Do the Book of Mormon and other Restorationist Texts Allow for Creation Ex Nihilo?

From Blake T. Ostler, The Doctrine Of Creation Ex Nihilo Was Created Out Of Nothing:

C&C begin by arguing that statements in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants (“D&C”) may actually support the traditional view. The Mormon scripture states: “there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heaven and the earth, and all things that in them are.” (2 Nephi 2:14; c.f., Mosiah 4:9; 2 Nephi 11:7; D&C 14:9; 20:17; 45:1). C&C suggest that one: “could even argue that some of these early passages imply creatio ex nihilo.” [3] But of course only the prior assumption that the word create means creation out of nothing can support this assertion. As I will show, this prior assumption which forces the text with unwarranted assumptions is endemic to the way C&C read scripture, including especially the biblical texts.

 

Joseph Smith received the revelation now in D&C 20 in 1830. This revelation has added significance because it constituted the “Articles of the Church,” the first published statement of the Latter-day Saints’ beliefs. D&C 20:17 states that: “By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which in them are.” Now the Mormon scriptures are quite subtle. Notice that God is the “framer” of all things. Is this one word significant? In the context of later revelations it becomes important to notice such nuances. C&C fail to take account of The Lectures on Faith in their reading of Mormon scripture. Now the Lectures are not included in present compilations of Mormon scripture, but they were included as a part of the Mormon canon from the time of their publication in 1835. The first Lecture states God’s mode of creation: “It was by faith that the worlds were framed – God spake, chaos heard, and worlds came into order by reason of the faith there was in him.” [4]  This text is not speaking merely of this earth but of worlds. God creates by speaking, and he does not speak to nothing at all but to the chaos which responds to him in faith. From very early in the Church, God’s mode of creation was understood to be creatio per verbum or creation by speaking his word. His word is efficacious because he is not talking to himself, he speaks to “chaos” which responds faithfully.

 

C&C argue that Mormon scriptures can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with creation out of nothing so long as they are not read in the context of Joseph Smith’s statements. C&C quote parts of D&C 93 as follows: “‘intelligence, or the light of truth’ was not created or made, that ‘man was in the beginning with God’ and the elements are ‘eternal.'” [5] They then conclude: “epexigetical [sic] equation of ‘intelligences’ with ‘light and truth’ indicates that ‘intelligence’ here probably refers to what Doctrine and Covenants 88 calls the ‘light of Christ’… Understood in this way uncreated intelligence/light of truth can be viewed as part of God’s eternal being.” [6] However, this interpretation simply ignores the context of D&C 93. The entire text is structured to show that persons are like God and can share God’s glory. In more complete context, D&C gives a very different message:

 

I was in the beginning with the Father …. Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the light of truth …. Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be …. For man is spirit. The elements are eternal. The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. (D&C 93:21, 22, 29, 33, 35)

 

In context, the scripture says that “man” existed in the beginning just like God. The point is that because “man” was in the beginning and exists just like God, “man” can share fully God’s glory. While it is possible to give an idealist (i.e., mind-dependent) reading to “intelligence,” it is much more difficult to see how “elements” can be seen as a merely ideal reality existing only within the mind of God. It seems to me that the fact that intelligence is said to be “not created or made” and that “elements are eternal” is saying that both have always existed without creation.

 

C&C next suggest that the “affirmation that ‘man was in the beginning with God’ and that the elements are eternal can be understood in a relative sense and need not imply that they are literally uncreated.” By “relative sense” they mean that D&C 93 is only speaking of “this earth and its inhabitants” as in the Book of Moses (1:33, 35). However, that context will not work for D&C 93 for the simple and sufficient reason that even if limited to this earth, the earth is never said to be either eternal or uncreated — to the contrary, Moses says that God created the earth. Unless the earth could be understood to be eternal like the elements from which it is made, the interpretation offered by C&C simply misses the point.

 

C&C also argue that their reading “removes the tension between D&C 93 and 2 Nephi 11:7.” What tension? Well, 2 Nephi 11:7 says that: “if there be no God, we are not, for there could have been no creation.” I take it that what they mean, though they don’t say, is that 2 Nephi 11:7 implies that we would not exist in any way at all because we could not be created if there were no God, and the implication of D&C 93 is that persons are eternal and uncreated like God. Note that they slip into their eisegesis of this passage the implicit assumption of creation ex nihilo. But 2 Nephi 11:7 clearly does not need to assume creation ex nihilo, for Nephi is speaking of this life and the fact that we exist as mortals in this life. Thus, as mortals we are created by God, but as immortal spirits we are not. 2 Nephi 11:7 can be read as consistent with the view that persons, as spirits, have always existed, but as embodied mortals are created and if there were no God, we could not exist as mortals.

 

Most importantly, C&C simply fail to quote the most important text of all regarding the eternal existence of uncreated intelligences! C&C state: “The Book of Abraham creation narrative implies that the earth was created from pre-existing materials, but it does not preclude the possibility that God created this matter ex nihilo at some point prior to the earth’s formation.” [7] Fair enough. Yet why read that assumption into the text when there is nothing at all in the text to suggest it and what is there is directly contrary to it? Further, how could C&C miss the outstandingly clear statement of Book of Abraham 3:18 which directly refutes their thesis?

 

[I]f there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum [Hebrew ‘olam], or eternal.

 

As I argued in an article that extensively discussed these issues, it is this scripture above all that shows that intelligences/spirits are not created and have always existed without a beginning. [8] Moreover, the fact that spirits/intelligences are individuated in the sense that one is more intelligent than another shows that we are not dealing with mere ideal realities, but with mind independent realities that are eternal. The use of the word “intelligences” is surely intentional here to recall the statements in D&C 93 that “intelligence … was neither created nor made; neither indeed can be.” This is the most important scripture in the Mormon canon which pulls the idea of uncreated intelligences together, and C&C fail to even take cognizance of it!

 

Notes for the Above:

 

3 NMC, 100.

 

4 The Lectures on Faith (1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants), I, 22 (p. 8).

 

5 NMC., 101.

 

6 Ibid.

 

7 Ibid.

 

8 Blake T. Ostler, “The Idea of Preexistence in the Development of Mormon Thought,” Dialogue 15:1 (Spring 1982).

Tale Tales Concerning the Early Life of Joseph Smith in the 1853 Welsh anti-LDS Tract Dynoethiad Mormoniaeth (Exposure of Mormonism)

In a Welsh anti-Mormon tract written by “The Levite” entitled Dynoethiad Mormoniaeth; yn cynwys Hanes Joseph Smith, Saith Gradd y Dem, Gwyreigiaeth Ysbrydol, yn nghyda’r Seremoniau a arferir ar Dderbyniad i’r Urdd hono. O Enau Tystion Profedig (English: Exposure of Mormonism; Containing the History of Joseph Smith, Seven Degrees of the Temple, Spiritual Wifery, Together with the Ceremonies that are used on Acceptance into that Order. From the Mouths of Proven Witnesses) (Swansea: Joseph Rosser, 1853), we read the following tall tales concerning Joseph Smith on pp. 5-6:

 

When he was very young he was beaten by an old woman by the name of Tracey for stealing eggs from her; and the following night her chickencoop was set on fire, and Joe was found guilty. When he was thirteen years old he stole some clothes from a hedge, and he exchanged them with a peddler for cosmetics, and within three days he testified having seen one James Bradshaw steal them. One day his father took a switch to punish him, and to spite his father he poisoned the big dog he had to guard the house. Another time, when he had a grudge against one of his family members, he put some elixir in the coffeepot which made all of them sick. After being beaten by a boy who was bigger than he, he watched constantly for an opportunity for revenge and one day found him bathing in the river; he took his clothes away and scattered them here and there across the surface of the water so that not one shred of them was ever found.

 

In school there never was a bigger blockhead than Joe; his favorite activity was to steal, beat the children, and tell lies: and he was totally destitute of any abilities for working; he never took hold of any tool except against his will, and when he did, he was determined to do as much damage as he could by making things wrong, breaking the tool, and such things. Everyone considered Joe the most abominable and wicked lad throughout the entire neighborhood of Palmyra. (On Trial in the Welsh Press: Latter-day Saint Missionaries Declare and Defend the Faith, 1840-1860, ed. Ronald D. Dennis [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2023], 803-4)

 

Appeal to Revelation 22:18-19 to Support Sola Scriptura in the Welsh Anti-LDS Publication Twyll Mormoniaeth (Deceit of Mormonism)

The following comes from William Rowlands, Twyll Mormoniaeth: yn nghyd a hanes bywyd a marwolaeth Joseph Smith, o America, Prophwyd Santyddol y Dyddiau Diweddaf (English: Deceit of Mormonism: Together with the History of the Life and Death of Joseph Smith, from America, the Hallowed Prophet of the Latter Daysi) (Merthyr Tydfil: David Jones, 1852), we read the following appeal to Rev 22:18-19 on pp. 13-14 (proving the more things change, the more they remain the same):

 

Q. Is it not possible, as in times of old, to chronicle and set forth the revelations of the Bible?

A. No, it is not possible.

Q. Why not?

A. Because the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ to John in his prophecies extends to the end of time; and there is a commandment not to add to it, or to take anything away from it.

Q. Yes, to the prophecy of that Book, but would it perhaps be permissible to add to the Bible, despite that?

A. No, it would absolutely not be permissible, since the Book of Revelation, is the last book of the Bible, and it was written, Woe unto anyone who adds to it.

Q. What does the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John say about this?

A. “If any man shall add unto these things, (namely the words of this prophecy) God shall add unto the plagues that are written in this book,” Rev. 22, 18, 19. It might be thought that it might be sufficient to any man who treasures the salvation of his soul more than the hypocritical whim and sinful pride of his corrupt heart. (On Trial in the Welsh Press: Latter-day Saint Missionaries Declare and Defend the Faith, 1840-1860, ed. Ronald D. Dennis [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2023], 777-78)

 

Further Reading:

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

Welsh Anti-Mormon William Jones in 1851: Latter-day Saints Believe Jesus's Second Coming will Happen When the Saints Move to California

William Jones, a Welsh critic of the Church, published a tract entitled, Egwyddorion Saint y Dyddiau Diweddaf yn cael eu pywso yn nghlorianau rhesymau ac ysgrythyrau (English: Principles of the Latter-day Saints Weighed on the Scales of Reasons and Scriptures) (Bethesda: R. Jones, 1851). In this work, he made the following claim about Latter-day Saint eschatology:

 

8. They believe, after they have gone to California, that Jesus Christ will come to meet them, and that they shall reign with him for 1000 years, when everyone else will be destroyed, &c. (On Trial in the Welsh Press: Latter-day Saint Missionaries Declare and Defend the Faith, 1840-1860, ed. Ronald D. Dennis [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2023], 694)

 

I am sure this will come as a shock to those Saints from California who are flocking to Utah at the moment; little do they know that they are delaying the Parousia(!)

An Example from an 1847 Anti-LDS Tract from Wales Evidencing the Early Latter-day Saint Appeal to Revelation 12 to Support the Great Apostasy

In an anti-Mormon tract published in Wales by Daniel Jones, entitled Y Drych Cywir, lle y gellir canfod yn eglur Twyll Mormoniaid, neu “Seintiau y Dyddiau Diweddaf,” mewn dull o Holiadau ac Atebion, rhwnh Daniel a’I Gyfaill (English: The Correct Image, Wherein One Can Perceive Clearly the Deceit of the Mormons, or the “Latter-day Saints,” in the Form of Questions and Answers, between Daniel and His Friend) (Carmarthen: J. T. Jones, 1847), we read the following on p. 4:

 

D. Before I go further with my story, I shall tell you some of the things I heard: one strange thing they said was that the church had been sent to the wilderness twelve hundred and sixty years ago, and how they interpreted the prophecy in the Book of Revelation, 12,6, and that God did not have a true church on earth during this time, and that an end had come to the appointed time recently through one called Joseph Smith, from America, having a supernatural revelation of the form and the order and the authority to restore them to their primitive privileges and gifts. Now you se that this strikes very close to what I have told you. (On Trial in the Welsh Press: Latter-day Saint Missionaries Declare and Defend the Faith, 1840-1860, ed. Ronald D. Dennis [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2023], 563)

 

Here we see that early Latter-day Saints were appealing to Rev 12 to support the Great Apostasy.

Welsh Anti-Mormon David Williams (Protestant) Admitting that None of the Protestant Groups Do Not "have the gospel doctrine in its purity" (1846)

 In a tract by David Williams, Twyll y Seintiau Diweddaf yn cael ei ddynoethi, mewn nodiadau byr ar draethawd a ysgrifenwyd yn ddiweddar gan Capt. D. Jones, dan yr enw, “Traethawd ar Anghyfnewidioldeb Teyrnas Dduw,” etc (English: Deception of the Latter Saints Exposed in Brief Notes on a Treatise Written Recently by Capt. D. Jones, Under the Title, “Treatise Showing the Immutability of the Kingdom of God,” etc.), 2d ed. (Merthyr: David Jones, 1846), we read the following startling admission on p. 12:

 

He also considers the sects and denominations of this age to be so different from the kingdom of God, that he considers it a wonder among those who take notice of them, that any Welshman could be so blind as to be mistaken in that matter.

 

Allow me to say, good man, that we do not think that all the different sects throughout the world have the gospel doctrine in its purity, nor do we hold the traditions exactly according to the plan of the early churches; and we freely admit that the best of us is open to failings, weaknesses and mistakes; . . . (On Trial in the Welsh Press: Latter-day Saint Missionaries Declare and Defend the Faith, 1840-1860, ed. Ronald D. Dennis [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2023], 518)

 

In the same work (pp. 23-24):

 

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is extensively mentioned by our author. There is no doubt that the forgiveness has been connected with the truth faith, along with repentance and forgiveness; yet men can be baptized, and then be lost—remember Simon Magus.

 

Baptism is not absolutely essential for salvation; if it were otherwise, the thief on the cross would not have been saved. Avoid putting baptism in place of the blood of Christ, which was shed for the forgiveness of sins—“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” Without the spilling of this blood, there was no forgiveness: baptism can signify our cleansing, but it is the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, which cleanses us from all sin. (Ibid., 529-30)

 

This allows me to share the following video from Lutheran Satire:

Latter-day Saints Accused of Being "Idol Worshipers" for Believing in an Embodied Deity in Wales, October 1848

  

1848 October, Y Dysgedydd (Instructor), pp. 289-291 (1,550 words). “The Mormons. The Story of Joseph Smith, in a Letter from America.”

 

This is the same letter that appeared in the Revivalist for January and in the Wesleyan Treasury for April 1848. This version, however, has a lengthy postscript with details as to how misguided the “Mormons” are in their beliefs. The editor provides a list of certain aspects of their “false doctrine” that was meant to serve as a warning to all his readers to refrain from even talking with those who have been deceived by them.

 

1. They are idol worshipers since they believe that man was created in the likeness of God.

2. They do not understand the scriptures because they claim to have continual revelation.

3. They claim that there has not been a true religion in the world from the time of the apostles until the calling of Joseph Smith.

4. The “Mormons” are nothing but shameless and impudent deceivers, and many of them are more dangerous and poisonous than professed atheists.

5. Those in this country who have embraced their views are completely dark, unprincipled, and weak-minded people. (On Trial in the Welsh Press: Latter-day Saint Missionaries Declare and Defend the Faith, 1840-1860, ed. Ronald D. Dennis [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2023], 19-20)

 

Further Reading:

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

Blake Ostler on the Relationship between the Divine Persons in Latter-day Saint Theology

 The relationship between the divine persons in Mormon thought may be defined as follows:

 

(1) Distinct persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct divine persons who are one Godhead by virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind, purpose, power and intent. Each of the three divine persons is a distinct person in the fullest modern sense of the word, having distinct cognitive and conative personality. Because each of these capacities requires a distinct consciousness, each divine person is a distinct center of self-consciousness.

 

(2) Loving dependence and ontological independence. The Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father and dependent on their relationship of indwelling unity and love with the Father for their divinity—that is, the Father is the source or fount of divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost. If the oneness of the Son and/or Holy Ghost with the Father should cease, then so would their divinity. However, the Son and Holy Ghost do not depend upon the Father for their existence as individuals, and thus each of the divine persons has de re ontologically necessary existence. Further, although the Father does not depend for his divine status on the Son or Holy Ghost, nevertheless, it is inconceivable that the Father should be God in isolation form them because God is literally the love of the divine persons for each other.

 

(3) Divinity. Godhood or the divine nature is the immutable set of essential properties necessary to be divine. There is only one Godhood or divine essence in this sense. Each of the distinct divine persons shares this set of great-making properties which are severally necessary and jointly sufficient for their possessor to be divine. Each of the divine persons has this essence though none is simply identical with it.

 

(4) Indwelling unity. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class of individuals. There are distinct divine persons, but hardly separated or independent divine persons. In the divine life there is no alienation, isolation, insulation, secretiveness or aloneness. The divine persons exist in a unity that includes loving, interpenetrating awareness of another who is also “in” one’s self. The divine persons somehow spiritually extend their personal presence to dwell in each other and thus become “one” “in” each other. Thus, the divine persons as one Godhead logically cannot experience the alienation and separation that characterize human existence.

 

(5) Monotheism. These scriptures present a form of monotheism in the sense that it is appropriate to use the designator “God” to refer to the Godhead as one emergent unity on a new level of existence and a different level of logical categories. The unity is so complete that each of the distinct divine persons has the same mind in the sense that what one divine person knows, all know as one; what one divine persons wills, all will as one. The unity is so profound that there is only one power governing the universe instead of three, for what one divine person does, all do as one. There is a single state of affairs brought about by the divine persons acting as one almighty agency. Because the properties of all-encompassing power, knowledge and presence arise from and in dependence on the relationship of divine unity, it logically follows necessarily that the distinct divine persons cannot exercise power in isolation from one another. Therefore, it follows that there is necessarily only one sovereign of the universe.

 

(6) Apotheosis. Humans may share the same divinity as the divine persons through grace by becoming one with the divine persons in the same sense that they are one with each other. However, humans are eternally subordinate to and dependent upon their relationship of loving unity with the divine persons for their status as “gods.” By acting as one with the Godhead, deified humans will share fully in the “godly attributes” of knowledge, power and glory of God.

 

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001), 462-64

Scott J. Hafemann All Scholars Agree that 1 Corinthians 5:9 Refers to a Now-Missing Letter to the Corinthians

  

Regardless of the myriad of opinions concerning the literary unit of II Corinthians itself . . . and its relationship to I Corinthians, all are agreed on the basis of 1 Cor. 5:9 that the canonical II Corinthians is at least the third letter that Pual sent to the church in Corinth. (Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14-3:3 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990], 7 n. 1)

 

Excerpts from Martin J. Preece, Learning to Love the Doctrine and Covenants (1988)

 When giving an overview of Rev 14:6-7:

 

This is one of many angels doing work of the restoration. Speculative Mormon tradition suggests that this is Moroni. (Martin J. Preece, Learning to Love the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: MJP Publishing, Inc., 1988], 175)

 

Prophecy does not always predestinate. Another prophet, Jonah, predicated under inspiration of the Lord that in forty days the city of Nineveh would be destroyed, and yet it wasn’t (Jonah 3). Does this mean Jonah was a false prophet? No. The people of Nineveh repented. Predictions made through prophets are often conditional. People and circumstances and other factors may contribute to and detract from the fulfillment of prophecy. Read D&C 124:49, 51. (Martin J. Preece, Learning to Love the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: MJP Publishing, Inc., 1988], 188)

 

When commenting on D&C 124:49:

 

Here is a vital principle. When a man receives a commandment of the Lord, if he should go with all his might to accomplish it, but is prevented from doing so by factors beyond his control, then the Lord will accept their sacrifice.

 

Now, wait a moment! I thought that we believed what Nephi taught in 1 Nephi 3:7, “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”

 

Is there any contradiction between 1 Nephi 3:7 and D&C 124:49? There is a little. We must regard Nephi’s teaching as a truth, but an incomplete truth. D&C 124:49 gives us the complete truth on the matter. Beware of other incomplete truths in the Church. Can you think of any? How about: “Keep the Word of Wisdom, and you will enjoy good health.” “Pay your tithing, and you will become prosperous.” “Train up a child in the way he should go, and later in life he will not depart from it.” (Ibid., 362-63)

 

 

 

Intelligence. Whenever we encounter the term “intelligence,” we ought to think of two possible meanings:

 

1. “Intelligence” or “intelligences” are those eternal and uncreated entities utilized by the Father and the Son in the process of creation. The “intelligence” of a man is his essence—who he really is. Intelligences are capable of exercising their agency and acting for themselves. They have always existed and cannot be destroyed. Each individual, including the Father and the Son, is, at his very center, a single intelligence. In addition, a myriad of lesser accomplished intelligences were embodied with the bodies of plants, animals, or even the inert materials of the earth. The purpose of the existence of each intelligence is to progress toward Godhood which is accomplished through obedience to the laws of God given to them. And there are divine laws or commandments given to each and every category (kingdom) of intelligences (see D&C 88:36-38).

 

2. “Intelligence” also may refer to that amount of light, spiritual progress, or spiritual growth, an individual (an intelligence) has acquired as a result of his obedience to God’s law. Since the light which emanates from each intelligence contains the complete truth about that intelligence, we may say that his light is his intelligence and vice versa. In speaking of an individual intelligence, we may say that he radiates more or less light or intelligence than another because of his pattern of obedience to the laws of God. (Martin J. Preece, Learning to Love the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: MJP Publishing, Inc., 1988], 228)

 

On D&C 110:11 and "the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north":

 

There have been at least two main theories regarding the “lost” ten tribes in this dispensation. Each has had its advocates among the brethren. First, some have suggested that the ten tribes are not really lost but rather are scattered or dispersed among the nations of the earth. They are “lost” in identity but not in person. We know where they are but we don’t know who they are. Also they no longer know who they are. Second, they are thought by some to still be living together as a group in some obscure location. A subterranean location “in the north”—near the north pole has even been suggested. It has even been theorized that they may be living together on some extra-terrestrial sphere, such as another planet. It would seem that the former theory is the more likely and that the “land of the north” is only a figurative allusion.

 

If the ten tribes are scattered throughout the earth, then why is their location so often referred to as “the north” (Jeremiah 3:12), “the land of the north” (Zechariah 2:6), or “the north countries” (Ether 13:11)? There are several possible reasons. One may simply be that the tribes are scattered predominantly, though not exclusively, throughout the northern hemisphere. Another reason is the geography of Israel itself. Even though Assyria, Babylon, Greece, and Rome (the powers most responsible for scattering Israel) were actually located to the east and the west of Palestine, because of the topography of the land, historically their armies approached Palestine from the north to the south and departed from the south to the north. This meant that their captives were always carried away “into the north.”

 

Another reason “the north” had evil connotations in Jewish symbolism was that the northernmost city of Israel, Dan, later became particularly associated with idolatry and apostasy (1 Kings 12:28-30). This may be the reason why Dan, the tribe of the north, was later omitted from John’s list of the twelve tribes in his Revelation (7:4-8). Another reason why the “north” symbolized evil for the ancients was that they oriented themselves on maps and so forth, not to the north, as we do, but to the east toward the rising sun. This put their right hand, which was associated with good things and clean uses, on their south, while the left hand, associated with unclean uses, was to the north. Benjamin, which means “son of the right hand,” was a favorite of Jacob and settled, of course, in the south (or right-hand side) of the promised land. Good things, like the gold of Ophir or the Queen of Sheba, came from the right, or south, while bad things, like the armies of Assyria and Babylon, came from the left, or north. Even today, as every “lefty” knows, the right hand still gets preferential treatment. Anciently, the two hands, and the two directions they represented, were not “right and left” but “right and wrong.” This concept is reflected in the Latin word for “left,” which is sinister. So, anciently, the north was associated symbolically with idolatry, apostasy, and political defeat, and, as the direction of the left hand, with uncleanness. The gathering of Israel will bring the ten tribes back from this figurative north land—even though they are actually scattered in all four directions (3 Nephi 20:13; Psalm 107:3; Isaiah 42:5-6).

 

And yet, part of the gathering of Israel in the latter days will include a literal return of all the twelve tribes of Israel to their ancient inheritances in the Old World. Just as the ten tribes were literally taken out of the Holy Land to the north and thence to all nations, so shall their return, at some future time, be literally from among all nations to re-enter the Holy Land from the north. The children of Ephraim, one of the ten tribes, who have been “wanderers among the nations” (Hosea 9:17), have already begun to be gathered and have begun “to push the people together” (Deuteronomy 33:17). Eventually, that gathering will bring about the restoration of all the tribes of Israel. Besides the establishment of an American Zion, this will include a formal return of representatives from each of the ten northern tribes to their former inheritances in Palestine and also a return of Judah and Benjamin to Jerusalem and their inheritance in the south. The breach between the two kingdoms (Judah and Israel) will be healed, and Israel will be restored—all its twelve tribes—to all of its biblical inheritance in fulfillment of the promises made to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

However, it must be added that not all the descendants of Israel who will be gathered in the latter days could possibly fit into Palestine in the Old World or into Jackson County in the New. These two locations will likely be administrative centers with other stakes or gathering places located throughout the world.

 

People are “gathered” in two separate ways—spiritually and temporally. They are gathered spiritually as they are led out of the captivity of apostasy and accept the Savior and his gospel and are “restored to the true Church and fold of God” (2 Nephi 9:2). They are gathered temporally as they go where the saints of God are congregated. (Martin J. Preece, Learning to Love the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: MJP Publishing, Inc., 1988], 294-95)

 

Commenting on D&C 113:7-10 and the interpretation of Isa 52:

 

A word of caution regarding the interpretation of scripture is perhaps appropriate here. As we read the inspired writings of the prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, we ought always to keep in mind that more than one interpretation of their revelations may be possible. Fundamentally, these prophets were speaking to the people of their own and addressing the issues and problems that existed then. We may find application in their words to us and to our time, and it may be legitimate and appropriate to do so, but the application to our time may not be what the prophet had primarily in mind. An interesting specific example if our modern interpretation of Ezekiel 37:15-17. Since Orson Pratt pronounced that these verses—which include the concepts of the “stick of Judah” and the “stick of Joseph”—refer to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, that meaning has become thoroughly and irreversibly entrenched in our culture. The question one might ask is, “What did Ezekiel intend by those verses?” When Ezekiel wrote, between 592 and 570 B.C., the people of Judah were held captive by Babylon. Ezekiel lived in a colony of exiles from Jerusalem. He addressed, in his writings, the whole of Israel. In his day Israel was in shambles. The Kingdom of Judah was separated from the Kingdom of Israel (the Kingdom of Israel had been taken captive in 721 B.C. by Assyria), and Judah was in chains living under Babylonian domination. His people doubtless would have petitioned him, “Ezekiel, where is God? Are we not the covenant people? Have we been abandoned by God?” At this time of great anguish it seems likely that Ezekiel would have wanted to reassure them that they had not, in fact, been abandoned by God, but that one day God would take the two parts of Israel broken off from one another and reunite them in their own land and under their own rule, out of bondage. Read verses 21 and 22 of Ezekiel 37. It seems less likely that the captive Israelites would have been comforted to know that there would eventually be a Bible and a Book of Mormon centuries hence. Now, certainly, it may be that God intended Ezekiel 37:15-17 to speak of these of our day and announce that there would be both a Bible and a Book of Mormon, but it is not clear that Ezekiel was aware of this interpretation. (Martin J. Preece, Learning to Love the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: MJP Publishing, Inc., 1988], 315, emphasis in bold added)

 

Andrew Perry: The "Tabernacle of David" in Amos 9/Acts 15 refers to a Physical Structure (i.e., a temple)

  

Scholars have argued variously that the expression “tabernacle of David” refers to the restoration of Israel, the nascent church, and Jesus. Chance argues that Luke expects the restoration of Jeruslaem, but on the question of a restored temple he avers, “given the close association between the city and temple thought Luke-Acts, one might offer a positive answer, though with great reserve.”

 

R. Bauckham has recently analysed Luke’s citation from the point of view of Luke’s source and Luke’s own design. He notes that the building term, ανοικοδομεω, replaces the two instances of ανιστημι in the LXX of Amos, and affirms, “they would not have been made had the exegete who produced this form of the text not wished it to be quite clear that the reference is to the restoration of a building”. He supports this argument with the claim that the omission of και ανοικοδομησω τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης from the citation of Amos was made because this phrase suggests the rebuilding of city walls rather than a temple.

 

After reviewing second Temple texts which refer to the eschatological temple being built by God or his agent, Bauckham concludes, “Thus the exegete whose work is embodied in Acts 15:16-18 may have understood the phrase σκηνη Δαυιδ to mean God himself will build the eschatological temple miraculously through the agency of the Davidic Messiah, though he may simply have taken it to refer to the Temple of the Messianic age, which God will build when ‘David’ rules God’s people”.

 

Bauckham further argues that “In a Jewish Christian context in which Amos 9:11-12 is understood to predict the inclusion of Gentiles in the eschatological people of God, it is clear that the eschatological Temple must be understood as the Christian community”. His evidence is based on texts outside Acts and he shows that “the Temple as the community” was a prevalent idea in early Christianity. His point is that scriptural prophecies of the Gentiles coming to worship God were seen to be fulfilled in them joining the Christian community. While Chance has shown that the idea of the Christian community as the eschatological temple is not prevalent in Luke or Acts, Bauckham points to Acts 15:16 as evidence that Luke saw the community in this way. We conclude, following Bauckham, that the speech of James is therefore part of Luke’s temple-directed apologetic. (Andrew Perry, “Eschatological Deliverance: The Spirit in Luke-Acts” [PhD Thesis; Durham University, September 2008], 273-75)

 

Further Reading:

 

Listing of Articles relating to Amos 9, "Tabernacle/Temple/Booth of David," and the "Temple of Solomon" Issue

Davies and Allison on Matthew 28:19

 

εἰς τὸ ὄνομα κ.τ.λ. can mean ‘in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Spirit’ (cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 61). The difficulty with this, however, is that one might then expect τὰ ὀνόματα. The alternative is to suppose that the one divine name—the revealed name of power (Exod 3:13–15; Prov 18:10; Jub. 36:7)—has been shared by the Father with Jesus and the Spirit, and there are early texts which speak of the Father giving his name to Jesus (Jn 17:11; Phil 2:9; Gos. Truth 38:5–15). But we are unaware of comparable texts regarding the Spirit.

 

We see no developed Trinitarianism in the First Gospel. But certainly later interpreters found in the baptismal formulation an implicit equality among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; so for instance Basil the Great, Hom. Spir. 10:24; 17:43. (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical Commentary; London: T&T CLark, 2004], 3:685-86)

2023 FAIR Conference and Forthcoming Dialogue on Modalism

Next week, from the 2nd to 4th (Wednesday to Friday), I will be at the FAIR Conference. If anyone wants to say "hi" and chat a bit, feel free to do such. One can find the details of the conference here. 

 

On Saturday, August 12^th, I will be having a dialogue with my friend Adam Stokes, an ordained apostle of The Church of Christ with the Elijah Message - The Assured Way of the Lord. We will dialogue on whether the Book of Mormon and other early LDS texts (e.g., the Book of Moses; Lectures on Faith) teach Modalism:

Some Excerpts from Impeccability and Temptation: Understanding Christ’s Divine and Human Will (2021)

 

The motivation for this project was the observation that very little research has been done on the consequences of a libertarian concept of free-will on Christology. Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ was fully human, yet was unable to sin. If, however, being human implies the power to choose between good and evil, it seems that Christ cannot be both fully human and impeccable.

 

. . . .

 

The apparent inconsistency resulting from attributing impeccability to Christ can be formulated as such::

 

1 If x is truly human, x must be (potentially) peccable.

 

2 If x is truly divine, x must be essentially impeccable.

 

3 A person cannot be both (potentially) peccable and essentially impeccable. (Johannes Grössl, “Introduction: Impeccability and Temptation,” in Impeccability and Temptation: Understanding Christ’s Divine and Human Will, ed. Johannes Grössl and Klaus von Stosch [Routledge Studies in Analytic and Systematic Theology; London: Routledge, 2021], 1-2)

 

 

 

The difficulty is clear. Why was Jesus driven out into the wilderness to face temptation and testing from Satan in the first place (Matthew 4:1-11) if there was no real possibility that he would fail, as humans do? Was it a pro forma even to put Jesus’ flesh, if not Spirit, to the test? Was Jesus a divine automaton going through the motions of a temptation story? And if so, why does he need the ministering of angels at the end of the ordeal, if an ordeal it was? More difficult still is the prospect that Jesus could have sinned. Does this suggest that human salvation in Christ rested on Jesus’ human obedience to the divine will? When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane and asked for God to take the cup of suffering and death away, was this another temptation? Even to ask for the cup to be removed? Was the will of Jesus in tension here with the will of God? If God was in Jesus and Jesus could have sinned, does this mean that Jesus could have frustrated God’s salvific plans? What would it mean that God could potentially sin against Godself? (Jeffrey Siker, “The sinlessness of Christ and human perfection,” in Impeccability and Temptation: Understanding Christ’s Divine and Human Will, ed. Johannes Grössl and Klaus von Stosch [Routledge Studies in Analytic and Systematic Theology; London: Routledge, 2021], 21)

 

 

 

The Problem

 

The view that being tempted implies that the person tempted is able to sin is not a historical novelty, thought it may have more proponents in the recent past than it did in the remote past. . . .  One can present the argumentation of these thinkers as follows:

 

1 If a person is X, then that person is capable of sinning (i.e., peccable). (Assume)

 

2 Christ is X (From Conciliar Christology)

 

3 Thus, Christ is capable of sinning (From 1, 2)

 

4 If a person is capable of sinning (peccable), then that person is not impeccable. (Assume)

 

5 Thus, Christ is not impeccable. (From 3, 4)

 

The argument schema is valid. Thus, if the premises are true from some way of filing in for X, we have a sound argument for concluding that Christ was not impeccable. Furthermore, if that substituend for X is something which traditional Christology teaches for Christ, then we have a proof for the claim that traditional Christology is internally inconsistent. (Timothy Pawl, “Conciliar Christology, impeccability, and temptation,” in Impeccability and Temptation: Understanding Christ’s Divine and Human Will, ed. Johannes Grössl and Klaus von Stosch [Routledge Studies in Analytic and Systematic Theology; London: Routledge, 2021], 95)

Augustine and Bede Understanding the "Until" of 2 Peter 1:19 Resulting in the Termination, not Continuation, of the Main Clause

  

So we have a prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until (εως ου) the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (2 Pet 1:19 NRSV)

 

2 Pet 1:19 is sometimes used by Catholic apologists as an example of the main clause continuing once the "until" (εως ου) is reached. This is important as “until” in Matt 1:25 is the same term εως ου. For example, Ronald K. Tacelli argued that:

 

Clearly, St. Peter was not insinuating that we should cease being attentive to the truths he was presenting after "the day dawns and the morning star rises in [our] hearts.". (He's an Only Child)

 

Eric D. Svendsen responded to Tacelli thusly:

 

. . .  once again, Tacelli misses the point of the passage. Peter is not addressing truth as a category, but specifically “the word of the prophets” that are subsequently inscripturated (vv. 20-21). Scripture then is compared to a “shining light.” The “dark place” is this present age through which the Scriptures give us safe passage. The phrase “day dawns and the morning star rises” is doubtless a reference to the parousia (second coming of Christ), after which it will no longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets as a guide which navigates us through a dark place, since Christ himself will supersede any such need. Hence, once the “until” is reached at Christ’s coming, we will no longer “see through a mirror dimly,” or “know in part”; rather we will “see face to face,” and “know fully just as we also have been known” (1 Cor 13:12). Once again, when we read the passage aright, we see that heos hou retains its normal usage. (Where Have All the Critics Gone? Reflections on the Roman Catholic Response to the Phrase Heos Hou in Matthew 1:25)

 

This reflects what Svendsen wrote in his 2001 book on Mariology:

 

Peter entreats us to pay attention to the word of the prophets “as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises” (2 Pet 1:19)—doubtless a reference to the parousia, after which it will no longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets as a guide which navigates us through a dark place; Christ himself will supersede any such need. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 52)

 

Now, I think Svendsen put a little too much weight into εως ου in his writings as there are examples of the main clause continuing after the εως ου is reached even during his arbitrary timeline (e.g., 4 Maccabees 7:1-3). With that being said, it should be noted that figures in the first millennium of Christianity understood the “until” in 2 Pet 1:19 results in the termination, not continuation, of the main clause. For example:

 

Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

 

8. Behold, even lamps bear witness to the day, because of our weakness, for we cannot bear and look at the brightness of the day. In comparison, indeed, with unbelievers, we Christians are even now light; as the apostle says, "For ye were once darkness, but now light in the Lord: walk as children of light:" and he says elsewhere, "The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast away the works of darkness, and put on us the armor of light; let us walk honestly as in the day." Yet that even the day in which we now are is still night, in comparison with the light of that to which we are to come, listen to the Apostle Peter: he says that a voice came to the Lord Christ from the excellent glory, "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. This voice," said he, "which came from heaven, we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount." But because we were not there, and have not then heard this voice from heaven, the same Peter says to us, "And we have a more sure word of prophecy." You have not heard the voice come from heaven, but you have a more sure word of prophecy. For the Lord Jesus Christ, foreseeing that there would be certain wicked men who would calumniate His miracles, by attributing them to magical arts, sent prophets before Him. For, supposing He was a magician, and by magical arts caused that He should be worshipped after His death, was He then a magician before He was born? Hear the prophets, O man dead, and breeding the worms of calumny, hear the prophets: I read, hear them who came before the Lord. "We have," saith the Apostle Peter, "a more sure word of prophecy, to which ye do well to give heed, as to a lamp in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts."

 

9. When, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ shall come, and, as the Apostle Paul also says, will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the thoughts of the heart, that every man may have praise from God; then, in presence of such a day, lamps will not be needed: no prophet shall then be read to us, no book of an apostle shall be opened; we shall not require the witness of John, we shall not need the Gospel itself. Accordingly all Scriptures shall be taken out of the way,--which, in the night of this world, were as lamps kindled for us that we might not remain in darkness,--when all these are taken away, that they may not shine as if we needed them, and the men of God, by whom these were ministered to us, shall themselves, together with us, behold that true and clear light. Well, what shall we see after these aids have been removed? Wherewith shall our mind be fed? Wherewith shall our gaze be delighted? Whence shall arise that joy which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor hath gone up into the heart of man? What shall we see? I beseech you, love with me, by believing run with me: let us long for our home above, let us pant for our home above, let us feel that we are strangers here. What shall we see then? Let the Gospel now tell us: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thou shalt come to the fountain from which a little dew has already besprinkled thee: thou shalt see that very light, from which a ray was sent aslant and through many windings into thy dark heart, in its purity, for the seeing and bearing of which thou art being purified. John himself says, and this I cited yesterday: "Beloved, we are the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be: we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him even as He is." I feel that your affections are being lifted up with me to the things that are above: but the body, which is corrupt, weighs down the soul; and, the earthly habitation depresses the mind while meditating many things. I am about to lay aside this book, and you too are going to depart, every man to his own house. It has been good for us to have been in the common light, good to have been glad therein, good to have rejoiced therein; but when we part from one another, let us not depart from Him. (Tractates on the Gospel of John 35, 8-9 [NPNF1 7:297])

 

9. "And the just shall see, and shall fear; and over him they shall laugh" (ver. 7). Shall fear when? Shall laugh when? Let us therefore understand, and make a distinction between those two times of fearing and laughing, which have their several uses. For so long as we are in this world, not yet must we laugh, lest hereafter we mourn. We have read what is reserved at the end for this Doeg, we have read and because we understand and believe, we see but fear. This, therefore, hath been said, "The just shall see, and shall fear." So long as we see what will result at the end to evil men, wherefore do we fear? Because the Apostle hath said, "In fear and trembling work out your own salvation:" because it hath been said in a Psalm, "Serve the Lord in fear, and exult unto Him with trembling." Wherefore "with fear"? "Wherefore let him that thinketh himself to stand, see that he fall not." Wherefore "with trembling"? Because he saith in another place: "Brethren, if a man shall have been overtaken in any delinquency, ye that are spiritual instruct such sort in the spirit of gentleness; heeding thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Therefore, the just that are now, that live of faith, so see this Doeg, what to him is to result, that nevertheless they fear also for themselves: for what they are to-day, they know; what to-morrow they are to be, they know not. Now, therefore, "The just shall see, and they shall fear." But when shall they laugh? When iniquity shall have passed over; when it shall have flown over; as now to a great degree hath flown over the time uncertain; when shall have been put to flight the darkness of this world, wherein now we walk not but by the lamp of the Scriptures, and therefore fear as though in night. For we walk by prophecy; whereof saith the Apostle Peter, "We have a more sure prophetic word, to which giving heed ye do well, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day shine, and the day-star arise in your hearts." So long then as by a lamp we walk, it is needful that with fear we should live. But when shall have come our day, that is, the manifestation of Christ, whereof the same Apostle saith, "When Christ shall have appeared, your life, then ye also shall appear with Himself in glory," then the just shall laugh at that Doeg.… [Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm LII, 9 [NPNF1 8:200])

 

The Venerable Bede (d. 735):

 

In the night of this world, so full of dark temptations, where there is hardly anyone who does not sin, what would become of us if we did not have the lamp of the prophetic word? Will this word always be necessary? No. It is only necessary until the daylight comes. Right now we have a night lamp because we are children of God, and in comparison with the ungodly, we are the very daylight itself. But if we compare what we are now with what we shall be in the future, then we are still in darkness and need this lamp. (On 2 Peter [PL 93:73], in James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, ed. Gerald Bray [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000], 141)