Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

(Update: Jeff Durbin and James White attempted to respond to this article; see James White and Jeff Durbin "respond" ; See also Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement on how weak Durbin's arguments [a] against LDS soteriology and the Melchizedek Priesthood and [b] in favour of the Reformed view of the atonement truly are, as well as Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura which shows how anti-biblical and ahistorical the formal doctrine of Protestantism [Sola Scriptura] is)

Jeff Durbin has a video entitled, “The Gospel for Mormons.”

This article will be a response to some of Durbin's misinformed "arguments."

As background, Durbin is a Reformed Protestant and is buddies with James White. Such alone explains his multitudinous theological errors and inability to engage in exegesis, instead, he just throws out a text and hopes that his audience will accept what he says about it, hook, line, and sinker.

Opening Comments

Durbin claims that Latter-day Saints he engages with claims that the LDS Church to be just another denomination. However, any informed Latter-day Saint (I do wonder if Durbin will ever debate someone of the caliber of Blake Ostler or Daniel Peterson than target unexpecting Latter-day Saints as he is wont to do?) will know that "Mormonism" does not claim to be just "another" denomination within the broad Christian spectrum; it is the only true Church therein. As D&C 1:30 explicitly states:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.

Durbin (correctly) states that the nature of God is central; however, he errs by referring to his Trinitarian God as a "who"; in reality, it is a "they" (three persons in one being) or an "it" (a being as opposed to a singular person). This is an issue that, as we will see, plagues his eisegetical approach to Isa 43:10 and other texts he abuses.

Durbin, in an attempt to critique the historicity of the First Vision, argues that Joseph Smith was wrong and that the Trinitarian view of deity is historical, not just biblical, so the condemnation of Creeds (JS-H 1:19) by Jesus Christ was a lie; However, when one examines early Christian writings, the Trinity is nowhere to be found.

Here are some examples of how early Christian texts were clearly non-Trinitarian, clearly showing that creedal Trinitarianism is not apostolic in origins, but a later, post-New Testament development:

The author of 1 Clement (end of the first century):

1Clem 46:6
Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ?

1Clem 59:3
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multiplies the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.

1Clem 59:4
We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to be our help and succor. Save those among us who are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the fainthearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.

1Clem 64:1
Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him …that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ,through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.

1Clem 65:2
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.

The Didache, variously dated from 50-100:

And concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. And if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else is able, but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (7).

We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant. To You be the glory for ever.(9).

We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant, to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. (9).

We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name’s sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant. Above all things we thank You that You are might. Glory to You forever and ever. (10).

Papias (AD 125):

The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature, and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up his work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the Kingdom the righteous man who is on the earth shall forget to die. “But when He says all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted Who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to Him, Who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – Fragments of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.

Aristides (ca. 125).:

Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the Most High God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men.(Apology, 2).

For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten son and the Holy Spirit, and beside Him they worship no other God. (Apology 15)

Justin Martyr (100-165), Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 48, 49:

And [the Jew] Trypho said, “…Resume the discourse… For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.”

And I [Justin] replied to this, “I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race… Now assuredly, Trypho,” I continued,”[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly [i.e. before his conception] as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”

And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ].”

What about the early use of the term “Trinitas” where the term “Trinity” was derived, and one of its earliest users, Tertullian? While most scholars, even those from “Orthodox” denominations, will readily admit that the Trinity is a doctrine that developed slowly over time, many apologists for the doctrine point to alleged biblical and patristic texts in favour of the belief. Some point to Tertullian, an early writer who was rather prodigious in his literary output. Indeed, one of the evidences of his being a “Trinitarian” (to use a then-anachronistic term) is that he used the term trinitas, where we get the term “Trinity.” Of course, this is to commit the root or etymological fallacy (see here for a discussion of this common exegetical fallacy).

Did Tertullian hold the modern definition of the Trinity? The answer is “no.”

One can access Tertullian’s writings here, and I would always urge any reader to rely on the primary source materials than anyone’s commentary, no matter how informed (my own included). However, when one reads his writings, we find a number of things that are inconsistent with Trinitarianism; for instance:

That the person of the Father is the only true God (Answer to the Jews ch. 1)

That the true God was the “common Father” (the person of the Father [Apology ch. 39])

That Jesus did not exist eternally (Against Hermogenes ch 3)

That the Son’s relationship to the Father can be understood as that of a beam to the sun, a rather “Arian” understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Against Praxeas 8)

The Father is older than the Son (Against Praxeas 9)

One could go on, but you get the idea. Tertullian also believed that, while God is “spirit,” he did not believe “spirit” was immaterial but material; this belief is inconsistent with the doctrine of “divine simplicity,” which is necessary for any (creedal) Trinitarian theology (see Against Praxeas 7), something that Trinitarian defenders will readily admit.

So, Latter-day Saints are correct in rejecting the Trinity, not just as a perversion of the Bible (see below), but is ahistorical like the Bodily Assumption of Mary which Durbin (correctly) rejects (on this, see Stephen Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption [Oxford, 2003])

Attacks on the Great Apostasy and Need for a Restoration

Matthew 16:18 and the Gates of Hades

It should be noted that even Durbin's fellow Reformed Protestant friends disagree that Matt 16:18 is a "proof-text" against an apostasy. Eric Svendsen, interacting with Roman Catholic appeals to this text to show that there would be no apostasy, wrote the following:

Catholic apologists often counter this point [the charge of apostasy] by noting that God promised the indestructibility and infallibility for his church in passages such as Matt 16:18 and 28:20—promises never granted to Israel. But such an assertion is incorrect. The people of Israel were given many promises that they would never cease to be God’s chosen people, as in the following passage:

“This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that it waves roar—the Lord Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the Lord. (Jer 31:35-37)

Moreover, Paul insists that it was to the Jews that God entrusted his word (Rom 3:1-2; 9:3-5). He further asserts of “the people of Israel” that:

“Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” (Rom 9:4-5)

According to these passages Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. Based on these promises the Pharisees might have made a similar argument for their own authority as Catholic apologists make today regarding the authority of Rome. The Pharisees alone, it could have been argued, were capable of interpreting the Old Testament and the “Fathers” (since they alone were entrusted with God’s word, and were promised the Law, the Covenants, and the Patriarchs). Similarly, they might have staked a claim to sole ownership of the tradition of the liturgy (since Paul includes “temple worship” in his list). And, of course, how could anyone deny that they possessed eternal life since they were granted “adoption as sons” and the Messiah himself? Indeed, these statements by Paul and Jeremiah are decidedly at least as strong as (if not much stronger than) those made in reference to the church.

As much as Catholic apologists are reluctant to do so, they must face the fact that their claims to indestructibility (based on the promises of Jesus to his church) are virtually indistinguishable from those made by Israel (based on Jeremiah, and later, Paul). More importantly, they must come to terms with the fact that Israel was dead wrong in just how those promises were to be understood! Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. The problem is, they thought they were invincible by virtue of their association with Moses (1 Cor 10:1-5) and their pedigree to Abraham (Matt 3:9)—and they wrongly defined “true Israel” as an institution. These are the same errors made by the Roman Catholic church. Sadly, those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

In the end, because of her long history of disobedience and moral corruption, Israel as an institution was rejected by God; God then turned to the Gentiles who accepted his word with gladness. It is such a surprise then that God, after tolerating centuries of abuse and moral corruption, would finally say “enough!” (Eric D. Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists [Lindenhurst, N.Y.: Reformation Press, 1999], 112-14; comment in square brackets added for clarification)

With respect to Matt 16:18 itself, since gates—even the gates of hell (Hades/Sheol)—do not attack and destroy churches (or anything else), it is clear that Jesus could not have meant that hell would not destroy the church.  Indeed, gates are either intended to keep people in (prisoners) or keep people out.  But since Jesus gave Peter keys in verse 19, it seems clear that he intended that the church should open the gates of hell and release its prisoners (cf. 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6).  This is what he meant about the gates of hell not prevailing over the church. That this is the case can be seen in the fact that the Greek word rendered “prevail” in the King James Bible is κατισχύσουσιν, the third person plural future indicative active of κατισχύω, literally, “be strong against,” and it is often used in the sense of “restrain.”

As one Protestant scholar commented:

In keeping with the linguistic data, "gates of Hades" is to be considered a figure of speech for death, which cannot keep the Christ imprisoned. (Jack P. Lewis, "'The Gates of Hell Shall not Prevail Against It' (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation" in JETS 38/3 (September 1995): 349-67, here, pp. 366-67.

As New Testament scholars W.D. Davies ad Dale C. Allison wrote on the phrase, “the gates of Hades will not overcome”:

The spectrum of opinion on these words, which in the early church were so often used against heretics, and which later came to serve as an apology for tradition, is unusually broad. But readers should likely think of the end-time scenario, when the powers of the underworld will be unleashed from below, from the abyss, and rage against the saints cf. Rev 6.8; 11.7; 17.8. The promise is that even the full fury of the underworld’s demonic forces will not overcome the church. One may compare Rev 9.1-11, where the demonic hosts, under their king Abaddon, come up from the bottomless pit to torment humanity. They prevail against all save those with the seal of God. Also worth comparing is 1QH 6.22-9. In this the author faces the gates of death but is delivered by entering a fortified city founded on a rock. The context is the great eschatological conflict. (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 270)

Note that Durbin is begging an important question: his criticism assumes that the earliest Church was proto-Protestant. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, the earliest Christians accepted baptismal regeneration and did not hold to the formal sufficiency of the Bible (in spite of attempts by David King, William Webster, William Goode, and others who have tried to argue otherwise). One should pursue the following posts for more information:

Irenaeus did not hold to Sola Scriptura

The Early Church Fathers Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

Athanasius Supporting Extra-Biblical Concepts and Terms vs. the formal sufficiency of Scripture

John Chrysostom vs. Sola Scriptura

Did Cyril of Jerusalem Believe in Sola Scriptura?

(Update: Be sure to check out my book-length treatment of Sola Scriptura:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura [2017])

Baptismal Regeneration and the Epistle of Barnabas

Did 1 Clement Teach Sola Fide?

The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration

Epistula Apostolorum and Baptismal Regeneration

Baptismal Regeneration in Patristic Interpretations of Ephesians 5:26

Baptismal Regeneration in Early Christian Interpretations of Acts 2:38

Jude 1:3 and the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (KJV)

The term translated as "once" is απαξ. It simply means "once" and does not, in and of itself, denote finality. Had Jude wished to convey such, he would have used εφαπαξ, which is used in the Greek NT for the once-for-all sacrifice and death of Christ (Rom 6:10; 1 Cor 15:6; Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).

Notice how απαξ is used in the NT:

Thrice was I beaten with rods, once (απαξ) was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck a night and day I have been in the deep. (2 Cor 11:25)

For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again (απαξ) unto my necessity. (Phil 4:16)

Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again (απαξ); but Satan hindered us. (1 Thess 2:18)

Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more (απαξ) I shake not the earth only, but also the heaven. (Heb 12:26)

Two verses later in this text, Jude again used απαξ:

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once (απαξ) knew this, how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

LDS scholar, John Tvedtnes, commented on this verse thusly:

If the gospel (more correctly, faith) was to be delivered but once to men on the earth, then Paul would be wrong in writing that the gospel had been revealed earlier to Abraham (Galatians 3:8f). And if the gospel was revealed in the days of Jesus, never to disappear from the earth, there would be no necessity for the angel John saw coming in later times to reveal the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth (Revelation 14:6-7). We can either conclude that Jude 1:3 does not give the whole story, or we must conclude that the Bible contradicts itself. That is, the same argument used against Joseph Smith can be used against the writers of the biblical books, if one misinterprets this passage. (source: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Restoration.shtml#jude)

The burden of evidence is on the person arguing their point that απαξ denotes once-for-all/sense of finality. Jude 1:3 is not evidence, however, against the LDS view on the nature of the Apostasy and/or a need for a Restoration; it is an exegetical burden that Durbin is incapable of engaging in (as eisegesis is his forté).

