Hebrews 12:9 and the New World Translation: Father of Our Spirits or Father of Our Spiritual Life?

 

 

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Heb 12:9 KJV)

 

Furthermore, we used to have fathers who were of our flesh to discipline us, and we used to give them respect. Shall we not much more subject ourselves to the Father of our spiritual life and live? (Heb 12:9 NWT)

 

Commenting on the NWT’s mistranslation of in τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων Heb 12:9, D. Charles Pyle wrote:

 

In [the NWT’s] rendering of Hebrews 12:9 it refers to God as “the Father of our spiritual life.” Older editions prior to 2013 admitted in a footnote that it literally read “Father of the spirts” there. But since 2013 they removed even that admission. But is such a translation as they have rendered correct? The answer actually turns out to be in the negative. There are a few days in which Greek could mean “of the spiritual life.” Examples of such was are the following: της ζωης της πνευματικης, της ζωης πνευματικης, ζωης της πνευματικης or ζωης πνευματικης. Any one of these is what we would expect to be present if the text should be translated as “the Father of our spiritual life.” Trouble is, the Greek text does not use any of these phrases. What it actually does use is: των πνευματων. This, in no way is the New World Translation a faithful translation of the Greek of Hebrews 12:9. It is not even close. Why might they have done this? Most likely it is because of their denial that man has a spirit. No spirit of man; no need for a “Father of our spirits” in such a passage. (D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Texts (Revised and Supplemented) [North Charleston, N.C.: CreateSpace, 2018], 366)

 

Interestingly, on p. 1001 of the Kingdom Interlinear, the translation in the interlinear portion of the text does not read "spiritual life" but "Father of the Spirits":

 

 

As for soul sleep (the doctrine that informs the NWT’s mistranslation of the verse), see the discussion at:

Response to Douglas V. Pond on Biblical and LDS Anthropology and Eschatology (see the section entitled "The Status of the Dead")

Paul R. Williamson on Genesis 3:15 and the Serpent

 

 

. . . even when one acknowledges that the author is referring here to a genuine serpent, it is clearly a most unusual example, possessing some extraordinary characteristics. [7] The most striking such feature is its communicative ability—this creature can verbalize its thoughts and converse rationally with human beings. [8] Moreover, it has astonishing knowledge—as well as being aware of God’s prohibition concerning the tree in the center of the garden, this snake knows what will happen when its forbidden fruit is consumed. [9] The uncanny intelligence of this serpent, along with the fact that both God and the woman speak to it, [10] thus suggests that—as with Balaam’s talking donkey—something extraordinary and unnatural is depicted here. Moreover, as the narrative progresses, the snake’s “cleverness” (ערום) is portrayed in an unambiguously sinister and negative light: not only does this creature impugn Yahweh’s motives and trustworthiness (3:5); he flatly contradicts what God has said, intentionally “deceives” (Hiphil נשא) the woman (3:13), [11] and is consequently cursed by God (3:14).

 

Accordingly, many interpreters reasonably conclude that the author is describing more than an encounter between the woman and an ordinary creature—even though a natural wild animal is undeniably involved. [12] For example, Delitzsch infers that “An animal is intended, but an animal not speaking of its own accord, but as made the instrument of itself by the evil principle . . . subsequently spoken of as Satan and his angels.” [13] Others likewise conclude that some “Dark Power,” [14] operating “behind the scene,” is manipulating each of the other characters (i.e., the woman, the man, and the snake) for its own malevolent purposes. Thus understood, “the Father of lies” (John 8:44) is here communicating with humans through the agency of a physical serpent, much as God subsequently communicated with Balaam through the mouth of the seer’s donkey. Admittedly, no such identification of the serpent with the devil is expressly made either here or elsewhere in Genesis, nor is this snake associated or equated with Satan anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, such explicit identification of the serpent with an evil power seems to transcend the boundaries of OT exegesis. Nevertheless, as already noted, there are several exegetical grounds for deducing that there is more to this creature than a naturalistic reading permits. The snake is not only surprisingly articulate, but also vilifies God and is deceitful with respect to the woman. Rather than simply explaining these extraordinary aspects in terms of ancient Near Eastern mythology, [15] we should arguably find in them a legitimate basis for subsequent Jewish and Christian interpretation. That is to say, while ancient readers might initially have thought in terms of a physical or even a mythological snake, by its deviant behavior the biblical author is at least implicitly portraying it as something quite sinister. Thus, however much we should avoid reading the later, more developed understanding of Satan back into the text of Genesis, we must nevertheless pick up the textual cues that direct us beyond a naturalistic interpretation. Accordingly, while it is correct to understand the strange creature depicted here in terms of a genuine, physical serpent, it is apparently one that is being manipulated or controlled by an unidentified supernatural intelligence.

