Tuesday, September 30, 2025

Ambrosiaster's Interpretation of John 20:23

From Question 93 of Ambrosiaster, Questions on the Old and New Testaments:


When the Lord, a few days after his resurrection, breathes on his apostles and says to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit," (Jn. 20:22) He communicates to them the ecclesiastical power. As in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Lord, everything is done by the Holy Spirit, when he gives them the rule and the form of this divine institution, he says to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit.” And to show that it is in fact the power conferred on the Church, he adds: "He whose sins you have retained will be withheld from him, and to whom you have forgiven them, they will be forgiven.” This insufflation is therefore a grace which is communicated by tradition to those who are ordained, and which impresses them with a more impressive and more sacred character, which is why the Apostle says to Timothy: "Do not neglect the grace which is in you, and given to you with the laying on of the hands of the priests." (1 Tim. 4:14) This is what the Savior had to do once, so that it was well established in the Church that the transmission of this power could not take place without the Holy Spirit. Just as the Savior wanted to give in his person a visible example that the Holy Spirit was given after baptism to all who believed in him; so he wanted to give us here a definite proof that the transmission of ecclesiastical power was inseparable from the infusion of the Holy Spirit. The apostles, like the prophets, have the power to perform miracles in the very presence of the Lord. We therefore see in the person of the apostles three different forms of ministry conferred upon them by the Holy Spirit. The first is ecclesiastical power to regenerate the faithful and to fulfill the other duties of the sacred ministry. The second, which was given at Pentecost, is general, for it is not only on the apostles, but on all the faithful, that the Holy Spirit descended. The third was given to the apostles alone, to perform miracles and wonders until the seeds of faith which they shed in hearts were sufficiently developed. These seeds of faith were the wonders performed by the apostles. God established them as the pontiffs of truth, to testify by the miracles and wonders they performed that our faith was according to reason. Indeed, what stronger proof of the truth than a miracle? This is what falsifies all the philosophical systems of the earth, is that they are but a tissue of vain words, without the support of the testimony of the miracle which would testify the immutable truth of their doctrine. The Holy Spirit is therefore generally given to all the faithful, in whose soul it remains as a proof that they are the sons of God. On the contrary, are they miracles and wonders to be done? The Holy Spirit does not abide in man; he comes into him when he is called, he inspires what is necessary, and withdraws. It is the same in the transmission of sacred powers or in ordination; grace is external, and interior help is given only to souls full of faith. (pp. 240-42)

Bernard Green on the High Level of Infant Mortality in Ancient Rome

  

Infant mortality must have been extremely high in ancient Rome. In one gallery of the Panfilo cemetery, for instance, there were 111 graves, of which 83 were for children, only five of whom had epitaphs. The inscriptions regarding the death of children are often among the most revealing of personal hope and loss. The grave of Iunius Acutianus, aged about ten, says: ‘in this tomb which you see, rests someone witty (facetus), though a boy in age, a lamb snatched into heaven and given to Christ’. (ICUR [Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, nova series] IV, 11328) A boy of seven, Dalmatinus, was described by his grieving father as a ‘very sweet son, full of genius and common sense’ who was a quick learner of Greek as well as Latin but who died after an illness of three days. (ICUR I, 1978) A boy called Augustine who died aged 15 years and three months, was mourned by his mother for his singular piety, the innocence of his life and his marvellous wisdom. His parents must have been of different faiths and he had chosen his mother’s religion; it was she who constructed the tomb. (ICUR IV, 11823) One grave simply recorded the names and the dates of death of the baby Felicitas and the boy, Secundio, who died in the same month and were buried together. (ICUR VII, 20417) (Bernard Green, Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries [London: T&T Clark International, 2010], 204)

 

 

George Edmundson (Anglican) on the Use of "Elder" and "Bishop"

  

This word in the sense of ' overseer ' occurs many times in the LXX, and its ecclesiastical use was probably suggested by familiarity with certain passages in this Greek version of the Old Testament, which was the only Scriptures with which the vast majority of the early Christians were acquainted. But again it must not be forgotten that the name would be the more readily adopted by Greek-speaking Christians of Gentile origin, since it was already well known as the title of officials engaged in secular duties, as Overseers or Superintendents. When it first passed into Christian use is unknown, but its earliest appearance is in the remarkable words addressed by St. Paul to the presbyters of the Ephesian Church, whom he had summoned to meet him at Miletus as he was journeying to Jerusalem in 57 A.D. ' Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit set you as overseers (επισκοπους) to shepherd (ποιμανειν) the Church of God, which He purchased with His Blood. Here we find certain presbyters described as ‘overseers ' and their special function as that of shepherding or tending the flock, implying that in the local organisation of the Church their duty was not only that of government, guidance, and discipline, but of the provision of spiritual food. Again in the Epistle to the Philippians St. Paul salutes ' the saints in Christ Jesus with the overseers and deacons.' Turning to the Pastoral Epistles we have the qualifications set forth carefully, which should guide Timothy and Titus in their choice of persons fit for the Church's official ministry. From these instructions two facts seem to come out clearly: that while all episcopi were presbyters, only a limited number of the presbyters were episcopi. In other words these titles cannot be used convertibly. An episcopus, or presbyter-bishop if one may so style him, differed from the ordinary presbyter in that he had certain superadded duties of oversight and superintendence such as were connoted by his name. There is a spiritual side to his office: he must be ' apt to teach,' ' able to exhort in the sound doctrine and to convict the gainsayers; and a business or administrative side: he must be blameless, as God's steward. (George Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century [Longmans, Green and Co., 1913], 182-83)

 

Instances of "one advanced in age" in the Hebrew of the Old Testament (cf. the Ancient of Days in the Aramaic of Daniel 7)

 

9. an Ancient One. Literally, “one advanced in days” (ʿattîq yômîn), i.e. an old man; the Hebrew equivalent is bāʾ bayyāmîm (Gen 24:1). Like Akkadian etēqu, the basic meaning of the root ʿtq in Aramaic is “to move forward, to advance”; however, the word yômîn could be dropped after ʿattîq, which then by itself came to mean “old.” (Louis F. Hartmand and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary on Chapters 1-9 [AYB 23; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 206)

 

 

And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age (בָּא בַּיָּמִים), and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. (Gen 24:1)

 

Now Joshua was old and stricken in years (בָּא בַּיָּמִים); and the Lrod said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. (Josh 13:1)

 

And it came to pass a long time after that the Lord had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua axed old and stricken in age (בָּא בַּיָּמִים). (Josh 23:1)

 

Now king David was old and stricken in years (בָּא בַּיָּמִים); and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. (1 Kgs 1:1)

 

 

Resources on the Ancient of Days and Related Topics

Today I read, as part of my daily scripture reading, Daniel 4-7. Of course, Dan 7:9-14, 22-25 contains a discussion of the "Ancient of Days." While many believe this to be God (the Father) and/or Jesus Christ, in the Latter-day Saint tradition, it is Adam (who is also identified as archangel Michael in our theology).


For a discussion of this and related topics (including how it helps make sense of some of Brigham Young's theology concerning Adam), see the following (I was the primary researcher):


B. H. Roberts Foundation/Mormonr: Adam-God Theory (Primary Sources - Many sources on the Ancient of Days, including some non-LDS scholars who believe it is Michael and/or Adam, etc)

Monday, September 29, 2025

Ambrosiaster on Why God Approved of Abel's Sacrifice but not Cain's

 Ambrosiaster, Questions on the Old and New Testaments:


QUESTION 5. WHY WAS THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL APPROVED OF GOD, AND THAT OF CAIN REFUSED? — One can conclude from the terms alone of this narrative that the truth of history is not veiled by any literary artifice. The Holy Scripture tells us here clearly that Abel was prudent and religious, while Cain was negligent and careless, and by the same had much less religion. Abel therefore chooses the best sheep of his flock to offer them to his Creator. By offering God the first fruits of the possessions he had made, he testified of God's excellence and deep submission, he testified his feelings of respect and adoration, and acknowledged that God was the author of all things. Cain, guided by coarser sentiments, could not offer God a similar sacrifice. When he was plunged into the things of the earth, he could not raise the eyes of his soul to heaven to consider what might be worthy of his Creator, and he offered to God the most common fruits of the earth. It is in this also that the Jews lacked righteousness. For the Lord has often reproached them that they are inconsiderately charging on his altar victims even unworthy of being offered to men. "You offer me," said he, "sightless or blind victims, I will not receive them from your hands; Offer them to your master or chief if they please him. (Mal. 1:8)” Everyone agrees, indeed, that one must offer what is most excellent to a person of higher dignity. The Lord therefore rejected Cain's gifts and said to him, "Why are you angry and why is your face sad? If you do your offering with righteousness, but you do not have it in the choice of your gifts, you sin. Stay at rest. Your offering comes to you and you are the master of it. (Gen. 4:6). You see that it was the choice of the gift which rendered it, usable. He was not able to discern what was worthy of God, and reserved the best fruits for his use. It is not therefore the offering he has made that God reproaches Cain, but the unworthy presents he offers him. And he is not even condemned for this fact, but because in spite of this warning he would not correct his conduct. "This offering comes to you, and you are the master of it,” (Ibid., 7), that is, those gifts that I reject become your property again. He wants to teach him what to do in the future. Cain conceived a violent jealousy against his brother. This man of iniquity put to death the first righteous man, and thus gave men the example of crime. In fact, this profound jealousy blinded him to the point that not only did he not give thanks to God, who, far from punishing him as guilty, taught him to correct his conduct, but that he fell into a far more enormous crime which attracted his just condemnation. The imprudent conduct of the Cain fratricide resembles that of that wretched servant, who, ungrateful for the forgiveness he had just received from his master, wanted to acquit his companion, and thus deserved to be condemned without excuse, and for the fault which had been forgiven him, and for his cruelty to his fellowman (Matt. 18:28). Nevertheless, Cain was not condemned at once; he was left on earth to be confounded and terrified by his crime, and to facilitate the way of repentance and forgiveness. And as he was afraid of being put to death for the crime he had committed, he said to the Lord, "My iniquity is too great for me to be forsaken; If you reject me today from the face of the earth, I will escape from all eyes, I will be wandering and groaning on earth, and whoever finds me will kill me (Gen. 4:13). Cain, afraid of the condemnation of the just Judge, fears that this abandonment of the Lord forces him to flee the eyes of men, certain that it is that he who has against him an angry God must fear to be put to death by the men. But what does the Lord answer? "It will not be so," said he, "that is to say, I will not let you go, you who do not deserve to live, that you may fall under the blows of your likes, but so that you may spend your life in groans, in fear, and in alarms, as a punishment for the evil example which you first gave on earth, and seeing that the earth does not respond by your productiveness to your labors. He, he adds, who will kill Cain will be punished seven times (Gen. 4:24). This sentence proves the justice of Cain's condemnation. When he saw this law given with that threatening sanction which forbade imitation of his criminal conduct, he knew the whole extent of the crime he had committed, and his fears increased. God threatens to punish seven times as great a punishment, so that by understanding how great the crime of Cain was before the promulgation of a positive law, he knew that he was incurring punishment seven times more severe if he was guilty of it, that is to say that knowledge of the law would add six degrees more to the punishment which Cain had deserved, and that this punishment would be literally sevenfold. This same number also represents the reward of those who have left everything to follow the Lord, and who, in addition, will receive eternal life in the other world. This is the sign that the Lord put on Cain, so that whoever would find him would not do so (Ibid. 15). By virtue of this law which has been brought against the murder, every man who has committed a murder, because all murder is a homicide, would be seven times more guilty than Cain. God wanted the fear of such severe punishment to stop those who would be tempted to commit such a crime. (pp. 51-53)

Interpretation of Various Biblical Texts by Charles B. Thompson (1860)

The following are interpretations of various biblical texts provided by Charles B. Thompson, who had some associations with the early “Mormon” restorationist movements. I am not defending these interpretations; only providing them for those interested in 19th-century interpretations of biblical texts.

 

For an overview of his life, see:

 

Newell G. Bringhurst, “Charles B. Thompson and the Issue of Slavery and Race,” Journal of Mormon History 8 (1981): 37-47.

 

Thompson edited a periodical called Zion’s Harbinger and Baneemy’s Organ from 1849 until 1855. For past issues, see here.

 

 

Interpretation of Genesis 1:1:

 

According to the above analysis of this text of Moses, it will be perceived that it is susceptible of a number of different interpretations, among which will be found the following, which we propose as the proper interpretation:

 

“With the first begotten Elohim was the heavens and the earth.” This interpretation leaves the origin of the earth itself out of the history, and continues the account of Moses to the origin of things and creatures created from the substance of the earth to exist and well upon it.

 

Moses having informed us in the first verse that the first-begotten Elohim, or the first begotten of Elohim, was, or existed with the heavens and the earth; in the second verse he informs us that the earth at that time was empty and desolate; that is, without inhabitants; and furthermore, that darkness was upon the faces of the abyss, but the spirit (or first begotten) of Elohim was brooding upon the faces of the waters.

 

After thus describing the condition of the earth, Moses informs us that the Elohim spoke, saying, “Let light come: and light came.” This was the first creative act of which Moses treats, and it was evidently the first essential work to be done upon the earth, for light was an essential sub-agent for the production of vegetable and animal life. Darkness pervaded the recesses of the fathomless cavern encircled by the elemental faces of the abyss, while the רוּחַ ruach (spirit) of Elohim was brooding upon the surface of this elemental composition, to rarefy it so as to admit the light into the cavern or abyss below; this being done, when light came it was essential in order ot make it good, that is, useful, that it should be divided from the darkness, or, in other words, excluded a portion of the time, and thus creating day and light. The rarefaction of a portion of the elemental chaotic composition of which the earth was composed, to the consistency of water, would admit the light, and would necessarily tend to condense other portions to the consistency of solid earth or land, which being sunk beneath the waters would prevent the light from shining through the entire earth; hence a revolution of the earth upon its own axis would produce the phenomena of day and night, and divide the light from the darkness.

 

The light evidently proceeded from the sun, which, with its attendant orbs, exclusive of the earth, constituted the heavens, which, as we have already learned, existed with the first-begotten of Elohim prior to this event. Hitherto the light had been obstructed probably by the crust or shell formed on the exterior of the globe, while the elements were in a chaotic, commingling state. This shell is called “the faces of the waters,” over which the spirit of Elohim brooded, like as a hen broods her eggs. The waters were evidently produced beneath this shell by the rarefaction of the chaotic element, and when Elohim said, “Let light come,” this shell was probably broken into fragments and sank beneath the waters. This shell being removed, left the exterior of the globe one vast sea of waters, through which the light could shine, but not in direct rays, for the visibility of the sun was still obstructed by the waters as in a cloudy day. Each revolution of the earth on its called day, the darkness alternately; the light was called day, the darkness night, and the evening and the morning was the first day.

 

The days enumerated by Moses were evidently not natural days, but periods of time within which the objects of which he treats were brought into being. His history is not minute, but general: he speaks only of the chief objects produced during each period, that object being the agent or cause of all minor productions of that period. Light being necessary in the elementary organism preparatory to the production of vegetable and animal life, the first period was exhausted in arranging the elements so as to bring light within their precincts, and to arrange it there so as to make it good, that is, useful. Of what use this light was before the creation of either vegetable or animal life we can only conjecture, as the sacred historian has given us no account of the existence in the first period of either vegetable or animal life in any form or grade; but there might have been the fuci and algæ species of vegetable life-the rank weeds which grow on the margin of the seas, and the zoöphytes, trilobites, crustaceous animals, shell-fish, and even fish of the sauroid and shark form may have sported in the waters; but no land animals could have existed, for the reason that no atmosphere had yet been created, neither was there any dry land on which they could dwell. (Charles Blancher Thompson, The Nachash Origin of the Black and Mixed Races [St. Louis, Miss.: George Knapp & Co., Printers and Binders, 1860], xxii-xxiii)

 

 

Genesis 1:20-21 (cf. Jude 6; 2 Peter 4:5-6) being used to demonstrate (1) pre-Adamic Races upon this earth and (2) Biblical Justifications for Slavery:

 

Translation.—20. “And proposed Elohim to increase abundantly (from) the waters, creeping things, living creatures, with souls, and fowls to fly upon the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.
21. And to beget Elohim this the Tenninim and Gedolim and this same, all the living creatures with souls and that creeping things which increase abundantly (from) the waters according to their species, and this same all flows with wings according to his kind, and look Elohim therefore (it is) good.”