Daniel 7:13-14 and the Kingdom of God

Latter-day Saints believe that the Church is not one-to-one equivalent to the Kingdom of God. The latter, in its fullness, is still a future event, something that one finds support for in Luke 1:32-33:

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and his kingdom there shall be no end.

Latter-day Saints, holding to a form of Pre-Millenial eschatology, believe that this promise and other promises will find their full fulfillment when Christ comes to herald in the parousia.

Matt 26:64, where Jesus speaks of Himself as the Son of Man figure in Dan 7:13-14, speaks of the Kingdom as a future event which will be fulfilled at the parousia:

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Furthermore, that Durbin is being disingenuous can be seen in the fact that, if Dan 7:13-14 was the first-century Church, he has to answer what was about that Kingdom that had to be "reformed"? As a Calvinist, he hardly accepts the Catholic Church before the Reformation to be the Kingdom of God. Perhaps he would argue that there was a faithful handful who held to the "truth" as he perceives it (forensic justification; sola scriptura, etc), but that hardly fits Dan 7:13-14. Perhaps, at a minimum, he should rethink his eschatology (I believe Durbin is amillennial).

That the biblical authors knew that the Kingdom was a future event, even after the resurrection, can be seen in Acts 1:6:

So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6 NRSV)

However, many who reject this view (those belonging to the amillennial camp) have to relegate the importance of this and other kingdom texts in the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere. For instance, Calvin wrote the following on this verse:

He showeth that the apostles were gathered together when as this question was moved, that we may know that it came not of the foolishness of one or two that it was moved, but it was moved by the common consent of them all; but marvelous is their rudeness, that when as they had been diligently instructed by the space of three whole years, they betray no less ignorance than if they had heard never a word. There are as many errors in this question as words. They ask him as concerning a kingdom; but they dream of an earthly kingdom, which should flow with riches, with dainties, with external peace, and with such like good things; and while they assign the present time to the restoring of the same. they desire to triumph before the battle; for before such time as they begin to work they will have their wages. They are also greatly deceived herein, in that they restrain Christ’s kingdom unto the carnal Israel, which was to be spread abroad, even unto the uttermost parts of the world. Furthermore, there is this fault in all their whole question, namely, that they desire to know those things which are not meet for them to know. No doubt they were not ignorant what the prophets did prophesy concerning the restoring of David’s kingdom, they had oftentimes heard their Master preach concerning this matter.

For Calvin, there were as many errors as words to the apostles' question! (in the original Greek, 11 words compose the apostles' question).

While I disagree with his Socinian Christology, Anthony Buzzard has done a stellar job in the realm of eschatology; his article on the Kingdom of God and Acts 1:6 was published by the Evangelical Quarterly, a theological journal, and has just been made available online:

Acts 1:6 and the Eclipse of the Biblical Kingdom

He demonstrates that this verse supports the premillennial view of eschatology and the kingdom of God, something that is contrary to much of Catholic and Reformed formulations of eschatology.

The Number and Nature of God

 Deut 6:4

  שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד

Hear, o Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh alone [alt. "Yahweh is one"]

The Shema is often cited as evidence of strict monotheism. However, most modern biblical scholars agree that the Shema is not about the “number” of God, but instead, is about how Yahweh is the only God with whom Israel is to have a covenantal relationship with. A parallel would be Deut 5:7, a rendition of the Decalogue:

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. (cf. Exo 20:3 [exegeted here])

According to biblical scholars such as Michael Coogan, this commandment, and the Shema implicitly recognises the ontological existence of other gods (cf. Gen 20:13). As in a marriage, one of the primary analogs for the covenant, Israel was to be faithful, like a wife to her husband. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for having worshiped other gods in violation of this commandment, the metaphors of marital and political fidelity are often invoked, sometimes graphically (e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12; Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Yahweh is a jealous husband (e.g., Exo 34:14) and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with foreign powers, provokes his rage (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures [New York: Oxford University Press, 2006], 176, 116).

As one recent scholarly commentary states:

Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)

Additionally, there has been a lot of linguistic nonsense about the Hebrew numeral אֶחָדwhich simply means one (not  “plural one” or some other nonsense one finds among some Trinitarians). This particular issue will be discussed below (cf. this article by a linguist on אֶחָד)

For those wishing to delve further into the issue of "monotheism" in the book of Deuteronomy, I would highly recommend Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism" (2d ed.: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

There is a danger, however, of Trinitarians “absolutizing” Deut 6:4 as some are wont to do, not the least is that Mark 12:28f and its parallels refute any Trinitarian reading of the Shema. In this incident with a Jewish scribe, we read the following:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he [Jesus] had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is one other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is one other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:28-34)

In the above pericope, Jesus agrees with a Jew about the Shema. What is interesting is that the Jews were never Trinitarians, in spite of a lot of fudging of biblical grammar by the likes of Natan Yoel (The Jewish Trinity) and other eisegesis-laden texts. This is an undisputed fact of history and scholarship. Furthermore, singular personal pronouns are used to describe God. Furthermore, in the proceeding text, Jesus discusses Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX), where Yahweh speaks to “my Lord," and Christ identifies Himself as the second Lord, not the first:

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrines, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces.  (Mark 12:35-38; cf. Acts 2:34; Heb 1:13)

Taking the absolutist hermeneutic of many Trinitarian apologists, one must conclude that the Shema is strictly uni-personal, not Tri-personal, in scope. Of course, both theologies are undermined by other factors, not the least is that the ontological existence of plural gods in the midst of the Most High are part-and-parcel of biblical theology, even in the book of Deuteronomy itself (e.g., the earliest textual reading of Deut 32:7-9 or the fact that even modern conservative Protestant commentators are acknowledging the elohim of Psa 82 and 89 to be [true] gods).

Does אֶחָֽד allow for "compound unity"?

Durbin, with reference to the Shema (notice how the Hebrew is going the wrong way in the screen . . .) argues that God is one, and yet, in the same breath, that God (who he calls a "he" [singular person!]) exists in three separate persons. However, try as they might, the Hebrew ordinal translated as "one" does not mean "compound one" or "complex unity."

It is common for Trinitarian apologists to argue that the Hebrew term translated as “one” in Deut 6:4 (אֶחָד) can mean “compound” or “plural” “one.” This is a rather silly argument to try to read Trinitarianism into the biblical texts; akin to asking “what computer software did Paul use to write Romans?” The Hebrew term אֶחָד is an ordinal numeral, and means exactly what the English term “one” means. There is no hint of “three-in-oneness” or anything of the like.

One linguistic “trick” used to support the concept of a “plurality” within the semantic form of the ordinal is that the phrase “one bunch of grapes” somehow “proves” the ordinal can have a plural sense. However, the ordinal refers to how many bunches in question, not how many grapes—the apologist for the Trinity or other theologies is bleeding the plurality of the noun back into the ordinal (here “grapes” back into one). To think how fallacious this is, it is akin to arguing that the meaning of “one” in the locution, “one zebra” means “black and white.” "One" in any language may be used to qualify a plural or compound noun, but the meaning of "one" remains the same (one singular), linguistic tricks of less-than-informed (or honest) apologists notwithstanding.

Funnily enough, this would require that divinity/deity, as envisaged in Deut 6:4, is plural, something that is very “Mormon.” Funnily enough, Sam Shamoun, a Trinitarian apologist, argues that the "literal translation" of Deut 6:4 is, "Hear O Israel, Yahweh [is] our Gods, Yahweh is a Unity." No informed Trinitarian would ever claim there exists "Gods" as anyone who has studied the doctrine in any depth will tell you. I am tempted to say to Shamoun that he is not far from the kingdom of God as such is very close to Joseph Smith's teachings in the Sermon in the Grove (AKA Discourse on the Plurality of the Gods) . . .

Some Trinitarians appeal to Gen 2:24 as “proof” of their contention:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (אֶחָד) flesh.

There are many problems with appealing to Gen 2:24. Firstly, the “oneness” in view in this passage is not “oneness of being," but oneness of “flesh” (with the unity in view here being Adam and Eve becoming "one kin" [not "one ontological being"]). As Frank Moore Cross noted, "Oath and covenant, in which the deity is witness, guarantor, or participant, is also a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinsip may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens." (Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon, p. 8)

 Furthermore, Adam and Eve, even after these words are uttered, were consistently depicted as plural, both in grammar and concord; this is proved in Gen 3:7:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The form of the verb “to make” (Heb: עשׂה) is plural, not singular (יַּעֲשׂ֥וּ), and the later LXX translators understood it as plural, too, rendering ποιεω as ἐποίησαν, the third person plural.

The "compound one" argument if a fallacious one that is found wanting at the bar of both exegesis and linguistics.

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; notice how this scholarly source does not entertain the Trinitarian nonsense of "complex unity":

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, אֶחָד … וַיְהִי became one, a unit Ex 36₁₃; וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד a single whole Ex 26₆; in statistical records repeated after each name Jos 12_9-24 cj. 1K 4_8-18 )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 13_17f, 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 2_25b 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.

To see the impossibility of echad meaning "compound one" or other such nonsense, try to read such into the following passage where echad appears a number of times:

The lands included the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the wilderness and the Negev. These were the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. These were the kings:

The king of Jericho one (אֶחָד) the king of Ai (near Bethel) one (אֶחָד)

The king of Jerusalem one (אֶחָד) of the king of Hebron one (אֶחָד)

The king of Jarmuth one (אֶחָד) the king of Lachish one (אֶחָד)

The king of Eglon one (אֶחָד) the king of Gezer one (אֶחָד)

The king of Hormah one (אֶחָד) the king of Arad one (אֶחָד)

The king of Libnah one (אֶחָד) the king of Adullam one (אֶחָד)

The king of Makkedah one (אֶחָד) the king of Bethel one (אֶחָד)

The king of Tappuah one (אֶחָד) the king of Hepher one (אֶחָד)

The king of Aphek one (אֶחָד) the king of Lasharon one (אֶחָד)

The king of Madone one (אֶחָד) the king of Hazor one (אֶחָד)

The king of Shimron Meron one (אֶחָד) the king of Akshaph one (אֶחָד)

The king of Taanach one (אֶחָד) the king of Megiddo one (אֶחָד)

The king of Kadesh one (אֶחָד) the king of Jokneam in Carmel one (אֶחָד)

The king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one (אֶחָד) the king of Goyim in Gilgal one (אֶחָד)

The king of Tirzah one (אֶחָד) thirty-one kings in all. (Josh 12:8-24 NIV)

Latter-day Saints assert that Yahweh is indeed "one"; Durbin can only do such by manipulating the Hebrew language and engaging in eisegesis. That speaks volumes of his lack of intellectual integrity and the nature of the "Gospel" he preaches.

Isaiah 43:10 and other like-texts

LDS apologist, James Stutz, has a very enlightening post on the rhetoric of Isaiah 40-47 and the supremacy of Yahweh in light of Isa 47:8, 10 and the phrase, “none else beside me” written in reference to Babylon. One could add other instances, such as the following:

All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. (Isa 40:17)

The Hebrew locution, "as nothing" translates כְּאַיִן, which is rendered correctly by the KJV (an alternative translation would be like/as nought [cf. the NASB; 1985 JPS Tanakh]). The same locution appears in Isa 41:11:

Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be shamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing (כְאַיִן); and they that strive with thee shall perish.

