Michael Flournoy: Alive, but still struggling with basic exegesis
Michael Flournoy has written an article, "The Possible Gospel for Latter-day Saints." In it, Michael engages in the same time-worn eisegesis of biblical texts to support forensic justification, such as 2 Cor 5:21 as well as his mishandling of Moroni 10:32. This is not the first time that Flournoy has embarrassed himself on the issue of LDS theology. See, for instance:
His comments about Hebrews chapter 10, however, intrigued me the most, and I wish to focus on that for this post:
Hebrews 10 contrasts the old covenant with the new covenant. In Old Testament times, God’s people were required to make a sin offering once a year. This continued to be necessary year after year, because they continued to sin. As a Mormon, this should sound familiar, as it parallels the practice of taking the sacrament once a week. Regarding the sacrifice of Christ, however, Hebrews 10:12-14 says:
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
— Hebrews 10:12-14 KJV
Because of his offering, recurring ordinances to wipe away our sins are not necessary.
Hebrews 10:12-14 says nothing of the kind, but let us examine this in more detail.
Firstly, with respect to the nature of the Eucharist (“Lord’s supper”; “Sacrament” in LDS nomenclature), what does the New Testament teach about it? When one examines the biblical texts, one will see that it actually affects salvation.
The obvious meaning of the phrase “do this” is that Christ is commanding his apostles to celebrate the Eucharist regularly; it is not just a once-for-all celebration. However, when one examples the verb ποιειν “to do” and its Hebrew equivalent, עשׂה have sacrificial connotations. In the Torah alone, עשׂה/ποιεω are coupled with the term for “sacrifice” (Hebrew: זֶבַח; sometimes מִנְחָה [“gift”/”offering”]; LXX: θυσια). There are multitudinous examples of such in the Old Testament, in the Torah alone, we have the following instances: Exo 10:25; 29:41; Lev 2:7, 8, 11; 6;14; 7:9; 17:8; 23:19; Num 6:17; 15:3, 5, 6, 8, 24; 28:5, 8, 26, 31; 29:39; Deut 12:27.
Here we have the Hebrew and Greek of Exo 10:25 and 29:41 (emphasis added):
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה גַּם־אַתָּ֛ה תִּתֵּ֥ן בְּיָדֵ֖נוּ זְבָחִ֣ים וְעֹל֑וֹת וְעָשִׂ֖ינוּ לַיהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃
καὶ εἶπεν Μωυσῆς ἀλλὰ καὶ σὺ δώσεις ἡμῖν ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θυσίας ἃ ποιήσομεν κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν
And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God.
וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָעַרְבָּ֑יִם כְּמִנְחַ֙ת הַבֹּ֤קֶר וּכְנִסְכָּהּ֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֔הּ לְרֵ֣יחַ נִיחֹ֔חַ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהוָֽה
καὶ τὸν ἀμνὸν τὸν δεύτερον ποιήσεις τὸ δειλινόν κατὰ τὴν θυσίαν τὴν πρωινὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν σπονδὴν αὐτοῦ ποιήσεις εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας κάρπωμα κυρίῳ
And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
With respect to the term "remembrance" (αναμνησις), this term appears five times in the LXX. Four of these five instances are within the sense of priestly sacrifice; the exception is Wisdom of Solomon 16:6. The NRSV translates the verse as follows:
They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a symbol of deliverance to remind (αναμνησις) them of your law's command.
The other instances of this term in the LXX are Lev 24:7; Num 10:10; Psa 38:1 [LXX, 37:1] and 70:1 [LXX, 69:1]), translating the Hebrew terms אַזְכָּרָה (Lev 24:7); זִכָּרוֹן (Num 10:10) and הַזְכִּיר (Psa 38:1; 70:1). The NRSV captures the original language text rather well:
You shall put frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering (αναμνησις) by fire to the Lord. (Lev 24:7)
Also on your days of rejoicing, at your appointed festivals, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of well-being; they shall serve as a reminder (αναμνησις ) on your behalf before the Lord your God: I am the Lord your God. (Num 10:10)
A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 38:1)
To the leader. Of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 70:1).
αναμνησις appears, outside the accounts of the Last Supper, in one pericope in the New Testament, Hebrews 10:3:
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν· (Heb 10:3)
But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. (Heb 10:3 NRSV)
αναμνησις here refers to the sacrifices required by the Leviticial law which serve to bring to “remembrance” the sins of the people, thus not allowing a relief of the individual's conscience. Although the stress is on remembrance, it is the sacrifice offered by the priest that brings the sins to remembrance, not a reading of the law or the teaching from a prophet. In effect, the sacrifice possesses an inevitable result of bringing either the guilty of sin to remembrance, or, as in the case of Christ at the Last Supper, bringing the atonement and forgiveness (as with the past Levitical offerings, offered by ordained priests) His atonement and once-for-all-sacrifice. Hence, it is no surprise to discover the statement “This is my blood of the covenant” in Matt 26:28 with “which is poured out for many for the remission of sins,” but followed in 1 Cor 11:25 with “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” The connection between the “the forgiveness of sins” and “remembrance of me” is quite apparent. In other words, during the sacrament, while we do remember what Jesus has done for us, there is more than one aspect of our “remembering” Christ, such as asking for the forgiveness of sins. Only by holding a false view of the atonement (viz. Penal Substitution) can one claim otherwise.
