Luther's novel interpretation of Romans 1:17 and δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

With respect to Luther's novel interpretation of Rom 1:17 and the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Luther interpreted it to refer to the vindictive nature of God who, when the individual did not measure up to the highest form of spirituality, would come down on him with God's righteous vengeance), Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle pointed out that, after examining sixty-six commentaries on Romans in the Latin Church from the 4th to the 16th century, including Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Denis the Carthusian, no commentator has found iustitia puniens (“righteous punishment” ) in δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ.[1]

Furthermore, as German historian Karl Holl admitted concerning the novelty of Luther’s theology on this score:

Luther can justly claim that something was opened up to him in Rom. 1:17 which no-one previously had seen. He did not simply rediscover Augustine; but rather he found, as he expressed it later in the immortal formula: the iustitia dei is not to be understood as formalis seu active, but as passive.[2]

Such is another piece of evidence showing that Reformation-era theologies are theological novelties that, in spite of proof-texting, were utterly known in the early Church.

Notes for the Above:

[1] Richard Sauffer, Luther as Seen by Catholics (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967), 14. Stauffer on p. 16 n. 2 notes that “Denifle’s work has not been translated into English. In the French translation (Luther et le lutheréranisme, 4 vols., Paris, 1910-1913), which is only of the first volume, the Abbé J. Paquier makes alterations from the original, both by liking up the ideas in a more orderly manner and by softening the calumnies somewhat.”

[2] Karl Holl, Die iustitia dei in der vorlutherischen Bibelauslegung des Abendendlandes (in: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 3, Tübingen, 1928, pp. 171-188, here, p. 188), as cited by Stauffer, ibid., 17 n. 13

The Melchizedek Priesthood and the Unique Office of Jesus Christ

When they are confronted with the overwhelming evidence that απαραβατος in Heb 7:24 does not mean "untransferrable," the more intellectually honest Evangelical Protestants (few and far between as they are) of the LDS Church will instead argue that the rest of the verse precludes anyone else holding the Melchizedek Priesthood as, they claim, only those who offer and present their propitiatory sacrifice before the Father can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. This was ably answered by someone who posts as "MormonMason" on the Mormon Dialogue and discussion board (emphasis added)

Here is the thing about that passage in Hebrews 7, which is so very often translated incorrectly. The passage refers rather to the office of High Priest in its functions. Another problem is that people assign to the Greek word aparabatos an active sense that nowhere appears in any document in which it is used; and it has been used far more often than the lone instance that occurs in the New Testament. The only way it could mean that it indicates something "not transferable" is if it holds an active sense.

But, the evidence of usage shows that it did not appear to have such an active sense as used to be claimed for it in the old literature before the papyri containing the word were found. The standard Greek-English Lexica point out this little fact that continues to be ignored in the evangelical literature for the most part.

But, to return to the point I made about the specific office, there is one thing in which Christ cannot be succeeded, and that is the sacrifice which he made for sins, such as the High Priests (Aaronic) of Israel did. However, that did not change the fact that there were others who held the same priesthood. They just were not the functioning High Priest for the years in which they did not serve. But, there still were a number of others who held the Aaronic Priesthood.

It is the same with the Melchizedek Priesthood. There is only one who holds a specific responsiblity as part of his office to offer sacrifices for sin, and that is Christ. However, that does not preclude the existence of others who hold the same priesthood and office. They just do not function in the same capacity as does Christ, who sacrificed himself once for sin.

That is how I see the meanings of the passage in context.

