Ron Kidd (Christadelphian) on Jesus Benefitting (Salvifically) from His Own Sacrifice

  

Jesus benefitted from his own sacrifice

 

Though Jesus was the Son of God, he was a man subject to the conditions of his mortality; he was a partaker of flesh and blood and, as such was subject to death. In recognition of this, the apostle reminds us that “in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared” (Hebrews 5:7). Being the Son of God did not guarantee Jesus everlasting life; he overcame, not because he was born the Son of God, but because he committed himself to his Father’s Will; “though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:7-8; 10:7-9), and, because of his obedience, God “highly exalted him” (Philippians 2:8-9).

 

Time and again the Scriptures highlight Jesus’ own need for salvation. The Psalmist writes: “He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also, I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth>” (psalm 89:26, 27). It is impossible to escape the fact that, when Jesus died for us, as a son of Adam, he also benefitted; he was “brought again from the dead . . . through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Hebrews 13:20); he was the “firstfruits of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). The apostle says: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once unto the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12). The words “for us”, in the King James Version, are in italics, signifying that they are not found in the original Greek, thus placing the emphasis upon Jesus and not those he came to save. Brother John Carter remarks in his study of Hebrews:

 

“It has been many times pointed out (Blood of Christ, page 9; Law of Moses, pages 91 and 172) that the italicized words “for us” in the A.V. are an unwarranted addition. They are omitted by the R.V. If any words are added they should be “for himself”—but the fact that he obtained eternal redemption involves this. And there it may be remarked that he needed redemption, otherwise how could it be said that he obtained it? And it was by his own blood that he obtained it. He was himself sharer in the effects of his own sacrifice, because he was a member of the fact that is mortal because of sin” (Ron Kidd, Principles of the Atonement, 36-37)

 

Further Reading

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

William G. Hartley on Early Opposition to Brigham Young's January 14, 1847 revelation (modern-day D&C 136)

  

Revelation and Leadership

 

Late in November, President Young sent word for Bishop Miller and James Emmett to come to Winter Quarters, which they did, on foot, by Christmas (Journal History, November 25 and 26, 1846). Council of Fifty discussions produced the decision [that] Ponca Saints should go west up the Niobrara towards the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, apparently near today’s Casper, Wyoming (Brooks, On the Mormon Frontier 1:221 [December 27, 1846]). President Young invited Bishop Miller to move down to Winter Quarters to help Bishop Newel K. Whitney manage the Church’s finances. Miller went into Missouri for goods for the Ponca Camp and then returned to Winter Quarters. There he learned that on January 14 President Young had presented a revelation to the Church regarding how the trek west should be organized. This “Word and Will of the Lord,” now Section 136 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, instructed the Saints to organize into companies led by three-man presidencies and subled by captains of hundreds, fifties, and tens “under the direction of the Twelve Apostles.”

 

Bishop Miller disliked the revelation because he believed the Council of Fifty, not the Twelve, should direct the move west. He was displeased, too, by how Brigham Young had swelled the Council of Fifty’s membership and, he claimed, changed its purposes. Miller also chafed at Brigham’s plan to reestablish a First Presidency for the Church; he believed the Church must have a prophet-leader instead. Miller felt “broken down in spirit” by what he believed was “usurpation” of authority by the Twelve and because of “oppressive measures” he felt the Twelve were taking. Deeply troubled, he was “from this time, determined to go with them no longer” and to separate himself and his family from the westward venture (Mills, “De Tal Palo Tal Astilla,” 111-12).

 

Bishop Miller returned to Fort Ponca, followed by new Apostles Ezra T. Benson and Elder Erastus Snow from Winter Quarters. On February 7 and 8 that visitors presented Brigham Young’s new revelation to the camp, which then numbered 396 Saints, including 98 men. Elders Benson and Snow stayed two weeks. Elder Benson did public preaching, which the Saints appreciated, having been “so long isolated from the body of the Church.” In accord with the new revelation, Elder Benson nominated camp officers—including John—for a westward trek that spring, and Ponca Saints voted to sustain them. With Miller now ordered to do bishopric work at Winter Quarters, Titus Billings, Erastus Brigham, and Joseph Holbrook became the Ponca group’s presidency, a leadership change that sparked no recorded criticism among the Ponca Saints. Hyrum Clark was installed as a captain of hundred. David Lewis and Vincent Shurtliff became captains of fifty. John Butler and nine others were selected to be captains of ten wagons each (Journal History, January 27, 28, 29, 30, February 8, and 15, 1847). (William G. Hartley, My Best for the Kingdom: History and Autobiography of John Lowe Butler a Mormon Frontiersman [C. L. Dalton Enterprises, 2017], 226-27)

 

William G. Hartley on the Miraculous Healing Associated with a Cloak blessed by Joseph Smith

  

Cloak Blessed by a Prophet

 

Sickness sometimes was rampant in Nauvoo, and Joseph Smith went among the people and administered to them. On occasion he blessed cloth articles that could be used by others in healing and blessing the sick and afflicted (Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 221-23, and illustration 89, a patch from the Butler cloak). For the benefit of the Butler family, he blessed John’s large broadcloth cape or cloak. During the rest of their lives, John and Caroline wrapped this cloak around family members when they became ill. In time the coat passed to the next generation. In 1945 Bertha M. Butler wrote that the family of John Lowe Butler Jr., inherited the cloak:

 

The family would often put it around an afflicted person and through their faith in the blessing of the cape they were made better. The cape became old and somewhat shabby and was finally cut into ten pieces, one piece each for the ten [nine surviving] children of John L. Butler II. My husband John Lowe Butler III received one piece of the cape and I have had it in my possession for nearly 30 years. (William G. Hartley, My Best for the Kingdom: History and Autobiography of John Lowe Butler a Mormon Frontiersman [C. L. Dalton Enterprises, 2017], 114)

 

In the endnote to the above, we read that

 

Bertha Butler Thuber, “John Lowe Butler’s Coak,” BFA. Bertha said that at a Daughters of Utah Pioneers meeting where she told about the cape, a sister who did not feel well eagerly grasped the cape, believing it could heal. “She said when she touched it there was a great thrill went all thru her boy, she gave testimony that this piece of cape really carried healing power with it. She felt the power go thru her system and has been better since that time.” In 1957 Zettie Butler Christiansen, another daughter of John Lowe Butler, Jr., told her daughter Laurel, “When our family were youngsters we knew that if we were ill, if we wrapped a certain cloak around us we would get well. The cloak was one which was blessed by the Prophet Joseph Smith for the purpose of healing the sick and was given to my grandfather John Lowe Butler, Sr., who in turn gave it to my father, John Lowe Butler, Jr. Each of father’s children, including those of his second wife, were given a pieces of the cloak.” Zettie Butler Christiansen, typed copy of statement in BFA. (Ibid., 452 n. 49)

 

John Bond’s Reminiscence of a Prophecy of Franklin D. Richards

  

[The Martin Company] learned that two LDS Church wagon trains, the Hunt and Hodgetts companies, would leave Florence after all the handcarters departed. John Jacques wrote that the PEF instructed the ninety ox-driven wagons to stay close to the last handcart party during the overland expedition (John Jaques, “Some Reminiscences”). This wise decision, which ultimately saved many lives, was a rare demonstration of PEF concern for the safety of the inexperienced handcart emigrants.

 

The same precaution was not applied to the critical issue of a late departure. Historian Howard Christy wrote that Church leaders warned for years that a May departure from the Missouri River was needed to ensure arrival in Utah before winter storms (Howard A. Christy “Weather Disaster and Responsibility: An Essay on the Wille and Martin Handcart Story,” BYU Studies 37, no. 1, 11-13). Questions about the lateness of the season continued to circulate among the Saints. Franklin Richards called a meeting for the evening of August 24 (Rogerson, “Martin’s Handcart Company, 1856 [No. 3]”). Four hundred emigrants who made up the Hunt and Hodgetts wagon train joined more than six hundred members of the enlarged Martin company for the event. Apostle Richards was one of the Church’s highest-ranking officials and an enthusiastic architect of the handcart experiment. He had the authority to postpone the reckless departure until spring, but he chose differently. According to Hodgetts company member John Bond, Richards acknowledged that some Saints were fearful of snowstorms in the Rocky Mountains. He then prophesied, in the name of Israel’s God, that the handcart company would be protected form all storms, that God would keep the way open, and that they would arrive in Zion safely. However, Christy observed that everyone in charge of managing the handcart emigration seemed to accept the comforting idea that “God would ‘overrule’ the elements sufficiently to assure success irrespective of the degree of risk” (Christy, Weather, Disaster, Responsibility,” 73).

 

In fact, John Bond recalled two exceptions to the leadership’s wishful thinking. John A. Young, Brigham’s eldest son, warned that the Martin company would not be able to cross the Rocky Mountains safely because of the freezing weather, higher altitudes and the shortness of food. He continued, “Such would cause untold agonies, sickness and much loss of life . . . my father’s agents have lost too much time in starting the Saints to arrive in the valley safely” (Bond, “handcarts West in ‘56”). Chauncy Webb, who oversaw construction of the handcarts at Iowa City, also urged the Saints to winter along the Missouri (Margaret A. Clegg, “Margaret A. Clegg’s Statement,” in Edward Martin Company, Mormon Pioneer Overland Travel database). (Myron Harrison, Rescuing Beefsteak: The Story of a Pragmatic Pioneer Idealist [Jackson, Wyo.: Myron Crandall Harrison, 2018], 22-23)

 

Here is Bond’s reminiscences:

 

A MEETING AT FLORENCE

 

At Florence, we found Franklin D. Richards, George D. Grant, William H. Kimball, and others. As the last two wagon trains and hand carts arrived, a council was called, urging the Saints not to fear the lateness of the time. The hand cart Saints were afraid the season was too late to make any more travel that year on account of the snow and cold weather which would have to be endured in crossing the Rocky Mountains before they reached Salt Lake City. Franklin D. Richards spoke with great passion and feeling. he told the Saints that they had come this far on their faith and had arrived safely. He said, "You have heard the testimony of the former brethren as to your traveling westward." He told them he believed they would arrive at the valley in safety. Many of the Saints had been fervently praying that God would guide the Apostle and that they would start in the right path to his camp. Richards told them that as they had the faith to travel this far, they had better journey on to the end and he prophesied in the name of Israel's God that the Saints would arrive safely in the valley in spite of the inclement weather and storms from all directions. That God would keep them safe.

(John Bond, Handcarts West in '56 [1945], 12)

 

Some Notes on Book of Mormon Passages

What God declares he brings about; his declarations are based on reality, not an imputation (cf. Gen 1: God says “let here be ‘x’” and there was ‘x’”):

 

And the Lord God said unto me: THey shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction. (2 Nephi 5:25)

 

Man not able to merit anything of themselves outside the enablement of God's grace:

 

And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself, but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory, and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king. (Alma 22:14)

 

Jesus being the man cause/instrument of the end-times resurrection:

 

And I know that he will raise me up at the last day, to dwell with him in glory, yea, and I will praise him forever, and he has brought our fathers out of Egypt, and he has swallowed up the Egyptians in the Red Sea; and he led them by his power into the promised land, yea, and he has delivered them out of bondage and captivity from time to time. (Alma 36:28)

 

Different “resurrection” for those “in Christ” and those not “in Christ”?—seeds of later development we see in 1 Cor 15 and the different “bodies” (cf. interpretation of 1 Cor 15:40ff. in Irenaeus and even Francis Turretin):

 

Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh. (Jacob 4:11)

 

Kristian A. Bendoraitis on Matthew 22:29-30

  

Jesus’ initial address to the Sadducees, ‘You are wrong [πλανασθε], because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God’ (Mt. 22.29) seems to support a reading of Mt. 22.30 that understands the life of the resurrection to be different from what the Sadducees expected. Moreover, to simply negate marriage in the resurrection would be to play on the Sadducees’ terms. Jesus’ response undermines the presupposition their question implies (cf. Mt. 22.18-22). They have misunderstood the concept of resurrection life on a more fundamental level and reckoned that it would be a resumption of life as currently understood. For the Sadducees, if all seven brothers and the wife were resuscitated, there would be a question concerning whose wife she will be (or, they want to know which husband will continue the male line). However, Jesus says that instead of this, resurrection life will be something completely different—something akin to how the life of angels differs from life now. Tradition often holds that angels are associated with heaven and thus their lives are quite different from that on earth. In light of this, it may be that Matthew is drawing on the contrast between angelic life and earthly life. (Kristian A. Bendoraitis, ‘Behold, the Angels Came and Served Him’: A Compositional Analysis of Angels in Matthew [Library of New Testament Studies 523; London: T&T Clark, 2015, 2018], 151)

 

Notes from David W. Hughes, “Astronomical Thoughts on the Star of Bethlehem"

  

The Clue Associated with “West Before” and “Stood Over”

 

Matthew 2:9 provides a real astronomical stumbling block. In this verse, we read that “there ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its resting, until it stopped over the place where the child was.” Stars are not usually referred to as being “ahead.” The huge distance between them and the Earth makes this unlikely. Some researchers take “ahead” to mean “in the direction of Bethlehem, on the horizon” (i.e., south (as seen from Jerusalem). Here, at the specific time of day when the magi left Herod and Jerusalem, the Star of Bethlehem was in the low southern sky, indicating where Bethlehem was. However, any star moves speedily across the sky due to the diurnal spin of the Earth. In fact, these stars in the southern sky are moving east to west, not in the required direction, which, for that specific journey, is north to south. Also, this stellar direction-pointer was completely unnecessary. The magi had been told that Jesus was in Bethlehem, ten kilometres south of Jerusalem. The prediction in Micah 5:2 (“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel whose origin is from of old, from ancient days”) had been pointed out to the magi. (Notice that in the King James Version of the Bible, the terms “go before” and “stood over” replace the terms “ahead” and “stopped over,” and are equally as problematic from an astronomical standpoint.)

 

The literal interpretation of the phrase “stopped over” indicates a star that essentially points to the stable/house/cave in Bethlehem where Jesus and his parents were at the time of the magi’s visit, just like a modern satellite navigation system. This precision is surely unnecessary. 2000 years ago, in the small town of Bethlehem, there would have been about ten boy children born per year. If we then factor in the number of boys who had been visited by a cacophony of shepherds at their nativity and had a mother who was a virgin (and who, in the eyes of many of the Jewish folk living in the town, had had a child out of wedlock—think of the gossip!), finding the holy family would have been a piece of cake. Indicating a specific dwelling would remove the start from the celestial realm to a hovering distance a few tens of meters above the ground. If this was the case, when Herod’s soldiers turned up to slaughter the innocents a few days later, why was the specific house not pointed out by parents who were hoping to save their own children?

 

Some interpreters take the phrase “stopped over” to mean “in the zenith”—directly overhead. Astronomically this introduces a distinct restriction. Stars that pass through the zenith have the same celestial declination as the geographical latitude of the location. Bethlehem is 32.7365^o N. Other researchers take Matt 2:9 as absolute truth. Here the star has to physically be ahead (or ‘go before’) and stand over. It has to lead the way. This interpretation moves us from the realm of scientific astronomy into the realm of miracles. The Star of Bethlehem then enters walking on water, feeding the five thousand, infecting swine, and turning water into wine territory.

 

Let us be critical. If “his star” was a miraculous ball-lightening-like apparition, leading the magi by the hand from their hometown, why did they have to divert to Jerusalem and see Herod? Any miraculous star could have easily taken the magi straight to Bethlehem. There was a good road bypassing Jerusalem. In fact, it is exactly the road the magi allegedly used to go home after they had visited the holy family. The “ahead,” “went before,” and “stood over” clues are uncomfortable. Anyone putting forward an astronomical explanation has to seriously downgrade them to second class. On the other hand, Sten Odenwald suggests that the phrase “went before” refers to the retrograde motion of the planet’s observed path across the sky near opposition, whereas the phrase “stopped over,” “stood over” refers to the last of the two stationary points in the planet’s path. (David W. Hughes, “Astronomical Thoughts on the Star of Bethlehem,” in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy, ed. Peter Barthel and George van Kooten [Leiden: Brill, 2015], 114-16)

 

Notes from Aaron Adair, “A Critical Look at the History of Interpreting the Star of Bethlehem in Scientific Literature and Biblical Studies"

  

. . . the tale we are told ought to have been recorded for multiple reasons. According to the Gospel of Matthew, King Herod had infants in Bethlehem murdered in order to root out the escaping Christ-child. Something he did in part because of what he was told by the magi. The appearance and announcements of the magi in Jerusalem were supposed to have put the entire city in great fear (Matt 2:3), and yet the events of the slaughter of the innocents go unrecorded outside of the gospel and derivative literature. Even more problematic is that the coming of the magi should have been an international affair involving the most powerful empires in the region. Magi were a part of the Persian government, having a role as king-makers in their own land. Had they come to a Roman-controlled territory to declare someone else its king, usurping not just the authority of Herod the Great but also of Caesar Augustus, there should have been a diplomatic showdown or even a war between the Roman and Persian empires, as there were when similar disputes over who was to control the satellite country of Armenia came up between the ancient superpowers. But again, this Judean incident received no mention in any historical accounts of the period, an implausible silence in the record.

 

Even comparing the story with the records of other Christians show how problematic the tale is as history. No independent account of the Star of Bethlehem exists in all of the Christian sources we have. The other canonical version of the birth of Jesus comes from the Gospel of Luke, and it contains well-known contradictions of the Matthean version of events, most notably the time of Jesus’ birth. In Matthew, Jesus is born before the death of Herod the Great in 5/4 BCE, while in Luke he is born during the census of Quirinius in 6/7 CE, a disparity of at least a decade. Luke recalls none of the major details of the star legend, including the magi, the escape to Egypt and return to the Holy Land, the slaughter of the innocents, or anything that would even have suggested that Jesus’ birth would have been noticed by or threatening to local rules such as Herod. This situation is even worse if Luke knew that Matthean Gospel, but considering that this question would require addressing the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, an exploration that cannot be adequately undertaken here.

 

The haunting silence of the historical silence of the historical record with regard to an event that would have rocked the Roman world, the inconsistencies of what we know of the peoples involved, the contradictions with other Christian narratives, combined with the question of how reliable a source the gospel authors are, all make it impossible to believe that this story is based on events from the time of Jesus’ birth. (Aaron Adair, “A Critical Look at the History of Interpreting the Star of Bethlehem in Scientific Literature and Biblical Studies,” in The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Experts on the Ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman World, and Modern Astronomy, ed. Peter Barthel and George van Kooten [Leiden: Brill, 2015], 67-69)

 

Notes from Donald E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the Synoptics

  

The Book of Job. Job uses לֵב twenty times and לֵבָב nine times along these lines. First, it is the place of hidden thoughts (10:13; 17:11), intentions (34:14), a firm resolve (41:24), and the origination of both unspoken (1:5; 22:22) and spoken (8:10) words. Second, it can be used for evaluating someone or something (1:8; 2:3) or beneficent love (7:17). Third, it is the moral compass (27:6) and where either uprightness resides (33:3), including the desire to get right with someone (11:13), or godlessness (36:13). Fourth, it is susceptible to deception derived through the senses, especially the eyes (15:12; 31:7, 9, 27). Fifth, it is the locus of emotions such an unhealthy fear (23:16; 37:1) or joy (29:13).

 

Job also embodies explicit concepts of wisdom in keeping with the Deuteronomic notions mentioned the earlier. First, Yahweh is ontologically-functionally ‘wise in heart’ (9:4) whereas men are not (37:24). Second, unlike volition, the לֵב/לֵבָב by itself may substitute as a metonymy for ‘wisdom’ or one of its effects such as perception, knowledge, or understanding (12:3; 34:10, 35; 36:5). Thus to ‘take away heart’ (to deprive one from understanding [12:24]) or ‘hide’ one from שֵׂכֶל ‘understanding’ (17:4) is the act where Yahweh refuses to grant administrative wisdom (but it is not limited to this function elsewhere). Third, it is God who puts wisdom (חָכְמָה) “in the inward parts” (בַּטֻּחוֹת) but “gives perception [בִינָה] to the mind [לַשֶּׂכְוִי].” These latter concepts harmonize well with Deut 5:29 and 29:3[4] which refer to Yahweh’s right to deprive whomsoever of wisdom, salvific or otherwise. It testifies then to the congenital absence of such.

 

The final cause of granting wisdom is mot often a functional one, but the granting of wisdom itself is ontological and gratuitous in nature.

 

A few passages deserve further comment. Job 12:20 says, “He causes the speech of the trusty to turn aside [מֵסִיר ‘turns aside’] he takes away [יִקָּח] the taste/discernment of wisdom (of whatever kind) from ‘taking away’ implies depletion of wisdom (of whatever kind) from these elders. But several non-depletive interpretations may be given. First, ‘take away’ may refer to the death of counsellors. Thus he does not take away the discernment from within the elders but from the hearing of the people they advise by taking away the elders in death. If depletion is involved it is the depletion of life (cf. 12:2). Second, God may stop supplying wisdom to individual elders in the sense he holds back wisdom from reaching them (cf. 12:15; 38:36). Again, this would not necessitate depletion but deprivation. Third, the verbs ‘turns aside’ the lips and ‘takes’ understanding of the elders might be construed as from the people (not elders), complimentary indicating the advice given to the people is no longer issue and focusing on the source of wisdom (God). The emphasis may fall entirely on the external.

 

Job 12:24 says, “He turns aside [מֵסִיר] understanding [לֵב] from the leaders of the people of the land and causes them to wander in the wilderness where there is no way. The verb for ‘turn aside’ may mean ‘take away’ in the sense of depletion as in Ezek 11:19 where God takes away the bad, that is, the stony heart and replaces it with the good, that is, a heart of flesh (Ezek 36:36). But nowhere is this verb used for depleting the good from within man. An alternative rendering is based on the root of this verb ‘to deviate’ and may refer to God’s withholding if further wisdom as a deviation of sorts. God ‘turns aside’ wisdom from reaching the destination of man’s heart or from reaching the leaders through other sources. This would flow well with 17;4 where God ‘hides’ wisdom for it is he who imparts of refuses to impart wisdom (Job 38:36). Thus God ‘turns aside’ wisdom by removing the continual giving or suspending it for a time. In either case, there is no antecedent cause given for why God does this.

 

Job 17:4 says, “For you have hidden [צָפַנָתָּ] their heart from understanding [מִּשָּׂכֶל].” Job is referring to his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. The central point is not what type of wisdom is here designated but that God withholds understanding and controls whom possesses it. The divine act of hiding may be by withholding what has never been there or ceasing to give what has been given up to this point. For whatever wisdom they do possess, they still lack this wisdom—and most likely ab initio. There is little in Job that demands that God ‘takes away,’ ‘turns aside,’ or ‘hides’ wisdom by subtraction from within. It is much more likely that he does so by deprivation from without. (Donald E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the Synoptics [Studies in Biblical Literature 100; New York: Peter Lang, 2006], 115-17)

 

Apparent Exceptions to the Evil Heart. The heart (לֵב) is also depicted in a non-negative sense. Although there are no positive occurrences in Genesis, Exodus mentions a ‘glad’ heart (functional), a ‘willing’ heart (functional), a heart ‘stirred up,’ (functional) a ‘generous’ heart (functional), a ‘wise’ heart that is filled with the spirit/wind of wisdom (ontological-functional), a heart stirred up in wisdom or simply a ‘wise’ heart (ontological-functional), and includes various references to Yahweh giving or not giving wisdom and a new heart, or putting something into the heart. The other term for heart (לֵבָב) is depicted as one with Yahweh’s words inscribed on it, that seeks God (Deut 4:29) has ‘integrity’ (in parallel with ‘innocent hands), is the ‘undivided’ heart, with which one is to love God (6:5), and an ‘upright’ heart, that is ‘soft’ and ‘tender,’ a ‘good,’ ‘glad,’ and a ‘turning’ heart. All of these latter usages are functional. Whenever an explicit cause of the positive notion of the heart is mentioned and this involves in some way an ontological aspect, it is the result of the divine activity, not a latent ability. The functional may nor may not involve the divine initiative.

 

Yahweh’s benevolence is depicted in Deut 5:29, “Oh that there were such a heart in them, to fear me and to keep all my commandments everyday so that it would be well with them and their children.” The expression “Oh that there were such” (מִי-יִתֵּן, 5:29; 28:67) occurs in desiderative sentences (Qal imperfect tense form) suggesting a wish for a situation that is not present. However, some argue that it is an expression of divine agreement with the previous verse. Yahweh reportedly expresses a wishful desire for this present obedience to be the case now and in the future. He longs for them to always have such a heart that pledges obedience as they presently do. In this view, ontology is set aside and the function is emphasized. Furthermore, it is limited to a specific people at a particular time. But there is good reason to set aside this interpretation.

 

The following expression seems to go beyond the mere verbiage of that generation to the core of the issue. The phrase (מִי-יִתֵּן) occurs twenty-five times in the Qal imperfect tense form in the OT and in every case it conveys a presently-contrary-to-fact wish. The sense is best expressed as, “Despite your apparent obedience, Oh I wish you presently had a heart that really fears me but you do not.” In other words, they presently lack a heart that fears him or keeps his commandments—it is a heart, therefore, that lacks wisdom. This is an excellent case where functional obedience is distinguished from ontology and where temporary obedience is no sign of possessing the new heart. A functional view is resolutely refuted by this usage because their obedience is met with presently-contrary-to-fact statement regarding their ontology not function. But since this addresses, in retrospect, the previous wandering generation, it does not necessarily represent the current audience of Moses. Given this, who can doubt that this ‘obedience’ is transitory? This statement cautions against inferring from functional obedience the presence of the new heart. The explanation for those wanderings is depicted in ontological-functional rather than functional categories. Since they lack this type of heart apart from the divine initiative, it stands to reason that all men of all time also lack this type of heart apart from the divine initiative (Deut 29:3[4]). They may evidence instances of obedience, but this does not imply they have a type of heart that produces these from its ontology (or nature).

 

Later he tells the subsequent generation to “circumcise” (functional) the foreskin of their heart and to stop being stiff-necked” (Deut 10:16). That this command is impossible for them to complete in some permanent way (as illustrated above) is confirmed later when it is noted that Yahweh himself must circumcise (ontological-functional) their hearts else they would not (and could not functionally) obey him (Deut 30:6). So although the command to ‘circumcise’ the heart is purely functional, the divine activity and remedy is presented in terms of the ontological-functional category. Thus a functional ought does not necessarily imply an ontological can. In the meantime (‘unto this day’), Yahweh does not give them a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear (Deut 29:3[4]). They are deprived of the new heart or the heart of wisdom that produces fear of Yahweh and obedience to his law (ontological-functional). Yahweh expresses a benevolent love in regard to the obedient heart (Deut 5:29) but he does not demonstrate beneficent love in giving it (Deut 29:3[4]) to the wandering generation. They see and hear the great wonders in their deliverance from Egypt but they do not really see, hear, or understand the significance. Events that transpire before their eyes remain noetically ‘mysterious’ due to the lack of the divine initiative. The logic of the passage seems to imply that some (at least) of the present generation, whom Moses addresses, do possess this understanding.

 

Up to this point, the heart it shown to be depicted in terms of cognition (wisdom) and volition ( rebellion), from the aspect of function or ontology, particularly, or universally, and within a particular time or all times. The cognitive and volitional aspects of the heart are never entirely separate. Both can be depicted as purely functional issues (thinking foolishly or acting rebelliously) but when addressing the heart certain texts appear to identify its ontology and thus suggests an ontological-functional category. The key in construing hardening texts in general is identifying which psychological aspect of the heart is primarily in view, that is, the volitional (Pharaonic) or noetic (Isaianic). Pharaonic hardening focuses mostly on volition where rebellion is paramount. Isaiac fattening focuses on cognition where wisdom is predominant. Wisdom is only slightly breached in Exod 4-14 as volition is in Isaiah. However, one should not assume Pharaonic hardening and Isaianic fattening refer to the same thing. (Donald E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the Synoptics [Studies in Biblical Literature 100; New York: Peter Lang, 2006], 107-14)

 

Example of a Positive Assessment of the Protestant Reformers in a Fundamentalist Mormon Book (1931)

  

 

THE REFORMATION

 

We might go back and review the events that brought these little bands of Pilgrims to America because if the Lord moved Columbus and others, as Nephi said, so also did He move Luther and Calvin and Knox and many other good and great men to perform their separate missions in the accomplishment of His purpose.

 

These reformers gathered out of the choicest spirits from among the people around them, and as their ideas and ideals were opposed by the ruling classes in their separate countries, they became unwelcome dwellers in their own lands, but a place of refuge had been prepared and many of them came to America where they could worship God as they pleased. Thus, we see how the Catholic colony settled in Maryland, Puritans in Massachusetts, the Baptists in Rhode Island, etc. All these people held different views as to their religion. They could not agree, and yet they were faced by a common enemy. They had to unite to defend themselves against oppression. In uniting they were obliged to form a constitution that was liberal enough to include them all, which they did. The principal article of this document forbade the government to interfere with any person or sect in their religious beliefs or practices. Thus, we see how the ground was prepared for another great even that was to come. (William Ray, Laman Manasseh Victorious: A Message of Salvation and Redemption To His People Israel First to Ephraim and Manasseh [Idaho Falls, 1931], 95-96)

 

Sarah Whittle on Christ Being Made a Curse

  

. . . Deuteronomy 27:26 is the final one of Israel’s curses; furthermore, the text of Paul’s amendment, . . . (including 28:58; 30:10), functions to emphasise the representative nature of this final curse. Following Deuteronomy, then, it appears that Paul’s ‘curse of the law’ is the curse the law threatens for those who disobey it and that which Deuteronomy clearly anticipates Israel’s disobedience will invoke. For Paul, therefore, Israel as a whole is the recipient of the law’s curse. The case that this scheme underlies his argument is supported by the Christological resolution Paul sets out.

 

In Galatians 3:13 Paul returns to the language of curse to explain that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Χριστος ημας εξηγορασεν εκ της καταρας του νομου γενομενος υπερ ημων καταρα). Again, Scripture provides an explanation: ‘Since it is written: cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’ (οτι γεγραπται επικαταρατος πας κρεμαμενος επι ζυλου). The first significant aspect of this second composite citation, created from LXX Deuteronomy 21:23 (κεκατηραμενος υπο θεου πας κρεμαμενος επι ζυλου), where it describes the dead body of a hanged criminal, is the replacement of κακετηραμενος with επικαταρατος, a term occurring frequently in Deuteronomy 27. Apparently, this provides support for the assertion in Romans 3:10: the curse Christ bore was the one invoked by Israel’s faithlessness. A second significant aspect is the omission of υπο θεου, leaving the source of the curse unspecified. While these few verses are undoubtedly fraught with interpretive problems when viewed from Paul’s rhetorical scheme, his dependence on Deuteronomy’s narrative and Deuteronomy’s curse language in relation to Christ’s death is less troublesome: Paul cites Scripture to demonstrate how the curse pronounced by the law, which faithless Israel would inevitably experience, is brought to an end with Christ’s crucifixion.

 

Blessing and curses are a theme with origins in the Genesis narrative (and Paul has just cited Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8), but Paul’s Deuteronomy citations go on to appeal to the blessing and curses attached to the Deuteronomy covenant. The way that Paul can move between Genesis 12:3 and Deuteronomy 27-28 within the space of two verses (Galatians 3:8, 10) points us to the Deuteronomy covenant-renewal text being in view as the interpretive framework for the climax of the promises made to Abraham. This coheres with our findings regarding the conflation of these traditions in the oath to the fathers from Deuteronomy. Wisdom has developed the implications of this juxtaposition: he explains how Christ’s death exhausts the covenant curse, which leads to the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. Yet what is noted less often is that Paul seems to see not only the blessings to Abraham coming to pass but also the covenant blessing of Deuteronomy; beyond the law’s curse, Israel would again be established as a holy people. Indeed, this is borne out by the citations in the catena, including Moses’ Song, which establishes the Gentiles as legitimate participants in Israel’s restoration.

 

There is some discussion about the referent of ημας in Paul’s statement about Christ’s redemption (Χριστος ημας εξηγορασεν—Galatians 3:13), but the consensus seems to be that it is both Jew and Gentile for whom Paul sees the curse of the law being removed, inasmuch as the Gentiles are also outside the covenant. If to be under the curse means to be outside the blessing of covenant, so too the Gentiles, idolaters by definition, are outside. But whether they are actual lawbreakers or lawbreakers by implication only, they are recipients of the covenant’s curse by virtue of being Gentiles. The πας and πασιν in Galatians 3:10 are emphatic: all are in view. The fact that redemption from the law’s curse specifically leads to Gentile inclusion—by fulfilling the promises to Abraham by the gift of the Spirit—confirms this. We will return to Romans 15:7-8 and to a focus on our findings.

 

Our findings suggest that Paul’s declaration that ‘Christ confirms the promises to the patriarchs’ in the midst of the catena of texts attesting to Israel’s restoration functions as a reference to more than the Genesis narrative. Christ’s suffering, interpreted as his becoming a servant of the circumcision on behalf of God’s truth and mercy, finds its parallel in Paul’s discussion of Christ bearing the curse of the law, where ‘Jesus entered so fully into Israel’s enslaved condition that he absorbed that exhausted the curse fully in his own innocent death’ (Richard B Hays, “The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 11 [2000], 260). This is important because Paul does not just go from Abraham to the fulfilment of promise of children for Abraham without passing through the Deuteronomic story of the covenant and consequent curses, and the blessing which would follow the divine activity—interpreted by Paul as the coming of the Spirit. Romans 15:8 is likely, therefore, to have the whole of Israel’s story in view in its description of Christ as servant of the circumcision, including that of a people established as the renewal of the covenant in an act of consecration.

