Friday, December 7, 2018

When a scholar embarrasses himself on "Mormon" Christology

Bill Mounce is a great Koine Greek grammarian and I recommend his works on those issues. However, it appears that Novak's Rule knows no mercy and Mounce has embarrassed himself on the topic of Latter-day Saint Christology in a recent blog post:

When does "No" become "Never"? (Mark 10:15)

 In the article, Mounce wrote:

I was speaking to a couple Mormon missionaries the other day, asking them what they thought it meant to be a Christian. They answered that a Christian was someone who did what God expected them to do (i.e., works). I answered that I agreed that a Christian lives within the limits of a covenantal relationship, but how do you enter into the relationship in the first place? “You have to really want it,” they replied.

I answered that this is why we would never agree. I (gently) said that their Christology was wrong, and that as long as they thought Jesus was a created being and the brother of Satan, they would never be able to call him “Lord.” And all the “wanting” to enter into a covenantal relationship would never be successful. They have to accept Jesus’ work on the cross with the faith of a child.


1. Latter-day Saints do not believe that Jesus is "created." Mounce appears to be under the popular but grossly misinformed view that our Christology is Arian in some sense. Far from it--it is a distinct teaching of LDS Christology that Jesus has eternally existed, His nature being that of an intelligence, with all the attributes inherent within intelligence (cf. Abraham 3; D&C 93). There is no “creation” (ex nihilo) of Jesus, as Arianism teaches. While probably a post-Joseph Smith concept, “spirit birth” is wherein an intelligence is clothed upon with a spirit body, analogous to our spirit being clothed upon with a mortal physical body; if Carroll believes that “spirit birth” is supportive of Arianism, he would have to conclude that the Incarnation is also “Arian,” both of which are far-fetched and ignorant of the theology of Arius et al. Indeed, Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

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

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

For more, see:

Is Latter-day Saint Christology "Arian"?

2. On Jesus being the "brother" of Satan, leaving it on its own, such is yellow journalism and Mounce should be ashamed of himself as his predominately Evangelical Protestant readers will get the impression Latter-day Saints believe that there is no real difference between Jesus and Satan. Furthermore, Job 1:6 and other texts support Latter-day Saint Christology on this score, and no, Col 1:15-20 is not a valid proof-text against such a Christology.

I discussed this in some detail in my response to Jeff Durbin:

Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (scroll down to the section Jesus as the "spirit brother" of Satan).

However, as I mentioned Job 1:6, let me briefly touch upon this text:

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

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

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

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

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

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

I would invite any discerning reader to pursue the articles I have listed above and/or Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus to see that, Mounce's claims notwithstanding, Latter-day Saint Christology is on very solid biblical-exegetical foundations.