Gn 4219, מִכֶּם אִישׁ אֶ׳ a single one of you Jos 2310, מִמֶּנּוּ ) אַ׳GK §130a( one of us Gn 322; c( negative form: אֶ׳לֹא Ex 827 and לֹא אַחַד) עַד־אַ׳ abs., BL 622b( 2S 1722 not one, גַּם אֶ׳ ˆyae not even one Ps 143 עַד אֶ׳לֹא not even one Ex 1428; d( קוֹל אֶ׳ with one voice Ex 243, לֵב אֶ׳ 1C 1239 cj. Ps 836 )rd. וְ (אֶחָד unanimous, שְׁכֶם אֶ׳ shoulder to shoulder Zeph 39; לְיוֹם אֶ׳ for a single day, daily 1K 52, cj. Neh 515 for אַחַר; אֶ׳ יוֹם never-ending day Zech 147; ) אַחַתsc. (פַּעַם אַ׳ once: בַּשָּׁנָה אַ׳ Ex 3010 Lv 1634; אַ׳ :: שְׁתַּיִם once … twice 2K 610 Ps 6212 )?, ï שְׁתַּיִם( Jb 405; בְּאַחַת Jr 108 and כְּאֶחָד Qoh 116 in one and the same time; )ï BArm. כַּחֲדָה, Aramaism Arm.lw. Wagner 124; Akk. kiÒma isëteÒn(, אַחַת Ps 8936 and בְּאַחַת Jb 3314 once and for all; הוּא אֶ׳ only one Gn 4125, אֶחָדוַיְהִי became one, a unit Ex 3613; וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד a single whole Ex 266; in statistical records repeated after each name Jos 129-24 cj. 1K 48-18 )Sept.(, Montgomery-G. 124; e( pl. אֲחָדִים: יָמִים אֲ׳ a few days Gn 2744 2920 Da 1120 אֲ׳ µyrIb;D“ the same )kind of( words Gn 111 Ezk 2917 ):: Gordon UTGl. 126: like Ug. ahÌdm du. “a pair”( וְהָיוּ לַאֲ׳ to become one Ezk 3717;

—2. אֶ׳ one another )VG 2:328f(: וּמִזֶּה אֶ׳ מִזֶּה אֶ׳ one here and one there Ex 1712, בְּאֶ׳ אֶ׳ one to another Jb 418, cj. אֶחָד אֶת־אֶחָד vs. Ezk 3330 one to another, with gloss אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו; וְאֶ׳ וְאֶ׳אֶ׳ one … another … a third 1S 103 1317f, וְהָאֶ׳ … òa,h; one … and the other 1K 1229, הֵנָּה אַחַת הֵנָּה וְאַ׳ once here and once there = to and fro 2K 435 לְאַ׳ אַחַת one after the other Qoh 727, וְהַדּוּד אֶ׳ … dj;a, הַדּוּד Jr 242 the one basket … and the other )Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §60b, 1S 1317 (הָרֹאשׁ אֶ׳;

—3. אֶ׳ indefinite article )GK §125b( אִישׁ אֶ׳ 1S 11, נָבִיא אֶ׳ 1K 1311, אַיִל אֶ׳ Da 83, יוֹם אֶ׳ one day 1S 271, יִשְׂ׳ אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי anyone of the tribes 2S 152, ) מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּהGK §119w1( any one of them Lv 42; put in front קָדוֹשׁ אֶ׳ a holy one Da 813, אַחַת מְעַט הִיא for a little while Hg 26 מְעַט הִיא) > Sept.(;

—4. ordinal, first: אַחַת :: הַשֵּׁנִית 1S 12, יוֹם אֶ׳ the first day Gn 15 ):: יוֹם שֵׁנִי 18 etc.(; in dates לַחֹדֶשׁ בְּיוֹם אֶ׳ on the first day of the month Ezr 1016 > לַחֹדֶשׁ בְּאֶ׳ Gn 85, בִּשְׁנַת אַחַת לְ in the first year of Da 91, וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בְּאַחַת in the 601st year Gn 813;

—5. distributive: לַשֶּׁבֶט אֶ׳ one in each tribe Dt 123, לְאִישׁ אֶ׳ from each man 2K 1520, לְאַחַד אֶחָד one after the other Is 2712, לְאֶחָֽת each single one Ezk 16, הָאַחַת each 1C 271;

Gn 329 rd. הָָאֶחָד; 2S 225b dl.; 723 and Ezk 177 ):: Zimmerli 374( rd. אַחֵר, Ezk 1119 rd. אַחֵר or חָָדָשׁ; Jb 2313 rd. בָּחַר for ) בְּאֶחָד:: Dahood Fschr. Gruenthauer 67(, Pr 2818 rd. בְּשָֽׁחַת; Qoh 1211 cj. ) אָחוֹרGalling BASOR 119:18(; Da 89 rd. אַחֶרֶת.