Robert F. Smith on Moroni's Appearances and Jewish Festivals

Recently on Quora, Robert ("Bob") F. Smith provided some useful information on the topic of Jewish festivals and Moroni's appearances to the prophet Joseph Smith between 1823-1827. In response to the question, "Is it possible that Joseph Smith was receiving coaching from someone who met with him at the Hill Cumorah each of the four years before obtaining the golden plates?" Smith wrote:

Yes, he certainly did, and each time at Autumnal Equinox. His coach was the Angel Moroni, who presented the golden plates to Joseph for the first time Sept 21-22, 1823 (Sun-Mon), which was Jewish Tishrei 16-17, during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot);

Thereafter, he and Moroni met there again Sept 22, 1824 (Wed), which was Jewish Elul 29, on the Eve of Jewish New Year (Rosh haShana);

Next, on Sept 22, 1825 (Mon) = Tishrei 10, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur);

Next, on Sept 22, 1826 (Fri) = Elul 20, Sabbath Eve (Shabbat);

And finally, on Sept 22, 1827 (Sat) = Tishrei 1, which was both Jewish New Year and Sabbath (Rosh haShana & Shabbat); Joseph immediately hid the plates in a hollow log, and retrieved them ten days later on Oct 1, 1827 (Mon) = Tishrei 10, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the holiest day of the year. All that at the end of a Jewish Sabbatical Year.

Mormon history is replete with such synchronisms.

Further Reading:

Book of Mormon Central, Why Did Moroni Deliver the Plates on September 22?

Celebrating One Million "Hits"

While checking the stats of this blog, I noticed that I have passed the one million "hits" mark. When I started this blog back in August 2014, I thought my enthusiasm for blogging would fizzle out after a few weeks. Flash forward over 5 years, 3,950+ posts, and 3 books later, well, still blogging, and hopefully such will continue.

A special "thank you" to those who read this blog and share it regularly with others! Of course, this calls for a celebration:

For those who wish to support my research/writing, feel free to make a donation via Paypal. If you wish to send any amazon vouchers my way, the email address to use is IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom

Answering an Argument Against Baptismal Regeneration Based on Spiritually Dead Baptised Church Members

One objection to the Latter-day Saint doctrine of baptismal regeneration is, if the doctrine is true, why are there so many baptised members of the Church who bore absolutely no spiritual fruit after their baptism?

The following comes from two 19^th-century advocates of this doctrine, David Henkel (Lutheran) and M.F. Sadler (Anglican):

Many whose children have been baptized, bestow no labor upon them, when they arrive at the age of maturity, to instruct them with respect to the use, and design of baptism; hence, as the good seed receives no nourishment, how can it be expected to prosper? Suppose an husbandman had planted a good seed, but neglected its cultivation; noxious weeds overrun it, and prevent its fertility, could we conclude, that he spoke the language of reason, if he vilified the seed, or denied its principle of procreation? We would say, he is beside himself. Although we do not hear sober men vilify the seed, they neglected to cultivate; but many after neglecting the religious education of their children, and finding them graceless; they like men bereft of the use of heir reason, deny the divine virtue of baptism. (David Henkel, On Baptism and Justification [American Lutheran Classics Volume 10; Ithaca, N.Y.: Just and Sinner, 2019], 151)

Regeneration in Baptism, be it remembered, is only the seed, now its growth or development. To the growth or perfection of the plant many other things must contribute. The providence of God must, ordinarily speaking, bring to bear upon the recipient of His grace many things,--such as care of pious parents or spiritual pastors and there must be that divine pruning or purging, often by sicknesses or calamities, or the distresses attending a hard lot in this world, or persecution for righteousness’ sake, borne meekly and forgivingly after Christ’s example.

And there must be also the possession of the written word, as that by which the seed is internally nourished; for it is the word of God, and the doctrines drawn from it, and the teaching grounded upon it, which by the power of God’s Spirit, fill the mind with thoughts of God and heavenly desires; and there must be the constant and faithful use of the other Sacrament, by which the inner man is renewed and strengthened with Christ’s own strength. (M.F. Sadler, The Second Adam and the New Birth: Or, the Doctrine of Baptism As Contained in Holy Scripture [New York: Daniel Dana, 1857], 99-100; the “other Sacrament” Sadler speaks of is that of Confirmation)

The "Pessimistic Literature" in Ancient Egypt

Book of Mormon Central has a useful article on Korihor and “ancient atheism” (see their Was Korihor Really an Atheist?). The following discussion on the topic of “Pessimistic Literature” in Egypt (several centuries before the time of Lehi) shows that a bleak understanding of the afterlife, meaning of life, and even a form of non-existence after death was known in antiquity and are not modern concepts as  result of rationalism from Europe:

It is possible that the troubled conditions of the First Intermediate Period [2181-2040 BC] and the Egyptians’ response to the ensuing social, political and religious upheaval may form the background to a group of texts which scholars currently term the ‘Pessimistic Literature’. In some of these, the author questions the existing social and religious order against a historical background of troubled events, but in other texts, an individual crisis precipitated by social upheaval is explored, or the validity of a belief in the afterlife is questioned. The texts, which are preserved in later copies, may well have been composed at this time of historical upheaval; they certainly provide evidence of an attitude towards death and resurrection which is far less confident than that which we infer from the archaeological evidence provided by the tombs and funerary goods.

The first text—the ‘Prophet of Neferti’—describes how safe Nefereti is summoned to entertain King Sneferu (the first king of Dynasty 4) with his ability to prophesy. However, he presents a terrifying vision of future events that will be fall Egypt, including internal strife and foreign infiltration:

I will show you the land in lamentation and distress,
That which has never happened before has happened.
Men will take up weapons of warfare,
The and will live in uproar.
Men will fashion arrows of copper,
And beg for bread with blood,
And laugh aloud at distress.
Men will not weep because of death,
Men will not sleep hungry because of death.
Each man’s heart is for himself.

He then claims that the situation will be rectified by a great king, Ameny (Amenemhet 1):

Then a king will come from the South,
Ameny, the justified by name,
The son of a woman of Ta-seti, born in Upper Egypt.
he will receive the White Crown,
He will wear the Red Crown;
He will unite the Two Powerful Ones,
He will please the Two Lords with what they wish . . .

