Craig R. Koester on Hebrews 2:14

  

he might destroy. The verb katargein can mean depriving something of its power (Rom 3:31; Eph 2:15) or destroying it (1 Cor 6:13). Since Hebrews assumes that evil and death remain (Heb 3:12; 9:27), the sense is that the destruction of death and the devil has begun but is not yet complete. The gospels associate Jesus’ conflict with the devil with exorcisms (Mark 3:26; cf. Matt 12:26; Luke 10:18; 11:18), but Hebrews stresses the conflict that took place in Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. John 12:31–32; 14:30–31; 1 John 3:8). Other NT writings look for the destruction of the devil and death at the end of time (Rev 12:7–8; 20:1–3, 10; 1 Cor 5:5; 15:24–26; 2 Tim 1:10; cf. T. Mos. 10:1; T. Levi 18:12).

 

the devil. The term diabolos was used by the LXX for the Hebrew sātan, which means “accuser” or “slanderer.” The devil, as a personification of evil, is rare in the OT but more common in later Jewish writings (W. Foerster and G. von Rad, TDNT 2.72–81). Two aspects of the devil’s work should be noted: (a) Agent of death. The serpent that lured Adam and Eve into sin and separation from the tree of life was later identified with Satan (Wis 2:23–24; cf. Rev 12:9; John 8:44; 13:2, 27). Hebrews does not speculate on the origins of death, but focuses on the devil’s power to intimidate people with it. (b) Tempter. The devil may “test” people by inflicting suffering upon them, as in the case of Job and others (Job 1–2; Wis 2:17–20, 24; 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 2:10). The devil may also “tempt” people by making sin seem attractive (Matt 4:1; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2, 13; 1 Cor 7:5); therefore, he could be called “the tempter” (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5; cf. 2:18; 1 Cor 7:5). When people sin, they fall prey to the devil’s wiles (Eph 4:27; 1 Tim 3:7; 2 Tim 2:26; 1 John 3:8). (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 36; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 231)

 

 

Testament of Moses 10:1:

 

And then His kingdom shall appear throughout all His creation. And then Satan shall be no more, and sorrow shall depart with him.

 

Testament of Levi 18:12:

 

And Beliar shall be bound by him, and he shall give power to His children to tread upon the evil spirits.

 

William Bright (Anglican; 1824–1901) on Early Christian Baptismal Prayers

  

BAPTISMAL PRAYERS.

 

O God, Who restorest human nature to a higher than its original dignity, look on the ineffable mystery of Thy loving-kindness; and in those whom Thou hast been pleased to renew by the mysteries of regeneration, preserve the gifts of Thy perpetual grace and blessing; through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Gelasian)

 

O God, Who openest the entrance of the kingdom of heaven to those only who are born again of Water and the Holy Spirit, increase evermore on Thy servants the gifts of Thy grace; that they who have been cleansed from all sins, may not be defrauded of any promises; through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ibid.)

 

O God, Who hast renewed in the Font of Baptism those that believe in Thee, vouchsafe to the regenerate in Christ such preserving grace, that they may not lose the grace of Thy benediction by any incursion of error; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ibid.)

 

 

O God, Who restorest us unto eternal life by Christ's Resurrection, fulfil the ineffable mystery of Thy loving-kindness; that when our Saviour shall come in His majesty, as Thou hast made us to be regenerated in Baptism, so Thou mayest make us to be clothed with a blessed immortality; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ. (Gelasian)

 

O God, by Whom redemption cometh to us, and adoption is bestowed, look upon the works of Thy mercy; that unto those who are regenerated in Christ may be vouchsafed both an eternal inheritance and a true freedom; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ibid.)

 

Almighty and everlasting God, bring us to the fellowship of heavenly joys; that Thou mayest vouchsafe an entrance into Thy kingdom to those that are born again of the Holy Ghost, and that the lowly flock may reach that place whither the mighty Shepherd hath gone before; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ibid.)

 

Hear us, O Almighty God; and as Thou hast bestowed on Thy family the perfect grace of Baptism, so do Thou dispose their hearts to the attainment of eternal bliss; through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ibid.)

 

O God, Who by the Baptism of Thine Only-begotten Son hast been pleased to sanctify the streams of water; grant that we who are born again of Water and the Spirit may attain an entrance into eternal joys; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. (Gregorian, as edited by Pamelius)

 

May Thy servants, O Lord, who have been called to Thy grace, be unceasingly protected by Thy help; that they who have been regenerated in divine Baptism, may never be plucked away from the power of Thy kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Gothic)

 

O God. by Whom redemption and adoption are bestowed upon us, raise up unto Thyself the hearts of Thy believing people; that all who have been regenerated in holy Baptism may apprehend in their minds what they have received in mysteries; through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Old Gallican Missal)

 

O Lord God Almighty, Who hast commanded Thy servants to be born again of Water and the Holy Ghost, preserve in them the holy Baptism which they have received, and be pleased to perfect it unto the hallowing of Thy Name; that Thy grace may ever increase upon them, and that what they have already received by Thy gift, they may guard by integrity of life. (Gallican Sacramentary)

 

O God, Who hast bestowed on Thy servant by holy Baptism redemption from his sins, and the life of regeneration; do Thou, O Lord God, grant the brightness of Thy face to shine for ever on his heart. Preserve the shield of his faith safe from the lying-in-wait of the adversaries; the robe of incorruption, which he has put on, clean and unpolluted; and the spiritual seal of grace untouched and inviolate; Thou being reconciled to him and us, according to the multitude of Thy mercies; for blessed and glorified is Thy venerable and majestic Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. (From the Baptismal Rites of the Eastern Church)

 

O Lord our God, our Master, Who by the font of Baptism dost illuminate the baptized with heavenly radiance, Who hast vouchsafed to Thy servant, (recently illuminated,) by Water and the Spirit, remission of his sins, voluntary and involuntary; lay Thy mighty hand upon him, and protect him with the power of Thy goodness; preserve him from losing the earnest of glory, and be pleased to bring him to eternal life and to Thy good pleasure;--for Thou art our sanctification, and to Thee we render glory, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. (From the Baptismal Rites of the Eastern Church)

 

Him who hath put on Christ our God, do Thou preserve, as an invincible wrestler, against the vain assaults of his adversaries and ours; and grant that all they who are adorned with the incorruptible crown may be victorious even unto the end;--for it is Thine to pity and to save, and to Thee we render glory, with Thine unbegotten Father, and Thy most holy, good, and life-giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. (Ibid.) (William Bright, Ancient Collects and Other Prayers, Selected for Devotional Use From Various Rituals, With An Appendix on the Collects in the Prayer-Book [3d ed.; Oxford: J H. and Jas. Parker, 1864], 159-63)

 

 

As Bright noted:

 

These prayers, which strikingly illustrate our Baptismal Offices, clearly assert two things; 1. the reality of Baptismal Regeneration; 2. the necessity of post-baptismal growth in grace. (Ibid., 164 n. a)

 

Robert Clifton Robinson (Protestant) on John 1:1c

Although the book was, to be blunt, a joke, we do have this admission from Robinson (while attempting to defend a [Western/Latin] model of the Trinity):  

This structure communicates quality (what the Word is), not identity (the Word is not all of God). The Word shares the essence of deity, not merely a divine rank. (Robert Clifton Robinson, 200 or 2,000: Why Do We Need a 200-Year-Old Mormon Religion Instead of 2,000-Year-Old New Testament Christianity? [Teach the Word Publishing, Inc., 2025], 280)

 

The Lie Told to Us About Our History | Ancient Greece

 

The Lie Told to Us About Our History | Ancient Greece

Note on Deuteronomy 25:19 Concerning "Remembrance" and "Name"

  

Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shall not forget it. (Deut 25:19)

 

While reading Alter’s commentary on Deut 25:19, I came across the following note that might shed some light on the promise in D&C 117:12 that Oliver Granger’s name “shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever”:

 

 

you shall wipe out the remembrance of Amalek. The noun zekher which is also used in the parallel verse in Exodus 17:14, means “name” but derives from the root meaning “remembrance.” Etymologically, a name is the remembrance a man leaves after him, and zekher, “remembrance,” is strongly linked with zakhar, “male.” (Compare the necessity of male offspring to prevent a name from being wiped out in the levirate marriage.) But it is important to retain the idea of remembering in translation because the writer is pointedly playing with “remembrance . . . do not forget.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 1:704, emphasis oin bold added)

 

 

Lexical Sources:

 

זֵכֶר: זכר; Sec. ζεχρ; MHb., Arb. ḏikr; Akk. zikru/siqru utterance, mention, name, vow: cs. id.: זִכְרִי, זִכְרֶֽךָ: —1. mention (of a name): of Amalek Ex 17:14 Dt 25:19, Israel 32:26, the vine Hos 14:8 (text ?), affliction cj. Lam 3:19, the dead ones Is 26:14 Qoh 9:5, overthrown cities Ps 9:7, the evildoers 34:17 109:15, the righteous 112:6, the pious Pr 10:7, the impious Jb 18:17, Purim Est 9:28, cj. לְזֵכֶר בָּהֶם Jr 17:2 (Diringer 204f); עָשָׂה זֵ׳ לְ׳ God causes (his wonderful works) to be remembered Ps 111:4; —2. the mention and invocation of God in liturgies, Arb. ḏikr, Ex 3:15 Is 26:8 Hos 12:6 Ps 6:6 (the dead do not know it) 30:5 and 97:12 (זֵ׳ קָדְשׁוֹ) 102:13 135:13 145:7 (rd. רָב־טוּבְךָ). † (HALOT)

 

 

זֵ֫כֶר I _23.10.8 n.m. remembrance—cstr. זֵ֫כֶר; sf. זִכְרִי, זִכְרְךָ (זִכְרֶֽךָ, Q זכרכה), זִכְרָם, זִכְרָם—(act of) remembrance; memory (i.e. what is remembered about someone or something), memorial, of remembrance, etc. of Y. Ex 3:15 (‖ שֵׁם name) Is 26:8 (‖ שֵׁם) Ps 6:6; 30:5; 97:12; 102:13; 135:13 (‖ שֵׁם) 145:7; Ho 12:6; Ps 111:4 GnzPs 4₁₀ 1QM 13₈; 11QPs^a 22₂, of human beings Dt 32:26; Jr 17:2 (if em.; see Prep.) Ho 14:8; Ps 109:15; Si 10:17; 4QJub^df 21₂₂ (‖ שֵׁם) 4Q416 2.3₇, specif. of evil persons Ps 9:7; 34:17; Jb 18:17 (+ שֵׁם) Si 47:23, specif. of good persons Ps 112:6; Pr 10:7 (+ שֵׁם) Si 44:9, 13(B) 46:11, specif. of Amalek Ex 17:14; Dt 25:19; 4QpGen^a 1.4₂, Josiah Si 49:1, Moses Si 45:1, Nehemiah Si 49:13, of the dead Is 26:14; Ec 9:5; Si 38:20, 23, of death Si 41:1(M), of affliction Lm 3:19 (if em.; see Nom. Cl.), of days of Purim Est 9:28. (The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines, 8 vols. [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1996], 3:111)

 

 

V. zēkher, “Memory.” The noun zēkher, “memory,” occurs 23 times in the OT. Here, too, theological usage predominates. In a secular sense, Hos. 14:8(7) states that Israel will have a memory like the wine of Lebanon, but this fame is God’s work. It is likewise God’s doing that the “memory of the righteous” is a blessing (Prov. 10:7) and that the righteous are promised “eternal memory” (Ps. 112:6). Est. 9:28 decrees that the days of Purim be kept in everlasting memory, referring at least to a religious observance.

 

More frequently, something is being said about blotting out a memory. God cuts off the remembrance of evildoers (Ps. 34:17[16]) and enemies (Ps. 9:7[6]) from the earth. He could even blot out the memory of his own people, were it not for fear of the scorn of his enemies (Dt. 32:26). According to Ex. 17:14, the remembrance of Amalek is to be blotted out by Israel (likewise Dt. 25:19). In Ps. 109:15, the psalmist prays in his curse that God may make the memory of the wicked be cut off from the earth. In Job 18:17, too, the memory of the wicked perishes from the earth. It is clear that these passages refer to death and annihilation, just as Eccl. 9:5 says that the memory of the dead is forgotten among men. In Job 18:17 and Prov. 10:7, we read not only that the memory of the wicked is blotted out, but that they will no longer have a name (→ שׁם shēm). Denial of remembrance after physical death likewise denies the wicked any posthumous fame. His perishing as though he had never been is ascribed to God. It can be inferred conversely that remembrance means more than being recalled by name and acknowledged: it is seen as being somehow identical with existence before and through God. (H. Eising, “זָכַר,” in TDOT 4:76)

 

Oecumenius and Photius on Hebrews 2:14

  

Sin Is the Power of Death. Oecumenius: And how does he rule over death? Since he rules over sin from which death has its power, he also rules over death. Sin, at any rate, is the power of death. Then having a sacrifice for sin and being the agent of the sacrifice, he has the power over death.… Through his own death he rendered sin ineffective and held the devil under his power, who is the strength and power of death. For if sin had not had power over humankind, death would not have entered the world. Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2.14.

 

Christ Conquered the Fear of Death. Photius: Human beings had been afraid of death because they are held in slavery. The slavery of death means to be a subject of sin. “The sting of death is sin.” Now, by his death Christ destroyed “the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,” the inventor and the leader of sin. Sin became a disease. However, as we have been released from the oppression of that slavery, so we have been also delivered from the fear of death. And that is evident from the following illustrations. Before we feared and tried to avoid death as the supreme and invincible evil, but now we perceive it as prelude transition into the superior life and accept it joyously from those who persecute us for the sake of Christ and his commandments. Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 2.14–15. (Hebrews, ed. Erik M. Heen and Philip D. W. Krey [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005], 47)

 

Michael F. Bird on Diognetus 9:5

While arguing for a “Protestant” reading of Diognetus 9:5, Michael F. Bird noted that, in this text:

 

This is a possible allusion to Romans 5:18-19 combined with a Pauline notion of interchange in Christ, since this exchange takes place “in” the Son of God. Importantly, the justification (δικαιοω, dikaioō) is unlikely to be in a strictly forensic sense, since it is parallel with being “made worth” (αξιοω, axioō) and “obtain[ing] life” (τυχειν ζωης, tychein zōēs). (Michael F. Bird, “The Epistle to Diognetus,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 266)

 

On Rom 5:18-19 and how Paul taught a transformative understanding of justification, see the discussion at:

 

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Craig D. Allert (Protestant): Justin Martyr Did Not Teach Creation Out of Nothing (Creatio Ex Nihilo)

 In response to Louis Lavallee, who argued that Justin taught creation ex nihilo:

 

In fact, Lavallee explicitly misrepresents Justin’s teaching on creation out of nothing, using him as one who has not been taken “captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition.” He identifies Justin as a “philosopher” who turned to Christianity and “found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable.” Lavalee does properly cite Justin here, but his claim immediately following that “the early fathers, like Justin . . . believed the Bible and that God created all things out of nothing” reveals his ignorance of the Father he is claiming for support. In his First Apology Justin himself states, “And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 10 [ANF 1:165]) Later, in the same apology, he argues that Plato actually borrowed from Moses “his statement that God having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world.” (Ibid. 59 [ANF 1:179]) Justin then quotes Genesis 1:1-3 to demonstrate the agreement between Moses and Plato regarding creation of the world. Not only has Lavallee completely misrepresented his position vis-à-vis philosophy after his conversion. Justin’s commitment to Middle Platonism continued even after his conversion to Christianity, albeit in ways that sought to remain true to God’s revelation through the Logos, Jesus. (Craig D. Allert, Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2018], 67-68)

 

Scott Brazil on Luke 13:34 (cf. Matthew 23:37)

  

Luke 13:34

 

The wording of Jesus’s lament in Luke 13:34 is virtually the same as that in Matthew 23:37. Jesus’s central allusion to YHWH-texts is found in his expressed desire to gather Jerusalem’s children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings. Theoretically, this claim could have been expressed by a mere leader—a prophet, priest, or king—of Israel, except that the Lukan context demands understanding Jesus’s words as the personal desire of YHWH.

 

First, YHWH is the only OT figure who compared his relationship to Israel as that of a mother bird to her young. He introduced the figure to describe himself bearing the Israelites on eagles’ wings during the Exodus (Exod 19:4)—a thought repeated in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:11) and serving as inspiration for Israel’s worship of YHWH who provided refuge in the shelter of his wings (cf. Pss 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). Second, Jesus claimed that his desire to gather his people (“Jerusalem”) to himself (“under her wings”) was a longstanding concern with repeated attempts (“How often . . .!”). On the surface, Jesus’s expression of frequency does not make sense of the Lukan narrative, in which no visit of Jesus to Jerusalem as an adult has yet been recorded.  However, in the Lukan metanarrative, which has been emphasizing the visitation of YHWH to Israel (Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16; cf. 19:44) in the preexistent “Lord” Jesus (1:17, 43, 76; 2:11; 3:4–6; 7:26–27), Jesus’s claim only verifies the big picture: YHWH has come again to his people in Jesus, yet they have largely refused to come under his protection.

 

Third, Jesus’s lament echoes the laments of YHWH for his people to return to him. Fourth, Jesus lamented the persecutions and murders of the Old Covenant prophets as if he himself had sent the prophets and then arrived as their superior. This interpretation is shortly confirmed by Jesus’s Parable of the Wicked Tenants (20:9–18) and the resultant opposition against Jesus by Jerusalem’s leaders (20:19–20). And fifth, Jesus’s use of Ps 118 implied that he himself had forsaken Jerusalem’s “house” (whether that be the temple, city, or nation) and would remain unseen by them until they declared that he was coming in the name of the Lord/YHWH (Luke 13:35). These features support the interpretation that Jesus identified as YHWH by applying YHWH-texts, such as Deut 32:11 and Ps 91:4, to himself. (Scott Brazil, Jesus and YHWH-Texts in the Synoptic Gospels [Library of New Testament Studies 694; London: T&T Clark, 2024], 152-53)

 

Scott Brazil on the use of "Lord, Lord" in Matthew 7:21-22; 25:11

  

Matthew 7:21-22; 25:11

 

The next application of YHWH-texts to Jesus appears to be the double doublet in 7:21–22, which is found in Jesus’s own teaching. Twice in the same passage Jesus applies to himself the vocative doublet “Lord, Lord” (κύριε, κύριε) to expose the attempted self-justification of false disciples at the final Judgment. (He uses the doublet a third time in the same vein in Matt 25:11.) The double vocative is allusive to numerous occurrences of the same combination in the LXX. Its unique use for YHWH in the LXX adds weight to its application by Jesus as a title for himself. Whenever the same vocative doublet is found in the LXX it is always with reference to God, and, in particular, as a form used in place of the Divine name.  Of the sixteen occurrences of κύριε κύριε in the LXX of canonical OT books, all refer to the Divine name: most translate the combination “Adonai YHWH,” a few translate “YHWH Adonai,” and at least one translates “YHWH” alone. But the doublet in the LXX never refers to anyone but YHWH.

 

The contexts of Jesus’s application of the doublet support this understanding of their use. In Matt 7:21, κύριε κύριε is spoken to Jesus as the Judge who decides who will enter the kingdom of heaven. Who else but YHWH can determine who enters the heavenly kingdom? In 7:22, κύριε κύριε is addressed to Jesus as the one in whose “name” the false disciples claimed to have prophesied and performed miracles. To what other “name” but YHWH would anyone in Jesus’s audience have thought to appeal at the Great Assize?  In the following verse, 7:23, Jesus makes it clear that his relational knowledge of people (“I never knew you”) is the vital watershed of Final Judgment, and that it will be his own personal pronouncement (“depart from Me”) that determines the eternal destinies of all people.

 

Similarly, in 25:11 (Jesus’s third use of the phrase in Matthew), κύριε κύριε is spoken to Jesus by the careless bridesmaids to whom he replies, “I do not know you,” and leaves them locked out of the marriage feast (i.e., his eternal kingdom). In every case, Jesus uses the vocative doublet as a self-attesting name/title that not only refers to the unique name/title for YHWH but applies to himself in contexts equivalent to those applied to Yahweh in the OT. Thus, according to his own usage in Matthew, Jesus is YHWH the Judge,  in whose identifying name and relational knowledge is the divine source of eternal salvation. According to Jesus, no hypocrite who merely claims loyalty to the divine name shall escape Jesus’s own all-knowing judgment as the κύριος.

 

Strikingly, as Jason A. Staples notes, every occurrence of κύριος up to this point in Matthew has been used as a title for God (including at 3:3, where it is further applied to Jesus), following septuagintal usage of κύριος for יהוה. Applying the doublet to Jesus would likely have sent a strongly message to the readers of the First Gospel that Jesus’s divine identity (as YHWH) is not in question but is even emphasized.  The claim of F. Hahn and others that “[a]t first the title κύριος did not imply the divinity of Jesus,”  rings hollow in light of the LXX background and what the first readers would likely have understood by the doublet. Staples better explains the doublet’s use and meaning as emphasizing the divine lordship of Christ and “setting the tone” for the rest of the book. (Scott Brazil, Jesus and YHWH-Texts in the Synoptic Gospels [Library of New Testament Studies 694; London: T&T Clark, 2024], 49-51)

 

Scott Brazil on the Use of Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10-12

  

A peculiar phenomenon in the New Testament (NT) is its practice of applying to Jesus of Nazareth various Old Testament (OT) texts originally referring to YHWH, 1 the biblical creator of the cosmos and divine redeemer of Israel. A clear example of this phenomenon is found in Heb 1:10–12, a description of God’s “son” (identified as Jesus in 2:9) as the eternal and imperishable creator of the created and perishable universe. The passage is a quotation of Ps 102:25–27, which, in its original context, refers to YHWH as the eternal and imperishable creator. Thus, the subject of the original OT text is YHWH, while the subject of the same text as quoted in the NT is Jesus. 2 And since the writer to the Hebrews had already made this kind of interpretive maneuver in his book (cf. Heb 1:6; Deut 32:43 LXX), it is apparently his deliberate practice and not a careless oversight. (Scott Brazil, Jesus and YHWH-Texts in the Synoptic Gospels [Library of New Testament Studies 694; London: T&T Clark, 2024], 1)

 

The Artscroll English Tanach and Talmud Jerusalem Sanhedrin 11:5 on Deuteronomy 18 and the Test of a Prophet

  

18:14-22. In contrast to other nations (v. 14), Israel needs no astrologers or diviners. God will communicate with His people through prophets. As the passage concludes, such prophets will establish their veracity by predicting an event that will take place exactly as foretold. However, a prophet’s authenticity to unfulfilled predictions of tragedy and misfortunate, for such prophecies can be nullified through sincere repentance. A classic case is that of Jonah’s prophecy at Nineveh’s destruction. Upon hearing the fate that awaited them, the people repented, and God annulled His decree (Jonah 3:10; see also Talmud Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 11:5 concerning Jeremiah 28:7-9). (The Artscroll English Tanach, Stone Edition: The Jewish Bible with Insights from Classical Rabbinic Thought [New York: Artscroll Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2011], 302)

 

 

11:5

 

[A]A false prophet [M. 10:1B],

 

[B]one who prophesies concerning something which he has not actually heard or concerning something which was not actually said to him,

 

[C]is put to death by man.

 

[D]But he who holds back his prophesy, he who disregards the words of another prophet, or the prophet who transgresses his words

 

[E]is put to death by heaven,

 

[F]as it is said, “I will require it of him” (Deut. 18; 19).

 

[I:1 A] He who prophesies concerning something which he has not actually heard [M. 11:4B] is such as Zedekiah ben Chenaanah [1 Kings 22:11], and one who states something which was not actually said to him is such as Hananiah b. Azor [T. San. 14:14].

 

[B]       R. Joshua b. Levi said, “Hananiah b. Azor was a true prophet.

 

[C]       “But he suffered a period of an intermission of his prophetic gifts, during which his gift of prophesy was null, and he heard what Jeremiah prophesied in the upper market.

 

[D]       “So he went down and he prophesied in the lower market” [T. San. 14:14].

 

[E]        Hananiah b. Azor said, “The entire end of the matter is not so, but, ‘When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit vou, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place’ (Jer. 29:10).”

 

[F]        Now [he calculated] the entire life span of Manasseh was only fifty-five years. Deduct from them the twenty years during which the Heavenly court does not inflict punishment or extirpation, and the two years of Ammon, and the thirty-one years of Josiah.”

 

[G]       Thus you have that which is written, “In that same year, at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fifth month of the fourth year, Hananiah the son of Azor, the prophet from Gibeon, spoke to me in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and all the people, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two years I will bring back to this place all the vessels of the Lord’s house which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place and carried to Babylon’ ” (Jer. 28:1–3).

 

[H]       Said to him Jeremiah, “You say, ‘In two years I shall bring back,’ but I say to you that Nebuchadnezzar is going to come and take the rest of the people now here to Babylonia: ‘They shall be carried to Babylon and remain there until the day when I give attention to them’ ” (Jer. 27:22).

 

[I]         He said to him, “Give some sort of sign to confirm what you

 

[J]        He said to him, “I prophesy doom, and I cannot give a sign to confirm what I say, for the Holy One, blessed be he, may form a plan to bring evil, but then reverse it.

 

[K]        “But you prophesy well, so you give a sign.”

 

[L]        He replied, “No! You’re the one who has to bring a sign.”

 

[M]      He said to him, “If so, to, I shall give a sign and a wonder through that very person himself [namely, you].”

 

[N]       In that year he died: “Therefore thus says the lord: ‘Behold, I will remove you from the face of the earth. This very year you shall die, because you have uttered rebellion against the Lord.’ In that same year, in the seventh month, the prophet Hananiah died” (Jer. 28:17).

 

            [O]       It was another year, and so now do you say so?

 

            [P]        But this teaches that he died on the eve of the New Year.

 

            [Q]       And he commanded his sons and his household to conceal the matter, so that they should remove his corpse after the New Year, just so as to falsify the prophesy of Jeremiah.

 

[II:1 A]             But he who holds back his prophesy [M. 11:5D]―such as Jonah son of Amittai [T. San. 14:14].

 

[B]       Said R. Jonah, “He was a true prophet.

 

[C]       “You find that when the Holy One, blessed be he, said to him, ‘Arise, go to Nineveh, the great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before me’ (Jonah 1:2),

 

[D]       “Jonah said, ‘I know that these gentiles are nigh unto repentance, and to, I shall go and prophesy against them, and they shall repent, and the Holy One, blessed be he, consequently will come and inflict punishment on [those who hate] Israel [meaning, on Israel itself].

 

[E]        “ ‘So what should I do? [I have no choice but to] flee.’

 

[F]        “ ‘But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went on board, to go with them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the Lord’ ” (Jonah 1:3).

 

[III:1 A]            He who disregards the words of another prophet like Iddo, the seer [T. San. 14:15].

 

[B]       Said R. Samuel bar R. Isaac, “This is Amaziah, the priest of Beth El.”

 

[C]       Said R. Yosé, “There was confusion there [lit.: smashed eggs], and who was he [who convinced Iddo to return]? It was Jonathan b. Gershom b. Moses.

 

[D]       “You find that when David came and found that he was worshipping an idol, he said to him, ‘You are the grandson of that righteous man, and yet do you worship an idol?’

 

[E]        “He said to him, ‘I have a tradition from my father’s father: “Sell yourself to the service of strange [gods], but do not depend on other people.” ’

 

[F]        “He said to him, ‘Heaven forfend! He never said such a thing to you.

 

[G]       “But what he really said was, ‘Sell yourself for a kind of service which is alien to you, but do not depend on other people.’

 

[H]       “When David realized that he loved money, he appointed him superintendent of the treasury of the Temple.”

 

[I]         That is in line with the following verse in Scripture: “And Shebuel the son of Gershom, son of Moses, was chief officer in charge of the treasuries” (1 Chron. 26:24).

 

[J]        It was Shebuel, who returned (shab) to God (el) with all his might, who was chief officer in charge of the treasurers, for he appointed him superintendent of the treasury of the Temple.

 

            [K]        Associates raised the question before R. Samuel bar Nahman: “Can it be that a priest [such as Jonathan b. Gershom] to an idol lived such a long time?”

 

            [L]        He said to them, “Because he was niggardly in the service of his idol.”

 

            [M]      And in what way was he niggardly in the service of his idol?

 

            [N]       When someone brought him [30c] an ox, a sheep, or a lamb, for the idol, and said, “Appease the idol for me,”

 

            [O]       Jonathan would say to him, “Why?

 

            [P]        “Now does this thing do you any good? He does not eat or drink, he can do neither good nor bad.”

 

            [Q]       So the other would say to him, “What should I do?”

 

            [R]       And he would say to him, “Go and bring a little dish of flour, and ten eggs in it, and I’ll go and appease it for you.”

 

            [S]        When the other went away, he would eat the whole lot.

 

            [T]        One empty-head came, and he told him [what just now has been reported].

 

            [U]       He said to him, “If it’s good for nothing, why do you do what you do here?”

 

            [V]       He said to him, “It’s to make a living.”

 

            [W]      They replied to R. Samuel bar Nahman, “And to, it is written, ‘And the Danites set up the graven image for themselves; and Jonathan b. Gershom b. Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. So they set up Micah’s graven image which he made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh’ ” (Judges 18:30–31).

 

            [X]        He said to them, “When David died and Solomon took over, then he changed all of his councillors, and this one went back to his evil ways.”

 

[IV:1 A]            And a prophet who transgresses his own words―this is exemplified by the associate of Micah [T. San. 14:15]:

 

[B]       This is in accord with the following verse of Scripture: “Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel. And his sons came and told him all that the man of God had done that day in Bethel; the words also which he had spoken to the king, they told to their father. And their father said to them, ‘Which way did he go?’ And his sons showed him the way which the man of God who came from Judah had gone. And he said to his sons, ‘Saddle the ass for me.’ So they saddled the ass for him and he mounted it. And he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak; and he said to him, ‘Are you the man of God who came from Judah?’ And he said, ‘I am.’ Then he said to him, ‘Come home with me and eat bread.’ And he said, ‘I may not return with you, or go in with you; neither will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place; for it was said to me by the word of the Lord, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by the way that you came.’ And he said to him, ‘I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’ But he lied to him. So he went back with him and ate bread in his house and drank water.”

 

            [C]       What is the meaning of “he lied to him”? He deceived him.

 

[D]       “And as they sat at the table, the word of the Lord came to the prophet who had brought him back, and he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, ‘Thus says the Lord, because you have disobeyed the word of the Lord and have not kept the commandment which the Lord your God commanded you, but have come back, and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, Eat no bread and drink no water; your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers’ ” (1 Kings 13:22).

 

[E]        “The prophet who was brought back” is not written here, but rather, “The prophet who brought him back” [thus the statement was made to the old prophet at Bethel, who had lied].

 

[F]        Now this matter produces the following argument a fortiori:

 

[G]       Now if one who fed bread to his fellow under false pretenses had the honor of having the word of God addressed in particular to him, he who feeds his fellow bread in truth all the more so!

 

[H]       It is written, “And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow at the command of the Lord, ‘Strike me, I pray.’ But the man refused to strike him. Then he said to him, ‘Because you have not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as you have gone from me, a lion shall kill you.’ And as soon as he had departed from him, a lion met him and killed him. Then he found another man and said, ‘Strike me, I pray.’ And the man struck him, smiting and wounding him. And the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, disguising himself with a bandage over his eyes. And as the king passed, he cried to the king and said, ‘Your servant went out into the midst of the battle; and behold, a soldier turned and brought a man to me, and said, Keep this man; if by any means he be missing, your life shall be for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver. And as your servant was busy here and there, he was gone.’ The king of Israel said to him, ‘So shall your judgment be; you yourself decided it.’ Then he made haste to take the bandage away from his eyes; and the king of Israel recognized him as one of the prophets. And he said to him, ‘Thus says the Lord, because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.’ And the king of Israel went to his house resentful and sullen and came to Samaria” (1 Kings 20:35 13).

 

[I]         It is written, “And the man of God said and he said,” two times. Why two times?

 

[J]        But in the first time he spoke to him, he said to him, “Should Ben Hadad, king of Aram, fall into your hand, have no pity on him and do not spare him.”

 

[K]        And in the second he said to him, “Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction

 

[L]        And how many traps and nets did I prepare for him before I handed him over to you, and you sent him forth and he got away in peace!

 

[M]      Therefore: “Your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.”

 

[N]       You find that when Israel went forth to war, of them all only Ahab, king of Israel, alone was the one who died.

 

[O]       That is in line with the following:

 

[P]        “But a certain man drew his bow at a venture and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breast plate, and he said to the driver of his chariot, ‘Turn about and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded’ ” (1 Kings 22:34).

 

            [Q]       And how shall I interpret the statement, “And your people instead of his people”?

 

            [R]       R. Yohanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: “That single drop of blood which flowed from that righteous man [the prophet of 1 Kings 20:35ff.] effected atonement for all Israel.” (The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary [trans. Jacob Neusner; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

The Jewish Study Bible on Deuteronomy 18:20-23 and the Test of a Prophet

  

20: Having established an Israelite model of prophecy, the law provides two criteria to distinguish true from false prophecy. The first is that the prophet should speak exclusively on behalf of God, and report only God’s words. Breach of that rule is a capital offense (Jer. 28:12–17). 21–23: The second criterion makes the fulfillment of a prophet’s oracle the measure of its truth. That approach attempts to solve a critical problem: If two prophets each claim to speak on behalf of God yet make mutually exclusive claims—(1 Kings 22:6 versus v. 17; Jer. 27:8 versus 28:2)—how may one decide which prophet speaks the truth? The solution offered is not free of difficulty. If a false prophet is distinguished by the failure of his oracle to come true, then making a decision in the present about which prophet to obey becomes impossible. Nor can this criterion easily be reconciled with 13:3, which concedes that the oracles of false prophets might come true. Finally, the prophets frequently threatened judgment, hoping to bring about repentance (Jer. ch 7; 26:1–6). If the prophet succeeds, and the people repent and thereby avert doom (Jonah chs 3–4), one would assume the prophet to be authentic, since he has accomplished God’s goal of repentance. Yet according to the criteria here (but contrast Jer. 28:9), the prophet who accomplished repentance is nonetheless a false prophet, since the judgment oracle that was proclaimed remains unfulfilled. These texts, with their questions and differences of opinion on such issues, reflect the vigorous debate that took place in Israel about prophecy. (The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael Fishbane [New York: Oxford University Press, 2004], 408-9)

 

Eugene H. Merrill on Deuteronomy 18:22

 

 

Such a litmus test must, of course, be somewhat nuanced. It suggests prediction, first of all, and not a word of a general moral or theological nature. Second, the time frame would have to be such that the predicted word would come to pass in the prophet’s own lifetime if his authenticity were to be judged by his contemporaries. A false prophet could speak of a day in the distant future long after his own decease and thereby evade detection as false on that basis alone. It would seem likely that one who spoke only of remote times and never of the near future would be suspect in any case. The true prophet, then, would have to validate his calling by inerrantly speaking of events in both the near and distant future. Only at the end of history could he be fully vindicated, but unfailing fulfillment of his predictive word where testable would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt. (Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy [The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], 274)

 

Peter C. Craigie on Deuteronomy 18:22

  

It would probably be wrong to take these criteria as rules to be applied rigidly every time a prophet opened his mouth. When a prophet announced God’s coming judgment and called for repentance, it would clearly be pointless to wait first to see if the judgment actually came to pass, and then to repent (too late!). Rather the criteria represent the means by which a prophet gained his reputation as a true prophet and spokesman of the Lord. Over the course of a prophet’s ministry, in matters important and less significant, the character of a prophet as a true spokesman of God would begin to emerge clearly. And equally, false prophets would be discredited and then dealt with under the law. (Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976], 263)

 

Robert Alter on Deuteronomy 18:22

  

the thing does not happen and does not come about. “Thing” here is also “word,” since davar refers both to speech and to the referent of speech, and in vatic contexts also has the technical sense of “oracle.” This criterion for detecting false prophecy presents notorious difficulties and seems to be put forth here chiefly out of some general sense that a true prophet will speak the truth. The literary prophets in the biblical canon are less in the business of prediction than of castigation. The predictions they make of national catastrophe are almost always conditioned on Israel’s failure to change its ways, and the predictions of glorious national restoration in the face of imminent disaster are always projected beyond the immediate future. It is conceivable that this text does not have in mind literary prophets but rather prophets who addressed mundane issues of everyday life, making short-range predictions that might be quickly verified or falsified by the events. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 1:681)

 

Adolphe Tanquerey (1854-1932) Affirming the “Debitum Peccati”

  

The Blessed Virgin was preserved from the blemish of original sin, but not from the debt, remote at least, because as a natural descendant of Adam she would have had to contract that debt; and thus she differs from Christ Who was entirely immune from debt. But she was free from the actual infection of original sin and hence was adorned with sanctifying grace from the first moment since there is no medium between the state of sin and the state of grace. (Adolphe Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 2 vols. [trans. John J. Byrnes; New York: Desclee Company, 1959], 2:99, emphasis in original)

 

The Blessed Virgin was not immune from the proximate debt if she has been included in that law under which all the posterity of Adam, because of his sin, must contract sin; but she was immune from it and therefore she had only the remote debt if she has been exempted from the very law of inclusion, although by reason of active descendance from Adam she should have been included in it. Because the solution to a question of this kind depends only on the will of God and nothing certain has been made manifest concerning it, let us cease our mental gymnastics. One thing is certain, namely, the Blessed Virgin did have the reed of the Redemption because only in view of Christ’s merits was she preserved from original sin. (Ibid., 2:99 n. 3, emphasis in original)

 

William P. Le Saint and the (Lack of) Forgiveness for Certain Post-Baptismal Sins in the Early Church

  

The evidence from the De pudicitia that before the year 200 the Church did not grant absolution to the sins of murder and apostasy (idolatry), and that it was only about this time that she began to forgive adultery and fornication may be summarized thus. Tertullian repeatedly insists that his opponents are inconsistent in granting absolution to adultery, while refusing it to murder and apostasy. It is inconceivable that he could have used such an argument if the Church actually did grant pardon to these sins at this time. That adultery was not forgiven before the third century seems clear from the very fact that an edict was issued circa 215 decreeing its forgiveness. Then, too, it is difficult to account for the bitterness of Tertullian’s language in the De pudicitia, if the bishop whose legislation he condemns were simply continuing an earlier tradition of tolerance. (William P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity [Ancient Christian Writers 28; New York: Newman Press, 1959], 48-49)

 

Sanhedrin 89b and Satan Tempting Abraham: A Talmudic Parallel to the Temptation in the Wilderness

  

קְדָמוֹ שָׂטָן לַדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֲנִסָּה דָבָר אֵלֶיךָ תִּלְאֶה... הִנֵּה יִסַּרְתָּ רַבִּים וְיָדַיִם רָפוֹת תְּחַזֵּק. כּוֹשֵׁל יְקִימוּן מִלֶּיךָ... כִּי עַתָּה תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וַתֵּלֶא״. אָמַר לוֹ: ״אֲנִי בְּתֻמִּי אֵלֵךְ״.

 

Satan preceded Abraham to the path that he took to bind his son and said to him: “If one ventures a word to you, will you be weary…you have instructed many, and you have strengthened the weak hands. Your words have upheld him that was falling…but now it comes upon you, and you are weary” (Job 4:2–5). Do you now regret what you are doing? Abraham said to him in response: “And I will walk with my integrity” (Psalms 26:11).

 

אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֲלֹא יִרְאָתְךָ כִּסְלָתֶךָ״. אָמַר לוֹ: ״זְכׇר נָא מִי הוּא נָקִי אָבָד״. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזָא דְּלָא קָא שָׁמַיע לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְאֵלַי דָּבָר יְגֻנָּב״. כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַפַּרְגּוֹד: ״הַשֶּׂה לְעוֹלָה״ וְאֵין יִצְחָק לְעוֹלָה. אָמַר לוֹ: כָּךְ עוֹנְשׁוֹ שֶׁל בַּדַּאי, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר אֱמֶת אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.

 

Satan said to Abraham: “Is not your fear of God your foolishness?” (Job 4:6). In other words, your fear will culminate in the slaughter of your son. Abraham said to him: “Remember, please, whoever perished, being innocent” (Job 4:7). God is righteous and His pronouncements are just. Once Satan saw that Abraham was not heeding him, he said to him: “Now a word was secretly brought to me, and my ear received a whisper thereof” (Job 4:12). This is what I heard from behind the heavenly curtain [pargod], which demarcates between God and the ministering angels: The sheep is to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and Isaac is not to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. Abraham said to him: Perhaps that is so. However, this is the punishment of the liar, that even if he speaks the truth, others do not listen to him. Therefore, I do not believe you and will fulfill that which I was commanded to perform. (Source)

 

 

Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.5: A Rabbinic Parallel to the Temptation in the Wilderness

In Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.5, Moses is portrayed as having a triple dialogue with an angel concerning his death. This would be interpreted by Rabbi Yitzḥak as having a conversation with his soul. Compare this narrative and the use of scripture with the temptation in the wilderness narratives in the Synoptic Gospels:

 

What is “before his death”? The Rabbis said: What did Moses do? He took the angel of death and cast him before him. He blessed the tribes, each and every one in accordance with its blessing. Rabbi Meir said: The angel of death went to Moses and said to him: ‘The Holy One blessed be He sent me to you, for you are departing today.’ Moses said to him: ‘Go from here, as I seek to laud the Holy One blessed be He.’ From where is it derived? It is as it is written: “May I not die but live, so I may relate the deeds of the Lord” (Psalms 118:17). He said to him: ‘Moses, why are you being arrogant? He has those who will laud him. The heavens and the earth laud him every hour, as it is stated: “The heavens relate the glory of God”’ (Psalms 19:2). Moses said to him: ‘I will silence them and laud him,’ as it is stated: “Listen, heavens, and I will speak, [and the earth will hear the sayings of my mouth]” (Deuteronomy 32:1). He came to him a second time. What did Moses do? He invoked the ineffable Name against him, and he fled. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “For I will call out the name of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 32:3). When he came to him the third time, he [Moses] said: ‘Since he [the angel of death] is from the Lord, I must accept the judgment.’ From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “The Rock: His actions are perfect” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

 

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Moses’s soul was struggling to depart, and Moses was speaking with his soul, and said: ‘My soul, are you saying that the angel of death is seeking to gain dominion over you?’ It said: ‘No, the Holy One blessed be He would not do so – “For You rescued me from death”’ (Psalms 116:8). ‘Are you saying that you saw them weeping, and you are weeping with them?’ It said to him: “My eyes from tears” (Psalms 116:8). He said to it: ‘Are you saying perhaps that they sought to push you into Gehenna?’ It said to him: “My feet from stumbling” (Psalms 116:8). He said to it: ‘To where are you destined to go?’ It said to him: “I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living” (Psalms 116:9). When Moses heard this, he gave it permission. He said to it: “Return, my soul to your restfulness…” (Psalms 116:7). Rabbi Avin said: When it departed, the residents of the lower worlds were lauding him and saying: “Torah, Moses commanded us” (Deuteronomy 33:4). The residents of the upper worlds were lauding him and saying: “He performed the righteousness of the Lord…” (Deuteronomy 33:21). And the Holy One blessed be He lauds him: “There has not arisen another prophet in Israel like Moses” (Deuteronomy 34:10).

 

Graham Twelftree and Ernest Lohmeyer on the Temptation in the Wilderness

  

Mark’s very brief account gives no details of the temptation (Mk 1:12–13), while Matthew’s and Luke’s stories are in the form of a longer, three-part conversation not unlike the debates of the scribes* which utilize proof-texts from Scripture (Mt 4:1–11 par. Lk 4:1–13; cf. the secondary Gos. Heb. [Origen, Comm. Joh. II:12:87]). (G. H. Twelftree, “Temptation of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992], 822)

 

 

. . . Jesus encounters Satan in the wilderness and the two talk together like rabbis, while at the same time this seemingly human conversation becomes the revolutionary event which destroys Satan’s power and might. The fact that Satan appears in this form, that his demands are so human and yet so diabolical, shows the eschatological period of his rule and his life; he emerges from the disguise of the manifold variety of his intrigues, and becomes visible as Satan in person, and this very appearance is also the sign of the nearness of his end. Thus the title ‘the evil one’ is the key to the recognition of his nature and his eschatological defeat. On the one hand, the name makes all men and all the world the seat of his rule, while on the other it does away with this very seat. We may therefore say quite briefly that the name ‘the evil one’ is the counterpart to that eschatological revelation as a result of which men can now pray to God as their Father. (Ernst Lohmeyer, The Lord’s Prayer [trans. John Bowden; London: Collins, 1965], 224)

 

Philip W. Comfort and Roger L. Omanson on the Text of James 2:19

  

James 2:19

 

NU       εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός

“God is one”

𝔓⁷⁴ א A

rsv nrsv esv nasb nltmg nab hcsb net

 

variant 1/WH  εἷς θεος εστιν

“there is one God”

B 614 630 (C 33^vid 81 with def. article before θεος)

kjv nkjv nasbmg niv tniv neb reb njb nlt

 

variant 2/TR    ο θεος εἷς εστιν

“God is one”

Maj

 

The NU reading conforms to the prevailing formula of Jewish orthodoxy. Westcott and Hort followed the reading in B, but this reading may be the result of assimilation to 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5. Most English versions follow this reading because it provides for the smoothest style. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 727)

 

 

2:19 εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (God is one) {B}

 

Among the several readings, the main difference consists of the presence or absence of the article ὁ. Between the readings εἷς θεός ἐστιν (There is one God) and εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (God is one), the second reading agrees with the common Jewish orthodoxy of the time regarding the unity of God and has very good manuscript support. The readings εἷς θεός ἐστιν and εἷς ὁ θεός ἐστιν appear to be changes made in order to agree with the style of the Christian claim (compare 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5). The reading ὁ θεός εἷς ἐστιν is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is clearly a later reading in which ὁ θεός is placed first in order to give ὁ θεός a more emphatic position.

 

There is little difference in meaning among these variant readings. NRSV and NAB translate “You believe that God is one”; REB says “You … believe that there is one God”; and NJB says “You believe in the one God.” The text punctuates the words σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (You believe that God is one) as a statement, but some modern versions translate these words as a question: “Do you believe that there is only one God?” (TEV, similarly TOB and FC). (Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006], 472)

 

Text of the King Follett Discourse in The Zion's Watchman of April 12, 1855 (LDS Periodical in Sydney, Austrlia)

I recently downloaded all the issues of his publication (from 1853 to 1856), so hope to read them in full soon. Until then, I came across the following, where the text of the KFD affirms, not denies, the eternality of God (the Father) being God:

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary that they should understand the character and being of God, for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself, the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, . . . (“Joseph Smith’s Last Sermon delivered at the April Conference, 1844,” The Zion’s Watchman 1, nos. 32-33 [April 12, 1855]: 250)

Further Reading:

The Different Accounts of the King Follett Discourse and Whether God (the Father) was God from All Eternity

"Ananus, the son of Ananus" in Josephus, Jewish Wars and Patristic/Patronymic Names

Context: winter of 67 AD and the Jewish War:

 

The leading figure in the moderate government had been Ananus son of Ananus, a former High Priest. Now his corpse was left unburied along with those of his comrades. Josephus mourned his death. He eulogized Ananaus as a patriot, a lover of freedom and democracy, and a realist. Ananus, he wrote, understood the terrible power of Rome. Had Ananus lived, wrote Josephus, he would have negotiated peace or, at the least, delayed Rome’s victory. “I would not be mistaken,” Josephus summed it up, “if I had said that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus.” (Josephus, Jewish War, 4.318; cf. 4.151) (Barry Strauss, Jews vs. Rome: Two Centuries of Rebellion Against the World’s Mightiest Empire [New York: Simon & Schuster, 2025], 137)

 

The explication of a “patristic” name appears in Jewish War 4.160:

 

οἵ τε δοκιμώτατοι τῶν ἀρχιερέων Γαμάλα μὲν υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς Ἀνάνου δὲ Ἄνανος πολλὰ τὸν δῆμον εἰς νωθείαν κατονειδίζοντες ἐν ταῖς συνόδοις ἐπήγειρον τοῖς ζηλωταῖς

 

The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamala, and Ananus, the son of Ananus, when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people from their sloth, and stirred them up against the Zealots; (Whiston translation)

 

Steve Mason offers an alternative English translation:

 

And the most esteemed of the high priests, Gamalas’ son Iesous and Ananus’ Ananus, continually berating the populace in the meetings for their lethargy, kept trying to stir them up against the “Disciples” [Zealots] (Judean War 4 [Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 2A; trans. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2022], 90-91)

 

 For previous discussions of "patristic names" on this blog, see:

Brief Note on Patristic Names in Antiquity

Examples of Patristic Names (Patronymics) in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri

Early 5th century Inscription from Lycaonia Attested to a Patristic Name (Patronymic), “Nestor Son of Nestor”

Herbert Bardwell Huffmon on Patronymics in the Amorite Mari Texts

 

J. Warren Smith on Tertullian's Theology of Baptism

  

Tertullian: Baptism as Spiritual Healing Tertullian, writing a generation after Justin, shares with him the view of baptism as the source of salvation through the forgiveness of sins, but Tertullian places his emphasis on baptism as a spiritual healing or recapitulation of God’s creation of humanity in the beginning. Even as the Spirit of God hovered over the waters of chaos at the creation of the world (Gen 1:2), so too the Spirit hovers over the water of the font. From the Spirit’s hovering, the water borrowed its holiness—“the sacramental power of sanctification”—by which the initiate is cleansed of her sin (Bapt. 4).

 

Tertullian weaves together the Genesis creation narrative with the story of the angel’s disturbing the water in the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-8). Similarly, the baptized were purified by the angel present at the font so that they might be made ready to receive new birth in the gifts of the Holy Spirit that came from the laying on of hands by the bishop and priests (Bapt. 6). This conferral of the Holy Spirit was, Tertullian explained, a symbolic reenactment of the creation of the first man who was fashioned in the image of God when God breathed into him the life-giving Spirit, which was taken away from him in punishment for the first sin (Bapt. 5). (J. Warren Smith, Early Christian Theology: A History [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2026], 21-22)

 

 

J. Warren Smith on Justin Martyr's Theology of Baptismal Regeneration

  

Justin Martyr: Baptismal Rebirth as Illumination By the mid-second century, Justin interpreted baptismal rebirth (anagennēsis) in terms of illumination (phōtismos). He explicitly grounds the imperative for baptism in Jesus’s words, “Except you are born again, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:3), and Isaiah’s words, “Wash, become clean. . . . Though your sins be as crimson, I will make them white as snow” (Isa 1:16, 18).

 

Appealing to the apostolic practice and teachings of Paul, whom he simply calls “the apostle,” Justin provides the logic behind baptism. Human beings’ first birth is from “wet seed” of their parents’ intercourse from which they are both in ignorance and therefore live as children of necessity reinforced by bad habits and an evil education—perhaps a reference to participation in the pagan rituals that paid honor to demons in the guise of the gods who deceived devotees. The second birth is from the water of baptism, now cleansed of sins by their repentance of sin and illumination in the name of “God the Father and Master of all . . . and of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus” (1 Apol. 61). This last clause, with its reference to the Spirit’s inspiration of the Old Testament prophets’ foretelling Jesus coming, whether intended or not, would have drawn a clear dividing line between Justin’s community and Marcion’s.

 

Justin is quick to distinguish Christian washing from the removal of shoes and the washing before entering pagan temples. The latter initiated by the demons, he explains, was a perverse imitation of baptism and of Moses’s removing his shows before the burning bush and receiving “mighty power from Christ” (1 Apol. 62). Thus, Justin implicitly treats Moses’s putting off his sandals and entry into Christ’s luminous presence in the burning bush as figures of baptismal purification and illumination. (J. Warren Smith, Early Christian Theology: A History [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2026], 21)