Edward Siecienski on The Church of Rome and the Quartodeciman Controversy

The orthodoxy of the Roman See might be praiseworthy, but praise of Rome did not always translate into obedience to its bishop. This was certainly true during the debate over the dating of Pascha (i.e., the Quartodeciman Controversy)—that is, whether Pascha should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nissan (the Jewish Passover) or on the following Sunday, which was the Roman custom. The first signs of trouble occurred during a visit of Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 156) to Anicetus of Rome (c. 153-68), but according to the sources, after arguing back and forth they simply “agreed to disagree” and maintained communion despite their differences. However, forty years later, Victor of Rome (c. 189-99) requested that synods be held to settle the issue, and attempted to excommunicate Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when they refused to adopt the Roman custom. While most synods did follow the Roman dating, Polycrates, “unafraid of threats,” vehemently defended his church’s ancient practice and refused to conform. In the end it appears that Victor, rebuked by Irenaeus and others for overreacting, never carried through with this threat and that communion was preserved. Rome emerged from the date with its prestige unscathed—after all, “convoking a series of regional councils to try and pressure the Asians into conformity is a tribute to Roman prestige” (Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, 42)—but it is clear that respect did not equal obedience. (A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology; New York: Oxford University Press, 2017], 148-49)

The Eastern Interpretation of the “Rock” as Peter’s Confession

Didymus the Blind

How powerful is Peter’s faith and his confession that Christ is the only-begotten God, the word, the true Son of God, and not merely a creature . . . he recognized the consubstantial and coeternal branch of God, thereby glorifying that uncreated root . . . Peter believed that Christ was one and the same deity with the Father . . . Upon this rock the Church was built, the Church which the gates of hell—that is, the arguments of heretics—will not overcome. The keys to the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter in order that . . . he might open the gates of God’s kingdom to those whose faith agreed both with his own confession and with those things which he and the other apostles heard from Christ. (De Trinitate 1.30 [PG 39:417])

Theodore of Mopsuestia

[The “rock”] is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is the rock he [i.e., Jesus] stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church on the same confession and faith (Fragmenta in Mattaeum 92)

[The proper confession of Christ, found in the Church alone is the very] key to the kingdom of heaven, . . . [so that] he who is counted as belonging to the Church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven. (Ibid.)

John Chrysostom

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. (Homilies on Matthew 54.3)

Gregory of Nyssa

We do not extend our praises to Simon for his fishing, but rather for his firm faith, which is at the same time the foundation of the whole Church. (Altera Laudatio S. Stephani Protomartyris)

Maximus the Confessor

The God of all pronounced that the catholic church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him. (Letter to Anastasius)

Basil of Seleucia

Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it “Peter” perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. (Oratio 25.4 [PG 85, 297])

John Damascus

O blessed mouth! O richly privileged lips! O soul that speaks of God! O mind inspired by God, worthy of sharing divine mysteries! O instrument on which the Father plays his son! This is the upright unshakeable faith on which—as on a rock—the Church is established; you have been rightly named for it. (Oration on the Transfiguration)

Ambrosiaster

The Lord said to Peter: On this rock I will build My Church, which means, “On this confession of the catholic faith I establish believers in life.” (Commentary on Ephesians 2:20)

Hilary of Poitiers

Upon this rock of this confession [i.e., Jesus’ divine nature] hat the building of the Church rests. (The Trinity 6.36)

This faith is the foundation of the Church, and therefore the gates of hell are powerless against her. This faith possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven. What this faith bound and loosed on earth will also be bound or loosed in heaven . . . [T]his is the revelation of the Father, this is the foundation of the Church. (The Trinity 6.37)

Melvin J. Ballard vs. the Heartland Model of Book of Mormon Geography

Melvin J.Ballard, in a talk delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, “Book of Mormon Evidences,” discussed New World geography of the Book of Mormon in a way that is contrary to that of those espoused by Neville, Meldrum, and other proponents of the “Heartland Model.” Consider the following representative comments which reveal Ballard believed the Book of Mormon peoples inhabited portions of Central and South America, not the Heartland:

It has been my privilege to see the great collections in this country and Mexico, as well as those in the republics of the Argentine, Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru . . . Long before these evidences were ever known to men, Joseph Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon, recorded that when the people reached this American continent they built temples after the manner of Solomon’s Temple. In the findings of the republic of Mexico there is gathered in that great museum among other things, what is known as the Calendar Stone . . . I have seen, side by side, the alphabet of the Mayan people and the alphabet of the Egyptian language so nearly alike, letter by letter, that one is at once impressed with the thought that either the Mayans borrowed their alphabet from the Egyptians or vice versa. And so men are deciphering these inscriptions; for instance, Mr. Thompson who, for twenty years was an American ambassador in Mexico, and explored the city of Chichen Itza in the Yucatan Peninsula of Southern Mexico . . . It has been my privilege to do missionary work among the Indians from Canada to South America. I have never encountered a single tribe where the traditional story of the visit of the fair God does not obtain. The temple of Quetzacoatl where I stood in the valley of Mexico was erected to the fair God . . . This record declares that is to go to the descendants of Father Lehi, the American Indian of either Central or South America. There are s you know in Mexico more than 12,000,000 of them who have Indian blood in their veins, and then in South America there are more than 20,000,000 of them. The joy that I had in my contact with these people has thrilled my soul because, if there ever has been a people in bondage in the history of this world, they are the Indians of South America, Central America, and Mexico. (Melvin J. Ballard: Crusader for Righteousness [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Publishers, 1966], 164, 166-67, 169, 172)

Melvin J. Ballard on the Knowledge of the Gospel by those in the Spirit World

Addressing (and refuting) whether those in the spirit world are in a more privileged position vis-à-vis knowledge of the truth of the gospel and whether they are in a better position than those in mortality to accept the gospel, Melvin J. Ballard, in a sermon given at the Ogden Tabernacle, said:

I declare unto you that when a man and woman are dead they will not know the truth any more than we do. They will not be given a flood of light that will make them see everything. You will see in the spirit world every phase of religion. They will be free to do as they please, each following his will-o’-the-wisp. And along comes the authority of God, and there is an honest soul that hears that and declares that it is the truth. “My sheep” know the Saviour’s voice in the spirit world or upon the earth, and men in the spirit world will be tested in exactly the same conditions as if here upon the earth. They will have to manifest the same courage and the same faith. And there are thousands of them, hundreds of thousands and millions of them in the spirit world who long to receive this Gospel and have been waiting hundreds of years for their deliverance. They are waiting on you. They are praying that the Lord will awaken your hearts in their interest. They know where their records are, and I testify to you that the spirit and influence of your dead will guide those who are interested in finding those records. If there is anywhere on the earth anything concerning them, you will find it. This is my promise to you. (“God’s Plan for Redemption” in Melvin J. Ballard: Crusader for Righteousness [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Publishers, 1966], 203)

John Thomas, "Creeds the Source of Intolerance" (1835)

While reading some of the earliest writings of John Thomas, the founder of the Christadelphian movement, while he was still a member of the Campbellite movement, wrote the following about the problematic nature of “creeds.” I am sure some LDS readers will note some of the similarities (and dissimilarities) between Thomas’ views and that of early Latter-day Saints, including those of Joseph Smith:

CREEDS THE SOURCE OF INTOLERANCE

To the passion for established Confessions may be attributed the propensity, so common among “christians,” of calling harsh names, applying reproachful epithets, and charging their brethren with heresy and unbelief. It is observable, that they who are the most rigidly wedded to forms of faith, have usually been the first to commence the out cry of heresy, and the most relentless in pursuing the unfortunate delinquent. The reason is obvious;--While they are guided by human forms, why should they not condemn all persons as infidels, who persist in acknowledging assent to the Bible only? Was any man ever denounced as a heretic for not believing in the Bible?—Not one. Martyrs have been tried by creeds, and condemned for denying creeds. They have not suffered for the constancy of their faith in the Scriptures. Does not every church employ the term heretic to denote one, who rejects its assumed articles? Does not that, which makes a heretic in one church, make a saint in another? Judge every man by the Bible alone, and you will have no further occasion to torture his conscience and blacken his character with the hideous terrors of excommunications, anathemas, and cruel aspersions on the charge of heresy.

I speak not of the original meaning of the word, but of its popular use, or rather abuse. Every person, charge with heresy, professes a firm and sincere belief in the Gospel.—Otherwise he would not be a heretic but an infidel. His accusers call him a heretic, not because he does not believe in the Bible, but because he cannot believe it as they do. He is a heretic in the eyes of Calvinists, because, perhaps he does not believe one of the five points; of Arminians, because he believes them all; of Baptists, because he sprinkles them; of Presbyterians, because he believes in bishops; of Churchmen, because he does not believe in them. And so we are all heretics in one another, and yet the faith and hopes of all professedly centre in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is said, that in accusations of heresy, the accuser always understands the term to indicate a deficiency of faith in the Scriptures:--Let this be granted, and the case is not altered. The accused tells you that he does believe the Scriptures, and what better authority can be had than his own declaration? May we not justly consider the enforcement of a charge, under such circumstances, as the wickedest persecution? Why is he to be branded with an odious epithet for valuing his faith as dearly as another, who may rashly accuse him of being a heretic, for maintaining his independence and a clear conscience? Abolish creeds, obey the Scriptures, respect conscience, and no room will be left for churches, or individuals, to denounce their brethren as heretics, or to kindle discord by recrimination and offence. (The Apostolic Advocate, vol. 2 no. 1 [1 May, 1835]:21, reprinted in The Apostolic Advocate, Vol. I-II 1834-36 [Houston: The Herald Press, 1971])

Stephen S. Smalley on the meaning of ιλασμος in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10

Commenting on 1 John 2:2 and 4:10’s use of ιλασμος, and whether it means “propitiation” or “expiation,” Stephen Smalley argued that it is “both-and” and not “either-or”:

Possibly these two interpretations of the term ιλασμος, one in which God is the subject of the action of sin-offering, and one in which he is the object, need not be regarded as mutually exclusive. In the OT . . . both senses prevail; and the same is true when, in the LXX, εξιλασκεσθαι ("to atone") is used (cf. Zech 7:2; 8:22; Mal 1:9, the only occasions where this verb is used with an "objective" meaning; and 2 Kings 5:18, one of several "subjective" uses of the verb ιλασκεσθαι). Theologically it is in any case true that God is the initiator of the Jewish principle and pattern of sacrifice for sin, as he is of the surrounding framework of the Law (cf. Lev 16). But he also receives that sacrifice, so that atonement may be made "for all the sins of the Israelites" (Lev 16:34). Similarly, in the NT, it is possible to argue from such passages as Rom 3:21-26 that God both "presents" the "offering" of his Son (v 25, using ιλαστηριον) as a means of the sinner's justification, and also “receive” it, so that he can justify “the man who has faith in Jesus” (v 26).