There is no logical or exegetical strength to such an argument against Latter-day Saint claims concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Stephen Smoot refutes Jeremy Runnells on the Book of Abraham

My friend, Tarik LaCour, has been responding to Jeremy Runnells' CES Letter on his blog. I have been keeping track of his responses in:

Tarik LaCour responds to Jeremy Runnells

However, I wish to "plug" a new posting against the CES Letter as it is on the Book of Abraham which is a favourite among many anti-LDS authors (James White has stated that the Book of Abraham is the greatest singular disproof of Joseph Smith's claim to be a true prophet). It is a guest post by my friend, Stephen Smoot who is one of the most informed Latter-day Saints on the topic of the Book of Abraham I know:

Answering Letter to A CES Director #7

Blake Ostler on the "oneness"/"one God" texts in the Book of Mormon

In section 47 of his article, Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity, Blake Ostler wrote the following which sheds much light on the “oneness” and “one God” texts in the Book of Mormon:

47. There is another compelling reason to reject the modalist interpretation of the Book of Mormon. It cannot be squared with other clear statements in the Book of Mormon, primarily in 3 Nephi, to the effect that the Son prayed to the Father, the Father sent the Son, the Son ascended to the Father and so forth. The culmination of the revelation of the relation between the Father and the Son is elucidated in 3 Nephi where the Son appears to the Nephites. As is appropriate given the inner logic of the Book of Mormon as a progressive revelation, the expression of oneness/threeness in 3 Nephi is much more clearly stated than in the prophets before Christ's self-revelation. The Book of Mormon presents the Nephites as not having fully understood the message of the prophets prior to Christ's appearance, and thus Christ undertakes to impart a fuller understanding to the Nephites. The inner logic of the Book of Mormon would suggest that as Israelites, the Nephites before Christs coming were concerned to preserve monotheism as understood in the Old Testament.21 Thus, the Nephite prophets prior to Christ's resurrection emphasized the unity of the Father and the Son. After the post-resurrection appearance of the Son, however, the plurality of the divine persons is much more prominent. Thus, Moroni can speak of praying to the Father in the name of "the Holy Child" (Moroni 8:3) and of the Son ascending to heaven to sit on the right hand of the Father. (Moroni 7:27; 9:26)

Note 21 for the above section readers as follows:

This seems to be Amulek's concern in responding to Zeezrom's question as to whether there is more than one God in light of the fact that there is both the Father and the Son. (Alma 11:28-35) Amulek's answer is "no," there is not more than one God. Such an answer is completely accurate from the perspective of Social Trinitarianism, but needs further explanation. However, the further explanation is provided in the text itself. In response to the question, "is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?," Amulek answers: "Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth ... and he shall come into the world to the redeem his people...." (Alma 11:38-39) Thus, the Son is not merely identical to the Father; rather, he is the Father in a particular sense of sharing the creative and redemptive power. Amulek further explains that all persons will be judged before the bar "of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God." (Alma 11:44) Thus, the oneness is a relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God, and not of the Son simpliciter.

Duane Crowther, The Prophecies of Joseph Smith

Duane Crowther's book, The Prophecies of Joseph Smith: Over 400 Prophecies By and About Joseph Smith and their Fulfillment is available in full on google books.

While one will take exception with Crowther at times (e.g., reliance upon a lot of secondary and hearsay sources; holding to outdated views on Book of Mormon geography, etc), a careful reader will be able to sift the wheat from the chaff contained therein.

For more on the topic of Joseph Smith's prophecies, see:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Ron Abel on Ephesians 2:8-9

The late Ron Abel, a Christadelphian apologist, wrote the following in response to common Evangelical Protestant abuse of Eph 2:8-9. While I take great exception to a lot of Christadelphian theology, especially its Christology and Satanology (see my Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues), I think Abel's comments were rather good on this particular issue:

Ephesians 2:8, 9

"By grace are ye saved . . . it is the gift of God . . . not of works, lest any man should boast."

Problem:

This passage is used by Evangelicals to justify their doctrine of "eternal security" when "Jesus comes into the heart". This "eternal security" is said to be independent of subsequent works.

Solution:

1.    Let it be said at the outset that one cannot obtain salvation as a return for works done. The law taught this lesson. (Gal. 2:21; Rom. 3:21; 5:21).

2.    There are two sides to salvation. The divine side which is grace and the human side which is obedient faith. Evangelicals argue that if one "works" for salvation then the reward is paid as wages rather than a gift. This is an over-simplification. God gives us food, but we must work for it. God gave Joshua the city of Jericho, but he was still commanded to march around the walls for seven days. (Josh. 6:2, 4). Likewise salvation is the free gift of God, but man must comply with the conditions.