In the second text, the ‘Admonitions of a Prophet’, another sage named Ipuwer (who was possibly Pepy II. The old king has been protected from the truth by his sycophantic courtiers, and remains unaware of the dangers that threaten Egypt, but Ipuwer describes the terrible situation:

There is no remedy for it,
Ladies will suffer like maidservants,
Singers are at the looms in the weaving-shops,
They sing dirges to the goddess . . .
Lo, all maidservants are rude in their speech,
when their mistresses speak, it irks the servants.

The world that Ipuwer describes represents a society collapsing from within: central government is overturned, the roles of rich and poor are reversed, and there is violence, robbery, murder, famine and disaster. Foreigners harass Egypt’s borders, and the populace threaten the disintegrating administration. The irrigation and agricultural systems are collapsing, which results in famine and hunger and, because of this social collapse, thieves and murderers enjoy the freedom to terrorize their neighbours. Instead of hoping to perpetuate the joys of life, people now regard death as a welcome event and wish that they had never been born. However, even death cannot offer any release, because there are no longer the resources to build and equip the tombs that would have ensured a secure afterlife. Even when bodies and tombs are properly prepared, however, this does not provide a solution because they are frequently plundered and the contents destroyed:

Lo, great and shall say ‘I wish I were dead’,
Little children say ‘He should never have caused me to live!’
Lo, children of princes are dashed against walls,
Infants are put on the high ground.

Ipuwer predicts future disasters and begs the court to take action and fight the king’s enemies, and restore the gods’ traditions. However, his pleas are ignored, and the conditions continue to deteriorate so that eventually the vestiges of order are swept away. This probably resulted in the overthrow and removal of the king . . . Another text (‘The Dispute between a Man and his Soul’ or ‘The dispute with the Soul of One-Who-is-Tired-of-Life’) is one of the most interesting examples of Egyptian religious writing, and is also regarded as a literary masterpiece of the ancient world. It addresses the predicament of a man whose life has been devastated by the collapse of his society, and probably tries to demonstrate the catastrophic effects of the First Intermediate Period on one individual, by exploring his self-doubts and fears. The man discusses his personal problems with his ba (soul), which is described as an independent entity; he longs for death and perhaps even contemplates suicide, but the Soul opposes his plan. Their argument is presented in the form of a dialogue, arranges in four poems. A selection is given here from three of the poems; in the first and second, the man describes the horrors of his current life, while in the third, as a contrast, he explains the joys that death would offer.

(From the First Poem)

Lo, my name reeks,
Lo, more than the stench of carrion
On summer days when the day is hot.

Lo, my name reeks,
Lo, more than catching fish,
On the day of the catch, when the sky is hot . . .

(From the Second Poem)

To whom shall I speak today?
Brothers are evil,
The friends of today, they are not lovable.

To whom shall I speak today?
Men are covetous,
Everyone robs his neighbour’s goods.

To whom shall I speak today?
There are none that are righteous,
Toe earth is given over to evildoers . . .

(From the Third Poem)

Death is before me today
As when a sick man recovers,
As when one goes outside after confinement.

Death is before me today
As the fragrance of myrrh,
As when one sits under sail on a breezy day.

Death is before me today,
As the fragrance of lotus flowers,
As when one sits on the shore of drunkenness.

Death is before me today,
As a well-trodden path,
As when a man comes home from warfare.

Death is before me today,
As the clearing of the sky,
As when a man discovers what he ignores.

Death is before me today,
As when a man longs to see his home
When he has spent many years in captivity.

Eventually, the Soul, who had the choice at the man’s side or abandoning him to his fate, manages to persuade him to remain alive so that they can share their future and the afterlife together:

This is what my soul said to me: throw aside lamentation, my comrade, my brother . . . I will stay here if you reject the West. But when you arrive in the West, and your body is united with the earth, then I will alight after you rest, and then we shall dwell together.

Various interpretations of this text have been suggested. According to one, the man contemplates suicide, but the Soul refuses to remain with him because of the hardships it will encounter if no tomb has been prepared. Instead, the Soul tries to persuade the man to stay alive by describing the dangers of death, but the man attempts to justify his decision y enumerating the evils he is encountering in life and emphasizing the comparative joy that death would bring. According to another interpretation, the man is looking forward to a natural death, but the text describes what might happen to him after death if his Soul deserts him: he might ace personal annihilation rather than resurrection and immortality. The Soul tries to demonstrate that life is preferable to death, but the man recounts the horrors of life and the comparative delights of death. In the end, the Soul wins the argument, and persuades the man to continue his life. This text provides a real insight into individual self-doubts during a period of political and social upheaval, and shows that even oblivion in death was not regarded as a solution because people could no longer prepare adequately for the afterlife . . . in the Middle Kingdom [2050-1710 BC], a new concept was introduced: hymns such as the Song of Intef reflects a scepticism found in other pessimistic literature of this period. In this Song (which was apparently originally inscribed in King Intef’s tomb), there is no praise of the joys of the afterlife; instead the listener is encouraged to enjoy life while he can, because the existence of an afterlife is uncertain and even a well-provisioned tomb cannot guarantee a person’s survival. Earthly existence is acknowledged as transient, and there is no certainty about human life. Funerary preparations do not last and are therefore useless, and since the dead do not return to inform the living what they need, then all the provisioning of the tomb is futile. This contrasts markedly with the traditional view that a person could expect to attain a blessed afterlife, provided that he was morally and virtually prepared and had made the necessary arrangements for his funeral and mortuary maintenance . . . Lamentations were a part of the funerary rites intended to save the dead from the absolute death or ‘second death’ that was reserved for the wicked or those who had not made the necessary funerary preparations. Absolute death condemned the person to complete obliteration or to a form of semi-existence that punished the individual. However, this hymn states that lamentations are useless, because the gods do not listen to them. It also reflects the Egyptians ‘dualistic’ concept of death by expressing their deepest fears, and at the same time, promoting those beliefs that were intended to assuage those doubts. It reversed the reassurance given to other hymns, but rather than expressing a gentle pessimism, it demonstrated pain and anger and a sense of betrayal. The hymn does not attempt to present a solution to the problem, although it indicates that earthly pleasures could bring a kind of oblivion and lessen the awareness of ignorance of what lies beyond death:

The gods who were before rest in their tombs,

The blessed nobles too are buried in their tombs.