Perhaps we should not use Paul to interpret John. Nevertheless in 1 John 2:2 (cf. 4:10) both senses of ιλασμος also seem to be present. Jesus is regarded in this passage as a heavenly intercessor (v 1), pleading the cause of the sinner and asking for his pardon. He does this, and can do it effectively, because he is righteous, and is “himself” (αυτος) the offering (not the offerer!) for our sins (cf. v 7b). To this extent God is the object of the saving action. But he is also the subject, since in v 9 we learn that the forgiveness and purification of the sinner ultimately stem from the Father: he is righteous, and on the basis of the Son’s offering he will forgive our sins. Here, then, is not contradict but complementarity. John is declaring that the source of the offering is God the Father, but that the means are to be found in God the Son; and our translation, “atoning sacrifice,” attempts to capture both senses. (Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John [Word Biblical Commentary 55; Milton Keynes: Word Books, 1991], 39-40, italics in original)

This fits well with what I wrote about the term here:

Critique of "The Christ Who Heals" 

Robert Sungenis on Favouring "He" instead of "She" in Genesis 3:15

Robert Sungenis, himself a traditional Roman Catholic apologist and the rare Catholic apologist who will engage in public debates on the Marian Dogmas (e.g., the Bodily Assumption of Mary vs. James White in 2010), wrote the following in favour of “he” instead of “she” in Gen 3:15:

"He": Controversy concerning this word is ongoing. Haydock notes: "Ipsa, the woman, so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin; others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same, for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head." [NB: the Latin ipse = he; ipsa = her; and ipsum = it]. Quoting Sigonius: "The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous. He mentions one copy which had the ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572 . . . The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint, agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and thus we may argue with the probability with the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants . . . H. Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far  when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, etc., mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood" (op. cit., p. 17). The problem centers on the Hebrew words for “he” (הוּא, pronounced “hu” or “hua”) and “she” (הִיא, pronounced “hiy” or “hia”). Although these words are distinguished by the middle letter (וּ as opposed to י), the problem is that the feminine הִיא is written as הִוא, which is very similar to the masculine form, throughout the Pentateuch in all but eight cases (Gn 14:2; 26:7; Ex 1:16; Lv 5:11; 11:39; 13:6; 16:31; 21:9), and the reason  is uncertain. Even in Gn 3:12: “The woman whom you gave to me she (הִוא) has given me . . .” uses the modified form הִוא instead of הִיא. Some verses even use both forms, as noted in Gn 26:7 which addresses Rebecca as both הִוא and הִיא (BHS, p. 39, although BHS footnotes a variant in the Samarian Pentateuch that inserts היא for both cases). The problem is compounded because the ancient Hebrew did not use vowel pointing (the both beneath the ה in הִוא or dot inside the ו of הוּא), thus making the modified female pronoun הוא identical in consonant form to the male pronoun הוא. Because of this ambiguity, neither form can be discounted but preference should go to the masculine pronoun because the following verb and nouns, “you shall bruise his” (תשׁופנוּ) and “the heel” (עקב) are masculine. The NABC holds: “since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring . . .a more exact rendering . . . would be ‘They will strike . . . at their heels’” (op cit., p. 10), but the pronoun and noun are Hebrew singulars, not plurals. The LXX also contains masculine singular pronouns (σου and αυτου). NABC correctly concludes, however, “ . . . the passage can be understood as the first promised of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ” (ibid). (Robert A. Sungenis, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-11 [Catholic Apologetics Study Bible Volume IV; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 34-35 n. 89)

Peter T. O'Brien on Colossians 4:16 and the "Epistle from Laodicea"

Commenting on the "Epistle from Laodicea" in Col 4:16, Peter O'Brien wrote: 

Much ink has been spilled, to little purpose, endeavoring to determine what this “letter from Laodicea” (την εκ Λαοδικειας) actually was: (a) several of the early church Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret) together with many other later writers including Beza supposed this to have been a letter from Laodicea to Paul. But by far the most likely meaning of the Phrase is that the Colossians were to procure the letter from Laodicea (so Robertson, Grammar, 600, BDF, para. 437), an interpretation clearly supported by the context (so Dibelius-Greeven, 52, who considers the expression is from the standpoint of the Colossians and note Abbott’s comments, 304, 305: ινα και υμεις, “that you too,” corresponds to the previous ινα και, “that also,” which refers to the Laodiceans reading the Colossians’ letter; the parallelism implies that the Laodiceans, like the Colossians, will have received a letter, cf. Moule 138, Bruce, 310, Loymeyer, 170, Anderson, JBL 85 [1966] 436, 437, Lohse, 174, 175, Martin, NCB, 138, and Schweizer, 179). (b) Marcion identified this letter with the Epistle to the Ephesians (a connection made in 1707 by John Mill and which received abundant support from Lightfoot, 272-98; note also J. Rutherford, “St Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans,” ExpTim 19 [1907-08] 311-14). However, Ephesians was almost certainly written after Colossians, and not simply to one church in the province of Asia. If it was written after Colossians, then it is unlikely to have been mentioned in Colossians, unless 4:6 is a later addition but of this there is no evidence (Marcion’s Apostolic Canon gave the title “To the Laodiceans” to the Epistle to the Ephesians, perhaps because it lacked the words “at Ephesus” in the first verse and he found what appeared to be a pointer to its destination in Col. 4:16, so Bruce, 310, 311, following Souter). (c) The Epistle to Philemon has been identified with the “epistles from Laodicea” (J. Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul, 2nd ed. [London: Collins, 1960] 38-47), but this letter was private.  . . and the delicacy of its appeal would be destroyed if Paul directed it to be read in public. Further, Philemon lived at Colossae (according to Col 4:9 Onesimus is a slave of Philemon at Colossae) not Laodicea. (d) No extant Pauline letter seems adequately to fit the description and so we are left with the conclusion that the letter to the Laodiceans has not survived . . . (Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon [Word Biblical Commentary 44; Milton Keynes: Word Books, 1987], 257-58)

 Further Reading

Refuting Christina Darlington on Colossians 4:16 and the Epistle from Laodicea and the Meaning of Isaiah 40:8

Author of Book on Mary Does Not Know what the Immaculate Conception Is

There are certain topics I like to consider myself well-versed on. Mariology is one of them. I am the author of a book-length text on the topic, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology, so I was intrigued to find out that there was another Latter-day Saint, Catherine Taylor, who has written a book on Mary, Late Antique Images of the Virgin Annunciate Spinning: Allotting the Scarlet and the Purple. She was interviewed by Blair Hodges as part of the Maxwell Institute Podcast. I gave up after 6 minutes. The reason? Taylor (and Hodges), while discussing Mary, are clueless about Mariology. Take the following exchange:

Taylor: [The Protoevangelium of James, was written, in part] to point out that she was ever-virgin and was conceived even, as a virginal birth. Her mother, Anna, also delivered Mary as part of the virginal birth.