 Of course, this is a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh, not the denial of the ontological existence of nations apart from Israel.

In Isa 40:23, we read:

That bringeth the princes to nothing; he makes the judges of the earth as vanity.

Again, the term often translated as "nothing" or "nought" (Heb: אַיִן) is coupled with a pre-fixed preposition, in this instance, לְ ( לְאָיִן ). Again, the supremacy of Yahweh (and national Israel) is in view here, not the denial of the ontological existence of the princes in this verse who, obviously, have real existence, not imagined.

The term   אַיִן often means "insufficient" or impotent, even in "Deutero-Isaiah" (Isa 40-47). Note the following:

And Lebanon is not sufficient (אַיִן) to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient (אַיִן) for a burnt offering. (Isa 40:16)

Again, the impotency of Yahweh's (and Israel's) enemies are in view here; not a denial of their ontological existence.

To quote Daniel McClellan (who, in turn is paraphrasing some of the work of Michael S. Heiser):

Deutero-Isaiah is not denying the ontological existence of other deities; rather, he is denying their efficacy and legitimacy. The language used by Deutero-Isaiah and Deuteronomy (“I am and there is no other,” “there is none beside me,” etc.) is also used in reference to Babylon, Moab (Isa 47:8, 10), and Nineveh (Zeph 2:15). The vernacular is placed in the mouths of Israel’s opponents, but the point is clear: these cities are not denying the existence of other cities, but rather that they are at all relevant in comparison (see Ps 89:6 and Isa 40:25). Deuteronomy 32 provides further indication that this is the correct reading. In v. 21 YHWH states, “They made me jealous with a non-god (בלא־אל) . . . so I will make them jealous with a non-people (בלא־עם).” The nation being referenced (Assyria-Babylon) is not one that does not exist, but one that is inconsequential in the eyes of YHWH. That this is part of the same propaganda is supported by v. 39 (ואין אלהים עמדי) and by Isa 40:17: “All the nations are as nothing (כאין) before him, he considers them as less than nothing (מאפס) and deserted (ותהו).”

That the authors of this rhetoric in no way deny the existence of other deities is also made clear by the proximity of explicit mentions of other gods. Deut 32:8–9 and 43, for instance, mention the sons of El and command “all the gods” to bow before YHWH, respectively. In Deut 4:19 the gods of the nations are explicitly said to have been established by YHWH for the worship of the people of those nations. Divine council imagery is also present in Isaiah 40 and 45.

Evangelical critics of LDS theology are guilty of eisegesis when they claim texts such as Isa 44:6, 8 refute Latter-day Saint theology on the “number” of God.

In Zeph 2:11-14, we read the following oracle of divine judgment against Nineveh:

You also, O Ethiopians, shall be killed by my sword. And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and he will make Nineveh a desolation, a dry waste like the desert. Herds shall lie down in it, every wild animal; the desert owl and the screech owl shall lodge on its capitals; the owl shall hoot at the window, the raven croak on the threshold; for its cedar work will be laid bare. (NRSV)

Then, in Zeph 2:15, the prophet writes:

It this the exultant city that lived secure, that said to itself, "I am, and there is no one else"? What a desolation it has become, a lair for wild animals! Everyone who passes by it hisses and shakes the fist. (NRSV)

Such a sentiment is paralleled by the Chaldeans who, personified in the Hebrew as a ‎‎ גְּבִירָה

 (Great Lady/Queen/Queen Mother) compared herself thusly to other nations:

Sit in silence, and go into darkness, daughter of Chaldea! For you shall no more be called the mistress of kingdoms. I was angry with my people, I profaned my heritage; I gave them into your hand, you showed them no mercy; on the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy. You said, "I shall be mistress forever," so that you did not lay these things to heart or remember their end. Now therefore hear this, you lover of pleasures, who sit securely, who say in your heart, "I am, and there is no one besides me; I shall not sit as a widow or know the loss of children" (Isa 45:5-8 NRSV)

Such comments further help us interpret texts such as Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 where Yahweh says similar things. It would be impossible to argue that these cities believe that theirs were the only cities that had ontological existence and all other cities/nations did not have ontological existence; instead, such sentiments speak of their (self-professed) supremacy over all other cities/nations. Similarly, Yahweh in such texts is not speaking of the non-existence of other deities, but His supremacy over all other deities.

Here is my exegesis I presented to Desmond Ferguson, formerly of “Irish Church Missions”:

Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6, 8 and the "Number of God"

In the Autumn 2005 issue of ICM's The Banner, in an article entitled, "Witnessing to the Mormons," Ferguson claimed that Isaiah 43:10, 11 and 44:6, 8 refuted Latter-day Saint theology, often referred to, in scholarly circles, as monolatry (e.g., Michael Heiser [an Evangelical]), or, as D. Charles Pyle once stated it to be (and I agree with him), "relational monotheism," that states that there are (true) gods in the midst of God (cf. Genesis 20:13 [Hebrew]; Psalms 29 (esp. the Hebrew); 82; Deuteronomy 32:7-9 [Dead Sea Scrolls], etc.). Notwithstanding the popularity of such pericope in literature critical of "Mormonism" and text supportive of the Trinity (e.g., The Forgotten Trinity by James White), and notwithstanding the ironic fact, lost on Ferguson, that taking an absolutist view on these passages results, not in Trinitarian theology, but either Unitarianism or a strand of Modalism, such represents proof-texting of the worst degree. What is more interesting is that, instead of engaging my exegesis of pertinent pericope (e.g,. Deuteronomy 6:4; 32:7-9; the Hebrew of Genesis 20; the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8) and on other issues (such as 2 Timothy 3, as discussed below) two years ago, Ferguson simply obfuscated and ignored all the evidence I presented that refuted his fallacious "arguments," and just obsessed over personalities, revealing that he did not have a clue about the issues at hand. That is revealing of how little he truly knows about (1) "Mormonism" and (2) the Bible.

For Isaiah, the point of his screed against the idols and gods was that of comparing Isaiah's theology with that of both popular Israelite religion (which at the time had groups worshiping Yahweh and Baal alongside an Asherah [KJV: "grove(s)" in the temple in Jerusalem) and that of the Canaanite religion in general.

In Isaiah 43:10-11, we read the following:

*You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe in me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no Saviour.*

Verse 10 is not a statement of monotheism, but a comparison drawn between Baal and Yahweh. Verse 11 is a comment on the Asherah. Verse 10 doesn't make a whole lot of sense if one interprets such a passage in terms of the strict monotheism expounded by errant writers on this topic.

"Before me"? "After me"? When is before God and when is after God? What about the time in between (which, in Orthodox [i.e., Traditional] Christianity is "always")? Is one willing to assert a "before God" or an "after God"? Clearly, simply suggesting that it talks about being created before God is nothing more than suggesting that something was created before God was created (which is incompatible both with Orthodox Christian and Latter-day Saint theology). But "after God" implies an end to God--not that something was created after God was created. Such a view, of course, is not well thought out. The text does not support such an interpretation. Baal assumed his position as chief among the elohim (Hebrew: Gods) after he defeated Yaam ("Sea"). Later, while he was dead, after a confrontation with Mot ("Death"), there was a succession crisis when `Athar attempted to sit in the throne of Baal (which is discussed in Isaiah 14). In this sense, for Baal, there is both a "before" and a possible "after." But for Yahweh, there is no succession. Yahweh did not overthrow another divinity to become the chief among the elohim. Nor can he be displaced from his throne. There is no denial of the host of elohim in this passage, nor is there any denial of the existence of El (Hebrew: "God") there either. Canaanite theology places Baal was king/god of the gods, but El is the God of the Cosmos. Both exist, and the existence of one does not threaten the existence of the other. Likewise, Israel's chief elohim, Yahweh, does not threaten, nor is threatened by the existence of El.

In verse 11, we get his statement: "apart from me, there is no saviour" (New International Version [NIV]). This is translated as "beside me there is no saviour" in the KJV, and "besides me there is no saviour" in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). In fact, most translations, including the modern ones, follow the language of the NRSV and the KJV against the NIV. I bring this up as Ferguson uses the NIV, and used such in his atrocious article, and it is popular among Evangelicals outside the KJV-Only movement. The phrase, "besides me" in Isaiah 43-45 is a reference to Asherah--claimed by some as a consort for Yahweh, and claimed by others as a consort for Baal. Asherah was claimed by those who worshipped her as a Saviour--as a deliverer. This is explicitly stated in Jeremiah, when the remaining Jewish aristocracy was fleeing to Egypt following the assassination of Gedaliah. They dragged Jeremiah with them and complained to him in Jeremiah 44:17-19:

*"We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At the time we had plenty of good and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouting out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."*

The women then added:

*"When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cake like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?"*

One should compare the above with 2 Kings 22-24, where the Asherah (KJV: "grove(s)") is removed from the temple and the wooden poles depicting her which were on the outside of the First Temple were destroyed by Josiah during the Deuteronomic Reformation. Essentially, Isaiah is claiming that salvation comes from Yahweh alone--not from an Asherah or from Baal.

But there are other interesting things in chapter 43. Yahweh, in verse 3, states that, "For I am Yahweh your elohim." Then, in verse 12, Isaiah explicitly discusses the fact that he is comparing Yahweh to other divinities: "I have revealed and saved and proclaimed--I, and not some foreign gods among you." It should be noted that nowhere does Isaiah ever claim that it is sinful for foreigners to worship other gods. This doesn't appear in the text until the post-exilic portions of Jeremiah (Jeremiah was pieced together by a number of individuals, thus the unusual chronology in the text, among other things) while Deuteronomy 4 seems to suggest that the foreign gods were given to the foreign nations so that they would worship them (cf. Deuteronomy 32:7-9 [the Hebrew verb here is "to inherit," nahal, which differentiates in this passage Yahweh from Elohim, the former who inherited/received, as a patrimony from the latter, Israel]). The notion here is clearly that Yahweh is superior to these foreign gods--independent of the question of whether or not they are real divinities.

This brings us to Isaiah 44. The primary alleged monotheistic proof-text of Isaiah 44 is that of verses 6 and 8:

*This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God . . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock [this is the underlying Hebrew word used]; I know not one.*

It should be noted that the NIV misses the chance of some consistency. In verse 6, the "apart from me" is the same as "besides me" of verse 8. This section of Isaiah is essentially a polemic against Asherah worship. I note that some time later, around 622 B.C.E., during Josiah's reform, the Asherah is removed from the temple in Jerusalem. This is described in 2 Kings 23:

*The king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the LORD all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron Valley and took the ashes to Bethel. He did away with the pagan priests appointed by the kings of Judah to burn incense on the high places of the towns of Judah and on those around Jerusalem—those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and moon, to the constellations and to all the starry hosts. He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the common people. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.*

This description relates to what follows verse 8 in Isaiah 44. Here is some more of that chapter:

*The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house. He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it. Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?*

Did you notice the similarity to Psalm 82:5 here?--

Psalm 82: They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness;

Isaiah 44: They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

In any case, we have in Isaiah 44 a description of how the carpenter takes the tree, and creates an image from it. The remainder of the tree is burned as ash (it was a public burning and scattering of the ashes in the Josian destruction of the Asherah in 622 B.C.E.). Here is a description of the people mistakenly worshipping a tree. And then later the specific imagery of the forests and the trees worshipping Yahweh. A polemic against Asherah worship - the castigation of the worship of the tree.

These same issues apply to Isaiah 45. But that chapter starts off with a peculiarity. In the very first verse we read:

*This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armour, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut*

Here, Cyrus is called the anointed one of Yahweh - his salvific agent, his messiah. Go figure.

