E.P. Sanders on the Meaning and Function of “The Twelve Disciples"

Both the Gospels and Paul (quoting an earlier tradition) specify that there were 12 special followers (1 Corinthians 15:5; Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; John 6:67-71). The synoptics, however, name a total of 13, 11 of them in common (Luke disagrees with Matthew and Mark about the name of the 12^th, thus providing a 13^th name). John’s Gospel names another disciple, Nathanael (John 1:45-51), who is not mentioned in the synoptics. The early Christians seem to have had 12 as a firm number, but they were not certain who should be included. It is probable that Jesus himself spoke of “the twelve,” though he was not necessarily followed all the time by precisely 12, nor by precisely the same people. If this is right, the value of the number was symbolic: “the twelve” represented the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus promised the disciples that “in the new world, then the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28). This has the effect of “enthroning” Judas, who was one of the 12 on everyone’s reckoning, despite the fact that Judas betrayed Jesus. The early Church, knowing of Judas’ betrayal, would not have invented a promise from Jesus that would give Judas a place in the new age, and thus we may accept the saying as authentic.

The use of 12 as a symbolic number and the explicit reference to the 12 tribes points to a very concrete expectation: that the 12 tribes of Israel would be restored. Centuries earlier the Assyrians had scattered ten of the tribes. Obviously it would take an act of God to get them all back together. Numerous Jewish authors hoped that this would happen. Ben Sira (c. 200 B.C.E.) looked to God to “gather all the tribes of Jacob” and “to give them their inheritance, as at the beginning” (Ben Sira 36:11, cf. 48:10). The sect associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls (probably a branch of the Essene party) expected the reassembly of the 12 tribes (The War Scroll [1QM]). The same expectation appears in the pseudepigraphical Psalms of Solomon 11, 17:28-32, 50 and elsewhere. The tradition was continued in early Christianity (Revelation 21:12).

Jesus himself was a Bible-believing Jew, and like many others he thought that God would honor his promises to the patriarchs and restore the 12 tribes in the last days—just as God had previously wrought miracles on behalf of the dead.

Apparently the disciples thought that they would play in important role in the kingdom that God would establish. In the passage quoted above (Matthew 19:28), Jesus promised to enthrone them in the role of judges. In another passage the disciples debate among themselves about who is greatest. Jesus rebukes them by saying that those who wish to be first should be last (Mark 9:33-35). More significantly, James and John (who, with Peter, were leading disciples) asked if they could sit on Jesus’ right and left in his “glory” (Mark 10:35-45). It seems that there was some dispute among the disciples about who would have the leading places in the kingdom. (E.P. Sanders, “The Life of Jesus” in Hershel Shanks, ed. Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development [London: SPCK, 1993], 41-83, 336-37, here, pp. 52-3)

Further Reading:

Revelation 21:14--Evidence against LDS Ecclesiology?

Qumranic Parallels to Revelation 21:14

Joseph Smith as judge and Matthew 19:28 (cf. Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology)

John Taylor's knowledge of the First Vision

Often, one will hear some critics who claim that John Taylor (1808-1887), third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was ignorant of the First Vision (e.g., Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 164). However, when one reads his sermons, such is refuted. For instance, in a sermon dated January 4, 1880, Taylor is recorded as having said the following:

You cannot teach a child algebra, nor arithmetic, until it has gone through a certain system of training. You cannot teach the arts and sciences without necessary preparation for their introduction, nor can you teach people in the government of God without they are placed in communication with him, and hence comes the Church of God, and what is meant by that? A school, if you please, wherein men are taught certain principles, wherein we can receive a certain spirit through obedience to certain ordinances. And we, having received this spirit through those ordinances, were then prepared to take the initiatory steps in relation to other matters, and hence as a commencement the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him." Here, then, was a communication from the heavens made known unto man on the earth, and he at that time came into possesion of a fact that no man knew in the world but he, and that is that God lived, for he had seen him, and that his Son Jesus Christ lived, for he also had seen him. What next? Now says the Father, "This is my beloved Son, hear him." The manner, the mode, the why, and the wherefore, he designed to introduce through him were not explained; but he, the Son of God, the Savior of the world, the Redeemer of man, he was the one pointed out to be the guide, the director, the instructor, and the leader in the development of the great principles of that kingdom and that government which he then commenced to institute. What next? The next step was that men having held the priesthood, that had ministered in time and eternity and that held the keys of the priesthood came and conferred them upon Joseph Smith. John the Baptist conferred upon him the Aaronic priesthood, and Peter, James and John the Melchisedec priesthood; and then others who had operated in the various ages of the world, such as Moses and Enoch, appeared and conferred upon him the authority that they held pertaining to these matters. Why? Because it was "the dispensation of the fullness of times," not of one time only but of all the times; it was the initiatory step for the development of all the principles that ever existed, or would exist pertaining to this world, or the world to come. What next? He was commanded to set apart other men, to baptize them that believed, that had faith in God and in his kingdom, and in his revelations and in his government. After they were put in possession of these principles, they were commanded to baptize those who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who repented of their sins, that they were to be baptized for a remission of their sins and to have hands laid upon them for the reception of the Holy Ghost. (JOD 21:65-66, emphasis added)

Such shows that one should take the claims of critics about LDS Church history with a lot of skepticism and that one should actually check the relevant primary sources and scholarly literature on the issues.