Those who built tombs,

Their places are no more,

What has become of them?

I have heard the words of Imhotep and Hardedef,

Whose sayings men repeat in their entirety.

What of their places now?

There walls have crumbled,

Their places are no more,

As though they had never been.

None comes from there,

To tell us how they fare,

To tell us what they need,

TO set our hearts at rest,

Until we also go where they have gone.

Therefore, be glad,

It is good to forget,

Follow your heart as long as you live!

Pu myrrh on your head,

Dress in fine linen,

Anoint yourself with the genuine marvels that belong to a god.

(Refrain):

Spend the day happily!

Do not weary of it!

Lo, none is allowed to take his goods with him,

Lo, none who has departed can become back again! (Rosalie David, Ancient Egypt: Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt [London: Penguin Books, 2002], 140-47; years in square brackets added for clarification)

Refuting an Appeal to Ezekiel 36:25-26 to Relegate the "Water" in John 3 as Being Merely Symbolic, not Baptismal Water

David Henkel (1795-1831) was a Lutheran pastor and theologian who served in various positions in the southern United States. He wrote a series of articles in response to a critic of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (Joseph Moore). One such text that was debated was John 3 (see my blog post Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7). Here is Moore’s argument attempting to downplay the meaning of “water” to something merely symbolic:

Mr. M. says, p. 30. The same observations will apply to the prophecy of Ezekiel, where the Lord says; “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, & you shall be clean; from all your filthiness & from your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart, also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.’ Ezek. XXXVI 25, 26. Water in this place must be used figuratively, as a sign, or emblem of the grace of God, by which it is purged from an evil conscience, cleansed from all the filthiness of sin, and from all its idols: (or a renewed heart,) and a new spirit, (or, a new principle, of love to God, and good will to men) is given and put within us; the stony heart also is taken away,--that bard, obdurate, disobedient heart, is taken away, and a heart of flesh, (or soft, humble, teachable, and obedient heart,) is given in its lace.—This certainly must be the true meaning of that scripture. (David Henkel, On Baptism and Justification [American Lutheran Classics volume 10; Ithaca, N.Y.: Just and Sinner, 2019], 90-91)

Here is Henkel’s response:

That my opponent says, water in this place must be used figuratively, as a sign, or emblem of the grace of God, and that the sprinkling with clean water must be figurative, or significant, of the sprinkling the heart with the spirit of God, he has arbitrarily asserted; but has not proved it; unless we take his ipse dixit for evidence. I do not deny, that there are many figurative expressions in the scriptures; but when a man asserts, that a passage is figurative, he ought to prove it; either, by other texts, or the context, or by the rules of sacred criticism. Some expositors are very expert, when a passage of scripture is in their way, to turn it into a metaphor, without any authority; although, it should be at the expense of all the rules of language. According to this rule of exposition, the most important truths may be explained away, and the scriptures turned into ridicule; as for instance, when it reads; “thou shalt not commit adultery;” “thou shalt not steal,” I might by the same art say, this only has a reference to metaphorical adultery and theft; and that therefore, no real adultery, and theft are prohibited. In this way our present fanatics impose on the people, and lead them into error. The plainest evidence, they arbitrarily force into a figure; and then persuade many of the laity, that because there are some metaphorical expressions in the scriptures, that they have the liberty, without any evidence to make everything figurative, that thwarts their preconceived opinion: To construe, the water spoken of in this text, to mean an emblem of the spirit, is contrary to the rules of language. I shall quote it here again:--“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your filthiness and fro your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart of out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” Now, if the water in this passage is to signify, the sprinkling of the heart, with the spirit; why then is it added, “a new heart also will I give you and a new spirit?” If this gloss be true, then the text should read: “then will I sprinkle, that is I will sprinkle the spirit upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart I also I will give you, and a new spirit.” Thus the water, would be made to mean the same as spirit, which would be the same, as saying, that they should be sprinkled with the spirit, and also a new spirit should be given. What an unreasonable tautology! What need was there, to present the spirit under the figure of water, and then immediately mention the spirit literally? Are there two spirits: the one to be represented under the figure of water, and the other the spirit literally? Or, did the prophet, like a silly man, in the same text repeat one thing twice, only by different expressions? If this text is to make any correct meaning, water, must mean water; and spirit, spirit. As this text is a prediction of something under the new testament dispensation, the water and the spirit, must allude to some institution, that consists of the same, which is no other than baptism. (Ibid., 91-92)

Joseph Smith's First Vision in 2 Nephi 27:24-26

Tanner Johnson, a fellow Latter-day Saint apologist, pointed out something to me and a few others, demonstrating that First Vision appears in the Book of Mormon (the following comes from Royal Skousen’s The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text):

24 And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him
that shall read the words that shall be delivered him:

25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth
and with their lips do honor me
but have removed their heart far from me
and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men,

26 Therefore I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people
--yea, a marvelous work and a wonder--
for the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish,
and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid. (2 Nephi 27:24-26)

Here Nephi prophesies of how the then-future translator of the plates (Joseph Smith) will be told by the Lord Himself the words of v. 25. This is significant, as it records (1) a theophany of the Lord (i.e., Jesus) Himself to the prophet Joseph Smith and (2) the words vv. 25-26 are quotations from, or paraphrases of, Jesus’ words in the 1832 and 1838 accounts. With respect to the latter, note JS-H 19 in the Pearl of Great Price:

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."