 

Thus understood, the ensuing enmity referred to in v. 15 almost certainly alludes to something more significant than the mutual dread or animosity that exists between humans and snakes. While such a concept is undeniably present in the text, it arguably serves as a metaphor or symbol for something less mundane: the conflict between the woman and the serpent’s diabolical “puppet-master” that would evolve and reach its climax in their respective “seed.” Such a climatic understanding of verse 15b is indisputably controversial, but “it must be remembered that this is a curse on the serpent, not on mankind, and something less than a draw would be expected” [16] Construing the reference to the woman’s “seed” here as noting more than a collective more than a collective noun, many fail to discern any hint of a Protoevangelium in this text. However, the use of singular pronouns in association with זרע (“seed”) in Genesis arguably alludes to a single descendant. [17] Moreover, the fact that the singular “seed” of the woman will crush the head of the serpent (הוא ישופך ראש)—rather than the heads of the serpent’s seed—may be a further indication than a climactic engagement is in view. [18] Once again, it would be exegetically mistaken to infer from this more than the text of Genesis specifically suggests but even here there seems to be at least some hint of the climactic battle that is subsequently and most graphically recounted in Rev 12.

 

Notes for the Above

 

[7] One of the serpent’s extraordinary features that has traditionally been inferred from God’s curse in v. 14 (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.4; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 3:14; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 20;5) is the presence of limbs, an inference drawn also by some modern scholars (e.g. James Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent, AYBRL [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010], 87-88). However, as Day (“The Serpent in the Garden,” n.p.) more cautiously observes, “since nothing explicitly is said of the serpent’s having feet and legs and being deprived of them here it is perhaps preferable to think of the serpent as originally having a good sense of balance so that it could move upright without legs.”

 

[8] The fact that the woman expresses no shock or surprise does not imply that talking animals were considered normal by her; such is clear from Balaam’s equally unstartled response to his speaking donkey—which the biblical narrator clearly attributes to supernatural intervention (Num 23:28a). As Collins insightfully points out, “This is what the notion that we have here a ‘mythological world’ in which animals talk . . . misses the point badly.” C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literature, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2006), 171.

 

[9] It is clear from vv. 7 and 22 that the snake’s claim—that their eyes would be opened, and that they would become like God, knowing good and evil—was not entirely inaccurate. Rather, it was his positive spin on this—along with maligning God’s motivations and denying that they would die—that was deceptive, as the woman subsequently recognizes (v. 13).

 

[10] Significantly, in the case of Balaam’s donkey, with which this account is often compared, it is only after Balaam is addressed by his donkey that he actually speaks to it. Conversing with dumb animals was evidently not considered normal in either biblical account.

 

[11] God does not disregard the woman’s excuse, but immediately responds by cursing the snake.

 

[12] I.e., rather than a figurative depiction of a supernatural being who may or may not have appeared to the woman in serpentine form, a real snake is involved.

 

[13] Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock 1978 [orig. T&T Clark, 1888]), 1:149. Such an interpretation can be traced back as far as the intertestamental era (see below).

 

[14] Collins, Genesis 1-4, 171.

 

[15]For the possible echoes of such ancient Near Eastern thought in Gen 3, see John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015), 128-39; idem, Demons and Spirits, 128-29.

