Thursday, July 31, 2025

Clement of Alexandria Interpreting Philippians 4:3 and σύζυγος as a Reference to Paul’s Wife

  

53(1) In one of his letters Paul has no hesitation in addressing his “yokefellow.” He did not take her around with him for the convenience of his ministry. (2) He says in one of his letters, “Do we not have the authority to take around a wife from the Church, like the other apostles?” (3) But the apostles in conformity with their ministry concentrated on undistracted preaching, and took their wives around as Christian sisters rather than spouses, to be their fellow-ministers in relation to housewives, through whom the Lord’s teaching penetrated into the women’s quarters without scandal. (4) We know the dispositions made over women deacons by the admirable Paul in his second letter to Timothy. Furthermore, this same writer said strongly that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking”—or abstinence from wine or meat—“but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (5) Which of them goes around like Elijah wearing a sheepskin and a leather belt? Which of them wears no shoes and nothing but a piece of sackcloth like Isaiah? Or with nothing on but a linen apron, like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John’s Gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets lived like that and still gave thanks to the creator. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.6.53, in Stromateis, Books One to Three [trans. John Ferguson; The Fathers of the Church 85; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991], 289 = Migne, PG 8:1156-57)

 

Note on MT and LXX Deuteronomy 30:6

Deut 30:6 in the MT reads:

 

‎ וּמָ֙ל יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ אֶת־לְבָבְךָ֖ וְאֶת־לְבַ֣ב זַרְעֶ֑ךָ לְאַהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ֥ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ לְמַ֥עַן חַיֶּֽיךָ׃

 

And the Lord thy God will circumcise (מול) thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (KJV)

 

Unfortunately, the DSS manuscripts for Deuteronomy do not include Deut 30:6. However, the Vulgate follows the Hebrew:

 

circumcidet Dominus Deus tuus cor tuum et cor seminis tui ut diligas Dominum Deum tuum in toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et possis vivere

 

One can transliterate the Syriac in the Peshitta as follows:

 

w-nġaẓūr Maryā ’ĕlāḥḵā leḇōḵ w-ləḇā d-zeraʿḵ lāʿālm w-təḥmēm l-Maryā ’ĕlāḥḵā men kullāh leḇōḵ w-men kullāh nefsheḵ meṭṭal d-neḥyāḵ

 

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart—and the heart of your descendants-so that you may love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and so that you may live.

 

However, the LXX reads differently. The text of Deut 30:6 as found in Göttingen reads:

 

καὶ περικαθαριεῖ κύριος τὴν καρδίαν σου καὶ τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ σπέρματός σου ἀγαπᾶν κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου, ἵνα ζῇς σύ

 

The Lord your God will also cleanse (περικαθαριζω) your heart, and the hearts of your descendants so that you may love him with all your mind and being and so that you may live. (NETS 2d ed.)

 

According to the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, περικαθαριζω means “to clean away.”

The LXX of Deut 30:6 may inform some of Peter’s words at the Council of Jerusalem at Acts 15:9:

 

And put no difference between us and them, purifying (καθαριζω) their hearts by faith.

 

Commenting on Deut 10:16, we read the following in the NET Bible concerning the act of circumcision and what it signifies:

 

Just as that act signified total covenant obedience, so spiritual circumcision (cleansing of the heart) signifies more internally a commitment to be pliable and obedient to the will of God (cf. Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26). (The NET Bible First Edition Notes [Biblical Studies Press, 2006], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis offered the following comment on Acts 15:9:

 

463 "purifying their hearts by faith": τη πίστει καθαρίσας τας καρδίας αυτων, the Greek putting "by faith" (lit., "the faith") first in the clause for emphasis since "faith" is the opposite of what the Judaizers were demanding from Cornelius and all other believers-to be circumcised and obey the whole Mosaic law, in addition to having faith (cf. Rm 3:28; Gl 2:16). Paul's other point regarding the purifying of their hearts is introduced by the assonance between καθαρισας (kathar-isas) and καρδίας (kard-ias), which refers to the baptism they received after their show of faith. In Catholic theology, water baptism infuses God's cleansing grace into the individual's soul, thus regenerating the soul from a state of uncleanness to a state of cleanness (cf. Ac 2:38; 1Pt 3:20; Rm 6:1-4; Ti 3:5). Robert A. Sungenis, Commentary on the Catholic Douay-Rheims New Testament from the Original Greek and Latin, 4 vols. [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2024], 2:586 n. 463])

 

 

Lowell K. Handy on Accepted and Neutral Divination in the Old Testament

  

Accepted and Neutral Divination in the Old Testament. The predominant divination item mentioned in the Bible without condemnation was the Urim and Thummim pair, which priests used to determine Yahweh’s will. Reiner and Hurowitz suggest these biblical items may have been comparable to Mesopotamian psephomancy and were used to answer yes or no questions (Reiner, “Fortune-telling” 25, Hurowitz and Hurowitz, “Urim and Thummim,” 96). Houtman notes that more complicated answers seem to have been related to this method as well (Houtman, “Urim and Thummim,” 229, 231). The Bible also records common people casting lots to determine God’s will (Num 26:55–56; Jonah 1:7; Esth 3:7, 9:24–26) without condemning the practice (Lindblom, “Lot-casting,” 164–165, 173).

 

Joseph (Gen 40:9–13 and 41:15–36) and Daniel (Dan 2) both engaged in dream interpretation, which was considered learned insight rather than divination in the ancient world. The incubation of dreams—which entailed sleeping in a specific place with the expectation of a divine-induced dream—was practiced throughout the ancient world. Solomon’s act of seeking aid from God so that he could be a good ruler (1 Kgs 3:4–15) might be an example of such a practice. Jacob’s vision in Gen 28:10–17 could be interpreted similarly, though Jacob does not seem to demonstrate this intent when picking a place to sleep.

 

The written word became highly significant in early Judaism. Ezra’s reading of the Torah was a pivotal moment in the shift from the practices of the religion of Judah to the religion of Judaism. Noegel notes that biblical passages such as the writing of the Ten Commandments (Exod 31:18) stress the importance of words (Noegel, “Sign,” 146). In many regards, the “sacred text” takes an authoritative stance over divination in later Judaism, or at least one that it must be checked against.

 

The biblical narrative tells of other forms of divination without comment or description. Other narratives provide detailed information about seeking omens without expressing negative connotations:

 

•          Genesis 30:27 records Laban telling Jacob that he received knowledge from God through divination, but it doesn’t specify which form of divination or if the Bible approves or disapproves.

•          Genesis 44:5 says that Joseph engaged in divination by using a drinking cup, but it doesn’t describe his actions or condemn or endorse the practice.

•          Judges 6:36–40 records Gideon using sheep skin to understand God’s will—actions over which God doesn’t express disapproval, but neither does God approve.

•          In Judges 7:4–7 God instructs Gideon to choose soldiers based on their drinking habits, which could be considered an omen but is ambiguous and could just have to do with an emphasis on using good judgement.

•          1 Kings 20:33 refers to men looking for an omen but provides no additional details and without any further comment on the validity of such a practice.

•          God’s prophets refer to signs of coming events—which may be related to the worldview of omens (e.g., Isa 7:10–17; Joel 2:30–31; see also Heb 3:3–4).

