Hanna Tervanotko on Revelations Via Dreams in the Hebrew Bible

For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life. (1 Nephi 2:1)

Scripture, both biblical and uniquely LDS, contains many instances of prophets receiving divine revelation via dreams. Commenting on this phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible (which can shed light on such in the Book of Mormon), Hanna Tervanotko wrote:

Speaking in Dreams in the Hebrew Bible

Divine messages are often communicated in dreams in the Hebrew Bible. Many dreams appear in the patriarchal narratives, where the heads of the families receive divine messages while sleeping. Abraham is sleeping when God speaks to him (Gen 15:12). God also appears to and addresses Isaac and Jacob during the night (26:24; 28:12–15). At least one of the messages to Jacob is explicitly delivered in a dream (28:16). Apart from the earlier patriarchs, Joseph is also known to have dreams in Genesis. Unlike these heads of households who receive divine dreams at their adult age, Joseph has dreams already as a young boy (37:7, 9), which are later fulfilled. Joseph differs from the patriarchs because he not only has dreams, but he also interprets them. During his stay in Egypt his role changes from dreamer into interpreter of other people’s dreams (40:8, 12–13, 18–19; 41:25–36). While Joseph interprets dreams, it is specified that he does not do it autonomously. Rather the text states explicitly that the interpretation of dreams comes from God (40:8; 41:16). Hence Joseph, who delivers explanations of dreams, receives his understanding from God. Joseph’s dreams and his function as a dream interpreter witness that it was not only the patriarchs (i.e., the heads of the households) who accessed communication with God. Other prominent characters could also receive divine information.

Interestingly, the Genesis dreams appear to be related to a particular family, as the dreams connected to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph show. These are the only characters in Genesis who receive divine messages in dreams, but they are not the only figures who receive messages from God. Although the Pentateuch rarely attests to the divine plans revealed to women, it does sometimes happen. An angel appears to Hagar in 16:7–12 while she is escaping and reveals to her the future of her child and his relevance in the divine plan. In 25:23 God tells Rebekah that she will give birth to rival twins. The means of communication is not explicitly described. The passage simply states that Rebekah inquired of God. While these narratives can be interpreted as divine communication with women with promises for the future, they do not contain the particular features of the dreams that are connected to the patriarchs. The divine dreams of Genesis are notably revealed only to the male members of the families.

Despite their direct communication with God, however, the patriarchs and Joseph are usually not described as prophets. The Former and Latter Prophets contain a more detailed picture of dreams in relation to prophecy. Various passages that deal with prophetic communication with the Divine in the books of prophets mention that these acts were connected to seeing. For instance, 1 Sam 9:9 states that at an early period of Israel’s history a prophet was called a seer. This implies that many prophets were known to access divine knowledge visually, that is, in a dream. Furthermore, when Saul does not receive a message from God, he is distressed and complains that God does not answer him either by prophets or dreams (1 Sam 28:6, 15). This confirms the earlier notion regarding the patriarchs and other prominent people that prophets were not the only people who could communicate with the Divine in dreams.

Other people who were in contact with God could have divine dreams too. Not all of the dreams received by the prophets were received without difficulty. A true prophetic dream was understood as something more than just falling asleep and dreaming. Several Hebrew Bible texts reflect criticism against certain dreamers and their dreams, which are condemned as false (Deut 12:32b–13:5; Jer 23:25–28; 27:9; Zech 10:2). This “false prophecy” vis-à-vis “true prophecy” suggests that dreaming per se was not always a divine experience. Polemics against false prophecy questioned the provenance of the dreams, asking which dreams came from God and which prophecies were false.

These examples demonstrate that divine messages were received in dreams throughout the Hebrew Bible. Most of the people that communicate with God through dreams are called prophets in the Hebrew Bible. Some other people have divine dreams too (e.g., the patriarchs and Joseph). They can be characterized as distinguished (“selected”) people, who might communicate also without their visions. Importantly, when the dreams preserved in the Hebrew Bible are compared with those of the ancient Near East it appears that they are limited to a more restricted group of people. The dreamers are mostly men who are known as prophets or who have otherwise prominent positions, while the Hebrew Bible does not attest to the dreams of those women who are called prophets.(נביאה) This does not necessarily mean that women did not access this type of communication, as dreaming was probably not restricted to a particular group of people, but that it is not preserved in the Hebrew Bible. (Hanna Tervanotko, "Speaking in Dreams: The Figure of Miriam and Prophecy" in Jonathan Stökl and Corrine L. Carvalho, eds. Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East [Ancient Israel and its Literature 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013], 147-67, here, pp. 150-52)

