Saturday, July 4, 2026

Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen on Pope John IV's Attempt to Defend Honorius from Charges of Teaching Monothelitism

  

John IV of Rome (640–642) Born in Dalmatia, John IV was a convinced dyothelite who “gave money for ransoming captives in Dalmatia through the very holy and most faithful abbot Martin,” most likely the later pope Martin I. John IV wrote one surviving letter to Pyrrhus, the then-monothelite patriarch of Constantinople, and an apologia for Pope Honorius in spring 641. In his apologia to Emperor Constantine III, he attempted to play down Honorius’s originality, saying: “[Sergius wrote to Honorius] that certain men were speaking of two opposing wills in our redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ. When the aforementioned pope found that out, he wrote back to him that, just as our Savior was one monad, in such a way also he was conceived and born miraculously above the whole human race.” The addition of the critical word “opposing” justifies Honorius’s objection, but unfortunately was not part of Sergius’s account of the objection of Sophronius.

 

John IV was the recipient of a letter from Heraclius, informing him that he had written an inscription for an icon of the crucifixion in the patriarchate of Constantinople. The inscription contained a formulation of two natures and “one independent will” of Jesus Christ. (Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen, Conflict and Negotiation in the Early Church: Letters from Late Antiquity, Translated from the Greek, Latin, and Syriac [Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2020], 172)

 

Friday, July 3, 2026

John M. Rist on Augustine's Theology of Original Sin and the Text of Romans 5:12

  

As a result of Adam’s sin comes sin, death, and a general desertion of the good by mankind. All the descendants of Adam are scarred by ‘concupiscence’, and by what Augustine calls ‘ignorance’ and ‘difficulty’, the sheer inability to carry out what we known to be right. The human race has been corrupted by Adam, because all men are in some sense ‘in Adam’. Augustine repeatedly misquotes St. Paul to the effect that we all sinned in Adam (in quo omnes peccaverunt), where the Greek text reads εφ ω (Rom. 5:12), but although this text supports Augustine’s position it does not dictate it.

 

All men, Augustine argues, are identical with Adam. All men sinned in Adam on that occasion, he writes, since all were already identical with him in that nature of his which was endowed with the capacity to generate them. (John M. Rist, “Augustine on Free Will and Predestination,” in Augustine: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. R. A. Markus [Modern Studies in Philosophy; New York: Anchor Books, 1972], 230)

 

Thursday, July 2, 2026

Update on Health//Gofundme to Support Expenses for Next 3-6 Months

Reposting this from youtube:

Just a final reminder (for a few months anyway; hope to have good news by end of September or end of December): My treatment for my health issues (those who know me personally know whact it is, it is liver-related) started this week, and will be every Tuesday and Thursday for 3 or 6 months. As a result, I will be more or less out of work (bookkeeping/accountancy/translation) for 3-6 months (plus recovery time), so if you can share the gofundme and paypal links in the announcement on discord, twitter/x, youtube, blogs, etc., please do so (and if you have an "in" with a large YT channel like  @WARDRADIO  or  @thestickofjoseph  such as Luke at  @DoctrineAndGovernance  and  @yeahkwaku  and also  @thoughtfulfaith2020   @CwicShow   @LetsTalk-HaydenCarroll   @Mormonismexplained   ⁨@TheInterpreterFoundation⁩  please do so and maybe they will "plug" it somehow, too) Gofundme: https://www.gofundme.com/f/medical-expenses-liverrelated-and-other-issues Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/irishlds/

John M. Rist on Augustine and the Question of Mary's Sinlessness

  

. . . for Augustine no one can know that he is saved and even those who are saved do not lead perfect lives. Not only do they need continual help, they would be utterly unable to act for good, but even when in receipt of help their evil and corrupted natures are continually struggling to reassert themselves. Augustine seems to have been worried that if he allowed anyone, even with God’s help, to reach a state of achieved perfection in this life, the help would become unnecessary. And he is convinced by the Bible that its consistent message is that God’s help is always necessary. So insistent is Augustine on this point that even in the case of Mary he is very careful in his remarks about her being without sin. The Pelagians had claimed that various Old Testament worthies had lived sinless lives. Augustine ridicules the idea. What do you suppose these men would say if we asked them whether they lived without sin?, he asks Pelagius. As for Mary, says Augustine, I do not wish to query Pelagius’ claim that she was winless ‘out of honour to the Lord’. When discussing her further he is careful to point out that for this sinlessness to be attained, grace for overcoming sin had to be given ‘in every particular’ (omni ex parte). It is important to observe what Augustine says is not that she could not sin, but that grace was given to her in every particular of life so that the ever-present possibility of sin was overcome. It appears that Augustine’s view of the grace accorded to her should be compared with his view of the situation of Adam . . . it is sufficient to observe that both Adam and Mary seem, for Augustine, to have had the possibility of sinning (posse peccare) but that Mary was given the grace which prevented that possibility from becoming actualized.

 

Mary, in Augustine’s view, is a special case. In general he seems to have held that good men, even those who enjoy the grace of perseverance to the end, are liable to failure in particular actions. As a result of the permanent weakness of fallen man, a weakness which is not removed by baptism, the life even of the saint is a series of failures and successes. Not only is the saint able to sin, but he actually sins. Only after death is the stage reached in which sin is impossible (non posse peccare) and freedom (libertas) is attained. (John M. Rist, “Augustine on Free Will and Predestination,” in Augustine: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. R. A. Markus [Modern Studies in Philosophy; New York: Anchor Books, 1972], 225-26, emphasis in bold added)

 

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Volker L. Menze on non-Chalcedonian Eucharistic Miracles

  

Non-Chalcedonian hagiographies like John Rufus' Plerophoriae, compiled when Severus was patriarch in Antioch (512–18), demonstrated to the average non-Chalcedonian how he should deal with the Eucharist. It was better for a non-Chalcedonian to receive a non-Chalcedonian Eucharist only once a year than regularly a Chalcedonian Eucharist from a Chalcedonian priest. The true believer who stayed away from the Chalcedonian service received communion from heaven itself. The Chalcedonian John Moschus records the story of a non-Chalcedonian who caught his wife taking the Chalcedonian Eucharist, ‘grabbed her by the throat and forced her to emit the [according to the Chalcedonian author:] holy portion’. For the non-Chalcedonian husband salvation was only possible through communion and community with the non-Chalcedonians. In the Life of Peter the Iberian from the end of the fifth century, eucharistic miracles, in which blood burst forth from the Eucharist and Christ appeared next to the celebrant, provided proof to the non-Chalcedonian that God was on their side. If non-Chalcedonians were slaughtered for their conviction, Christ appeared, brought them to the altar, and gave ‘them of my body and blood before I take them to heaven with me’. (Volker L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church [Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008], 160)

 

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Conversion of Joseph Falconer Pratt (Former Christadelphian) to the Restored Gospel in the May 5, 1910 Issue of the Millennial Star

  

FROM CHRISTADELPHIANISM TO MORMONISM.