 

Such passages demonstrate not only that divination existed in ancient Judah and Israel, but also that some forms could be practiced without being religiously offensive—despite the generic ban on divination (Deut 18:10). This does not imply endorsement by the Bible, just the nature of life in the period. (Lowell K. Handy, “Divination,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

The God of Korah, Libnah, and Makmackrah and Antonius Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum

  

Name of Deity Associated with Canopic Jar

Babylonian Deity

Source in Antonius Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum (Rome: Sumptibus Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1914)

God of Korah

dKur-ra-šu-ur-ur

#1719, p. 157

God of Libnah

dLa-ban

#1787, p. 160

God of Mahmackrah

(1) dMa-ag-rat-a

(2) dMa-mi-
šar-rat

(1) #2024, p. 171

(2) #2042, p. 172

 

As for Elkenah, the best proposal is that it is a shortened form of the Canaanite God El Koneh aratz, “God who created the earth” (alt. “God, creator of the earth”)—see the article, “The Idolatrous God of Elkenah.”

 

the supralinear "d" stands for the Sumerian determinative "dinger," meaning "god"  . . . The Book of Abraham translation of the deities' names actually comes through as a very literal rendition of the names as they would appear in Akkadian: "the god of. . .," rendering the Akkadian "d(name of deity)." (John M. Lundquist, “Was Abraham at Ebla? A Cultural Background of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 1 and 2), Studies in Scripture: The Pearl of Great Price, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson [Salt Lake City: Randall Book Co., 1985], 232)

 

Book of Mormon Critical Text on the Etymology for “Rameumptom” (Alma 31:21)

  

rameumptom . . . “holy stand”: cf. Hebrew rum “be high, exalted, rise,” and ram “high” (Ps 113:4; throne, Isa 6:1; -Ramah, 10:29); in the pl participial construct form: rame- “high-ones-of” (Isa 10:33; from pl ramim “high,” Isa 2:13-14, Ps 78:69), and ‘omed, ‘omedim, “standing, officiating” (priests: Neh 12:44; before God: Gen 18:22, 19:27, Dt 4:10, Jer 15:1; place: II Chron 30:16, 34:31, 35:10, Dan 8:17-18, 10:11), in the form ‘omedam, “their-standing-place” (Neh 8:7, 9:3, 13:11); cf ‘emdato “his-standing-place” (Mic 1:11); so also vs 13 a place of standing which was high above the head; this is the type of pulpit/platform often found high in the center of Jewish synagogue and Temple (usually a bima/almemar of wood: TB Sukka 5Ib [5:2], Sota 7:8 [41a]; Mosiah 2:7, I Esdras 9:42); cf also Hebrew romemu “exalt ye!” (Ps 99:5, 9), used as part of the morning service prayer in Jewish synagogue. Ancient Egyptian rm’, “height, high place,” with upraised-arms determinative glyph . . . (Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, ed. Robert F. Smith, 4 vols. [Provo, Utah: Deep Forest Green Books, 2025], 2:653-54 n. 1874)

 

Ellis T. Rasmussen on Whether Acceptance of the Pearl of Great Price Commits Latter-day Saints to a "literal acceptance of Genesis"?

  

Question: Does our acceptance of the Pearl of Great Price commit us to a literal acceptance of Genesis? Is not this a peculiar position among contemporary Christians?

 

Answer: Yes, we do accept Genesis, I think, more whole-heartedly, and therefore have a somewhat peculiar position among contemporary Christians today because fundamentalist among Bible-believers are somewhat scarce today. It does not commit us 100 per cent to an acceptance of the book of Genesis as we now have it, however, because we know—thanks to Nephi—that “many plan and precious parts” have been left out of it. We know, too, thanks to the Inspired Revision, that “many plan and precious parts” have been restored to it in the work that Joseph did get to do by revelation. We know, as we look at the early version in Hebrew, that there are many things that could be translated better. The Prophet Joseph Smith said on one occasion, of a passage, “I could give a better translation of this, but it will do for the present time.” We say we believe it to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly. So it is not in its present English state 100 per cent of the words of Moses or the words of God, but we have great respect for it. I believe we have much greater respect for it and take it more literally in many ways than other contemporary Christians. (Ellis T. Rasmussen, “Contributions of the Pearl of Great Price to Understanding of the Old Testament,” in Pearl of Great Price Conference, December 10, 1960, ed. James R. Clark [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1964], 37-38)

 

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Reiner Sörries Early Christian Attitudes Towards Images in The Encyclopedia of Christianity

  

Early Period

 

Up to the end of the second century neither literary nor archaeological sources give any evidence of the existence of → Christian art. The NT says nothing about the use of images. One may infer from this silence a lack of interest due to many causes. One was that primitive Christianity lived in tense expectation of the → parousia. Another was that in the struggle against paganism (→ Gentiles, Gentile Christianity), images were regarded as idolatrous and magical signs. Finally, the small number of Christians, and their lowly social status, prevented them from building their own places of worship, which might have functioned as centers of Christian art. Furthermore, the church, which saw itself as the new and true Israel, viewed the OT commandment as binding.

 

The oldest record of the existence of an image of Christ comes from Irenaeus (d. ca. 200), who tells us that the → Gnostic sect of the Carpocratians set up and venerated an image of Christ, along with the images they maintained of great philosophers (Adv. haer. 1.25.6). In nonheretical churches voices against images increased toward the end of the second century, from which we may infer that such images were now present. Tertullian (d. ca. 225) denounced all images, but Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 215) thought that neutral motifs might be used on seal rings. Origen (d. ca. 254) rejected images on the ground that they are a hindrance to spiritual knowledge. The Council of Elvira (ca. 306) decisively condemned images in the church.

 

Since, in spite of these negative voices of the theologians, we find Christian images at the latest by 220 (in the catacombs in Rome and in the Dura-Europos → house church), we may assume that in assimilation to pagan customs, Christians had images in defiance of official church teaching. These images, which revolved around the themes of → sin, → death, and redemption, arose at the same time in different parts of the Roman Empire, both in funerary and in liturgical settings.

 

In the Constantinian age criticism declined or focused on portraits or → images of Christ. Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 340) did not oppose symbolic images or those that depicted scenes, but he sharply rejected the request of the emperor’s sister Constantia for an image of Christ on the ground that the divinely transfigured Christ cannot be depicted.

 

Although Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) still rejected images, the monuments of the fourth century show that, as distinct from the naive lay art of the third century, there had now developed a theologically shaped church art. Especially after the Council of → Nicaea (325), an attempt was made to express in art the dogmatically asserted coessentiality of the Son with the Father by making images of Christ similar to those of the all-powerful and divine emperor and by decorating churches more heavily with biblical and dogmatic cycles. Third-century images were influenced by the desire of lay piety for deliverance and preservation in death, in contrast to those of the fourth century, which became the expression of theological speculation. Obviously significant for private → devotion were souvenirs from → pilgrimages and the → relics of saints (→ Saints, Veneration of), which were regarded as worthy of veneration and were thought to bring good fortune. (Reiner Sörries, “Images,” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. Erwin Fahlbusch, Jan Milič Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer, 5 vols. [Leiden, Brill: 1992], 3:658-69)

 

Further Reading:

 

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

The IVP Bible Background Commentary and the ESV Expository Commentary on Judges 6:36-40

  

6:36–40. fleece oracles. In an oracle a yes-no question is posed to deity and a mechanism of some binary nature is used so that deity can provide the answer. In Israel the priest carried the Urim and Thummim to use in oracular situations (see comment on Ex 28:30). That is apparently not available, so Gideon must be more creative and use a natural mechanism for the oracle (see Gen 24:14 and 1 Sam 6:7–9 for other occurrences). His yes-no question is whether or not the Lord is going to use him to deliver Israel. His oracular mechanism is based on what would normally happen to a fleece on a threshing floor overnight. Since the fleece is soft and absorbent and the threshing floor is rock or hard dirt, one would expect the fleece to be damp and the ground of the threshing floor dry. That would be the normal behavior of nature. In this case such a response would indicate a “yes” answer to his oracular question. Gideon has already been informed of the Lord’s intentions by the angel and is just offering an opportunity for the Lord to inform him if the plan has changed. When the events of the first night turn out exactly how one would expect them to under normal circumstances, Gideon wonders if maybe this “silence” might just mean the Lord wasn’t paying attention. He therefore switches the indicators so that the unusual occurrence would represent the “yes” answer—the fleece dry and the threshing floor wet. The thought behind this is that if deity is providing the answer, he can alter normal behavior and override natural laws in order to communicate his answer. In the ancient Near East, when they wanted a natural mechanism for oracles, they tended to use the liver or kidney of sacrificed animals (a divinatory practice called extispicy; see comment on omens at Deut 18:10). (Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000], Jdg 6:36–40)

 

 

6:36–40 In the presence of the assembled forces Gideon asks the Lord to perform two signs before entering into battle with the Midianites. These signs are not employed in order to determine the will of God. God has spoken clearly to Gideon, and Gideon understands what God desires him to do: to “save Israel by my hand, as you have said.” Additionally, the request for a sign before entering into battle does not necessarily constitute a lack of faith on Gideon’s part. He is now clothed with the Spirit of God and serving as God’s instrument of deliverance.

 

We have already seen how the call of Gideon connects him with Moses in the tradition of Exodus 3. In the same way, the signs of Gideon correspond to similar signs given to Moses in Exodus 4. There the Lord gives Moses two signs, the sign of the staff changing into a serpent and the sign of a leprous hand being made clean. The elements of the sign are symbolic of the events to which they point. For example, the staff that becomes a serpent represents Pharaoh, who wears the image of a serpent on his crown. Moses is then commanded to take the serpent with his hand, and it turns back into a staff. This sign demonstrates that the Lord will indeed give Pharaoh into the hand of Moses. These signs are to be performed so that the Israelites will believe that God has raised up Moses to deliver his people (Ex. 4:1, 30–31). In the same way, the fleece signs of Gideon are intended to demonstrate that the Lord has indeed raised up Gideon to deliver Israel from Midianite oppression. Once again, these signs do not reveal the will of God; rather, they are signs coming after the revelation of God’s will to provide his people with the courage to do that which he has revealed to them.

 

The ground of the threshing floor represents the land of Israel. The expression “all the ground” occurs three times. The word for “ground” in Hebrew also means “land,” and a Hebrew reader would have made the connection. The fleece of wool represents the Midianite army and their hordes of camels that have crossed the Jordan to consume Israel’s crops and livestock. The dew symbolizes the blessing of God (Gen. 27:28; Deut. 33:13 ESV mg.; Ps. 133:3), the crops and livestock produced from God’s gift of the land to his people. In the first fleece sign the land is dry and the fleece is wet with dew, symbolizing Israel’s current situation, as the Midianites consume what God intended for Israel in the form of blessing. In the second fleece sign the fleece is dry and the land is wet with dew, symbolizing that God is about to reverse the situation and return the conditions of blessing to his people.

 

By the time we arrive at the end of this chapter, the Lord has sent his prophet to rebuke Israel for her idolatry, raised up a Spirit-empowered deliverer, destroyed the altar of Baal and Asherah, assembled the army of Israel, and performed two signs to encourage the faith of those assembled for battle. Now the Lord is ready to fight for Israel against the Midianites and purge them from the land. (Miles V. Van Pelt, “Judges,” in Deuteronomy–Ruth, ed. Iain M. Duguid, James M. Hamilton Jr. [ESV Expository Commentary 2; Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2021], 2:579)

 

 

J. Alden Mason Calling the Macana/Macuahuitl a "Sword"

  

After the first stone-hurling, the Inca warriors closed in for hand-to-hand combat. The main arm of the common solider was the club, generally with a doughnut-shaped with a number of points, especially in club-heads made of copper or bronze. A double-edged sword of hard wood which has given its Quechua name macana to this weapon was another arm; this was a heavy two-handed sword, and the wielder carried no shield. There were also various types of battle-axes and poleaxes, with blades of stone or copper. The long wooden spears had fire-hardened ends, or tips of copper or bronze. (J. Alden Mason, The Ancient Civilizations of Peru [Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1957], 196)

 

J. Alden Mason on the Use of Slings Among the Incas

  

Inca battles, however, generally opened at a slight distance with the use of slings and bolas, the missile arms; these are more adapted to the open country of the Peruvian highlands. The sling was not the forked-stick-and-rubber-hand weapon of the modern boy, but rather of David’s Goliath-killing type. Generally of braided wool or fibre, it was up to six feet (2 m.) in length, with a wider cradle for the stone in the centre. Doubled, with both ends held in one hand, it was whirled around the head to give momentum, and then one end released, thus hurling the stone with great force and—with practice—great accuracy. The sling, constantly carried to kill or frighten away small animals or to drive domestic ones, was as ubiquitous as a modern Mexican’s machete, and was often worn as a fillet to keep the hair back.

 

The bolas consisted of several stones, each fastened to the end of a cord, or thong, and the latter tied together at the other ends. Thrown, they whirled by centrifugal force and covered a considerable area, wrapping around the victim’s body or legs; this also was primarily a hunting weapon. (J. Alden Mason, The Ancient Civilizations of Peru [Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1957], 195-96)

 

J. Alden Mason on Armour Among the Incas

  

Armour had been considerably developed among the Inca troops. Quilted cotton shirts or lengths of cloth wrapped around the body were worn. These were so efficient against native arms that the Spanish adopted the custom in preference to their heavier and hotter steel armour. Helmets of wood or plaited cane protected the head, and shields of wooden slats were worn on the back. Smaller round or rectangular shields were carried in the hand; these were generally covered with hide and decorated with some painted design or feather mosaic. Like the Roman testudo, a great strong cloth that could cover many men was sometimes used in siege operations. (J. Alden Mason, The Ancient Civilizations of Peru [Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1957], 196)

 

Mitchell Dahood on Psalm 29:1

  

1. O gods. In Canaanite mythology the bn ilm, “the sons of El,” (e.g., UT, 51:iii:14) are the minor gods who form part of the pantheon of which El is the head. In the Old Testament the term was demythologized and came to refer to the angels or spiritual beings who are members of Yahweh’s court and do his bidding; cf. Pss 89:7, 103:20, 148:1 ff.; 1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:6, 2:1.

 

The phrase benē ʾēlīm recurs in Ps 89:7 and in Deut 32:8, where we should read with the Vrs. lemispar benē ʾēl(īm), “According to the number of benē ʾēl(īm),” as against MT benē yiśrāʾēl. There has been some dispute as to what is meant here by benē ʾēl(im), but Albright’s contention that it simply means “stars” (From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 296) is confirmed by the parallelism of bn il with pḫr kkbm in UT, 76:i:3–4. Though the immediate context is completely damaged, one can safely infer that the balance of “the sons of El” with “the assembly of the stars” is the same as that in Job 38:7, “When the morning stars sang together and the sons of God (benē ʾelōhīm) shouted with joy.” A Punic inscription discovered on July 8, 1964, at Santa Severa, the ancient Etruscan city of Pyrgi, contains the phrase šnt km hkkbm ʾl, “(May) its years (be) like the stars of El.” Note the article and the enclitic mem (discussed under vs. 6 below) in the construct chain, hkkbm ʾl. This should help solve the dispute concerning the syntax of Phoenician Karatepe i:1, hbrk bʿl, “the one blessed by Baal”: the enclitic mem in Phoenician is recorded in such phrases as rb khnm ʾlm nrgl, “the chief of the priests of the god Nergal”; Donner and Röllig, KAI, II, p. 72. (Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1: 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 16; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 175-76)

 

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

The Jewish Study Bible on Psalm 29:1

  

1: Divine beings, lit. “sons of God,” or “sons of gods,” subordinate deities in the heavenly assembly. In Israelite thought these divine beings are part of God’s retinue, his heavenly court (Exod. 15:11; Pss. 82:1; 89:6–8; Job chs 1–2). Probably because of its pagan overtones, Ps. 96:7 substitutes “families of the peoples” for this term. Glory and strength, cf. Ps. 63:3. Glory, Heb “kavod,” may refer to the divine radiance, the visual manifestation of God. (The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael Fishbane [New York: Oxford University Press, 2004], 1313)

 

Richard Ballantyne (1817-1898) Affirming Baptismal Regeneration

Commenting on his conversion in 1842, Richad Ballantyne interpreted the Bible, in light of the Book of Mormon, as teaching baptismal regeneration:

 

And as to repentance I could see that I not only had to forsake sin, which I then believed, but that I had to forsake Babylon with all its glory and pollutions and renounce allegiance to all her false and corrupt teachings which they said were not authorized of God. I had not much difficulty in understanding the scope of these two principles. But when I came to baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, I was totally in the dark, though this seems now the simplest of either. But upon this subject the scriptures seemed to have been robbed of their plainest teachings. Antichrist’s have used so much sophistry to blind the minds of the people regarding the form and virtue of this saving ordinance that I could not for a long time understand it. But when I read the Book of Mormon I got the key by which I was able to understand the meaning of Christ’s teaching to Nicodemus regarding the baptism of water; in other words, what was meant when he said ye must be born of water before ye can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And what Paul meant when he taught baptism, as a burial. When I afterwards read of Christ’s going down into the river and of His being baptised of John in Jordan and of many other plain and simple references to this subject in the New Testament, I was amazed at my former stupidity. For now it seemed nothing else. (Richard Ballantyne, “1895 Reminiscences of Richard Ballantyne [4th Account],” February 12, 1895, p. 11, emphasis in original)

 

 

Walther Eichrodt on Ezekiel 28:16

  

. . . Yet one must at the same time remember how the description of the angelic being on the mountain of God is employed merely as an allegory for the king of Tyre and did not carry with it any force to compel Ezekiel to follow slavishly the lines of the myth. All that he was aiming at was to portray the unique position of the prince of the glittering commercial city in the colours of the myth, so as to display the enormity of his sin and the terrible change in his destiny. That he now stresses, with reference to the earthly city of Tyre, whose importance depended upon its world-wide trade, both the deeds of violence which so often accompany commerce, and also the whole commercial policy which has no scruples about injustice, but concerns itself only with heaping up gains, and claims that this is the source of all error, is sufficiently justified by the concrete object of the lament. Beauty and wisdom, according to v. 17, also give occasion for error. They are more closely connected with the traditions about the primal man, but at this point are not so central. The deceitfulness of riches is the actual reason leading to contempt for the will of God, and that again turns beauty and wisdom into a snare. So the profaner of the mountain of God is spoiled of his dignity by God himself and expelled from the heavenly sphere. As in the Paradise story, the protecting cherub performs the act which finally separates him from the shining divine abode (v. 16). God casts him down to earth from the heights of heaven, i.e. he reduces the king who enjoys such high regard to a miserable helpless creature, whom the kings who used to fawn upon him now treat with contempt. (Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel [trans. Cosslett Quin; Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970], 394-95)

 

Walther Eichrodt on Ezekiel 28:3

  

[3] This exaltation of human caprice into a divine right creates powerful supports for itself in claims to superhuman wisdom and in the attainment of the power of wealth. The provoking assumption of superiority, by which Tyrian diplomacy regarded its plans and decisions as the only right ones, and was able to back them up by all the weight of its huge resources, is mentioned also in Zech. 9.2 as a habit characteristic of Phoenicia, and in that passage, as in this, we find an ironic emphasis placed upon it. There is no other way in which the almost admiring language of vv. 3 and 4 can be interpreted. This would be still more impressive if, as Van den Born conjectures, we are here meeting a fragment taken from a Tyrian royal hymn. When Daniel is named in it as a proverbial manifestation of wisdom, then some figure of the past known throughout the whole Syrian region must be referred to. This excludes the Daniel of the Old Testament book bearing that name. It is very probably the king of that name known from Ugaritic testimonies who is also named in 14.14-20 (cf. above, pp. 189f.) and belongs to that class of hero who is also a sort of demi-god. (Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel [trans. Cosslett Quin; Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970], 391)

 

V. A. Spence Little on the Subordination of the Son to the Father in Justin Martyr's Christology

  

 

SCRIPTURAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE FATHER AND SON

 

That the “other God” besides the Father is in a subordinate position as to his personality and functions, Justin labours to show in much detail. He is convinced that the hypothesis is scriptural. From Scripture he learns that the “other God” is “subject to” the Creator, and is called “Angel” sometimes, “because he announces to men whatever the Creator wishes.” This Being is obedient to the Father, never opposing His will. As we have seen in the passages describing the divine Theophanies, the Logos performs many parts, and unlike the Supreme God, has local motion, even walking upon the earth and conversing with the patriarchs, “appearing shaped in such forms as the Father pleases.” Through He is First Principle of the Cosmos and God’s primary executive Agent in Creation, yet by virtue of the fact that He is His Agent, He is subordinate to God, the “Minister of God,” for “through Him God orders all things.” He is the Father’s servant even in the infliction of punishment upon the wicked cities. His derivation from the Father by the Divine will also exhibits His secondary character. The many names and titles attached to Him indicates His numerous servitor functions. “For He can be called by all these names because He serves the Father’s will,” and “has for His Senior, Him Who gives the names.” Again, the same Logos becomes Christ, the Man, and submits to many humiliations according to the Father’s will. In fact, the Logos is ever the servant of the Father in all His activities, though at the same time, no less the Divine Son. (V. A. Spence Little, The Christology of the Apologists [London: Duckworth, 1934], 170-72)

 

 

James D. Holt on 1 Nephi 5:19 (cf. Alma 37:5)

  

There are two ways that the brightness could be understood. Obviously, as brass plates it could be literally not losing their brightness, or that they are not dimmed by time. The more likely, and useful, interpretation is that their message does not lose its importance and is not dimmed by the passage of time. We know the prophecies concerning the seed of Joseph are important, but more significant is the focus that the brass plates have on the coming of the Saviour. This message never dims, we may choose to ignore the light, but it does not mean the light isn’t there. I am blind in my left eye, and sometimes I position myself so that the sun is shining on my left side, as it doesn’t affect me or cause annoyance. It doesn’t mean the sun isn’t there just that I am turning away from it. This is just so with the message of the Saviour and his influence in our lives. We can pretend he’s not there, but he always is, with his arm outstretched. (James D. Holt, The Book of Mormon Verse by Verse [Manchester: Self-Published, 2025], 1:177)

 

Heber C. Kimball (April 7, 1861) on Foreordained Missions Not Ending With One's Mortal Life

In a sermon delivered on April 7, 1861, Heber C. Kimball taught that one’s foreordained mission does not end with their mortal life; instead, in the age to come, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and others (e.g., David W. Patten; Parley P. Pratt) will meet in Jackson County, Missouri, to play a role in the establishment of Zion:

 

We are richer now for moving to the south than we should have been if we had not moved. What did we save by it? It saved that difficulty that would have brought you into sorrow, probably, all the days of your life, if you had withstood that army and shed blood. But by that move you saved your blood and the blood of your enemies, and in this you did a good deed. It cost considerable, but Father booked it against them, and he will make them pay the debt. We might have to do such a thing again. I do not know anything about it, but I am pretty sure of one thing —we shall go to Jackson county, Missouri; that is, those who do right and honour their calling, doing what they have been told to do. You will be blessed, and you will see the day when Presidents Young, Kimball, and Wells, and the Twelve Apostles will be in Jackson county, Missouri, laying out your inheritances. In the flesh? Of course. We should look well without being in the flesh! We shall be there in the flesh, and all our enemies cannot prevent it. Brother Wells, you may write that. You will be there, and Willard will be there, and also Jedediah, and Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and David [W. Patten]; and Parley [P. Pratt]; and the day will be when I will see those men in the general assembly of the Church of the First-Born, in the great council of God in Jerusalem, too. Will we want you to be along?

 

I heard Joseph say twice that brother Brigham and I should be in that council in Jerusalem, when there should be a uniting of the two divisions of God's government. Now, you have got to live for it. What would you not do to attain to those blessings? You would give all you have in the world. You may give all you have got, and then keep it; and if you keep the Commandments of God and live faithful, you shall every one see it, and that is what will bring you to it.

 

When you are called upon to do a thing, do it with all your heart, and God will add a hundredfold to your glory and exaltation. When seed-wheat is sown, if it is not too thick, one seed will produce thirty stalks, and a head on every stalk. Like the mite that the woman gave, it will increase to you thousands, and much more to them that have more in proportion to the kernel. (Heber C. Kimball, April 7, 1861, “Appreciation of Divine Gifts and Blessings—Return to Jackson County—Encouragement of Home Manufactures,” JOD 9:27, comments in square brackets added for clarification. At this point in time, Patten and Parley Pratt were deceased)

 

Monday, July 28, 2025

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) on Isaiah 10:15

  

Should shake itself, &c. The Hebrew, in this place, is as in the margin: ‘A rod should shake them that lift it up.’ But the sense is evidently retained in our translation, as this accords with all the other members of the verse, where the leading idea is, the absurdity that a mere instrument should exalt itself against him who makes use of it. In this manner the preposition עַל over, or against, is evidently understood So the Vulgate and the Syriac.

 

The staff. This word here is synonymous with rod, and denotes an instrument of chastisement.

 

As if it were no wood. That is, as if it were a moral agent, itself the actor or deviser of what it is made to do. It would be impossible to express more strongly the idea intended here, that the Assyrian was a mere instrument in the hand of God to accomplish his purposes, and to be employed at his will. The statement of this truth is designed to humble him: and if there be any truth that will humble sinners, it is, that they are in the hands of God; that he will accomplish his purposes by them; that when they are laying plans against him, he will overrule them for his own glory; and that they will be arrested, restrained, or directed, just as he pleases. Man, in his schemes of pride and vanity, therefore, should not boast. He is under the God of nations; and it is one part of his administration, to control and govern all the intellect in the universe. In all these passages, however, there is not the slightest intimation that the Assyrian was not free. There is no fate; no compulsion. He regarded himself as a free moral agent; he did what he pleased; he never supposed that he was urged on by any power that violated his own liberty. If he did what he pleased, he was free. And so it is with all sinners. They do as they please. They form and execute such plans as they choose; and God overrules their designs to accomplish his own purposes. The Targum of Jonathan has given the sense of this passage; ‘Shall the axe boast against him who uses it, saying, I have cut [wood]; or the saw boast against him who moves it, saying, I have sawed? When the rod is raised to smite, it is not the rod that smites, but he who smites with it.’ (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah, 2 vols. [London: Blackie & Son, 1851], 1:209-10)

 

 

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) on Isaiah 10:4

  

4. Without me. בִּלְתִּי. There has been a great variety of interpretation affixed to this expression. The sense in which our translators understood it was, evidently, that they should be forsaken of God; and that, as the effect of this, they should bow down under the condition of captives, or among the slain. The Vulgate and the LXX, however, and many interpreters understand the word here as a simple negative. ‘Where will you flee for refuge? Where will you deposit your wealth so as not to bow down under a chain?’ Vulgate, Ne incurvemini sub vinculo. LXX. Τοῦ μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς ἀπαγωνήν—‘Not to fall into captivity.’ The Hebrew will bear either mode of construction. Vitringa and Lowth understand it as our translators have done, as meaning that God would forsake them, and that without him, that is, deprived of his aid, they would be destroyed. (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah, 2 vols. [London: Blackie & Son, 1851], 1:202)

 

V. A. Spence Little: Old Testament Theophanes were the Person of the Premortal Jesus

  

In fact, the Old Testament, as Justin shows, contains a number of passages which record the existence of a Supreme and Secondary God, e.g., in the account of the three visitors to Abraham, One remained behind, that One is “the Lord Who is from the Lord in the heavens,” and the same Being is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Who appeared in human form to Jacob. And again, the expressions, “Let us make man,” and “Adam has become like One of us,” shows that “there is a certain number of (Divine) persons associated together, at least two.” From the above passages, Justin concludes that “it must be admitted that some other (Being) is called Lord . . . besides the Maker of all things.” There are, therefore, two Divine Beings, two Gods, two different Divine Persons in the Godhead existing in perfect moral union and identical in Essence, though both are not equally, and in all senses, God. (V. A. Spence Little, The Christology of the Apologists [London: Duckworth, 1934], 169-70)

 

Examples of Mistranslations and Other Issues in the Isaiah Text of the Pesthitta

The following is a scan of The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Isaiah (trans. Gillian Greenberg and Donald M. Walter; The Antioch Bible; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2012), xx-xxxvi. As I have been doing work on Isaiah variants in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other texts, thought I would share.

Simon Paul Stocks on Psalm 120


3.2 Psalm 120

 

3.2.1 Colometric Analysis

 

1 שִׁ֗יר הַֽמַּ֫עֲלֹ֥ות
 אֶל־יְ֭הוָה בַּצָּרָ֣תָה לִּ֑י קָ֝רָ֗אתִי וַֽיַּעֲנֵֽנִי׃

2 יְֽהוָ֗ה הַצִּ֣ילָה נַ֭פְשִׁי מִשְּׂפַת־שֶׁ֑קֶר מִלָּשֹׁ֥ון רְמִיָּֽה׃

3 מַה־יִּתֵּ֣ןa לְ֭ךָ וּמַה־יֹּסִ֥יף לָ֗ךְ לָשֹׁ֥ון רְמִיָּֽה׃

4 חִצֵּ֣י גִבֹּ֣ור שְׁנוּנִ֑ים עִ֝֗ם גַּחֲלֵ֥י רְתָמִֽים׃

5 אֹֽויָה־לִ֭י כִּי־גַ֣רְתִּי מֶ֑שֶׁךְ שָׁ֝כַ֗נְתִּי עִֽם־אָהֳלֵ֥י קֵדָֽר׃

6 רַ֭בַּת שָֽׁכְנָה־לָּ֣הּ נַפְשִׁ֑י עִ֝֗ם שֹׂונֵ֥א שָׁלֹֽום׃

7 אֲֽנִי־שָׁ֭לֹום וְכִ֣י אֲדַבֵּ֑ר הֵ֝֗מָּה לַמִּלְחָמָֽה׃

 

Verse 1 consists of an opening bicolon. A minor curiosity here is that ML presents the midline gap after קָרָאתִי despite the imbalanced rhythm this generates (4+1) and the accentuation indicating the caesura at לִּי . Perhaps the scribe considered the first colon incomplete without its verb. Indeed the splitting of a verbal clause in this way generates an integral enjambment (caesura at a place of no syntactic pause), which is very unusual and would normally be regarded as an indication of potentially corrupt colometry. So, for example, in the light of this and of the unusual word order, Lunn reads the line as a monocolon. However it is also possible to recognise in the line a poetic device that creates ambiguity and forward impetus and which creates a syntactic discomfort illustrating the distress that the line describes. The resolution of the ambiguity in the second colon ties the line together. The line is therefore read according to the accentuation as a 3+2 bicolon.

 

Verse 2 opens with a vocative phrase of three words, the conjunctive accent on the

imperative verb indicating that the words should not be divided. This leaves three more

word-units in the line (both according to the maqqeph and according to Sievers theory), and

these are formed of two phrases. Three options for the distribution of stresses between

cola are immediately apparent. One option is to read a bicolon, following the accentuation that divides the line at שֶׁקֶר thus creating an imbalanced 4+2 rhythm but also a degree of synonymy between cola.261 This is similar to the type of ‘unbalanced bicolon’ proposed by Revell, except that the two synonymous phrases are split between cola whereas Revell was concerned with lines exhibiting internal parallelism in the longer colon. A second option is to read the line as a 3+2+2 tricolon, ignoring the maqqeph and ascribing two stresses to קֶר מִשְּׂפַת־שֶׁ . Following Gray’s, and Robinson’s, preference for equating two-word phrases with cola (§2.1.2.1 and §2.2.3), this approach is adopted by several translators.262 However this approach is rooted in reading the line according to Sievers’ 2-2- 2 pattern, which is not compatible with assigning a total of seven stresses to the line rather than six. A third option is to divide the line at נפְַשִׁי to give a balanced rhythm and generate internal parallelism within the following colon.263 All three options satisfy O’Connor’s and Fokkelman’s numerical constraints. The syllable count for the three phrases, 7/4/6, does not suggest any means of achieving ‘balanced’ cola. There is not sufficient evidence to regard the line as a full tricolon, nor does it fit the 2-2-2 pattern. It is therefore regarded as a bicolon, with some residual ambiguity over the division of the line. (Simon Paul Stocks, “The Function of the Tricolon in the Psalms of Ascents” [PhD Thesis; University of Manchester, September 2010], 76-77; “ML” is a reference to the Leningrad Codex)

The text of Moses 1:39

The current text of Moses 1:39 reads:

 

For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

Interestingly, the passage in OT MSS 1, p. 3 reads a bit differently:

 

for behold this is my work to my glory to the immortality & the eternal life of men.

 



 In OT MSS 2, p. 3, it would later be changed to read

 

for Behold this is my work to <and> My glory to the <bring to pass> the immortality & eternal life of man.

 




 

Sunday, July 27, 2025

H. A. G. Houghton on the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)

  

Genealogical Coherence

 

One of the problems facing editors of the New Testament is the phenomenon of mixture (sometimes called ‘contamination’) from multiple sources within the text of a single manuscript. This makes it very hard, if not impossible, to construct a stemma, or family tree, of how manuscripts relate to each other. In other textual traditions, this is often done based on ‘shared errors’ which demonstrate the dependence of certain witnesses on others and thereby indicate that their text is likely to be secondary. The adoption of digital editing processes, however, has led to new methods of examining relationships within the textual tradition. Chief among these is the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), used in the production of the ECM. A fundamental difference between this method and traditional stemmatics is the distinction between the manuscript and the text it carries. In the framework of the CBGM, the text is the witness, not the manuscript with its codicological and paleographical properties. While traditional stemmatics focuses on common errors, the CBGM addresses the issue of textual contamination by considering different types of coherence. The first measure is the percentage agreement of the text of any two witnesses included in the edition (their ‘pre-genealogical coherence’). By creating a ‘local stemma’ of how readings relate to each other in each variation unit, it is then possible to compare the relationship of witnesses wherever they differ, expressing it in terms of the proportion of ‘prior’ (earlier) and ‘posterior’ (later) readings. Each local stemma is constructed by the editors using traditional philological principles to establish how the readings are related in each unit, largely based on internal criteria. The ability of the computer to process the relationships of witnesses based on each place of variation provides editors with an indication of the closest potential ancestors for each witness and, beyond that, the textual shape of the tradition as a whole. The measure of ‘genealogical coherence’ is the extent to which each variant reading is attested in witnesses which are related overall (‘coherent attestation’) or whether it emerged on multiple, unrelated occasions (‘incoherent attestation’). Beyond this is the concept of ‘stemmatic coherence,’ which expresses the extent to which the text of each witness can be explained by the smallest possible combination of its potential ancestors in an optimal substemma. Combining all substemmata creates a ‘global stemma.’

 

This genealogical approach is used alongside the traditional criteria by the editors of the ECM when constructing the editorial text (described as the Ausgangstext or ‘Initial Text’). It thus constitutes a novel means of enhancing reasoned eclecticism by adding information which can only be provided by computer processing. Like the understanding of the textual quality of individual documents, the CBGM data is built up in an iterative ways, beginning with straightforward variation units and then using the genealogical relationships built up from these to consider more complex cases, it is worth underlining that the CBGM does not itself determine the earliest reading: rather, it provides analyses of the consistency of the textual tradition which may assist editors in identifying the earliest reading, especially in cases where other criteria are evenly balanced. In addition, the CBGM sheds new light on the development of the biblical text by indicating the extent to which particular readings are likely to be related or may have arisen independently. (H. A. G. Houghton, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion to the Sixth Edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025], 21*-22*)

 

V. A. Spence Little on the Divinity of Christ and his being "Second God" in Justin Martyr's Christology

  

CHRIST IS GOD BECAUSE “SON OF GOD”

 

Justin’s application of “Θεος” to Christ shows plainly that he bases Christ’s Deity essentially upon His Divine Sonship. But the hypothesis of a God “in the second rank” or place is not in harmony with Old Testament teaching, however, much support the Apologist may find for it by means of allegory; indeed, it creates serious difficulties for Monotheism. For between the Ingenerate God and His Logos, “in the second place” and derived from Him (both considered as Persons), there must necessarily exist the difference between absolute and relative, infinite and finite, which is immeasurable. Monotheism cannot tolerate two Gods both equally Divine in all senses; and if, on the one hand, the Second God be less Divine than the First, He is not equally God in the full sense. These difficulties, admittedly, are immense. Unable to overcome them actually, the Apologist attempts to circumvent them. Making good use of his allegorical interpretations of Scripture and his philosophical knowledge, he endeavours to render conceivable the actual Divinity of the Logos or Secondary God, (a) by suggesting a moral harmony between Father and Son amounting even to identity of will; and (b) by reasoning from the fact that a “Son,” qua Son, has the same nature as his Father, but is personally subordinate to Him as to seniority; or, alternatively, arguing upon scientific lines that Rational Speech or Logos is identical in essence with the reasoning Mind, but, being its Offspring, is consequently subject thereof. Therefore, Christ the Son and Logos has the same nature or essence as the Father, yet notwithstanding, is also subordinate “ministering to the will of the Maker of all things,” being subject to Him on account of generation. (V. A. Spence Little, The Christology of the Apologists [London: Duckworth, 1934], 163-64)

 

Gregory the Great (540-604) on the Future Coming of Elijah

The following quotations come from:

 

Gregory the Great, Commentary on Job (Ancient Bible Commentary in English; trans. John Litteral; Ashland, Ky.: Litteral’s Christian Library Publications, 2014)

 

 

Book 11:

 

9. But it is to be considered, that we shut up any thing under seal with this view, that when the time suits, we may bring it out to the light. And we have learnt by the testimony of Holy Writ, that Judaea, which is now left desolate, shall be gathered into the bosom of the Faith at the end. Hence it is declared by Isaiah, For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall be saved. [Is. 10, 22] Hence Paul saith, Until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in, and so all Israel should be saved. [Rom. 11, 25. 26.] Therefore He That removes His Preachers now from the eyes of Judaea, and afterwards exhibits them, has as it were ‘shut up the stars under a seal,’ that the rays of the spiritual stars being first hidden and afterwards beaming forth, she both being now cast off may not see the night of her misbelief, and then by being enlightened may find it out. It is hence that those two illustrious Preachers were removed, but their death delayed, that they might be brought back in the end for the purpose of preaching; of whom it is said by John, These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks standing before the Lord of the earth. [Rev. 11, 4] One of whom ‘Truth’ by His own lips gives promise of in the Gospel, saying, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. [b] [Matt. 17, 11] They then are as if the ‘stars’ were ‘shut up under a seal,’ who both at this present are concealed that they appear not, and hereafter shall appear that they may stand Him in good stead. Yet the Israelitish people, which shall be gathered in full measure in the end, in the immediate infancy of Holy Church is pitilessly hardened. For it rejected the Preachers of the Truth, it spurned the message of succour. Yet this is effected by the marvellous contrivance of the Creator with this view, that the glory of the persons preaching, which if received might have lain hid in one people, being rejected might be spread abroad among all the nations. Hence too it is fitly added immediately afterwards ;

Ver. 8. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens. (p. 183)

 

Book 14:

 

27. For he will then let himself loose against the righteous with such a measure of iniquity, that even the hearts of the very Elect shall be struck with no small consternation. Whence it is written, Insomuch that if it were possible, they shall deceive the very Elect. [Mat. 24, 24] Which, clearly, is said, not because the Elect shall fall, but because they shall tremble with terrible alarms. Now at that time both the latest Elect and the first Elect are described as maintaining the conflict for righteousness against him, in that both they that shall be found among the Elect at the end of the world, are destined to be laid low in the death of the flesh, and they too who proceeded from the former divisions of the world, i.e. Enoch and Elijah, shall be brought back amongst men, and shall be exposed to the savageness of his cruelty still in their mortal flesh. This one’s forces let loose in such terrible power, ‘the latest are astonied at, and the first do dread,’ in that, though in respect of this, viz. that he is lifted up by a spirit of pride, they despise all his temporal power, yet in respect of this, that they are themselves still in mortal flesh, wherein they are liable to suffer temporal anguish, they dread the very punishments, which they bear with resolution; so that there is in them at one and the same time both constancy derived from virtue, and alarm proceeding from the flesh; in that though they be of the number of the Elect, so that they cannot be overcome by torments, yet from this only that they are men, they fear the very torments, that they overcome. So let it be said, In his days the last shall be astonied, and terror shall seize on the first. In that he shall then shew forth such signs, and do things so cruel and hard hearted, as to force them to astonishment, whom he shall find at the end of the world, and to pierce with the pang of carnal death the first fathers, who are reserved for his extirpation. Therefore whereas he has described many particulars relating to all the wicked, or to the head of the wicked himself, he immediately adds with a general description,
Ver. 21. Surely, such are the dwellings of the wicked, and this is the place of him that knoweth not God. (pp. 278-79)

 

Book 15:

 

For he saw that at the end of the world Satan entering into the man, whom Holy Scripture calls Antichrist, is lifted up with such exaltation, lords it with such power, is exalted with such wonderful signs and marvels in the exhibiting of holiness, that his deeds cannot be charged home to him by man, in that with the power of terribleness he likewise unites the signs of holiness which is exhibited, and he says, Who shall reprove his way to his face? ‘Who,’ that is to say, ‘of mankind may dare to rebuke him? whose face does he dread to endure [or, ‘the sight of whom he dreads’]? Yet not only Elijah and Enoch who are brought forward for the rebuking of him, but even all the Elect ‘reprove his way to his face,’ whilst they shew contempt, and whilst by excellence of mind they oppose his wickedness. But because this they do by divine grace and not by their own powers, it is rightly said now, Who shall reprove his way before his face? For ‘who’ is there save God, by whose aid the Elect are supported to have power to withstand him? (p. 311)

 

Book 20:

 

[xxxiv]

 

66. In the preceding part of this work [Book xiii. §. 48 &c.] the point was treated of, that before the Coming of the Lord even the righteous did descend to the abodes of hell, though they were kept not in woes but in rest. Which thing we omit to prove by testimonies now, because we think it is already sufficiently proved there. This, then, that is said, I know that Thou wilt deliver me to death, where is the house appointed for all living, is rightly suited to blessed Job even according to the history, whereas surely it appears that before the grace of the Redeemer even the just were carried to the caverns of hell. For the mere entering [‘admissio’] of ‘hell’ is itself called ‘the house of all living,’ because no one came hither, who before the Advent of the Mediator did not pass by thereunto by the simple constitution of his state of corruption. No one came hither, who did not go on to the death of the flesh, by the steps of that same corruption belonging to him. Of which selfsame death it is evidently said by the Psalmist; What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? [Ps 89, 48] For though Elijah is related to have been transported to heaven, nevertheless he delayed, and did not escape death. For by the very mouth of Truth it is said; Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. [Matt. 17, 11] For he shall come to ‘restore all things,’ since for this end surely is he restored to this world, that he may both fulfil the functions of preaching, and pay the debt of the flesh. (p. 413)

 

Book 35:

 

[xiv]

 

24. Although all these things are truly stated according to the history, we are yet compelled by the very gifts which were offered to go back to the mystery of allegory. For we ought not to hear in a listless manner that they offered a sheep, and a single one, and a golden earring, and a single one. And if perhaps it is not wonderful in the mere letter why the sheep which was offered was one, yet it is very wonderful why the earring was one. But what reference has a sheep to an earring, or an earring to a sheep? We are compelled therefore, by the very definiteness [‘fine’] of the gifts, to examine in the mysteries of allegory the former statements also, which we have run through and treated superficially according to the mere history. Because therefore Christ and the Church, that is, the Head and the body, are one person, we have often said that blessed Job sometimes typifies the head, sometimes the body. Preserving then the truth of the history, let us understand that as performed under the type of the Church, which is written, The Lord added all that had been to Job twofold. For though Holy Church now loses many by the stroke of temptation, yet in the end of this world she receives those things that are her own, twofold, when, having received the Gentiles in full number, all Judaea also which shall then be found, agrees to run to her faith. For hence it is written, Until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in, and so all Israel should be saved. [Rom. 11, 25. 26.] Hence the Truth also says in the Gospel, Elias shall come, and he shall restore all things. [Matt. 17, 11] For now the Church has lost the Israelites, which she was unable to convert by preaching, but when, at that time, on the preaching of Elias, she gathers together as many as she shall have found, she receives as it were in fuller measure that which she has lost. (pp. 699-700)

 

27. But because Holy Church suffers now from the estrangement of the Hebrews, and then is relieved by their conversion, it is rightly subjoined; And comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him. They, namely, console Christ, they console the Church, who repent of the error of their former unbelief, and abandon the depravity of life by which they had opposed the teachers of the truth. Is it not a weighty sorrow to preach fruitlessly to hard hearts, to endure labour in setting forth the truth, but to find no fruit of our labour from the conversion of our hearers? But the subsequent progress of their hearers is on the other hand a great consolation to preachers. For the conversion of a learner [‘proficientis’] is a consolation to his teacher. And it is to be observed that they would not console him when exposed to the scourge, but that they come to console him after the scourge; doubtless because the Hebrews, despising at the time of His Passion the preaching of the faith, disdained to believe Him to be God, Whom they had proved to be a man by His death. Whence the Lord says by the Psalmist, I looked for one to lament with Me, and there was none; I sought for one to comfort Me, and I found none. [Ps. 69, 20] For He found no one to comfort Him in His Passion, because in His contempt of death He endured even His very enemies, for whom He came to death. After his scourging, then, his neighbours come to console him; because the Lord now also suffers in His members, but in the last times all the Israelites flock together to the faith, on hearing the preaching of Elias, and return to the protection of Him from Whom they had fled; and then is celebrated that splendid banquet by the manifold assemblage of the people. At that time Job is shewn, as it were, to be in health after his scourging, when, to those who are converted and believe, the Lord is by the certainty of faith known to live, after His passion and resurrection, immortal in the heavens. At that time Job is as it were seen to be rewarded, when in the power of His Majesty He is believed to be God, as He is, and those who before resisted Him are seen to be subjected to the faith. Let the believing Hebrews therefore assemble together at the end of the world, and offer, as if to Job in health, the vows of their oblations to the Redeemer of mankind in the power of His Godhead. Whence it is also well subjoined; And they gave him each one sheep, and one earring of gold. What is designated by a ‘sheep’ but innocence, what by an ‘earring’ but obedience? For by a sheep is expressed an innocent mind, but by an earring, hearing adorned with the grace of humility. (700-1)

 

 

34. Let us open the eyes of faith, and contemplate that last banquet of Holy Church at the reception of the people of Israel. To which banquet that mighty Elias who is coming is engaged as the inviter of the guests. Then do neighbours, then do friends, come with gifts to Him, Whom they despised but a little before when exposed to the scourge. For as the day of judgment draws near, either by the words of His forerunner, or by certain signs which burst forth, does the might of the approaching Lord shine out in a measure before them. And while they hasten to prevent His wrath, they forward the time of their own conversion. But when converted they come with gifts, because by offering their virtuous deeds, they then reverence Him, Whom but a little before they derided in His Passion. Doubtless by this their oblation fulfilling that which we behold already made good in great measure, and which we believe is still to be made good in its fulness; The daughters of Tyre shall adore Him with gifts. [Ps. 45, 12] For then do the daughters of Tyre more fully adore Him with gifts, when the minds of the Israelites, which are now overcome by the desires of this world, bring to Him, Whom they proudly denied, when known at last, the offerings of their confession. And although at these very times, at which Antichrist draws near, the conduct of the faithful seems to be to a certain extent less virtuous, although in the contest with that ruined man, mighty fear constrains the hearts even of the strong; yet not only do all the faithful, strengthened by the preaching of Elias, remain in the firmness of Holy Church, but, as we said before, many also of the unbelievers are converted to the knowledge of the faith. So that the remnants of the nation of Israel, which had before been utterly rejected, crowd together to the bosom of the Church their Mother with the most pious devotion. Whence it is now well subjoined;

Ver. 12. But the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning. (p 702)

 

 

Saturday, July 26, 2025

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 78: Dan Ellsworth on Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

Episode 78: Dan Ellsworth on Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon







V. A. Spence Little on When the Logos was "Begotten" in Justin Martyr's Christology

  

When was the Logos Begotten?

 

IT has been shown already that the generation of the Logos-Son represented a new departure in the manner of His existence. For, if the Father is αγενετος and the Son πρωτοτοκος, then, conceivably in the order of thought, “Fuit tempus cum Filius non fuit.”

 

Though it be convenient to inquire, When did the generation of the Logos eventuate? the question in these temporal terms is not stated quite correctly. For the “event,” if rightly so called, is said to have taken place “before things created”—before time, and not in the sequence of time. Therefore, practically speaking, it “happened” in eternity. But it cannot be called an “eternal generation,” since that notion was unknown to Justin.

 

The most precise statements he provides are—“His Son . . . being present with Him and begotten before created things, when in the beginning He created and arranged all things by Him” (II Apol., 6:44D), etc., and “begotten absolutely before all creatures” (Dial., 129:359B; cf. Dial., 62:258B, 84:310B, 100:326B). But it is incorrect to interpret the “before” in these passages as equal to “just before,” as it were “in connection with,” or “as part of” the creative activity, as does Semisch. The Apologist nowhere states that Logos was begotten “at Creation.” Undoubtedly, Justin’s phrase is indefinite, and if interpreted in a temporal sense, may indicate a period of any conceivable length. But since it refers to an “event” prior to time itself, to apply to it a temporal meaning rigidly, can lead only to confusion of thought. (V. A. Spence Little, The Christology of the Apologists [London: Duckworth, 1934], 120-21)

 

 

However, Mr. Blunt (Intro. to Justin’s Apologies) considers that the “phrase συνων και γεννωμενος (II Apol., 6:44D) expresses the same idea as Origien in eternal generation. It implies that He who is with the Father is still in process of being begotten, and that this was the state of things before creatures were made.”

 

If this be Justin’s real meaning, it is strange that he does not indicate it in his many other statements upon the generation of the Logos. Supposing Mr. Blunt’s view correct, it is evident that Justin has not realized the significance of “eternal generation” sufficiently to commit himself to it as a rule. But, I believe, the probability is that he never had the notion at all.

 

Newman, J. H., in his Unadvisable Terms notes that while Justin nowhere definitely teaches the eternal generation of the Son, he does not exclude that idea. However, I object to Newman’s phrase “temporal generation,” as applied to Logos, as misleading. None of the Apologists teach a “temporal generation” of the Son. Logos is generated “before the creation,” and none of the Apologists are confused as to the meaning of this phrase. Some critics give the Apologists scant credit for either common sense, learning or intelligence. (Ibid., 120-21 n. 2)

 

Frank J. Cannon (1911) and Jesus Playing a More Important Role than Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology

While critical of the Church, Frank J. Cannon did acknowledge that Jesus has a more important role in Latter-day Saint theology than Joseph Smith (oddly enough, the claim still persists, including among those frauds at Reachout Trust


 

[The average Mormon] is taught that, next to Christ, Joseph Smith, the founder of the faith, has performed the largest mission for the salvation of the world; that in the councils of the Gods, when the Creator measured off the ages of the human race on this earth, to the Savior was apportioned “the meridian of time,” and to Joseph Smith the Prophet, was given the “last dispensation,” which is “the fullness of times,” in order that the world, having apostatized from the atonement and the Lord to bless each and every one of us is my prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.”  (Frank J. Cannon and Harvey J. O’Higgins, Under the Prophet: The National Menace of a Political Priestcraft [Boston, Mass.: The C. M. Clark Publishing Co., 1911], 379-80) 

 

Ernst Kitzinger on the Lack of Evidence of the Veneration of Images in the Opening Centuries of Christianity

Commenting on the lack of evidence of any art with a Christian content until c. A.D. 200, Ernst Kitzinger noted that:

 

The writings of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian are the principal witness to this change. Although both authors were hostile to images, we learn from Tertullian about chalices with representations of the Good Shepherd being in use in his time, while Clement lists symbolic subjects which he considers suitable for representation on seal rings. What is perhaps most significant is the fact that both writers put the case against images on a broader basis than earlier apologists had done. This suggests that the case was becoming urgent within the fold; . . . (Ernst Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art 3rd – 7th Century [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980], 132 n. 33)

 

Further Reading:


Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

Blog Archive