Sacrificial Worship in 1 Nephi: Early Evidence that the Melchizedek Priesthood Was Had Among the Nephites

While Alma 13 is the most explicit evidence that the Nephites held the Melchizedek Priesthood, there are other hints, including Lehi et al offering sacrifices (a priestly action) which were accepted by God:

And it came to pass that they did rejoice exceedingly, and did offer sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord; and they gave thanks unto the God of Israel. (1 Nephi 5:9)

And it came to pass that we did come down unto the tent of our father. And after I and my brethren and all the house of Ishmael had come down unto the tent of my father, they did give thanks unto the Lord their God; and they did offer sacrifice and burnt offerings unto him. (1 Nephi 7:22)

Another text would be Mosiah 2:3, which raises the question as to the Nephite sacrificial system in light of there being no Levitical priests, something addressed by Matthew P. Roper at:

Mosiah 2:3 and the Firstlings of the Flock

"Line" and "Precept" in 2 Nephi 28:30

In 2 Nephi 28:30, we have Nephi reworking Isa 28:10 (alt. v 13):

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

Isa 28:10, 13 read:

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little . . . But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward and broken, and snared, and taken.

There is a debate as to how to understand the terms translated as “precept” (‎צו) and “line” (קו). Some commentators have argued that this is an example of infantile language. This is reflected in the 1985 JPS Tanakh:

That same mutter upon mutter, Murmur upon murmur, Now here, now there . . . To them the word of the Lord is: "Mutter upon mutter, Murmur upon murmur, Now here, now there." And so they will march, But they shall fall backward, And be injured and snared and captured.

There are many problems with practically all the proposals of Isa 28:10, 13. As one scholar noted:

The other primary theories regarding vv. 10 and 13 are unconvincing. It has been argued that these are a reflection of Akkadian, for example, the commands of an Assyrian taskmaster leading the people into exile. However, the translations produced on the basis of this assumption do not suit the context well, and it is highly unlikely that the Assyrians gave orders to the inhabitants of Palestine in Akkadian, since the latter would not have understood that language, outside of perhaps a few specially trained scribes at the court. Van der Toorn has recently lent support to an older theory that 28:10 and 13 reflect “phrases spoken during séances”. However, there is no good evidence of cognate sounds or phrases used in this way. A third theory holds that it is Isaiah’s opponents who speak these words, mocking the prophet with nonsense talk. However, the phrase is clearly attributed to YHWH in vv. 11 and 13, and implicitly in v. 21. Finally, W. W. Hallo lent his support to that theory that qaw and ṣaw are names of consecutive letters of the Hebrew alphabet, so that the phrase is the singsong of a teacher speaking to children. However, in the first place, it is not at all clear why two letters in the middle of the alphabet should have been chosen; furthermore, there is no menace or judgment in the image of YHWH or the prophet as a teacher, although the context calls for it. (Christopher B. Hays, "The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1-22," Vetus Testamentum 60 [2010]:212-40, here, pp. 234-35)

Assuming that the KJV is in error, does that mean the Book of Mormon is in error, too? The answer is “no.” קו, according to scholarly sources such as the Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible, in the context of Isa 28:10, 13, denotes "a line usually used for measuring" while צו means "human commands.” It is important to note that Isa 28 is not being reproduced word-for-word, let alone being exegeted by Nephi; instead, Nephi is engaging in a midrash-like interpretation of various texts of Isaiah. As John Tvedtnes noted about the use of various texts from Isa 28 and 29 in 2 Nephi 27-29:

Some of these are direct quotes (often with variations), followed by commentary, while others are paraphrases (also with commentary in many cases). Some critics have attacked Joseph Smith, saying that he deliberately altered Isa. 29 in 2 Ne. 27 in order to back his own story (e.g., Martin Harris' visit to Prof. Anthon, as recorded in JS-H 1:63-65). But a careful reading of 2 Nephi 27 will reveal that this is not a transcription of Isaiah 29, but, rather, a midrash or scriptural commentary. After quoting Isaiah chapters 2-14 (2 Ne. chapters 12-24), Nephi proposes to ''speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written . which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand .. . (but) because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy; .. “ (2 Ne. 25:1, 4) The subsequent verses outline his intention to pursue the matter, giving Isaiah's prophecies meaning by use of his own revelations and prophecies. Thus, in 2 Ne. 26:15-16, 18, he paraphrases Isa. 29:3-5, then comments on the passages, while drawing another paraphrase from Isa. 55:1 (vs. 25). As we have said, the midrash continues into chapters 27 and 28. Because many of his Isaiah quotes are paraphrased and intermingled with his own thoughts in these chapters, it should not be surprising to see the BM version of Isaiah 29 quite at variance with KJV. Nephi and some of the other prophets of the Book of Mormon were fully aware of the purpose for which they were making their record. They knew of Joseph Smith 's future mission, and it is by no means accidental that Nephi here refers in part to that mission, by drawing upon the prophecies of Isaiah. (John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1981], 61)