The question, though, ultimately is whether or not Isaiah's point of view is similar to that of Psalm 82. Psalm 82 does not deny the existence of other elohim (as noted by scholars such as Robert Alter; Frank Moore Cross jnr.; Margaret Barker; Mark S. Smith; Jeffrey Tigay, etc), nor does it claim that they are not divinities. It simply imputes to them impotence--they cannot save, they are incapable of granting salvation. If this is the case (which is seems to be), then Isaiah is not the great voice of monotheism as many errantly portray the text to be, but, instead, a voice of the supremacy of Yahweh as the only divinity who is capable of doing these things--and only for Israel. Sadly, because of his ignorance of the Bible and biblical scholarship, Ferguson's treatment of such passages reflect a poor grasp of the Bible.

The Biblical Evidence for the "Plurality of the Gods" doctrine

That the Bible affirms the ontological existence of (true) gods is affirmed in many places. Note, for instance, Deut 32:7-9.  The NRSV of this pericope reads:

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

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

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

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

One final example would be Gen 20:13. Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term   אֱלֹהִים is irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the third person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).

In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):

וַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃

Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...

And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...

Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."

Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse, see this post discussing the NET’s comment on Gen 20:13.

The Logical and Mathematical Problem of Creedal Trinitarianism

One has to understand that traditional Trinitarian theologies which Durbin et al. hopes LDS will embrace requires one to accept a logical and mathematical problem. Consider the following, which are accepted by the Trinitarians:

Jesus = God

Father = God

Spirit = God

Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son

Numerically, there is only one God

God = Father, Son, and Spirit

To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):

Jesus = x

Father = x

Spirit = x

Numerically, there is only one x

God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x) 

Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the tri-une "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility. Only by engaging in logically and linguistically fallacious claims (e.g., the claim that אֶחָד echad "one" in Hebrew means "compound one" discussed above) can one try (desperately) to get around these and many other problems.

For more, see this insightful essay ("Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity") by Blake Ostler,  a leading LDS scholar who has focused a lot of his work on such issues. For a non-LDS perspective, see Richard Cartwright, "On the Logical Problem of the Trinity."

John 1:1c and 1:18

John 1:1 reads as follows (emphasis added):

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was Divine. (my translation)

The highlighted text, John 1:1c, has long often been disputed. Until recent decades, Trinitarian translators have translated it as “and the Word was God.” The problem with this translation is that this means that either (1) the Word (λογος; the pre-existent Jesus) is the same person as τον θεον, “the God,” who is clearly the person of the Father, resulting on Modalism, or (2) Jesus is one-to-one equivalent to the Trinitarian being. Both of which are problematic, theologically, even to Trinitarianism; furthermore, there are also grammatical issues with this common rendition of John 1:1c.

θεον is the accusative of G/god, and θεος is the nominative case; this means that θεον is a direct object, and θεος is a subject. Based merely on that supposition, the KJV, and other translations are difficult to justify. θεος cannot be the direct object of the sentence, so it is a predicate and descriptive of the subject.

A definite predicate nominative that precedes a verb does not have the definite article, as we have in John 1:1c. When a Greek writer wanted to stress the quality of a person or object that was sin the predicate nominative case, he would put it before the verb rather than after it. It also is correct to say that a nominative predicate word lined to a subject usually precedes the verb, as it does in this verse (θεος ην ο λογος), but for that matter an accusative predicate word also tends to precede the verb (e.g., πικρον ποιει τον γαμον ["s/he makes marriage bitter"]). In the case of John 1:1, the phrasing is θεος ην ο λογος, where the subject is clearly the noun with the article ο λογος and θεος, which has no article, must be a predicate word. From the standpoint of normative Greek grammar, this clause might rightly be translated "The Word was a God." The REB brings out the proper sentence structure, "and what God was, the Word was," or a more literal translation being "God was the word" or "divine was the Word."

One of the best articles on this complex issue is that of Phillip Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns:Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" in The Journal of Biblical Literature 92:1 (March 1973): 75-87.

On page 84 of this seminal article, Harner writes:

John could have worded this in five ways:

A. ο λογος ην ο θεος

B. θεος ην ο λογος

C. ο λογος θεος ην

D. ο λογος ην θεος

E. ο λογος ην θειος

Harner notes regarding clause A (ο λογος ην ο θεος), "would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable" (ibid. 85). he noted that clause D: "would probably mean that the logos was a god or divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos, but as a distinct being from ho theos" (ibid.) he later concluded "John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E" (ibid.)

Durbin has no case with respect to John 1:1. However, let us examine John 1:18--

The KJV of John 1:18 reads:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he had declared him.

The term "only begotten Son" is ο μονογηνης υιος, "the unique Son." Many other translations (e.g. NRSV) and scholars (e.g. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) accept this as being the original reading.

There is a textual variant, however, to this verse, and many early texts (e.g. P66; P75) contain this reading--μονογενὴς θεὸς.

The NET Bible note for John 1:18 (which accepts μονογενὴς θεὸς as original) has a good summary of the evidence:

The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes theos, "the only God") versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenes huios, "the only son") is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the MSS, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus θσ or υσ. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of MSS, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ ƒ^{1, 13} Û lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. î⁷⁵ ‌א‎‏‎¹ 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in î⁶⁶ ‌א‎‏‎* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jo 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (ho on) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: "when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?" This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in Joh 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luk 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1Ti 1:9; 2Pe 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean "only son," "unique son," "unique one," etc. (see Joh 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in Joh 1:1, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos en ho logos) means "the Word was fully God" or "the Word was fully of the essence of deity." Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, Rev 1:8; Rev 4:8, Rev 11:17; and Rev 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exo 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

One conservative Evangelical commentator said the following about μονογενης and John 1:18:

This leads us to conclude that μονογενης denotes "the only member of a kin or kind" . . . But the connotations that μονογενης derives from Johannine usage greatly enrich the epithet or title. Jesus is μονογενης because . . . (2) He is "unique" (1) in relation to the Father, because (i) both before and after his incarnation he was in the most intimate fellowshp with his Father (1:18), (ii) he was the sole and matchless Revealer of the Father's love (John 3;16; 1 John 4:9), and (iii) his origin is traceable to God the Father (John 1:15; cf. 1 John 5:18); and (b) in relation to human beings, because he is the object of human faith, the means of eternal salvation, and the touchstone of divine judgment (John 3:16, 18) . . . following verse 17, verse 18 suggests that John has in mind a contrast between Moses, who was given a vision of God's back (Exod. 33:18-23) or form (TMNH, Num. 12:6-8) but denied a vision of God's face (Exod. 33:20; but cf. 24:9-10), and Jesus Christ, who, sharing the divine nature (θεος) as the only Son (μονογενης), had not simply seen God on one isolated occasion but had always been known intimately as Father (ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος). (Murray Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2008], 87, 93)

The Lexham Bible renders this phrase as "the one and only, God"; such begs many important theological questions, including if Jesus is the one and only God, then what about the Father and Spirit? That would mean that the person of "Jesus" is exhaustive of "God" to the exclusion of other divine persons. In reality, for John, "the only true God" is exhausted by the person of Father (John 17:3; cf. 20:17; this article on Jesus' divinity in light of John 17:3).

In reality, ο μονογενης θεος means "the unique God." If the person of Jesus is exhaustive of "the unique God," then what about the other divine persons of the Godhead? Furthermore, what does this mean for "monotheism"? In this verse, the Father is exhaustive of “God,” while the Son is exhaustive of “unique God.” Simple logic, mathematics, and linguistics require that, in a real sense, there is more than one God/θεος in John’s theology.

As a result of this realisation, many scholars have been squeamish about accepting this variant due to it being in conflict with the a priori assumption that John was a Unitarian monotheist, per J.A.T. Robinson in his The Priority of John (or even Trinitarian "monotheism"). Note the following from Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

The phrase can only mean:

“[A]n only-begotten God; to render “an only-begotten one who is God,” is an exegetical invention. It can hardly be credited of Jn., who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression. An only-begotten God corresponds to the weakening of monotheism in Gnosticism. (TDNT 7:740)

The “problem” dissipates if one accepts the Latter-day Saint doctrine of the Godhead, the concept of “Kingship monotheism,” as defined thusly:

There are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 43).

Latter-day Saint Christology would have no issue with the theological implications of John 1:18, nor would it have an issue with the discussion of this phrase as found in BDAG:

μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36)

In spite of claims to the contrary, the Gospel of John is a solid witness to the truthfulness of Latter-day Saint teaching on Christology, as well as other topics, such as water baptism being salvific (another biblical truth that Durbin denies).

John 1:3 and the creative role played by Jesus

Blake Ostler in his article “Out of Nothing: A History of Creation Ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought” discusses this text thusly:

John 1:3.Copan and Craig also argue that John 1:3 supports the idea of creation out of nothing (here given in KJV): "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν). Copan and Craig assert of this verse: "The implication is that all things (which would include preexistent matter, if that were applicable to the creative process) exist through God's agent, who is the originator of everything" (pp. 117-18). But this verse says nothing about the creation of "preexistent matter." One must assume beforehand that the word create must mean to create ex nihilo in order to arrive at this conclusion, for this verse says only that if something was made, then it was made through the Word. It does not address anything that may not have been made. More important, it does not address how those things were made, its point being through whom the creation was made. Anything that was made was made by Christ. Since the translation one reviews is so critical to interpretation, I will provide another translation: "All things came about through him and without him not one thing came about, which came about."[27] The question in this case is whether the final phrase which came about is part of this verse or the beginning of the next verse. Hubler explains:

The punctuation of [John 1:3] becomes critical to its meaning. Proponents of creatio ex materia could easily qualify the creatures of the Word to that "which came about," excluding matter. Proponents of creatio ex nihilo could place a period after "not one thing came about" and leave "which came about" to the next sentence. The absence of a determinate tradition of punctuation in New Testament [Greek] texts leaves room for both interpretations. Neither does creation by word imply ex nihilo (contra Bultmann) as we have seen in Egypt, Philo, and Midrash Rabba, and even in 2 Peter 3:5, where the word functions to organize pre-cosmic matter.[28]

Of course, the reality of this text is that it does not consciously address the issue of creation ex nihilo at all. It states who accomplished the creation, not how it was done.[29] A person who accepts creation from chaos can easily say that no "thing" came about that is not a result of the Word's bringing it about but agree that there is a chaos in which no "things" exist prior to their creation as such. Copan and Craig hang their hat on the connotations of the word πάντα, meaning "all" in an inclusive sense. They argue that because "all" things that come about are brought about by the Word, there is no possibility of an uncreated reality that has not been brought about by God. However, the final phrase, ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν, translated "nothing made that was made," limits the scope of the creative power to the order of the created and implies that whatever is not made was not made by him. If it is created, he created it; if it is not, then it is not within the scope of "what is made."

Notes for the above:

27] Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo," 108.

[28] Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo," 108.
[29] There is a major punctuation problem here: Should the relative clause "that was made" go with verse 3 or verse 4? The earliest manuscripts have no punctuation (P 66, 75* A B D and others). Many of the later manuscripts that do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with verse 4 (P 75c C D L W^s 050* and a few others). Nestlé-Aland placed the phrase in verse 3 and moved the words to the beginning of verse 4. In a detailed article, K. Aland defended the change. K. Aland, "Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4: ?ber die Bedeutung eines Punktes," Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59 (1968): 174-209. He sought to prove that the attribution of ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν to verse 3 began to be carried out in the fourth century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to verse 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church. It was only after the Arians began to use the phrase that it became attached to verse 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from verse 4 to verse 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of verse 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in verse 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 gives a complicated expression. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 157, says that both ways of understanding verse 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included "are almost impossibly clumsy": "That which came into being—in it the Word was life; That which came into being—in the Word was its life." The following points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν as verse 4 begins; (2) he repeats frequently ("nothing was created that has been created"); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to verse 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with verse 3.