Hodges: That's what's known as the Immaculate Conception, right?

Taylor: Yes

Blair: She was conceived outside of normal sexual reproduction

Taylor: Yes

This is embarrassing from someone with a book on Mary on the market. In reality, the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and preserved from personal sin, based on the then-foreseen merits of Christ. It has nothing to do with her mother being a virgin or Mary being a virgin. You can read the papal bull from Pius IX that defined this as a dogma, Ineffabilis Deus, here.

Latter-day Saint Duped into Rejecting "Mormonism" and Embracing Reformed Theology

The Myth (the false claim that Durbin and White are informed about "Mormonism")

The Reality:

Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

Do pray for this former Latter-day Saint. He has been deceived into embracing Reformed theology which is an anti-biblical and blasphemous mess and teaches Sola Scriptura, a doctrine which is also false. On these issues, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Robert Sungenis on Colossians 2:14

“Blotting out the handwriting of the decree against us”: εξαλειψας το καθ' ημων χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν, lit., “blotting out the bringing down of us in the handwriting in decrees,” although the το κατα is difficult to translate into English. Some interpret the “handwriting” as a debtor’s bond (Ex 24:3), but the meaning here is much wider due to “the decrees” (τοις δογμασιν), but Paul is speaking more generally here. Paul uses similar language to Cl 2:14 in Ep 2:15’s “commandments in decrees” (εντολων εν δογμασιν). Paul uses the analogy to “handwriting” because the Commandments were written with the “finger of God” (Ex 31:18; 2Co 3:7) and their main purpose was to expose sin (Rm 3: 9-20; 5:20) and thus was a “decree against us.” Continuing the analogy, the “blotting out” refers to the revocation of the Old Covenant and everything contained in it, i.e., civil, ceremonial and moral laws (2Co 3:4-14; Gl 3:10-12; Hb 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9). This was accomplished as Christ died on the cross (i.e., “fastening it to the cross”). The Church reinstituted the OT moral laws (Rm 13:1-10) and some of the ethical and worship principles of the OT civil and ceremonial laws (1Co 9:9; 2Co 13:1; Jm 5:14; Ac 2:28-29) under the New Covenant in Christ. (Robert A. Sungenis, The Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Catholic Apologetics Study Bible IX; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2020], 45-46 n. 44

Further Reading

Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification?

Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia’s letter to Bishop Anselm of Havelberg and the Nature of Roman Primacy

An example of the nature of the primacy of the Church of Rome not being consistent with that dogmatised in 1870 during Vatican I can be seen in the following from Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia’s letter to Bishop Anselm of Havelberg:

“My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister Patriarchates, and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she separated herself from us by her own deeds, when she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office. . . . How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us, and even without our knowledge?

If the Roman pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We would be the slaves of such a church, and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves. . . . In such a case what could have been the use of the Scriptures? The writings and the teachings of the Fathers would be useless. The authority of the Roman pontiff would nullify the value of all because he would be the only bishop, the sole teacher and master.” (Source)

Wilford Woodruff on Plural Marriage Not being Necessary for Exaltation

Wilford Woodruff, in his journal entry for 12 February 1870, reported that Brigham Young et al affirmed that plural marriage, even when it was being practiced by the Church, was not necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom and receive exaltation:

I spent the day in the Council House untill noon. I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. Presidet Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal: 1833-1898, Volume 6: 1 January 1862 to 31 December 1870 [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984], 527)

J.J. Andrew on Jesus being "Sinful" and "Unjustified" during his Redemptive Ministry

One of the greatest blasphemies one has encountered among many Christadelphian authors, both Amended and Unamended, from the 19^th century to the modern times, is that Jesus not only could have sinned (a view I hold to and most Latter-day Saints I have discusses this topic with) but that Jesus had to atone for his own sin (i.e., the “sin” of possessing human nature). J.J. Andrew, a leading figure in the Unamended Christadelphian movement, wrote the following addressing and affirming this calumny against Jesus:

THE JUSTIFICATION OF JESUS

Every Jewish child, by its birth, defiled its mother. It could not have produced this result if it had not itself been unclean (Lev. Xii). Rom this defilement, the mother could not be cleansed without “blood” (verse 4-5); and as blood is the antidote to sin the uncleanness must have been caused by sin. Whose sin? First, the “offence” of Adam; and second, its consequence: viz., “sin in the flesh” of the child. The uncleanness was inherited; and therefore the blood of the lamb” “pigeon,” or “turtledove,” denominated “a sin-offering” (Lev. Xii. 6), was a justification from inherited sin. The other was, by “a man child,” made “unclean seven days” 9verse 2); and on the “eighth day” it was “circumcised” (verse 3). The mother was then to “continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days” (verse 4). But for “a maid child” she was “unclean two weeks,” and was required to “continue in the blood of her purifying three score and six days” (verse 5). Thus circumcision in the case of “the man child” diminished the uncleanness of the mother by one-half, and was consequently a justification ceremony of the same efficacy as that of “a sin offering.”

To this Mosaic enactment, the Son of Mary, “made under the law” (Gal. iv. 4), was no exception. The expression “that holy thing” (Luke i. 35) applied to him before birth is used in the same sense as the word, “holy,” in 1 Cor. vii. 14, to describe legitimacy of origin and also to indicate that he was a “first born son” (Luke ii. 7), all of whom were “called holy to the Lord” (Luke ii. 23). The holiness of first-born sons did not exempt them from circumcision, nor prevent their mother from being defiled by them. Hence at “eight days of age the child Jesus was circumcised” (Luke ii. 21), and subsequently his mother continued in “the days of her purification according to the law of Moses” (ver. 22). This was the first act of justification of which Jesus partook. Its effect was to transfer him from the state of “condemnation” to death, under which he was born, into the condition described as being “alive” (Rom. vii. 9). In that “alive” condition he continued until the close of his career; for when, on arriving at years of discretion, “the commandment came,” his “sin in the flesh” did not “revive,” and as a consequence he did not “die.” That is, he did not by his own act incur death, and therefore he did not require to die symbolically in the death of a sacrificial animal.

As “the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man” (Heb. viii. 2), Jesus, like the Mosaic tabernacle, required “atonement” (Lev. Xvi. 33); for a like reason, and for the same object. The reason was physical defilement, and the object to provide a fit dwelling place for Jehovah. As “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exod. xl. 35), so “the spirit” abode in Jesus Christ without “measure” (Jno. iii. 34). This was no doubt, one of the objects, perhaps the chief one for which circumcision was instituted; that he who was made to “hope” from his “mother’s breasts,” and was “cast upon” God “from the womb” (Ps. xxii. 9, 10), should have the benefit of a justification from inherited sin from his earliest days.

“Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law” (Rom. ii. 25). In what way did it profit? It could not give eternal life; “for if there has been a law by which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal. iii. 21). What then was the profit? It spared from premature death, and maintained uninterrupted reconciliation with God. Jesus Christ was the only Jew who thus profited through keeping the law. Did he not die a premature death? Yes; but how? In regard to the Mosaic law, by a voluntary surrender of his life. Although he prayed to God, “take me not away in the midst of my days” (Ps. cii. 24), yet he made the announcement, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (Jno. x. 15). Up to the time immediately preceding his being nailed to the cross the Mosaic “ministration of condemnation” (2 Cor. iii. 9) had no hold upon him But as soon as he was hung upon a tree he came under that “condemnation;” that is, he was “cursed” by the law (Gal. iii. 13), and from that “curse” he could only be cleansed by the shedding of his blood. At the same time and for the same reason “the true tabernacle” (Heb. viii. 2) became unfit for the indwelling of Jehovah; hence, the spirit left Jesus, and he cried out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. xxvii. 46). By “the curse of the law” his circumcision was made uncircumcision” (Rom. ii. 25); but by his death he underwent a higher form of circumcision; “he was cut off from the land of the living (Isa. liii. 8). Although nailed to the tree by “wicked hands” (Acts ii. 23) it was the result of providential arrangement; “thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above” (Jno. xix. 11). Jesus Christ died “the death of the cross” (Phil. ii. 8) but not in the same way as others; he did not die simply through physical exhaustion. There was an element in his case which was absent from that of the two thieves, viz. grief for sin. This explains why he died before them (Jno. xix. 31-33). He died of a “broken heart” (Ps. lxix. 20); and hence when the soldier “pierced his side, forthwith came there out blood and water” (Jno. xix. 34). His heart had literally ruptured, and, the red and white portions of the blood had become separated. The grief which produced this result is evidence of the completeness with which Christ had, during his probation, practised “circumcision of the heart” (Rom. ii. 29), described as “circumcision made without hands” (Col. ii. 11), which, if absent, would have rendered the “circumcision” which ended his life of no avail (Rom. ii. 25) he had “cut off” everything from his affections pertaining to “sinful flesh” and this was consummated by a voluntary cutting off of his life for justification from sin.

The baptism of John was like the Mosaic law, an addition to the Abrahamic covenant. It was instituted “for the remission of sins” (Mark. i. 4). To the surprise of John, Jesus applied “to be baptised of him;” and, in answer to John’s objection said, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. iii. 13-15). Submission to this ceremony, was therefore a necessary part of the “righteousness” of Christ. For what reason? Was it a test of obedience without doctrinal significance? If it was in his case, it was in the case of others But it was not in their case; for they “were baptised confessing their sins” (Matt. iii. 6), and as a consequence they received “remission of sin.” Had Christ any sins requiring “remission”? Had had no personal transgressions, but He possessed “sin in the flesh” inherited from Adam; his submission to the baptism of John was a practical confession of this fact and a recognition of the necessity of his death in order to be cleansed. Being a symbol of his death it was a justification, by shadow from the sin which required that death. Had he not been thus justified by circumcision? He had; but inasmuch as a shadow justification is not perfect it will bear repetition to any extent. Previous to baptism by John, Jesus had been hidden from Israel; he was now about to be revealed as the “beloved Son” with whom the Father was “well pleased” (Matt. iii. 17). It was fitting that before being “manifested to take away our sins” (I Jno. iii. 4), he should publicly acknowledge his own relationship to sin, and also illustrate, symbolically, the impossibility of escaping therefrom without his own death. The ceremony which cleansed the Jews, who were “baptised of John in Jordan” (Matt. iii. 6) from the moral defilement, was equally efficacious in cleansing Jesus from his physical defilement. In both cases it was temporary, until ratified by the death of Christ as a sacrifice.

The necessity for the justification of Jesus Christ was foretold by the Psalmist when representing him as saying to Jehovah, “in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps. cxliii. 2). To be justified in God’s sight is impossible for anyone inheriting the sin-nature; that nature must be covered by blood-shedding before a man can do anything relating to a future life, acceptable to God. There is no disadvantage in this, because God has made ample provision for inherited sin to be covered. In instituting circumcision God placed the Jew in a position whereby, as soon as he knew the Divine requirements, he could perform them. And in the analogous ceremony of baptism He has given the Gentile the opportunity, as soon as he knows what he has received from Adam and what he may obtain through Christ, of becoming justified from inherited and committed sin. (J.J. Andrew, The Blood of the Covenant: Is Efficacy in Baptism, Resurrection and Immortalization [Conway, Ark.: J.W. Teas, 1927], 21-23, italics in original)

Elsewhere Andrew wrote:

According to custom, Jesus Christ was crucified naked, as indicated by the fact that “many women were there beholding afar off” (Matt. xxvii. 55). This feature possesses a doctrinal significance, which is referred to in the statement that “for the oy that was set before him” he “endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. xii. 2). He was then in the condition of Adam and his wife after partaking of the forbidden tree and before being “clothed” with “coats of skins” (Gen. iii. 21); they realized through sin “that they were naked” (Gen. iii. 7), and as a consequence experienced “shame.” The “sin-in-the-flesh” transmitted by them has the same effect, and hence Christ partook of it. Having lost through “the curse of the law” the covering for sin provided by circumcision and baptism he was now, in relation to the Edenic and Mosaic laws, in an unjustified condition; he was physically as unclean as he was between birth and circumcision; and the nakedness apparent to the human eye was a counterpart of his nakedness in the sight of God. Although he possessed a record of a blameless life, he could derive no benefit therefrom until his naked condition had been covered by the shedding of his blood. (Ibid., 24)

Note how Andrews states that Jesus lost his "justified" state and was "unjustified" during his redemptive ministry(!) Such is utterly blasphemous, and coupled with the Christadelphian denial of the personal pre-existence of Jesus and a host of other errors, condemns Christadelphian theology as a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9).

Further Reading

 Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

J.J. Andrew on the Justification of Abraham

J.J. Andrew, a leading figure in the Unamended Christadelphian movement, wrote the following about the (salvific) justification of Abraham, understanding (correctly) that Abraham was not once-for-all justified at Gen 15:6:

THE JUSTIFICATION OF ABRAHAM

“Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Rom. iv. 3). How? By belief only? No; by belief and obedience. According to Divine command he left “Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan” (Gen. ix. 31; xii. 1). Was this the only practical exhibition of his belief? No; after arriving in the land of promise “he builded an altar unto the Lord” (Gen. xii. 7, 8). Why? Because he was a sinner by birth and by deed, and needed sacrifice to cover his sin. Hence the Apostle, in showing that “faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” quotes from Ps. xxxii. 1;--“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (Rom. iv. 7). Abraham recognized that he was a winner, and that to inherit the land his sin must be covered. Therefore, he “called upon the name of the Lord” (Gen. xii. 8) by the erection of an altar and the offering of sacrifice. His recognition of sacrifice as a Divine requirement was repeated after his return from Egypt by a visit to “the altar which he had made at the first” and by again “calling on the name of the Lord” (Gen. xiii. 4); also by acknowledging Melchizedek to be “Priest of the Most High God” (Gen. xiv. 18); and by slaying, as commanded, a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtle-dove, and a pigeon, to provide what God required for the purpose of confirming his promise (Gen. xv. 9-17). He believed not only the promise concerning the land, but that its inheritance required the taking away of sin by blood-shedding. Thus was Abraham justified by faith. He was subsequently “justified by works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar” (Jas. Ii.21). (J.J. Andrew, The Blood of the Covenant: Is Efficacy in Baptism, Resurrection and Immortalization [Conway, Ark.: J.W. Teas, 1927], 10)

On Gen 15:6 and the meaning of the phrase "and it was credited unto him as righteousness" and other issues, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness 

A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture on απαυγασμα in Hebrews 1:3 having a Passive Sense

Commenting on Heb 1:3 and how απαυγασμα has a passive not active sense therein, Dom Aelred Cody, a Roman Catholic priest and scholar, wrote:

3a. The divine Son’s relation to the Father is expressed as a ‘reflection’ (apaugasma) of the Father’s glory and a ‘stamp’ or ‘imprint’ (charaktēr) of his nature. Apaugasma has been variously interpreted in an active sense (‘radiation, emanation’ of light) and in a passive sense (‘reflection’ of a luminary’s light on another surface). The active sense was the one commonly accepted in early exegesis, with conclusions at times orthodox, at times pantheistic or gnostic, but the parallel with charaktēr indicates that it is the passive sense which is intended by our author. Charaktēr is the imprint of a seal, the mark of one thing found in something else. ‘Glory’ is the form of God’s manifestation (Ex 24:16; 33:18; 40:34;cf Jn 1:14), and in late Judaism often meant God himself. Hypostasis is essence, substance, nature; to try to make the clear-cut metaphysical or speculative distinctions of a later theology is out of place; the word is chosen on the basis of theological imagery and metaphor. Without pressing these images further than the author intends, we may say that ‘reflection of his glory’ denotes the Son’s divine origin and perfect similarity to the Father, and ‘stamp of his nature’ that similarity qualified by his distinction from the Father. ‘Upholding the universe by his word of power’: pherōn has the double sense of maintaining the existence of creation and of governing, directing the course of history. The ‘word’ here is the dynamic OT ‘word’ which produces the physical or historical effects, and ‘word of power’, of course, is a Semitism for ‘powerful word’. (Dom Aelred Cody, “Hebrews” in Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969], 1224, emphasis in bold added)

To understand the theological significance of this and how it relates to the Latter-day Saint belief that the Father, not the Son merely, have (1) a bodily form as part of his “substantial” nature and (2) has a glorified body, see:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture

Commenting on 1 Cor 15:29 and its reference to baptism for the dead, one Catholic scholar wrote: 

Nevertheless many ancient and most modern writers understand this as a vicarious baptism received by baptized Christians on belief of deceased catechumens. The obvious difficulty is that Paul does not appear to offer any objection to this practice, so prevalent later among heretics. (John J. O’Rourke, “1 Corinthians” in Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969], 1159)

In other words, the "obvious difficulty" is that Paul did not object to such a practice, though in his theology and most other theologies, such a practice would be out of place. For Latter-day Saints, however, such a practice fits perfectly with our soteriology and there is no "obvious difficulty" for us at least on this one issue.

Neal A. Maxwell on D&C 1:30

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually. (D&C 1:30)

Commenting on D&C 1:30, Neal A. Maxwell wrote:

This was, and is, a designation so significant that the key words contained within it must not be passed over lightly.

The word only asserts a uniqueness and singularity about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the exclusive ecclesiastical, authority-bearing agent for our Father in heaven in this dispensation.