 

We have shown how Paul juxtaposes the blessing for Abraham with the redemption of the curses of the covenant. And we have also shown that this concept is present in Deuteronomy. But it is significant that it is not only the blessing to Abraham in view here. Just as the representative under the law’s curse, so too the representative blessing for obedience of Deuteronomy 28:9 seems also to be in Paul’s sight. Beyond the curse of exile, Israel would be restored, and this would take place on the basis of the oath to the fathers: ‘The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he has sworn to your fathers (ωμοσεν τοις πατρασιν σου), if you hear the voice of the Lord and walk in his ways.’ Apparently, Christ’s curse-bearing death enables not only the blessings of Abraham to come to pass, but also the blessings of Deuteronomy in the Sinai covenant-making tradition.

 

Seemingly, the ‘Christological pro nobis’ set out in Romans 10:5-11 (cf. Deuteronomy 30:11-14) extends to Christ’s curse-bearing death in Romans 15:6-8 (cf. Deuteronomy 27:26; 21:23). As a result, the Gentiles, who we have already ascertained are in view in Paul’s rewriting of Israel’s covenant-renewal texts, are also in view in this climactic constitution of a holy people beyond the curses of the covenant. Christ’s death means both that the Spirit makes children for Abraham and that, beyond the curse of exile, this community might be established as God’s holy people. In Paul’s understanding, it is the gift of the eschatological Spirit which makes this possible: at the same time as making children for Abraham, the Spirit consecrates the Gentiles. They are both made children (8:14) and made holy (15:16) as a result of the promise. As a consequence, the community is exhorted to glorify God with one voice as the fulfilment of Christ’s confirmation of the promises to the fathers. (Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 161; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015], 152-55)

 

Moses as High Priest in Rabbinic Literature

  

In rabbinic literature, Moses is clearly understood as high priest. Exodus Rabbah states ‘Our sages have said that Moses ministered as High Priest all the forty years that Israel was in the wilderness, but others hold that he only did so during the seven days of the consecration of the tabernacle’ (37.1). Rabbinic debate appears concerned with the fact that Moses presided as priest for the seven-day inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan reflects this tradition). This being the case, the discussion focuses on whether Moses subsequently lost the priesthood to his brother or whether he continued as high priest for the rest of his life. The names of his brother or whether he continued as high priest for the rest of his life. The names of R. Eleazar b. R. Judah and R. Helbo occur in discussion of these traditions. See, for example, Leviticus Rabbah 11:6; Canticles Rabbah 1:7; Exodus Rabbah 2:6; 3:17, 37:1; Midrash on the Psalms 99:4 on 99:6. For rabbis who deny Moses’ priesthood, see Genesis Rabbah 55:6 (cf. Exodus Rabbah 2:6); Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:7 on 3:24. . . . regarding rabbinic literature [the] only point of contention was whether Moses’ priesthood passed to Aaron or whether he continues to hold the position, finding ‘The Mosaic priesthood itself is (virtually) uncontested.’ (Sarah Whittle, Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 161; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015], 170 n. 57)

 

Discussing Early LDS Christology, Modalism, Plurality of Gods

 

Discussing Early LDS Christology, Modalism, Plurality of Gods

Defense of the "Civil War Prophecy" in the November 1860 issue of The True Latter Day Saints' Herald

In the November 1860 issue of The True Latter Day Saints’ Herald (a then-RLDS periodical) we read the following five months before the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War in April 1861:

 

The newspapers often contain predictions of Brigham Young, or of some of his colleagues, concerning the dissolution of the American Confederacy, and the pouting out of the wrath of God upon this nation, and many who read these predictions suppose that they originated with these men.

 

Not long since, in the habitual laudations to Brighamism, with which the Utah correspondence of the New York Herald and Express abounds, it was stated that Orson Hyde had prophesied that there would be a dissolution of the Union—that the Northern and Southern States will be divided, and that the latter will call upon Great Britain for assistance, etc. By Brighamite evidence we shall show that this prophecy did not originate with Orson Hyde, nor with any of the Brighamite leaders. In 1851 the Publishing Department of the Brighamite Church in England published a work, the title of which is, "The Pearl of Great Price, being a choice selection from the revelations, translations, and narrations of Joseph Smith, first Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. On the 35th page, this volume contains the following:

 

A Revelation And Prophecy By The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Joseph Smith.

 

            Given December 25th, 1832.

 

            "Verily thus saith the Lord, concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls. The days will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at that place; for behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and thus war shall be poured out upon all nations. And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their Masters, who shall be marshalled and disciplined for war: And it shall come to pass also, that the remnants who are left of the land will marshall themselves, and shall become exceeding angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation; and thus, with the sword, and by bloodshed, the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquakes, and the thunder of Heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed, hath made a full end of all nations; that the cry of the Saints, and of the blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies. Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen."

 

Will some of our friends send us the name, volume and number of the periodical in which this revelation was first published? (“A FALSE SUPPOSITION concerning the origin of a prophecy in relation to a division of the Northern and Southern States,” The True Latter Day Saints' Herald 1, no. 11 [November 1860]: 265-66)