 

Raders of the Millennial Star may feel interested in the circumstances that led the writer of the present article to become a "Mormon." The gospel has been compared to the wind, "it bloweth where it listeth, and no one knoweth the sound thereof." God has so many varied ways in reaching the human heart that no two experiences are alike. "The kingdom of heaven is not entered by force"—it is foolish to say that nature's secrets can be wrested from her, she will reveal herself only to those who study her. The same principle holds good in the spiritual world. "Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you." God will only reveal His will to those who wish to do His will; but all in His own good time. As the wise man has said, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven." (Eccles. 3:1.)

 

I was reared in a school of religious thought that considered itself in no small degree, "the salt of the earth." The Christadelphians—Thomasites, or soul-sleepers, as they are sometimes called—is a sect which originated in America. It was founded by Dr. Thomas, a medical gentleman of considerable ability, who abandoned his profession and devoted himself to religious studies and the furtherance of the new cult. There are many points in Christadelphian teaching in remarkable harmony with "Mormonism." Indeed, so much is this the case, that the writer is acquainted with many of this sect who have joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They believe in one God. Like the Latter-day Saints, they insist that the Eternal Father is indivisible and one, that Jesus is His Son, miraculously begotten and exalted to a place at God's right hand; the Holy Spirit is the Divine influence or energy by which the Father is omnipotent and supreme. They believe man is mortal and is unconscious between death and the resurrection; there is no personal devil and no hell. They believe in baptism for the remission of sins, that Christ will come again and establish his Kingdom upon the earth and reign a thousand years, and then hand it over to the Father that God may be all in all.

 

This is a brief exposition of the creed to which I formerly subscribed. As will be observed, the nature of man, as taught by them, is in direct opposition to the generally accepted belief in human immortality. It seemed to me, as years advanced, a revolting idea that God, who is a God of love, justice and mercy should deny equality of opportunity to His children. This fact was painfully impressed upon me by sad experience. I lost a baby, and it was then that I first felt doubts arising, and experienced the poverty of a faith that could give no consolation in the hour of sorrow, for according to the gloomy tenets of Christadelphianism, there was no hope for those who died in an unbaptised state, and that death ended all. Those who have passed through the furnace of affliction best know the anguish of the human soul when death separates us from our loved ones, but who can express the agony of those who sorrow with no hope. Since that time I began to let my fancy wander freely; doubts assailed me on every side. The old beliefs were being undermined. I began to lose faith in those things that I formerly held dear and sacred. In this unsettled state I could say with George de Romanes, "The world looked cold and bare, and life was losing half its beauty and color."

 

About six years ago I made the acquaintance of the Latter-day Saints. Chance directed me to their meeting-place, and although I was pleased with what I there saw and heard, the impression was not sufficiently strong to produce any other effect. All this time I continued in fellowship with the Christadelphians, but I am afraid my religion belonged more to the head than to the heart. From my earliest years I felt interested in the occult. The phenomena of spiritualism is a fascinating thing, and as I had some power in that direction, my friends would have me to be a medium, though I denied all claims to such an unenviable position. I mention this circumstance as showing the extremes into which one can wander without God at the helm. I was like a ship without a rudder, tossed to and fro by every wind of strange doctrine, always learning yet never arriving at a knowledge of the truth. About two years ago I made the acquaintance of two elders of Israel, and after a conversation in which we exchanged views, I was delighted to find doctrines advocated which coincided in a remarkable manner with my own, and it is from that date that my conversion began. But there was much prejudice and error that stood in the way, and I battled hard and contested foot by foot the progress of truth into my soul. Like the Prophet Joseph Smith, I sent many a prayer to God to shed light on my troubled soul. What questionings of motives, what anguish of mind I suffered, what doubts and fears assailed me! The very name of "Mormonism" frightened me! What would my friends think? How could I stand before the ridicule and sneers of my associates? These were the feelings experienced by me in the transitionary period.

 

The first doctrine of the Church that appealed to my inmost nature was the immortality of the soul and the purpose of God in placing man upon this earth, though strange as it may appear. The doctrine of pre-existence did not find acceptance till some time later. But the work was begun, and I felt powerless to resist the whisperings of the still small voice. I was led to see the justice and mercy of God in giving an opportunity to all His children to hear the good news of the kingdom, "that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8: 30, 39.) The old barren belief of Christadelphianism gave place to this good news of Mormonism. Henceforth I sorrowed no longer as those who have no hope, but rejoiced in the knowledge that our absent darlings will see the Father's face and rejoice in the blessings of the everlasting gospel. I always felt the injustice of being punished for Adam's transgression, it was so unlike a God of love and justice that we should be punished for what we did not do, and so I found no difficulty in accepting the teaching of "Mormonism," welcoming it as consonant with reason, and the highest aspirations of my nature. I can but dwell briefly on those things that drew me to "Mormonism." The articles of faith presented to my mind the highest conception of God and His purposes. In many things they expressed my own sentiments; in others I had to yield a humble submission. They spoke intuitively to me, and made me a Mormon before I had realized it. I felt convinced that doctrines like these could only emanate from one source—from God: And so I rejoice in giving my testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet sent of God to usher in the last dispensation, and that among the sons of God he has secured imperishable fame. His life and character have stood the most searching criticism. The memory of an Alexander, a Cæsar or Napoleon will pass away; but the name of Joseph Smith will endure for ever for he will be known throughout all generations as a Prophet of the Most High God. Since I became a Mormon I have had some interesting experiences. My former friends stand aloof and say I am surely wrong in the mind, the victim of a delusion, and that the devil has got me in his grip. That awful word "Mormonism" is sufficient to conjure up the most fearful shapes, but I feel calmly confident. I have put my hand to the plough and by God's grace there will be no turning back. My heart is fixed, I have an anchor of the soul sure and steadfast in the everlasting gospel. "He that believeth on it will never be confounded."

 

To those who would fight against Zion and the Lord's anointed, I can say with Joshua, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve. . . ." "But as for me and my house we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15.) May the Lord give me strength to hold fast the beginning of my confidence firm unto the end, for Christ's sake. Amen.—J. Falconer Pratt. (Joseph Falconer Pratt, “From Christadelphianism to Mormonism,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 72, no. 18 [May 5, 1910]: 277-79; my thanks to Levi Wixom for making me aware of this article)

 

From my online searching, I discovered that the author was baptized on October 24, 1909.

 

Further Reading:

 

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

Monday, June 29, 2026

Ethan Schwartz on Exodus 15:11 teaching Monolatry

  

Today, most people think of the Bible as monotheistic. By this, they mean that YHWH is the only deity who exists. However, for biblical texts from the preexilic period, this is far from the case. A clear example is the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1-18). Most scholars identify this passage as one of the Bible’s oldest—possibly tracing to the end of the Late Bronze Age (1600-1200 BCE). Praising YHWH for defeating Pharaoh during the exodus, the speaker declares,

 

Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in splendor, doing wonders?
(Exod 15:11)

 

The Song straightforwardly acknowledges that other gods exist. The point is not that YHWH is the only god but rather he is the best god. Scholars call this “monolatry.” (Ethan Schwartz, Unity and Disunity in Isaiah [Cascade Companions; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 51, italics in original)

 

Sunday, June 28, 2026

The First Presidential Candidate Ever Assassinated Was a Prophet


The First Presidential Candidate Ever Assassinated Was a Prophet






John Smith, Letter to Elias Smith, October 19, 1834

The following is a transcription of:

 

John Smith, Letter to Elias Smith, October 19, 1834, in Elias Smith correspondence, 1834-1839, CHL Call no.: MS 7062)

 

Kirtland Geauga Ohio October 19th 1834

 

Respected Nephew Jacob,

 

your epistle of Sept. 25 × 26 which gave us
much pleasure to hear that our relatives were all alive & in general enjoying
a good degree of health also that the Great author of all things has bestowed
His blessings upon you in that region that you get have abundance for the wants
of the people. The season here has been rather dry but crops of grain of all
my kind are very good potatoes in some localities are injured by the drought the
the first have frost did damage this fall was the 7 Sept but by it lost the
leaves of the forest were half grown the 17<sup>th</sup> fruit trees were had fully blossomed
10<th> May
when all looked beautiful we had a frost that killed almost every green
thing that the frost laid hold on to well wither, so that for some days the air
smelt like a field where men are hanging of course we have no fruit
of note in this region but on the whole I do not think that this can be
the stone cause for the cold south west wind you speak of in your
letter notwithstanding we have abundant crops this year & I do not follow
that tomorrow will be as this day and much more abundant. Thus I have
noticed the first page of your letter in answer to the strength of it is worth
note as well as I can untill I come to where you say I called our country
the cold and barren north. I did once mention in noticing a certain
story which with foundation being to view Ezekiel's vision of the image
of jealousy, which seemed to come from the north I said the cold and barren
north because I thought that the story originated in some jealous heated
person and I called it barren because I thought much reason bore none
of the fruits of righteousness because now dear sir that I did not mean
your farm nor the country of St Lawrence for I have cultivated the
virgin in that region a number of years and had very good success—you
think more a man has the less that heigh he is for it but you think
that will answer the charge logic to me my I learned that lesson long since
for I recollect that one of old said how hardly shall they that
have riches enter into the Kingdom of God & I have observed too
that those that are the most ignorant the worst are the least concerned
about temporal things so I conclude that the ancient saying is true
you balance with some degree of learning to show that the people from
who live in countries where they are under the necessity of labouring every day
to get a living enjoy themselves much better and know much more than those who
live in more fertile & luxuriant countries this being the case for want it
not be desirable for a man who had a family of boys to choose the poorest if not
that he could find that he might that have have the most happy and
wise family perhaps on the earth this would be according to your mode
of reasoning you say that few if any have any sense. Then the people of the
who you say live in the cities of the north countries are more thankful for
inference? during war than the people of the north countries and
had they any more sense of their dependence than those who
inhabited Jerusalem the best country in the world or all the holy prophets
Jesus and the apostles dwelt at Jerusalem it was there that our Lord poured
out the gifts of the Holy spirit Spirit it was there that the most holy people lived
that ever inhabited the globe and the most wise too that we have any account
of also were and Greece produced the greatest philosophers and the wisest that
writer may mentioned in history and that in fertile countries and to best
the storys of last we will our own country the eastern and western
states have produced the greatest statesmen & the greatest warriors this you
will admit

 

No. 2

 

[No. 2]

You say you suppose that I think you are a great fellow for if you would only
change your present place of residence from one in Missouri or I do not think that
I must at once know that every man has a right to live where he pleases but you
mistake
thought I had been urging you to go to the west but I do not recollect any such
thing though you think you would like to see mount Zion in the wilderness
the north you mean that place spoken of by the proud king of Babylon or to unite
the meeting of the congregation in the sides of the north there. you do not believe
there is any such place or it would be as likely to be on one of the hills in old
England as anywhere. this may be the reason you are so well suited with your
present situation but I should think by the turn of your letter you would look
still farther north or it looks as if you are one of that sort of men that have
curious notions in your head but you say that the mormons call you a boy
as though I had some time transgressed the rule of good breeding by calling
you boys you old not rat ship means, if my age for what some
body else have done and I know that you have been taught by christian pa-
rents therefore you would honor the face of the old man Lev. 19:32.
I have been in a habit of calling my our
Brothers boys and no marvel if I should
call their sons boys you need not ask me to pardon you for calling the name of
mormons for that is the best you know. There is no guilt attached
to any one for doing the best they know in time nor Eternity when they
do as well as they know if they have not abused their privileges and not
received knowledge when it was presented to their view you say that the
things that you have seen and heard of late look like absurdities to you.
I suppose you mean the gospel which I have embraced of late so it is with
in Paul's days but we are told that their unbelief made maketh the truth of God
without effect but I tell you in the fear of God that these things are true
as the Lord lives and I would that you would search out these things
for yourself for I know that it is within your reach if you were willing
to humble yourself before the Lord as you must and every one man who
is rejecting the testimony of Jesus Christ or you cannot enter into
the Kingdom of God it is because I love you and seek your best good
that I tell you these things & beg of you not to accuse me of one of causeless
you may more but be calm and candid and act like a man of wisdom
you accuse me of not saying enlighten anything on this subject only by some
canting expression. I do not know what you mean by accusing me. This
I have never tried harder to convince with any man harder than I did with
yourself at my house at Potsdam but you know you refused to talk
at all on the subject. you spoke of men being saucy or impertinent. if I
have not meant to treat you saucy or impolite if I have I am sorry
for it I ask your pardon humbly and ask if I have treated them you thus.
You say if you had time you would write a dissertation you call it on
the absurdities of the revelations of God in these last days. I advise
you to be careful how you treat the things of God lest you be caught
in a snare but if you should write such a thing according to your
doctrine no doubt you would find some that would attach some
importance to it. is it true that those who make the greatest pre-
tentions to religion that are act up as lecturers as religious teachers
or make the greatest pretentions to religion always are the
farthest from the gospel standard. you say they always
under the same anathemas which they put upon others this is the true
is the natural the imperfection of man. I do not fully agree with you
on this point we will search the pages of sacred history this being the
standard. Enoch Noah Abraham Moses Joshua Zechariah the son
of Barachiah David Solomon Elijah Jeremiah and all the prophets
Jesus and all the Apostles these all made the greatest pretenti-
ons to Christianity that we have any account of in sacred history
together with the list of worthies mentioned by St. Paul in the 11th Ch
of Hebrews we will look at modern history a little Martin Luther John
Calvin John Knox George Fox John Wesley and a multitude of others
I might mention Mr Edwards our own countryman & many others
I might mention all these made as loud proclamations against
Errors as any that we have any account of. I presume you will want the
anathemas upon their heads which they pronounced upon the
ungodly now I think that I have found some at any rate that is to
exempt from the charge you allege against them and promptly af-
firm that no one is. I can not give you any more information a-
bout your Brothers Death. I wrote all the particulars that I could
gather to your father. I weep for your loss sincerely and cannot say
anything more or less to comfort you than I did to your father.
Since I learned that Joseph wrote to his uncle on the subject of
Jesse's death you say nothing about the receipt of his letter. I con-
clude it is not worth your notice by the turn of your letter also
Brother Sidney which I learned after I had written on the same
subject. his letter I suppose is treated with too contempt or
in the thought not worth notice or you may not have received
them. if you did you probably have got all the particulars that any
one could give and if you think they are not worth your noti-
ce you are mistaken about it. Mr Humphrey we learned no
more [illegible] we have not received a letter from George written
to George wrote to Mrs Humphreys a few days since by Mr Holley
giving her all the information I knew about the death of her
husband she probably has got the letter by this time I presume
George will answer your letter if he ever got it or shall not attempt to
solve the mystery with regard to Jesse's going to Missouri now it
you may know hereafter. you speak as tho I had heaped many
bitter anathemas upon you. you say from the state of Ohio and re-
sent as many. I was very wicked for it. I do not know what you mean
therefore I shall pass it over in silence. Jesse read a part of the letter
to me but not that part you speak of but he felt bad when he read it
but we think he had no hardness against you nor I can it be great ques-
tion that seems to burden more so much. what business any one has to
call the church of Christ the Church of the Latter Day Saints or call the chil-
dren of God saints is answer the Church of Christ is the Church of Saints
...and always was this is the reason why the apostles directed letters
his sometimes to the Church of God others to the Church of Christ & again to the
Brethren sometimes to the saints always meaning the Church of Christ.
Search the antient prophesies you will find that they never enumerate other
saints see Daniel 7–18, 22–27<th> was evidently meaning the Church of Christ
and saints or the Church of Christ now I advise you to search the scriptures wi-
th candor and prayer you will learn many things that you never
thought of before and you will not have so much reason to complain of your
benighted understanding your light would shine in darkness and
unfold to you many mysteries which seem to trouble now you much.
you will be glad to the council which you have heard and yours
will have same like a river your righteousness like an overflowing stream