Had the Lord said the Church is a true and living church (or if the name given had been A Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), this would have implied there are other fully acceptable alternatives available to man. Thus what was said by the Lord in 1830, not surprisingly, was consistent with the instructions given in the grove to Joseph Smith in 1820; the answer to Joseph’s prayer about which church to join was, “Join none of them.”

When the Lord used the designation “true,” he implied that the doctrines of the Church and its authority are not just partially true, but true as measured by divine standards. The Church is not, therefore, conceptually compromised by having been made up from doctrinal debris left over from another age, nor is it comprised of mere fragments of the true faith. It is based upon the fullness of the gospel of him whose name it bears, thus passing the two tests for proving his church that were given by Jesus during his visit to the Nephites (3 Nephi 27:8.)

When the word living is used, it carries a divinely deliberate connotation. The Church is neither dead nor dying, nor is it even wounded. The Church, like the living God who established it, is alive, aware, and functioning. It is not a museum that houses a fossilized faith; rather, it is a kinetic kingdom characterized by living faith in living disciples. (Neal A. Maxwell, Things as they Really Are [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978], 46-47, italics in original; on 3 Nephi 27 and the name of the Church, see The Church of the Uncertain Name?)

Kenneth Whitehead (Catholic) on Sermon 131 and Augustine's Understanding of Roman Primacy

Many Catholic apologists appeal to a purported saying of Augustine from sermon 131, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed!” Firstly, Augustine never said such a thing. Furthermore, while trying to salvage belief in Roman Primacy (as understood in light of Vatican I [1870]), one Catholic apologist admitted that sermon 131 and Augustine’s comments therein should be understood in a more nuanced manner:

The views of Pelagius proved to be quite popular among many people and continued to spread, inevitably arousing opposition. The great St. Augustine of Hippo composed a number of incisive tracts against Pelagianism. In due course, two councils held in different parts of Africa condemned the views of Pelagius; in 416, one African council expressly renewed a condemnation of Pelagius that had been decided upon by an African council in 412. The African bishops then forwarded their judgments to Rome.

Pope St. Innocent I replied to the African bishops the following year, accepting the decisions of the two African councils. Concerning this reply, St. Augustine wrote: “Already two synods have sent to the Apostolic See concerning this affair. The rescripts have come from here. The cause is finished (causa finita est). Would that at last the error were finished too!” (Sermo CXXXI).

This incident was ostensibly the origin of the widely quoted statement regularly attributed to Augustine: Roma locuta est, causa finita est (“Rome has spoken, the cause is finished”; meaning the matter is settled). It should be evident from both the text and the context that what St. Augustine actually said was slightly different than what the statement is generally taken to mean. Augustine seems to have been referring to the whole process: two African councils had considered the views of Pelagius and correctly judged him to be in error. Following this, the only possible court of appeal, the bishop of Rome, confirmed the judgment of the African councils; the appeal process was accordingly exhausted, and it time for the heretics to desist as well—they stood no chance of ever persuading the Church of their aberrant views in the face of a Roman judgment upholding a legitimate Church synod.

The matter was indeed settled—not just because “Rome had spoken”, but because the whole Church process for arriving at correct doctrine had been gone through and the rest had gone against the Pelagians. Thus, what Augustine actually meant in this case was more nuanced than what is usually meant when the saying Roma locuta est, causa finita est is quoted. (Kenneth D. Whitehead, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000], 272-73, emphasis in original)

Articles on Some (of the many) Problems with Reformed Soteriology

Rob Bowman has tried to support his (Reformed ) Protestant soteriology on the Bugger All Integrity blog:

Rob Bowman on Charis (Grace) as a Reciprocal Covenant Issue

Such would be a good time to plus the following two articles on how unbiblical such a soteriology truly is:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Isaac Levy on the Pre-Exilic Origin of Synagogues

Writing in 1963, Isaac Levy argued in favour of the pre-exilic origin of “synagogues”:

As one pursues the search for evidence on the place which prayer occupied in early forms of worship one is inevitably drawn to the ceremony of dedication of the first Temple, and particularly to the prayer uttered by King Solomon on that occasion, Throughout his long and detailed supplication he makes no reference to the many sacrifices which might be offered on its altar; instead he speaks only of the prayers which would be rendered by the pilgrims who came there to worship. The various circumstances and the national and person vicissitudes which demanded the presence of worshippers in the Temple, to which he refers, would normally have called for the offering of some special sacrifice, for this was the normal practice of the repentant sinner or of a people in time of national calamity or anxiety; yet in each of the instances which he specifies he speaks only of the prayers and supplications which shall be directed towards the Temple (I Kings viii). His constant repetition of the words tefillah and hitpallel (prayer and praying) seems convincing proof that this form of verbal worship was an acknowledged practice and was to take its place alongside the sacrificial system which would obtain in the newly-built Temple.

This close association of prayer and sacrifice was apparently not new even in Solomon’s time, for one may cite an instance of an even earlier period. Long before the Temple was built there existed a sanctuary at Shiloh where Eli, the High Priest, officiated. It was to this sanctuary that Elkanah, the father of the prophet Samuel, made annual pilgrimage, and we are informed that he came there ‘to prostrate himself and to sacrifice’ (I Sam. i.3). Such prostration must obviously imply the utterance of some form of prayer. But even more precise evidence is made available by the behaviour of his wife Hannah who accompanied him on that pilgrimage, and whose praying so stirred the heart of the aged High Priest as he watched her in her silent devotions. From these precise descriptions of the practices current during the early centuries one feels impelled to conclude that the synagogue inherited these spiritual influences at the very commencement of its existence and that it based its procedure of worship on the ancient pattern devised and developed during this pre-Temple period.

But eloquent as is this Biblical testimony to the mode of prayer employed at this time, it does not point with any clarity to even an approximate date on which a form of synagogue as a place of worship, came into being, but would lead us to believe that the development was a gradual one rather than a creation at a given moment in time. Yet even in this respect there is a modicum of evidence which would point to the possibility that some form of meeting place for prayer did exist outside of the precincts of the central sanctuaries, such as those of Shiloh and the Temple of Solomon We read, for example, of the visit of the Shunamite woman to Elisha and her request to intercede on behalf of her sick child. The question which her husband posed to her was ‘Wherefore wilt thou go to him today? It is neither New Moon nor Sabbath’ (II Kings iv.23). This statement would surely imply that it was customary for people to visit the prophets on such days, and since it was not the practice of individuals to offer sacrifices on such occasions one may assume that at special times a form of prayer meeting was conducted by the ‘man of God’.

One reads of similar religious assemblies convened by Samuel at Mizpah, when he offered prayers on behalf of the people and called upon them to fast and repent of their sins (I Sam. Vii.5). It would also not be presumptuous to assume that during the prophetic period, when idolatry was so rife and the Temple was defiled by such malpractices, private and secret meetings were held by the prophets and their followers at which prayers were offered and a form of worship observed, since no sacrifices would have been brought outside the Temple precincts. The reference constrained in II Chronicles to the circuits made by priests and Levites who ‘taught in Judah and had a book of the Law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah and taught the people’ (xvii. 9) throws additional light on this subject and points to a well-organized religious activity conducted outside the established centres.

Such prayer meetings or religious conventions held at a very early age may well be deemed the earliest known form of synagogue, and whilst we have little evidence that such gatherings took place in specific buildings, they seem to point to the pattern and type of activity which was later incorporated in the synagogue building. When, however, one approaches the immediate pre-exilic period one becomes aware of the existence of some form of building which was used for these purposes.

Although the evidence is based on the use of certain scriptural expressions it deserves to be treated seriously, since the accepted interpretation of these passages ultimately became incorporated in common popular usage and formed part of a long-standing tradition.

Thus in the literature of this pre-exilic period we find Jeremiah describing the havoc created by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar and stating ‘The Christians burned the king’s house and the house of the people (Beth Am) with fire’ (xxxix. 8). What was this Beth Am which was so worthy of special mention in this context? The Jewish commentators, Rashi and Kimchi, unhesitatingly describe it as a synagogue, doubtless relying on a passage in the Talmud which speaks disparagingly of those who call a synagogue by this name (Shab. 32a). The fact that this expression was later associated with the synagogue points to the close affinity of the two types of building. An even more poignant reference is to be found in Psalm lxiv which depicts the agony of a people who witnessed the destruction of the Temple and felt themselves forsaken by God. They saw ‘all the evil that the enemy hath done in the sanctuary’ and the havoc wrought by the invading forces who ‘burned up all the meeting places of God’. These places were undoubtedly recognised buildings, since in this context they cannot be identified with the Temple itself, for reference had already been made to the enemy’s destruction of the sanctuary. The inference must surely be that these buildings were distinct and acknowledged meeting places for the purpose of worship. Hence the Authorised Version translated the words ‘meeting places’ as synagogues.

The final piece of evidence available to us from this sad period is the reference to the House of God which was to be visited by a group of eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria Jer. xli.5). These men came as mourners, with heads shaven and clothes rent, to bring an offering to this House of God. This building could not have been the Temple for the context clearly states that by this time the Temple had been destroyed. One can only assume therefore that the house served as a place of worship, enjoying a status similar to that of the Temple, or that at least it was acknowledged as such by those who felt moved to proceed to it for the purpose of participating in some divine office.

These observations lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the pattern of the Synagogue began to take shape long before the destruction of the First Temple, a form of worship having been a recognised feature of religious observance at a very early age. But in consequence of the national calamity the exiles in Babylon were naturally inclined to cherish the memories of some of the practices which had been observed in their homeland, especially those which involved verbal prayer worship. Now that they were denied a Temple and could no longer offer sacrifices they concentrated their attention on the use of prayers, and doubtless those they offered were largely devoted to expressions of penitence and supplication for restoration.

To this they probably added the readings of the works of the prophets which they possessed. But with the passing of time and the slackening of the ties with the past, and especially because of their failure to preserve their knowledge of the Hebrew language, much of the influence which might have been exerted by a close development of their meeting places for prayers waned. Only when active steps were taken by Ezra and Nehemia to re-educate them, and the Men of the Great Synod devised and formulated the procedure of prayer worship, could organised religious life be restored and the synagogue become a firmly established institution. (Isaac Levy, The Synagogue: Its History and Function [London: Vallentine and Mitchell, 1963], 11-14)

Levy has further been vindicated by discoveries after his study came out, most notably Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), esp. pp. 21-34, wherein Levine shows that pre-exilic synagogues existed as chambers in city gates. As I wrote in On Not Understanding the Book of Mormon:

Synagogues in the Book of Mormon

It has been a long-standing criticism of the Book of Mormon that its mention of “synagogues” represents an impossibility in the text. But Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined the term in a rather generic manner as a place of assembly for Jews, so its appearance in the Book of Mormon as an English translation is not problematic.

The original scholarly consensus was that synagogues did not exist until after the destruction of the second temple in AD 70, notwithstanding the mention of synagogues in the Gospels. With the discovery of synagogues in Egypt dating to the first and second centuries BC, the date was extended to the postexilic era. And further evidence indicates an even earlier date for the origin of the synagogue. In 621 BC, with the discovery of the Book of the Law (probably Deuteronomy), the Deuteronomic reformation occurred with Josiah at its head (see 2 Kings 22–24). At this time blood sacrifices and temple worship were centralized in Jerusalem, resulting in local congregations of Israelites who met for worship, prayer, and instruction.15 According to some scholars, such gatherings that took place in the chambers of city gates were the original synagogues. Furthermore, the use of certain terms such as bet haʿam (Jeremiah 39:8), miqdash-me ʿat (Ezekiel 11:16), and moʿade ʾel (Psalm 74:8) have been invoked to substantiate a preexilic date for synagogue origins.

In light of scholarship, the common charge that “synagogues” in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism has been refuted and shows our critics have not bothered to study this (and many other) issues.