Jesus as "created"

Durbin does not delve into this issue, though he is being deceptive. Let me quote another anti-Mormon and set the record straight on this issue.

The Mormons embrace the heresy of Arias [sic]. They see Christ as a created being. (Richard E. Carroll, Mormonism and the Bible [Mustang, Okla.: Tate Publishing, 2015], 65).

This is false on a number of levels.

Arianism is the theology that states that, while Christ pre-existed, he did not pre-exist eternally; instead, he came into existence ex nihilo prior to the Genesis creation. There are a number of groups that have an Arian Christology, most notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses though they add an extra “twist” on this theology by identifying the pre-mortal Jesus as the archangel Michael.

With respect to Latter-day Saint belief, it is a distinct teaching of LDS Christology that Jesus has eternally existed, His nature being that of an intelligence, with all the attributes inherent within intelligence (cf. Abraham 3; D&C 93). There is no “creation” (ex nihilo) of Jesus, as Arianism teaches. While probably a post-Joseph Smith concept, “spirit birth” is wherein an intelligence is clothed upon with a spirit body, analogous to our spirit being clothed upon with a mortal physical body; if Carroll believes that “spirit birth” is supportive of Arianism, he would have to conclude that the Incarnation is also “Arian,” both of which are far-fetched and ignorant of the theology of Arius et al.

Furthermore, Durbin, as a Trinitarian, does believe that “Jesus” was created. In Trinitarian Christology, “Jesus” is a single person with two natures and two wills, a la the Hypostatic Union, as defined at Chalcedon in AD 451. The human nature and will of Jesus did not actually pre-exist the Incarnation. Indeed, many Trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that one cannot speak of “Jesus" pre-existing unless pre-existence is normative of what it means to be “human.” Much work has been done in recent years in what is called, “Spirit Christology,” focusing on what precedes “Jesus”—the Word in John 1—as God. What follows are two quotes from leading studies on this issue, and how only holding that all humans, not just Jesus, pre-existing can one speak of the “pre-existence of Jesus.”

The first comes from Bernard Byrne, "Christ's Pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology," Theological Studies, June 1997, 58/2:

By the same token, it is important to stress that in speaking of pre-existence, one is not speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus Christ did not personally pre-exist as Jesus. Hence one ought not to speak of a pre-existence of Jesus. Even to use the customary expression of the pre-existence of Christ can be misleading since the word "Christ" in its original meaning simply designates the Jewish Messiah, a figure never thought of as pre-existent in any personal sense. But in view of the Christian application of "Christ" to Jesus, virtually as a proper name and in a way going beyond his historical earthly existence, it is appropriate to discuss the issue in terms of the pre-existence of Christ, provided one intended thereby to designate simply the subject who came to historical human existence as Jesus, without any connotation that he pre-existed as a human being.

The second comes from Roger Haight, "The Case for Spirit Christology," Theological Studies, June 1992, 53/2 (emphasis added)

And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a pre-existence of Jesus . . . But one cannot think in terms of the pre-existence of Jesus; what is pre-existent to Jesus is God, and the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot pre-exist creation. One may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict pre-existence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubstantiality with us, unless we too were pre-existent.

Of course, “Mormonism” answers this “problem” as we believe everyone had personal pre-existence, not just Jesus (see here for a discussion). Furthermore, there is no doctrine creatio ex nihilo in LDS theology to begin with, so an important core of Arianism is already precluded by LDS theology.

The charge that the LDS Church teaches Arianism, however, only reflects ignorance of (1) Arianism and (2) Latter-day Saint theology.

Jesus as the "spirit brother" of Satan

Durbin is guilty of yellow-journalism and not just deceptive eisegesis.

Colossians 1:15-20

The Greek reads:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, [δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

The NRSV renders it as follows:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 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. He himself is before all things, and in1 him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

There are a couple of things one has to consider to engage in any meaningful exegesis of this pericope:

1.     There is a differentiation, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but between “God” (ο θεος) and Jesus (vv. 15, 19), something which is inconsistent with Trinitarianism.

2.     That the “all things” that are created do not include the spirits of man can be seen in v. 21 where there is a differentiation between the things created in vv.15-20, “And you (και υμας), that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled," something said to then-believing Christians. Does Paul here include Satan and demons among this "creation" when he says Jesus has reconciled "all things" in heaven and earth to Himself? Highly unlikely. Paul could not have included unbelievers in this "reconciliation"; otherwise, he would not have qualified the prospects of reconciliation for his audience: "If ye continue in the faith" (v. 23). I mention this point as some Evangelicals (incorrectly) cite this pericope as "proof" of how allegedly anti-biblical LDS Christology is (e.g. Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism).

3.     Relying on the faulty translation of the preposition εν in the KJV, some harp on the English preposition, "by." Most modern translations, including the NRSV quoted above, translate the preposition as "in," not "by" (it is possible this is a "causal εν," with "because of him" being a plausible translation of the construction ἐν αὐτῷ--see the discussion of this preposition in Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, as one example). This is further strengthened by the fact that v.16 is part of a οτι-clause in Greek (οτι meaning "for" or "because of").

4.     The text states that thrones, principalities, and powers were created “in Jesus.” These are hierarchies of angels that are in view in this pericope (cf. Rom 8:38), That this is the case can be further seen in the fact that Col 1:15ff places this creation within the realm of all those things that God the Father is reconciling to Himself (Col 1:20), clearly placing a limit to the "all things" spoken about in Col 1:16.

5.     The voice of the verbs used in v.16 when speaking of the creative role of Jesus are passives, not actives--ἐκτίσθη is the indicative aorist passive of κτίζω while ἔκτισται is an indicative perfect passive. This would be consistent with LDS theology. Note the following from Bruce R. McConkie in vol. 3 of his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary: "16-17. Christ created the universe and all things that in it are, but in doing so he acted in the power, might, and omnipotence of the Father. 'Worlds without number have I created,' is God's language, 'and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.' (Moses 1:33.) 'By him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.' (D. & C. 76:24; John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:2.)" Such is reflective of the function of divine passives, where the Father is the ultimate creator, but it was done through the Son (and, in LDS theology, other figures, too [cf. Abraham 4:1ff]). As N.T. Wright writes in his commentary on Colossians, part of the Tyndale Commentary series: "All that God made, he made by means of him. Paul actually says 'in him,' and though the word εν can mean 'by' as well as 'in,' it is better to retain the literal translation than to paraphrase as NIV has done. Not only is there an intended parallel with verse 19, which would otherwise be lost: the passive 'were created' indicates, in a typically Jewish fashion, the activity of God the Father, working in the Son. To say 'by,' here and at the end of verse 16, could imply, not that Christ is the Father's agent, but that he was alone responsible for creation." On the use of passive verbs, consider the following:

[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 firm and 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]).

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 addition, the prepositions that are coupled with these tenses differ (εν [in] and εις [into/towards/for], respectively).

Commenting on these shifts in tenses and prepositions, Nigel Turner wrote the following:

St. Paul was pursuing the intimation of verse 15, that Christ is God’s icon and our archetype. The two tenses are thus explained by the fact that the prototokos conception necessarily involves two other conceptions, viz. (1) a past act which is punctiliar (grammatically) because one aspect of creation is past for ever, and (2) a second action which is not merely punctiliar but also perfective. Of this second action, the results are with us still, since we and all creation are not yet in actuality the icon of Christ, as he is of God. Although the process has been soundly set in motion, it will proceed while all nature continually renews itself in him until it reaches his entire perfection. Aptly using the perfect tense, St. Paul could close the verse with the words, “All these things were once created by his instrumentality (dia, “through”; not en, “in,” as at the beginning of the verse) and they continue to be created now towards (eis) him.” He meant towards his perfect image; closer to the intended pattern. St. Paul did not often confuse the prepositions eis and en, and indeed in Col. 1:16 he set both together in a context which requires that their meaning is not at all synonymous: “in (en) him were once created all things that are in heaven and upon earth the visible and the invisible, thrones, lordships, powers, authorities; all these have been created (and now exist) by his continual support (dia) and he is their goal (eis).” (Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1965], 125).

Compare the passive voice used of the creative activity of Christ in Col 1 with that of Rev 4:11 where, 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, with 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.

6.     Blake Ostler wrote the following about this text (and Heb 11:3, a related verse) showing it does not support creation out of nothing:

The view that the “invisible things” are not absolute nothing is also supported by Colossians 1:16–17:

For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible, thrones, ruling forces, sovereignties, powers—all things were created through him and for him. He exists before all things. (NJB)

In this scripture it seems fairly evident that the “everything invisible”

includes things that already exist in heaven, such as thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. Further, the invisible things are also created by God; yet the fact that they are invisible means only that they are not seen by mortal eyes, not that they do not exist. The reference to invisible things does not address whether they were made out of preexisting matter. However, 2 Corinthians 4:18 states that “the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (KJV). It is not difficult to see that Hebrews 11:3 neither expressly mentions creation out of nothing nor implicitly assumes it. The argument that the text must somehow implicitly assume creation out of nothing misinterprets the text and forces it with assumptions that are contrary to the meaning of “invisible things.” If anything, Hebrews 11:3 implicitly assumes creation of the earth out of a preexisting substrate not visible to us.

7.     It should be noted that LDS theology does state that Christ is the creator, and often borrows the verbiage of this Christological hymn when speaking of His role in the creation (e.g., D&C 93:10; 3 Nephi 9:15; the 1916 First Presidency statement, "The Father and the Son”), and such is not limited to the "New Creation," but also to the Genesis creation, contra "Biblical Unitarians." I raise these issues, however, as many critics of LDS Christology have falsely stated that Col 1:15ff refutes "Mormon" theology which states that "biblical theology" presents Jesus as being the creator of the spirits of man as well as fallen angels (a category clearly not being reconciled to God, unless one wishes to embrace Origen's eschatology!). Note the following from the late-17th/early-18th century Universalist George Klein Nicolai in his 1705 The Everlasting Gospel:

 

This passage teaches us the extent of the reconciliation made by Christ, namely, that it extends itself over the whole creation. Therefore, the fallen angels must also necessarily have their share in it, for they do incontestably belong to the invisible things created by Christ, and consequently to all things, or the things in heaven reconciled by him. And though it is true that through sin are separated from God, nevertheless all the rest of the creatures partake of and are benefited by it. It affords for instance, matter of much joy to the holy angels, when by virtue of this reconciliation, the apostatized creatures are convened to God, and thereby anew received into the communion and friendship of these holy spirits (Luke 13:10; 1 Pet. 1:12; Heb. 12:22). It will also be by the energy of this reconciliation, that in time to come the curse which through sin was brought upon the creation, and has mixed itself with it (Gen. 3:17; Rom. 8:20-22), will be certainly removed from all the rest of the creatures. (George Klein Nicolai, The Everlasting Gospel [Apophasis, 2018], 125)

 

8. In Col 1:19, we read: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." Two aorists are used in this verse (ευδοκησεν [thought/pleased] and κατοικησαι [dwell]; cf. Col 2:9). If we go along with the trinitarian view, then at what point in time was God the Son filled with God's fullness, and was he God before this happened in their view? As we have seen in our discussion of Phil 2:5-11, such is consistent with LDS theology, but at odds-end with Trinitarian theology.