3.    It is true to say that no man can ever be saved without the grace of God, but there are other characteristics required in the receiver of grace, for salvation. The following is a representative list:

a.    "For we are saved by hope." (Rom. 8:24).

b.    "Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God . . ." (Rom. 5:1).

c.    "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all men that obey him." (Heb. 5:9).

d.    "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us . . ." (1 Peter 3:21).

e.    "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).

f.      ". . . Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil. 2:12).

g.    "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24).

h.    "Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2:40).

i.       "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you . . . " (1 Cor. 15:2). Grace involves three things: a giver, a gift, and a receiver. From these passages it is clear that the receiver must evidence hope, faith, obedience, baptism, works, and that he also saves himself.¹

4.    Ultimate salvation is not now a present possession. The following passages indicate this:

a.    ". . . he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 10:22).

b.    ". . . the gospel . . . by which ye also are saved if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you . . ." (1 Cor. 15:1, 2).

c.    ". . . give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." (2 Peter 1:10).

d.    "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God . . . lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Heb. 3:12-14).

5.    Evangelical logic has a superficial impressiveness. When examples are cited of "saved" members who have fallen away (e.g. drunkards, who will be excluded from the kingdom, Gal. 5:19-21), Evangelicals reply by stating that such individuals never were really "saved". This is sheer logical emptiness. Security has been purchased at the price of truth.

6.    Almost without exception, those who are quick to stress Eph. 2:8 are the very ones who dismiss baptism as a mere outward sign of an inward change. When such occasions arise Gal. 3:27 ("For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"), should be emphasized. It is also impressive to cite the baptism of Paul, since it can be shown that a man can be "converted" (Acts 22:10), but does not have his sins washed away until baptized. (Acts 22:16 cf. Acts 2:38, 41).

---

Footnotes:

1.    The question as to which single characteristic saves the man is an abstraction. An illustration is helpful. A man who has fallen into the river screams for help. A man on the bank runs with a rope and throws it to the man in the river. He catches hold and is pulled to safety. What saved him? Was it his scream? Was it the rope? Was it the man on the bank? Did he save himself? Or was it all of these working together?

Non-KJV Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew P. Roper wrote a review to the essays against the Book of Mormon contained in the 2002 book, The New Mormon Challenge, perhaps the most sophisticated critique of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from an Evangelical Protestant perspective. Their review is:

One Small Step (.pdf)

The entire review should be read as it contains a wealth of excellent information about the Ancient Near Eastern background of the Book of Mormon; however, the following section is enlightening as it presents just a sampling of the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explained away by Joseph Smith’s knowledge of the KJV:

The most impressive Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are words that reflect wordplays understandable only in Hebrew and words that are better understood in Hebrew terms than in English due to the range of meaning of the corresponding Hebrew words.⁵⁹ Here are a few examples:

— In Alma 49:4, we read that the Lamanites attempted to “cast their stones and their arrows” at the Nephites atop the wall of the city Ammonihah. Alma 49:22 speaks of “the stones and arrows which were thrown.” While in English, we would appropriately use the verb “throw” for stones, this is not so for arrows, where we would expect “shoot.” But the Hebrew verb yrh, meaning “to throw” or “to cast” (e.g., Exodus 15:4, 25; Joshua 18:6; Job 30:19), also has the meaning of “shoot” for arrows (e.g., Exodus 19:13; 1 Samuel 20:11, 20, 36-37; 2 Kings 13:17; 19:32). Indeed, in 2 Chronicles 26:15, the Hebrew verb (with a variant spelling) is used in the passage rendered “to shoot arrows and great stones” in the King James Version of the Bible.

—In 1 Nephi 1:6, we read that as Lehi “prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him.” The English term “dwelt” normally connotes setting up house or at least staying for a long time, and we would expect to read that the pillar of fire “sat” or “rested” on the rock. Significantly, the Hebrew verb ysb means both “dwell” and “sit.” For example, Jacob’s sons “sat down to eat” (Genesis 37:25), but “Israel dwelt in that land” (Genesis 35:22). The same verb is used in both passages.

