Monday, October 31, 2022

Proverbs 17:15 vs. Legal Fiction

  

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. (Prov 17:15)

 

While reading the Bible today as part of my daily scripture reading, I read this verse in Proverbs. Perhaps it is due to God’s providence I would read this passage today, it being “Reformation Day” (October 31), but this is a perfect condemnation of the Protestant doctrine of justification: a blasphemous act of legal fiction that makes God a liar and is nothing short of an “abomination” (תּוֹעֵבָה, same Hebrew word used to describe homosexuality). Commenting on this verse, we read the following in one scholarly source:

 

17:15 He who exonerates the guilty and he who condemns the innocent— the Lord loathes them both.

 

This fundamental rule of judicial decisions is meant for judges. It seems to be based on Deut 25:1: “If there is conflict between men and they approach for judgment, then they [the judges] shall judge them. And they shall exonerate the innocent and condemn the guilty [we hiṣdiqu ʾet haṣṣaddiq we hiršiʿu ʾet harašaʿ].” The last sentence uses almost the same words as this proverb. Hence the above translation of Prov 17:15a uses judicial terms. Alternatively, one might render the line in broader moral terms: “He who justifies the wicked [maṣdiq rašaʿ] and he who condemns the righteous [maršiaʿ ṣaddiq], etc.” Then the proverb refers to whoever lies about someone’s character, even outside court.

 

By either interpretation, duality is important: Not only is the injustice to the innocent (an obvious wrong) loathsome to God, but also the failure to punish the guilty, even though the latter is the lesser judicial offense (Naḥmias) and might even seem merciful (Ehrlich).

 

This verse has a strong parallel in a Sumerian proverb from the Old Babylonian period: The one who perverts justice, the one who loves an unjust verdict, He is an abomination to Utu. (4Shamash, the sun god, overseer of justice.) (trans. G. D. Young 1972: 132)

 

R. Yaron (1985) argues that this and some other “abomination” proverbs are tristichs: “He who acquits the guilty / and he who condemns the innocent—/ the Lord loathes them both.” But the criteria for the division are unclear, and the first two stichs, each with two words, would be unusually short for lines in Proverbs. (Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 18B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009], 632)

 

For articles against the historic Protestant understanding of justification and imputation, see, for e.g.:

 

 

 Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"


Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness


Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30,


1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse

Saturday, October 29, 2022

Robert D. Foster's December 24, 1839 Letter to Joseph Smith Concerning Rev. George G. Cookman

 In a letter dated December 24, 1839 to Joseph Smith, Foster recounted his interactions with Cookman:

 

Washington City Dec 24th. 1839

 

Dear Brother

 

Since you left this city I have been endeavoring to magnify my calling in some measure, and have succeeded so far in my work, by the assistance of God as to show to the satisfaction of all the inmates of the house where you left me boarding that Mormonism is no bugbear but the truths of J[es]us Christ, as testifyed by Paul, Peter and all the Apostles and inspired writers, You are aware that the Lady. Mrs. Baker was very hostile when you left, but her proud heart has come down, and she now says she was once afraid to have me in the house, but is now willing I should stay. The day you left and the next day I kept preaching in the chimney corner, and to Mrs. Baker, who acted as though she was possessed of Seven Devils, but I kept a steady hand. Last night I got up and preached till 11½ P.M., and they listened, said they believd us verily, but they have not courage to come out; they are going to invite their relatives & friends so, as to give me a fair chance to preach; they say I am the greatest preacher they ever heard: God blessed me more in that endeavour than I can express, yea Brothe[r] my very heart glorifies God for his goodness. what was said I dont know, but I do know I had a feast, and to morrow they are going to have three friends come and see me; that girl says she wants to be baptized; though her Bro. is coming <to> see her in regard to it as he is her guardian— I pray that you would lend me your special prayers in this matter & and verily believe you will. As I was agoing to say they all listened attentively, and after this I asked God to add his blessings to what had been done and said, and they all responded amen; they then said that if there were any body else, they would have no objections in being baptized; they said if Mr Cookman would say it was true, that they would obey the ordinance of baptism immediately— I showed them it was no way to risk their salvation, on Mr. Cookman— but they wished I would go and see him— and <I> offered to do so provided they would accompany me, and introduce the matter in due form; but they backed out, Well you know I sd. I would not stop untill I got through & am not through yet. I went to bed, thanked God for his goodness to me, & resolved to do any thing, that would further the cause, or plant the seed in <this> wicked, and adulterous City— then I goes and hunts out this Golia[t]h of Methodism (Mr. Cookman), I wrapped at the door, was ushered in with much form, when I very poli[t]ely told him my business; that I had glad tidings of great joy, and he stood and gased [gazed] as though I had been an Angel— He then begged lief— to introduce his pious friend, (Mr. Wait), and also his wife, which I admitted; I began to tell him by littles, and he asked me if I would argue the point, from the Bible; I said amen to it, and we went at it— He, at first, acted like a Gentn., but soon turned black, & awful; looking like a Demon. I kept a steady course, keeping my temper— prayed God to uphold me, and he did it in such a manner, as I never experienced before— I was afraid at first, asked God to strengthen me, and he did it; he showed himself to me, and sent help in time of need, He (Mr. Cookman) could not quote a passage of— scripture right, nor knew anything about the Bible at all; all he could say was, you are deluded you are a fanatick you are crazy, and demanded a sign— The Apostles & Prop[h]ets come on purpose to show a sign, & they— were no longer needed; but Jos. Smith must let me take a Rattlesnake & hold it to him, to bite him— then if he lives I will believe; but he is an imposter, a fanatic and a child of the Devil, & you are another— I begd. him not be so hard, as I preached nothing but the scripture— I asked God to give me the victory, and <down> came the Mighty Methodist, by a little— shepherd boy of a Mormon— I asked him to be so kind as to give me his meeting house, to preach in some in the night— but he said he would not— he would not pollute it— I then told him that was not right— he said it was, and would consider my doctrine <false> till I performed a miricle— I told him not to forbid others believing, but he said he would—

 

I told him if he said any thing ungentlemanly from the pulpit, if I heard him I should take the liberty to reply— said if I did he would have me put out of the house— I then requested him to appoint time and place, and we would discuss before the publick— but he said he would not waste his time with such nonsence— and that he was sorry such a promising young man should be so deluded— I told him I asked no sorrow, and begged he would give himself no uneasiness on that head— He was the most whipped <man> I ever have seen, and repented having his friends brought in, I know; he is the champion of the Methodist and is whipped well— I did not tell him how I whipped him but I will tell you— I asked God to close his mouth, if he did not receive it gladly, and he did— I can whip as many Methodist as there are blades of grass on the largest Prairie in Illinois, if God will assist me— and this is way in which I whipped him— God filled my mouth and my heart— and I was as happy as any mortal could be— while he was writhing in the most awful agony of body & mind.