 

[16] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987, 80. Wenham further notes that “the serpent is in a tactically weaker situation, being able only to strike at man’s heel, while man can crush its head.” Moreover, while the same root (שוף “batter, crush, bruise”) is probably used in each line, “[o]nce admitted that the serpent symbolizes sin, death, and the power of evil, it becomes much more likely that the curse [on the serpent] envisages . . . mankind eventually triumphing” (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 80).

 

[17] So Jack Collins, “A Syntactical Note on Genesis 3:15: Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?” TynBul 48.1 (1997):141-48. See also T. Desmond Alexander, “Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” TynBul 48.2 (1997):363-67, and James M. Hamilton, ch. 1 above (a slightly revised version of “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10:2 [2006]: 30-54 [32]).

 

[18] If the reference to the serpent’s collective “seed,” the second person pronominal suffix on the verb here is arguably confusing and unnecessary (cf. Gen 49:10).

 

Source: Paul R. Williamson, “Snakes and Dragons: A Neglected Theological Trajectory of Genesis 3:15 in Scripture?” in Paul R. Williamson and Rita F. Cefalu, eds., The Seed of Promise: The Sufferings and Glory of the Messiah (GlossaHouse Festschrift 3; Wilmore, Ky.: GlossaHouse, 2020), 332-52, here, pp. 334-37

 

Further Reading

 

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

Water Baptism being a Spiritual Circumcision and Baptism being Salvific in Colossians 2:11-14

  

 

And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Col 2:11-14 NASB)

 

In this pericope, Paul states that those "in" (εν) Christ are circumcised with a spiritual circumcision (viz. water baptism [per v. 12]), and paralleling the language used in Rom 6:3-5, we are said to be buried together (συνθαπτομαι) with him "in baptism" (εν τω βαπτισμω), resulting in God freely forgiving (χαριζομαι) us of our trespasses (cf. Rom 6:7, where the Greek uses δικαιοω, "to be justified" as a result of one's water baptism). The only exegetically-sound interpretation is that this pericope teaches baptismal regeneration, not a merely symbolic understanding of water baptism. Of course, it is God, not man, who affects salvation and the forgiveness of sins through water baptism, as the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of baptism, cleanses us from sins and makes us into a new creature.

 

Commenting on this text, Protestants E.K. Simpson and F.F. Bruce noted:

 

Their baptism might, secondly, be viewed as their participation in Christ’s burial. The “putting off of the body of the flesh” and its burial out of sight alike emphasized that the old life was a thing of the past. They had shared in the death of Christ; they had also shared in His burial. Similarly, in Rom. 6:3ff. Paul argues that those who have been buried with Christ “through baptism into death” can no longer go on living as slaves to sin.

 

But baptism not only proclaims that the old order is over and done with; it proclaims that a new order has been inaugurated. The convert did not remain in the baptismal water; he emerged from it to begin a new life. Baptism, therefore, implies a sharing in Christ’s resurrection as well as in His death and burial. (E.K. Simpson and F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957], 235-36)

 

Commenting on the transformative nature of being incorporated “into Christ” in this text and the surrounding (vv. 9-15) verses one scholar noted:

 

Participating in Christ’s Fullness Christ has not only delivered his people from the domain of darkness, but he has brought them into his kingdom and bestowed on them his salvation . . . What Paul says about Christ [in Col 2:9] he immediately applies to the church by declaring, “in him you are filled” (εστε εν αυτω πεπληρωμενοι). The “in him” (εν αυτω) marks a major motif of the entire theological section of 2:9-15. Paul is hereby attempting to help these believers understand the full significance of being in Christ, especially as it relates to their concern about supernatural powers and their temptation to follow the solution offered by “the philosophy.” His solution is for them to gain a fuller- appreciation for their resources in Christ and to grasp hold of their leader and supplier (2:19) and to concentrate on the things above where Christ is at the right hand of God (3:1).