 

(Address panel)

 

Mr. Elias Smith

East Stockbridge

 

Madison Co. N.Y.

 

tell Amos that the work of the Lord prospers the church increase in numbers
very fast. Paganism is giving away in this region as a spirit of inquiry prevails.
It is almost universally since the work set on and will until the saints
of the Latter Day take the Kingdom and possess the Kingdom & give
I expect it. The Church of the Latter Day Saints will prosper in
spite of wicked men and devils untill it fills the whole earth and the
signs increase that follow the true that belief which confirms the
truth of the word of the Lord. the walls of the Lord's house are nearly comple-
ted. the roof will go on next week if the Lord permit. we are in usual health.
our best wishes accompany this to all friends particularly our Mother
and may the Lord give you understanding in all things that you may
have wisdom to discern between right and wrong and know righteousness

 

Elias Smith

 

No. 42

 

is the prayer of your uncle

 

John Smith

 

 

Sola Scriptura Debate Review

 

Sola Scriptura Debate Review






B. Hudson McLean on the Eucharist being a Sacrifical Meal in the Theology of 1 Corinthians

  

Though the Eucharist took the form of a congregational meal in the first-century church (for example, 1 Cor. 11:17-22), it was often interpreted as a sacrificial meal shared out among the congregation. (B. Hudson McLean, “The Place of Cults in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson [London: Routledge, 1996], 216)

 

 

For example, Paul's contrast of the Christian sacrificial meal with the sacrificial meals of the Graeco-Roman sacrifice suggests that he is describing not only a real, but superior sacrifice, in which the human-divine relationship was truly strengthened by a slaying. Just as the latter truly made the worshipers partners with demons, so the Christian sacrifice brings about an actual partnership with the Christ (1 Cor. 10:16--21). Similarly, the reference of Ignatius of Antioch to a Christian altar implies that the Eucharistic meal had sacrificial meaning: "Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar ... " (Ignatius, Phil. 4.1-2); "Run off- all of you- to one temple of God, as it were, to one altar ... " (Ignatius, Magn. 7.2). (B. Hudson McLean, “The Place of Cults in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson [London: Routledge, 1996], 224 n. 143)

 

Erik F. Wait on Some of the Constitutive Elements of Sola Scriptura

In my debate against Kelly Powers on Sola Scriptura (June 9, 2026), I discussed some of the constitutive elements of Sola Scriptura, such as (1) the necessity of the cessation of public revealtion at the end of the New Testament era and (2) the right to private interpretation. In a recent work defending Sola Scriptura, we find the following which shows the importance of these vis-a-vis sola scriptura:


 

The final revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh (Hebrews 1:1-2), who finally and authoritatively exegeted, explained, the Father (John 1:18). The New Testament writers were the last to write any inspired books that are to be in the canon of Scripture. Any and all claims to additional special revelation, such as The Book of Mormon or the writings of Ellen G. White, are to be rejected. (Erik F. Wait, “Because Rome Says So”: A Presuppositional Defense of Sola Scriptura [Meadville, Pa.: Christian Faith Publishing, 2026], 3)

 

 

Second, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not teach that the church has no authority to discipline or excommunicate. Sola Scriptura does teach that each and every believer may challenge the church to defend what it teaches and may, through a subsequent ecclesiastical court of appeals, seek to correct the church. (Erik F. Wait, “Because Rome Says So”: A Presuppositional Defense of Sola Scriptura [Meadville, Pa.: Christian Faith Publishing, 2026], 6)

 

Robert F. Evans on Pelagius's Understanding of "Faith Alone" (Sola Fide) in his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles

  

Pelagius' teaching concerning baptism may be summarized conveniently by saying that it is the sacrament of justification by faith alone. Interesting it is that Pelagius can not infrequently supply the adjective sola to fides in this connection and thus go even beyond the Apostle in the terms by which he states the sufficiency of faith. Faith he seems clearly to understand as not simply intellectual assent but "trust from the whole heart"; faith is also "faith in the promises of God." In the act of baptism the believing man is absolved from his past sins without respect to merit, the forgiving grace of God making him to be in that moment "righteous. " Righteousness in this context then means the condition of being without the guilt of past sins; the man who believes in Christ has the status of one who has fulfilled the whole of the law. (Robert F. Evans, Pelgius: Inquiries and Reappraisals [New York: The Seabury Press, 1968], 113)

 

 

is not infrequently at pains to argue that faith is only the beginning and that justification in the fullest sense is not by faith alone but by faith followed by works of righteousness. Repeatedly he urges his correspondents so to act that they will merit the heavenly rewards, and he warns of the dire consequences of not doing so. He obviously writes with the assumption that some, perhaps many, who have believed will not enter the kingdom of heaven. It would be quite trivial, on Pelagius' terms, to suppose that the divine initiative in choosing some and rejecting others should be based upon foreknowledge of their faith, rather than, say, their performance of works of righteousness. (Ibid., 116)

 

 