9

On a related issue, it is often argued by Trinitarians such as James White (see his debate with subordinationist Unitarian, Patrick Navas, in 2012) that Paul exhausts all the prepositions in Koine Greek to describe Jesus as the creator. However, this is not true--strikingly missing is the phrase εξ ου ("from whom"), used of the Father in 1 Cor 8:6, but never of Jesus. To understand the full force of the anti-Trinitarian implications of this issue for New Testament Christology, one will also have to exegete 1 Cor 8:4-6.

Here is the Greek followed by the NRSV translation (emphasis added):

Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς. καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one." Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as in fact there are many gods and many lords -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

There are a number of important points here—

Firstly, the term “God” is predicated of the Father, and it is to the exclusion of the Son.  Trinitarianism, the significance of which was discussed earlier in this post.

Secondly, the “number” of God is said to be “one” (εἷς). In light of how the Father has θεος predicated upon his person to the exclusion of the Son, absolutising this verse as critics of LDS theology wish to do (e.g., Ron Rhodes; James Whit) et al. wish to do, this is a strictly Unitarian text, not Trinitarian. However, this is not an issue for Latter-day Saint Christology, as the term “God” is multivalent, as we recognise that the Father is the “one true God,” but there are (true) deities who can properly be called “God” (cf. Deut 32:7-9 [Dead Sea Scrolls]; Psa 29; 89; etc), something neither Unitarianism nor Trinitarianism in their various forms can tolerate.

Another refutation of the Trinity comes from that of logic. In 1 Cor 8:6, creation is said to be εκ (from) the Father, while it is said to be δια (through/by) the Son. Again absolutising this pericope in the way Trinitarians wish to do, let us examine how this pericope is another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the Trinity flows from every page of the Bible":

First Premise: If Jesus is God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology, all things would be made from (εκ) him.

Second Premise: All things were not made from (εκ) Jesus.

Conclusion: Jesus is not God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology.

This is perfectly logical reasoning, called modus tollens. Not only do Trinitarians have to go against careful, scholarly exegesis of the Bible, but also logic.

It should also be noted that many Trinitarian scholars argue that this text is not Trinitarian, but binitarian, with this pericope “proving” that Paul did not believe when he wrote 1 Cor 8:4-6, in the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit(!)

Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian who is also Reformed/Trinitarian, in an interview in favour of the Trinity (which can be found here) admitted this:

Paul says, ‘Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live’ …What Paul does…I call it a primitive binitarian viewpoint. It’s not even quite trinitarian…I should probably clarify this for the listeners. I think there’s a progressive understanding in the New Testament about who Jesus is; and when Paul writes 1 Corinthians in the early 50s, I think he’s very clearly binitarian. I don’t know yet if he has understood the Trinity. My guess is he probably does not and those things get revealed a little bit later on. But here’s the thing.

He also wrote something very similar in an article published in an Evangelical journal, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13/1 (2003), pp. 97-125 (online here):

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit (רוּחַ —a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. The conventions of language do not necessarily correspond to reality . . . One implication of these considerations is this: There is often a tacit assumption by scholars that the Spirit's distinct personality was fully recognized in the early apostolic period. Too often, such a viewpoint is subconsciously filtered through Chalcedonian lenses. This certainly raises some questions that can be addressed here only in part: We are not arguing that the distinct personality and deity of the Spirit are foreign to the NT, but rather that there is progressive revelation within the NT, just as there is between the Testaments . . . In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the  grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation.

Unitarian apologist, Jaco Van Zyl, summed up the implications of this admission rather well in his response to Wallace's interview:

For Wallace to admit that NT writers did not understand the Trinity implies that later Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christians discerned and believed what “inspired” bible writers failed to believe. This argument is therefore no different from the claims made by the very ones Wallace and others are trying to help since the Jehovah’s Witnesses also proclaim that Jesus and the apostles didn’t know that Jesus would return in 1914 C.E., or that the first Christians did not know that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9 would be a second class of Christians gathered since 1935 with a different hope than the literal 144 000 anointed class of Revelation 14, etc.; there is absolutely no difference in argumentation. At least it can be safely said, considering Wallace’s admission, that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity formulated in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries – that who and what God was to them was different from who God was to these first Christians. The implications of this admission are rather significant.

The purpose of Col 1 is the preeminence and superiority of Jesus above everything else. Since the Christ-event was understood to be the ultimate purpose of all creation, all things were created and intended with the Christ-event in mind. Jesus' pre-eminence is shown in that he was intended before creation and demonstrated to be the firstborn of everything through His glorious resurrection. This could be seen in the locution in v.16, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως "firstborn of all creation," could be rendered as a genitive of subordination, "firstborn above all creation," as proposed by Daniel Wallace and other Greek grammarians (see Wallace's discussion of the genitive case in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament).

James Dunn in his commentary on Colossians/Philemon offered this exegesis of Col 1:16:

The “in him” is the beginning of a sequence of prepositional phrases by means of which the creation of “all things” is described: “in him, through him, to him.” Such use of prepositions “from,” “by,” “through,” “in,” and “to” or “for” was widespread in talking about God and the cosmos. So particularly pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo 6: οτι εκ θεου παντα και δια θεου συνεστηκε; Seneca, Epistulae 65.8: “Quinque ergo causae sunt, ut Plato dicit: id ex quo, id a quo, id in quo, id ad quod, id propter quod”; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23: εκ σου παντα εν σοι παντα εις σε παντα; so also Philo, De cherubim 125-26: το υφ’ ου, το εξ ου, το δι’ ου, το δι’ ο; and already Paul (Rom. 11:36 and 1 Cor. 8:6, as partially also in Heb 2:10).

Once again, however, we may deduce that the primary influence is the Jewish Wisdom tradition, within which such language had been used of divine wisdom (Feuillet, Sagesse 206-11). So, e.g., Ps. 104:24 (LXX 103:24): “you made all things by wisdom (πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας),” a very close parallel; Prov. 3:19: “The Lord by wisdom (τη σοφια) founded the earth”; Wis. 8:5: “wisdom that effects all things (της τα παντα εργαζομενης)”; Philo, Quod deterius 54: “Wisdom, by whose agency the universe was brought to completion (δι’ ης απετελεσθη το παν)”; similarly Heres 199 and Fuga 109.

What does such language mean when applied to Messiah Jesus? Not, presumably, that the Christ known to his followers during his ministry in Palestine was as such God’s agent in creation; in the first century no less than the twentieth that would be to read imaginative metaphor in a pedantically literal way. It must mean rather that that powerful action of God, expressed by the metaphor of female Wisdom, in and through whom the universe came into being, is now to be seen as embodied in Christ, its character now made clear by the light of his cross and resurrection (1:18, 20). The subsequent desire to distinguish more clearly God as the final cause (εκ) from Wisdom/Christ as the means or agent (δια) is already evident in 1 Cor. 8:6 (cf. John 1:1-3), as it had been important in equivalent terms for Philo (De cherubim 125).

What of the least common of the three prepositions, the εις (“for, to”) in the last line of v. 16 (never used in such contexts in reference to Jewish Wisdom)? If the prepositional sequence was simply adapted from the wider philosophic usage it need not be indicative of eschatological purpose (cf. Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6, δι’ ον in Heb. 2:10). Even as christianized, the two strophes seem to be structured on a proctology/eschatology, old cosmos/new cosmos distinction, with the future eschatological emphasis limited to the second. Nevertheless, because of the hymn’s present context, the redemptive work also accomplished “in Christ” (1:14) is presented as the key that unlocks the mystery of the divine purpose. “In Christ” creation and redemption are one. In the cross and resurrection (1:18, 20) both past and future find the clue to their ultimate significance. (James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996], 91-92)

Compare this with what Dunn wrote in a very learned tome on Christology:

We must rather orient our exegesis of v. 16a more closely round the recognition that once again we are back with wisdom terminology—as perhaps Ps. 104.24 (103.24 LXX) makes most clearly:

Ps. 104.24 - πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας

Col 1.16 - ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα

What does this mean, to say that Christ is the creative power (= wisdom) of God by means of which God made the world? . . . This may simply be the writer’s way of saying that Christ now reveals the character of the power behind the world. The Christian thought certainly moves out from the recognition that God’s power was most fully and finally (eschatologically) revealed in Christ, particularly in his resurrection. But that power is the same power which God exercised in creating all things—the Christian would certainly not want to deny that. Thus the thought would be that Christ defines what is the wisdom, the creative power of God—he is the fullest and clearest expression of God’s wisdom (we could almost say its archetype). If then Christ is what God’s power/wisdom came to be recognized as, of Christ it can be said what was said first of wisdom—that ‘in him (the divine wisdom now embodied in Christ) were created all things’. In other words the language may be used here to indicate the continuity between God’s creative power and Christ without the implication being intended that Christ himself was active in creation. ‘He is before all things (προ παντων) . . .’ (v. 17). The exegete here has the same problem with προ as with πρωτοτοκος in v. 16b: it is intended in a temporal sense, or is it priority in the sense of superiority in status which is meant, or is a deliberate ambiguity intended? The following clause (‘in him all things hold together’) if anything supports the first (or third) alternatives and sets up once again wholly in the same Wisdom/Logos context of thought. In which case again probably we do not have a statement of Christ as pre-existent so much as a statement about the wisdom of God now defined by Christ, now wholly equated with Christ. (James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989], 190-91)

Jerry L. Sumney mirrors Dunn et al. with the following:

Colossians 1:16 uses the prepositions en (“in”), dia (“through”), and eis (“for”), as 1 Cor 8:6 and Rom 11:36 uses dia and eis to speak of the relationship between Christ and the world. Colossians 1:16 does not, however, use the preposition ek (“out of, from”) to describe this relationship, through Paul does use it to speak of God’s relationship with the world in 1 Cor 8:6. Lohse understands this selection of prepositions to indicate that the writers of these texts see God as the source of creation, with Christ always as mediator of this act of God (50 n. 125). This is certainly the theological stance that the Colossian poem advocates, whether or not the particular prepositions are chosen to express it. The assertions in 1 Corinthians and Romans, that creation came into being through Christ demonstrate that this idea is not a late theological development. Already in the early 50s of the first century, Christians were thinking of Christ as a preexistent being through who God created the chaos. (Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary [New Testament Library; Louiseville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2008], 69)

In Col 1:19, we read: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." Two aorists are used in this verse (ευδοκησεν [thought/pleased] and κατοικησαι [dwell]; cf. Col 2:9). If we go along with the trinitarian view, then at what point in time was God the Son filled with God's fullness, and was he God before this happened in their view? Such is consistent with LDS theology, such as the LDS interpretation of Phil 2:5-11, but at odds-end with Trinitarian theology.

Verse 18 reads; "And he is the head of the body, the church is the beginning of the firstborn of the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence." This is nonsense in light of the hypostatic union which states that Christ was "fully God" while incarnate, but only "veiled" his divinity (more on this later when we discuss Phil 2:5-11). However, this is part of a ινα clause in Greek, meaning that Christ became the "firstborn of the dead" in order that he might have the preeminent, or "supreme" (πρωτεύων). As one Greek scholar wrote:

The authority of Christ is the driving focus, as seen in the fact he is the agent in the creation of τὰ πάντα (1:16), which is to be taken in its most sweeping sense. His authority is implied further by the list of authorities and powers later in the verse. The πρὸ πάντων in 1:17 probably refers to authority and not priority in time is seen in the parallel καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ in 1:18. Bruce thinks that πρωτότοκος refers primarily to his preexistence. But while preexistence cannot be denied, rulership is the more important focus. (J. William Johnston, The Use of πας in the New Testament Studies in Biblical Greek [New York: Peter Lang, 2004], 177)

Maximillian Zerwick, a Jesuit New Testament scholar, echoed such sentiments:

287. In Col 1,16f St Paul establishes Christ’s universal primacy on the grounds ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (aorist: historical fact). Christ is however not only the efficient cause (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ) but also the final cause (εἰς αὐτὸν) and as such is even more in the present (and future) than in the past; hence to describe this state of affairs Paul now uses the perfect: πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται,· and adds by way of conclusion πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, a perfect expressing the fact that we and the universe have in Christ our subsistence, our internal cohesion, an intimate relation with one another and the universe—What Christ’s resurrection was for Paul, namely the beginning, once and for all, of the new αιων, which is ours, is well illustrated by his use of a perfect along with three aorists in 1 Cor 15,3: Christ died (απεθανεν) for our sins . . . and was buried (εταφη) and is risen (εγηγερται—but English has to use past instead of the perfect on account of the following “on the third day”) . . . . and He appeared (ωφθη) to Cephas.” (Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek [trans. Joseph Smith; Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, Rome, 1963], 97)

The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Danish biblical scholar Kirsten Nielsen offered the following comments about Satan in Job 1 and how Satan is a member of the “sons of God”:

 

The scene in heaven concerns jealousy between brothers and its consequences. The father in the Book of Job is not an earthly father but Yahweh himself. We are told that one day his sons came and stood before the patriarch in heaven, and among them came Satan also. In Job 1:6 the sons are called sons of God. But this is often not interpreted as a figurative expression representing a father-son relationship between Yahweh and sons of God; the use of the word ben is understood in the same way as that in which ben may refer to a single individual within a species in the context of other nouns . . . In his commentary on the dialogue between Yahweh and Satan, a lone scholar, Francis I. Andersen (F.I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976], p. 85), has drawn attention to the very free-and-easy tone that Satan uses towards Yahweh. There are no formalities, no court etiquette using ‘my Lord!’ and ‘your servant’, but a straightforward, intimate relationship. Andersen concludes from this observation that we again have evidence that Satan does not belong to the circle of Yahweh’s respectful servants. But he is wrong here, because if it is not the heavenly council that meets in the prologue to the Book of Job but a father and his sons, then the familiar form of speech is not offensive but a natural part of the relationship between a father and his eldest son. (Kirsten Nielsen, Satan the Prodigal Son? A Family Problem in the Bible [The Biblical Seminar 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 83, 88)

The Andersen commentary, referenced above, has this to say about Job 1:11:

 

The Satan suggests a test to prove his point. His language is abrupt; he commands God with imperative verbs: literally, ‘But now, you just extend your hand and damage all his property.’ The next clause begins with ‘im, ‘if’; literally, ‘if to your face (i.e., openly, defiantly) he will bless (i.e., curse—see commentary on 1:5) you.’ It is the consequence, not the condition. Hence the conjunction is probably interrogative, and so assertive because the question is rhetorical: ‘Won’t he curse you?’ That is, ‘He is sure to curse you.’ This conjunction is also used to state the condition of a vow with an oath, which becomes an auto-imprecation: ‘I’ll be damned if he doesn’t curse you to your face!’ The vernacular Hebrew, rendered literally in the AV, gives a flavour of mocking familiarity to the Satan’s insolent speech. Like Goethe’s Mephistopheles, he despises everything decent. With vulgar manners he refuses to use the conventional courtesies of court etiquette which avoided the personal pronouns by addressing a superior as ‘my lord’ instead of ‘you’ and using the deferential ‘your slave’ instead of ‘I’. The Satan’s ‘thou’ is thus insulting. (Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976], 85)

 

Further support for this comes from Psa 109:6 which reads:

 

Appoint a wicked man over him, and let an accuser (Heb: שָׂטָן "Satan") stand at his right hand. (1995 NASB)

 

Commenting on this verse and theology thereof, Mitchell Dahood wrote:

 

the Evil one . . . Satan. The identification of rāšā’ and śāṭān is a long-standing puzzler, but a measure of coherence can be won if vss. 6-7 are seen as referring to judgment after death and vss. 8-19 as invoking terrestrial misfortunes upon the unprincipled judge. In three biblical texts Satan appears as a superhuman celestial figure whose role is that of prosecutor. 1 Chron xxi 1 states, wayya’^amōd śāṭān ‘al yiśrā’ēl, “and let Satan stand at his right hand.” In Zech iii 1-2, the celestial being who challenges the fitness of Joshua ben Jozadeak to function as the high priest is called “the Satan,” and is described as w^eśāṭān ya’^amōd ‘al yemīnō, “standing on his right hand to accuse him,” language similar to the psalmist’s. In the prose monologue to the Book of Job (i-ii), Satan is depicted as one of the b^enē ‘ēlīm, a member of the divine entourage, who impugns the integrity of Job. These descriptions warrant, then, the interpretation of the Evil One and Satan as one personage who will serve as the prosecutor at the trial of the psalmist’s adversary before the divine judge after death.

 

If this analysis proves correct, the widely held view that the designation of Satan as the Evil One is a development of the intertestamental period will need to be reexamined. (Mitchell Dahood, The Psalms 101-150 [AB 17A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970], 101-2, emphasis in bold added)

 

Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).

Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, leaving this on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”

In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)

In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, that “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh. Note Deut 32:7-9 from the NRSV, reflecting the Qumran reading (see this blog post reproducing what a recent scholarly commentary has to say about this important pericope):

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

While much more could be said, it should be noted that, as with so many beliefs, it is Latter-day Saint theology, not Evangelical theology, that is supported by biblical exegesis.

Some may ask about Ezek 28, which is touted as a "proof-text" against such a tenet of LDS theology. According to pp.100-101 of this anti-LDS book:

Mormon men say that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus . . . In contrast, the Bible describes Satan (Lucifer) as a created angelic being.

"You (Lucifer) were in the Eden, the garden of God . . . on the day you were created . . . you were the anointed cherub . . . you were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until righteousness was found in you . . . your heart was lifted up . . . you corrupted your wisdom." (Ezekiel 28:13, 15, 17)

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

Furthermore, the authors are assuming, when one encounters the concept of “creation,” that it means creation out of nothing (creatio ex materia); however, this is false. For the ancients, God created from pre-existing material. Representative of such scholarship, see Thomas Oord, "An Open Theology Doctrine of Creation and the Solution to the Problem of Evil," in Oord, ed. Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2009), pp. 28-52; Oord, ed. Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals (Routledge, 2014); Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo (T&T Clark, 2004) and Blake Ostler's seminal essay, “Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought.”

We even see this in the verb Ezek 28 uses for the “creation” of the king of Tyre ברא. Notice how it is used elsewhere:

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (Isa 65:17-18; emphasis added)

What is interesting to note in this particular passage is that the term does not have the subtext “out of nothing,” (ex nihilo) but instead, “from pre-existing material (ex materia), as the New Creation will come from a regeneration of this present creation, not one that is generated/created ex nihilo. For a further discussion of creation ex materia, see my review of Thomas Oord’s essay that was referenced above here. Even conservative Evangelicals are forced to admit this:

The root בָּרָא, Genesis 1, or creation by the word (contra Foerster) cannot explicitly communicate a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. (VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New international dictionary of Old Testament theology & exegesis (Vol. 1, p. 732). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.)

As one commentator on the book of Genesis stated:

If this is correct—and there is no other convincing attempt to trace the derivation of ברא—then the Priestly ברא is based on a concrete idea, something like יצר. We do not know if the word was used of creation by God in this concrete sense before Deutero-Isaiah and P. One must be cautious about attributing too much to the word as if it could of itself say something about the uniqueness of the creative act of God. It is clear that it was P’s intention to use a special theological word for creation by God. But it is not correct to regard this word as the only one and to neglect such words as עשׂה or יצר. Nor is it correct to read creatio ex nihilo out of the word as such as, for example, does P. Heinisch: “If not always, then for the most part, the word indicates creatio ex nihilo.” On the other hand A. Heidel is correct: “This concept (creatio ex nihilo), however, cannot be deduced from the Hebrew verb bārāʾ, to create, as it has been done.… There is no conclusive evidence in the entire Old Testament that the verb itself ever expresses the idea of a creation out of nothing,” p. 89. (Westermann, C. (1994). A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1–11 (pp. 99–100). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.)

The critic is out in left field concerning (1) LDS Christology in general and (2) the issue of Satan and Jesus (and all of us) being "spiritual brothers" (their presentation of this is nothing short of yellow journalism). More importantly for this discussion, the critic is guilty of eisegesis of Ezek 28.

Firstly, it is commonly believed that Satan fell from heaven into Eden, or that he gained access to Eden in order to tempt Adam and Eve, but this text says that the person in view was in Eden before he sinned, and only cast out after he sinned. Further, as Duncan Heaster notes:

“Thou hast been in Eden”, refers to where the king of Tyre was in place, not in time. Pharaoh and Assyria are similarly described as being a “cedar in Lebanon”, no “tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty...all the trees of Eden envied him...yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised” (Ez. 31:2,3,8,9,16,18). Thus "You have been in Eden" has similarities with the language used by Ezekiel about Egypt in Ez. 31. Egypt is described in language which recalls the trees in the garden of Eden, watered by many waters- and then cut down. In the same way as the Garden of Eden was ended, so would Egypt be.

The trees in Eden are not to be taken literally, they represent the nations whom Pharaoh and Assyria conquered, possibly referring to the fact that they were all within the old geographical boundaries of the garden of Eden. Pharaoh being the greatest of the trees in Eden and the most appealing maybe, suggests that he was taking to himself the place of the tree of knowledge, which was in the midst of Eden and probably the most attractive of them all, seeing that it fascinated Eve so much with its tempting fruit. Pharaoh was not literally that tree, but in the parable he was making himself like it. Similarly the king of Tyre is likened in this parable to the cherubim in Eden.

In reality, competent biblical scholars reject the idea that Satan before his fall is in view in Ezek 28, so the critic’s use of this passage rests on eisegesis, not sound exegesis. Notice the following:

Direct equation of Eden with the garden of God (gan-ʾĕlōhı̂m) is found in Ezek 28:13. Here the king of Tyre is described residing in Eden, the garden of God, enjoying its privileges, and exhibiting a life commensurate with that until iniquity is found in him (v 15). He is then driven out to die without dignity on earth (vv 17–19). Equation of Eden with the garden of God is also found in Ezek 31:8–9 in an oracle describing the pharaoh of Egypt as a mighty and splendid tree with its top in the clouds and its roots watered by subterranean springs. It was luxuriant and provided shelter for animals and birds (vv 3–7). !e trees of Eden which were “in the garden of God” were jealous of it (v 9). Further reference is made to the trees of Eden in the subsequent oracles speaking of the downfall of the pharaoh (vv 16–18) . . . Some scholars have argued that the oracles of Ezekiel 28 and 31 show direct literary dependence on the Eden narrative of Genesis 2–3. Certainly some motifs are held in common (the magnificent trees, the rebellion against God and subsequent expulsion, wisdom, precious stones, cherubim, and fire) and the oracles reveal some knowledge of the Eden tradition, but the stories also show marked differences. It is easier to assume that the Ezekiel passages come from a fluid oral tradition, and while they have drawn on the same theme and used some of the same motifs, they nevertheless have been composed independently of Genesis 2–3. (Howard N. Wallace, "Eden, Garden of" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary)

According to another source:

28.11-19: Dirge for the king of Tyre. While it was the “ruler” who was condemned in vv.1-10, here the lament is for the king. This prophecy is to be understood against the background of the king of Tyre being in a bejewelled Garden of Eden. References to the Garden of Eden are very rare outside of Gen. chs 2-3. The king boats of his wisdom and beauty, qualities that the ancient Near Eastern kings were expected to have. 12: Seal of perfection, a unique expression, here is a sign of royal authority. 13-15: Ezekiel employs the imagery of the Garden of Eden story to describe the Tyrian king’s downfall. 14: He employs the imagery of the cherub to stress the Tyrian king’s power and high position. The once perfect creature is shown to have sinned and therefore was struck down. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed; Oxford, 2014], 1084)

Even scholars who tie Ezek 28 back to the “serpent” in Eden will admit that the King of Tyre is not Satan before his fall. See, for instance:

Michael S. Heiser, The Nachash and His Seed: Some Explanatory Notes on Why the "Serpent" in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent

Some disagree that this refers to the serpent, and believe that it instead refers to Adam (but still in the Garden of Eden which is clearly identified here in Ezekiel). In this case, to harmonize with the language of divinity, it would be asserted that Adam was divine in some way before his fall. At any rate, we have part of the narrative of Ezekiel's oracle referring to the King of Tyre and part of it referring to one of these two beings in the Garden of Eden - and then a comparison between the two of them. Adam/the Serpent lose their glory when they are expelled from the Garden. So too, the King of Tyre will lose his glory and will come to a horrible end in the eyes of all the nations, as a just repayment for his sins - so too was Adam/the serpent's punishment just.