For those wishing to delve into this particular issues in more detail, D. Charles Pyle and Cooper Johnson wrote a great response to the Tanners about John Taylor and other early LDS' knowledge of the First Vision in their article:

Did Early LDS Leaders Misunderstand the First Vision?

Elder Ballard addresses Gender Issues

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female (Matthew 19:4)

Elder Ballard offers 'blunt' but 'loving' counsel to young adults

In his recent talk, discussed in the article above, Ballard dealt with the issue of "gender," a hot-button topic due to the utter insanity that is transgenderism (which is, like bipolar, a psychiatric condition):

Elder Ballard gets blunt about "gender issues."

Elder Ballard said he also sometimes hears criticism from youth that the Church takes too hard of a stance on marriage or gender issues. “Before you start questioning that, you go back and study the plan of salvation,” Elder Ballard told the young adults.

“What is God’s great plan of happiness? Why are we here? Where do we come from? Who are we? Who are you?” he asked. “Well, you are sons and daughters of God. You are spirit offspring of our Heavenly Parents. You lived in the pre-mortal world as sons and daughters of God.”

He then encouraged listeners to go back to the book of Genesis in the Bible. “Find out why God created this world. Who are we … and what are we charged to do and how are we charged to do it? Well, Adam and Eve were given firm direction. They were moved out of the garden and told to multiply and replenish the earth. And there’s one way you should do that: in God’s way of marriage.”

 For more, see 

Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences by Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., PhD. and Paul R. McHugh, PhD

Joseph Smith's warning about the dangers of apostasy

I have written a couple of articles on the “warning passages” in the Bible, including Heb 6:4-6 and 10:26-29 which proves, biblically, that a truly justified person can lose their salvation. Furthermore, whenever one abandons the faith, they tend to rebel against the gospel, not simply go back to “neutrality” if you will. While pondering such, one was reminded of the warning given by the following recollection of something the Prophet Joseph Smith said, warning about the dangers of apostasy, a warning that all should heed:

“Soon after the Prophet’s arrival in Commerce (afterwards Nauvoo) from Missouri prison, Brother Isaac Behunin and myself made him a visit at his residence. His persecutions were the topic of conversation. He repeated many false, inconsistent and contradictory statements made by apostates, frightened members of the Church and outsiders. He also told how most of the officials who would fain have taken his life, when he was arrested, turned in his favor on forming his acquaintance. He laid the burden of the blame on false brethren. …

“When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: ‘If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’

“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’”

Source: Daniel Tyler, in “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor, Aug. 15, 1892, pp. 491–92; punctuation and grammar modernized.

Leighton Flowers vs. Jeff Durbin on Calvinism

I have discussed, and soundly refuted, Jeff Durbin's arguments against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including:

Refuting Jef Durbin on "Mormonism"

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

The following video comes from Leighton Flowers, a proponent of Arminian soteriology, where he critiques a sermon by Durbin on the topic of Reformed theology (Calvinism); such provides further evidence that Durbin is incapable of meaningful historical-grammatical exegesis of the Bible:

Critique of Jeff Durbin's Sermon on Calvinism

"Judges" in the Book of Mormon

In his review of Wesley P. Walters' book, The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon (1990), John Tvedtnes wrote the following about Book of Mormon “judges”:

Walters’s second point is that Joseph Smith, like the King James translators, misunderstood the nature of the Hebrew word shophet, rendered “judge.” It did not denote one who “judges” (though this may be one of the minor duties of the Israelite judges), but one who governs. He does not indicate his evidence for this, but it comes principally from the Canaanite/ Phoenician usage of the word to denote rulers, along with an understanding of the major activities of the Israelite judges.

But it is Walters, not the Book of Mormon, who has misunderstood. The judges replaced the Nephite king, so the phrase “to judge this people” obviously meant more than sitting in a court of law (Mosiah 29:11-13, 28-29). “They did appoint judges to rule over them, or to judge them according to the law” (Mosiah 29:41; cf. Alma 4:17). The judge is often called “governor.” Alma, as “the chief judge and the governor of the people of Nephi” led the army against the Amlicite insurgents (Alma 2:16). Other Nephite chief judges, such as Pahoran and Lachoneus, were also involved in military affairs, as were their ancient Israelite counterparts. For Walters to ignore these facts is unpardonable in what purports to be a scholarly thesis—but expected in a work that is principally designed to denigrate the Book of Mormon.

Timothy Willis in his scholarly volume on Elders-Laws in the book of Deuteronomy wrote the following about “judges” which has strong parallels to the Book of Mormon and Tvedtnes’ remarks quoted above:

Other texts support the possibility of royal involvement in judicial appointments (Exod 18:13-27; Deut 1:9-18; and 2 Chr 19:4-11). In each text, the judicial official chosen are also traditional leaders in the nation’s kinship-based structure. Those whom Moses chooses are described as “leading men of your tribes” in Deut 1:15 (cp. Exo 18:21, 25), and among those appointed by Jehoshaphat in Jerusalem are “heads of families of Israel” (2 Chr 19:8). The presence of priests among the ranks of judicial officials in the latter (as in Deuteronomy) is also not unexpected, based on the examples of other societies . . . The cases which mention other functionaries and not elders vary in terms of the extent and nature of the jurisdiction involved; but they can easily be seen as cases which naturally require the services of someone other than city elders. The cases brought before “the Levitical priests and the judges” in Deut 17:8-13 are described as “any case within your towns” (lit. ‘gates’) which is too difficult for you.” This presumes that someone else within a town would have heard the case first and found it too difficult to resolve. That could have been local elders. The resolution of the cases considered in Deut 19:15-21 requires an investigation “before the Lord, before the priests and judges.” It would make sense to assume that such cases had been heard but left unresolved by local adjudicators, that they too are cases “too difficult for you.”

This leaves two laws to be considered—Deut 16:18-20 and 25:1-3. Both speak of “judges” hearing cases, but both are ambiguous on one crucial point: whether these judges constitute the very lowest level of adjudication, or are they there, as in Deut 17:8-13, to resolve cases that are “too difficult” for city elders to resolve. We have already shown that the presence of judges in other societies of the ancient Near East does not preclude the existence of additional local adjudicators such as elders. More specifically, the law codes of Mesopotamia contain laws which mention only judges, yet we know from other documents that judges are not the only adjudicators; they do not possess a “polemical silence” against other adjudicators. (Timothy M. Willis, The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy [Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 55; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001], 84, 85-6)

"The City of Nazareth": The Meaning of "City" in Antiquity

In 1 Nephi 11:13, Nephi, in a vision of the then-future mother of the Messiah, records the following:

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

It might strike some readers as being odd that Nazareth is referred to being a “city” in light of its very small size in comparison to ancient Jerusalem, let alone modern conceptions of the “city.” However, the term “city” in Hebrew, עִיר, in the words of HALOT, refers to any "permanent settlement without any reference to its size" such as Bethlehem (Ruth 3:15), so the use of “city” in the Book of Mormon for Nazareth is not problematic.

On the meaning of “city” (עִיר) in the Hebrew Bible, Timothy M Willis wrote the following:

An Israelite “city” (עִיר) served as a gathering-place for a particular group of people. The purposes for which they might have gathered could be military, economic, religious, or social. It was “a site ideologically apart from its environs.”

There probably were four types of cities in ancient Israel and Judah. Two types were present (in both the pre-monarchic and monarchic periods) within individual clans. One is a simple “city,” and the other “the city of the clan.” Some clans had several cities within their borders, some only one (e.g., Shechem, Tirzah). Even where there were several cities within a clan, it is likely that one city served as “the city of the clan.” The city in Zuph in which Saul finds Samuel (1 Samuel 9) might be one example of this. The city is not named, but there is a high place there, and the people gathered there for a sacrifice. Similarly, David’s clan met at a regional center (Bethlehem) for its ceremonial gatherings (1 Sam 20:6). The possibility that the inhabitants of several cities consider one city as their common city, so to speak, is also reflected in the reference to “the cities of Hebron” (2 Sam 2:3). A third type of city served as a gathering-place for a broader spectrum of the population, one that performed a common function for several clans or tribes. These were primarily religious centers (e.g., Shiloh, Bethel, Shechem, Gilgal, Beersheba, the Transjordanian shrine). The kinds added a couple of wrinkles to this picture. First, they apparently incorporated these higher supra-clan centers into their administrative structure. The kings also established new cities of another type, the administrative city, which controlled broader areas than the traditional clan centers. These included royal cities, fortified cities, and store-cities. At the top of these administrative cities was the national capital. Thus, the lines between these different types of settlements probably became blurred in many cases. (Timothy M. Willis, The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy [Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 55; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001], 14-15)

William Hamblin, Reformed Egyptian

Patrick Hussey is a former Latter-day Saint in the Republic of Ireland. I previously refuted him on the etymology of the name "Mormon" in the following article:

The meaning of "Mormon": Responding to a Misinformed Critic

In an email he sent me not too long ago, full of typical nonsense one expects from him from those who unfortunately know him expect of him, he wrote the following about "reformed Egyptian" (I have cleaned up the crass language he used):

I do not accept Joseph Smiths explanation. it is not provable either way anyway because 'Reformed Egyptian is a b***s*** makey-uppy language. This kind of thing suits you though.. you can argue on til the cows come home with all your academic waffle

I reproduce this to "plug" the seminal article on "reformed Egyptian" by my friend, Dr. William J. Hamblin:

Reformed Egyptian

For more, see, for example, my blog post:

John Tvedtnes' response to a critic on the topic of Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters

Robert Gagnon on Homosexuality & the Bible

Robert Gagnon is the author of perhaps the book on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible:

Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001)

In the following video, Gagnon discusses some relevant issues about this very heated topic in a non-polemical manner (something that is absent all too often, from both sides, on this issue):

Robert Gagnon - Homosexuality & the Bible

Hurtado and Hooker on Colossians 1:24

I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. (Col 1:24, NRSV)

Commenting on this verse, Larry Hurtado wrote the following:

Paul’s sufferings are pictured strikingly as allowing him to complete in his own flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of the church. In the preceding verses (1:15-23), Christ’s preeminence over all creation, and the universal scope of this redemptive work, are celebrated; and this reconciliation is specifically described as accomplished through Christ’s own fleshy body in his death (v. 22). As commentators rightly note, behind the reference to completing what is “lacking” in Christ’s afflictions probably lies the idea of an eschatological quota of sufferings (messianic “woes”) that must be completed so that the final consummation of God’s redemptive plan might take place. That is, the idea here is not that Paul’s sufferings compensate for an insufficiency in Christ’s sufferings, or that Paul’s sufferings contribute to the redemption of the church. Instead, the things that Paul suffered are pictured here as affording him the chance, on behalf of the church, to make a special contribution to the eschatological measure/quota of eschatological sufferings. Yet it should be clear also that the traditional apocalyptic idea of eschatological sufferings has been reshaped here by the crucifixion of Jesus, so that Paul and other believers can undergo their sufferings as service to the crucified Jesus. We may also note Philippians 1:29, where Paul reminds his readers that it has been given them (by God) both to believe in Christ and also “to suffer for his sake,” and Philippians 3:10, where Paul expresses his deep and continuing aspiration “to know him [Christ] and the power of his resurrection and the participating/sharing of his sufferings [κοινωνίαν [παθημάτων αὐτοῦ], being conformed [συμμορφιζόμενος] to his death.” (Larry Hurtado, "Jesus' Death as Paradigmatic In the New Testament" in Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith [Waco, Tax.: Baylor University Press, 2017], 351-71, here, pp. 365-66)

Hurtado is correct in stating that Paul is not speaking of the (eschatological) salvation of the Church, but Paul is clearly teaching a form of participatory atonement. Morna Hooker noted the following about this often puzzling passage:

Colossians 1:24 provides an interesting example of the way in which commentators have allowed their theological convictions to influence their interpretation of the text. The belief that Christ’s death is decisive and once-for-all has led some of them to shy away from the straight-forward meaning of the words. Another example of this can be seen in the refusal to allow that Paul ever speaks of imitating Christ. Colossians 1:24 reflects the conviction that we have found elsewhere in Paul’s writings, that it is necessary for the Christian to share in the sufferings of Christ and that this participation in suffering can be of benefit to other members of the Christian community. This necessity is not based on the idea that there is a set quota of messianic sufferings that need to be completed. Rather it arises from the representative character of Christ’s death. If Christ died for all, this means not only that all have died, but that they must continue to work out the meaning of dying with Christ. The acceptance of Jesus as Messiah means a willingness to share his experiences. In this sense, at least, the sufferings of Christ are no substitute for ours, but a pattern to which we need to be conformed.

The tendency to stress the belief that Christ’s death was a substitute for ours to the exclusion of the Pauline conviction that Christians must participate in the suffering of Christ is perhaps a very early one. The Corinthians, e.g., seem to have been unable to grasp the idea that there was any place for suffering and humiliation. In their calling: for them, resurrection with Christ was a past event, and this meant that they shared already in his glory, fullness, and riches (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:8). Christ had suffered—and they experienced the resulting glory. He had become for them the substitute for humiliation and death. They failed to see the necessity to share his sufferings. (Morna D. Hooker, “Interchange and Suffering,” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, eds. William Horbury and Brian McNeil [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], pp. 70-83, here, p.82, emphasis added).

Larry Hurtado on the use of YHWH texts for Jesus and Philippians 2

Commenting on the use of Old Testament Yahweh texts to the person of Jesus (e.g, in the context of Jesus’ parousia), Larry Hurtado, interacting with N.T. Wright, wrote the following in a recent book (one which I highly recommend to those interested in Christology):

[I]n Hebrews 10:37 the appropriation of the promise of YHWH’s coming (from Isa 26:20) to encourage believers to await in patience its fulfilment in Jesus’ future appearance. In 2 Peter 3:10-13, the author deploys wording from Isaiah 65:17 and/or 66:22 in predicting the future coming of “the day of the Lord,” who in this context is Jesus. Mark 8:38 and 13:24-27 (and parallels) are additional instance. And Revelation 19:11-16 is replete with wording that seems to be adapted from various OT texts that reflect the return of YHWH theme used to depict the future appearance of Jesus as eschatological warrior . . . Every exegete recognizes the remarkable adaptation of phrasing from Isaiah 45:22-25 to predict a universal acclamation of Jesus as Kyrios in Philippians 2:9-11. The Isaiah passage appears in a larger context declaring YHWH’s uniqueness and predicting YHWH’s future judgment on the nations and the restoration of Israel (e.g., 45:14-17). The Philippians passage reflects a creative christological reading of Isaiah 45:22-24, however, in which the eschatological supremacy of YHWH is to be recognized in the universal acclamation that is to be given to Jesus. But note that in Philippians 2 Jesus is to receive this universal acclamation because it was with this intention (ινα, v. 10) that God "highly exalted him" and gave him “the name above every name” (which I take to be kyrios). To underscore the matter, the text depicts God as having given Jesus a new and exalted status and role (as Kyrios) in response to Jesus’ complete obedience (διο, v. 9); and consequently, on the basis of that exaltation, Jesus it to be acclaimed by all spheres of creation . . . [W]w are to see in Philippians 2:6-11 a christological appropriation of the OT theme of YHWH’s eschatological return and supremacy, this appropriation is again with reference to Jesus’ “post-Easter” status and a future universal acclamation as portrayed in verses 9-11. It is from God’s exaltation of Jesus onward that he is the Kyrios, the future universal acclamation of him described in wording from Isaiah 45:22-23. This is similar to what we have in the other clear NT instances noted earlier, where YHWH’s return is appropriated with reference to Jesus’ parousia. To underscore the relevant point (contra Wright), the Philippians passage does not show the theme of YHWH’s return used to describe the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It certainly does not give evidence that the appropriation of the theme of YHWH’s return was the foundational christological conviction upon which the full gamut of christological claims then developed. (Larry Hurtado, “YHWH’s Return to Zion: A New Catalyst for Earliest High Christology” in Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion [Baylor, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2017], 75-95, here, pp.89, 91-92)

Such comments reminded me of what Blake Ostler wrote on Paul's use of the Old Testament in Philippians 2 vis-á-vis the worship and exaltation of Jesus in Pauline Christology.

Warnings against Theological Ecumenism

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 (D&C 1:30)

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." (Joseph Smith History 1:19)

In a talk from the October 1985 General Conference, The Only True Church, Boyd K. Packer offered the following against theological ecumenism:

One doctrine presents a particular challenge. It is our firm conviction that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, as the revelations state, “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” (D&C 1:30.)

This doctrine often generates resistance and repels the casual investigator.

Some have said, “We want nothing to do with anyone who makes so presumptuous a claim as that.”

The early Latter-day Saints were bitterly persecuted for holding to this doctrine. They were the butt of many clever stories. We, of course, are not free from that today.

Should we not then make one accommodation and set this doctrine aside? Would it not be better to have more accept what would be left of the gospel than the relatively few who are converted now? . . . If we thought only in terms of diplomacy or popularity, surely we should change our course.

But we must hold tightly to it even though some turn away . . . While we cooperate with others to reach mutual objectives, we do it in our own way. We do not recognize the ordinances performed in other churches. We will not exchange baptisms, a practice which has become commonplace in the Christian world.

We do not join associations of clergy or councils of churches. We keep our distance from the ecumenical movements. The restored gospel is the means by which Christians must ultimately be united.

We do not claim that others have no truth. The Lord described them as having “a form of godliness.” Converts to the Church may bring with them all the truth they possess and have it added upon.

With respect to the dangers of watering down our theological distinctiveness and focusing too much on commonalities, Joseph Fielding McConkie in The First Vision and Religious Tolerance wrote the following under the header of “No Middle Ground”:

Perhaps we need to rethink the idea of seeking common ground with those we desire to teach. Every similarity we identify leaves them with one less reason to join the Church. When we cease to be different, we cease to be. The commandment to flee Babylon has not been revoked, nor has it been amended to suggest that we seek an intellectual marriage with those not of our faith. The fruit of such a marriage will always be outside the covenant.

One of our great revelations on missionary work says, “Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit” (D&C 43:15). It is hard to imagine a vacuum salesman saying, “This vacuum is just like the one you already have, but if you buy it, your parents will disown you and everyone in the neighborhood will hate you.” One would not expect a lot of sales.

I remember sitting in a priesthood meeting one Sunday morning in a small, struggling ward in Scotland. There were five priesthood holders present, two missionaries, an investigator the missionaries had brought, and myself. I do not remember the topic of the lesson. My thoughts were on the investigator. He was a man of fine appearance, bright, and articulate. My thoughts were a few years down the road. I could not help but think what a fine bishop he would make. The others present made a particular point to relate each principle that the teacher mentioned to some common ground between them and their Catholic visitor. When the meeting was over, he turned to the missionaries and told them not to call on him or his family again. He said, “I see that you are a young, struggling church and that you desire to become what the Catholic Church already is. Since I already have what you are seeking, I see no reason to change.” He left, and that ended our association with him.

I offer the following as there is a growing desire among many Latter-day Saints for theological ecumenism. While I am in favour of LDS and non-LDS coming together to oppose social evils (e.g., the modern holocaust of abortion), we cannot engage in theological ecumenism in light of our theology and uniquely Latter-day Saint scriptures, at least without seriously compromising the truth claims thereof.

Laurence Hemming, Eternal Return: Humanity After Eternity

The following is a lecture entitled Eternal Return: Humanity After Eternity by Laurence Hemming (Roman Catholic) of the University of Lancaster at the tenth annual Truman G. Madsen Lecture on the Eternal Man on September 20th, 2017

Candidate for Special Pleading Award 2017

However, while the Lecture [of Faith #5] describes the Son as a personage of flesh, it nevertheless fails to define the son as a "person" distinct from the Father, and therefore, it may only be a variation of Modalism, albeit one that would allow for the simultaneous appearance of the Father and Son. (source)

Also, this is prime material for the theological candidate for Dunning Kruger Effect 2017.

New World Animals and Loanshifting

Speaking of the Tapir, two commentators on New World animals wrote the following:

This strange beast is one of the Hoofed Animals, as we can tell at once if we glance at its feet; and although it looks like a gigantic pig, the Tapir is more nearly related to the Horse and the Rhinoceros. (F.M. and L.T. Duncan, Animal Life in the New World [London: Oxford University Press, 1939], 36, emphasis added)

Furthermore, commenting on the peccary (perhaps the “swine” of Ether 9:18), the same author wrote:

Another pig-like animal living in the depths of the forests is the Peccary. It is not a great bulky creature like the Tapir, but is about the size of a small hog. It has a long snout, slender legs, no tail, and is clothed with stiff bristly hairs which form a regular mane behind its head.

Peccaries really do belong to the pig family. They are the little wild pigs of South America. (Ibid., 37, emphasis added)

Such reminded me of the concept of “loanshifting,” something that has most recently been discussed by Neal Rappleye in his 2017 FairMormon Conference paper “Put Away Childish Things”: Learning to Read the Book of Mormon Using Mature Historical Thought

HTML | PDF

The late Umberto Eco also discussed such in his (excellent) Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition

Karlo Broussard tries (and fails) to defend the Immaculate Conception

In a recent video released by Catholic Answers, Is There Biblical Proof for the Immaculate Conception? Karlo Broussard attempts to provide some biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception:

Let us review his arguments:

Genesis 3:15

To dispel the comments by Broussard on this verse and its alleged relationship to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it should be enough to quote from Ludwig Ott when he discusses the purported biblical proof of the dogma:

α) Gn. 3:15 (Protoevangelium): Inimicitas ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius; ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. The translation of these words, according to the original text, is: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He (the seed of the woman) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.”

The literal sense of the passage is possibly the following: Between Satan and his followers on the one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant moral warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messias, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. Thus the passage is indirectly messianic. Cf. D 2123.

The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Redeemer (the αὐτός of the Septuagint), and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers, for example, St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, Isidor of Pelusium, St. Cyprian, the author of the Epistola ad amicum aegrotum, St. Leo the Great. However, it is not found in the writings of the majority of the Fathers, among them the great teachers of the East and West. According to this interpretation, Mary stands with Christ in a perfect and victorious enmity towards Satan and his following. Many of the later scholastics and a great many modern theologians argue, in the light of this interpretation of the Proloevangelium that: Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had ever been under his dominion. Consequently she must have entered this world without the stain of original sin.

The Bull “Ineffabilis” approves of this messianic-marianic interpretation. It draws from it the inference that Mary, in consequence of her intimate association with Christ, “with Him and through Him had eternal enmity towards the poisonous serpent, triumphed in the most complete fashion over him, and crushed its head with her immaculate foot.” The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage. It must also be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 200)

"Woman" being applied to Mary

Firstly, it should be noted that Mary is not the only person called "woman" (γυνη) in the Gospel of John. The woman of Samaria is also called by this term in John 4:21:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman (γυναι), believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Using the strained interpretation (eisegesis, really) of Broussard and other Catholic apologists, this “proves” that the Samaritan woman is the “New Eve” just like Mary.

Why did Jesus refer to Mary as “woman” in John 2:4 and 19:26? As with episodes in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is establishing an eschatological family, one based, not on biological but spiritual ties with one another (cf. Matt 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21; 11:27-28). As Eric Svendsen noted:

In the case of women with who he is particularly close, he sometimes uses the woman’s proper name. In Luke 10:41 he refers to “Martha” (cf. John 11:5 which tells us that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus”). In John 20:16 he refers to Mary Magdalene by name. In other words, when there is a special relationship between Jesus and a woman who is a known disciple, he often uses more personal address. The title “woman,” by contrast, seems to be used to establish distance between Jesus and the other party. One might expect, then, that had Jesus intended to convey and intimate relationship with his mother—one that was unencumbered by distance—he would have chosen “mother” or “Mary” or the like. Instead, he uses an address that is polite but distancing. Indeed, the fact that Jesus never once in all the gospels calls Mary by the title “mother” indicates not only that there is no special emphasis on Mary's physical motherhood, but may also indicate something much more significant; namely, that Mary’s physical motherhood is quite intentionally downplayed. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 183)

In an endnote for the above (p. 317 n. 58), Svendsen noted the following on the use of personal names and “woman”:

In the case of John 20:15-16, Jesus first calls Mary Magdalene “woman” (v. 15); then “Mary” (v. 16). The first address (“woman”) seems to be said with the intent of preventing Mary from recognizing him immediately (c. Luke 24:16; “they were kept from recognizing him”), and to give the impression that she is speaking with a stranger (viz., the gardener). The second address (“Mary”) is clearly intended to close the distance and reestablish the intimacy that Mary once enjoyed with Jesus.

Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη

While Broussard did not raise this verse, it is the most popular text Catholic apologists cite in support of the Immaculate Conception. For a full discussion, see:

Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη: Evidence for the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Finally, this is not the first time Catholic Answers has done a weak job at attempting to provide support for this dogma. Broussard’s mentor and fellow apologist at Catholic Answers, Tim Staples, embarrassed himself on the topic in his 2015 book, Behold your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines. See my article:

Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception

On Catholic Answers' weak work on "Mormonism," see:

Answering Trent Horn on "Mormonism" (cf. Trent Horn on Book of Mormon "swords")

There is no meaningful biblical and even early patristic evidence for the Immaculate Conception. It is a tradition of men that should be rejected.

Live tweeting General Conference this weekend

As you know (or should know!) this weekend is General Conference weekend, which means I will be "live tweeting" most of the sessions (except for the Priesthood due to time difference [I live in Ireland]) with serious and not so serious comments. My twitter feed can be found here.

1 Nephi 12:18 vs. Modalism

The original reading of 1 Nephi 12:18 reads as follows:

And the large and spacious building which thy father saw is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God. [1]

In this passage, there is a numerical distinction between “the Eternal God” (i.e., God the Father) and Jesus Christ, showing them to be two persons, contrary to Modalism and other like-theologies. This provides further proof that the earliest Latter-day Saint Christology was not that of a variation of Modalism, contra Vogel, Charles, and other critics unless they wish to violate one of the most basic principles of logic, The Identity of Indiscernibles

[1] For a discussion of this verse and the variations in the manuscripts, see Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 1: 1 Nephi 1-2 Nephi 10, pp. 257-60


Update:

A rather misinformed critic wrote the following to a friend of mine on facebook:

 This is just the kind of apologia that is harmfull for the Church. You take one thing and make the wanted conclution of it. The Author should also have analysed these:1. It says on teh first page of BoM that JC is the everlasting God "And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God..."2. After Alma 11:44 all members of godhead are one eternal God.  "Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God".when looking at these 2 truths the conclution of the author seems totally unundersstandable.

As I wrote in response:

There is no problem with Jesus having the title "Eternal God" as such a title can be applied to more than one person, as with other divine titles and names, such as YHWH. However, 1 Nephi 12:18 differentiates between the Eternal God and Jesus, so the charge of Modalism is a non sequitur.

Alma 11:44 does not teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the one person--when read in context, Alma 11 distinguishes the persons of the Godhead. I have a few articles on this and other topics, including:

The Number of God in the Book of Abraham and Alma 11

The theology of Alma 11:44

Refuting Ron Den Boer

Another good article is by Ari D. Bruening and David Paulsen, The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Early Myths

Gregory of Nazianzus on Athanasius

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390) wrote the following:

Thus brought up and trained, as even now those should be who are to preside over the people, and take the direction of the mighty body of Christ, according to the will and foreknowledge of God, which lays long before the foundations of great deeds, he was invested with this important ministry, and made one of those who draw near to the God Who draws near to us, and deemed worthy of the holy office and rank, and, after passing through the entire series of orders, he was (to make my story short) entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world: nor can I say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of virtue, or to be the fountain and life of the Church. For she, like Ishmael, fainting from her thirst for the truth, needed to be given to drink, or, like Elijah, to be refreshed from the brook, when the land was parched by drought; and, when but faintly breathing, to be restored to life and left as a seed to Israel, that we might not become like Sodom and Gomorrah, whose destruction by the rain of fire and brimstone is only more notorious than their wickedness. Therefore, when we were cast down, a horn of salvation was raised up for us, and a chief corner stone, knitting us to itself and to one another, was laid in due season, or a fire to purify our base and evil matter, or a farmer's fan to winnow the light from the weighty in doctrine, or a sword to cut out the roots of wickedness; and so the Word finds him as his own ally, and the Spirit takes possession of one who will breathe on His behalf. (Oration xxi § 7)

Such are very high words of praise aimed at the individual Gregory is praising. If Gregory was speaking of a bishop of Rome, a modern Roman Catholic apologist would focus on such lofty terms, including this person “entrusted with the chief rule over the people,” as proof of the primacy, not just of the Church of Rome, but the singular bishop thereof (see modern works such as Steve Ray, Upon This Rock and Scott Butler et al., Jesus, Peter, and the Keys for the standard proof-texting of Church Fathers on this and related topics). However, Gregory was not speaking of Peter and/or a bishop of Rome; instead, he was speaking of Athanasius of Alexandria. Such does show that one has to be very careful when examining any text, whether the Bible, the patristic literature, etc (and yes, one should be cautious when it comes to LDS uses thereof, too, as I have seen many [sincere, but errant] LDS [unintentionally] abuse ancient texts to support our beliefs).

On the topic of purported patristic evidence supporting the later dogmatic teachings about the papacy, see:

Edward Denny, Papalism : a treatise on the claims of the papacy as set forth in the encyclical Satis Cognitum (1912)

Also see, for example, my article The Development Hypothesis and Dogmatic Teachings on the Papacy

John 8:58, "I AM" and the Personal Pre-existence of Jesus

Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58)

John 8:58 is a strong witness to the personal pre-existence of Jesus. On the phrase πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι (“Before Abraham was, I am”) the Greek grammar necessitates that Jesus personally, not merely notionally, pre-existed. As one grammarian wrote:

Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to present time: Lu 13:7 ιδου τρια ετη αφ ου ερχομαι ζητων καρπον . . . και ουχ ευρισκω, it is now three years since I have been coming looking for fruit . . .and not finding it; Lu 15:29 τοσαυτα ετη δουλευω σοι, I have been slaving for you all these years; Jn 14:9 τοσουτον χρονον μεθ υμων ειμι . . .; have I been with you so long . . .?; Ac 27:33 τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατην σημερον ημεραν προσδοκωντες ασιτοι διατελειτε, today is the fourteenth day you have been continuing on the alert without food; Jn 8:58 πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born. This is a form of the continuation realisation of the imperfective aspect, and similar uses are found with the imperfect tense and with imperfective participles. (K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach [Studies in Biblical Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 1994], 41-42, emphasis in bold added.)

Gary Michuta offered the following which, if correct, further supports the thesis that this verse supports the personal pre-existence of Jesus:

At first glance, it would have been Jesus' use of "I AM." As you know, God told Moses that His name is "I AM WHO AM." Is Jesus applying the divine name to himself? It seems so. However, that doesn't make sense in the context of the conversation. Jesus says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." The Jews responded that He is not even 50 years old. Jesus responds, "Before Abraham came to be . . ." the divine name. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Moreover, how is it that Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day? There's more going on than meets the eye.

One possible answer might be found in Abraham's mysterious visit in Genesis 18. One day, three men came to Abraham, who shows hospitability and pays them reverence. One of the mysterious visitors says, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah will have a son" (Genesis 18:10). Sarah, Abraham's wife, laughs because they are too old. The visitor answers, "Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time . . . next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son" (Genesis 18:14). One year later, Sarah gave birth to Isaac, which means "laughter." The Scripture says, "The LORD took note of Sarah as he had said he would; he did for her as he had promised. Sarah . . . bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time that God had stated" (Genesis 21:1-2). Was this the day, the birth of his son "laughter," that Abraham rejoiced?

What's curious is that the text is not at all clear who or what was this mysterious visitor. The chapter begins by saying the Lord [Yahweh] appeared to Abraham, and looking up he saw three men (Genesis 18:1). After overhearing one of the visitors say that she will give birth, Sarah laughed. In response, the text says, "But the LORD [Yahweh] said to Abraham: 'Why did Sarah laugh . . . Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son" (Genesis 18:13-14). Also, Genesis 18:22 saying, "Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord [Yahweh]." But there were three "men" who visited Abraham (Genesis 18:2) and only two angels came to Sodom (Genesis 19:1). Where was the third "man"? Apparently, the third "man" was the one still talking to Abraham, the Lord (Genesis 18:22). Our English translations say "Lord" in Genesis 18, but the Hebrew text gives the divine name YHWH ("I AM WHO AM").

Let's rewind back to our original passage in John 8. Jesus said Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." If this is the day of the miraculous birth of Isaac, then "my day" means the day of the mysterious visitor's return to Abraham and Sarah, who is YHWH ("I AM WHO AM"). If Abraham's visitation was a theophany (an appearance by God) then Jesus' application of the divine name fits perfectly with the whole discussion on Abraham. He visited Abraham. He is "I AM." It also explains why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. (Gary Michuta, Behind the Bible: What The Bible Assumes You Already Know [Livona, Mich.: Nikaria Press, 2017], 169-71)