 

I cannot tell you all, but I will visit all the Priests in Washington, but what I will find some honest heart to embrace the truth.— I am not discouraged, I am going to hunt them out and leave them without excuse— I preach at Mr. Bakers on Christmas day, or rather in the evening— and then I expect God will bless me, and not let me be confounded— I know nothing about preaching, only, as the Lord shows me while I am speaking— They all say that I preached the best last night they ever heard— I will go on; pray that I may be humble and faithful— I hope by the time you returns, I shall have work for you in the Potomac— I conclude by sending my whole soul <to you> wrapped up in the love and power of God through the merits of Jesus— The message come to day & I sent one to Commerce & also one to B[enjamin] S. Wilber; but our case is not mentioned at all, Bro, [Sidney] Rigdon is upon the whole better— he is as well where he is as any where, at present— We have no letters, in consequence of the Rail Road being blocked up— I hope you are all happy in the Lord & Savior— I thank you for all your friendly advise & kind admonitions; may they continue for I have found they are doing me good; but dont whip poor Judge too hard, for he is a faithful soul— In all your letters to Commerce send our love, and we will do the same in our correspondence— I am agoing hunting to morrow after another Priest— please send us a full letter as soon as you please— We shall be happy to receive any good inteligence, and you will send no othe[r]— here ends the letter, and aint it a long one— Yes says you and a rough one too— but it is better than none for you know I was not dead when this was written— I dont know any thing about you only that I love you all, dead or alive am this night your

Brother in Christ

 

R[obert] D. Foster

 

Further Reading:

 

Robert D. Foster's 1874 Recollection of Joseph Smith's Prophecy Concerning Rev. George Cookman

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

 

 

Robert D. Foster's 1874 Recollection of Joseph Smith's Prophecy Concerning Rev. George Cookman

  

"Benjamin Winchester and Elder Barnes were preaching at that time in Philadelphia, and Mr. Smith and Mr. Higbee went there and did some preaching, leaving myself in the city of Washington to take care of Mr. Rigdon, and also to wait upon every preacher in the city, irrespective of his church organization, and particularly to declare unto them the tidings of the Latter Day Saints, committed to this generation through Joseph Smith, Jr., and to warn them against the danger consequent upon its rejection. I commenced my duties as soon as I had any time, and called upon all the leaders of the different organizations of religion in the city. As a general thing I was pretty well received and very kindly treated. Mr. Spicer, of one branch of the Methodist persuasion, was extremely courteous, and I thought that they manifested a kind spirit; although some were apparently treating this strange doctrine with rather too much levity. I thought that my report would be uniformly favorable, but I had one more visit to make; that was to Geo. C. Cookman, the chief preacher and elder of the other branch of the Methodist Church; and he was then chaplain of the United States Senate. On my introduction he was rigid as marble and cold as an icicle. He was proud, tonguey and arrogant in the extreme. I endeavored to show him all I could of the doctrine and convince him of its importance; and asked him to lay the matter before his people, or allow me or one of our company to do so in his church at some time that he might appoint when his pulpit would be at liberty. He told me to call again at a time that he set for that purpose, as he said he would like to see me in the presence of some of his pious friends. I went and there met some six or eight gentlemen and ladies, as well as the members of his own family. He was very unkind, and treated me and the subject very cavalierly; quoting some scriptures to put me and my strong [strange?] doctrines, as he thought, to confusion. I was only a neophite in the business and trembled before this goliath; but it so happened that while he was quoting scripture to put me down, his quotations were the strongest evidences of the truth I tried to impress upon him. He found he had got a bigger job on hand than he first anticipated, and then began to tell the meaning of the scriptures as he quoted in the Greek and Hebrew. I had a little knowledge in this department which I found very valuable, and on this score he made no headway. He then began denouncing Joseph Smith as an impostor, and his followers as dupes or knaves; and said he thought it strange that a man with as keen an eye as he said I had, with a fair share of miscellaneous capacity and intelligence, should be so deceived, and concluded that I was not a dupe but as big a knave as Smith.

 

I thanked him for the cross compliment, and told him he could find scholars attached to the Church that were able to read as many languages as himself, yet I believed them to be truthful and sincere servants of God; and that they would be very willing to measure their strength with him or any other opposer. I begged him to take time and consider the matter; not to decide hastily; that it was unwise to give a decision until both sides were fairly and fully before him. I asked him for his church, and told him that either Mr. Smith or Mr. Rigdon would be glad to illustrate the subject any time before him and his congregation. He said that my impudence could only be attributed to one of two causes, and he was constrained to believe it was not from ignorance, but was intended as an insult; that he would neither let me have his church nor hear anything further on the subject, and should take good care to warn his brethren and sisters against listening to any such blasphemy. With this he opened his library door, conducted me to the outer hall, and refused to give me his hand. I reported this to Mr. Rigdon, and wrote to Philadelphia to Mr. Smith the result of my labors. On the following Sunday this same George C. Cookman preached in his church, and told some strange tales; that he had had an interview with Jo Smith, that arch impostor, and that the doctrines he taught were very irreligious and inconsistent with Bible truth; that he, Smith did not believe in the Bible, but had got a new one, dug up in Palmyra, New York; and that it was nothing but an irreligious romance, and that Smith had obtained it from the widow of one Spaulding, who wrote it for his own amusement. I wrote this to Mr. Smith, and he said there must be some preaching in Washington to counteract these statements, as he was sure God had some people in that city. We first got an upper room of an engine house to speak in, but half, no, not a quarter of the people could get in. We had speaking then in the open air, on Pennsylvania Avenue, near that place, and gave out that there would be further services as soon as a room could be obtained. Before night some people secured the use of Carusi's saloon, one of the largest and most comfortable rooms in the city, outside the capital building, and at night there was held service. A great many of the members of Congress and the heads of departments were present, as well as Martin Van Buren . We, of the committee from Illinois, all took the speaker's desk. And when near the close, who should come into the hall but Joseph Smith himself. We speedily got him on the stand, and I had the honor of introducing him to that vast audience. He had just come in on the train from Philadelphia, and was tired, but he arose by the invitation of many who called for him, and on that occasion he uttered a prophecy, one of the most wonderful predictions of his life. He advanced to the statements made by this George C. Cookman, declaring them to be willfully and wickedly false, and that if he, Cookman, did not take it back and acknowledge that he had dealt falsely of him, his people, and his own congregation, also that he must turn and preach the truth and quit deceiving the people with fables, he should be cut off from the face of the earth, both he and his posterity. And he said that this should be so plainly manifest that all should know it. At this, many gentlemen took out of their pockets their tablets and began to take notes of the prophecy; and Mr. Smith noticing them, "Yes," said he, "write it on your tablets; write it in a book; write it in your memory; for as sure as God ever spoke by my mouth, all these things shall come to pass."

 

Henry Clay, Felix Grundy, Tom Benton, John Q. Adams and many other celebrated characters were present at this time. Now, instead of Cookman doing according to justice and truth, he became more virulent than ever, and laid all the obstacles in our way the he could during our stay in the city. The matter appeared to be forgotten by many, and I thought often upon the subject, having taken notes also. Soon after this there was an extraordinary excitement in the religious world, and they appointed a conference of all orthodox religions to assemble in England, at a certain time, to adopt measures of harmony between all the sects; the United States were invited and accepted a part in these proceedings to break down the partition wall that separated the various churches. George C. Cookman was elected or appointed as a delegate for the District of Columbia to represent his views on the subject, standing, as he did, at the very head of the church, and Chaplain of the United States Senate. Now he, being an Englishman by birth, and his family in suitable circumstances for a pleasure trip, at the appointed time he, Cookman, thought it would be very pleasant to take his whole family with him, and this he did. Both he, his wife, and all his children went on board the steamship President, and neither the ship nor a soul is left to tell what was their sad end. But the prophecy is fulfilled to the letter, and the words uttered on that occasion have never been forgotten by me, nor I presume by hundreds of others. Had Cookman gone alone, it might be charged to chance, but why was it that his whole family were suddenly cut off, both root and branch.

 

This sir, is one of many wonderful evidences that Joseph Smith was as much a prophet as Jonah, who foretold the destruction of Nineveh; or Nahum, who prophesied concerning the present locomotion for traveling; both of them took centuries and one of them thousands of years for their fulfillment, but the prophecy by Joseph Smith on George C. Cookman has been literally fulfilled in the shortest possible period; and that too in its fullness, beyond the possibility of question from any source.

 

On my return from Washington, I moved to Nauvoo, and there I was able to learn more fully of the doctrine and the people who belonged to the Church. I have many records of prophecies, and the doings and teachings I heard at that city that are marvelous to me; and I have no means of ascribing many of them to any other sources than the power that holds all things by His sovereign will, and makes known his purposes through His servants the Prophets.

 

I will mention that /i was the accepted physician of the Church; was at the bedside of the aged Patriarch Joseph Smith, Senior, at his death; received his nearly last blessing, taken down by a scribe at the time, and have it yet. I was also present at the death of Don Carlos Smith; was intimate in the families of all, and was recommended by Joseph Smith very highly; and on one occasion, when Brigham Young came home from England, I was sent for in great haste to administer to him, as he was very sick and in great danger of dying. I was successful in getting him through that terrible prostrate situation in which I found him. Joseph Smith was present on the occasion, and told him to take what I prescribed, and he did so. After this, in talking with Mr. Smith on the subject and telling him what I considered his disease, he said I was right; and remarked in the presence of Mr. Law, Bishop Knight, John P, Green, Reynolds Cahoon, and some others, that "if Brigham Young became the leader of the Church, he would lead them down to hell." I little thought that he would ever occupy that position, but he has it over one branch of the Church at least; and from all accounts he is filling the letter of the prophecy.

 

You are at perfect liberty to use any thing I write in any way you may deem best for the purpose of benefiting the honest in heart; for what I write is nothing but the truth, as it was uttered in my presence, and has often been spoken by me since the death of Joseph Smith, your father.

 

I will tell you also another prophecy that Joseph Smith uttered in my presence, that has been proved true. This was in relation to Stephen A. Douglas. He said he was a giant in intellect, but a dwarf in stature, that he would yet run for President of the United States, but that he would never reach that station; that he would occupy a conspicuous place in the counsels of the nation, and have multitudes of admiring friends; and that in his place he would introduce and carry out some of the most gigantic measures in the history of the nation. This was said when Douglas was Judge in that district of Illinois, and before he ever went to Congress. Has it not been fulfilled? Did he not get Andrew Jackson's fine remitted by law, a thing that was by all considered impossible? Did he not introduce the bills for the covering of Illinois with railroads, without one cent's expense to the general government? Under his management, were not the Illinois bonds raised from a condition nearly worthless to a value nearly par with currency? Did he not rule in and through the State of Illinois, work and carry out its destiny for twenty consecutive years, more than any and all other men together? Was he not always one of the greatest men in the Senate? Did he not do more for the line of compromise on slavery than any other one man? Did he not say, 'and cursed be the ruthless hand that attempts to remove it?' Did he not run for President and get defeated? Did he not take the most active part in removing or breaking down that line of compromise? Let the history of Kansas and Nebraska tell the story! Did he not fulfill his destiny, and at last, on his dying bed, bequeath his children to his country, and counsel them to obey the laws and the constitution? Did he not utter these memorable words at the commencement of the rebellion, 'That there were only two parties in all the land; the one called Patriots, the other Traitors?' Was it not true? Did he not throw his adhesion to A. Lincoln at the time of deep trouble? And does he not now occupy an honored spot in the memory of his many friends, and a sacred spot in his own loved city of Chicago? Yes, this prophecy has been literally fulfilled in my day, and I bear testimony to its truth, when compared with history.

 

This is enough for this time, I have many things yet to say, but will wait your report on this, and perhaps you will scarcely be able to read my poor writing; for I am a poor scribe, and in consequence of a cataract on my eyes, am nearly blind.

 

I know something about some of the leaders at Salt Lake City, and to my sorrow too, as many of them forgot to settle claims that I still hold against them. I and my whole family were driven from the city, (of Nauvoo, Author.) my property confiscated, and thousands, yes, tens of thousands of dollars worth of my property was taken and sold, and I was defrauded out of the whole by wicked and corrupt men, aided by the head men that now live in Salt Lake City. The records of my property were carried away, and never could be obtained, and I was reduced from affluence and wealth to poverty by their means. And they claim to have done all these things in obedience to the commands and will of God. (Robert D. Foster, "A Testimony of the Past," Loda, Ill., Feb. 14th, 1874, in The True Latter Day Saints' Herald, 22, no. 8 [April 15, 1875]: 227-30; this was reproduced in Rudolph Etzenhouser, From Palmyra, New York, 1830, to Independence, Missouri, 1894 [Independence, Miss.: Ensign Publishing House, 1894], 309-14)

 

Dale Broadhurst provides the following notes concerning this prophecy, which shows that one should not privilege it in comparison to other prophecies that are more easily traced back to Joseph Smith:

 

Note 1: The Rev. George Grimston Cookman (1800-1841) served as the Chaplain of the United States Senate from December 31, 1839 to June 11, 1841. As Dr. Foster points out in his letter, Rev. Cookman sailed from New York City for Liverpool, England, March 11, 1841, on the steamship "President." The ship apparently sank during its crossing of the Atlantic, as it was never heard from again. His first son, Rev. Alfred Cookman was born Jan. 4, 1828 in Columbia, Lancaster, Pennsylvania and died Nov. 13, 1871 in Newark, New Jersey. Another son, Rev. John Emory Cookman, was born in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, June 8, 1836, and died in New York City some time after 1886. Given this documented survival of two of Cookman's sons, it is difficult to understand why Dr. Foster says that "his whole family were suddenly cut off, both root and branch." During the early years of the 20th century, the Herald twice published an admission of the facts, implying that Foster's memory had failed him when it came to the fate of Cookman's family.

Note 2: Dr. Foster's recollection of a preaching and prophecy session held by Joseph Smith, Jr., at Carusi's saloon in Washington, D. C. is not otherwise documented. Smith left Washington for Philadelphia on Dec. 21, 1839 and apparently remained in the latter city until Jan. 27, 1840. Therefore, if Joseph Smith, Jr. really did preach before a distinguished audience in Carusi's saloon, it must have been on or about Jan. 27, 1840. On about Feb. 10, 1840 Smith left the nation's capital for Nauvoo. Therefore, if there is any record of his preaching and prophecy in Carusi's saloon, it should be preserved as a newspaper article, journal entry, mention in a letter, etc., from the short period between Jan. 27 and Feb. 10. In fact, there are sketchy reports of Smith having preached in Washington on Wed., Feb. 5, 1840, but that can hardly be the session held at Carusi's saloon, when Joseph Smith, Jr. had "just come in on the train from Philadelphia."

Note 3: Dr. Foster does not specify exactly when it was that Rev. Cookman preached to his Washington congregation, telling them that Joseph Smith's "new" Bible (the Book of Mormon) had been "dug up in Palmyra, New York; and that it was nothing but an irreligious romance, and that Smith had obtained it from the widow of one Spaulding, who wrote it for his own amusement." Presumably this occurred on or about Jan. 5, 1840, in Cookman's first Sunday sermon of the new year. Dr. Foster had time to write about the matter to Smith, who was then in Philadelphia, and to obtain Smith's reply by mail, telling him (Foster) to do "some preaching in Washington to counteract these statements" of Cookman's. Thus, it is more than likely that when elders Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, Dr. Foster, Sidney Rigdon and Benjamin Winchester sat down to hold a "special conference" in Philadelphia on Jan. 13, 1840, that the subject of Rev. Cookman's repetition of the Solomon Spalding authorship claims was a fresh matter of importance and instantly became one of the important topics discussed by those same men at their "special conference." Pratt was then able to inform the group how he had counteracted similar claims about the Spalding authorship then being made in the New York papers. Winchester subsequently consulted with Pratt at length in Liverpool, and returned to Philadelphia to produce his 1840 pamphlet, the first major Mormon response to the Spalding claims.

Note 4: Assuming that Joseph Smith, Jr. really did preach at Carusi's saloon, on or about Jan. 27, 1840, he had plenty of time to prepare himself for a public refutation of Rev. Cookman's allegations concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon and the " irreligious romance... of one Spaulding." Exact details are lacking, but this reported preaching session may have marked Joseph Smith, Jr.'s first (and only known) formal, public disavowal of the Spalding authorship claims. For a passing mention of Cookman's disappearance at sea, see the Nauvoo Times and Seasons for July 1, 1841 In later years the editors of the Saints Herald distanced their church from Foster's report of Joseph Smith's alleged curse upon Rev. Cookman. For another mention of the episode, see the "Preface" to Wayne Cowdrey et al., 2005 edition of Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?

 

 Further Reading:


Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Catholic/Protestant Debate on Authority between Jimmy Akin (Catholic) and Paul Facey (Protestant)

The Capturing Christianity youtube page recently hosted a debate:






Let me make a few prefaces:

(1) "The Other Paul" (Paul Facey) is a super smart and capable Reformed Protestant apologist. He has produced some excellent material on the ecclesiology of 1 Clement.

(2) Akin did dodge a bit by defending a general concept of "magisterium" than the de fide Vatican I understanding thereof as well as understanding of oral apostolic tradition and other beliefs (absolutely no way he could positively defend Icon veneration, for e.g.)

With that being said: there is no question that Akin won this debate. I was expecting more from The Other Paul in light of his preparation for the debate (e.g., reading the [albeit, overrated] 3-volume Holy Scripture series by Webster and King). I do hope that this will result in him and Cameron (the host/moderator) rejecting Sola Scriptura.

For my work critiquing Sola Scriptura, see:




Friday, October 28, 2022

Simon Gathercole on Jesus' Descent into Hades in The Gospel of Peter

  

The Gospel of Peter, being roughly contemporaneous with Justin, Hermas, and Irenaeus, probably had a similar understanding of the preaching of the gospel to the dead and of its effects. Not much detail about the Gospel of Peter’s particular understanding can be gleaned from the bare question (εκηρυξας τοις κοιμωμενοις) and its affirmative answer (ναι), but three points can be made.

 

(1) Unlike 1 Pet 3:18-20, which places proclamation by Jesus to imprisoned spirits after his resurrection, the Gospel of Peter has it prior to the appearance of the risen Jesus. The fact that it is the cross that acknowledges the preaching may mean that Jesus accomplished it after his crucifixion (e.g., on Holy Saturday), although it may have been the first act of the risen Jesus before his appearance.

 

(2) The scope of the audience of the kerygma is not defined. It may have comprised patriarchs and prophets, and/or, given the outlook of the Gospel of Peter, righteous gentiles. However, some of the ambiguity in 1 Pet 3 about whether the proclamation is beneficial to the spirits is removed in the Gospel of Peter, the reference to those “asleep” probably implies temporary death from which they will wake up. They have “fallen asleep” (κοιμαομαι) rather than “perished” (απολλυμι). This is the conventional understanding of Christ’s descent in the second century—that Jesus makes a positive, saving proclamation.

 

(3) Clearly the divine question is not voiced because God was unsure of the answer. The dialogue is recounted so that the event can be publicly announced. It was a step too far even for the Gospel of Peter to narrate the harrowing of hell. The purpose of the resurrection appearance, then, is in large measure to announce that Jesus has brought about the salvation of the sleepers.

 

The reference in the Gospel of Peter, therefore, to the harrowing of hell is the clearest statement in the Gospel of how Jesus is “the savior of mankind” (4:13). As Robinson remarked, “No subject had a greater fascination of the early Christian mind than the descent of Christ into Hades and the Harrowing of Hell” Robinson and James, Gospel According to Peter, 25). This is certainly true for the Gospel of Peter. While the death and resurrection of Jesus do not appear to be themselves straightforwardly soteriological events, the resurrection is in the Gospel of Peter the occasion for the public announcement that this missionary journey has indeed taken place. (Simon Gathercole, The Gospel and the Gospels: Christian Proclamation and Early Jesus Books [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022], 313-14)

 

John E. McKinley on Jesus Providing us with the Provision of Empowering Grace Through Prayer

 

for those who follow Jesus, the provision of empowering grace through prayer is clear from the repeated emphasis on this biblical theme. Believers are to pray constantly about everything (1 Thess 5:17). Scripture tells a general theme that God will work in the individual who commits himself to God’s care (e.g. Prov 3:5; Ps 21:2; 37:4; Rom 8:28-29; 2 Cor 10:5; Phil 2:12-13). The pattern for prayer that Jesus gave his disciples includes a petition about temptation and the devil’s deceptions (Matt 6:13). Peter gives his readers motivation to pray in the midst of temptations by assuring them that God can rescue them especially from temptation (2 Pet 2:9). Hebrews 4:15-16 exhorts the readers to see God’s help in prayer specifically in relation to temptation, and the certain ground for assurance is Jesus’ own empathy and success in his own experience of temptation. (John E. McKinley, Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ’s Impeccability and Temptation [Paternoster Theological Monographs; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2009], 307)

 

Apart from the efficacy of prayer, I also bring this up as 1 Thess 5:21, part of the same pericope as v. 17 referenced above, is touted by some as biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura. For more against this doctrine, see:


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

Notes on Hebrews 1:10-12 from Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions (2022)

  

καταρχας: [Pronoun] and [Noun accusative plural feminine] from αρχης, a noun which is used 236 times in the LXX, 505 times in Philo, fifty-five times in the New Testament, and six times in Hebrews. αρχη is only used four times in the New Testament (1:10; Luke 12:11; Eph 6:12; Col 2:15) with this accidence—[Noun accusative feminine plural]—but with the exception of Hebrews, the other three times it has a sense of principality. On the other hand, here αρχη is used without the article and as the object of the preposition κατα, which arrangement is found only once in the New Testament (1:10), twice in the LXX (Ps 101:26; 118:152 LXX) and eight times in Philo (Leg. 3.92; Det. 118; Ios. 225; Praem. 63, 68; Contempl. 63; Flacc. 11, 138). However, it is only used once in Philo in an indirect cosmogonic context, when he is talking about the very beginning of the human race. Besides, the LXX—which uses αρχη to translate various words—significantly uses the noun αρχη to translate the Hebrew noun רֵאשִׁית in Genesis 1:1. This noun is also used to translate פָּנֶה in Psalms 102:25 (101:26 LXX), text with a clear cosmogonic connotation, and also to translate the noun קֶדֶם in Psalms 119:152 (118:152 LXX). Therefore, it is possible that αρχη in the cosmogony of Hebrews in all likelihood refers to Genesis 1. (Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions: Its First-Century Philosophical Context [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 128-29)

 

οι ουρανοι: [Article nominative plural masculine] and [Noun nominative plural masculine] from ουρανος, a noun which is used 682 times in the LXX, 425 times in Philo, 273 times in the New Testament, and ten times in Hebrews. The article is working as a simple identification, while the noun is the subject of εισιν, a finite verb. In Hebrews ουρανος is consistently translated as heaven, as it seems that in most cases it is referring to the habitat of God (cf. 8:1; 9:23, 24) and also to the place where the heavenly bodies are placed, which is between the habitat of God and the habitat of human beings (cf. 4:14; 7:26; 11:12). It is never used with the sense of divinity, and in this, Hebrews departs from Philo’s and other Greek usages of the word. Also, it is well-known that the LXX consistently uses the articular ουρανος to translate the Hebrew שָׁמַיִם in Genesis 1-2; apparently, only in Genesis 1:8 the LXX uses ουρανος without the article—και εκαλεσεν ο θεος το στερεωμα ουρανον—and their God is naming the στερεωμα—רָקִיעַ—as ουρανος. Here it is important to note that the Hebrew רָקִיעַ has a sense of a large solid surface, because it is the word used to describe the barrier between the waters above and below (Gen 1:6-7). Therefore, ουρανος in the literary component of Hebrews has a clear union with the meaning of שָׁמַיִם and רָקִיעַ in Genesis 1-2, and it is also important to note that ουρανος is used in Genesis 1:1 LXX in parallel and as a complement of γη, i.e., both words are used in a kind of hendiadys. (Ibid., 132)

 

απολουνται: [Verb future middle indicative third-person plural] from απολλυμι, used ninety-three times in the LXX< forty-one times in Philo, ninety times in the New Testament, and only once in Hebrews. This intransitive lexeme has a perfective aspect, therefore it can imply a summary or an ingressive aktionsart, but since here the context sets a new direction, it must be portraying an ingressive aktionsart, i.e., it depicts the beginning of a new state or action. On the other hand, the middle voice shows that “the subject is acting in relation to himself somehow,” which here are ουρανος and γη through the pronoun αυτοι. (ibid., 133, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

[Hebrews] says that κυριος is the one who “laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning” (1:10), and that διουυιουο θεος εποιησεν τους αιωνας (cf. 1:1-2). Thus, the presence of three nouns: θεος, κυριος, and υιος, gives rise to a problem regarding the identity of the creator in Hebrews. As already asserted, the noun κυριος in Hebrews’ cosmogony pinpoints the Hebrew noun יהוה of the Old Testament, but it also functions in a sort of apposition to the nouns, υιος, Χριστος, and ‘Ιησους in the New Testament. Thus, it can be stated that all these names, including the Hebrew יהוה, pinpoint one person that was always interacting with human beings. Besides, Hebrews 1 clearly indicates that υιος and κυριος are only one being, and it is also indisputable that υιος, Χριστος, and ‘Ιησους are different nouns—perhaps titles—used to identify this same person. Therefore, in 1:10, he who “laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning” must be Jesus in his preincarnate condition. However, a big problem arises here [as] the subject of the [Primary Clause] is ο θεος, therefore the one that addresses Him—κυριος—must be ο θεος, i.e., it seems that in Hebrews’ cosmogony there are two persons in interaction. What is also interesting is that ο θεος addresses υιος as κυριος, which means that ο θεος considers υιος as a divine being, particularly if it is considered that υιος is also identified as ο θεος in Hebrews (cf. 1:8-9). Therefore, Hebrews posits two divine beings in its cosmogony. On the other hand, it is important to remember that ο θεος εποιησεν could be considered as a hyperbaton of the Hebrew בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים (cf. Gen 1:1 LXX). Therefore, in Hebrews’ cosmogony, ο θεος is used with the plural sense of the Hebrew noun אֱלֹהִים who is the creator in Genesis 1, and who performs his—their—creative action through one being that belongs to this plural being, which in Hebrews is identified with the noun υιος. Therefore, even though ο θεος, with the plural sense of אֱלֹהִים, is the creator—i.e., the two beings that interact in Hebrews’ cosmogony—his actions in order to create were accomplished through one of the members of this plural being. To the specific creator in Hebrews is named—also in other texts of the New Testament—as the Son, Christos, Jesus, or Lord. Thus Hebrews’ cosmogony seems to assume the existence of at least two different beings with equal value and will, and therefore the creator is ο θεος υιος even though ο θεος seems to be constituted not only by υιος. (Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions: Its First-Century Philosophical Context [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 193-94, emphasis in bold added)

 

Notes on Hebrews 1:2 from Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions (2022)

  

Εν υιω: [Pronoun] and [Noun dative singular masculine] from υιος, a noun which is used 5201 times in the LXX, 276 times in Philo, 377 times in the New Testament, and twenty-four times in Hebrews. The anarthrous dative υιω has a particular use here, since the [Noun dative plural masculine] υιω—this specific accidence—is used only fifteen times in the New Testament and only twice it is used to introduce someone other than Jesus (cf. Luke 12:53; John 4:5); from the other thirteen times, twelve times are used with the article, and only here it is used without the article. According to Bultmann, the article is omitted with abstract terms in apothegmatic sentences, in general adverbial adjuncts, with words individualized by the context, and with quasi-proper names (Grammar of the New Testament Greek, 88-89). Since in Hebrews the noun υιος is used twenty-four times and from this, thirteen times it is used in direct or indirect apposition to Jesus—a proper name—here it is very probable that the omission of the article is due to the writer considering it as a proper name of the person in reference, i.e., Jesus. Besides, this prepositional phrase, i.e., εν υιω, is used only once in Philo in a cosmogonic context when he affirms that it is impossible that a son can contain the being that brought the universe into existence (Migr. 193). Also, it is used once by Ignatius to make reference to God the Son (Ignatius, Magn. 13.1), and twice in the LXX to make reference to David, the son of Jesse (3 Kgdms 12:26 [1 Kgs 12:26]; 2 Chr 10:16 LXX). Therefore, in this prepositional phrase the noun must be a dative of agency, while the preposition could be an adverbial εν or a modal εν. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that the grammar of the text can allow different interpretations such as those who posit the prepositional phrase as an instrumental or causal expression. (Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions: Its First-Century Philosophical Context [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 122-23)

 

διου: [Pronoun] and [Pronoun relative genitive singular masculine] from ος, a pronoun which is used 4943 times in the LXX, 5823 times in Philo, 1407 times in the New Testament, and seventy-four times in Hebrews. The preposition is expressing not the efficient means, but the ultimate cause; not instrumentality, but sole agency. Also, this same construction with the same use can be found in 2:10 where God the father is designated the sole cause—see the judgment of διου τα παντα in Harris (Prepositions and Theology, 70)—of everything. The use of the definite anaphoric—i.e., relative—pronoun ου shows that the emphasis in Hebrews’ introduction (1:1-4) is not in the nominative θεος but in the dative υιω, which means that υιος is the main personality in Hebrews. (Ibid., 123)

 

Notes on Hebrews 11:3 from Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions (2022)

  

. . .the source of the creation is ο θεος himself—the Godhead—namely the only one Who is called invisible in the New Testament and Who dwells in the inaccessible light (cf. 1 Tim 6:11-16; Col 1:15). It is important to note in this respect that the participle φαινομενων does not mean nonexistent; conversely, it implies the existence of something (cf. Matt 1:20; 2:7; John 5:35; Jas 4:4, 14; 2 Pet 1:19). So 11:3 is saying that everything came from the Godhead, that the real source of everything is ο θεος, without there being any contradiction with the assertion that all came through the Son who is visible to the creation. (Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions: Its First-Century Philosophical Context [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 209)

 

 

κατηρτισθαι: [Verb perfect passive infinitive] from καταρτιζω, used seventeen times in the LXX, never used in Philo, thirteen times in the New Testament, and three times in Hebrews. Here this infinitive verb is functioning as the verb of the [Embedded Clauses]. Delling states that here, this word must be understood as “to order” (TDNT 1:476), while Arndt et al. affirms that it must be understood as “created”—hence determination of its meaning is not easy. In the New Testament, this verb has various nuances and in the LXX it is used only in two books, Esdras B (2 Esd) and Psalms, and since its main sense in Psalms is creation of something new here—in 11:3—a document deeply influenced by Psalms, must be understood as “to create,” nevertheless it must be recognized that the grammar of the word allows the translation of “to fashion.” (Benjamin Rojas Yauri, Hebrews’ Cosmogonic Presuppositions: Its First-Century Philosophical Context [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 168-69)

 

Second Esdras basically implies restoration (cf. 2 Esd 4:12, 13, 16; 5:3; 6:14, LXX) and also the building of something new (cf. 2 Esd 5:9, 11 LXX). While Psalms implies the creation of something new (cf. Ps 8:3; 10:3; 28:9; 39:7 [due to its Hebrew origin, it must be translated as ‘create’]; 73:16, LXX), some other texts are not clear but could also imply creation (cf. Ps 16:5; 17:34; 67:10; 79:16; 88:38, LXX). (Ibid., 169 n. 164)

 


Simon Gathercole on the use of Ezekiel 34 and 37 in John 10

  

Ezekiel 34 and 37

 

The “good shepherd” imagery in John 10 probably also evokes the Davidic language of Ezek 34 and 37, especially the gathering of the “one” community under “one shepherd,” which is common to both. In Ezek 37, the prophetic action of combining two sticks into one (εις ραβδον μιαν) represents God’s promise to make the Israelites like one single stick (εις ραβδον μιαν), and this means that the Israelites will be “one nation” (εθνος εν) with “one prince” (αρχων εις) over them (37:12-22). Back in Ezek 34, God had promised to provide “one shepherd (ποιμενα ενα), my servant David” (34:23), and following the stick imagery in Ezek 37:24 he renews this promise that David would be their singular shepherd (ποιμην εις). The statement by John’s Jesus that “there shall be one flock and one shepherd (μια ποιμνη, εις ποιμην)” in John 10:16 appears to allude to these promises in Ezekiel, especially given the similar literary settings of the ”scattered” sheep (Ezek 34:5; John 10:12) and the false shepherds who abandon those sheep to wild animals (Ezek 34:5; 8; John 10:12-13).

 

Various places in non-Christian literature share a similar messianic interpretation of Ezekiel. Psalms of Solomon 17 probably echoes the depiction in Ezek 34 and 37 of the eschatological David shepherding his flock, not allowing any of them to languish (Pss. Sol. 17:40; cf. Ezek 34:16), as well as sharing more predictable (though not common) language of “pasture” (νομη in Pss. Sol. 17:40; cf. Ezek 34:14 [bis], 18 [bis]). There is a possible messianic use of this section of Ezekiel in 4Q504 1-2 IV, 5-8. Very widespread in the Qumran literature is the designation for the messiah as “the prince” (nsy’; cf. nsy’ in Ezek 34:24; 37:25): the phrase “the prince of the (whole) congregation” appears numerous times (CD VII, 19-20; 4Q266 3 III, 21; 1Q28b III, 20; 1QM V, 1; 4Q285 6 and 4 II, VI, X; 5 IV; 4Q376 1 III, 1). Ezekiel 37 is also interpreted messianically in the Talmud (b. Sanh. 98b), as well as among later rabbis. It is notable that the good shepherd pericope (John 10:1-21) is followed immediately by the question of Jesus’s messianic identity (10:22-24). (Simon Gathercole, The Gospel and the Gospels: Christian Proclamation and Early Jesus Books [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022], 239-40)

 

John E. McKinley on Jesus' Struggle in Gethsemane in the Gospel of Mark

  

Mark presents the prayerful struggle in Gethsemane as an explicit account of Christ’s temptation. Jesus warns the three disciples with him to “pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Mark 14:38). Christ’s explanation of the danger reflects his own struggle against temptation in the weakness of his flesh, as he says, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (ασθενης, cf. “our weaknesses” in Heb 4:15, ασθενειαις ημων). This is explicit evidence for Christ’s struggle against temptation within the limits of his humanity. The probability that Jesus is describing his own struggle against the temptation to avoid the vicarious punishment for sin is increased by the description in Mark 14:33 of his experience as “shock and intense distress” (εκθαμβεισθαι και αδημονειν). According to Mark 14:34, Jesus laments that “my soul is distraught to the limit of death” (περιλυπος εστιν η ψυχη μου εως θανατου) in his misery because of his impending suffering. The specific reason for Christ’s dread is not given, but it is probable that Jesus was aware at this point that his suffering would include his death and having to bear the curse for sin (cf. Matt 20:17-19; Isa 53). Jesus speaks of death as his internal experience of such sorrows that threaten to tear him apart. His shocked and distressed anticipation of the suffering in connection with death and judgment for the world’s sin is also the likely cause of those emotions that threatened to destroy him. (John E. McKinley, Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ’s Impeccability and Temptation [Paternoster Theological Monographs; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2009], 29-30)

 

John E. McKinley on Early Christians' Struggle with Jesus' Suffering and Divine Impassibility

  

The problem for Christian theologians is that their affirmation of divine impassibility is difficult to reconcile with the suffering of Jesus, as reported in the New Testament. An example of the difficulty is Origen’s commentary on Matthew, where he explains away the evidence of Christ’s emotions of anguish in Gethsemane. Origen introduces a distinction between being vulnerable to the anguish and actually experiencing it. The state of initial vulnerability to passion, the pre-passion state (προπαθεια), is as if one is on the doorstep of the intense emotional experience. This vulnerable state was distinguished from passion (παθος) as the state experienced after the soul becomes imbalanced and caught by the full emotion of anguished fear. Passion was thought to lead necessarily to being susceptible to sin, which was unthinkable regarding Christ because he was also God. As with Origen, Christian theologians commonly believed that a necessary relation exists between possibility and evil, reinforcing the belief that God incarnate cannot be passible any more than God can be passible. (John E. McKinley, Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ’s Impeccability and Temptation [Paternoster Theological Monographs; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2009], 89; the reference from Origen is that of Commentaria in Evangelium secundum Mattheam [ed. C. and C. Vicentii Delarue, PG 13 [1857]: 1741, on Matt 26:37)

 

Another example is Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 6.3, where he writes that passions are a diseased condition of the will that tend to sin; Jesus had only a natural sort of passions that are different from those of fallen humanity so he could be passible without also being sinful. (Ibid., 89 n. 29)

 

John E. McKinley on Hebrews 5:7-8

  

In relation to Gethsemane, Hebrews 5:7-8 gives further explanation about Christ’s struggle to obey God in the face of his temptation to avoid suffering by disobeying God. The description in Hebrews broadly includes the entire passion sequence and other suffering in Christ’s life, not simply the single event of his anguish in Gethsemane. However, the Gethsemane experience is surely included as one of the events within the broad description in Hebrews 5:7-8 of Jesus’ true and relevant human experience that constitute him a “high priest” (αρχιερευς, v. 10; cf. 2:17; 4:15).

 

Hebrews 5:7-8 introduces the theme of Christ’s suffering in relation to his progress in obedience with the generalizing statement of the temporal context: “in the days of his flesh”. This statement draws together his entire human life while the passage also alludes to the specific suffering in his passion. The emotional distress and struggle to submit his wishes as a man to God’s will are at least reminiscent of his Gethsemane prayers if not directly parallel to those offered with “great sobs and tears” (κραυγης ισχυρας και δακρυων). For the readers of Hebrews, having been told about Christ’s empathy for them in being tempted (2:17-18; 4:15), they receive a vivid reminder from his earthly life that his experience of suffering was not minimized or mitigated by his deity. Christ’s successful, obedient struggle against temptation is set before the readers as the example and motivation for their own struggle against the temptation to apostasy (cf. 12:1-4). Just as for them now, Jesus was called by God to obedience with the suffering of the cross, and in a much greater way. Hebrews 5:7-8 recalls the severe degree of his temptation despite his Sonship so that the audience can find courage in Christ’s example.

 

Jesus’ development in obedience through suffering—“he learned, from the things he suffered, obedience” (v. 8; εμαθεν αφων επαθεν την υπακοην)—is his progress throughout his life experiences to be constituted for the official role of priest. The final position of “obedience” and the addition of the definite article (the obedience) emphasize the particular obedience that God required of him “in the days of his flesh”, an obedience that could only be accomplished by the Son as a man. I think it is right to see here that what Jesus accomplishes is a specifically human obedience that was originally required of Adam (cf. Rom 5:19), and can now be credited to the new humanity in Christ for justification as a gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17). By his obedience that culminates in choosing to go to the cross, Jesus reverses disobedient humanity to reclaim in himself the original design of creation and humanity.

 

Moreover, we have seen above that the suffering and struggle to obey was constitutive for him to become the compassionate priest who can empathize with his people in terms of their temptation (cf. 2:17; 4:15). The suffering that sets a context for temptation in Jesus’ life and the readers’ lives is purposeful. This means that even Christ’s prayer, offered to the God, the one who could “save him out of death” (σωζειν αυτον εκ θανατου), was that he would be rescued with divine support in the midst of his death—not a prayer that Jesus would be protected entirely form peril. The difference of this prayer from Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane, where he asked for another way besides his imminent peril (“if it is possible”, ει δυνατον εστιν, Mark 14:35//), is not a contradiction because Hebrews 5:7 underscores his plea for help to endure the suffering.

 

Also distinct from the Gethsemane accounts are the great sobs and tears of Hebrews 5:7. This description certainly reflects the anguish of his prayers on the night before his death, but “sobs and tears” may refer more precisely to his suffering on the cross. The Gospels tell of no loud cries and tears in Gethsemane, but the Gospels bear clear evidence that Jesus screamed with loud shouts and cries at Golgotha. Furthermore, Christ’s final prayer of surrender into the Father’s hands (Luke 23:46) seem to fit the Hebrews 5:7 prayer for support as he entered into death. As was the case throughout his life, Christ’s suffering during the crucifixion was likely a context for his temptation in a severe, maximal degree. This possibility of his temptation while suffering on the cross is reinforced by the way Hebrews 5:7-8 functions as an exhortation for the readers in context of their temptation.

 

Therefore, Hebrews 5:7-8 corresponds to both Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane and Golgotha. Gethsemane is clearly a context of temptation because of the way the Gospels note Christ’s warnings about temptation to his disciples. Golgotha is a likely context for his temptation because of the way Hebrews 5:7-8 employs his suffering there as an example of his having experienced concrete temptation in a maximum degree that makes him able to sympathize with the troubled audience. (John E. McKinley, Tempted for Us: Theological Models and the Practical Relevance of Christ’s Impeccability and Temptation [Paternoster Theological Monographs; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2009], 32-34)