Jesus’ words, as recorded in the 1832 account, reads thusly:

And he spake unto me, saying, “Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way, walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments. Behold, I am the Lord of glory. I was crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life. Behold, the world lieth in sin at this time, and none doeth good, no, not one. They have turned aside from the gospel and keep not my commandments. They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me. And mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth, to visit them according to their ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and apostles. Behold and lo, I come quickly, as it is written of me, in the cloud, clothed in the glory of my Father.” (cf. my article Psalm 110:1 and the two Lords in the 1832 First Vision Account)

Tanner's discovery of this (which seems to have gone unnoticed until now, so major credit to him for this!) is significant for a number of reasons: including:

1. It is the earliest account of the First Vision in print (2 Nephi 27 would have been dictated in 1829). Even if one were to reject the Book of Mormon's authenticity, this has Joseph Smith himself telling the reader about his experience in 1829.

2. The focus of the vision is the bringing about "a marvelous work" (i.e., the Book of Mormon and the establishment of the Church and the spread of the gospel--see how 'marvelous work' is used in the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 14:7; 22:8; 2 Nephi 25:17; 2 Nephi 29:1; 3 Nephi 21:9; 28:32). Unlike the 1832 account, the motivation explicated therein makes no mention of repentance, showing that critics cannot claim that motivation mentioned in the 1838 account is a later invention or novelty or that the 1838 account is a motivated reworking of the 1832 account to deal with then-contemporary challenges Joseph Smith was facing.

Further Reading


Published references to Joseph Smith's First Vision

J.N.D. Kelly on 1 Timothy 3:16 and the meaning of δικαιοω

In his commentary on 1 Tim 3:16, J.N.D. Kelly rendered the text thusly:

Yes, beyond all question great is the mystery of our religion—‘Who was manifested in flesh, vindicated in spirit, gazed on by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.’ (J.N.D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy Titus [Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: A&C Black, 1963, 1986], 86)

This text is strong biblical disproof of the Protestant understanding of δικαιοω, showing that it is transformative, not declarative merely. Indeed, even if one wishes to privilege the declarative understanding, one has to conclude that the declaration is based, not on an imputation, but a recognition of an intrinsic reality. For a full discussion, see:

Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of 'Justification'

This is borne out in Kelly’s interpretation of this verse, showing that the declaration is based on a reality intrinsic to the person the declaration is focused upon (in this case, Jesus Christ Himself [!]):

The second strophe, vindicated in spirit, is more difficult. Since vindicated (Gk. edikaiōthē) literally means ‘justified’ or ‘declared righteous’, M. Dibelius argues that what is affirmed is Christ’s exaltation to the divine sphere, the sphere of righteousness. Admittedly this entails giving ‘justified’ a sense it has nowhere else in the N.T., but this is not a serious problem, especially as the passage is a citation. The real problem is how to extract this meaning from the Greek, for spirit does not naturally suggest ‘the sphere of spirit’. If this interpretation is rejected, we are left with two alternatives (a) If spirit is taken as strictly parallel to flesh, the two expressions must stand for the divine and human elements in Christ’s being respectively, as in Rom. i. 3 and 1 Pet. Iii. 18. The clause will then affirm that, while the Saviour appeared on earth as true man, he was vindicated, i.e, declared righteous and shown to be in fact Son of God, in respect of his spiritual nature, a reference to the resurrection being implied. (b) Others, giving in an instrumental sense and reading spirit as denoting the Holy Spirit, prefer the rendering, ‘He was declared righteous through, or by means of, the Holy Spirit’. The meaning will then be that, although Christ was crucified as a malefactor. God vindicated him and declared him to be righteous when, through the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. viii. 11), he raised him from the dead. It is difficult to deciare between these two exegeses, especially as in primitive thought no clear distinction was drawn between Holy Spirit and the Lord’s spiritual nature. If a choice must be made, it should probably be in favour of (a) in view of the manifest parallelism between flesh and spirit and the consequent difficulty of giving in before the latter an instrumental sense. (Ibid., 90-91, emphasis in original)

J.N.D. Kelly on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism in 2 Timothy 2:11-12 and Titus 3:3-5

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us. (2 Tim 2:11-12)

Commenting on this text, J.N.D. Kelly wrote:

A baptismal context is certainly suggested by For if we have died with him, we shall also live with him. This dying with Christ is not primarily, as has often been proposed, death through suffering martyrdom for him, but rather the death to sin and self which every Christian undergoes in baptism. Paul expounds his mystical doctrine of this in Rom. vi. 2-23, where he also develops the thought (see esp. 8, with which this line is almost identical) that being joined with Christ in his death entails also being joined with him in his resurrection and sharing his glorified life. C. also Col. iii.3. But the Christian’s death with Christ in baptism is only a first instalment. It is his vocation, being mystically united with the Crucified, to embrace a life of trials and hardships. Nevertheless he was his reward, for if we bear patiently, we shall also reign with him. The line crystallizes the primitive Christian hope that, when Christ returns in glory to reign (1 Cor. xv. 24 f.), the saints who have endured will sit on thrones like kings alongside him (Rev. i.6; iii. 21; v. 10; xx. 4).

The implied call to endurance also fits in with the baptismal setting. Mark’s Gospel, written only a few years later, shows how deep was the conviction of the Church that hardship was the essence of discipleship. But what if we actually disown him? The stern answer based on Christ’s own warning (Mt. x. 33), is that he will also disown us. The reference is again to the Last Judgment, when the Lord will refuse to recognize those who have denied him. (J.N.D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy Titus [Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: A&C Black, 1963, 1986], 179-80, emphasis in original)

Elsewhere, commenting on Tit 3:3-5, Kelly writes that, for the author of Titus, the instrumental means of appropriating God’s saving grace and one’s initial remission of sins is water baptism:

This salvation God has mediated to us by means of the washing of rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit. The reference is clearly to baptism, which is also described as a washing (Gk. loutron; lit. ‘bath’) in Eph. v. 26 (cf. also 1 Cor. vi. 11). From the grammatical point of view it would be equally possible to take renewal as dependent on the preposition by means of (Gk. dia; lit. ‘through’) and parallel to washing. On this exegesis Paul would be distinguishing two processes,, the washing of baptism proper, and the subsequent restoration effected by the Holy Spirit. The translation adopted, however, which takes the renewal in close conjunction with the washing, preserves the balance of the sentence better; and the fact that Pauline, and early Christian thought generally, connect the Spirit closely with baptism is decisive in its favour.

On this interpretation the effect of baptism is first defined in terms of regeneration (G. paliggenesia), or rebirth. The Stoics used this word to denote the periodic restorations of the world, and in Mt. xix. 28 (its only other occurrence in the N.T.) it is used eschatologically of the new birth of the whole creation in the messianic age. In the mystery religions it denoted the mystical rebirth experienced by initiates. Although Paul does not employs it elsewhere, the conception of baptism as a new birth was taught explicitly by other N.T. writers (cf. Jn. iii.3-8; 1 Pet. i. 3; 23), and he himself speaks of Christians dying and rising to life again with Christ in baptism (Rom. vi. 4) and henceforth being sons of God (ib. viii. 14).

In this way early Christianity interpreted baptism in the light of current eschatological ideas about the restoration of the world in the coming messianic age, now believed to have dawned. This thought is elaborated in Paul’s further description of baptism as a renewal (Gk. anakainisis: for the word and the idea, cf. Rom. xii. 2). By this he means the complete transformation or elevation to a new order of being, which the Christian undergoes in baptism. He becomes, according to 2 Cor. v. 17, ‘a new creation’ through his union with Christ, ‘freed from the law of sin and death’ (Rom. viii. 2). The teaching here is thus thoroughly in harmony with the baptismal theology of Paul’s earlier letters, and the objection that it represents a further ‘step towards sacramental religion’ that he could ever have taken is strangely misconceived. The account of the passage is wholly on God’s mercy and grace, and if faith is not explicitly mentioned this is because (as in 1 Cor. vi. 11, where it is not mentioned either) Paul is concerned with the results of baptism rather than its conditions.

This re-creation is effected through the Holy Spirit (the genitive in the original is causative), which he, i.e. God the Father, poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, our Saviour. The figure of pouring out, applied to the bestowal of the Spirit, is used in Acts ii. 17 (recalling Joel ii. 28); ii. 33. For Paul’s belief that the Spirit was imparted in baptism, cf. 1 Cor vi. 11; xii. 13; 2 Cor. i. 22; Gal. iv. 6; Eph. i. 13). The importance of this idea in the primitive Church is well illustrated by the story of our Lord’s baptism, which was regarded as the prototype of the Christian sacrament, and in which the descent of the Spirit figured prominently. It is naturally through Christ (for our Saviour, see 2 Tim. i. 10), as a result of their faith-union with him, that the Spirit is mediated to Christians (cf. Acts ii. 33). Though not explicitly stated elsewhere by Paul, this is implicit in his teaching. The triadic scheme, with its underlying assumption of the cooperation of Father, Son, and Spirit, is also of a kind very familiar in his own letters. (Ibid., 251-53, emphasis in original)

The Historical Jewish Exegesis of the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies

William Webster is a former Roman Catholic who is now a Reformed Protestant apologist. I have read a number of his books (e.g., The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; The Gospel of the Reformation; the 3-volume set, with David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith). I find much of his arguments, even where I would fundamentally agree with him, to be hit-and-miss.

Notwithstanding, he has a book Behold Your King: Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the Messiah. An appendix in this volume is invaluable, and fortunately, there is an online version that is available:

The Historical Jewish Exegesis of the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies

Such would be an important resource about (1) Messianic expectation in Jewish interpretation and (2) if/when one discusses Jesus being the Messiah with Jewish apologists and investigators of the Restored Gospel.

The Book of Mormon Is Not One-to-One Equivalent to the "New Covenant" in D&C 84:57

D&C 84:57 is a commonly misinterpreted text:

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written.

Some, including some critics of the Church, argue that this text teaches that the category of "new covenant" is exhausted by the Book of Mormon. This has resulted in them asking, "if the Book of Mormon is [1:1 equivalent to] the New Covenant, how do Latter-day Saints explain texts such as Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8, 13; 12:24? Clearly, the Book of Mormon is not the New Covenant, contra D&C 84:57!"

That this is a misreading is not difficult to show. In the very text, the Book of Mormon is not referenced alone, but “the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them.” The “former commandments” "may mean the revelations of Joseph Smith, soon to be printed in the 1833 Book of Commandments, or "former" may mean prior to the Book of Mormon and would thus indicate the revelations given by God in the Bible" (per Stephen Robinson and H. Dean Garrett in vol. 3 of A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants).

It seems to me that the "New Covenant" is much more general than many LDS have read this text to be, but then there are specific things within this broader category that have been ignored and/or unappreciated by early Church members (i.e., the BOM and "the former commandments"). It would like someone saying "be sure to pray for all those in this Boylan household, even [alt. “especially”] Robert.” I would be part of the larger category of “Boylan household,” but I do not exhaust such a category. In like manner, the Book of Mormon (and the “former commandments”) are members of the category of “New Covenant” in D&C 84:57, but do not exhaust that category.

The two other instances of "New Covenant" in the Doctrine and Covenants supports this:

These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:69)

To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. (D&C 107:19)

This is also borne out by examining how Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saint

used the term “New Covenant” (click here for a listing on the Joseph Smith Papers

Website). As one example, note the following in a letter to William W. Phelps dated 11

January 1833:

. . . for though our Brethren in Zion indulge in feelings towards us, which is are not according to the requirements of the new covenant yet we have the satisfaction of knowing that the Lord approves of us . . .

Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"

In a section entitled “Jesus Paid the Price,” Christina Darlington, in an attempt to defend her flavour of Protestant soteriology wrote the following about justification:

God immediately grants us forgiveness from the wrongs we’ve done (past, present, and future) . . . (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 241, emphasis added)

This is absolutely false. The Bible affirms that, at justification (which is brought about by the instrumentality of water baptism), one receives a remission of one’s past and then-present sins, not one’s future sins. This can be seen in how believers are told that they can receive forgiveness of their post-baptismal sins by repenting and receiving a remission of these sins as a result of Christ’s intercession due to his being the present propitiation of the sins of believers. Consider two texts: 1 John 2:1-2 and Heb 2:17:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation (Greek: ιλασμος [atoning sacrifice]) for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)

In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time and states that not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins, but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Darlington's soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of, and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:

The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, such as:

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)

We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:

And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).

The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17 (discussed above), where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.

1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns used indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.

When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and, as a result, (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit.

John McLeod Campbell, a 19th-century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:

And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).

One possible "counter" could be an appeal to Heb 10:10-14,  another "proof-text" for such a view on the atonement. The Greek (with key terms in bold), followed by the KJV, reads:

ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. ¹¹Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ¹²  οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ¹³  τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ¹⁴  μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ¹¹ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: ¹² But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; ¹³ From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. ¹⁴ For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).

First, Hebrews 10:14 is a somewhat obscure grammatical choice of words by the writer.

It should first be noted that Heb 10:14 (“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”) is ambiguous in the Greek.

The verse contains the present participle τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (“those being sanctified”). This present participle could be related to the perfect tense of τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”). If this is the case, the sacrifice of Christ is indeed once-for-all (εφαπαξ), but is in a progressive relationship to us, that is, at least with respect to sanctification, Christ’s sacrifice does not give us a “blanket” forgiveness of one’s past, present, and then-future sins; instead, it gives us a perfect forgiveness of one’s past and present sins, but it is not applied all at once to us, as we know elsewhere from the New Testament that we must seek forgiveness of sins we commit post-conversion (e.g. 1 John 2:1-2).

Had the author of Hebrews wanted to convey such a “blanket” forgiveness as some wish to read into this pericope, he should have used a noun (e.g. τουν αγιουν [“the sanctified”]).

Something interesting appears in verse 10—the writer uses a perfect tense instead of a present participle. He says ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν (“we have been sanctified”). The difference apparently lies in the “we” of v. 10 (the author and his immediate hearers) in contrast to those addressed in v. 14 which is an open-ended inclusion of anyone who will experience the sanctification in the future. This being the case, in biblical Greek, it is better to use a present participle, because only that form can include those in the present who are being sanctified as well as those in the future who will be sanctified.

There is another possibility that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους refers to the entire sanctification process, including “positional” sanctification, for the author and his hearers in v.10 (i.e. they have been sanctified [per v. 10] but they are also being sanctified [v.14]).

Another significant text is Heb 2:17:

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrates the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.

Paul Ellingworth, a Protestant, wrote the following about Heb 2:17 and the use of ιλασκεσθαι, further showing that Jesus is a present propitiation (cf. 1 John 2:1-2):

The present verse suggests that he “became” high priest in order that he might continuously deal (ἱλάσκεσθαι present) with the people’s sins . . . Ἱλάσκεσθαι (cf. ἱλαστήριον, 9:5*, “mercy-seat”) is used in the NT only here and in Lk. 18:13**, where ἱλάσθητι means “be merciful” (cf. Est. 4:17h LXX; Dn. Th. 9:19). The present ἱλάσκεσθαι denotes continuous activity by one who remains high priest εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (5:6 = Ps. 110[LXX109]:4) following his exaltation. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 186, 188, emphasis added)

This fits perfectly well with what we find in the Expositor's Greek New Testament (5 vols.), ed. Nicoll Robertson, where Protestant scholar Marcus Dods wrote the following on Heb 2:17:

εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, “for the purpose of making propitiation,” εἰς indicating the special purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “propitious,” “merciful,” means “I render propitious to myself”. In the classics it is followed by the accusative of the person propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt. In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice as the translation of כִּפֵּר. The only instance in which it is followed by an accusative of the sin, as here, is Psalms 64 (65):3, τὰς ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present passage, it only occurs in Luke 18:13, in the passive form ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings 5:18. The compound formἐξιλάσκομαι, although it does not occur in N.T., is more frequently used in the LXX than the simple verb, and from its construction something may be learnt. As in profane Greek, it is followed by an accusative of the person propitiated, as in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις κ.τ.λ.; Zechariah 7:2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Κύριον, and Zechariah 8:22, τὸ πρόσωπον Κυρίου, also Matthew 1:9. It is however also followed by an accusative of the thing on account of which propitiation is needed or which requires by some rite or process to be rendered acceptable to God, as in Sir 3:3; Sir 3:30; Sir 5:6; Sir 20:28, etc., where it is followed by ἀδικίαν, and ἁμαρτίας; and in Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezekiel 45:20 by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί, defining the persons for whom propitiation is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there is apparent a transition from the idea of propitiating God (which still survives in the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of exerting some influence on that which was offensive to God and which must be removed or cleansed in order to complete entrance into His favour. In the present passage it is τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full expression of God’s favour, and upon those therefore the propitiatory influence of Christ is to be exerted. In what manner precisely this is to be accomplished is not yet said. “The present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12–14) is here regarded in its continuous present application to men (cf. c. Hebrews 2:1-2).” (Marcus Dods, "The Epistle to the Hebrews" in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor's Greek Testament, volume 4 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 269-70)

Are there instances of individuals in the Bible who prove this? The answer is yes. One prime example is that of King David.

In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Darington's perverse soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the blasphemous view espoused by Christina Darlington that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

This leads us into Darlington's claim, based on Rom 4:4-5, that "justifieth" means "declares righteous" (pp. 241-42). In Darlington's view, justification is a legal pronouncement merely wherein, one is declared (not made or recognised to be) "justified" or "righteous" due to the imputation of the alien/external righteousness of Jesus Christ.  For a full response, see my paper:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (this is a response to John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018], 273-81, 339)

With respect to the verb "to justify" (Greek: δικαιοω), modern lexicography and other scholarship refutes Darlington's understanding that requires the verb and its cognates to be emptied of any transformative meaning, as well as a meaning where the judicial declaration is based on an intrinsic reality. For example, the renowned lexicographer Ceslas Spicq wrote the following about δικαιοω and how, even in the context of Rom 4:5, it is transformative, not declarative merely:

Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in –oō mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]

Notes for the Above

[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121

[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.

[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.”

Source: Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 1:340-42.

With respect to -οω verbs, there is further support for Latter-day Saint theology.  Philip Schaff, himself a Protestant and proponent of forensic justification, wrote the following in his 8-volume history of Christianity:

Modern exegesis has justified this [declarative] view of δικαιόω and δικαίωσις, according to Hellenistic usage, although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in όω (e.g. δηλόω φανερόω, τυφλόω (i.to make manifest, etc.) (History of the Christian Church, 7:104 n. 139)

This has been proven rather problematic for many. Indeed, in an attempt to get around this linguistic issue, Leon Morris, in a very good work defending that propitiation, not expiation merely, is biblical (contra C.H. Dodd in The Bible and the Greeks [1935] and others), wrote the following which is fraught with error:

It is necessary to say a word or two more about the verb δικαιοω which in the New Testament is translated ‘to justify’ but which has been understood in more ways than one. Since verbs in –οω commonly express a causative idea it is urged by some that δικαιοω must mean ‘to make righteous’. But in the first place verbs of this class denoting moral qualities do not have the causative meaning (e.g. αξιοω means ‘to deem worthy’ not ‘to make worthy’ and similarly with ομοιοω, οσιοω, etc.) (Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [3d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965], 252)

The problem with Morris’ analysis is that when –οω verbs are used, they are used to describe the intrinsic reality of the person/thing being discussed (e.g, a blind person would be described using the verb τυφλόω as they are not merely declared to be blind—they are in reality blind). The same for other verbs. Indeed, αξιοω supports this, too. In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

Literally, John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω) works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as “worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy because they/it are intrinsically worthy. We can see this in the Gospel of Matthew itself:

Nor scrip for your journey, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy (αξιος) of his meat. And into whateoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who it is worthy (αξιος); and there abide till ye go thence . . .And if the house be worthy (αξιος), let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. (Matt 10:10-11, 13)

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy (αξιος) of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy (αξιος) of me. (Matt 10:37-38)

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (αξιος). (Matt 22:8)

We can also see this in the verb form of this adjective (αξιοω) and its usage in the New Testament. Speaking of Christ and his intrinsic (not imputed nor declarative merely) worthiness, we read the following:

For this man was counted worthy (αξιοω) of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (Heb 3:3)

The same applies for instances where δικαιοω are used in a declarative sense--a recognition of their being righteous, not a declaration based on imputation. We can see this in many instances, including 1 Tim 3:16.  Speaking of Christ and His glorious resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote:

Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory (NRSV)

The underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also has a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.

John Calvin attempted (rather lamely) in his commentary on the New Testament to get around this verse and its implications:

Justified in the Spirit. As the Son of God "emptied himself," (Php 2:7), by taking upon him our flesh, so there was displayed in him a spiritual power which testified that he is God. This passage has received various interpretations; but, for my own part, satisfied with having explained the Apostle’s real meaning, as far as I understand it, I shall add nothing more. First, justification here denotes an acknowledgment of divine power; as in Ps 19:9 where it is said, that

     "the judgments of God are justified,"

that is, are wonderfully and absolutely perfect;  and in Ps 51:4, that "God is justified," meaning that the praise of his justice is illustriously displayed. So also, (Mt 11:19, and Lu 7:35,), when Christ says, that

     "Wisdom hath been justified by her children,"

he means that they have given honor unto her; and when Luke (Lu 7:29) relates that the publicans "justified God," he means that they acknowledged, with due reverence and gratitude, the grace of God which they beheld in Christ. What we read here has, therefore, the same meaning as if Paul had said, that he who appeared clothed with human flesh was, at the same time, declared to be the Son of God, so that the weakness of the flesh made no diminution of his glory.

Under the word Spirit, he includes everything in Christ that was divine and superior to man; and he does so for two reasons: First, because he had been humbled in "the flesh," the Apostle now, by exhibiting the illustration of his glory, contrasts "the Spirit" with "the flesh." Secondly, that glory, worthy of the only-begotten Son of God, which John affirms to have been seen in Christ, (Joh 1:14), did not consist in outward display, or in earthly splendor, but was almost wholly spiritual. The same form of expression is used by him, (Ro 1:3-4),

"Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared by the power of the Spirit to be the Son of God;"

but with this difference, that in that passage he mentions one kind of manifestation, namely, the resurrection.

Such a "response" is mirrored by the following from Morris:

When we turn to those passages where the verb ‘to justify’ occurs, there can be no doubt that the meaning is to declare righteous rather than to make righteous. Thus we find a direction that the judges ‘shall justify the righteous’ or ‘to acquit.’ The same usage is seen in ‘I will not justify the wicked’ (Ex. 23:7), and in the woe to them that ‘justify the wicked for reward’ (Is 5:23). (Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 259)

We can see how desperate Calvin is to force forensic justification into (1) this verse and (2) the cognate terms for δικαιοω.

Firstly, texts such as Psa 19:9 are not soteriological in nature.

Secondly, notice that Psa 19:9 and other like-verses actually refute Calvin's soteriology. How? In the theologies of Calvin, Darlington, and Morris, justification is a legal declaration wherein one is declared "justified" or "righteous" based, not on an intrinsic or infused righteousness, but an imputed/alien righteousness--that is, the person is not actually righteous/justified, whence Luther's "simul iustus et peccator" (sinful and just at the same moment). However, God's judgments are not merely "declared" righteous, they truly are righteous. Indeed, this leads to a problem that permeates much of Protestantism--an "either-or" fallacy; just as Protestants are "either-or" with respect to faith and works, they are "either-or" with respect to the meaning of δικαι-terms--it is either a legal declaration or something infused or intrinsic within the person (and the latter is always precluded)--it can be both, depending on the context. Indeed, even in contexts in both the OT and NT where the term is used in a legal context, it never means anything near the legal fiction meaning Protestant theology calls for (see this post discussing Lev 17:3-4 and Deut 25:1). It should be enough, to consider Deut 25:13-16 to see how the Hebrew and Greek terms צֶדֶק and δικαιος are to be interpreted in v. 1 of the same chapter:

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures; a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just (Heb: צֶדֶק; LXX: δικαιος) measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteousness, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

One will be struck on how צֶדֶק is used in this pericope; it is used to denote the intrinsic reality of the weights and measures one is using and one’s behaviour vis-à-vis one’s use thereof; there is no mere labelling the weights and measures which do not reflect their reality (the very concept of imputation which is read into [via eisegesis] of v. 1). Further, compare  the above with the following commentary from Chris VanLandingham:

Deuteronomy 25:1—ἐὰν δὲ γένηται ἀντιλογία ἀνὰ μέσον ἀνθρώπων καὶ προσέλθωσιν εἰς κρίσιν καὶ κρίνωσιν καὶ δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς: “Now if there is a dispute between men and they enter into litigation and (the judges) rule and they give justice to the righteous and pass sentence on the impious.” The sense is difficult to determine. It could mean “to declare righteous and righteous one,” but besides being redundant, the righteous do not go to court to get a simple declaration, they go to seek and get justice (flogging, in this text). On the other hand, “to find righteous” works well because it stands nicely antithetic to καταγιγνωσκω. The emphasis, nevertheless, focuses on the action that the judges impose not, not on what they find. Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 257)

Thirdly, with respect to Matt 11:19 and its parallel in Luke 7:35, it is true that δικαιοω is used in a sense of "vindication." However, it is being used as a metaphor and, furthermore, is not being used in a soteriological context. It is only because the context of these verses does not concern themselves with justification and related issues. Something similar happens in English--if you refer to your wife as "the apple of my eye," such clearly uses "apple" in a metaphorical sense, not the "normative" sense of "apple"--to claim otherwise would result in utter inanity! Obviously, "wisdom" cannot be justified in a soteriological sense, as it is a virtue, so "justified" changes from its "normative" meaning to be accommodated to the metaphorical context it is used in.

As for 1 Tim 3:16 itself, such proves too much, as it shows that δικαιοω has, not just a legal/declarative meaning, but also a transformative meaning. As previously mentioned, the underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also have a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.

With respect to other instances of δικαι-words, consider the following from a leading scholar of Pauline New Testament texts and theology whose work has refuted the concept Paul taught forensic justification:

I contend that even if on occasion δικαι- terms are forensic, in Paul at least, the terms do not refer to the Last Judgment. Paul does not, in fact, use δικαι- terms (in conjunction with “faith”), however, does not evoke any judgment that determine one’s eternal destiny. The issue does not need to be whether the terms (in conjunction with “faith" are forensic, but whether they refer specifically to the Last Judgment. Paul’s use of the δικαι- terms to embrace both the notions of (1) forgiveness, cleansing, and purification of past sins and (2) an emancipation from sin as a ruler over humanity. The various δικαι- terms all refer to the same quality or effect of Jesus’ death on the believer. In other words, despite their grammatical distinctions, δικαιοσυνη, δικαιος, δικαωσις, and even δικαιοω all have the same sense; therefore, the best rendering of δικαιοσυνη is “righteousness,” of δικαιος, “righteous,” and of δικαιοω, “make righteous.” (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, 245-46; emphasis added; see the entire chapter, Chapter 4: “Justification by Faith”—A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept [pp. 242-332] for a full-length refutation of the historical Protestant understanding of “justification”).

Commenting on a long-standing “proof-text” for sola fide, Rom 3:21-26, VanLandingham writes that:

The verb δικαιοω can be causative, because aside from the fact that the –οω verbs normally are (as φανερω in 3:21), the verb most often renders the causative hip’il of  צדק in the Septuagint. In this case, it would mean “to make δικαιος.” Admittedly, δικαιοω does not often have this sense; however, as previously stated, this rendering fits very well in Ps 72:13 (LXX); Luke 18:14; Rom 4:5; 1 Cor 6:11; and Jas 2:21, 24, 25, and with a nearly synonymous meaning in T. Sim. 6:1; Sir 26:29; and Acts 13:38-39. The causative sense also works well; but considering that Paul uses the verb synonymously with the δικαι- terms (δικαιος, δικαιοσυνη) that occur in the proof-texts of Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6, it makes the most sense that here δικαιοω means “to make δικαιος.” Paul uses the verb as a convenient way to indicate the transferal of believers from a state of unrighteousness to the state of righteousness. This transferal, of course, is precisely what Paul says in Rom 5:19: “By means of obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous” (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται) (Ibid., 320-31)

Such a view of the δικαι- word group (and its Hebrew equivalent, the צדק – word group) can be found all throughout the Hebrew OT and the LXX and Greek NT. Consider, for example, Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13 [referenced above by VanLandingham]):

Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.

Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).

As Derek Flood, in his book, Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012), pp. 103-104 notes:

Even where dikaioo appears to mean “declare righteous” linguistically in Romans, I would argue that it nevertheless always includes the restorative sense of God making-righteous the unrighteous in Paul’s thought. We can see this connection explicitly drawn out in Romans 5 where Paul juxtaposes two parallel formulations:

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification (dikaoisis) and life for all people. (v.18)

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (v. 19)

Here we can see that, whatever Paul understands dikaioo to mean, he directly connotes that meaning with our being “made righteous” in this parallel verse. The NET renders the Greek dikaiosin zoes (literally “the making right of/from life”) as “righteousness leading to life” (v. 18). Justification is an act of God that results in life because it “makes righteous.”

When Paul says that “God justifies the ungodly,” he is not proposing [that] God is a participant in the kind of legal fiction that the Old Testament expressly condemns [Isa 5:23; Exo 23:7]. Indeed, one of Pau’s central points in Romans is to demonstrate that God was not unjust in showing mercy to sinners rather than punishing them. The way that God demonstrates justice is not by acquitting the unrighteous, but by making them good. It is a gospel of God’s act of restorative justice in us. God’s actions are life-giving and transforming.

As we have seen, the arguments of Leon Morris et al on -οω verbs and δικαιοω fail when examined carefully.

It should be clear that, in an attempt to defend her flavour of Protestant soteriology, Darlington reveals (1) a lack of exegetical skills and (2) adherence to a blasphemous theology that, apart from making God a liar (making declarations which are false), is also one that is explicitly contradicted by the Bible itself. If anyone is preaching a false Gospel, it is Darlington, not the Latter-day Saints.

For a listing of previous articles refuting Darlington’s book, Misguided by Mormonism, see:

Listing of Responses to Christina R. Darlington's "Misguided by Mormonism"