The words of 1 John 2:1-2 is rather appropriate here:
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (NRSV)
This fits with LDS theology, where when we sin, we go to our advocate, Jesus Christ, the "atoning sacrifice" (ιλασμος) for our sins. If one wishes to criticise Latter-day Saints, one will have to criticise the author of this pericope. This simply shows how anti-biblical Flournoy's new-found Protestant theology is.
Note the following from Protestant theologian, Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 249 n. 13, which captures how unbiblical Reformed soteriology truly is on this issue:
To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it.
For more on this text, see 1 John 2:1-2 versus Reformed theology.
ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. 11Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, 12 οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, 13 τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. 14 μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).
First, Hebrews 10:14 is a somewhat obscure grammatical choice of words by the writer.
It should first be noted that Heb 10:14 (“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”) is ambiguous in the Greek.
The verse contains the present participle τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (“those being sanctified”). This present participle could be related to the perfect tense of τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”). If this is the case, the sacrifice of Christ is indeed once-for-all (εφαπαξ), but is in a progressive relationship to us, that is, at least with respect to sanctification, Christ’s sacrifice does not give us a “blanket” forgiveness of one’s past, present, and then-future sins; instead, it gives us a perfect forgiveness of one’s past and present sins, but it is not applied all at once to us, as we know elsewhere from the New Testament that we must seek forgiveness of sins we commit post-conversion (e.g. 1 John 2:1-2).
Had the author of Hebrews wanted to convey such a “blanket” forgiveness as some wish to read into this pericope, he should have used a noun (e.g. τουν αγιουν [“the sanctified”]).
Something interesting appears in verse 10—the writer uses a perfect tense instead of a present participle. He says ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν (“we have been sanctified”). The difference apparently lies in the “we” of v. 10 (the author and his immediate hearers) in contrast to those addressed in v. 14 which is an open-ended inclusion of anyone who will experience the sanctification in the future. This being the case, in biblical Greek, it is better to use a present participle, because only that form can include those in the present who are being sanctified as well as those in the future who will be sanctified.
There is another possibility that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους refers to the entire sanctification process, including “positional” sanctification, for the author and his hearers in v.10 (i.e. they have been sanctified [per v. 10] but they are also being sanctified [v.14]).
Further contradicting the Protestant view of the atonement is that of Heb 2:17:
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrate the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Reformed Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.
This fits perfectly well with what we find in the Expositor's Greek New Testament (5 vols.), ed. Nicoll Robertson, where Protestant scholar Marcus Dods wrote the following on Heb 2:17 (here, vol. 4 pp. 269-70):
εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, “for the purpose of making propitiation,” εἰς indicating the special purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “propitious,” “merciful,” means “I render propitious to myself”. In the classics it is followed by the accusative of the person propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt. In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice as the translation of כִּפֵּר. The only instance in which it is followed by an accusative of the sin, as here, is Psalms 64 (65):3, τὰς ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present passage, it only occurs in Luke 18:13, in the passive form ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings 5:18. The compound formἐξιλάσκομαι, although it does not occur in N.T., is more frequently used in the LXX than the simple verb, and from its construction something may be learnt. As in profane Greek, it is followed by an accusative of the person propitiated, as in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις κ.τ.λ.; Zechariah 7:2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Κύριον, and Zechariah 8:22, τὸ πρόσωπον Κυρίου, also Matthew 1:9. It is however also followed by an accusative of the thing on account of which propitiation is needed or which requires by some rite or process to be rendered acceptable to God, as in Sir 3:3; Sir 3:30; Sir 5:6; Sir 20:28, etc., where it is followed by ἀδικίαν, and ἁμαρτίας; and in Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezekiel 45:20 by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί, defining the persons for whom propitiation is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there is apparent a transition from the idea of propitiating God (which still survives in the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of exerting some influence on that which was offensive to God and which must be removed or cleansed in order to complete entrance into His favour. In the present passage it is τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full expression of God’s favour, and upon those therefore the propitiatory influence of Christ is to be exerted. In what manner precisely this is to be accomplished is not yet said. “The present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12–14) is here regarded in its continuous present application to men (cf. c. Hebrews 2:1-2).”
Again, we see that Flournoy is simply pandering to his newfound Protestant friends with eisegesis-filled articles like this one. As I have said before, we have to pray for him before it is too late (cf. Heb 6:4-6; Heb 10:26-29, etc) as he has embraced a false, damnable Gospel.