On this, Old Testament scholar Dexter E. Callender, jr. wrote:

In Ezek 28:11-19 we encounter a presentation of the primal human that is fundamentally different from what we observed in the traditions of Genesis. It is a prophetic oracle built on allusions to the primal human. In it, mythological elements are invoked to make a point. The primal human becomes an expression of another protagonist—the king of Tyre, the putative focal point of the oracle. The text tells us something of the myth of the primal human in an indirect way. Here the primal human is not cast within simple linear history, or as the past progenitor of humanity responsible for the ills of the race. Rather, he emerges in the mind of the trident as a mythical paradigm whose identity coalesces with that of the Tyrian monarch. The king of Tyre is not simply “like” the primal human, he is the primal human . . . . Verses 12-14 describe the glorious exalted state of the primal human. There are some difficulties in the language that present obvious problems, but the state of exaltation is nonetheless clear. The information given in these verses suggests both royal and priestly imagery. The picture I believe we are given is that of the primal human, endowed at his creation with royal and priestly accoutrements, a common topos in the ancient Near East. As in the Genesis 2-3 account, the primal human is set within the context of the divine habitation and cohabits with the divine . . . The phrase ba’eden gan ‘elohim hayita in v. 13 is obviously reminiscent of the Genesis 2-3 narrative . . . Eden represents the divine abode. Just as in the first oracle of Ezek 28:1-10, so here the protagonist is placed in the divine habitation. It was referred to as the seat or dwelling of the gods in 28:2, and here it is referred to as Eden, the garden of God. The phrase may also be translated ‘garden of the gods’ or ‘divine garden’. But this location is also called har qodesh ‘elohim, ‘the holy mountain of God’ in v. 14 and har ‘elohim ‘the mountain of God’ in v. 16; the garden and the mountain are equated as the divine habitation. There is, no doubt, significance in the fact that the protagonist is stated to be in the divine habitation: the protagonist was a human living in a divine place—a situation identical to that presented in the first oracle in 28:1-10. (Dexter E. Callender, Jr. Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human [Harvard Semitic Studies 48; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 87, 90, 100)

Concluding the discussion of Ezek 28, the author writes:

The theme of conflict between God and the primordial being is perhaps the most recognizable of the elements in the text. In this oracle, the conflict stems from the figure’s location and relation to divinity, particularly with respect to wisdom. The conflict is explicitly called ‘sin’ and is represented in the abuse of wisdom.

The misdeed leads to the primal human’s expulsion from the divine abode, and death. The imagery is much like that found in Genesis 3. He is expelled (‘profaned’) from the holy mountain of God—a place also referred to as Eden, the garden of God—and driven out (literally ‘made to perish from’) the divine beings . . . Eze 28:11-19 reveals a structure that features a contrast of states or conditions and it is this contrast, reiterated several times over, that captures the essence of the conflict. (Ibid., 135)

Interestingly, on Ezek 28:14, Callender notes that:

There are two traditions in 28:14 with regard to the identity of the cherub. The consonantal text is ambiguous regarding the relationship between the primal human and the cherub. The Masoretic pointing suggests quite clearly that the cherub and the first human figure are one and the same. The Greek and Syriac suggests that the phrase ‘att kerub ‘you were the cherub’ should probably be read ‘et-kerub ‘(you were) with the cherub’. What is more, the tradition preserved in Gen 3:24 seems quite clearly to make a distinction between human and cherub. Because of the Greek and Syriac witnesses and Gen 3:24, I have adopted the reading ‘I placed you with the anointed cherub’. (Ibid., 109)

Another scholar, David Bradnick, wrote the following about Ezek 28 in his Evil, Spirits, and Possession: An Emergentist Theology of the Demonic (Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 25; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 235-38:

 

Ezekiel 28 is divided into two parts. The first announces a judgement oracle directed at the king of Tyre, and the second proclaims his funeral dirge. [21] The king’s judgement stems from his narcissism. He has recognized himself as divine, and for this transgression he will suffer terminal consequences. [22] According to Greg Schmidt Goering, “In a dirge, the mourner expresses the finality or irreversibility of death,” but in this instance it serves as a parody. [23] The passage is used to taunt the dead king and to place him firmly below God. [24] From this perspective, it is unlikely that the text refers to Satan’s fall from heaven because the rebellion would have marked the beginning of his reign over earth, not its end.

 

The origins of the judgment oracle and dirge also make traditional interpretations untenable. Most scholars believe that the Ezekiel passage, similar to Isaiah 14, was also constructed from non-Jewish myths. Walther Eichrodt, for example, argues for its roots in Ugaritic mythology, [25] while Hugh Rowland Page and Marvin H. Pope maintain that it concerns the Canaanite gods El and Ba’al. [26] Regardless of its exact origins, it is improbable that the author of the original myth composed it with Satan in mind. Although it is possible that a redactor could have modified the text in order to create a double entendre that references Satan alongside a historical king of Tyre, textual evidence does not support such a theory, as we will see below.

 

The identity of the antagonist in Ezekiel 28 also challenges the conventional view of a pre-adamic fall. While this text references a historical king of Tyre, it also makes an allegorical comparison with a primordial figure—a cherub (maelaek)—who was in the Garden of Eden at one time. The identity of this figure is the crux of the traditional interpretation, and it has been an ongoing issue of scholarly debate. [27] Traditionally, interpreters have read the cherub as Satan, but they base this upon an enigmatic translation of verses 12b-13a. Hector M. Patmore argues that the vowel pointing and accentuation within the Masoretic text render a different reading from the consonantal text. The former is typically rendered “You were an anointed covering cherub,” but the latter can be translated as “When you were created the anointed covering cherub was established.” Patmore argues that the consonantal reading may be preferable and more natural. [28] This means that we can question the traditional interpretation, which assumes that this dirge is about an angel.

 

While scholars generally agree that Ezekiel 28 refers to a historical king of Tyre, there is little doubt that it is also making a comparison to someone or something in the Garden of Eden. [29] Given Patmore’s observation, a few identities for this Garden-being are possible. Adam is the most common identity attributed to this underlying mythological figure. Walther Zimmerli argues that Ezekiel 28 has undeniable connections to Genesis 2 and the Yahwistic tradition, including its language. [30] In addition to being in the Garden of Eden, Adam was in a position above all other creatures, and his desire for power, or at least his desire for the power of knowledge, led to his demise. In this light, Adam’s downfall may serve as admonishment for the King of Tyre. Daphne Arbel, on the other hand, suggests that instances of feminine language and imagery make it possible to interpret this figure as Eve. [31] Considering that the aforementioned descriptions are also characteristic of Adam’s counterpart, Arbel makes a valid appeal. Our purpose here does not require us to resolve this matter, but it is sufficient to note that there are compelling alternatives to the traditional interpretations that associate this text with a Satanic fall.

 

At this point it is appropriate to employ Occam’s razor and suggest that the simplest explanation is probably the best. So, when Ezekiel 28 refers to a perfect being in the Garden of Eden, without adding anything to the biblical narrative, we can reasonably argue that it is referring to Adam and/or Eve. In fact, interpreting the serpent in Genesis as Satan, and furthermore as a perfect being, goes beyond what the Garden narrative says. [32] So we can conclude that any compelling evidence to connect Satan with Ezekiel 28 is lacking. [33]

 

Notes for the Above:

 

[21] Greg Schmidt Goering, “Proleptic Fulfillment and the Prophetic Word: Ezekiel’s Dirges over Tyre and Its Ruler,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36, no. 4 (2012): 484. Walther Zimmerli proposes that Ez 28:1-10 and Ez 28:11-19 were composed independently and brought together by a redactor. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 78.

 

[22] Goering, “Proleptic Fulfillment of the Prophetic Word,” 491.

 

[23] Ibid., 493.

 

[24] Ibid., 494.

 

[25] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 393-94.

 

[26] Hugh Rowland Page, The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic & Biblical Literature (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1996), 140; Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1955), 103.

 

[27] Daphna Arbel, “Questions about Eve’s Iniquity, Beauty, and the Fall: The ‘Primal Figure’ in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Genesis Rabbah Traditions of Eve,” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 4 (2005): 644.

 

[28] Hector M. Patmore, “Did the Masoretes Get it Wrong? The Vocalization and Accentuation of Ezekiel xxviii 12-19,” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 245-57. For more on the differences between the LXX and MT versions of Ezek 28 see K.L. Wong, “The Prince of Tyre in the Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ezekiel 18, 1-10,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, eds., Marc Vervenne and Brian Doyle (Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2005), 447-64.

 

[29] Robert R. Wilson suggests that the earlier editions of Ez 28 refer to the King of Tyre, but later editors added language to make this a judgment and lament against a Jewish priest. Wilson, “The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, eds. John Marks and Robert Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 211.18.

 

[30] Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 90-91; McKenzie, “Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12-18,” 322-27. This was also a common understanding in ancient Jewish literature. See Hector M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2012), 14-26.

 

[31] Arbel argues that this seems to be the matter of interpretation within Jewish midrash (e.g., Genesis Rabbah). Furthermore, references to “drums” and “hollow” holes may be allusions to the female body, which is “reflected also in Iron Age archaeological evidence” (649). Arbel, “Questions about Eve’s Iniquity,” 641-55.

 

[32] For more on the Garden myth see Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks (London: SCM Press, 1961), 83-99.

 

[33] Yet James E. Miller denies that this is a lament regarding the first humans. Rather, he suggests that it concerns one of the covering cherubim of the heavenly court represented on the Ark of the Covenant. Miller, however, is clear to point out that he makes no attempt to connect this to a fall of Satan. Miller, “The Maelaek of Tyre (Ezekiel 28, 11-19),” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105, no. 3 (1993): 497-501.

 

Notwithstanding, it is clear that this attack on Latter-day Saint theology, as with so many arguments, greatly misses the mark and shows our critics to be poor exegetes of the Bible. There is nothing in Ezek 28 that is in conflict with “Mormon” theology.

In light of sound exegesis, it is Durbin and other Trinitarians who are preaching a false Christ, not "Mormonism."

The rest of the video is a rehash of common, eisegesis-driven attacks upon LDS soteriology which has long been answered (by not interacting with informed responses to such arguments, Durbin again shows his lack of intellectual integrity). See, for instance, Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz where it is proven biblically that it is LDS soteriology, not Protestantism, that is supported by the Bible (update: see Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement for a critique of Durbin on the issue of soteriology).

One thing is clear, however, is that Durbin is the one who is spreading a false gospel, not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme