William P. Brown on the Incomparability of Yahweh and the Polemics Against the Making and Worship of Idols in Isaiah

[T]he prophet revels in describing the process of idol manufacture. In addition to 44:9-20, other passages are dispersed throughout the prophetic corpus. What they have in common is the detailed descriptions of various artisans constructing an idol with wood and various materials. The finished product is established as immovable (40:20; 41:7). The passage 41:6-7 is particularly telling. Here each contributor encourages the other by exhortation and, in one case, approbation: “It is good” (ṭôb hû, v. 7). Empowerment and approbation are inextricably related (cf. Genesis 1). Nonetheless, the product is nothing, Yahweh proclaims (Isa 41:24), its creators being merely human; indeed, they too have become tōhû (44:9-11). The product is the producer, and vice versa. The true and sole source of strength comes from Yahweh, as made clear in the very next passage: “Do not fear, for I am with you; do not be afraid, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand” (41:8-10; cf. 35:3-4). In reality the prophet claims, idol manufacture is an enervating enterprise (44:12).

Try as they might to mimic divine activity, the idol makers are doomed to failure. Neither a rock of stability nor the arm of deliverance, the immovable idol is in fact a crushing burden on its worshipers. In a satire of the Babylonian procession of the gods, the prophet exposes the fallacy of idol worship. Fellow Israelites who worship idols are likened to beasts of burden, weary from bearing their lifeless load (46:1-7). Borne aloft in regal pageantry, the images of Marduk and his son, Nabu, require backbreaking work, and all for nothing. Such is the oppression of assimilation Israel suffers in a foreign land, requiring a new exodus toward the recovery of true worship. Idolatry is revealed for what it is, the most insidious form of self-demoralization (46:6-7). As the basis of aniconic worship, Yahweh’s incomparability is the very foundation of human dignity.

Much in contrast to these burdensome loads, the God of Zion is far from immobile. Yahweh is the bearable lightness of being: “I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save” (46:4). Yahweh’s pronouncement moves fluidly from creation to redemption. The problem with idols is that they can not move; by contrast, free and decisive movement characterizes the Rock of Israel’s salvation. Only a God on the move can redeem a people and propel them homeward. Full of unflagging energy, this God does not rest or enjoy the Sabbath (40:28). As Yahweh’s people are stuck in the rut of hopelessness and fear, their world too is construed as impassable, barren of new possibilities and bereft of human dignity. (William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 267-68)

William P. Brown on Creation Ex Materia in the Priestly Creation Account

Commenting on the Priestly creation account (Gen 1:1-2:3a) and the total absence of creation ex nihilo therein, one scholar wrote that:

To be sure, God summons light into existence, the only instance that comes close to creation ex nihilo (1:3). (William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 40)

But even then adds the following footnote showing the paucity of meaningful evidence for creation ex nihilo as well as noting the theological uneasiness many have at the biblical theology of creation ex materia:

See also 1:7, 16, 27. Overall, however, the Priestly cosmogony does not exemplify a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, “creation out of nothing.” Syntactically, the first verse of Genesis is a dependent clause (“When God began to create the heavens and the earth . . .”) rather than a complete sentence (i.e., “God created the heavens and the earth.”) Indeed, the notion of creatio ex nihilo did not clearly emerge as a doctrine until the second century CE (G. May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought [tr. A.S. Worrall; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994], 35-38, 62-84). The vigor and intensity with which both modern and ancient commentators have argued opposing positions betrays the fact that more than simply syntactical precision is at stake; deeply conflicting theological convictions underlie the various ways in which God is viewed in relation to the cosmos. For the Priestly author, however, the preexistence of chaos in no way intrudes on or limits God’s transcendent character, but rather underlines the divine role as the creative orderer of the cosmos. Whereas God is comfortable with preexistent “chaos” in the Priestly cosmogony, many modern interpreters are not. (Ibid., 40 n. 8)

 For more, see:

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought

Janne Sjödahl on the Nature of Justification by Faith in 1913

Latter-day Saints are often (falsely) accused of holding to a legalistic, Pelagian or Pelagian-like soteriology. Furthermore, many (again, falsely) claim that the emphasis on faith and/or grace in modern Latter-day Saint works on soteriology are novelties to present “Mormonism” as being “mainstream.”

In a rather polemical work written in 1913, Janne Sjödahl wrote the following about the biblical (and Latter-day Saint) understand of justification:

The Scriptural doctrine of justification by that faith which is active in works of righteousness. (Janne Mattson Sjödahl, The Reign of Antichrist or the Great “Falling Away.”: A Study in Ecclesiastical History [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1913], 30)

In other words, we are justified by an active faith, one that will produce good works and such good works prompted by, and empowered by, God’s grace are meritorious, not works done outside the auspices of God’s grace. Such is not a novelty by LDS authors to present the Church as “just another branch of Christianity”; it is the historical teaching of Latter-day Saint soteriology.

For more, see, for example:

Salvation in "old fashioned Mormonism" (cf. The Christocentric nature of "Old Fashioned Mormonism")

Janne Sjödahl on the Protestant Reformers and their Followers

  

Contrary to popular Mormon narrative that sees the Reformation as paving the way for the LDS Restoration, Luther, Calvin, and others in fact shaped Reformation theology in a direction much further removed from the teachings of Smith would propound than Catholicism ever was. They did this by emphasising a God “without body, parts, or passions,” human depravity, the Bible as the only source of authority, and salvation by faith alone. (Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel, volume 1: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity [New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 326 n. 90)

While many Latter-day Saints have a high view of the Protestant Reformers and even Protestantism itself, such is problematic, to put it nicely, in light of the abhorrent nature of Protestant theology, such as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Reformation understanding of the nature of Justification, among other doctrines (e.g., many Protestant groups reject the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration).

Writing in 1913, Janne Sjödahl offered the following critique of the Reformers and their followers which is rather apropos and should serve as a caution to Latter-day Saints who wish to put the Reformers and their theological descendants on an artificial pedestal:

We have spoken of the failure of the Roman church to save the world. It is necessary to add that the same must be the verdict whenever the Protestant churches, with all their subdivisions, are on trial. The reformers proceeded from the supposition that the great mother church had deviated from the original church, but not so far that a return could not be effected by dropping a few doctrines and picking up others. They failed to realize that the revolution had been so complete as to necessitate a reconstruction under the guidance of divine inspiration. Luther and Melanchton had lived in the papal atmosphere. They were used to the Roman yoke, and they were unable to shake it off completely and go forth into the pure air of gospel freedom. Their reformation was a grand beginning of the work of liberation, but before long kinds and princes interfered, and the work of liberty was very much retarded. In some places the reformation was drowned in blood. In others the church was set free from Rome to become the serf of the state.

In England the reformation was not the result of a desire to purify the church. Henry VIII was the reformer. When he found that the Pope refused to sanction his plans for the gratification of his desires, he decided on a reformation by which he, himself, should become a pope. He declared himself the head of the church in his kingdom. He abolished the monasteries and gambled away the money their confiscation brought him. It is related that he lost the steeple bells in a parish near St. Paul, London, throwing dice with Sir Miles Partridge, who took the bells and sold them. He gave a monastery to a lady for a pudding she had made and which pleased him very much. Henry, who never spared a man in his wrath, or a woman in his desire, reformed the church by means of oppression and tyranny. The liturgy of his church was arranged by the prelates of Elizabeth, a ruler who was very much inclined toward Rome, and who has been called Henry VIII in the disguise of a woman.

The following paragraphs from the Freeman’s Journal, an English religious periodical, commenting on a sermon delivered in Liverpool, point unmistakably to the failure of the Reformation:

“The present day results and developments of the ‘Reformation were well shown and emphasized in a sermon in Liverpool by Rev. J. Ashton, S.J. How many churches are there (he asked) deriving their religion under their numerous types from the ‘Reformers’ of the sixteenth century, which are upholding with success the lofty supernatural ideals of Christianity before the people of the nation? Are the people of the nation as a whole attached to those supernatural ideals? Are they growing more spiritual? Or are many of them asking, some sincerely, others with tongues in their cheeks, ‘Do we really believe?’ Are they falling away into infidelity? Do they confess, as an Anglican bishop has said they do, that the words of the late Cecil Rhodes, the Anglican church does not interest them? What is the belief of the man in the street, the typical man of business? the woman of fashion? and more important still, the poor? and, most important of all, is the inability of the Church to influence the mass of the people on the increase?

“if so, what are we to say of that movement which began in the sixteenth century? Must we not conclude, that as Froude has said, it was merely a branch lopped off from the present stem? and that it must die from want of nourishment and vigor? that from the beginning it was destined merely to cumber the ground, and to wither?  ‘The Church of England is confessedly losing her hold on the great majority of the English people,’ wrote an Anglican clergyman in the Times, and it is losing that hold, not because its members are leaving it to adopt another creed, but because they are falling away into secularism and unbelief.

“Knowing this, we  understand how it is that the Protestant Bishop of Liverpool, though we sincerely sympathize with him, recently had occasion to deplore the fact that the Church of England only got 310 children of the 1,000 ought to have got for an increase of 10,000 of population, last year. ‘He had been much surprised,’ he said, ‘to find in certain schools that the Catechism was tabooed altogether, and he was even more surprised to find certain teachers who had honestly confessed their doubt whether they could subscribe heartily to the tents of the church Catechism.

They had toe fact the fact that at present tens of thousands of children were leaving the day schools who had no knowledge whatever of the church Catechism, and yet they were church children.’ And what is to become of these children when they grow up? How much Christian doctrine will they retain and profess? About as much as those who have been brought up in the Council (public) schools.

“And that, Father Ashton might have added, means very little, if any at all. In short, the ‘Reformation’ and its ways are reforming Christianity out of existence in England.” (Janne Mattson Sjödahl, The Reign of Antichrist or the Great “Falling Away.”: A Study in Ecclesiastical History [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1913], 125-29)

Janne Sjödahl on the Importance of Sound Exegesis of Scripture

In a volume on ecclesiastical history, Janne Sjödahl wrote the following about the eisegesis (via allegory and other like-methods of interpretation that took precedent over the historical-grammatical method) that permeated much of the patristic literature. This should serve as a warning to modern Latter-day Saints as so many LDS works are, sadly, textbook examples of how not to do exegesis:

The fact is that the Fathers were more ignorant of the Scriptures than many in our day realize. They, or many of them, placed the Epistle to the Hebrews among the doubtful books, and rejected the Catholic epistles. At the same time they accepted the Apocryphal books as authority. They relied largely on the Septuagint translation of the Bible, while the Syriac, which is now considered of invaluable aid to the student, was unknown, or neglected. In their interpretation they allegorized, sometimes to the very verge of foolishness. Tertullian says the Prince of Tyre, in Ezekiel, means the devil. They believed in the fable of the “apples of Sodom.” Tertullian asserts: A fiery shower burnt up Sodom and Gomorrah. The land still smells of fire; and if apples grow on the trees, it is to the eye only; for, being touched, they turn to ashes.” He also has the following explanation why Jesus chose twelve Apostles: “I find the figures of the number with the Creator: there were twelve fountains of Elim, and twelve gems in the sacerdotal tunic of Aaron, and twelve stones set up in Jordan.” Justin says that “dwelling under one’s own vine” means having but one wife. It is any wonder if false doctrines were introduced at a time when the guardians of the faith were no incompetent as some of the Fathers were? (Janne Mattson Sjödahl, The Reign of Antichrist or the Great “Falling Away.”: A Study in Ecclesiastical History [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1913], 132-33)

On the topic of Ezek 28 and the Prince of Tyre, Sjödahl was correct in rejecting the identification of the Prince figure with Satan. For more, see:

LDS Christology, Satanology, and Ezekiel 28

The Seal of Mulek, son of King Zedekiah

The following is taken from Naham Avigad, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (revised and completed by Benjamin Sass; Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997), 55

For more on the importance of this seal, and other issues, to the Book of Mormon's account of Mulek, son of King Zedekiah, see:

Jeff Lindsay, Mulek, Son of Zedekiah

Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?

Targum Neofiti on Genesis 3:15 being Messianic

Gen 3:15 is often taken as a Messianic prophecy. While many modern Jews reject this reading, some Jewish texts interpreted it in a Messianic fashion. One such text is Targum Neofiti which renders the verse as follow:

And I will put enmity between you" and the woman and between your sons' and her sons. And it will come about that when her sons observe the Law and do the commandments they will aim at you and smite you on your head and kill you. But when they forsake the commandments of the Law you will aim and bite him on his heel and make him ill. For her sons, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy, since they are to make appeasement in the end, in the day of King Messiah. (Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis [The Aramaic Bible volume 1A; trans. Martin McNamara; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1992], 61, italics in original)

The Augsburg Confession and Philip Melanchthon on the Nature and Efficacy of the Sacraments

Many (to be fair all, not all) modern Protestants are ignorant of the various creeds and confessions that were influential in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras; even more are ignorant of the great importance the Reformers and those who followed after them ascribed to the sacraments. For instance, in The Augsburg Confession (1530), we read the following:

Art. IX.—Of Baptism.

Of baptism they teach that it is necessary for salvation, and that y Baptism the grace of God is offered, and that children are to be baptized, who by Baptism, being offered to God, are received into God’s favor.

They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the Baptism of children, and affirm that children are saved without Baptism.

Art. X.—Of the Lord’s Supper

Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the [true] body and blood of Christ are truly present [under the form of bread and wine], and are [there] communicated to those that eat in the Lord’s Supper [and received]. And they disapprove of those that teach otherwise [wherefore also the opposite doctrine is rejected].

Art. XIII.—Of the Use of Sacraments

Concerning the use of the Sacraments, they teach that they were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather that they should be signs and testimonies of the will of God towards us, set forth unto us to stir up and confirm faith in such as use them. Therefore men must use Sacraments so as to join faith with them, which believes the promises that are offered and declared unto us by the Sacraments.

Wherefore they condemn those that teach that the Sacraments do justify by the work done, and do not teach that faith which believes the remission of sins is requisite in the use of Sacraments.

Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), the protégée of Martin Luther, offered the following commentary on these articles in his Apology for the Augsburg Confession:

Article IX: Of Baptism.

The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation. And since the Gospel is taught among us purely and diligently, by God’s favor we receive also from it this fruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not gained ground in our Churches], because the people have been fortified by God’s Word against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is unprofitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain to those who are outside of Christ’s Church where there is neither Word nor Sacraments because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ’s command, Matt. 28, 19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism, salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered. Secondly, it is manifest that God approves the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of baptism of little children is shown—by this, namely that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in childhood]. For if this baptism would be saved, and finally there would be no Church. [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise]. This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists. . . . Baptism is a work, not which we offer to God but in which God baptizes us, i.e., a minister is the place of God; and God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16, 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. (Philip Melanchthon, Apology for the Augsburg Confession [Createspace, 2017], 120, 223)

Article X: Of the Holy Supper

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10, 16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. Or he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying in 1 Cor. 10, 17; Rom. 12, 5; Gal. 3, 28: We are all one body in Christ, altogether we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are all partakers of that one bread. Does her perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and we are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6, 9. (Ibid., 121-22)

Article XIII (VII): Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments . . . If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide which are properly Sacraments. Or rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct that rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these ties have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ’s sake. And God, at the same time, by the word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same. (Ibid., 165-66)

Answers to YEC Arguments Episode 35 Creation Ex Nihilo

The Sentinel Apologetics youtube page has been posting videos recently refuting Young Earth Creationist "arguments." One such video should be of great interest to Latter-day Saints:

Answers to YEC Arguments Episode 35 Creation Ex Nihilo

For more, see:

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought

Charles Finney vs. Reformed Protestant Theologies of the Atonement

Commenting on some of the errors of the common Protestant views of the nature of the atonement, Chares Finney (1792-1875) offered the following criticism:

I must show that the atonement was not a commercial transaction. Some have regarded the atonement simply in the light of the payment of a debt; and have represented Christ as purchasing the elect of the Father, and paying down the same amount of suffering in his own person that justice would have exacted of them. To this I answer—

(1.) It is naturally impossible, as it would require that satisfaction should be made to retributive justice. Strictly speaking, retributive justice can never be satisfied, in the sense that the guilty can be punished as much and as long as he deserves; for this would imply that he was punished until he ceased to be guilty, or became innocent. When law is once violated, the sinner can make no satisfaction. He can never cease to be guilty, or to deserve punishment, and no possible amount of suffering renders him the less guilty or the less deserving of punishment: therefore, to satisfy retributive justice is impossible.

(2.) But, as we have been in a former lecture, retributive justice must have inflicted on him eternal death. To suppose, therefore, that Christ suffered in amount, all that was due to the elect, is to suppose that he suffered an eternal punishment multiplied by the whole number of the elect. (Charles Finney, Finney’s Systematic Theology [ed. J.H. Fairchild; Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1976], 206-7)

Finney (ibid., 334) reproduces a portion of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the topic of justification:

The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms as follows: chapter on Justification section 3—“Christ by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to the Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.”

Finney, answering the theology of the WCF and other like-theologies that teach that Christ died the legal price of sins due to the elect, offered, among others, offered, among others, the following criticisms:

(3.) That if, as their substitute, Christ suffered for them the full amount deserved by them, then justice has no claim upon them, since their debt is fully paid by the surety, and of course the principal is, in justice, discharged. And since it is undeniable that the atonement was made for the whole posterity of Adam, it must follow that the salvation of all men is secured upon the ground of “exact justice.” This is the conclusion to which Huntington and his followers came. This doctrine of literal imputation, is one of the strongholds of universalism, and while this view of atonement is held they cannot be driven from it.

(4.) If he satisfied justice for them, in the sense of literally and exactly obeying for them, why should his suffering be imputed to them as a condition of their salvation? Surely they could not need both the imputation of his perfect obedience to them, so as to be accounted in law as perfectly righteous, and also the imputation of his sufferings to them, as if he had not obeyed for them. Is God unrighteous? Does he exact of the surety, first, the literal and full payment of the debt, and secondly, perfect personal obedience for an in behalf of the sinner? Does he first exact full and perfect obedience, and then the same amount of suffering as if there had been no obedience? And this, too, of his beloved Son?

(5.) What Christian ever felt, or can feel in the presence of God, that he has a right to demand justification in the name of Christ, as due to him on the ground of “exact justice?” Observe, the framers of the Confession just quoted, studiously represent all the grace exercised in the justification of sinners, as confined to the two acts of giving his Son and accepting the substitution. This done, Christ fully pays the debt, fully and exactly satisfies his Father’s justice. You now need not, must not conceive of the pardon of sin as grace or favor. To do this is, according to the teaching of this Confession, to dishonor Christ. It is to reject his righteousness and salvation. What think you of this? Once act of grace in giving his Son and consenting to the substitution, and all forgiveness, all accepting and trusting as righteous, is not grace but “exact justice.” To pray for forgiveness, as an act of grace, is apostacy from Christ. Christian! Can you believe this? No; in your closet, smarting under the string of a recently committed sin, or broken down and bathed in tears, you cannot find it in your heart to demand “exact justice” at the hand of God, on the ground that Christ has fully and literally paid your debt. To represent the work and death of Christ as the ground of justification in this sense, is a snare and a stumbling-block. (Ibid., 335-36)

"Adieu" in The Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

The “adieu” argument has long been refuted, so much so that one rarely these days find it raised by critics of the Book of Mormon. Notwithstanding, I came across the following in The Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon under ברך ("to bless"):

1467  ] בָּרַךְ1468) [Hebrew) (page 138) (Strong 1288,1263 . . . 5. bless, with the antithetical meaning curse (Thes) from the greeting in departing, saying adieu to, taking leave of; but rather a blessing overdone and so really a curse as in vulgar English as well as in the Shemitic cognates: 1 K 21:10, 21:13 , Jb 1:5, 1:11, 2:5, 2:9, Psalm 10:3. Pu. Impf. יְבֹרַח 2 S 7:29 + 3 t.; תְּבֹרַח Ju 5:24, Pr 20:21; Pt. מְבֹרָח Nu 22:6 + 3 t.; f. מְבֹרֶכֶת Dt 33:13; מְבֹרָכָיו Psalm 37:22; —1. pass. to be blessed, adored: שׁם י׳ Jb 1:21, Psalm 113:2 2. prospered by God: a. persons 2 S 7:29, 1 Ch 17:27, Psalm 37:22, 112:2, 128:4, Pr 20:21. b. things Dt 33:13. 3. have prosperity invoked, by Balaam Nu 22:6. 4. in gratitude Pr 22:9, Ju 5:24. Hiph. וַיַּבְרֵח חַגְּמַלִּים and he made his camels kneel Gn 24:11 )J(. Hithp. הִתְבָּרֵח Dt 29:18 + 3 t.; Impf. יִתְבָּרֵח Is 65:16, Psalm 72:17; Pt. מִתְבָּרֵח Is 65:16; —bless oneself, congratulate onself בלבבו in his heart Dt 29:18; בזרעך with or by )cf. בְּ III. 2. d( thy seed (invoke for oneself the blessing of the see of Abraham) Gn 22:18, 26:4 (J); by the Messianic king Psalm 72:17; באלהי אמן Is 65:16; by י׳ Je 4:2.2. d( thy seed )invoke for oneself the blessing of the see of Abraham( Gn 22:18, 26:4 )J(; by the Messianic king Psalm 72:17; באלהי אמן Is 65:16; by י׳ Je 4:2.

The Knowledge of Christ in Trinitarian/Catholic Theology

The following is a discussion of the knowledge of Christ during the incarnation from a Catholic/Trinitarian perspective. I am sure many readers will appreciate this as it shows how informed Trinitarian theologians approach this important Christological issue:

The Knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of Christ is the knowledge which Christ has as God and man. Thomas Aquinas distinguished four kinds of knowledge in Christ: 1) the eternal, infinite, and perfect knowledge which is proper to God; 2) the knowledge of vision proper to the blessed in heaven; 3) the infused knowledge proper to the angels; and 4) the acquired knowledge proper to men. Christ possessed the knowledge proper to God because He was God. The other three kinds of knowledge are rooted in His human soul. Christ had the beatifying knowledge of the blessed in heaven because his humanity was united to the Word in a personal union, a union much more intimate than the union of the blessed in heaven with God. Christ possessed this knowledge from the inception of the incarnation. Christ had the infused knowledge proper to the angels in His capacity as head of the angels and for the perfection of His “possible” intellect. Christ also acquired knowledge by means of abstraction from sense knowledge; for example, He learned obedience from what He suffered (Heb. 5:8). Christ acquired this knowledge only gradually with the passing of the years.

The theological problem of Christ’s knowledge is not concerned with the infinite knowledge of Jesus as God, but with that of Hus human finite soul. The problem arises because Jesus seems to have been ignorant of certain important matters, and ignorance which is difficult to explain if the soul of Jesus enjoyed the vision of God. For example, some exegetes say that Jesus is His earthly life did not know Himself to be the natural Son of God. Had He known Himself to be the Son of God He could not have contained His knowledge. Yet, the Gospels reflect no historically certain claim by Jesus to be God; and His disciples did not recognize His divinity until after the resurrection. Moreover, the Gospels speak of Jesus’ ignorance in certain respects; for example, He did not know the exact day or hour of the final consummation (Mt 24:36).

Even though the idea presents problems, many theologians are unwilling to deny the vision of God to the human soul of Christ. The idea is too firmly rooted in Christian tradition. To deal with the theological problem of Christ’s knowledge, some theologians holds that Christ’s knowledge of His divine self was intuitive and inexpressible, the result of the union between His human mind and the divine person. Christ was able to articulate this knowledge to Himself and others only gradually as He acquired the necessary concepts and images through human experience. One must acknowledge, however, the great difficulty of trying to understand the psychology of one who was both God and man.

Did Jesus actually express a claim to divinity? Yes. This is the most natural explanation of the Church’s faith in the divinity of Christ. Generally, Christ presented His claim in a veiled manner for pedagogical reasons; and His disciples did not understand His claim until after the illuminating experience of the resurrection; but there is evidence of the claim. One expression of Jesus’ claim to divinity may be seen in His custom of contrasting His own sonship with that of His disciples. He did so by referring a number of times to “my Father” (Lk 22:29; 24:49) and “your Father” (Mt 7:11; Mk 11:25). He avoided the phrase “our Father,” so that He might never place Himself on the same level of adoptive sonship which the disciples enjoyed. Jesus described His unique sonship in some detail. He is the beloved son sent by His Father (Mk 12:1-12). He pre-existed so that His ancestor, David, knew Him and called Him Lord (Mk 12:35-37). He is greater than Solomon, the prophets of the Old Testament (Mt 12:41-42), and the temple (Mt 12:6). The angels of heaven serve Him (Mt 13:41; Mk 13:27). His knowledge of the Father is comparable to the Father’s knowledge of Him (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). Jesus presents Himself as eschatological king and judge (M 25:34-40). As the Son, Jesus claims the prerogatives of Yahweh. (Principles of Catholic Theology: A Synthesis of Dogma and Morals, eds. Edward J. Gratsch, John R. Civille, Ralph J. Lawrence, and Donald G. McCarthy [New York: Alba House, 1981], 101-2)

Are Catholics only bound to teachings that have the Extraordinary "Infallible" Stamp defined at Vatican I?

Many liberal Catholics argue that, unless it has the “infallible stamp,” a papal teaching can be rejected. Notwithstanding, historical (and dogmatic) Catholic teaching argues that one must accept papal teachings, at least those that fall under, not just the extraordinary but ordinary universal magisterium (e.g., the prohibition on female ordination to the sacerdotal priesthood). Indeed, there have been many denouncements of such an attitude, including the following from the 1864 Syllabus of Errors wherein Pius IX condemned the following proposition:

22. The obligation which binds Catholic teachers and authors applies only to those things which are proposed for universal belief as dogmas of the faith, by the infallible judgment of the Church.

Richard Holzapfel and Thomas Wayment on the Release of Barabbas and the "privilegium paschale"

Commenting on the release of Barabbas (Matt 27;15-21, 26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:18-25; John 18:39-40), two LDS scholars noted:

The practice of releasing prisoners at the Passover celebration, the privilegium paschale, is not known from external sources, and the Gospels do not explicitly state that this was an ongoing practice, but perhaps more of a remedy for Pilate’s decreasing popularity. The practice of releasing prisoners for political reasons is suggested in a number of ancient sources and fits the practice described in the Gospels (Pesahim 8.6; Josephus, Antiquities 17.205; 20.125). (Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, Making Sense of the New Testament: Timely Insights and Timeless Messages [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010], 24, emphasis in original)

Herbert Danby in his translation of The Mishnah offers the following translation of Pesahim 8.6:

They may slaughter for one that mourns his near kindred, or for one that clears away a ruin; so, too, for one whom they have promised to bring out of prison, for a sick man, or for an aged man that is able to eat an olive’s bulk. For none of these in particular may they slaughter, lest they cause the Passover-offering to become invalid. Therefore if aught befell any of them to make them ineligible, they are exempt from keeping the Second Passover, excepting him that clears away a ruin, since he was [liable to become] unclean from the first.

Whiston offers the following translation of the Josephus’ texts:

others of them required that he would take away those taxes which had been severely laid upon what was publicly sold and bought. So Archelaus opposed them in nothing, since he pretended to do all things so as to get the goodwill of the multitude to him, as looking upon that goodwill to be a great step toward his preservation of the government. Hereupon he went and offered sacrifice to God, and then betook himself to feast with his friends. (Antiquities 17:205)

But the principal of the Samaritans went to Ummidius Quadratus, the governor of Syria, who at that time was at Tyre, and accused the Jews of setting their villages on fire, and plundering them; (Antiquities 20:125)

Richard Holzapfel and Thomas Wayment on τρωγω in John 6:54

Not many Latter-day Saints have commented on the significance of the shift in verb (and tense) of εσυιω to τρωγω beginning in John 6:54. I have discussed this issue, with reference to the theology of the Lord Supper and Catholic apologetic arguments related thereto, at:

τρωγω in John 6: Proof of Transubstantiation?

Moulton-Milligan on τρωγω

Such is why one is appreciative of the fact that, while all too brief, Richard Holzapfel and Thomas Wayment should be commended for commenting on this issue too:

John 6:54 uses the verb trogō, “eat” or “chew,” which is often used to describe the way animals eat but not the way humans eat. It carries with it the symbolism of consuming completely rather than eating in haste or lightly. Jesus’ flesh was to be “chewed” or deliberately consumed and digested, thus showing how important death and resurrection were to Jesus’ mission and the salvation of mankind. This was at least part of the focus of the Bread of Life discourse that was not understood by those who wanted to come and make Jesus king. (Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, Making Sense of the New Testament: Timely Insights and Timeless Messages [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010], 113-14)

For more on John 6 and related issues, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)

Answering Arthur Chris Eccel on "Sheum" in Mosiah 9:9

In Mosiah 9:9, we read:

And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land.

The terms "sheum" and "neas" are authentic ancient words. For a discussion, see:

"Neas" and "Sheum" in the Book of Mormon

Discussing Sheum, John L. Sorenson wrote:

One plant that is named among the foods of the Zeniffites (Mosiah 9:9, second century BC) is “sheum.” The text gives no clue as to what the botanical identification of this plant might be; however, a precise match for the name is found in Akkadian (i.e., ancient Babylonian). There, she’u or she’um signifies “barley” or “grain” (compare Sumerian she, “barley”; in Old Assyrian the word meant “wheat”), “the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal name” . . . The area where [the Jaredites] most likely obtained their seeds was northern Mesopotamia, which is where the name she’um was at home in languages of the third millennium BC. In the Jaredites’ American land the name might, of course, have been transferred to some other species during the more than two millennia until the Nephite historian mentioned the word. Mention of a crop by the patently Mesopotamian name sheum thus could be explained in the book’s own terms by reference to the Jaredites. In Mesoamerica the name might be linked to ixim (pronounced eeseem), the most common term for maize in Mayan languages. (John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013], 304-5, clarification in square bracket added)

Recently, Arthur Chris Eccel has tried to refute Sorenson and other Latter-day Saint scholars when he wrote the following:

Sorenson’s presentation is misleading . . . his reference to an Akkadian word for ‘barley’ or ‘grain’, še’u, which he relates to a name of a food in the BOM, sheum (Mosiah 9:9). Although he gives great elaboration, he neglects to mention that in the BOM sheum occurs in a list that also includes barley, and so is clearly not barley. (Arthur Chris Eccel, Mormon Genesis [Hilo, Hawaii: GP Touchstone, 2018], 529)

If anyone is guilty of being misleading, it is Eccel, not Sorenson, especially as the former holds a M.A. in Semitic languages. Had he bothered to read Sorenson carefully, he would have read Sorenson stating that the Book of Mormon differentiates between “barley” and “sheum” and “land the name might, of course, have been transferred to some other species during the more than two millennia until the Nephite historian mentioned the word.” Instead of interacting with the fact that the Book of Mormon’s reference to Sheum as a name for a grain is a “hit” for its authenticity, Eccel engages in disingenuous “arguments” and dodges.

The following comes from p. 345 of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. 17: š, part II, eds. John A. Brinkman, Miguel Civil, Ignace J. Geleb, A. Leo Oppenheim, and Erica Reiner (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1992), listing še’u as a grain in Akkadian:

There is no question that Sheum is evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a translation of an ancient document.

The onomasticon of the Book of Mormon is one of the strongest evidences for its authenticity and Sheum is merely a tip of a very large iceberg. For a recent book on such, see:

Matthew L. Bowen, Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Wordplay and the Temple in Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2018)

Adam-God being debated after Brigham Young's Death in 1877

Today at Church the naïve view that the leadership of the Church receives 24/7 revelation was mentioned by a Latter-day Saint. Notwithstanding, such is simply false. While I do not deny that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church, at the same time, history disproves such a view about the inspiration of Church leadership. One such topic would be the Adam-God doctrine. While randomly pursuing some journals today, I encountered the following from the diaries of Abraham H. Cannon and Anthon H. Lund which shows that Adam-God continued to be debated well after the death of Brigham Young in 1877:

[May 26, 1892; Thursday] At two o'clock I was at my Quorum meeting where were present all the Presidency and myself, as also Bro. (Francis M.) Lyman; Geo. Gibbs, clerk. Bro. Jos. Smith was mouth in prayer. Thereafter some conversation followed as to whether Adam is our God or not. There are some in the Church who do not accept of the statement of Pres. [Brigham] Young that such is the case, but to me it seems reasonable to think that Adam has at least much to do with our present condition, and will control greatly our future destiny. (Candid Insights of a Mormon Apostle: The Diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, 1889-1895 [ed. Edward Leo Lyman; Salt Lake City: Signature Books and the Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2010], 338)

[April 8, 1912; Monday.] Had a large special Priesthood meeting in which the declaration was made that the God we worship is not Adam but the God that Adam worshiped in the Garden. (Danish Apostle: the diaries of Anthon H. Lund, 1890-1921 [ed. John P. Hatch; Salt Lake City: Signature Books and the Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2006], 477)

 For the best treatment on Adam-God, see:

Matthew B. Brown, Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam

Be sure to also check out my essay:

On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine

Latter-day Saints really need to jettison the popular but simplistic and false notion that Church leaders have a "bat phone" to God.

Arthur Chris Eccel on "Great Spirit" and "wherefore"/"therefore" in the Book of Mormon

I have been working my way through a recent book critical of Latter-day Saint Scripture:

Arthur Chris Eccel, Mormon Genesis (Hilo, Hawaii: GP Touchstone, 2018)

While critical of Book of Mormon historicity, Eccel, both directly and indirectly, refutes many arguments against the Book of Mormon.

For instance, David Persuitte in his Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (2d ed.; 2000) argued that “Great Spirit” is an anachronism in the Book of Mormon and was only introduced after Columbus. Notwithstanding, Eccel, in discussing the concept, shows that it pre-dates the arrival of Columbus to the New World

The Great Spirit. It is not easy to know exactly what North American pre-Columbian beliefs were about deity prior to European missionary contact. The information is oral, and usually rather late, even at times, related by European colonists. Yet some concept of a Great Spirit seems to have existed among many. Some names or the Great Spirit, or its equivalent follows: 1) Sioux: “Wakan Tanka,” Great Mystery than organizes the spirits or deities, as every object was spirit, or “wakan;” 2) the Shoshone: “Tam Apo,” Our Father (although the religion involved various legendary spirits and ghost spirits); 3) Chickasaw: “Ababinili,” spirit of fire and manifest in fire and the sun, and giver of life, light, and warmth; 4) Many Algonquian speaking tribes of the Great Plains, such as Ojibwe: “Gitchi Manitou,” Great Spirit (translated as “God” in missionary translations of scripture), along with other spirits pictures above doorways; 5) Blackfoot: “Apistotoke,” Our Creator, a formless spirit (translated as “God” in Christian scriptures); Arapaho: “Chebbeniathan,” Spider-above, the creator-god; 6) Abenaki: “Gici Niwaskw,” Great Spirit; 7) Huron: “Ha-Wen-Neyu,” the creator god, rendered Great Spirit in English, but meaning “Great Voice” of “Great Ruler”; 8) Cheyenne: “Maheo,” Great One, creator, but figured in a pantheon including “Wihio” (spider trickster), “Nonoma” (spirit of thunder), “Mehne” & “Axxea” (water monsters) and other legendary beings; 9) Seminole: “Hisagita Misa” (Creek: “Hisagita-imisi”), Breth-maker, associated with the Milky Way. (p. 137)

Additionally, discussing the problems with Brent Metcalfe’s study of “wherefore” and “therefore” in the Book of Mormon, Eccel writes:

 . . . the procedure is fatally flawed, largely because the BOM books vary so much in length, and the data were not standardized for this variable. Alma has 85,073 words. Moroni only 6,142 and Jarom 733. The problem seems obvious, but can be exampled in this manner. Assume that you and I engage in a bit of friendly gambling. We will throw a single indian-head nickel. Every time I get a head, you owe me a dollar, and vice versa. So after a hundred throws, on average neither of us should be out more than a dollar or two, if the nickel is honest. But here is the catch. For every throw you get, I get ten. On average, for every dollar I owe you, you will owe me ten. Well, no one in Vegas would play such a game, not even the most well lubricated at 3 AM. Putting the gross tally of 1 Nephi on an equal basis with Alma is just this sort of game.

A simple way to standardize for length is to calculate incidence per 5,000 words. But there is another factor. The major premise of the argument is that these word pairs are functional equivalents. So when the author needs a word with the function of wherefore/therefore or whoso/whosoever, which of the two words does he choose? As it turns out, wherefore has two meanings. It occurs twice with interrogative meaning, once in 1 Nephi and once in 2 Nephi. Since these do not correspond semantically to therefore, they need to be omitted from the count. Of far greater import, the BOM uses another expression corresponding to whoso and whosoever. This is he that (occurring in alternate forms, lumped together here: he that, him that, they that and them that). Due to the strong preference for using the word that in the BOM, we find he that rather than he who, which at least visually corresponds better to who so. In BOM parlance, when the writer needed a word with this meaning/function, he could have chosen whoso, whosoever or that that. The interchangeability of these in actual BOM usage is illustrated in the following passages:

And now, whoso readeth, let him understand; he that hath the scriptures let him search them (3 Nephi 10:14)

whoso shall hide up treasures in the earth shall find them again no more and he that hideth not up his treasures unto me, cursed is he, and also the treasure (Heleman 13:18-19)

He that can also be used with a referent, in which case it is not indefinite and so not equivalent to whoso or whosoever. When this occurs, it cannot be added to the tally for this research. Moreover, in addition to whosoever, it is necessary to also count whomsoever. (pp. 352-53)