 

. . .

 

This intellectual race, called Tenninim and Gedolim, were evidently in a state of probation while thus existing in the fifth period, being subject to the laws of their spiritual existence as intellectual intelligences, and it may very properly be inferred that some of them did not keep the laws of this their first estate or probation, and that others did; these latter, it may be inferred, were bound together by intellectual association, as the name Gĕdōlim would seem to imply; while the name Tennanim seems to indicate that those who bore that appellation were alienated from the association, leaving their own original habitation of peace and union, they were stretched out, i.e., separated to enmity, by the breaking of the circle of their union. Hence we infer the immortal souls of the Gĕdōlim were the sons of the Elohim who in union shouted for joy over the trembling morning states when the judgment of this period was announced. (See Job, 38th chap., 7th verse.) And may not these be the “living spirits,” or souls which were to dwell in the Adam tabernacles; for it may be inferred that when the Elohim breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of lives or living spirits, it was that these might have dominion in the earth by the multiplication of his seed, as a reward for their fidelity; while those who kept not this their first estate were denied the right of dominion in their second estate, and reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the sixth period.

 

These chains of darkness, in Hebrew phraseology, would be נֽחֻשְׁתַיִם חשֶׁך nĕchushtăyim chōshĕk; nĕchushtăyim is the dual form of nachash, and signifies chains and fetters. Nachash is the name of an intellectual race who dwelt in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, and was the instrument of their fall and consequent banishment from the garden. Chōshĕk signifies darkness, and is evidently a cognate with nachash. Nĕchushtăyim chōshĕksignifies literally chains of darkness. It was evidently to this race of intellectual rebels of the fifth period, called the Tenninim, that Jude and Peter the Apostles allude in their General Epistles. Jude says, “And the angels, which kept not their first estates, but left their own habitations, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” (See Epistle of Jude, 6th verse.)

 

The word angel is here, doubtless, used to represent a race of intellectual or spiritual beings, who had an existence somewhere in a state of probation prior to the creation of Adam and the present races of the genus Homo: and we infer that it was upon this planet that they existed, and from the fact that they are ranked with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and those who should after live ungodly, all of whom suffer till the judgment of the great day. In the 2nd Epistle General of Peter, 4th chapter and 5th & 6th verses, he says: “For, if God spared not the angels that sinned but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness; bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemning them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those who should after live ungodly,” &c. None will dispute that there is a very plain allusion to a race of intellectual beings, and of their probation and judgment prior to the creation of Adam. Peter speaks of it as an event that happened in regular order, as to time, prior to the deluge, as the deluge happened prior to the overthrow of Sodom; all of which events are set forth as ensamples to those who should after live ungodly. But how are they set forth as ensamples? A sea of stagnant water marks the place where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah stood. The fossil remains of the denizens of the sea are found embedded in the tops of the highest mountains as evidence of the destruction of the old world by water. But where is the memorial of the judgment of the angels which fell? Jude says, they are reserved in chains under darkness; and Peter says, they are delivered into the chains of darkness.

 

We have shown that the Tenninim and the Gĕdōlim were intellectual and accountable beings, and possessed of immortal souls; now if we show that, in the sixth day creations an intellectual race was created besides the Adamic race, who were inferior to Adam, and were made subject to him by the laws of their creation; and can trace their name through all its changes in the Hebrew, according to the laws and usages of the language, and from thence into Latin and English, and find it to be negro; then we have most plainly set forth before us, as a momento of their judgment, a race literally reserved in chains of darkness, or negro blackness, unto the judgment of the great day. “For the Ethiopian cannot change his skin;” it is all an indelible mark, to continue throughout all of their generations. (Charles Blancher Thompson, The Nachash Origin of the Black and Mixed Races [St. Louis, Miss.: George Knapp & Co., Printers and Binders, 1860], xxvi, xxvii-xxviii)

 

 

Daniel 7 and the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days:

 

The Chaldeans, a mixed race, are here called righteous (enoshim), whom God appointed to judge the men (Adam) of Israel, because they had, by whoredoms, polluted their seed with the enoshim race, contrary to the stipulations of the law of God to them, and because they had become partakers with murders, therefore the more righteous enoshim should judge them. Again, Daniel vii. 7: “I saw in the night vision; and behold, one like the son of man (Enosh) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him.” This was not the son of Enosh, but one like the son of Enosh, and they brought him near before the Ancient of Days. The Ancient of Days was sitting upon the judgment seat of the earth, and they brought this one, like the son of Enosh—like one devoted to destruction—like a criminal, near before the Ancient of Days, to receive his sentence, evidently supposing him to be worthy of condemnation to death; but, to the great disappointment of all that beheld the scene, the Ancient of Days judged him worthy to receive a kingdom so extensive that all people, nations and languages should serve and obey him. This, undoubtedly, has an allusion to Jesus Christ, who was arraigned by the Jews as a malefactor worthy of the judgment of death, but was judged of God his Father worthy to receive all power in heaven and in earth, &c. (Charles Blancher Thompson, The Nachash Origin of the Black and Mixed Races [St. Louis, Miss.: George Knapp & Co., Printers and Binders, 1860], 73)

 

 

Charles B. Thompson (1860) and the Problem of Holding to Sola Scriptura and Condemning Slavery

The following is from Charles B. Thompson in 1860, a year before the beginning of the U.S. Civil War. I think it shows the problem of holding to sola scriptura, as one cannot, without being pretty inconsistent with such principle, disagree with the following:

 

Jesus, the great christian lawgiver, fearlessly rebuked all that was wrong in the practice of the ancients, such as polygamy, divorce for slight causes, hating enemies, rendering evil for evil, and the like; but he did not rebuke the practice of slavery or abolish the relation of master and servant, but on the contrary, we find his immediate disciples, the Apostles, sanctioning and encouraging the continuance of the relation, evidently proving it to have been a divine institution, sanctioned by the gospel of Christ, as well as by the law of Moses, and the practice of the patriarchs. This three-fold sanction, from the patriarchs from the law of Moses, and the gospel of Christ, has been the justifying defence of slaveholders against the maledictions of the fanatical abolitionists; but now by the discovery of the origin of the negro race as an original creation separate and apart from the creation of Adam, and they placed under the dominion of man by the Creator himself, we are forced to the conclusion that slavery as it exists in the Southern States of this Union, is not only morally and religiously right, but it is a duty enjoined upon the race of Adam by the Creator himself. (Charles Blancher Thompson, The Nachash Origin of the Black and Mixed Races [St. Louis, Miss.: George Knapp & Co., Printers and Binders, 1860], 76)

 

 

Sunday, September 28, 2025

Alcuin of York (735-804) on Revelation 5 :8 ; 6 :9-10 ; 8 :1-5

The following are comments on Rev 5:8; 6:9-10; 8:1-5 (common proof-texts for praying to/through glorified saints as well as angels) from the commentary on the Book of Revelation from Alcuin of York (735-804)

 

VERSE 8

 

And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints. The Lamb opened the book when he fulfilled the work of his voluntary Passion. Now what does it mean that the living creatures and the ancients have harps, if not that the Church of the elect is filling up those things which are wanting on the afflictions of Christ? [Cf. Col. 1:24] IT is fitting for the sufferings of Christ to be symbolized by harps, for in a harp some strings are stretched more tightly and others more loosely, but, albeit stretched differently, they do not at all produce each a different song: it is the same with the different members in the body of Christ: some imitate his sufferings more fully and others less, but they resound with one praise in harmony. So the living creatures and the ancients fall before the Lamb with harps because all the saints attribute the merit of everything they suffer for Christ to Christ and not to themselves. By the golden vials we understand love, a love capable of praying not only for friends but also for enemies, which is why it is said that they were full. IT is right for the vials to be mentioned after the harps, because the Lord first climbed the cross, and then thus prayed for his persecutors with an incomparable love, saying, Father, forgive them, etc. [Luke 23:34] (Alcuin of York on Revelation: Commentary and the Questions and Answers (English and Latin) [trans. Sarah Van Der Pas; Consolamini Commentary Series; West Monroe, La.: Consolamini Publications, 2016], 80-81)

 

 

VERSE 9

 

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar of God the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. By the souls of the slain we understand the souls of all the elect, who are oppressed with either physical or spiritual attacks from the reprobates; for there are two kinds of martyrs: one apparent, the other hidden. By the altar we understand Christ: we offer on him our sacrifices to God the Father when imitating his only begotten Son, we appear in his sight as a living sacrifice. Therefore the souls of the slain are under the altar because they are under our Mediator, but if by the altar we understand the elect themselves, they are under themselves, because they have not yet been clothed in immortality of the body

 

VERSE 10

 

And they tried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? What does it mean that the souls of the saints ask for revenge for their blood about the persecutions, if not that they are waiting for the day of the last judgment? It is not by the stomach being drawn by the gullet that the words of the souls are formed, but their great cry is a great longing. However, since a mind that is asking is generally, and since the souls of the saints cling to God in such a way that they rest in clinging to him, how can they be said to ask for this, while it is certain that they are ignorant of neither the will of God nor things that will happen? One should know then that the reason why they are said to ask something from him while they are in him is not that they long for a revenge because it is in disagreement with the will of him whom they see, but they receive from him himself the task to ask from him what they know he wants to do. (Alcuin of York on Revelation: Commentary and the Questions and Answers (English and Latin) [trans. Sarah Van Der Pas; Consolamini Commentary Series; West Monroe, La.: Consolamini Publications, 2016], 89-90)

 

 

VERSE 1

 

And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven, as it were for half an hour. Heaven, as we often said, means the Church, which produces as it were, silence for God when, through some of its members, it departs from the abundance of material things to seek the retreat of inner contemplation; but because this silence cannot be perfect in this life, it is said to have lasted as it were for half an hour. Note also that he ended the recapitulation where he said, After this I saw a great multitude, [Rev. 7:9] and now he concludes the narration with the seventh seal.

 

VERSES 2, 3, and 4

 

And I saw seven angels standing in the sight of God; and there were given to them seven trumpets. And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer. In this place he upsets the order of the narration and interposes something; for, as the following will show, the angel with the censer came and stood before the altar before they received the seven trumpets. He interposes something because he introduced this angel with the censer in the middle before he had finished talking about the others. So, what do we understand by the seven angels but the holy Church in its preachers, who are the announcers of eternal life? It is also right for them to be said to be seven in number, because they are filled up with the sevenfold Spirit, or because they are put in charge of the totality of believers. They are said to be standing in the sight of God because they have trodden earthly desires underfoot and stick to divine contemplation. What is shown by their seven trumpets but the perfect preaching of the Old and of the New Testament? According to this: Lift up thy voice like a trumpet. [Is. 58:1] By the fact that it is the office of a priest to stand by the altar and burn incense prepared with spices, we realize that this angel is the Mediator between God and men, the Angel of the seven angels, and, so to speak, the Pontiff of the seven priests, he about whom the prophet said, angel of great counsel. [Is. 9:6 acc. to LXX, where the verse is number 5.] From this we clearly gather that he came before the seven angels received the trumpets. By the altar are represented the elect, in whom a spiritual sacrifice is being performed. So, the angel came by the flesh, and stood by the divinity. Also, what is represented by the censer but Christ’s humanity? It is appropriate for it to be called golden, because the flesh assumed by the Word of God is, together with him, the wisdom about which it is said, Take wisdom as gold. [Variant of Prov. 16:16] The censer, in which spices are burned, may also symbolize the Church, which says every say, kindled by the fire of divine love, Let my prayer be directed as incense, etc. [Ps. 140:2] Then it is rightly said after that concerning Christ alone: And there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of the saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. Just as smoke comes out of burned spices, so is the virtue of devotion produced by zeal for prayer. However, in order for the incense to become pleasing to God, it is given to the angel, which means that the zeal of prayers entrusted to our Redeemer. The body is totally unable to speak to God but by the agency of the Head. The fact that the incense is offered on the golden altar shows that the sacrifice of prayers is accepted by him nowhere else but in the body of Christ, all of which shines with the wisdom of the divine Word. Note also that the throne and the altar before the throne do not signify two Churches, but one, just like Noah’s ark and the eight souls in it. [Cf. Gen. 6; 1 Peter 3:20]

 

VERSE 5

 

And the angel took the censer, and filled it with the fire of the altar, and cast it on the earth. The angel took the censer when the Lord joined human nature to himself, within the Virgin’s womb; or we may take it as referring to the body, when he first chose his disciples in Judea. Since the angel, the censer, and the altar are one body, we should understand the censer being said to have been filled with the fire of the altar as if he were saying, “Both the Head and the body have been kindled with no other fire but their own, that is the Holy Spirit.” Then he cast it on the earth, that is, he brought it into this pagan people; whence it is fittingly said after that, And there were thunders and voices, that is terrors caused by preachings, and lightnings that is miraculous signs, and an earthquake, that is persecutions. (Alcuin of York on Revelation: Commentary and the Questions and Answers (English and Latin) [trans. Sarah Van Der Pas; Consolamini Commentary Series; West Monroe, La.: Consolamini Publications, 2016], 110-13)

 

 

Alcuin of York (735-804) on Revelation 11:3-4 and the then-future coming of Elijah and Enoch

  

VERSE 3

 

And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. Martyr Victorinus understands the two witnesses to be Elijah and Jeremiah, for he says that we nowhere read Jeremiah’s death; but others interpret it better in thinking that they are Elijah and Enoch. Let us for our part understand a genus in the species; that is, by the two witnesses let us understand the Church; and a thousand two hundred forty days are not only the cycle of the time of the Antichrist, but also that of previous times. It is appropriate for the Church to be represented by two witnesses, because of the two Testaments, the two peoples, the two commandments of love, and the two kinds of martyrdom. By sackcloth we understand confession of humility or the saints’ brightness despised by the wicked.

 

VERSE 4

 

There are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, that stand in the sight of the Lord of the earth. The Church, whether in those two men or in all preachers in general, is represented by the olive tree because of the unction of the Holy Spirit, and by candlesticks because of the light of faith and work. While there is one olive tree and one candlestick made up of two peoples, they are called two olive trees and two candlesticks because of the two Testaments. They stand in the sight of the Lord because they stick to their Creator through inner contemplation. Hence Elijah, whom this is taken to refer to specifically, says, The Lord liveth in whose sight I stand. [1 Kings 17:1] With another interpretation this may refer to Elijah and Enoch specifically, who, taken away form human eyes, stick to God in secret. (Alcuin of York on Revelation: Commentary and the Questions and Answers (English and Latin) [trans. Sarah Van Der Pas; Consolamini Commentary Series; West Monroe, La.: Consolamini Publications, 2016], 140-41)

 

Lorenzo Snow on the Return to Jackson County (June 12, 1901)

D&C 84:3-5 is a commonly cited "false" prophecy of Joseph Smith. I have discussed this in some length in Refuting James Walker on Joseph Smith's Prophecies (cf. Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies).


It is true, however, that many Latter-day Saints were hopeful that the return to Jackson County would take place in the near-future. For example, Lorenzo Snow held out this hope, and taught such during a meeting held June 12, 1901.


We have two reports offering a summary and brief overview of the meeting and Pres. Snow’s comments on June 12, 1901 (the very day it was held):

 

Ogden, June 12.—The long-looked for and much talked of union at Weber Stake officers took place in this city today. The gathering was honored by the presence of Presidents Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith, Apostles Teasdale, Lund and Clawson, Patriarch John Smith, the Webster Stake High Council, the Bishops of the various wards and officers of the Mutual Improvement, Relief and Primary societies and Sunday schools.

 

. . .

 

President Snow was the next speaker and was listened to with rapt attention by the large congregation present. He said that it was fifty-two years ago since he first visited Ogden and remarked that the Saints now present, if faithful and living fifty-two years hence, would mostly be back in Jackson county. (“A Big Reunion at Ogden Today,” Deseret Evening News no. 174 [June 12, 1901]: 1)

 

 

The reunion of ecclesiastical authorities of the Weber Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which took place today in the Fifth ward meeting house partook, to a great extent, of the nature of a great family reunion. Those assembled observed no formality which adds stiffness to the occasion and as a result the event proved one of the most enjoyable in the history of the members of the church of that ward.

 

Members of the first presiden[c]y of the church and apostles arrived at 10:45 in Ogden over the Oregon Short Line and were met at the depot by President Shurtliff and Counsellors Flygare and Middleton of Weber Stake.

 

. . .

 

The choir again sang and President Lorenzo Snow addressed those present. He said he could say for himself that he was glad to be present. . . . He referred to the sacredness of the building with which the exercises were being held. There was something sweet and grand and glorious about the sacred precincts of the meeting house. He had never felt more at home to talk and to talk the fullness of his heart out. His feelings were deep and broad and could not be expressed toward the president of Weber Stake, his counsellors and all those assembled. He recalled a visit to this spot 52 years ago in the fall of 1849, when the foundation of a portion of Zion was laid on that spot. There were then about ten families living in what is now Ogden. In reply to a question of how many who were there in 1849 were present five hands were raised. President Snow referred with the feeling of the absence of so many and took occasion to praise and encourage the living and held out to them a promise of returning to Jackson County and of seeing the Lord.

 

He referred to his own baptism at Kirtland, Ohio, in 1836; told many reminiscences of the early days of the church, and state that the patriarchal blessings which he had received from Patriarch Smith, father of the Prophet Joseph Smith, had been fulfilled. (“First Presidency of Church in Ogden Today,” Ogden Daily Standard 31, no. 139 [June 12, 1901]: 5)

 

A fuller report would be published in the Deseret Evening News on June 15, 1901. Notice, however, when quoted directly, Lorenzo Snow was giving his opinion concerning the matter, he was not declaring doctrine nor prophesying:

 

A reunion of the authorities of the Priesthood in the Weber Stake of Zion was held Wednesday, June 12, 1901, in the Fifth ward assembly hall and educational institute, commencing at 11 a.m.

 

PRESIDENT SNOW’S RESPONSE

 

. . .

 

I was here over fifty years ago, in 1849. Are any here who met with me at that time? (The hands of Joseph Hall, James Owen, James Burch, and E. W. Wade of the High Council, and Sister Sarah Herrick were raised.) There are only five now here. At that time I remember stopping at the log house of Capt. Brown. Of the ten families then living here there are present here today only five persons, and so we pass away. After the same time shall have passed which has elapsed since then how many of you will be living and where will you be? I can tell you what I think:

 

Many of you will be living in Jackson county and there you will be assisting in building the Temple; and if you will not have seen the Lord Jesus at that time you may expect Him very soon, to see Him, to eat and drink with Him, to shake hands with Him and to invite Him to your Houses as He was invited when He was there before. I am saying things to you now of which  know something of the truth of them. I feel with all my heart to say God bless you from the President down to the Counsellors of the Bishops and all of you. God has blessed you with light and knowledge; and all those within the sound of my voice who have not received a perfect understanding of their prospects and what they may reach in the next life, I want you to so live and to so exercise your faith that you may go into the Temple and receive your higher blessing, and have there unfolded to your view the glorious prospects for which the Latter-day Saints have struggled and suffered and for which they have been drive and driven until they finally located here. I suppose I am talking to some who have had worry and trouble and heart burnings and persecution, and have at times been caused to think that they never expected to endure quite so much. But for everything you have suffered, for everything that has occurred to you which you thought an evil at that time, you will receive four-fold and that suffering will have had a tendency to make you better and stronger and to feel that you have been blessed. When you look back over your experiences you will then see that you have advanced far ahead and have gone up several rounds of the ladder toward exaltation and glory. (“Notable Reunion of Weber Stake,” The Deseret Evening News no. 177 [June 15, 1901]: 1, emphasis in bold added)

 

To be fair, belief that the Saints would fulfill D&C 84:4 in their lifetime was popular. Another early Latter-day Saint who believed it would take place in “this generation” was Orson Pratt. In August 1866, he wrote:

 

Question 4: Will the Latter-day Saints return to Jackson County, Missouri, within ten or twelve years from this time?

 

Answer: I do not know the exact time. They will most certainly return and build a temple upon the consecrated spot in that country, before all the generation who were living in 1832 have passed away. (Orson Pratt, “Questions and Answers,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 28, no. 33 [August 18, 1866]: 518)

 

 

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Alcuin of York (735-804) on the "Woman" in Revelation 12 Being Both Mary and the Church

  

VERSE 1

 

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. The woman clothed with the sun is the blessed Virgin Mary, covered with the power of the Most High. A genus, namely the Church, is also understood in her. The Church is not called a woman by reason of weakness, but because it gives birth every day to new people, with whom the general body of Christ is being formed. So the Church is clothed with the sun according to this: As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. [Gal. 3:27] Indeed Christ is the Sun of justice, [Mal. 4:2] and the brightness of eternal light. [Wis. 7:26] The moon, which wanes as time passes, represents the mutability of time; and since the Church despises it, it is as if it is pressed it down under its feet. Note also that there are some things in the following that do not correspond to the species, but to the genus. And on her head a crown of twelve stars. The twelve stars the crown is fitted with are the twelve apostles, through whom the Head of the Church, that is Christ, first won victory. They are called stars because the reason of truth illuminates the darkness of ignorance.

 

VERSE 2

 

And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. This cannot refer specifically to blessed Mary, but it refers to the Church, which suffers here a certain difficulty in childbirth when it tries to give birth once again to people it had already given birth to, until, according to the apostles’ saying, we all meet into a perfect man. [Eph. 4:13] (Alcuin of York on Revelation: Commentary and the Questions and Answers (English and Latin) [trans. Sarah Van Der Pas; Consolamini Commentary Series; West Monroe, La.: Consolamini Publications, 2016], 153-54)

 

Friday, September 26, 2025

Karo Brossard Refuting Gavin Ortlund on the Question of Whether Justin Martyr Taught Baptismal Regeneration

 <after quoting and discussing First Apology 61>

 

Some Christians might not be so easily convinced. For example, Ortlund counters that Justin uses the term “baptism,” along with terms like “washing” and “bath,” as a metonymy—that is, a figure of speech whereby a concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that concept—“for the entire process” of things leading up to baptism. Because of this, Ortlund concludes that just because a Church Father speaks of “baptism” as regenerating someone, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the actual rite of water baptism is a cause of salvation. Here’s the relevant quote from Justin:

 

By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. . . .
For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred. (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 14)

 

Notice that Justin speaks of “repentance” and “knowledge of God” as the “laver” (or washing), “the water of life,” and “baptism.” He even juxtaposes a baptism that cleanses the body and a baptism that cleanses the soul. It would seem, therefore, that Justin doesn’t think the rite of baptism actually brings about salvation. Rather, it’s repentance. As Ortlund states,” what’s the baptism that cleanses the soul? Repentance. You repent, and that baptizes your soul.” And such repentance is called “baptism” because baptism is closely associated with repentance insofar as baptism is the sign of repentance.

 

The first thing we can say in response is that Ortlund simply assumes a particular directionality in the metonymy. He reasons that the actions preceding the rite of baptism are in fact the actions that save us, and they are spoken of as “baptism” because of their close association to the actual rite of baptism.

 

However, the reverse could just as easily be true. It could very well be that Justin speaks of the preceding actions as saving actions because of their close association to the in fact saving action of baptism. In other words, it would be that Justin speaks of the things that precede baptism—namely, “repentance” and “knowledge of God”—as “purifying” us and saving us because they lead to, and are necessary conditions for, using the instrument that in fact saves: baptism.

 

This reading isn’t merely hypothetical. It seems to be the most probable reading. One reason is that Justin says in the two passages initially quoted above that baptism regenerates us by way of remitting our sins. This means he believes that baptism is that which in fact saves us, at least in an instrumental way.

 

Another factor that supports this reading is that Justin explicitly teaches that the ritual washing by itself cannot save. Note the quote from above: “For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh nd body alone?” Justin’s point is that the ritual washing itself is ineffective for our salvation/ Repentance, at least for adults, must accompany such a washing. This is why he says, “Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred.” A mere ritual washing isn’t going to do anything. There must be a corresponding spiritual conformity to what the washing signifies; otherwise, it’s futile.

 

But just because repentance must accompany the ritual washing for us to be saved that doesn’t mean the repentance by itself—without the washing—is what in fact saves. Repentance is the necessary prerequisite for the ritual washing, and both together bring about our salvation. As Jesus teaches in Mark 16:16, “he who believes [also repents] and is baptized will be saved.” Given that repentance is a necessary prerequisite for the ritual washing through which we are saved—i.e., baptism—it makes sense that Justin would use a metonymy and speak of such repentance as being the “baptism” that saves us.

 

So Justin Martyr can still be a witness for the early Christian belief that baptism is an instrumental cause of regeneration, or salvation. (Karlo Broussard, Baptism Now Saves You: How Water and Spirit Give Eternal Life [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2025], 73-76)

 

 

Ambrosiaster's Non-Reformed Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21

 Ambrosiaster, Questions on the Old and New Testaments:


QUESTION 74. HOW TO RECONCILE THESE WORDS OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH SPEAKING OF CHRIST: "HE DID NOT COMMIT SIN," (ISAIAH 53:9) WITH THESE OTHERS OF THE APOSTLE: "HE WAS MADE SIN FOR US WHO KNEW NO SIN?” (2 COR. 5:21) — As to meaning, there are two different questions here; but the expressions which appear similar are partly similar, partly different; he did, and he did not do so are two contradictory terms; he did not know and he did not do so are two similar phrases. The Prophet, speaking of the person of Christ, therefore says that he has not committed sin, and that lies have not been found on his lips. The Apostle, on the other hand, speaks of the person of the Father who made sin for us Christ who did not know sin. What to hear in two ways. First he made sin when he resolved his incarnation and decreed that he who was not subject to this condition would take a body of sinful flesh, and thus it was sinned. He made it sin again by offering it for our sins, for the victim offered under the law for sins took the name of sin. Jesus Christ, therefore, did not know sin, as the Prophet declares, but his Father has made him sin, as we have shown. To offer Christ for us, is it not to give all power to those who want to put him to death? Now, why was this power granted to them, it is in our interest, so that Christ could descend to hell and strip it of the souls it held captive. It is an enormous sin, unheard of, to have put to death the one who not only was guilty of no sin, but who had restored life to so many; it is from this sin that the devil has been guilty, and he has thereby lost his power of proud opposition. We read something similar in the Galatian epistle: "It was made for us curse," says St. Paul. (Gal. 3:13) Now who made him a curse, if not the Father? For it is by an effect of God's judgment that the cross of Jesus Christ is the curse of the Jews, and the death of the Savior highly proclaims their sin. He therefore wanted to be crucified, so that his passion might be useful to us, and that those who would come out of this life with the sign of the Savior would be free from the tyranny of the second death; for death dreads even the servants of him who triumphed over it. In this question not only the words, but the people are different. He did and he did not do it are two contradictory terms; but as the action claimed to have been made has not been done by the person who has been denied, it cannot be said that there is a contradiction. The words of the prophet apply to the person of Christ, those of the Apostle to the person of the Father. In fact, God the Father has reconciled the world through Jesus Christ, and this is how he has made Christ to be sin. He therefore made him sin, by bringing down into the bosom of a virgin to be born man, he who by his nature was not subject to a human birth, and thus he was made sin of the side of the flesh which is a flesh of sin. He was born to be offered as a victim for fishermen. Thus the Apostle says that he was made sin, because according to the law the victim who was offered for sins took the name of sin. We read something similar in the epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. He says in speaking of the Savior, "He was made a curse for us," (Gal. 3:13) which words here are the meaning: God the Father did it for us, sin or curse, allowing the Jews to put Him to death, so that their unbelief, because of their disapproval, gives us place to take their place according to what the Savior said: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and it will be given to a people who will bear the fruits.” (Matt. 21:43) In the language of Scripture God is supposed to do what he allows, because something is done only because he allows it. So our Lord said to Pilate, "You shall have no power over me, unless it be given you from above.” (Jn. 19:11) It is not by sending it from heaven, but by allowing the use of power that God gives it, and the perverse soul that receives the power to do what it wants becomes guilty, like the Jews who by putting to death the Savior made him their curse, by a just judgment of God. Indeed, the Savior's cross was the curse of the Jews. The sacrilege that was offered on the cross did not purify the one who offered it as the victim sacrificed for sins; on the contrary, the Savior in this sacrifice has become the sin that defiles the soul of those who offered it, and the justification of those who lived far from him, so that the blessing promised to Abraham may be repaired among the nations. Indeed the sacrifice of the Jews benefited the Gentiles, who did not hesitate to embrace the faith of Jesus Christ. (pp 282-86)

Alcuin of York (735-804) on the Identity of the Ark in Revelation 11:19

  

VERSE 19

 

And the temple was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. This saying goes back to the beginning of faith, and describes the battles of the Church with new symbols. What indeed does God’s temple signify but Christ in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells corporeally? [Col. 2:9] IT is said to be open because Christ has already been born, suffered, been resurrected, and been elevated, and since it is in the Church that Christ is proclaimed to have done all this, consequently he is said to open the temple in heaven. The ark of the testament, in which the power of the two Testaments was written by God’s finger, means the Church; according to Exodus, the ark has four golden rings with bars through them to be carried on, [Ex. 25:12-14] that is the four Gospels through which the Church is governed by the holy preachers. In it there is a golden pot with manna inside, that is the wisdom of the divine Word with the food of life; and also Aaron’s rod, [Heb. 9:4] that is the proof of kingly priesthood. And there were lightnings, and voices, and thunders, and an earthquake, and great hail. Lightnings are miraculous signs, by which the minds of the unfaithful were struck so that they submitted to humility; whence the Psalmist: Thou wilt multiply lightnings, and trouble them. [Probably a variant of Ps. 143:6, but also reminiscent of Ps. 17:15.] It is appropriate for the voices, that is the preachers, to come after the lightnings, because in order to bring the incredulous to faith by speaking, the preachers first displayed new miracles. After words there follow thunders in order for those who despise voices to be shaken by terror of the judgment. Then an earthquake, that is persecution, which is also indicated by hail; for just as hail gets crushed as it crushes the fruits of the earth, and the earth bears fruit again, when the furious multitude of the Gentiles tried to take the name of God away from the earth, it was itself reduced to naught, either by force or by being changed for the better—for quite many of them came to Christ’s faith. (Alcuin of York on Revelation: Commentary and the Questions and Answers (English and Latin) [trans. Sarah Van Der Pas; Consolamini Commentary Series; West Monroe, La.: Consolamini Publications, 2016], 151-52)

 

Karlo Broussard on 1 Peter 3:21 and baptism being called "ἐπερώτημα" (eperotēma; KJV: answer; NRSV: appeal)

  

Some see this appeal as a “pledge” or an “answer” with a good conscience to follow Jesus. The Protestant New International Version translation of the Bible renders the word as “pledge” rather than “appeal.” This is not unreasonable, because the Greek word for “appeal,” eperotēma, can mean “a pledge.” Others translate eperotēma as an “appeal,” as the Revised Standard Version does, the implication being that in baptism, Peter is saying we make a request of God to give us a clear, or good (1 Pet. 3:16), conscience. This is the primary meaning that many Greek dictionaries give for the word.

 

Regardless of which translation we use for eperotēma, both correspond with the salvific efficacy of baptism. Take the view we’re disputing right now, for example. The pledge to God to follow Christ with a good conscience doesn’t preclude a sacramental understanding of baptism.

 

Christians who believe in the salvific efficacy of baptism profess that such a pledge to Christ is a necessary condition to receive baptism. (In the case of an infant, the parents and the Church make such a pledge on behalf of the child.) The pledge is part of the baptismal rite. And this pledge is made “with a good conscience,” either because it’s a sincere commitment or the person making the pledge in the baptismal rite is doing so having repented of sin, which is necessary to be baptized.

 

The view that translates eperotēma as “appeal” fits with the sacramental view of baptism as well. If we believe that God interiorly cleanses our souls by giving us a good conscience through the waters of baptism, then submitting ourselves to the baptismal waters is a request that God effect within our souls a clear, or good, conscience.

 

We can go further in our response to Baker. Consider that Peter’s statement, “an appeal to God for a clear conscience,” is one of two statements that Peter intends to explain what he means when he says, “Baptism now saves you.” The other explanatory statement, which comes first and is set in opposition with the other, is “not a removal of dirt from the body.”

 

This creates a few problems for the interpretation that baptism doesn’t save us and is merely a symbol of our pledge to follow Jesus. First, it’s unreasonable to think Peter would make such an explicit statement about the salvific efficacy of baptism—“baptism now saves you”—and then immediately afterward deny such efficacy in his explanatory remarks.

 

Second, we end up having to think the language “as an appeal to God for a clear conscience” with the idea that baptism saves us “as a removal of dirt from the body.”

This leads us to a third problem. It’s true that Peter denial of an external cleansing implies the affirmation of an internal cleansing: a “cleansing of guilt,” as Rhodes put it. But the argument runs off the rails by divorcing this internal cleansing from baptism, saying baptism is merely a symbol of the internal cleansing and is not at all an external cleansing. On the contrary, it’s obvious that baptism does remove dirt from the body, so what Peter is denying is that baptism is merely “a removal of dirt from the body.” It thus is also an internal cleansing. (Karlo Broussard, Baptism Now Saves You: How Water and Spirit Give Eternal Life [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2025], 58-60)

 

 

Examples of a Triadic Formula ("wording") for Baptism in Early Christian Texts

  

Didache chapter 7:

 

1 Regarding baptism, baptize thus. After giving the foregoing instructions, ‘Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, baptize in any other; and, if you cannot in cold water, then in warm. 3 But, if the one is lacking, pour the other three times on the head ‘in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.’ 4 But, before the baptism, let the one who baptizes and the one to be baptized fast, and any others who are able to do so. And you shall require the person being baptized to fast for one or two days.

 

Justin Martyr, First Apology 61:

 

. . . there is invoked over the one who wishes to be regenerated, and who is repentant of his sins, the name of God, the Father and Lord of all; he who leads the person to be baptized to the laver calls him by this name only.

 

Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 3:

 

First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; . . .

 

Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21.11-18:

 

Then he should hand him over to the bishop or the presbyter who stands at the water to baptize; and they should stand in the water naked. And a deacon likewise should go down with him into the water. When the one being baptized goes down into the waters the one who baptizes, placing a hand on him, should say thus: “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?” And he who is being baptized should reply: “I believe.” Let him baptize him once immediately, having his hand placed upon his head. And after this he should say: “Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the virgin and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was dead [and buried] and rose on the third day alive from the dead and ascended in the heavens and sits at the right hand of the Father and will come to judge the living and the dead?” And when he has said, “I believe,” he is baptized again. And again he should say: “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy church and the resurrection of the flesh?” And he who is being baptized should say: “I believe.” And so he should be baptized a third time.

 

 

Tertullian, Against Praxeas 26:

 

After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names.

 

Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book 5 chapter 7:

 

(11) Now do you wish to understand that it was not only by birth but also by instruction that death exercised its dominion from Adam? This can be learned from the contraries. For when the Lord Jesus Christ had come to amend what had been done wrongly, in view of the fact that the first birth, which came from Adam, was born to death, he introduces a second birth, which he called not so much being born as being reborn. Doubtless it was through this second birth that he wiped away the blemish of the first birth. And just as he substituted birth with re-birth, so also he replaced one doctrine with another. For when he sent his own disciples to do this task, he did not merely say, “Go, baptize all nations,” but, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, because he knew that both were at fault, he gave a remedy for both, so that even our mortal birth would be changed by the re-birth of baptism, and the teaching of godliness might shut out the teaching of godlessness.

 

Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book 5 chapter 9:

 

(7) You may perhaps also be asking this: Since the Lord himself told the disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, why does the Apostle employ here the name of Christ alone in baptism? For he says, “We have been baptized into Christ,” although surely it should not be deemed a legitimate baptism unless it is in the name of the Trinity. But look at Paul’s good sense since, indeed, in the present passage he was not interested in discussing the subject of baptism as much as the death of Christ, in whose likeness he argues that we should die to sin and be buried with Christ. Obviously it was not appropriate to name either the Father or the Holy Spirit in a passage in which he was speaking about death. [M1040] For “the Word became flesh”; and where there is flesh, it is fitting to treat the subject of death. But it was not fitting for him to say, “We who have been baptized in the name of the Father or in the name of the Holy Spirit, have been baptized into his death.” Consequently, in this passage one should keep in mind the Apostle’s custom in other places, that when he cites the Scriptures, he does not always cite the complete wording of the text as it is found in the original passage, but he takes only as much as is called for by his current argument. Thus in the expression we have mentioned here, because he desired to teach about the death of Christ, it is sufficient for him to say, “We who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death.”

 

Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book 8:

 

(8) But let us now see what are the good things that they preach, i.e., that they announce. Although what he says, evangelizare, may be translated “to announce good things,” we need to endeavor to ascertain what the good things are that he has added to this good. The one true good is God, whose image of goodness is the Son and his Spirit, who is called good. Therefore, he has designated as “good things” that one good, since it consists in God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For this is what evangelists announce, according to the command of our Lord and Savior, who said, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” These, then, are the good things of those who preach the gospel.

 

Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 73:

 

5.2 When the Lord was sending forth His disciples after His resurrection, He taught them how they were to baptize, instructing them with these words: All power is given me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. There He makes known to them the Trinity in Whose sacred name the nations were to be baptized. But surely Marcion does not hold this Trinity? Surely he does not confess the same God the Father and Creator as we do? Does he recognize the same Christ His Son, born of the Virgin Mary, the Word which was made flesh, who bore our sins, who by dying overcame death, who initiated the resurrection of the flesh, beginning with His own person, and who revealed to His disciples that He had risen again in the same flesh?

 

. . .

 

17.2 Moreover, the case of the Jews in the time of the apostles was altogether different from the situation of the Gentiles. The former had already received the most ancient baptism of the Law and of Moses; they needed, therefore, to be baptized, in addition, in the name of Jesus Christ. We can see this in the Acts of the Apostles, in the words Peter addressed to them: Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children and to all who come thereafter, whomsoever the Lord has called. Here Peter mentions Jesus Christ, not that the Father should be omitted but so that to the Father should be added the Son. 18.1 On the other hand, after the resurrection, when the Lord was sending the apostles to the Gentiles, He bade that they should baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How, then, do some people claim that a Gentile can obtain forgiveness of sins if he is baptized outside and beyond the Church, even in opposition to the Church, no matter where nor how, so long as it is in the name of Jesus Christ? Whereas it is Christ Himself who bids that the Gentiles are to be baptized in the full and united Trinity.

 

Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter to the People of His Diocese 3:

 

5. “And we believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit, as also our Lord said when he sent forth his disciples to preach, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ [Matt. 28:19]. Concerning which things we also confidently affirm that this is what we maintain, how we think, and what we have held up until now, and that we will maintain this faith unto death, anathematizing every ungodly heresy.

 

"Baptism" in The Jewish Encyclopedia

  

[Baptism was practised in ancient (Ḥasidic or Essene) Judaism, first as a means of penitence, as is learned from the story of Adam and Eve, who, in order to atone for their sin, stood up to the neck in the water, fasting and doing penance—Adam in the Jordan for forty days, Eve in the Tigris for thirty-seven days (Vita Adæ et Evæ, i. 5–8). According to Pirḳe R. El. xx., Adam stood for forty-nine days up to his neck in the River Gihon. Likewise is the passage, “They drew water and poured it out before the Lord and fasted on that day, and said, ‘We have sinned against the Lord’ ” (1 Sam. 7:6), explained (see Targ. Yer. and Midrash Samuel, codem; also Yer. Ta‘anit ii. 7, 65d) as meaning that Israel poured out their hearts in repentance; using the water as a symbol according to Lam. 2:19, “Pour out thine heart like water before the Lord.” Of striking resemblance to the story Matt. 3:1–17 and in Luke 3:3, 22, is the haggadic interpretation of Gen. 1:2 in Gen. R. ii. and Tan., Buber’s Introduction, p. 153: “The spirit of God (hovering like a bird with outstretched wings), manifested in the spirit of the Messiah, will come [or “the Holy One, blessed be He! will spread His wings and bestow His grace”] upon Israel,” owing to Israel’s repentance symbolized by the water in accordance with Lam. 2:19.

 

To receive the spirit of God, or to be permitted to stand in the presence of God (His Shekinah), man must undergo Baptism (Tan., Meẓora‘, 6, ed. Buber, p. 46), wherefore in the Messianic time God will Himself pour water of purification upon Israel in accordance with Ezek. 36:25 (Tan., Meẓora’, 9–17, 18, ed. Buber, pp. 43, 53). In order to pronounce the name of God in prayer in perfect purity, the Essenes (צנועים) underwent Baptism every morning (Tosef., Yad. ii. 20; Simon of Sens to Yad. iv. 9; and Ber. 22a; compare with Ḳid. 70a, “The Name must be guarded with purity”). Philo frequently refers to these acts of purification in preparation for the holy mysteries to be received by the initiated (“De Somniis,” xiv.; “De Profugis,” vii.; “Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit?” xviii, xxiii.; “Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis.” ii.; “De Posteritate Caini,” xiv., xxviii.).

 

The Baptism of the proselyte has for its purpose his cleansing from the impurity of idolatry, and the restoration to the purity of a new-born man. This may be learned from the Talmud (Soṭah 12b) in regard to Pharaoh’s daughter, whose bathing in the Nile is explained by Simon b. Yoḥai to have been for that purpose. The bathing in the water is to constitute a rebirth, wherefore “the ger is like a child just born” Yeb. 48b); and he must bathe “in the name of God”—“leshem shamayim”—that is, assume the yoke of God’s kingdom imposed upon him by the one who leads him to Baptism (“maṭbil”), or else he is not admitted into Judaism (Gerim. vii. 8). For this very reason the Israelites before the acceptance of the Law had, according to Philo on the Decalogue (“De Decalogo,” ii., xi.), as well as according to rabbinical tradition, to undergo the rite of baptismal purification (compare 1 Cor. 10:2, “They were baptized unto Moses [the Law] in the clouds and in the sea”).

 

The real significance of the rite of Baptism can not be derived from the Levitical law; but it appears to have had its origin in Babylonian or ancient Semitic practise. As it was the special service administered by Elisha, as prophetic disciple to Elijah his master, to “pour out water upon his hands” (2 Kings 3:11), so did Elisha tell Naaman to bathe seven times in the Jordan, in order to recover from his leprosy (2 Kings 5:10). The powers ascribed to the waters of the Jordan are expressly stated to be that they restore the unclean man to the original state of a new-born “little child.” This idea underlies the prophetic hope of the fountain of purity, which is to cleanse Israel from the spirit of impurity (Zech. 13:1; Ezek. 36:25; compare Isa. 4:4). Thus it is expressed in unmistakable terms in the Mandean writings and teachings (Brandt, “Mandäische Religion,” pp. 99 et seq., 204 et seq.) that the living water in which man bathes is to cause his regeneration. For this reason does the writer of the fourth of the Sibylline Oracles, lines 160–166, appeal to the heathen world, saying, “Ye miserable mortals, repent; wash in living streams your entire frame with its burden of sin; lift to heaven your hands in prayer for forgiveness and cure yourselves of impiety by fear of God!” This is what John the Baptist preached to the sinners that gathered around him on the Jordan; and herein lies the significance of the bath of every proselyte. He was to be made “a new creature” (Gen. R. xxxix). For the term φωτισθεῖς (illuminated), compare Philo on Repentance (“De Pœnitentia,” i.), “The proselyte comes from darkness to light.” It is quite possible that, like the initiates in the Orphic mysteries, the proselytes were, by way of symbolism, suddenly brought from darkness into light. (S. Krauss, “Baptism,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, ed. Isidore Singer, 12 vols. [New York: Fung & Wagnalls, 1901-1906], 2:499-500)

 

 

Early Chrisitans Interpreting Ezekiel 36:25 as Teaching Baptismal Regeneration

  

36:25 Clean Water Sprinkled

 

The Blessing of the Baptismal Water. Cyprian: The water ought to be first cleansed and sanctified by the bishop that it may be able to wash away in its baptism the sins of the one who is baptized. Letter 70.1.

 

New Life in Baptism. Jerome: Careful consideration should be given to what a new heart and a new spirit is given when the water has been poured and sprinkled. Commentary on Ezekiel 11.36.1–15.

 

The Pure Water of Baptism. Theodoret of Cyr: He calls the pure water the water of rebirth, because we who have been baptized have received the forgiveness of our sins. Commentary on Ezekiel 14.36.

 

See the Lord. Isaac of Nineveh: Seek the Lord, O sinners, and be strengthened in your thoughts because of hope. And seek his face through repentance at all times. You will be sanctified by the holiness of his presence, and you will be purified of your iniquity. On Ascetical Life 5.76. (Ezekiel, Daniel, ed. Kenneth Stevenson and Michael Gluerup [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008], 118)

 

Elaine Pagels as a "Hostile Witness" to Baptismal Regeneration in the Pauline Epistles

The evidence from both the Bible and the patristic literature for baptismal regeneration is overwhelming. This is admitted even by critics of the doctrine. As a “hostile witness,” notice the following from an enemy of Christianity and the historicity of the New Testament, Elaine Pagels who has to admit Paul taught the doctrine in the “proto-Pauline” corpus:

 

After his wrenching experience precipitated him into an unexpected new life, Paul wrestled to understand what Christ demanded of him: how to spread his “gospel” to everyone, especially to Gentiles. Convinced that his experience had transformed him, Paul envisioned it as a paradigm for everyone: “anyone in Christ is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Struggling to articulate a deeply felt paradox, he declares that the person he used to be is dead: “I died . . . so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; while living, it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:19-20). He does not suggest that this happened instantly, like a bolt of lightning, as Martin Luther imagined it had, or as the Catholic poet Gerard Manley Hopkins pictured it, “once at a crash.” After the initial shock, Paul realized that his initial vision had catalyzed a process that would continue throughout his whole lifetime, and beyond this life.

 

How, then, to bring others “into Christ”? Paul wants far more for his listeners than that they believe what he preaches. Instead, he passionately longs for them, too, to “be transformed.” Writing to people in Rome, he promises that this may happen to anyone initiated “into Jesus Christ” through baptism:

 

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him in baptism into death, so just as Christ was raised from the dead . . . we too might walk in newness of life, being joined in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:4-5)

 

So, Paul declares, whoever descends into the baptismal water, often by being submerged in a river, is “baptized into Christ’s death,” and “buried with him.” Emerging dripping what, and receiving new clothes, the baptized person is being “clothed with Christ.” And when this happens, baptism erases the initiate’s previous identity markers, including those on which Paul had most prided himself—being Jewish, male, and freeborn. Anyone baptized into God’s family, Paul declares, is now equal in status to everyone else:

 

You are all children of God through faith. Whoever among you were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female: you are all one, in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)

 

Once we are baptized, infused with God’s spirit, Paul says, our faces increasingly radiate divine light, since “we are being transformed . . . from one degree of glory to another, through the Holy Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18). (Elaine Pagels, Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus [San Francisco: Doubleday, 2025], 167-68, italics in original)

 

 

Blog Archive