 

 The fullness of God—his power and his grace—are bestowed on believers by virtue of their incorporation into Christ. As Lightfoot has said, God’s πληρωμα is “transfused” into them. The perfect periphrastic construction (εστε . . .πεπληρωμενοι) emphasises their share in the divine fullness as part of their present experience. (Clinton Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface Between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae  [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995], 293-95)

 

In a book defending baptismal regeneration, Christopher Ogan wrote the following about the meaning of water baptism being a “spiritual” circumcision and how it supports water baptism being salvific:

 

Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin of the flesh, that is, the removal of the hard and insensitive part of the skin. Water baptism is a spiritual circumcision: a circumcision made without human hands, a circumcision made by Jesus Christ himself. At baptism the Lord Jesus circumcises us with a circumcision called the circumcision of Christ. So while we are being baptised physically here by men, Jesus is also busy circumcising us spiritually at the same time, removing the body of the sins of the flesh from off our body. This body of the sins of the flesh from off our body. This body of the sins of the flesh also called the nature of sin is what moves and compels us to sin even when we don't want to, but thank God it is removed at baptism from our body. If we were to see this circumcision I feel it would be like skinning the entire body. I would therefore say at baptism we are spiritually skinned to remove the part of our body that is susceptible to sin. Without the circumcision of baptism we are susceptible and easily attracted to sin. I believe part of the reason God commanded man (through Abraham) to be circumcised physically was for us to understand the spiritual circumcision that happens at baptism. Water Baptism is the spiritual replica of the physical circumcision of the flesh commanded through Abraham.

 

Genesis 17:11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

 

In this light, we see that baptism as a circumcision brings us into a covenant with God. At baptism we come into a spiritual union and covenant with God. We commit God to be the LORD and Saviour of our life. We commit God to secure our salvation and spiritual destiny as seen in Mark 16:16, where it is written that those who are baptised "shall be saved".

 

Also baptism as a circumcision regenerates us and delivers us from stiffneckedness and spiritual obstinacy.

 

Deuteronomy 10:16. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

 

When the insensitive part of us is removed at baptism, we become pliable and flexible to divine guidance.

 

Water baptism as a circumcision also enables us to love God with all our heart and soul. Note that, when God commands us to do a thing He always makes available the necessary enablement or ability to do as He commands. God commands us to love Him with all our heart and soul (Mark 12:30) and water baptism is God’s medium for the spiritual enablement to love God as He commands.

 

Deuteronomy 30:6. And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that shou mayest live. The LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart . . .

 

This I believe reveals why the Lord Jesus has to circumcise us with a circumcision made without hands at baptism. This circumcision also empowers us to love God with all our heart and soul. Until our heart is circumcised we cannot love God as He commands. If water baptism is a spiritual circumcision as documented in the Holy Bible then we need it if we must love God with all our heart, mind, soul, body and strength.

 

Water baptism as a spiritual circumcision prepares us for the Promised Land (Heaven). Circumcision prepared the children of Israel for the Promised Land.

 

Joshua 5:2. At the time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

3. And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.

4. And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.

5. Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.

7. And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.

8. And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.

9. And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.

13. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his word drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

14. And he said, Nay; but as captain of the hose of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

15. And the captain of the LORD’s host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

 

The same way circumcision prepared the children of Israel for the Promised Land, God sent John the Baptist with the mystery of water baptism to prepare us for Jesus and Heaven.

 

Note from the above scriptures that the place where the children of Israel were circumcised was called Gilgal. Gilgal was where the Israelites first encamped after crossing Jordan to enter the Promised Land (Joshua 4:19). At Gilgal they were circumcised again the second time, in other words they renewed their earlier covenant of circumcision with God. At Gilgal God rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off the children of Israel, that is, at Gilgal the disgrace and shame the children of Israel suffered at Egypt was removed. Also at Gilgal after the circumcision of the children of Israel, God sent an angel as a captain to fight for the children of Israel. In this light Gilgal can be seen as a place of new beginnings, a place of renewed covenant and commitment, a transition point for the children of Israel, a point where God took over their battle. All these pictures of Gilgal reflect what happens when we are spiritually circumcised at baptism.

 

We must also note that spiritual uncircumcision is part of the reason God’s wrath is coming upon man. To escape, God’s wrath and fury we must be spiritually circumcised through baptism.

 

Jeremiah 4:4. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

 

From the above scripture we understand that we can circumcise ourselves unto God, in other words we separate ourselves unto God through the spiritual circumcision at baptism. By submitting ourselves to the circumcision of water baptism we separate ourselves unto God. We see wherefore that water baptism separates us unto God; it prepares us to become vessels for God’s use. As exemplified in the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus, as soon as He was baptised, He became anointed, separated, empowered and commissioned for the kick off of His ministry on the earth (Luke 4:1-21). (Christopher Ogan, The Mystery of Water Baptism: Understanding Water Baptism [The Living Water Media, 2019], 61-67)

 

 

Further Reading

 

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Jerome D. Quinn on Titus 3:5 and Baptismal Regeneration

Chad Pierce on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration (cf. Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration? and. Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?)

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Paul S. Williamson on Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Andrew Lincoln on Paul's Theology of Water Baptism in Ephesians 5:26

J. Paul Sampley on Baptismal Regeneration and Ephesians 5:25-27 

On the related issue of imputed righteousness (which informs a lot of the errant arguments against baptismal regeneration and other doctrines), see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Old Testament Parallels to the Grammar of Genesis 19:24

 

The following passages, taken from the 1985 JPS Tanakh, are parallels to the grammar one finds  in Gen 19:24 (where, in the Hebrew, a noun is repeated instead of using a pronoun):

 

Then He [YHWH] said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, with Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, and bow low from afar. Moses alone shall come near the LORD; but the others shall not come near, nor shall the people come up with him." (Exo 24:1-2)

 

Then Solomon convoked the elders of Israel--all the heads of the tribes and the ancestral chieftains of the Israelites--before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up in the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD from the City of David, that is, Zion. (1 Kgs 8:1)

 

She conceived again and bore a daughter; and He said to him, "Name her Lo-ruhamah; for I will no longer accept the House of Israel or pardon them. (But I will accept the House of Judah. And I will give them victory through the LORD their God; I will not give them victory with bow and sword and battle, by horses and riders.)" (Hos 1:6, 7)

 

But the angel of the LORD said to the Accuser, "The LORD rebuke you, O Accuser, may the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! For this is a brand plucked from the fire." (Zech 3:2)

 

But I will make them mighty through the LORD, And they shall march proudly in His name--declares the LORD. (Zech 10:12)

 

Further Reading

Does Genesis 19:24 support the Trinity?

Keil and Delitzch on Genesis 19:24 not being a Trinitarian proof-text

Trinitarian Apologist States that there are Two Distinct Yahwehs (or, in other words, "two distinct Gods")

 

Brigham Young on the Consistency between the Bible and LDS Theology and Unique Scriptural Texts

 

 

There is no clash in the principles revealed in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants; and there would be no clash between any of the doctrines taught by Joseph the Prophet and by the brethren now, if all would live in a way to be governed by the Spirit of the Lord. All do not live so as to have the Spirit of the Lord with them all the time, and the result is that some get out of the way. (JOD 5:329 | October 7, 1857)

 

 

An Example of Early Latter-day Saint Use of Sensus Plenior

 

Is there anything said about this desert in prophecy? Yes. You can find many prophecies in Isaiah, David's psalms, and other Prophets, predicting that, about or near the time of the coming of the Lord, "the wilderness and the solitary place shall be made glad for them." That the "desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose; it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing." Isaiah further says that "the Lord shall comfort Zion; he shall comfort all her waste places, he shall make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and the voice of melody." Also that he would "cause springs of water to break out in the desert, and that the parched ground should become pools of living water." (Orson Pratt in JOD 17:317 | February 28, 1875)

 

Further Reading

 

 The LDS use of Isaiah 2:2-5

Duane Crowther on Isaiah 2:2 being about a future Temple in Jerusalem, not Salt Lake City

Sidney B. Sperry on Isaiah 2:2-5

E.W. Bullinger vs. those who claim Enoch Died

 

Some who believe in soul sleep (or its more strict form, soul death) believe that Enoch was not assumed (KJV "translated") into heaven, but instead, died. As example of this (absurd) interpretation can be found in the article by Jim Punton and Anthony Buzzard, Enoch and Elijah: Where Are They Now?

 

E.W. Bullinger (1837-1913) answered those who would try to interpret Gen 5/Heb 11 in such a manner:

 

It is a perversion of the truth of God, to hold from Genesis v. (apart from Heb. xi), that Enoch’s translation merely means “conversion from worldly life and carnal pursuits” (Philo, De Abrahamo, and elsewhere, thus allegorises the translation of Enoch), or to say that it means an early death, and thus a transition from this “mortal life to the immortal.”

 

Heb. xi. Is doubtless a Divine addition to Gen. v. The same Holy Spirit, who inspired Moses, inspired Paul, and gave us, by him, His own explanation.

 

When He explains that, “God took him,” and “he was not found,” He means that Enoch did “NOT SEE DEATH” at all, but that he was translated without dying, and was taken bodily from the earth.

 

It is equally a perversion to take the words “He is not here” used of a Risen Christ, and place them on a tomb-stone (as we have seen them) of one who is dead, and not risen.

 

Even in Gen. v. there is no the whole of the divine revelation; for elsewhere we learn that Enoch’s body must have been “changed” when he was “translated;” for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. xv. 50).

 

At death, “this spirit returns to God who gave it,” but “the body returns to earth as it was” (Ecc. xii. 7. Gen. iii. 19). At death, therefore, the body (the dust) remains on and in the earth. But, in Enoch’s case, his body “was not found:” because “God took him,” and he did not die at all.

 

How wrong it is therefore for any to use those words, spoken of one who did not die, and use them to-day of any one who has died!

 

Yet, how common it is for us to hear it said of one who has died, “God has taken him,” or “God has taken her!”

 

It is not true. It is not the truth. It is not only non-scriptural, but it is an unscriptural expression. In this case it would have been just as true for the Holy Spirit to have written “By faith Enoch died,” instead of “By faith Enoch was translated” . . . people do not die “by faith.” (E.W. Bullinger, Great Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrews Eleven [London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1911; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1979], 94-95)

 

 

Brigham Young: Satan is the Author of All Other Religions

 

In a sermon from 1857, Brigham Young addressed the issue of the multiplicity of religions, and how, echoing the words of the psalmist who said that "for the gods of the nations are idols" (Psa 96:5), attributed Satan as the ultimate founder thereof:

 

There will be a kingdom on the earth that will be controlled upon the same basis, in part, as that of the Government of the United States; and it will govern and protect in their rights the various classes of men, irrespective of their different modes of worship; for the law must go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and the Lord Jesus will govern every nation and kingdom upon the earth.

 

A great many have thought that every person will then be in the Church, but that will not be the case. There will then be as great a variety in religious belief as there is now; one will believe one thing, and another will believe something different, while the Devil rules among men.

 

Will the kingdom of Jesus triumph? It will; and the legislators of that kingdom are in this congregation and will remain, and the laws of that kingdom will be made in accordance with the revelations from Jesus Christ. (JOD 3:329-30 | October 7, 1857)

 

Would that modern Latter-day Saints, including many leaders, had such a view, instead of cosying up with the Pope and other leaders of false religions without sharing the true Gospel with them.

Live Tweeting General Conference 3-4 October!

 As you know (or should know!) next weekend (3-4 October) is General Conference weekend, which means I will be "live tweeting" most of the sessions with serious and not so serious comments. My twitter feed can be found here.

Chris Fisher Discusses Open Theism with Justin Wilson

 Chris Fisher has just posted a 2 1/2 hour video of him fielding questions and objections to Open Theism:

EP311 Chris Fisher in the Hotseat On Justin Wilson

As many of these are the standard objections to Open Theism, it will serve to be a good "go-to" source

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT) on Genesis 15:6

 

 

On the use of חשׁב

 

6. Gen. 15:6. Unquestionably ḥšb attained its greatest theological significance and influence in the context of Gen. 15:6: “He (Abram) believed Yahweh, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.” The verse has been assigned to various literary strata: E, J, JE^R, etc. There is more agreement concerning its function. It refers back to 15:1–5, summarizes from a distance, interprets, and states the conclusion. It is a “solemn statement” and “almost has the quality of a general theological tenet.”

 

This conclusion is in agreement with the syntactic structure. The narrative consecutive imperfect (wayyaḥš^eḇehā) still dominates, but it is introduced by a perfect with w^e (w^eheʾ^emîn), which—whether categorized as temporal (“and when …”) or frequentative (“and repeatedly …”)—is in turn subordinate to the consecutive imperfect. The verbal suffix appended to ḥšb transforms the perfect clause into an object clause (“and the fact that Abram believed Yahweh”), thus establishing the dependency of the introductory clause on the main clause. Here w^e does not function as a tense marker; it serves instead to interrupt the narrative and establish distance; at the same time, in the manner of clauses linked by means of w^e (often with the effect of surprise), it marks the transition to a conclusion introduced by a confirming perfect.

 

Gen. 15:6 makes use of three semantic elements: the phrase heʾ^emîn b^e, “trust in, believe in”; the term ṣ^eḏāqâ, “righteousness” (i.e., being in proper order); and the phrase ḥšb with accusative suffix plus l^e and an accusative object, “account something to someone as something.” Various interpretations base themselves on the origin of these three elements and the way they are combined.

 

Von Rad looked for the origin of the latter two elements (i.e., v. 6b) in “the conventional phrases of the cultus.” On the basis of the ḥšb niphal passages, he arrives at a “process which results in a cultic judgment” occupying an important place in the cultus, a “declaratory act” performed by the priest in the name of Yahweh, using “declaratory formulae” to state the cultic acceptance of the sacrifice. Considering the term ṣ^eḏāqâ and its use in the cult, he arrived at a “quite different aspect of the Yahwistic cultus”: the “temple-gate liturgies.”

 

In the central statement of these liturgies (in the form of some such declaratory formula as “He is righteous; he shall have his life” [Ezk. 18:9]) he thought to find once again a “cultic reckoning,” although as he admits the verb ḥšb does not occur in these texts. In these two areas of the cult—sacrifice and entrance liturgy—he identified the traditio-historical roots of Gen. 15:6b, although he describes the passage itself as “polemical and revolutionary,” breaking the cultic dependence on an act of sacrifice and transferring the “reckoning” to the “sphere of a free and wholly personal relationship between God and Abraham”—in other words, spiritualizing it.

 

Lohfink criticizes von Rad’s explanation on three points: (1) the traditio-historical setting is not clearly defined, i.e., the context of Gen. 15:6a and 15:1–5 is not taken into account; (2) the passage does not in fact represent a spiritualization of cultic acts but rather an interpretation of the promise to Abraham on the basis of cultic experiences and ideas; and (3) the term ṣ^eḏāqâ, “righteousness,” does not occur in the context of “cultic reckoning,” at least when sacrifice is offered (cf. Lev. 7:18; 17:4). Lohfink, following Kaiser and others, thinks that the “oracle of salvation” was the realm of experience “that was drawn upon to interpret the ancient Abraham tradition,” and that the interpretative elements of Gen. 15:6 all fit within this framework: confidence in the acceptance of the divine oracle, “perhaps in the form of a hymn of praise”; “correctness” (ṣ^eḏāqâ, Akk. kittu) in the oracular ritual; and the crediting or reckoning, consisting (as in the case of von Rad) in a “declaration of correctness made by the priest” (“cultic use of ḥšb”).

 

Both discussions are imprecise at one crucial point: the meaning of the ḥšb phrase. Von Rad observes that ḥšb occurs only in the first of his cultic contexts (sacrifice), and focuses precisely on its use there as an interpretative element, reflecting cultic acts: “The difference between the declaratory formulae and the occurrences of the cultic term חרב is simply that the latter are found in directions to the priests, instructing them in the kind of tests they are to apply. The former prescribe the exact form of words on the declaration to be made to the worshipper.” But he is unable to explain the relationship of these very late and secondary⁸³ instructions dealing with peripheral cultic themes to Gen. 15:6. The entrance liturgy is the setting for ṣ^eḏāqâ and the oracle of salvation may well be the setting for heʾ^emîn, but neither is the setting for ḥšb. We can only conclude that in the use of ḥšb in Gen. 15:6 we are dealing with a situation independent of the P passages but parallel to them and to Gen. 50:20 and Ps. 32:2 as well, where ḥšb has been employed ad hoc to interpret a cultic and theological circumstance.

 

The specific contribution of this element to the total statement made by Gen. 15:6 may be described in two ways:

a. The summary nature of the passage is underlined. The act(s) of accepting faith is finally reckoned as a deciding factor in the relationship with Yahweh. The expression, probably shaped by notions associated with the law of debts (cf. 2 S. 19:20[19]), calls the outcome of the events depicted a settlement of accounts in a theological sense, deliberately echoing commercial language—as the context shows. The interpretation of the promise to Abraham found in Gen. 15:1–6 uses such expressions and ideas throughout. Note the promise of great reward (v. 1), the question of how it is to be paid (v. 2), the negotiations about property and inheritance (3 occurences of yrš in vv. 3f.), and the demonstration of numbers (v. 5). All of this leads up to ḥšb. The reckoning of belief as ṣ^eḏāqâ documents the conclusion of the transaction. (On the commercial style of the pericope [cf. also Gen. 31:25ff. and esp. 18:20ff.] as an interpretative element, see the discussion by von Rad.)

 

b. Since the verb in its origin exhibits a personal and rational semantic structure in its usual subject, its use in Gen. 15:6 evokes a sense of what has been termed “inwardness, subjectivity, spiritualization,” a transfer “to the sphere of a free and wholly personal relationship.” The term that appears primarily in Wisdom Literature is here used uniquely to designate an extraordinary occurrence. Together with the (cultic?) notion of ṣ^eḏāqâ it serves to define Yahweh’s momentary reaction theologically as an act of conscious judgment. (K. Seybold, “חָשַׁב,” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 5 [trans. David E. Green; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986], 241-44)

 

On the use of צָדַק

 

In Gen. 15:6 Yahweh reckons ṣ^eḏāqâ to Abraham. A similar passage reckons Phinehas’s intercession as righteousness (liṣḏāqâ, Ps. 106:31). In Gen. 15:6 ṣ^eḏāqâ is used without a preposition, showing that the fem. suf. in wayyaḥš^eḇehā can be colored by ṣ^eḏāqâ. This construction along with the consecutive verb form w^eheʾ^emîn emphasize the divine action; God made promises to him, he believed, and God reckoned it to him as righteousness.

 

A new understanding of this verse has emerged that takes Abraham as the consistent subject throughout the verse. That is, Abraham believed the Lord and reckoned it (i.e., what the Lord had promised) to him as (a manifestation of his) righteousness. Elements militating against this view include especially the consecutive verb form and the divine name immediately before the verb “and he reckoned,” where “he” can more naturally refer to God. (Helmer Ringgren and Bo Johnson, “צָדַק,” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 12 [trans. Douglas W. Stott; Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans, 2003], 253–254)

 

Further Reading

 

 Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament:

Part 1 (LXX Apocrypha)

Part 2 (Greek Pseudepigrapha)

Part 3 (Apostolic Fathers)

Part 4 (Josephus)

Part 5 (Philo)

Part 6 (Modern Lexical Sources)

Part 7 (Summary)

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology