Michael J. Gorman on the Transformative Nature of Justification in Romans

  

Justification, God’s Glory, and the Spirit

 

It is important, therefore, to stress the transformative and restorative substance of what God does, for justification is even more than a powerful legal pronouncement or act of pardon. Romans 3:24 implies that justification solves the problem of humans missing out on the divine glory (3:23). Justification means, in part, restoration to the glory we once possessed—to true humanity that renders glory to God as the essence of true humanity, experiencing the presence of God individually and in community. Justification is the beginning of a new reality that will reach its ultimate goal in eternal life and final glorification (5:2; 8:18).

 

Yet another key phrase in Rom 3:23 has been understood in several different ways. Does Paul say “we fall short of the glory of God” (NRSV, NIV, NET, RSV, NASB, ESV) or we “lack God’s glory” (NJB; cf. NAB “are deprived of”)? Despite the answer expressed in multiple translations, it is best to understand this verse in the second sense. That is, we are (or were, prior to justification) lacking God’s glory. The basic meaning of glory (Gk. Doxa) here seems to be divine presence, as in the glory of the Lord that filled the tabernacle and the temple.

 

Lacking that glory is one way, then, of describing the fundamental human predicament of life apart from God, when we have turned our backs on God and become un-godded. At the same time, then, what humans need, is precisely the glory of God. In justification, doxa is restored to humans who have been characterized by lacking doxa. This is likely what Paul means in  8:30 when he says believers have been “glorified” by God. (At the same time, it must be remembered that full and final glory is in the future [5:2], and that whatever glory believers experience now by virtue of the presence of the Spirit is stamped with the pattern of the cross [see esp. 5:3; 8:17]. We can refer to the present experience of the Spirit as cruciform glory and as resurrection infused, or resurrectional, cruciformity)

 

Paul asserts that divine glory was one of the blessings God gave to Israel (9:4). We see this glory especially in the experience of Moses and the children of Israel at Sinai and in the wilderness, particularly at the tabernacle, or tent meeting (e.g., Exod 29:43-46; 40:34-35), and later in association with the temple (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Chron 7:1-2). As a Jew, Paul of course also believes that not only his fellow Jews, but all human beings, were created in the image of God and given the breath of life from God (Gen 1:27; 2:7). As such, they were both to give glory (honor and praise) to God and also to be—individually and corporately—an ongoing representation of God and God’s presence on earth. (Paul would also affirm with the Scriptures that the whole earth is full of God’s glory [e.g., Isa 6:3] and that salvation consists of seeing and experiencing that glory—which is something for “all flesh” [Isa 40:1-5]) God’s glory is to be displayed in God’s people (Isa 49:3).

 

We see this clearly when Paul designates both the church (1 Cor 3:16) and individual believers (1 Cor 6:19) as the temple of the Holy Spirit. When he speaks of lacking God’s glory, he may once again have in mind the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel spoke of God’s glory leaving the temple and God’s people (e.g., Ezek 10:18-19; 11:23), but he also promised that God’s glory would return (Ezek 43:4-7) to dwell, by the Spirit, in the people (Ezek 36:25-28) and also in a rebuilt temple (Ezek 40-48). (Michael J. Gorman, Romans: A Theological and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022], 121-22)

 

 

Justification: Vertical and Horizontal

 

This aspect of justification as involving becoming God’s temple, individually and corporately, also helps us settle another debate about justification that has been important especially in recent years. Is justification (1) about how an individual is restored to right relationship with God (a “vertical” understanding of justification) or (2) about who, and how, all people—especially gentiles—are included in the people of God (a “horizontal” understanding of justification)?

 

The answer to this question is “Yes.” Once again, we are faced with a false either-or. Justification is about both the individual and the community; when we are justified, we are transferred into Christ, into the people of God, into the community of the just/righteous. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, the justified share in the holiness, faithfulness, and righteousness/justice of God (2 Cor 5:21).

 

The idea that God’s saving act of justifying sinful human beings includes remaking them into the temple of the Holy Spirit, individually and corporately, is not an aspect of justification that has received sufficient attention. Paul only hints at this truth here, when he implies that those lacking God’s glory will now possess that divine glory. This sharing in God’s glory will be only partial in the present, but full in the eschatological future. The apostle refers to this glorious future reality in 5:2-5 and then puts all of its significance on display in chapter 8. We were made to be temples of God’s glory, indwelt and transformed by God’s Spirit, serving God in service to the world. That is why justification is inseparably connected to justice/righteousness—to holiness in living. Human adikia is being undone. Sin is being interrupted and replaced with the divine presence. Christ’s death makes all of this possible (see also Gal 3:1-5). (Ibid., 123)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Kevin George on 2 Corinthians 5:21

  

This is perhaps the primary text that is commonly used to claim that Jesus paid for our sins and that the righteousness of Christ is transferred to us. The typical PSA proponent reads this verse as if it says something like this, “For our sake God put our sin on Christ’s so that we would have the righteousness of God transferred to our account.”

 

This reading and understanding is seriously incorrect for the following reasons:

 

1.     This verse says, “. . . so that in him we might become the righteous of God,” not “from him.” To be “in” Christ is a Greek way of saying “In his group,” or “on his team,” or “linked to him,” or “in his sphere of influence.” The Greek word “en,” which is the English “in” has to do with our identification with Christ, not about something being passed from him to us. “In” is a word that involves association, not a transfer.

2.     Righteousness is a virtue like love, patience, gentleness, etc. There are also anti-viruses like hate, bitterness, impatience, etc. Neither virtues not anti-virtues can be transferred. I cannot transfer some at my patience or love to you. Right living is also virtuous living. Righteousness is not something that can be transferred to delegated. Neither can wickedness. This passage says nothing about the righteousness of God or of Jesus actually being transferred to us. It is by being “in “ Christ that we can have God’s righteousness, which is about following Christ as our leader, living and behaving as he did. Righteousness is what we do because we are associated with Christ. It is not delegated or assigned to us.

3.     The phrase, “we might become the righteousness of God.” It is more literally translated as, “that we might be becoming the righteousness of God.” This is about transitioning from a condition of unrighteousness, toward righteousness. Becoming righteous is not a status or a position or a transfer, or a declaration. Becoming righteous is a movement, a transition. So, properly understood, this phrase has nothing to do with God transferring righteousness to us, but of us transitioning from our unrighteous behavior toward godly, righteous behavior. It is similar to, “that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” in 1 Peter 2:24.

4.     The greater context of verse 21 is also problematic because the entire passage is about Christ reconciling us to God. If we claim that verse 21 teaches that God transfers Christ’s righteousness to us, we would have a false or reverse reconciliation. The context pleads with us to be reconciled to God. It is us being relationally reconciled to Him, not Him being reconciled to us because someone else paid Him to delete our record of sins in heaven or because He is blinded by a covering of Christ’s righteousness. We have offended God. We must stop offending Him if reconciliation is going to occur. If somehow some external righteousness is transferred to us, and this is called reconciliation in total disregard of our actually ceasing to offend God, then is being bribed or blinded by Christ, and no genuine reconciliation has occurred. The plea of Paul is that WE be reconciled TO God. What Christ did was not a divine maneuver for God to be reconciled to us! The first step in any process of reconciliation is to stop offending. Until the offenses case, there can be no genuine reconciliation. So, to read this passage with the idea that we are not required to stop offending and that reconciliation occurs due to an imparting righteousness from a third party destroys the very intent of the passage, which is that we be reconciled TO God. If a transfer of righteousness is occurring without us ceasing to offend, this would be reconciliation in reverse, a fake reconciliation, if you can even imagine God agreeing to such a thing!

5.     Now let’s focus on the phrase “to be sin.” Sin is an action that takes place in time, and therefore cannot be transferred to another time or another actor, nor can something or someone become literally sin. Sin is not an object or a substance that can be moved or transferred, bought or sold. Some may say that Christ became legally sin in our place. This idea would mean that Christ merely accepted a temporary legal label called “sin.” But a mere label called “sin” does noting at all to motivate us to live righteously, and the verse flatly states that “ . . . he made him to be sin who knows no sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Simply having Jesus become temporarily labelled as a legal sinner provides no motivation of any significance that would move us toward righteous living and genuine reconciliation. Claiming that God labelled Jesus as “sin” in order to effectuate atonement is to have God agree to a fraudulent scheme that you would expect from a shady lawyer or politician. Nevertheless, various prominent preachers have thundered this very idea from their pulpits.

6.     If Jesus was literally “made sin,” then he would not have been an acceptable sacrifice to God. A polluted sacrifice offered as a reconciliational gift would be an insult, not a gift comparable to a husband giving old, wilted flowers to his wife after apologizing for an offense. The prophet Malachi railed against such an idea in Malachi 1:7-9 “By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORDS’s table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. 9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts.”

7.     Using verse 21 as a means of transferring Christ’s righteousness is a denial of being made a new creature as stated in verse 17. A transfer of righteousness is a legal fiction, and has no immediate bearing on our behavior. Being labelled “legally righteous” does not make us new, where old things have passed away. We would merely have a new fictional legal status called “the righteousness of Christ.” This is functionally equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig—where we are the pig. It makes a mockery of us actually becoming new, and discards God’s demand that we sop sinning and be becoming righteous.

 

Now that we have examined that the verse does not say, what then is it saying? “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

 

The word “to be” in the phrase “to be sin” are not in the Greek. Without these extra words the text says “ . . . he made him sin . . .” In what sense was Jesus made sin for our sake? This is probably a reference, a picture, an illustration, of what sin looks like—the agony, the cruelty, the wickedness, all put on public display with the intended end result being, “ . . . so that in him we might be becoming the righteousness of God.” We see the innocent Son of God tortured, suffering and dying, knowing that it is because of our collective sinful actions and attitudes. Our sin, our unrighteousness, is the cause of this story, and we should recoil in shock and run away from evil and toward righteousness.

 

This should bring Isaiah 53:4-5 to mind, “Surely he has endured our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced because of our transgressions; he was crushed because of our iniquities.” A careful reading of the text shows that we wrongly esteemed, wrongly concluded, that God caused the suffering. Instead, his suffering is our fault! We should reflect on this and be shocked and horrified that our sins led to this degree of unrighteousness, and then flee from our unrighteousness and toward God’s righteousness by stopping all sin and doing what God considers right living. The very Son of God was nailed to a cruel cross because of our sin. What a shame. May we flee from all sin so that his suffering will not be in vain. If we do this and become a follower of Christ, we will then have as the text says, “the righteousness of God” and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. This fits the context perfectly and fulfills its author’s intent. (Kevin George, Atonement and Reconciliation: On what basis can a holy God forgive sin? A search for the original meaning, contrasted with Penal Substitutionary Atonement [2023], 164-67)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Carl J. Cranney, "The Final Answer to God: The Fate of the Unevangelized in Catholic and Mormon Thought": Children Who Die Before the Age of Accountability

  

Children Who Die Before the Age of Accountability

 

A brief sidenote should be mentioned here to demonstrate some of the complexities of determining when a moment of perfect decision is reached. For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the age at which children are baptized is at eight years old (D&C 68:25-27), and this is sometimes called “the age of accountability” (a term slightly modified from D&C 20:71). Children who die before the age of eight do not have their temple work performed for them. It is assumed it is unnecessary for them based on a passage in the Book of Mormon, where Mormon states:

 

But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. (Moroni 8:12-13)

 

Latter-day Saints have a clear sense that we will be punished only for our own sins, not Adam’s (Articles of Faith 1:2), which is even labelled a less-condemnatory “transgression” as opposed to a “sin,” a clear repudiation of at least some notions of original sin. It is thought that children are not capable of making decisions they are fully culpable for before the age of eight. But they are culpable in the next life. What of their fate in the spirit world before resurrection? It is unclear. Will they be in the resurrection? There are hints they will be resurrected as children and allowed to be raised in the millennial reign of Christ (D&C 101:30-31). Are they not culpable in mortality (not even temptable, according to D&C 29:47), die before the age of eight, become culpable in the spirit world, then not culpable after resurrection? There is much here that is unclear and unrevealed.

 

Again it seems that the broad strokes of LDS theology come into play more than the finer details. Everybody will have a full chance and opportunity to understand and accept the gospel. Salvation is never forced. The fact of the matter is, there is no firm Latter-day Saint revelation on how and when children who die before the age of eight will have their full understanding of the gospel and are thus able to make a decision to accept or reject Christ. It is clear that they are not punished for their failure to make this a decision in mortal life before they are capable of fully doing so. The rest is very murky, and when their moment of perfect decision could be reached is unclear. Paul’s statement that, “for now we see in a mirror, dimly,” (1 Corinthians 13:12) seems apropos. (Carl J. Cranney, "The Final Answer to God: The Fate of the Unevangelized in Catholic and Mormon Thought" [Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 2020], 177-78)

 

David Brakke and David M. Gwynn on Athanasius's 39th Festal Letter

In their introductory comments concerning Athanasius 39^th Festal Letter (AD 367), David Brakke and David M. Gwynn wrote:

 

Outside his canonical Old and New Testaments, Athanasius refers to two additional categories of writings, although they lack canonical status. Into this category go the Wisdom of Solomon; the Wisdom of Sirach; Esther; Judith; Tobit; the Teaching of the Apostles (Didache); and the Shepherd of Hermas (a work that Athanasius once praised as a “most edifying book” (On the Incarnation, 3), even if noncanonical (On the Council of Nicaea 181)). Far more dangerous in Athanasius’ eyes are the true apocrypha, which heretics have invented and attributed to figures such as Enoch, Isaiah, and Moses. These works spread deceit and discord, and must be rejected lest they cause the faithful to falter. (in The Festal Letters of Athanasius of Alexandria, with the Festal Index and the Historia Acephala [trans. David Brakke and David M. Gwynn; Translated Texts for Historians 81; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 232)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Arthur A. Just, Jr., on the Use of Deuteronomy 18 in Luke

  

The resurrection of Christ is the final consummation of all Scripture—it is the sign of fulfillment. Jesus fits the pattern of the prophets in his life and death and completes it. Deuteronomy 18:55f becomes the programmatic text in the Old Testament for Jesus’ interpretation of the Scriptures as fulfilled in himself. As Bock suggests in his exposition of the transfiguration imperative “listen to him” in 9:35, Deuteronomy 18 is Luke’s source, and Moses is the one who sets the pattern for Jesus’ rejection of well as his teaching and miracles:

 

“This use of Deuteronomy 18 as a call to understand God’s plan as revealed in the prophet like Moses, Jesus is present also in Acts 3.19-24. Its connection with teaching about Jesus’ suffering and coming glory suggests that these points of Jesus’ ministry may not have been appreciated as a part of the OT hope about Messiah.” (Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 115)

 

Even the use of “to raise up” (anasthêsei) in Deuteronomy 18:15 could be seen as an allusion to the resurrection of Jesus. Luke’s phrase “beginning with Moses” suggests that we read back into the Gospel to see the evangelist’s development of his Moses typology that sets the pattern par excellence for the progressive unfolding of those prophetic characteristics that will mark the Messiah, a pattern that may be seen in Abraham, David, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, the future apostolic community in Acts, and in Israel itself.

 

Jesus, therefore, is the eschatological prophet, the end of the ages, the fulfillment of all Scripture. He is the teacher who, at the table, completes the teaching of the prophets—he is the miracle-worker who, through his miracles and his presence at the table, before and after the resurrection, demonstrates the presence in the world of the new age of salvation, demonstrates the presence of the world of the new age of salvation, the fulfillment of the kingdom of God—he is the rejected one who, by his death on the cross, fulfills his own prophecy that “a prophet should not perish away from Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). But the disciples or the people of Israel could not understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of Scripture until after the resurrection. As Dillon concludes: “Only at Easter could that properly Mosaic prophecy of Jesus be brought to light.” (Dillon, From Eyewitnesses, 136) (Arthur A. Just, Jr., The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1993], 214-15, italics in original)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Arthur A. Just, Jr., on the Parable of the Prodigal Son being, in part, an apologetic against the Scribes and Pharisees

  

The parable of the prodigal son is an apologetic told against the Pharisees and scribes.

 

The parable of the prodigal son is Jesus’ apologetic statement to the Pharisees, justifying his style of table fellowship, i.e., “that in his actions the love of God to the repentant sinner is made effectual.” Luke’s introductory remarks in 15:1-2 clearly draw the lines between the tax collectors/sinners and Pharisees/scribes, suggesting that in the third parable of Luke 15, the prodigal son represents all repentant tax collectors and sinners, and the older brother represents all unrepentant Jewish religious authorities, particularly the Pharisees and scribes. The charges formulated against Jesus sum up the opinion of Jesus’ opponents about his table fellowship this far in the Gospel: “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them’” (15:2).

 

By singling out the Pharisees and scribes, Luke is preparing for the charges against Jesus in his trial, and the summation of those charges by the Emmaus disciples in 24:20. BY listing the Pharisees first in 15:2, the only place where Luke makes this distinction, he signals their leadership in bringing charges against Jesus because of his table fellowship. Thus in Luke 15, the opponents of Jesus outside Jerusalem, the Pharisaic party, first state charges against Jesus based on his table fellowship first hand from the beginning of that fellowship in Luke 5. (Arthur A. Just, Jr., The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1993], 181)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

D. Michael Quinn (August 11, 1991) on "Concubines"

  

Question: you've referred to concubinage, and what does that mean in the L.D.S. Church.

 

You need to remember that if you read section 132, the 1843 revelation, that revelation not only approves plural wives, it also approves concubines.

 

The question is, what does that mean?  well, the term "concubine" as I understand it, and I'm not a biblical scholar and haven't researched this carefully, but in the Old Testament you have references to wives and concubines.  My understanding is that in the Old Testament when it used that term, whatever the original Hebrew was, it meant that it was a wife who did not have the same social and legal status as other wives. Topically, concubines were slave women or servants in the home who became wives of the master of the home.

 

Several of Abraham's wives, he had four, and two of those wives were concubines.  They were his servant women who became his wives.  I believe two of them had the higher social and legal status.  They were not his servant women. So there was that distinction.  lt related not to the legitimacy of the marriage, but to the social standing of the women in the marriage.

 

Then in contemporary use, concubine came to mean basically a woman who was in like a mistress, and that became a conventional British and American understanding of the word concubine.

 

Then you have the revelation of 1843 approving plural wives and concubines, and it doesn't explain what they are.  So you are left to wonder what we're talking about there, because there are no slaves.  Well, that's not true, there were black slaves in American society, but there were no slaves in Nauvoo society that this would have applied to, so what was it referring to?  My only understanding of this, any time the brethren referred to concubines, they never explained what they meant.  They just said "concubines." I think that what it came to mean in Mormon practice and in Mormon thought in the 19th century was a woman who was married to a man without benefit of a sealing ceremony performed by a Priesthood holder.  So it referred to a woman who became married to a man through an ordinance of what I call a "solemn covenant of marriage." And I don't like referring to those women as concubines because of the very negative connotations that term had and did have, even in the 19th century.  But I think that's what George Q. Cannon and others were referring to when they said that concubinage is a true principle of the Lord, and if necessary it's going to occur again.  It meant that if necessary, if they for, one reason or another couldn't have a Priesthood holder perform a ceremony of sealing for a couple, that the couple could enter into concubinage under the authorization of God by agreement or vow of love and fidelity between themselves and this goes to what I regard as a principle that the structure of the Church is not necessary to ratify what God approves, and that in terms of relationships, a relationship of love and commitment doesn't need to have an ordinance to perform it, to have the approval of God, that that is between the couple and their relationship and God.

 

Yet, in the 19th century, that was a minority practice.  Most of the polygamous relationships that existed began with a formal ceremony in which there was a formal officiator performing it.

 

There were very few of concubinage.  But I've traced down a number of them.  I focused on them primarily after 1890.  and there were very few of those.  That will have to be the last question, I'm afraid.  I don't want to take the patience of those sitting here wondering, "will he never stop?" So thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you. (D. Michael Quinn, "Plural Marriages After the 1890 Manifesto," Bluffdale, Utah, August 11, 1991)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

D. Michael Quinn on D&C 132 and the Exaltation of Monogamists

  

Although the 1843 revelation on the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" indicates that the revelation was in answer to Joseph Smith's inquiry about biblical polygamy, the lengthy discussion about marriage and exaltation (D&C 132:19-20) was in a monogamous context: "if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant. . . ." Despite defensiveness about the importance of plural marriage, a number of Church leaders gave their definite (or sometimes grudging) affirmation that a monogamist who was true to the sealing covenants with his single wife could be exalted if he believed in the principle of plurality of wives, even though the monogamist's exaltation would not be as "great," or "numerous," or "full," or "high" as that of the exalted polygamist: Amasa M. Lyman in 1863 (JD 10:186), Brigham Young in 1866 (JD 11:268-69), Brigham Young in 1870 (Minutes of Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 12 Feb., 2 July 1870, LDS Church Archives), Brigham Young in 1871 (Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 15 July 1871, and Wilford Woodruff, Diary, 24 Sept. 1871, LDS Church Archives), Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor in 1873 (Minutes of Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 10 Feb. 1873), Orson Pratt in 1873 (JD.16:184), Charles C. Rich in 1878 (JD 19:253), Joseph F. Smith in 1878 (JD 20:28, 30-31), George Q. Cannon in 1880 (JD 22:124), and George Q. Cannon in 1883 (JD 25:2). Nevertheless, Church authorities in the nineteenth century could not simply portray plural marriage as superfluous, in view of the difficulties its practice was causing for individuals and for the Church itself. Therefore, the same Church authorities quoted above also stated that practicing plural marriage was necessary for exaltation: Orson Pratt in 1852 (JD 1:54), Brigham Young in 1866 (JD 11:268-69), 1870 (Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 12 Feb. 1870), and 1873 (JD 16: 166, and Woodruff, Diary, 31 Aug. 1873), and George Q. Cannon in 1883 (JD 24:146). I have not included here any statements where the speaker may have been referring to sealing for time and eternity generally, rather than to plural marriage in particular. The ambiguity of the question is perhaps best indicated by Brigham Young's sermon on 19 August 1866 in which he began by saying that if monogamist Mormons were "polygamists at least in your faith" they would be exalted, but concluded by saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God are those who enter into polygamy." JD 11:268-69. More than a year following the 1890 Manifesto, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated: "We formerly taught our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come." Statement on 19 December 1891 in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:230. (D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904,“ Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18, no. 1 [1985]: 24 n. 65)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Examples of Commentaries on Ezra 6:11-12

  

I also issue an order that whoever alters this decree shall have a beam removed from his house, and he shall be impaled on it and his house confiscated. And may the God who has caused his name to live there overthrow the king of any people who dares to defy this and destroy that Temple of God in Jerusalem! I, Darius, have issued this order. Let it be punctiliously obeyed! (Ezra 6:11-12 | 1985 JPS Tanakh)

 

 

 

11–12 A curse is pronounced upon anyone who changes the decree of Darius. Verse 11 has no curse formula, but does state that the punishment for the transgression would be impalement after a beam is pulled out of the house of the guilty and planted in the ground. Impalement was a well-known kind of punishment in the ancient Near East for grave offences. One side of a beam was sharpened and the other side planted in the ground. The sharp point was inserted under the chest of a person and pushed through his esophagus and lungs. He was then left to hang until he died. Dunghill. The meaning of this word is uncertain. Brockington wants to derive it from the Arab, wly, which has inter alia the meaning “the right to succession to property.” It may mean then “confiscate,” but this is uncertain.

 

In v. 12 we have a curse formula. The curse formula was used throughout ancient Near Eastern history to protect what was regarded as precious, e.g., the sarcophagus of a king. It was also used to protect a treaty. The overturning of a king meant the overturning of his throne, as we know from the curse formula.¹⁸ In the Bagistan Inscription Darius invoked the hostility of Ahuramazda against anyone who would destroy the inscription. Scholars refer to the Deuteronomistic language of v. 12 (lit. “May the God whose name lives there …”) as proof that this could not have been used by Darius. As we have already seen, the sacrificial terminology used by Darius might have been inspired by the Jews. It is possible that we have here the same phenomenon. In the last part of v. 12 the seriousness of the command of Darius is again underlined. It must be carried out immediately.(F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 90-91)

 

 

11. Any man that alters this command]; “frustrate” (BDB.) is scarcely justifiable; the idea is not to punish the one who interferes with the execution of the decree, but the one who would venture to change its terms. Berth. interprets in the sense of “transgress” or “violate.” The punishment will be twofold; the culprit will be impaled on a beam or stake pulled from his own house, and the house will be made a ruin. The impalement was a Semitic method of execution, and, as Sieg. says, to be distinguished from the Roman crucifixion. Sieg. claims that impalement existed among the Hebrews, citing Nu. 25:4, 2 S. 21:6, 9. BDB. says correctly that the method of execution was uncertain. Herod. testifies to the custom among the Assyrians (iii, ¹⁵⁹). The words may be rendered, “let him be lifted up and stuck upon it” (the beam). The punishment has quite a different turn in Esd. 6:31, let a beam be pulled from his own house, and let him be hung thereon, and his property shall become the king’s. That has a more modern and less Oriental note.—12. This verse has been generally discredited. Esd. has the original text, if we may judge by inherent fitness, thus: and the Lord, whose name is called there, shall annihilate all kings and the nation who stretches forth his hand to hinder or to harm that house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem. The writer has in mind the petty neighbours of Judah, who had shown marked hostility to the Jews, and who are now warned that Yahweh himself shall do them harm if they bar the progress of the temple. As the king had sought the favour of Yahweh for his own house (v. 10), so he naturally invokes his displeasure upon all who interfere with the restoration of his cult. (Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [International Critical Commentary; New York: Scribner, 1913], 146-47)

 

 

6:11. punishment for disobedience. It is common for treaties and royal decrees to end with a curse or clause threatening punishment for disobedience to the stipulations of the document. It would be possible to compare Joshua’s curse on the man who would rebuild Jericho in Joshua 6:26 and the curse on any prince who replaces the gate constructed by King Azitawada of Karatepe with this injunction. Such a statement is also found in the epilogue to the Code of Hammurabi, charging future rulers to provide justice or face a curse from the gods. The punishment of impalement is depicted in Assyrian Lachish reliefs and mentioned in a number of royal archives. The practice was to impale the corpse of the executed victim on a pointed stake in public view. Impalement is known in Persia, for instance in Amestris’s execution of Inaros (leader of a Libyan revolt) during the reign of her son, Artaxerxes. The victim was thus denied proper burial, as the birds and insects devoured the remains. One curse used by Darius in his inscriptions is: “If you should blot out these words, may Ahura Mazda slay you and your house be destroyed,” while another says “What you make, may Ahura Mazda pull down.”

 

6:12. curse in the name of local god. Since many of the peoples of the ancient world believed that gods were localized, that is, tied to particular places and peoples, it would be appropriate that events within that divine “jurisdiction” should be handled by the local deity. (Victor Harold Matthew, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background: Commentary on the Old Testament [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000])

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Kevin George on Galatians 3:13-14

  

Being cursed for hanging on a tree is based on Deuteronomy 21:22-23. In this case, a body was hung on a tree after execution for the purpose of public display. Hanging a body on a tree was not itself a form of punishment since the body at the time was a corpse. This hanging was not a penalty or a punishment, it was a public display of an already dead body. Do not conflate a dead body becoming a curse with being put to death. They are 2 different things! Paul is not saying that the death of Jesus is the curse, that would be a reading comprehensible mistake.

 

When Paul writes, “Christ redeemed [release/freed] us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” he is saying that Christ freed us from the law, effectively cancelling the law because those who truly follow Christ and live accordingly to his spirit do not need the law. Christ became the picture of illustration of a curse for our sake, demonstrating, in the most shocking way, the vast evil of sin due to humans grossly violating the law when they put to death the most innocent of all men. Due to him becoming the picture of a curse, the true curse of sin which is revealed by the law is vividly portrayed and we who are affected thereby choose to live as Christ lived, according to a superior righteousness which is defined by God, not by a written moral code.

 

The result of this curse is stated by Paul when he says, “so that in Christ Jesus the blessings of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” This means that there is no need for Gentiles to embrace the Mosaic law (which Gentiles had to do if they wanted to become Jewish) because there is a higher righteousness demonstrated by the faith and spirit of Christ. The curse, the burden of having to adopt Mosaic law has been removed! IT has been replaced by faithfully embracing Christ and living according to his teachings.

 

When Paul writes that Christ became “a curse for us,” the word “for” is the Greek “hyper,” meaning “on behalf of” of, “for our sakes.” It is not substitutionary and does not mean “in exchange for us!” The entire context of the passage, indeed the entire book of Galatians, is Paul’s argument that those who follow Christ (both Jews and Gentiles) no longer need the Mosaic law, which has effectively become a cursed way of living in comparison to the liberty we have in Christ (presuming we are actually abiding in him and in his teachings).

 

Regrettably, those who teach Penal Substitution latch on this passage and rip it out of context, disregard the author’s intent and grammar, and use it to teach that God literally cursed Jesus! Their claim is that the law and our sin were placed on Jesus thereby provoking God to curse HIs own Son. Not only in this claim possibly blaspheming, but also assumes that Jesus became a vile sinful sacrifice, in which case he would not have even qualified for being an offering, as offerings to God were supposed to be clean, the best of the flock, not the sick, lame, mangy rejects of unworthy condition. “When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts.” Malachi 1:8

 

Galatians 3:13-14 is a single paragraph that is part of a greater arguments against those who claim that followers of Christ must adhere to all the Mosaic laws and regulations like the Jews had been taught, which often included multiple layers of legal traditions beyond what was actually written. IN order for the Mosaic law to be set aside and to become free of it higher, superior, law or covenant had to be put in place that was better . . .

 

In Verses 17-26, Paul explains that the law of Moses was an addition to the promise given to Abraham and the law only served as a tutor, a means to establish boundaries, until the ultimate promise, Jesus Christ, would come (Deuteronomy 18:15-18). Now Jesus defines what is right and wrong, and by having faith and loyalty (not mere mental assent) to his teaching and his example we are righteous (1 Jn. 3:7). Those who follow Christ have no need of the Mosaic law because they have a greater, living source of defining what is right and wrong. Instead of following the sometimes abstract Mosaic laws we follow the Son of God who lives out all the righteousness of God.

 

An example of this is Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile who was considered righteous (Acts 10:22) before even hearing of Christ! Notice Peter’s “PSA-incorrect” statement: “So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Acts 10:34-35

 

Only after this statement does Peter actually tell Cornelius about Jesus “ . . .This is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives [Gr. lambanō, Eng. lay hold of] forgiveness [Gr. aphesin, Eng. release] of sins” (Acts 10:42-43)

 

Peter does not tell Cornelius to repent (similar to Luke 5:32). He was already living a godly, righteous life; he just needed to know and believe in the promised Messiah who had come. (Kevin George, Atonement and Reconciliation: On what basis can a holy God forgive sin? A search for the original meaning, contrasted with Penal Substitutionary Atonement [2023], 172-74)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com