—In Helaman 9:6, we read that the Nephite judge had been “stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy.” Critics have contended that this makes no sense in English, since “garb” has the same meaning as “garment” or “clothing.” This idiom is the same as the English “under cloak of secrecy.”⁶⁰ But the Hebrew word beged means both “garment” or “garb” (e.g., Genesis 39:12-13) and “treachery.”⁶¹ This would seem to be a wordplay in the Hebrew original of the Book of Mormon. As for the preposition “by,” in Hebrew its range of meaning includes “in,” “with,” and “by means of.”

—Jacob wrote that Nephi instructed him regarding Nephite sacred preaching, revelations, and prophecies that “I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates” (Jacob 1:4). We really expect something more like “most important” to be used here. Indeed, the Hebrew word for the head of the body is sometimes used to describe things as “chief” (Deuteronomy 33:15; Psalm 137:6; Proverbs 1:21; Amos 6:1) or “precious” (Song of Solomon 4:14; Ezekiel 27:22), which seems to be the sense in which Jacob used the word.

— The land of Jershon has a valid Hebrew etymology, Yershon, meaning “place of inheritance.” Significantly, it appears in passages that employ the words “inherit” (Alma 27:24) and “inheritance” (Alma 27:22; 35:14). The wordplay makes sense only in Hebrew.

Notes for the Above

59. For a discussion of a Hebrew wordplay in Alma 32:21, see John A. Tvedtnes, “Faith and Truth,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/2 (1994): 114-17.

60. In 1 Samuel 28:8, we read that “[King] Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment” so he would not be recognized. See also 1 Kings 22:30 and Joshua 9:2-16.

61. The adjectival and adverbial forms are rendered “treacherous” and “treacherously” in Isaiah 24:16, Jeremiah 12:1, and Zephaniah 3:4.

It should be noted that Tvedtnes (see n. 56) stated that the topic of non-KJV Hebraisms will be discussed in further detail in his forthcoming The Book of Mormon and the Ancient World, which should be, as with Tvedtnes’ other volumes, an excellent contribution to Book of Mormon studies (he told me in an email a few years ago that it will be, in his humble opinion, one of the best books ever on the historicity of the Book of Mormon)

Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages

The following is a FairMormon presentation from Don Bradley, Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages

Keil and Delitzsch on Malachi 1:11

. At the time of Malachi the name of Jehovah was not great from the rising to the setting of the sun, nor were incense and sacrifice offered to Him in every place, and therefore even Hitzig looks upon the expression בּכל־מקום as “saying too much.” Consequently we must understand the words prophetically as relating to that spread of the kingdom of God among all nations, with which the worship of the true God would commence “in every place.” בּכל־מקום forms an antithesis to the one place, in the temple at Jerusalem, to which the worship of God was limited during the time of the old covenant (Deu 12:5-6). מקטר is not a partic. nominasc., incense, suffimentum, for this could not signify the burnt-offering or slain-offering as distinguished from the meat-offering (minchâh), but it is a partic. verbale, and denotes not the kindling of the sacrificial flesh upon the altar, but the kindling of the incense (suffitur); for otherwise מגּשׁ would necessarily stand before מקטר, since the presentation preceded the burning upon the altar. The two participles are connected together asyndetos and without any definite subject (see Ewald, §295, a). It is true that minchâh t^ehōrâh does actually belong to muggâsh as the subject, but it is attached by Vav explic. in the form of an explanatory apposition: offering is presented to my name, and indeed a sacrificial gift (minchâh covering every sacrifice, as in Mal 1:10). The emphasis rests upon t^ehōrâh, pure, i.e., according to the requirements of the law, in contrast to sacrifices polluted by faulty animals, such as the priests of that day were accustomed to offer.