There is then the problem of the origin of faith and of the "merit" attaching to faith. Pelagius frequently gives expression to the idea that justification by faith alone takes place without respect to human merits, and can also speak of "deserving" the grace of God by the "merit" of faith. Here is no real problem in respect of Pelagius' own consistency, although his language is perhaps misleading. It must be remembered that he conceives the power of sin to be a power over what man concretely does; sin is particular act, and sins are particular acts of disobedience to the law of God. That man is justified freely apart from merit means that he is accounted guiltless before God even though his actions have brought guilt upon him. The power of sin over concrete actions is not a complete power over the inner motions of mind, soul, or will. The only analysis which Pelagius provides of this entire problem is one in which, commenting on the Apostle Paul, he sees the fundamental problem to man as being posed by the law of Moses. That law in the time of grace produces within man the paralyzing schism by which he recognizes sin to be sin and even wills to be without it but is unable to bring his will to effect. When the fullness of God's law breaks through to man in the person and teaching of Christ, the same rational will which even under the old law desired to be free of sin possesses now freedom sufficient to the positing of faith in Christ. Faith "merits" grace in the sense that fr is the indispensable and freely chosen condition of the effectual working of grace. Faith is not "act" in the decisive sense in which act under the old law either brought guilt or established "merit." Nor does faith itself work the forgiveness of sins; it is God who graciously forgives sins when the believer comes to him in trust. Whether this, within the context either of the fifth or of the twentieth century, is a theologically acceptable account of faith in its relation to grace, it is fortunately not our business here to say. (Ibid., 117-18)

 

 

We have seen that Pelagius teaches the justification of the sinner by faith alone in the act of baptism. He also teaches that men are justified by works. The key to understanding his language is to notice that the formula "faith alone" applies to the unique situation of the individual at his conversion and baptism. "Righteousness" (iustitia) as a term applying to the Christian after baptism, and pre-eminently at the judgment, is unthinkable without the performance of "works of righteousness, " i.e., without obedience to the moral precepts of Christ and of the Apostles. When the Apostle, referring to justification in this wider sense, writes that "man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom. 3: 28), he means to say that man is justified apart from ceremonial works of the law such as circumcision and the observance of new moons and Sabbaths, not apart from works of righteousness. The whole of the Christian life as it is stretched out between baptism and the judgment is one in which Christians avail themselves of the grace of teaching and example; always exercising that freedom of choice which has been made effectual by grace, they obey the precepts of the gospel and so merit the rewards of the final kingdom of heaven. Pelagius sums up his whole teaching on faith in its relation to righteousness in the following words: "Faith in the first instance is reckoned as righteousness for this reason, that [ a man] is absolved as to the past, justified as to the present, and prepared for the future works of faith." (Ibid., 119)

 

 

Plinval is certainly wrong in suggeting (" Points de vues recents sur la theologie de Pélage," RSR 46, 1958, p. 229) that Pelagius' words on justification by faith alone cannot be taken seriously as representing his real view but are to be attributed to the necessity imposed by Pauline exegesis. If this were the case, the words sola {ides would not appear so repeatedly as they do in Pelagius, nor would Pelagius have added the non-Pauline word sola to his formulation. He clearly distinguishes the righteousness of faith from the righteousness of works, both of which he wants to uphold; see Exp. 8 1 , 19-82, 1 . (Ibid., 163-64 n. 109)

 

 

Friday, June 26, 2026

Examples of Patristic Commentaries on Jeremiah 31:15

  

31:15 Rachel Weeping for Her Children

 

Prophecy of Rachel’s Children. Theodoret of Cyr: Ramah belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, and the tomb of Rachel is in the hippodrome of Chaphratha on the way to Ephrath. While the prophecy had its fulfillment in the time of Herod the Great, who did away with the babies in the hope of doing away at the same time with the newborn Savior, the prophet places it here in the context of the promise of good things so as to emphasize that the birth of our Lord and Savior according to the flesh was the real good and the summit of salvation, though on account of it the babies met that unjust end. On Jeremiah 7.31.15.

 

The Lamentation of Rachel. Ephrem the Syrian: “Thus says the Lord: A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, sobbing and weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children.” In a historical sense this prophecy speaks about sons of Judah and Benjamin living in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Jeremiah later on describes the fulfillment of this prophecy, saying that tribes of Judah and Benjamin were sent to Ramah, the city of Benjamin’s tribe, and then they were sent to captivity in Babylon. But in a spiritual sense, these words were fulfilled when Herod killed infants in Ephrathah and in its suburbs. It was said that Rachel was crying in Bethlehem and her voice was heard in Ramah because her body was buried in Bethlehem. But the people of Bethlehem were captured and sent to Ramah, and from there they had to go into a foreign land, to Babylon. It is why the prophet comforts mothers of killed infants when referring to Rachel. Commentary on Jeremiah 31.15.

 

Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents. Chrysostom: Herod sought him after his birth. He was to kill all the children in that place. And the prophet revealed this, too, foretelling it long beforehand when he said, “A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, mourning and much weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are not.” The Scriptures also predicted that he would come to Egypt when they said, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Demonstration Against the Pagans 3.7.

 

Christ Brings the Living Faithful with Him. Ambrose: What need have I to study the rising and the setting of the stars, and at their rising plough up and pierce the fallow ground with hard ploughshares or at their setting cut the fruitful crop? One star means more to me than all the others, “the bright morning star” at whose rising was sown not the seed of grain but the seed of martyrs, that time when Rachel wept for her children to offer for Christ her babies washed with her tears. The setting of that star brought back in triumph from the tomb not the unfeeling relics of funeral piles but bands of the living, who had been dead. Letter 50(44).

 

God Delivered the Infants When Herod Killed. Caesarius of Arles: Today we are celebrating the feast of all those infants who, the Gospel text tells us, were killed by King Herod, and for this reason our land, the fruitful mother of heavenly soldiers and such great virtues, should rejoice with the greatest exultation. Behold, the wicked enemy could never have helped the blessed infants as much by submission as he did by his hatred. As today’s most sacred feast shows us, the grace of benediction shone forth in the blessed infants as much as cruelty against them abounded. For we heard a little while ago that when King Herod was pursuing Christ, thousands of happy boys were killed. As the prophet said, “Rachel mourns her children; she refuses to be consoled because her children are no more.” The blessed mother of the triumphant, the land of illustrious warriors, rich in children, for a short time seemed to the eyes of the foolish to be bereaved. But she never was in need of consolation, nor did she bewail the sons whom she acquired with enviable sorrows, even while she lost them. Blessed are you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, who suffered the cruelty of King Herod in the death of your sons and at the same time merited to offer to God a white-clad group of peaceable, sinless infants. Sermon 222.1.

 

God Hates the Death of the Faithful. Bede: According to the oracle of Jeremiah, “A voice was heard in Ramah,” that is, “on high,” “of lamentation and great wailing.” This clearly denotes that holy church’s mourning, by which it grieves for the violent death of its members, does not, as our enemies foolishly claim, pass away into a void, but it ascends right to the throne of the heavenly judge. Homilies on the Gospels 1.10. (Jeremiah, Lamentations, ed. Dean O. Wenthe [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009], 207-9)

 

 

31:15: Thus says the Lord: “A voice is heard on high of lamentation, wailing and mourning, Rachel weeping for her sons; she refuses to be comforted for her sons, because they are not.” lxx: The Lord said thus: “A voice was heard in Ramah, of lamentation, wailing and mourning; Rachel weeping for her sons; she refuses to cease, because they are not.”

 

Matthew cites this testimony neither according to the Hebrew nor according to the lxx. For we read in Matthew after the description of the death of the infants: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and much crying; Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are not.’ ”110 From this it is clear that the evangelists and apostles did not follow any particular person’s interpretation of the Hebrew, but as Hebrews born of Hebrews they expressed in their own words what they read in Hebrew.

 

When Joseph’s mother, Rachel, came to Bethlehem she went into labor suddenly, and seized with pain she gave birth to a son. Since the mother was dying, the midwife called him Ben-oni, that is, “son of my sorrow.” But his father, Jacob, changed the word and called his name Benjamin, that is, “son of the right hand.” So the question is asked: How could the Evangelist Matthew transfer the testimony of the prophet to the slaying of the infants, when this testimony was clearly written with regard to the ten tribes (the chief of which was Ephrathah), and the slaying of the infants was not in the tribe of Ephraim but in the tribe of Judah? In fact, Ephrathah and Bethlehem are dyonymous; thus, even the names of both of them are in agreement: Bethlehem means “house of bread,” and Ephrathah means karpophoria, which we can translate as “richness.” Since therefore Rachel was laid to rest in Ephrathah, that is, in Bethlehem just as holy Scripture and the inscription on her tomb even today testify—it is said that she weeps for her sons who were killed near her and in her territory.

 

Certain of the Jews interpret this passage thus: when Jerusalem was captured under Vespasian, countless thousands of captives were led through this way by Gaza and Alexandria to Rome. But others say that in the final captivity under Hadrian when the city of Jerusalem was overthrown, innumerable people of diverse ages and both sexes were sold at the marketplace of Terebinthus.119 For this reason, it is an accursed thing among the Jews to visit this acclaimed marketplace. Let these people say what they want. We say that the Evangelist Matthew has rightly taken up this testimony because it is the place where Rachel was buried, and she wept for the sons of those nearby in the surrounding houses as if she were weeping for her own sons. (Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah [trans. Michael Graves; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2011], 194-95)

 

The Jewish Study Bible on Jeremiah 31:15

  

15: The portrayal of Israel as Rachel weeping for her lost children draws upon the tragic tradition of Rachel, Jacob’s beloved wife, who died while giving birth to Benjamin. Although Gen. 35:16–21 places her tomb on the road to Bethlehem, where the current structure stands, 1 Sam. 10:2 suggests that her tomb was on the road to Ramah, near modern Ramallah. The present text portrays Rachel weeping not for herself, but for her lost children who have gone into exile. According to 40:1, 4, the Babylonians assembled Judeans destined for exile to Babylon at Ramah. The portrayal of Rachel weeping and bereft of children is reversed in Isa. ch 54, which employs the metaphor of a mother whose children are restored. According to Rab. Gen. 82:10, Jacob deliberately buried Rachel by the road because he knew that his descendants would pass by as they went into exile. She would then weep and intercede for their return. (The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael Fishbane [New York: Oxford University Press, 2004], 989)

 

Michael A. Fishbane on Jeremiah 31:15

  

15. Rachel weeping This verse inspired a midrash on the merit of Rachel, who intercedes before God in connection with Manasseh’s sins. God responds mercifully, saying: “You defended [Israel] well; there is recompense for your labor and righteousness when you gave your [marital] tokens to your sister” (see Rashi). In this way rabbinic tradition explained the thematic conjunction of verses 15 and 16 (and the reference in v. 16 to “your labor” with the feminine suffix). (Michael A. Fishbane, Haftarot [The JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002], 382)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Jeremiah 32:15 (cf. Matthew 2:18)

  

2:18: Rachel weeping for her children.

 

The Midrash Jer 31:15.

 

Genesis Rabba 82 (52D): What did our father Jacob see when he buried Rachel on the road to Ephrath (cf. Gen 35:19)? He saw that the exiles would one day pass by there; therefore, he buried Rachel there so that from there she would pray for mercy for them. This is what Jer 31:15 says, “A voice is heard at Ramah.” ‖ The beginning of Midr. Lam. 24 (38A–B): R. Samuel b. Nahman (ca. 260) said, (after the fathers of Israel mourn the downfall of Jerusalem in 38B) “In that hour our mother Rachel arose before God and said, ‘Lord of the worlds, it is clear to you that Jacob your servant loved me greatly and for my sake served my father for seven years; and when those seven years were completed and the time of my marriage was near, my father made a plan to exchange me for my sister. This weighed heavily on me, for the plan had become known to me, and I communicated it to my husband and gave him signs to distinguish me from my sister so that he would not mistake me. But afterward I comforted myself, endured my desires, and took pity on my sister, that she would not go away with insults. And in the evening, they exchanged my sister for me, and I informed my sister about all the signs that I had told to my marriage partner so that he would think that she was Rachel. And moreover, I crept under the tent where he was resting with my sister, and when he spoke to her she was silent, but I answered every word he said, so that he would not recognize my sister’s voice. In this way I showed grace to her, and did not become jealous of her, nor did I let her go away insulted. And if I, who was flesh and blood, dust and ashes, did not make my rivals jealous, nor let them go away in reproach and disgrace, you who are the king of Mercy—you who lives forever, why did you get angry about idols, in which there is nothing of substance, and let my children go into captivity, that they might be killed by the sword, and their enemies treat them according to their lusts?’—Immediately the mercy of God was stirred, and he said, ‘For your sake, Rachel, I will bring Israel back to her place.’ ” This is what Jer 31:15–17 says, “Thus says Yahweh, ‘A voice is heard at Ramah … Rachel weeping for her children.’ … Thus says Yahweh, ‘Stop weeping …; your work will be rewarded.…’ ” See Rashi on Jer 31:15. ‖ Pesiqta 141B: R. Simeon b. Yohai (ca. 150) taught, “Because everything depended on Rachel (i.e., because the whole life story of Jacob revolved around her), her descendants were named after her, ‘Rachel weeping for her children’ (Jer 31:15); and not only after her name, but also after the name of her son, ‘Perhaps Yahweh, the God of hosts, will pardon the remnant of Joseph’ (Amos 5:15); and not only after the name of her son, but also after the name of her grandson, ‘A favorite son is Ephraim’ (Jer 31:20).”—The same is said in Gen. Rab. 71 (46A); Midr. Ruth 4:11 (137A). ‖ Midrash Lamentations 1:2 (50A): R. Simeon b. Yohai (ca. 150) said, “God said to Israel, ‘You weep in vain, but in the end you will truly weep.’ ” Where did Israel weep in vain? Answer: Numbers 11:10: “Moses heard the people weeping according to their families”; Num 14:1: “Then all the congregation raised their voices loudly, and the people wept that night.” And where did Israel truly weep (= where was it justified)? R. Aibo (ca. 320) and R. Judah b. Simon (ca. 320) [discuss this]. R. Aibo said, “Once in Rama and once in Babylon. In Rama, see Jer 31:15: ‘A voice is heard in Rama.’ In Babylon, see Ps 137:1: ‘By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept.’ ” R. Judah b. Simon said, “Once in the land of Judah and once in Babylon. In the land of Judah, see Lam 1:2: ‘She weeps bitterly in the night.’ In Babylon, see Ps 137:1.” R. Aibo said, “God said unto Israel, ‘For the reward of weeping I will gather your exiles’; see Jer 31:16–17: ‘Thus says Yahweh, “Restrain your voice from weeping, and there is hope for your future.” ’ ” ‖ Rashi on Jer 31:15 mentions the following legend, “The patriarchs and the matriarchs went to appease God because Manasseh had set up an idol in the Temple. But he could not be appeased. Then Rachel went in and said before him, ‘Lord of the world, whose love (mercy) is greater, your love or the love of flesh and blood? Surely your love is greater! And have I not let my rival into my house? For all that Jacob served my father, he served only for my sake, and when I was about to enter the bridal chamber, my sister was brought in. It was not enough that I kept silent; I also told her my sign. You also, when your children brought your rival into your house, remain silent towards them.’ And he said unto her, ‘You have done well in defense: there is a reward for your deeds and your righteousness, because your informed your sister about your sign.’ ” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:99-100)

 

 

Taylor Halverson on 1 Nephi 13 and the "plain and precious things taken away from the book"

Commenting on 1 Nephi 13 (cf. 1 Nephi 11-14):

 

What Was Lost, When, From Where

 

A careful reading yields three observations.

 

First, the great and abominable church is identified as a historical agent, operating after the time of the twelve apostles. Doctrine and Covenants 86, given to Joseph Smith in December 1832, describes the parable of the wheat and tares in apostasy terms. After identifying the apostles as the sowers of the seed, the revelation continues, “And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose heart the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign” (D&C 86:3). The timing is specific. After the apostles. After the gospel went forth from Jewish apostolic hands in purity. After the book left the hands that wrote it.

 

This means the great and abominable church is not an Old Testament problem. The Old Testament was already in circulation, in Hebrew and in Greek (the Septuagint), centuries before the apostles. Nephi’s vision shows the book proceeding forth from Jewish apostolic hands in purity, which means the Old Testament reached the apostolic generation intact. Whatever the great and abominable church did, the Old Testament’s textual transmission to the apostles was sound.

 

Second, what is lost is identified by content. The verses repeat two things: part of the gospel and the Lamb, and covenants of the Lord. The losses are theological and covenantal, focused on teachings and ordinances. Robert J. Matthews, the Brigham Young University scholar who spent decades on the Joseph Smith Translatoin, suggested two distinct processes at work in the Bible’s history: a deliberate corruption by agents intent on perverting the right ways of the Lord, and the ordinary gradual variants that arise from copying and translation, Matthews identified the deliberate corruption with the great and abominable church, and the gradual variants with the normal scribal and translational difficulties scholars discuss. The two processes are different in kind. Nephi’s vision is about the first.

 

Third, the process happens through hands across time. The phrase in verse 28 is “through the hands of the great and abominable church.” It describes a process, with the book moving from one set of hands to another across the post-apostolic period. Lori Driggs, in a Brigham Young University essay on the vision, has noted that the phrase suggests a process unfolding over time, through many people and influences. The vision describes a diachronic process of loss, with multiple agents acting in turn across the centuries.

 

A Latter-day Saint reader who holds these three observations together has a careful reading. The losses are post-apostolic theological in nature, and unfold across time. The vision focuses on what happened to the gospel of the Lamb after the apostles, with the Old Testament Hebrew text occupying a different position in the picture. (Taylor Halverson, The Book Jesus Trusted: Why Latter-day Saints Can Receive the Old Testament with Confidence [Line of Sigh Publishing, 2026], 105-6)

 

 

Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (c. 1455-1536) on Matthew 16:19 and the "Rock" Being Christ and the Word of God

The following comes from Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor Evangelia. In Evangelium secundun Matthaeum. In Evangelium secundum Marcum. In Evangelium secundum Lucam. In Evangelium secundum Johannem. Jacobo Fabro Stapulensi autore (Coloniae, 1541), 126-27

 

 










 

 

English translation:

 

 

"This blessedness is attributed to Peter, not insofar as it comes from Peter himself, but insofar as he was instructed by the heavenly Father in this matter, because the heavenly Father deigned to reveal it to him. Nor ought that blessedness to be attributed to him in any other way than through contemplation of Him from whom it proceeds. For from whom could it come except from God, who alone is blessed, and who alone is the mighty King of those who reign and the Lord of those who rule?

 

And from this solid confession of the truth—which comes from God the Father and is firmer than every rock—Simon received the surname 'Peter.' Upon this rock, namely the faith of that unshaken truth, that Christ is the Son of the living God, he founded his Church; so firmly, indeed, that against this most steadfast confession of faith the gates of hell shall not prevail, because they cannot overcome anyone who is fortified by this immovable rock and this most steadfast faith.

 

Moreover, that 'the rock' is to be understood as Christ and the Word of God, the Lord himself makes clear when he says in chapter seven of this Gospel:

 

'Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine and does them shall be compared to a wise man who built his house upon the rock.'

 

And he immediately adds:

 

'The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it did not fall.'"

 

"For it had been founded upon the firm rock.

 

See, then, in what manner he calls himself and his own word the rock, indeed the firm rock, upon which the immovable house—that is, the Church—is built.

 

Lest anyone should say that Peter is the rock upon which the Church has been founded, the Lord himself afterwards made it sufficiently clear to Paul that Peter is not the rock, and much less the firm rock, when he said to him,

 

'Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me, because you do not savor the things that are of God, but those that are of men.'

 

Paul likewise explains that Christ is the rock when he says,

 

'They drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.'

 

And even if Peter is said (as some wish) to derive his name from the rock, just as a Christian derives his name from Christ, nevertheless a Christian is not Christ himself; therefore Peter likewise is not the Rock.

 

Furthermore, the Lord promised that he would give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which are the keys of faith, the keys of binding and loosing:

 

'Whatever Christ handed down as things to be believed are to be believed; and whatever he commanded to be done are to be done. These he has bound upon earth, and they are bound also in heaven. Whatever, however, he declared not to be believed or not to be done, he loosed upon earth, and they are likewise loosed in heaven.

 

But these keys of faith and unbelief, of binding and loosing—or rather, whatever faith binds (for what is not of faith binds nothing)—were not Peter's, but Christ's.

 

'I will give you,' he says, 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'

 

Peter therefore did not bind or loose according to his own judgment, but according to the judgment of Christ, whose will is altogether perfect and can never err.

 

Nor did Peter alone receive them from the Lord; rather, all those likewise received them who, according to the will of Christ the Lord, built the Church upon Christ through faith.

 

Furthermore, we may understand that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are to be taken as the doctrine of faith, the doctrine of Christ, and the Word of God, from the eleventh chapter of Luke:

 

'Woe unto you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter, and those who were entering you hindered.'

 

For what is the key of knowledge except the understanding of the Law, which they had arrogated to themselves? Yet by human traditions they had obstructed that understanding, and they prevented and hindered those who sincerely desired to enter into the true understanding of the Law.

 

But the Lord did not then give these keys of understanding of the New Law to Peter, for he said, 'I will give you.' Rather, he gave them later, in spirit and in truth: partly when he said to the apostles,

 

'Receive the Holy Spirit,'

 

and partly when he opened their understanding so that they might understand the Scriptures; and then, more fully and abundantly, after his ascension, when the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven.

 

These keys, nevertheless, are the pontifical power of binding and loosing rightly understood.

 

But Christ is speaking here of this faith—that he himself is the Son of the living God—which is one of the keys of heavenly doctrine, and which he willed to be the foundational principle in his Church.

 

And what else is this, objectively considered, than Christ himself, who is the Rock itself and the immovable foundation of the whole Church? In us, however, it is the infusion of the eternal Father.

 

Indeed, we ought especially to admire that he did not yet openly declare this revelation of the Father—which is Christ himself.

 


 




Matthew Bryce Ervin on the Two Purposes of the Sacrifices in Ezekiel's Eschatological Temple

  

As a Memorial

 

The first of two likely purposes for sacrifices in the Millennium is that they are performed as a memorial of Jesus’ death on the cross. John Whitcomb explained:

 

Even in the age of grace, God deems it necessary for Christians to be reminded of the awful price that Jesus paid, through the symbolism of the bread and the cup. Drinking of this “cup of blessing” (1 Cor. 10:16) does not involve a reoffering of the blood of Christ in contradiction to the Book of Hebrews, but serves as a powerful “remembrance” of Christ and a powerful proclaiming of “the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:2526). Likewise, in the context of distinctive Israelite worship, the five different offerings, four of them with blood-shedding, will serve as a constant reminder to millennial Jews (who will not yet be glorified) of the awful and complete sacrifice which their Messiah, now present in their midst, had suffered centuries before to make their salvation possible. In view of the fact that there may be no other bloodshed in the entire world, because of a return of semi-Edenic conditions (cf. Isa. 11:69), such sacrifices upon the Temple altar would be doubly impressive

 

In the observance of the Lord’s Supper we demonstrate the death of Jesus as a way to remind us of what he has done. Likewise, the millennial sacrifices will look back to the death of the Messiah, just as the Mosaic sacrifices looked forward. After faith, so much of what God wants from us is to simply remember him and his deeds. Future temple offerings will take the principle behind observing communion and put it on full display before the world. No one will be able to ignore the regular spilling of blood in a world otherwise free of such violence.

 

The biblical evidence for shadows that looked forward to the works of the Messiah later becoming reflections that look back at them is not limited to Communion observance. Passover was a picture of the blood of Jesus becoming a mercy seat for those who received him by faith (e.g., Rom 3:23–25). Passover will be observed in the Millennium and it will require sacrifices (Ezek 45:21–24). Passover pointing to the shed blood of the Messiah will not change and the animal blood will play a part in that remembrance. This signals that the animal sacrifices in general are for the same overall purpose. Paul taught that both the feasts and the Sabbaths are shadows of the things to come; their substance belongs to Christ (Col 2:16– 17). The apostle also wrote that it was still acceptable to observe them (Rom 14:5). Some feasts and Sabbaths were not rendered useless simply because Jesus had fulfilled what they were looking forward to. The feasts and Sabbaths will be observed in the Millennium (e.g., Ezek 44:24; Zech 14:16), serving as reflections of the Messiah’s great works. It is most reasonable to conclude that the millennial sacrifices will also continue to point to the Messiah. (Matthew Bryce Ervin, One Thousand Years with Jesus: The Coming Messianic Kingdom [Eugene, Oreg.: Resource Publications, 2017], 113-14)

 

 

As a Hedge against Defilement

 

The second likely purpose for sacrifices in the Millennium is that they will appease God’s wrath for a time and keep his home pure in the midst of a still sinful world. The most operative passage on this topic is Ezekiel 45:18–20:

 

“Thus says the LORD God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a bull from the herd without blemish, and purify the sanctuary. The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and the posts of the gate of the inner court. You shall do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who has sinned through error or ignorance; so you shall make atonement for the temple.

 

On the first day of the year, the blood of a perfect bull must be used to cleanse the temple (vv. 18–19). This suggests that over the previous year, the sin from outside will begin to dirty the temple. The same ritual is repeated six days later to atone for those sins committed out of ignorance or by accident (v. 20). This not only reminds us that the Messiah must keep his home separate, but also that the annual making of atonements or house cleanings are only temporarily effective.

 

When the Messiah returns he will do so as the Lion (Rev 5:5), ruling with a rod of Iron (e.g., Rev 19:15). He will not allow sin to go unchecked in the same realm where his holiness will reside. Put simply, the King will not tolerate sin in the kingdom. And yet, there will be sinners living throughout the Millennium. This includes children born to parents that do not have glorified bodies (Isa 65:20; Ezek 47:22), thus retaining their sin nature (cf. Rom 5:12). In explaining how the blood of the Messiah purifies the conscience from dead works, animal sacrifices were said to ritually purify the flesh (Heb 9:9–10, 13–14). Just as the offering of animals will continue to point to the Messiah, so too will they continue to provide atonement in the form of ritual cleansing. The sacrifices in this regard are essentially a hedge against defilement that allows for sinful people to live in the Messiah’s world until the sin-free Eternal State commences. (Matthew Bryce Ervin, One Thousand Years with Jesus: The Coming Messianic Kingdom [Eugene, Oreg.: Resource Publications, 2017], 114-15)

 

Thursday, June 25, 2026

Matthew Bryce Ervin on the Differences Between the Sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant and those of Ezekiel's Eschatological Temple

  

The sacrifices described in Ezekiel are quite different than those administered under the Mosaic Covenant. Many of these differences are made apparent when juxtaposing the consecration of the altar in Exodus 29 against the consecration of the altar in Ezekiel 43:18–27. For example, in the Mosaic system, no goats were offered, while in the Ezekiel system a goat is offered on each of the seven days (Ezek 43:25). Another example is that the Mosaic called for applying blood on the horns of the altar (Exod 29:12), while Ezekiel’s instruction goes further with the blood also being applied to the corners and on the border around it (Ezek 43:20).

 

Other differences between the two sacrificial systems are found throughout Scripture. Most notably is that in the Mosaic System the Ark of the Covenant played a critical role, while it will not be missed or even remembered in the Millennium (Jer 3:16). The Ark was only ever a placeholder for the Messiah. In the Mosaic, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies (e.g., Heb 9:7). In Ezekiel’s system, all priests are permitted to enter (Ezek 44:15–16). In the Mosaic, only a Levite could be a priest, while Isaiah prophecies a time when Gentiles will occupy the office (Isa 66:18–21). In the Mosaic, Passover ordinances were performed by the male head of house (Exod 12:3), while Ezekiel mandates that the Prince oversees the feast for the nation as a whole (Ezek 45:21–24). There are still many more differences to be observed in Ezekiel. It was these very differences that kept the rabbis from accepting Ezekiel into the Hebrew Canon for some time. These differences highlight the fact that the prophet foresaw a new system and not a return to the old. (Matthew Bryce Ervin, One Thousand Years with Jesus: The Coming Messianic Kingdom [Eugene, Oreg.: Resource Publications, 2017], 112-13)

 

Blog Archive