Therefore, there is nothing problematic with Nephi, in his prophetic reworking of Isaiah, to use קו and צו to denote “line” and “precept” as we find in the Book of Mormon text.

Additional Reading

Kevin L. Barney, Line Upon Line

Does Matthew 6:7 Denounce All Repetitive Prayers?

In Matt 6:7 (cf. 3 Nephi 12:7) Jesus says:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Some errant Latter-day Saints have used this as a proof-text against Catholics and others who may offer the same prayer over and over again (e.g., the decade of Hail Marys as part of the Rosary). Notwithstanding, we also have "repetitive prayers" (e.g., the sacrament prayers), so the argument can come back to hit us over the head, too. Furthermore, Jesus is not condemning repetitive prayers per se; instead, he is denouncing repetitive "babblings" as Gentiles practised. Commenting on this, and the word βατταλογεω ("to babble"), Ulrich Luz wrote:

The meaning and the etymology of the quite rare word βατταλογέω are matters of dispute. It is most probably related to the substantives βάτταλος or βάττος (stutterer) or the verb βατταρίζω (to stutter). It probably means the repetition of meaningless syllables. The content of the word is repeated in the expression “many words” (πολυλογία). The prohibition is probably thinking of Gentile prayers that by accumulating epithets for God or also words of magic give the impression of babbling. As a positive contrast to such babbling Matthew emphasizes the Lord’s Prayer as a short prayer. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary on Matthew 1-7 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2007], 305)

As BDAG defines the term:

βατταλογέω (βαττολογέω v.l.; s. Rdm. 44; Mlt-H. 272) 1 aor. subj. βατταλογήσω onomatopoetic word; to speak in a way that images the kind of speech pattern of one who stammers, use the same words again and again, speak without thinking e*xplained by πολυλογία) Mt 6:7; Lk 11:2 

As TDNT notes:

This occurs only at Mt. 6:7 in the sense of “to babble.” The non-Christian, and non-Jew, thinks that by heaping up the names of God, of which he does not know the true and relevant one, he can include the deity which will grant his request, and that he can weary God—this includes Jews too—by constant repetition. Jesus, on the other hand, advises a calm trust in the Father (→ ἀββᾶ) who need only be addressed as such and who will give all necessary things to His children if they prove themselves to be such by praying first for His kingdom (6:33). (Gerhard Delling, “Βατταλογέω,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–], 1:597.

Further, the Bible itself affirms the propriety of repetitive prayers. For example, in 2 Cor 12:1-7, we learn that Paul prayed three times that his thorn in the flesh to be removed. Furthermore, the angels in God's presence repeat the same song of praise:

And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. (Isa 6:3)

And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within; and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. (Rev 4:8)

In the Old Testament, God Himself instructed the Israelites to pray the same prayer throughout the day:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Deut 6:4-7)

So, in context, Matt 6:7 is not Jesus condemning repetitive prayers, but mindless, repetitive babblings as many of the heathen cultures of the time engaged in. Furthermore, there is biblical (and uniquely LDS scriptural) support for at least some repetitive prayers. When it comes to the prayers we often find objectionable (e.g., the Hail Mary; Hail Holy Queen, etc), they should be critiqued, not as they are often said, as in the Rosary or the Leonine Prayers at the end of some Tridentine Masses, repetitively, but instead, why the theology underlying such are not truly apostolic traditions. For those who wish to delve into this area, I would suggest you pick up a copy of my book:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)

Elements of the Sealing in the Old Testament

While the liturgy of the sealing ceremony is not to be found explicitly in the Bible (or even uniquely LDS Scriptures including the Doctrine and Covenants), there are various texts that, when speaking of marriage and/or temple liturgy, contain much of the liturgy and practices thereof, even if one will not expect an exact one-to-one correspondence (cf. D&C 128:18). The texts include the following (all taken from the 1985 JPS Tanakh translation):

Lead Aaron and his sons up to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and wash them with water. Then take the vestments, and clothe Aaron with the tunic, the robe of the ephod, and the breastpiece, and gird him with the decorated band of the ephod. Put the headdress on his head, and place the holy diadem upon the headdress. Take the anointing oil and pour it on his head and anoint him. Then bring his sons forward; clothe them with tunics. (Exo 29:4-8)

Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water. He put the tunic on him, girded him with the sash, clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod on him, girding him with the decorated band with which he tied it to him. He put the breastpiece on him, and put into the breastpiece the Urim and Thummim. And he set the headdress on his head; and on the headdress, in front, he put the gold frontlet, the holy diadem--as the Lord had commanded Moses. Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it, thus consecrating them. He sprinkled some of it on the altar seven times, anointing the altar, all its utensils, and the laver with its stand, to consecrate them. He poured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head and anointed him, to consecrate him. Moses then brought Aaron's sons forward, clothed them in tunics, girded them with sashes, and wound turbans upon them, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Lev 8:6-13)

Naomi, her mother-in-law, said to her, "Daughter, I must seek a home for you, where you may be happy. Now there is our kinsman Boaz, whose girls you were close to. He will be winnowing barely on the threshing floor tonight. So bathe, anoint yourself, dress up, and go down to the threshing floor. But do not disclose yourself to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he lies down, and go over and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what you are to do." She replied, "I will do everything you tell me." (Ruth 3:1-5)

Does 1 Nephi 3:7 Refute Prophecies and Commandments Being Conditional?

In D&C 124:49-51, explaining why the temple was not built in Missouri (cf. D&C 84:3-5), we read:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them to hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments so I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.

Some critics of the Church (e.g., John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Behind the Mask of Mormonism) have argued that 1 Nephi 3:7 refutes the appeal to this text as evidence of D&C 84:3-5 being conditional. The text reads thusly:

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

The text, they argue, means that, as God will make a way possible for a work to be accomplished, it will happen. However, this is a naïve, eisegetical reading of the text. How so? Nephi does not say that, as God will provide a way, ipso facto, it will happen. Indeed, we know this to be the case as he uses the subjunctive (conditional) may. Note how such is used elsewhere, even in the context of 1 Nephi 3:7, to denote something that is possible, not definitive:

And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers; and also that we may preserve unto them the words which they have been spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been delivered unto them by the Spirit and power of God, since the world began, even down unto this present time. (1 Nephi 3:19-20)

For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved. (1 Nephi 6:4)

And at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved. (1 Nephi 15:14)

Indeed, as Webster's 1828 Dictionary notes, "may" (as a verb [subjunctive]) means "To be possible. We say, a thing may be, or may not be; an event may happen; a thing may be done, if means are not wanting."

So, no, Nephi is not stating that if/when God gives a command, even if he makes a way for it to be accomplished, it will happen, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Again, the reading by some critics is both naïve and eisegetical.

A parallel text is that of D&C 114:1, a promise (not prophecy) that, if David Patten were to settle up all his business, he "may perform a mission" for the Lord. On this, as well as D&C 84:3-5, see:

Refuting James Walker on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

1 Nephi 2:19-24 and the Contingent Nature of Prophecy and Promised Blessings and Cursings

In 1 Nephi 2:19-24, we read the following:

And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart. And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands. And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also. And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.

This text is reminiscent of texts from the prophet Jeremiah that speak of the contingent nature of prophecy and the blessings and cursings promised by God to then-righteous or then-sinful peoples, such as Jer 18:7-10:

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7-10, NRSV)

For a fuller discussion, especially as how it relates to soteriology and other core doctrines, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Matthew Henry on Acts 23:11

Matthew Henry (1662-1714), a Reformed commentator who is still popular among Calvinists today, wrote the following about Acts 23:11, affirming that Jesus did physically (not in a mere vision or dream) descend from heaven to comfort Paul:

The Lord stood by him, came to his bed-side, though perhaps it was but a bed of straw, to show him that he was all the day long with him really as sure as he was in the night with him visibly. Note, Whoever is against us, we need not fear if the Lord stand by us; if he undertake our protection, we may set those that seek our ruin at defiance. The Lord is with those that uphold my soul, and then nothing can come amiss. 1. Christ bids him have a good heart upon it: "Be of good cheer, Paul; be not discouraged; let not what has happened sadden thee, nor let what may yet be before thee frighten thee." Note, It is the will of Christ that his servants who are faithful should be always cheerful. Perhaps Paul, in the reflection, began to be jealous of himself whether he had done well in what he said to the council the day before; but Christ, by his word, satisfies him that God approved of his conduct. Or, perhaps, it troubled him that his friends did not come to him; but Christ's visit did itself speak, though he had not said, Be of good cheer, Paul. 2. It is a strange argument which he makes use of to encourage him: As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. One would think this was but cold comfort: "As thou hast undergone a great deal of trouble for me so thou must undergo a great deal more;" and yet this was designed to encourage him; for hereby he is given to understand, (1.) That he had been serving Christ as a witness for him in what he had hitherto endured. It was for no fault that he was buffeted, and it was not his former persecuting of the church that was now remembered against him, however he might remember it against himself, but he was still going on with his work.

Henry clearly did not believe that Acts 3:19-21 disallows Jesus from ever descending from heaven until the eschaton. See Acts 3:19-21 and the Book of Mormon.

Walter Elliott on Jesus' Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane

It is not secret that Latter-day Saints place a strong emphasis on Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane. Notwithstanding, it is not totally unique to us. Many other groups place a great importance on Gethsemane, even if they do not believe it to have been part of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

Walter Elliott, a Catholic priest wrote the following about Jesus’ agony in the Garden:

As He crossed the road it seemed as if He had suddenly entered hell, so unspeakably bitter was the torture which immediately seized His spirit. And indeed it was His purpose to suffer the torments of the damned in order that men might escape them. Here, then, the human soul of Jesus was made to appreciate as never before what sin is, to realize the offended majesty of God, and, in conjunction with that, the awful calamity of being a lost soul. To use a feeble comparison, He was like an innocent man who had contrived y means of a disguise to take his guilty brother’s place in the prisoner’s dock, and in his stead to be tried for an atrocious crime, condemned and executed. Infinite holiness disguises itself as pride and sensuality and becomes the victim of the sinner’s wickedness. The whole shame and degradation of sin, the entire agony of punishment for sin, entered into the thoughts and feelings of Jesus as poison would have entered His blood had. He drunk a cup of it: hence, “let this cup pass from me” was the prayer that sprang to His lips in the horror of His first moments alone.

The coup of blessing (I. Cor. x. 16), which He had given us a short while before, is now recompensed by the cup of malediction thrust upon Him by our vices. It agnonizes Him to that degree that His human heart craves relief. “O My Father! if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.” His prayer, thrice repeated, is refused, and His submission is true, absolute, and universal: “Not My will but Thine be done,” submission without exception or qualification, total and irrevocable, mere obedience, the displacement of His own will by that of the Father.

He was made to know all sins, in themselves and in their circumstances and surroundings, the wilfulness of sin and its folly, the aggravating accompaniments, the countless repetition of sins, the relapses after pardon; all this, with a perfect knowledge and a vivid imagination, did its work upon His sensitive soul, plunging Him into a condition of agony which appalled even so lofty a courage as His. It was from this ordeal that He shrank; He was horrified to find Himself feeling guilty of every sin, realizing the remorse, the shame, the eternal despair of sin, becoming, as it were, responsible for every sin in all respects except personal guilt; such was the Saviour’s doom. He instinctively recoiled from it. “He fell flat on the ground, and He prayed that if it might be, the hour might pass from Him. And He said: Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this chalice from Me; but not what I will, but what Thou wilt.”

Here, then, began the crisis of our atonement. “The High-Priest of the law,” says St. Francis de Sales, “wore upon his back and upon his breast the names of the children of Israel engraven on precious stones! Ah! behold Jesus, our chief bishop, and see how the instant of His conception He bore us, upon His shoulders, undertaking the charge of redeeming us by His death, even the death of the Cross. O Theotimus, Theotiumus, this soul of our Saviour knew us all by name and by surname; but above all in the day of His Passion, when He offered His tears, His prayers, His blood and His life for all, He breathed in particular for all, He breathed in particular for thee these thoughts of love: Ah, My eternal Father, I take to myself and charge Myself with all poor Theotimus’s sins, to undergo torments and death that he may be freed from them, and that he may not perish but live. Let Me die so that he may not perish but live. Let Me die so that he may live; let Me be crucified so he may be glorified. O sovereign love of the heart of Jesus, what heart can ever bless Thee as devotedly as it ought?” (The Love of God, Book XII. chap. 12). This explains the meaning of His saying, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” It was all the death that an immortal soul could suffer. The forces of a spirit cannot be dissolved, the faculties of thought and love cannot rot and perish like flesh and blood . . . He outstayed the period of the Father’s allotment of bitterness. All that thought and affection, gratitude and appreciation, could suffer from insult and contempt; all that is meant by disappointment, chagrin, failure; all that hell could do to an innocent soul, all this Jesus suffered that we might escape it. At length the end approached. The Father had not, indeed, relaxes His justice; the soul of Jesus had been crucified. But the paternal love sent a messenger of consolation. “And there appeared to Him an angel from heaven strengthening Him.” . . . when He arose and wiped the sweat from His face He found blood mingled with it; it was oozing out from every pore. “And His sweat became as drops of blood ticking down upon the ground.” The spasms of His heart had driven the blood of the Saviour with such force as to cause it to overflow its channels.

If Jesus had suffered an indescribable agony in the Garden, He also had gathered an increase of courage from His fortitude and His prayers. For when He realized that His hour was at hand He arose, wiped the blood-stained seat from His face, and calling to His Apostles to follow Him, calmly advanced towards His enemies to give Himself up to them. There shall be no further sign of fear in Him, or of other emotion, till “all things are accomplished.” (Walter Elliott, The Life of Christ: Embracing The Entire Gospel Narrative [The Paulist Press, 1939], 649-52, 654, 655)

Stanley Porter: The Author of John ch. 21 is the same as the author of chs. 1-20

While some scholars who postulate John 21 to be a later insertion to the gospel by a person/group of people other than the author of chs. 1-20, there are some scholars who, while believing to be an insertion, was inserted (1) a very short time after the completion of chs. 1-20 and (2) was inserted by the author of the gospel itself.

Stanley E. Porter, in an essay defending this thesis, stated that:

There have been a number of more recent scholars—Lee McDonald included—who have argued that this chapter was not a part of the original Gospel. It has been argued fairly frequently, for example, that John 21 was not original, but was written by the author of the Gospel and appended later, quite possibly soon after . . . I am not sure when John 21 was included in the Gospel, but I believe there is no substantive evidence for doubting that it was written by the same author as wrote the rest of the Gospel and that it was attached to the Gospel very early—so early as to leave no substantive (only suppositional and speculative) evidence of it being later. (Stanley E. Porter, “The Ending of John’s Gospel” in William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans, eds. From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald [Macon, Ga.: Mercier University Press, 2007], 55-73, here, pp. 56, 73)

While the entirety of Porter’s essay should be read to understand his arguments against the author of ch. 21 being the same author of chs. 1-20, one of the topics that Porter addresses is that of the vocabulary of ch. 21:

There are two kinds of vocabulary items to note. First is a list of a number of vocabulary items that are unique to John 21, as compared to the rest of the Gospel. These including (according to Bultmann’s and Barrett’s lists): αιγαλος (“beach,” John 21:4), αλιευειν (“fish,” John 21:3), αποβαινειν (“get out,” John 21:9), αρισταν (“eat,” John 21:12), αρνιον (“lamb,” John 21:15), βοσκειν(“feed,” John 21:15), γηρασκειν (“age,” John 21:18), γυμνος (“naked,” John 21:7), δικτυον (“fishing net,” John 21:6, 8), εκτεινειν (“stretch out,” John 21:18), εξεταζειν(“ask,” John 21:12), επενδυτης (“outer garment,” John 21:7), επισρεφειν (“turn around,” John 21:20), ζωννυναι (“fasten,” John 21:18), ισχυειν (“be able,” John 21:6), ιχθυς (“fish,” John 21:6, 8, 11), μακραν (“far,” John 21:8), νεωτερος (“younger,” John 21:18), οιεσθαι (“think,” John 21:25), πηχυς (“cubit,” John 21:8), ποιμαινειν (“tend sheep,” John 21:16), προβατιον (“sheep,” John 21:16), προσφαγιον (“accompaniment/fish,” John 21:8), τρωια (“early,” John 21:4), ουρειν (“drag,” John 21:8), τολμαν, (“dare,” John 21:12) τριτον (“third,” John 21:1, 14, 17).

Some of these examples are quickly dismissed such as επιστρεφειν, where the lexeme is simply the prefixed form of a verb that appears elsewhere in the Gospel (John 1:38; 12:40; 20:14, 16), or τολμαν, which is used no more frequently in John 21 than it is in any of the other Gospels (Matthew 1x, Mark 2x, Luke 1x). What is worth noting is that, of the 28 words, seventeen of them occur in the episode of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples while they are fishing (John 21:1-14), with many of the words being related to fishing (e.g., “beach,” “fish,” “get out,” “naked,” “fishing,” “eat,” “cubit”). As this is the only fishing episode in John’s Gospel, these results are perhaps not too surprising and the data not telling. Another seven words occur in the next episode between Jesus and Peter (John 21:15-19), and reflect a high concentration of vocabulary particular to their discussion of sheep (e.g., “lamb,” “feed,” “tend sheep,” “sheep”). As Bultmann himself realizes, much of this material is “accidental and conditions by the material” (Bultmann, John, 700).

The second list if of those words that are used in unusual ways. Bultmann notes that αδελφοι (“brothers”) is used only in John 21:23 as a designation for Christians, the disciples are addressed by Jesus as παιδια (“children,” John 21:5), the preposition απο (“from”) is used causatively on John 21:6 and partitively in v. 10 (rather than εκ), the preposition επι (“upon”) is used differently in John 21:1 than elsewhere in John’s Gospel, the verb φανερουν is used differently in John 21:1 than elsewhere, and πλεον (John 21:15) is used instead of μαλλον (John 3:19; 12:43).

This type of evidence is somewhat more difficult to evaluate, as there are a greater number of factors to consider. These include style, content and even significance of a variants as opposed to the regular pattern. As a result, there have been detailed responses to some of these suggestions (including responses to the first list as well). Ruckstuhl, for example, says of the use of αδελφοι (John 21:23) for “Christian” that the concept of Christian as a member of the community had not appeared in John’s Gospel previously (Literarische Einheit, 143). He further contends that the use of εξεταζειν (purportedly for ερωταν, John 21:12) is in the sense, not of ask but of “test” or “interrogate,” an example in which the use defines the sense of the word (Ibid., 143). Ruckstuhl finds a parallel to the use of παιδια (John 21:5) in the use of τεκνια, which appears only in John 13:33. Further, Ruckstuhl disputes the judgments regarding causal and partitive απο. He does not think that there was a likely alternative for the former (21:6), and defends the sense in 21:10 of the use (Ibid., 144). Concerning the supposedly unusual use of επι in John 21:1, Ruckstuhl contends that the sense in 21:1 is not that of “upon the sea” as in 6:19, but “of “on the edge of the sea.” In that sense it is closer to the use of 6:21: επι της γης (“on the ground”). Ruckstuhl also disputes that the use of φανεροω I John 21:1 is different, as the reflexive use is also found in John 7:4 (Ibid., 144).

A survey of the vocabularly evidence must conclude . .. that the case for a distinction between John 21 and the rest of the Gospel clearly remains unmade. (Porter, "The Ending of John's Gospel," 60-62)

James D.G. Dunn on New Testament Local Congregations and Ecclesiology

New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn cautioned readers of Paul and his epistles that, vis-à-vis his ecclesiology, that

because Paul used the term ekklēsia for individual churches, he saw them as independent and autonomous. It is true that the concept of the church as the universal body of Christ does not emerge in the Pauline corpus till the later letters, and may indeed be an elaboration rather than an articulation of his own thoughts (Colossians [Col 1:18] and Ephesians [1:22-23] are widely regarded as post-Pauline). But he certainly did not think of them as independent and autonomous from each other. They each represented Christ, were Christ’s body in their place of residence (1 Cor 12:27); they had a common identity. Not only so, but Paul’s churches had been founded by him; whoever else might have claim to be their apostle, he certainly was their apostle. He was their father in Christ. And he fully expected them to share a family likeness. The gospel which he had preached to them was what all the apostles preached in founding churches (1 Cor 15:11). His repeated appeal in his Corinthian letters to what was true for “all the churches” implied that same shared identity. And that identity included the sense of shared indebtedness to the mother church of Jerusalem, equivalent to the identity expressed in the diaspora Jewish synagogues in their payment of the annual temple tax. Paul did not make much use of the idea of the new groups of believers as “the people of God” (Rom 9:25, 26; 11:1-2; 2 Cor 6:16), but his conviction that they as the called of God (Rom 9:24) had been grated into the one olive tree of Israel (11:17-24) implied a belief in the corporate identity of the believers, Jews with Gentiles, on which the later Pauline letters could build . . . his churches were not isolated communities, each evolving separately like the giant turtles and finches of the Galapagos Islands. They belonged to a network, and the connecting links and strands were maintained and strengthened by frequent comings and goings. Within that context it is highly likely that copies of Paul’s letters became a regular part of that traffic between churches. (James D. G. Dunn, “How the New Testament Canon Began” in William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans, eds. From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald [Macon, Ga.: Mercier University Press, 2007], 122-37, here, pp. 135-36)

Such flies in the face of some ecclesiologies one encounters from Protestant critics of the Church.

Jeffrey R. Holland on "Lord" (Yahweh/Jehovah) being Applied to the Father, not just the Son

When discussing the use of “LORD” (Yahweh/Jehovah), Jeffrey R. Holland wrote the following:

Lord

This is one of the most frequently used titles for Jesus in the scriptures, especially when referencing Jehovah in the Old Testament. Its most common synonym is Master, suggesting governance and authority over possessions, property, and people, such as a medieval "lord of the manor" or "master of the house." Fortunately, in the case of Christ, His lordly role is characterized by benign, loving governance and authority.

It should be noted that, as with the title such as God, Lord is often applied to the Father, thus making it sometimes problematic in determining which of these two Deities is being referenced. Obvious examples appear in the Psalms, where David's cries are virtual prayers directed toward the Lord He to whom prayers are directed has traditionally been the Father, not the Son. However, inasmuch as Jehovah serves under the Father in the Old Testament and as such is the God of those people, it is sometimes unclear to whom prayers are being directed in that era. (Jeffrey R. Holland, Witness for His Names [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019], 101, emphasis in bold added)

I was pleased to read this as too many Latter-day Saints have the naïve view that all instances of Yahweh has Jesus as its referent only, notwithstanding the Father being called “Jehovah” in uniquely LDS Scripture (D&C 109: 34, 42, 56, 68). Furthermore, there are passages in the Old Testament where Yahweh is the Father, such as Psa 2:7; 110:1; Isa 53:10. For a discussion, see:

Keith H. Meservy, LORD = Jehovah in Ensign 32, no. 6 (June 2002): 29

The June 1916 First Presidency Statement:

The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve

Longevity of Enos and Jarom in the Book of Mormon

In Enos 1:25 etc. Longevity of Nephite Scribes the late John A. Tvedtnes addressed the following criticism:

In the Book of Mormon, Enos wrote that 179 years had passed away from the time that his grandfather, Lehi, left Jerusalem (Enos 1:25). Later, Enos’s son Jarom says 238 years had passed away (Jarom 1:13). It is unreasonable to expect that three generations (Lehi’s son Jacob, his son Enos, and his son Jarom) could have lived so long.

Interestingly, there are modern examples of such. In the following video from 2014, two children (at the time of recording, ages 92 and 93) of participants in the US Civil War (1861-1865) talk about their fathers, showing that such longevity of some Book of Mormon peoples is not unusual:

Children of U.S. Civil War Vets Reminisce About Fathers | National Geographic  (*)

(*) my thanks to Jared Riddick for making me aware of this video

Another interesting video is how US President John Tyler (born 1790; died 1862) still has two living grandsons:

How President Tyler, born in 1790, still has two living grandsons

Update: My friend Bruce Webster shared with me something he wrote back in 2009 on this issue:

The Enos problem in the Book of Mormon

Moroni's Reworking of Malachi 4:5-6

When Moroni appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith in 1823, he quoted, among other texts, Malachi 4:5-6. Notwithstanding, he made alterations thereto, not as part of a “textual restoration” of the original Malachi (such “expansions” do not appear in 3 Nephi 25:5-6), but to bring out more explicitly what would happen vis-à-vis the future-coming of Elijah. As a result, it would be beneficial to some to read them side-by-side:

Malachi 4:5-6 (KJV)	D&C 2
Behold, I will send you the Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord	Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers;	And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.
lest I come and smite the earth with a curse	If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

The change that stood out to me is the use of “plant” (Heb:‎יסד ; LXX: θεμελιοω) instead of “turn”—the term “plant” is the language of creation. One is reminded of Isa 51:15-16 where God is speaking to an elevated human figure who will be the agent of the New Creation (see The High view of "Mere Men" in Sirach, Isaiah, and the Sibylline Oracles for a fuller discussion). I read this as God, as a result of Elijah’s coming (see D&C 110) “planting” into the hearts of people a desire to turn to their fathers (such would explain the explosion of genealogical research post-1836).

On the issue of the Latter-day Saint belief that Elijah would come in a time just before the Second Coming and that Mal 4:5-6 was not fulfilled (at least exhaustively) by John the Baptist, see:

Refuting the Tanners on the LDS Interpretation of Malachi 4:5-6