(Note: In Mal 1:11 the Romish Church finds a biblical foundation for its doctrine of the bloodless sacrifice of the New Testament, i.e., the holy sacrifice of the mass (see Canones et decreta concil. Trident. sess. 22), understanding by minchâh the meat-offering as distinguished from the bloody sacrifices. But even if there were any ground for this explanation of the word, which there is not, it would furnish no support to the sacrifice of the mass, since apart from the fact that the sacrifice of the mass has a totally different meaning from the meat-offering of the Old Testament, the literal interpretation of the word is precluded by the parallel “burning incense” or “frankincense.” If burning incense was a symbol of prayer, as even Reincke admits, the “sacrificial offering” can only have denoted the spiritual surrender of a man to God (Rom 12:1).)

In the allusion to the worship, which would be paid by all nations to the name of the Lord, there is an intimation that the kingdom of God will be taken from the Jews who despise the Lord, and given to the heathen who seek God. This intimation forms the basis for the curse pronounced in Mal 1:14 upon the despisers of God, and shows “that the kingdom of God will not perish, when the Lord comes and smites the land with the curse (Mal 4:6), but that this apparent death is the way to true life” (Hengstenberg).

The REAL Book of Mormon Translation

My friend, Stephen Smoot, briefly discussed the use of seer stones and related issues about the translation of the Book of Mormon on the “3 Mormons” show:

Here is the article referenced at the beginning of the video on the Book of Mormon Central Website:

Why Was A Stone Used As An Aid In Translating The Book Of Mormon?

Genesis 28:18 and Asherah

While Genesis is remarkably silent on the subject of goddess worship, we are told that Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba and called there on the name o the Lord, El Olam (Gen 21:33). The tree beside a place of worship of El can reasonably be construed as an asherah, and the stone that Jacob erects in Bethel is explicitly called a maṣṣēbâ (Gen 28:18). (John J. Collins, The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005], 124)

The "brothers" of Jesus in the Pauline Epistles and the Historicity of Jesus

[T]he mention of “brothers” of the Lord, as in I Cor. 9:5 and Gal. 1:19, is to be understood [by Christ mythicists] in the sense of community brotherhood. Yet we are not told why Paul in the same context should not have included Peter and Barnabas in the brotherhood. Moreover brothers in the Lord not brothers of the Lord, is Paul’s mode of thought for the community relationship. These are typical examples of both the brevity and the method Drews [a mythicists] uses in disposing of the Pauline evidence. It is difficult to take arguments of this sort seriously, particularly when they are presented so briefly and with no apparent ground of justification except the preposition that a historical Jesus must not be recognized. (Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus never Lived, a statement of the Evidence for His Existence, an Estimate of His Relation to Christianity [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1912;repr., Forgotten Books, 2015], 74-74; comments in square brackets added for clarification)

Another failed attempt to support Sola Scriptura

A facebook friend tried to engage a young, incredibly ignorant Calvinist who is a huge fan of CARM/Matt Slick on the topic of Sola Scriptura, particularly my lengthy essay on the topic:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Here is the rather pathetic (non-)response to my article and equally pathetically poor attempt to defend sola scriptura:

Carl's arguments makes Kathy Petersen's  attempted "response" to my article seem good. As an aside, here is what I wrote on Jesus' use of Scripture in Matt 4:1-11//Luke 4:1-13//Mark 1:12-13:

 A related event in the Gospels is that of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11//Mark 1:12-13//Luke 4:1-13) where Jesus cited Scripture in his contest with Satan. As Desmond Ferguson, a former employee of Irish Church Missions once wrote:

Matthew 4:1-11 where Satan tempts Jesus three times and each temptation is rebuked with a scriptural response. So here we have Jesus going directly to Scripture . . . “Surely these texts”, I said, “show clearly that the bible is sufficient unto itself and therefore logically we need no other authority or guide in the way of salvation”? (source)

I am sure that Ferguson, as with many other Protestant apologists, are of the opinion that, as Jesus did not refer to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or anything else, but only to Scripture, that such "proves" Sola Scriptura. The problem with such a formulation if that Matthew is not attempting to specify the only source from which we are to make our appeal. Granted, on many occasions, Jesus uses Scripture against the forces of evil, and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times he does appeal to his divinity, his miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the opposition against him (cf. John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58; 10:1-34; 12:44-50; 14:9-31; 16:1-33). Hence, just because Jesus calls Scripture as a witness against the devil in Matt 4:1-11 one cannot therefore conclude that Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura. Would we say that the devil believed in Sola Scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psa 91:11? Of course not.

One reason Jesus may not be appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf. 1 Cor 2:8; Eph 6:12; Matt 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1) man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his divinity.

We should also add that even in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference is to Deut 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to "every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Eph 1:13; Col 1:5-6; Acts 20:27; Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism") so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so, consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of something novel or cultural relativism, etc.

Lastly, we cannot leave this passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Ps 91:11 which shows us that interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads to error and apostasy. Additionally, as discussed earlier with respect to Matt 23:1-3 and the Chair of Moses, Jesus bound His believers to follow non-inscripturated sources of authority, further refuting the eisegesis on often finds hoisted on Jesus' encounter with Satan during His time in the wilderness after his baptism.

Marvin Pope on Song of Solomon 5:16

16b. desirable. The form mahăddîm, “desirable (things),” corresponds to the pattern of mamaqqîm of the preceding stich and the syntax is the same, “His totality is desirable things,” i.e. “He is utterly desirable.” In Ugaritic mhmd is used of “choice cedars” and of gold (lhmd is apparently a scribal error for mhmd in the expression lhmd hrs):

The mountains will bring you much silver, The hills of the choicest gold. (4[51].5.100-101)

In Ezek 24:16 mahmad ‘enekai, “the desire of your eyes,” is applied to the prophet’s wife. (Marvin Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 7C; Garden City: Doubleday, 1975], 549)

I present Pope' learned comments on this passage as it shows that no competent scholarly source supports the popular Islamic claim that this portion of v.16 is a prophecy of Muhammad. For more, see:

Is Muhammad prophesied in Song of Solomon 5:16? 

Marvin Pope on the Canonicity of the Song of Solomon

The propriety of inclusion of the Song of Songs in the Canon was apparently questioned from the start and has been vigorously protested in modern times. Yet it must be said that the evidence for its early acceptance, in spite of the objections, is as well attested as that for any other portion of the Jewish-Christian Scripture. It has been regarded and transmitted as canonical by both the Synagogue and the Church.

Whether the allusion to Solomon’s writings in Ecclus 47:15b includes the Song of Songs is doubtful; it is probably of more than a poetic allusion to I Kings 5:12. Similarly, Josephus’ enumeration of the sacred books (Against Apion I 8) does not make clear whether the Song of Songs was counted among the “four books which contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.” It is, however, included in the list of sacred books in the Talmud (Baba Bathra 14) and in the Canon of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who in the latter part of the second century traveled to Palestine to discover what books were considered canonical there. It was translated into Greek by Aquila between ca. A.D. 90 and 130 and later by Symmachus and Theodotion before the end of the second century.

From rabbinic sources we gather that there was some dissension about the canonicity of the Song of Songs at the council of Yabneh (Jamnia) and that Aqiba took an active part in the controversy. This need not mean, as some scholars (notably Graetz) have supposed, that the book had remained outside the Canon until that time. The issue was not whether the book was included in the Canon, but whether it should have been. The dispute arose in connection with another book attributed to Solomon, viz. Qohelet (Ecclesiastes). Rabbi Judah opined (Mishnah, Yadayim III 5) that the Song of Songs defiles the hands (i.e. is tabu or sacred, hence canonical), but Qohelet does not defile the hands, while Rabbi Jose said that the Song of Songs is disputed. Aqiba, however, said, “Perish the thought! No man of Israel ever disputed about the Song of Songs, that it did not defile the hands. The whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies; if they disagreed, it was only about Qohelet that they disagreed.” Rabbi Aqibas’s regarded for the Song of Song as the veritable Holy of Holies moved him also to protest what he regarded as its profanation in the “Banquet House.” “He who trills his voice in chanting the Song of Songs in the banquet house and treats it as a sort of song (zĕmîr) has no part in the world to come” (Tosefta, Sanhedrin XII 10). A similar view is expressed elsewhere, anonymously, “He who pronounces a verse of the Song of Songs and makes a sort of song and pronounces a verse in a banquet house not in its time brings evil to the world” (TB Sanhedrin 101 a). (Marvin Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 7C; Garden City: Doubleday, 1975], 18-19)

Tough Questions about Mormon Polygamy - Brian and Laura Hales

The LDS Perspectives podcast just posted a new interview:

Tough Questions about Mormon Polygamy - Brian and Laura Hales

The interviewer is Daniel Peterson.

Brian and Laura co-authored a book on this issue, Joseph Smith's Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding (Greg Kofford Books, 2015) which is a very solid introduction to this issue.

How Scientists Know about Human Evolution

The following is a short but good introduction to human evolution (as some already know, I am a "theistic evolutionist" and one of my degrees is in a "soft" science [anthropology]).

How Scientists Know about Human Evolution

For a great book on evolution and "Mormonism," see:

Trent D. Stephens and Jeff Meldrum, Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding (Signature Books, 2001)

Also, see Jeff Lindsay's LDSFAQ page, Science and Mormon Teachings: "Mormon Answers" to Frequent Questions

Joseph Fielding McConkie on “Kolob” being Symbolic of Christ

The Pearl of Great Price

Let us turn now to the third chapter of the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price as our second illustration. The chapter recounts how Abraham through the use of the Urim and Thummim had the heavens opened to him that he might learn about the glory and revolutions of the sun, moon, and stars. This is the chapter in which we learn about Kolob, the planet nearest the throne of God, and the other great heavenly bodies that are near to it. Midway through the chapter the subject changes and we find ourselves reading about the nature of spirits before they were born into mortality. The chapter concludes with a brief account of the Grand Council in Heaven, at which Satan rebelled.

What is generally missed in the reading of the chapter is the phrase "as, also" in verse 18, which ties the revelation on stars to the revelation on spirits. Here we discover the reason for giving the great patriarch the revelation on stars. The knowledge of astronomy is not essential to salvation, but the knowledge of the order of the government of heaven is. When Abraham was learning about Kolob he was really learning about Christ, for Kolob is the similitude of Christ, and the stars are in the likeness of the spirits. We are told that Kolob was the first created, the nearest to the throne of God, and thus the greatest of all the stars. Kolob is described as being "after the manner" or in the likeness of God, as being first in government, and as governing all those of the same order. Though there are many great ones near it, all receive their light from Kolob and it is Kolob, we are told, that holds the key of power. (Abraham 3; Facsimile 2.) In virtually every detail Kolob is described in the same prophetic language that is used to describe Christ, and the stars are described in language that parallels that used by Abraham to describe the spirits. (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985], 7-8)

Matthew Bowen refutes Supersessionism

Matthew Bowen recently gave a presentation, somewhat based on his paper “What Thank They the Jews”? (2 Nephi 29:4): A Note on the Name “Judah” and Antisemitism to B'nai Shalom in Salt Lake City which, as with his original article, refutes the concept of supersessionism:

Responses to Michael Flournoy

As he has become a bit of a "darling" in the Evangelical anti-Mormon community, the following are responses I have written to Michael Flournoy, a former Latter-day Saint, which shows his shallow, at best, grasp of theology and biblical exegesis. If/when new articles are written in response to Flournoy, this page will be updated accordingly:

Michael Flournoy's ignorance of Hebrews and the Eucharist

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Response to Michael Flournoy

Trading one's inheritance for a bowl of pottage/damnable false gospel

Michael Flournoy Misunderstands Grace, Mormonism, and the Bible

Refuting the Claim that singing the hymn "Praise to the Man" is an act of Idolatry

Why Evangelical Anti-Mormonism Makes No Sense

Michael Flournoy on Forensic Justification and Imputed Righteousness

True Righteousness for Evangelical Protestants

Can a Believer Ever Fall from the (Salvific) Love of God?

Michael Flournoy's Lame Attempt at Defending Sola Scriptura

 Imputation: A False Gospel

Michael Flournoy Still Cannot Exegete Scripture and Now, as a Protestant, Worships a God who is a Liar

Why I'm Not a Calvinist (After Seriously Studying Reformed Theology)

Does Acts 10:10-15 Support Forensic Justification?

Where "Faith" is a Verb in the Bible

Clarifying Catholic Christology

The following is a recent presentation which shows the utter nonsense of Trinitarian and many other theories of Christology:

For my "take," see, for instance:

Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Lehi’s Rhetorical Wordplay on Ishmael in 2 Nephi 1:28–29 and Its Implications

The Interpreter Foundation just published a new article by Matthew L. Bowen:

“If Ye Will Hearken”: Lehi’s Rhetorical Wordplay on Ishmael in 2 Nephi 1:28–29 and Its Implications (pdf)

Here is the abstract:

Abstract: Nephi’s preservation of the conditional “first blessing” that Lehi bestowed upon his elder sons (Laman, Lemuel, and Sam) and the sons of Ishmael, contains a dramatic wordplay on the name Ishmael in 2 Nephi 1:28–29. The name Ishmael — “May El hear [him],” “May El hearken,” or “El Has Hearkened” — derives from the Semitic (and later Hebrew) verb šāmaʿ (to “hear,” “hearken,” or “obey”). Lehi’s rhetorical wordplay juxtaposes the nameIshmael with a clustering of the verbs “obey” and “hearken,” both usually represented in Hebrew by the verb šāmaʿ. Lehi’s blessing is predicated on his sons’ and the sons of Ishmael’s “hearkening” to Nephi (“if ye will hearken”). Conversely, failure to “hearken” (“but if ye will not hearken”) would precipitate withdrawal of the “first blessing.” Accordingly, when Nephi was forced to flee from Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, Lehi’s “first blessing” was activated for Nephi and all those who “hearkened” to his spiritual leadership, including members of Ishmael’s family (2 Nephi 5:6), while it was withdrawn from Laman, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael, and those who sympathized with them, “inasmuch as they [would] not hearken” unto Nephi (2 Nephi 5:20). Centuries later, when Ammon and his brothers convert many Lamanites to the truth, Mormon revisits Lehi’s conditional blessing and the issue of “hearkening” in terms of Ishmael and the receptivity of the Ishmaelites. Many Ishmaelite-Lamanites “hear” or “hearken” to Ammon et al., activating Lehi’s “first blessing,” while many others — including the ex-Nephite Amalekites/Amlicites — do not, thus activating (or reactivating) Lehi’s curse.

The Geocentric Cosmology of the Bible

There are many passages in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament that shows that the authors assumed, and even explicated, a geocentric, not a heliocentric, cosmology.  Here is the commentary provided of one such passage from a modern leading advocate of the geocentric model:

Isaiah 38:7-8

7"This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised:

8Behold, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps." So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined.

Together these three passages (2Kg 20:9-12; 2Ch 32:31; Is 38:7-8) are important because they specify the same occurrence and treat it as a miraculous event. Not only was the event known in Israel, but the king of Babylon had also heard and thus sent envoys to make an inquiry of the "sign." Similar to the account in Joshua in which two or three witnesses are included in order to authenticate the event as a real occurrence, so here we have the authors of Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah all testifying to the same miraculous event, with a foreign king as an internal witness to the three narratives.

The passages are also significant because they demonstrate that, of the two possible means to turn back the time which was displayed on the sundial of Hezekiah, it is the sun that is turned back in its course, not the Earth which is retarded in rotation. Indeed, Scripture knows nothing about a rotating Earth in order for it to be considered an option in a matter of celestial adjustment. If the Earth were rotating, there would be little reason for the narrator not to mention that it had been retarded by ten steps, since such a rotational reversal would have been just as stupendous as turning back the sun in its course. In fact, considering the disturbances and vibrations a sudden reversal of the Earth's rotation would have caused, it would have been miraculous to mask such terrestrial effects than it would be for a curtailing of the sun's movement. (Robert A. Sungenis, Galileo was Wrong, the Church was Right, volume II: The Historical Case for Geocentrism [3d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2007], 68)

Interestingly, the Book of Abraham presents a geocentric model of cosmology:

John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson, And I Saw the Stars--The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy