Examples of Jewish Commentaries on 1 Chronicles 29:29

 Source:

 

Malbim on I Chronicles 29:29:1

הנם כתובים. ר"ל שדבריו הראשונים כתב שמואל בעודו חי טרם שהמלך דוד, ודבריו האחרונים כתב נתן וגד בספריהם, והם כתבו ספורי מלכותו וספורי גבורתו, וגם ספרו את העתים אשר עברו עתי הטובה והרעה בין על ישראל בין על יתר ממלכות  

 

“The former things were written.” That is, his earlier words were written by Samuel while he was still alive, before King David’s time; and his later words were written by Nathan and Gad in their books. They wrote the accounts of his kingship and the accounts of his mighty deeds, and they also recorded the times that passed, the times of prosperity and adversity, both concerning Israel and concerning the other kingdoms.

 

 

Metzudat David on I Chronicles 29:29:1

הראשונים. כשהיה עוד נרדף מפני שאול: 

 

“The former ones.” When he was still being pursued by Saul.

 

 

Metzudat David on I Chronicles 29:29:2

על דברי שמואל. ר״ל בספר שמואל: 

 

“Concerning the words of Samuel.” That is, in the Book of Samuel.

 

 

Metzudat David on I Chronicles 29:29:3

ועל דברי נתן וכו׳. גם הם כתבו ספרים ואינם אתנו:

 

“And concerning the words of Nathan, etc.” They too wrote books, and they are not with us.

 

 

Ralbag on I Chronicles 29:29:1:

הנם כתובים על דברי שמואל הרואה. ר"ל אצל דברי שמואל הרואה וזה הוא בס' שמואל וידמה ששם גם כן דברי נתן הנביא ודברי גד החוזה אשר זכרם בזה הפסוק. זהו מה שראינו לבאר במה שהגבלנו באורו מזה הספר בזה המקום ממה שלא נזכר בספר שמואל. ואולם התועלות המגיעים ממנו מלבד מה שמנינו מזה בס' שמואל הם אלו. התועלת הראשון. הוא להודיע עוצם ההשגחה האלהית להביא המלוכה לדוד עד שבעת שהיה נרדף משאול הסב לב גבורי ישראל וראשיהם להתחבר עמו ובאלו היו גם כן מבני בנימין אחי שאול והגיע מחשקם לבא אל דוד שעברו את הירדן בחדש הראשון והוצרכו לשום בריחים על כל העמקים באופן שיוכלו לעבור עליהם ולא נתעצלו מלבא אליו עד שיסור רבוי המים כי מאת ה' היה והיו באים אליו יום ביום לעזרו עד שהיה למחנה גדול וגם בעת בואם לחברון באו בני בנימין אחי שאול להמליך את דוד ואע"פ שהיו רבם שומרים משמרת מלכות בית שאול. התועלת השני. הוא להודיע שאין לשאת ארון האלהים כי אם הלוים בכתף ולמדנו מזה כי אמרו בתורה כי עבודת הקדש עליהם בכתף יבאו היא מצות עשה. התועלת השלישי. הוא מה שלמדנו מזה הספור מענין מחלקות הכהנים שהיו מאת ה' כמו שיתבאר מדברי דוד ומזה המקום נתישרנו לעמוד על כונת התורה במה שאמרה חלק כחלק יאכלו לבד ממכריו על האבות וראוי היה להיות כן בזאת העבודה הנכבדת. ר"ל שיהיה מוגבל בה הכל בדרך שלא יחסר ממנה דבר ולזה היה ראוי שידעו מי יעשה העבודה ביום ויום עם שבזה תסור הקטטה והמחלוקת מביניהם. התועלת הרביעי. הוא מה שלמדנו מזה כי עבודת הלוים היתה בשיר בפה להודות לה' על יד מי שיהיה מהם יותר ראוי כאמרו יסור במשא כי מבין הוא (ט"ו כ"ב) ומזה עמדנו על הכוונה במה שאמר בתורה לעמד לשרת בשם ה' (דברים י"ח ה') ומזה גם כן נמשך שיהיו מהם משוררים בכל זמר. והנה למדנו מזה עוד כי מה שיסדה התורה על הלוים לשמור משמרת בית ה' כלל שיהיו שוערים. ושישמרו הקדשים מכל טומאה ושישמרו האוצרות וההקדשות וכלי בית המקדש והסולת והיין והשמן המיוחדי' למנחות ויתקנו מלאכת לחם הפנים והסלתות והחביתין של כהן גדול. ובכלל כל מה שהיה אפשר להם לשרת בו הכהנים בעניני המקדש וקדשיו וכבר יסד דוד בזה מחלקות לכל אלו הדברים כדי שיהיה איש על עבודתו כמו שמצאנו שהקפידה התורה בזה שיהיה איש על עבודתו ועל משאו. התועלת החמישי. הוא להודיע שראוי ללכת לפני ה' ית' בלבוש מורה על הנקיות והם הבגדים הלבנים ובלבוש בלתי מורה על שררה ומלכות. ולזה ספר כי לא היה דוד לבוש בגדי מלכות בהיותו הולך לפני ארון האלהים אך היה מכורבל במעיל בוץ והיה חגור אפוד בד ולהמשך לזאת הכוונה היה דוד מרקד ומשחק לפני ה' ולא היה מתנהג כמלך. התועלת הששי. הוא להודיע דבר ההודאה הנפלאה שאמרו המשוררים אשר היא מקפת בפנות עצומות מפנות התורה והאמונה. האחת היא שאשר יבקשו פניו והם הדבקים בו יעשה ה' ית' הנפלאות בעבורם להיטיב להם ולהצילם מהרע כאמרו דרשו ה' ועוזו בקשו פניו תמיד וזאת הפנה כוללת גם כן פנה אחרת והיא שה' ית' משגיח באישי המין האנושי וכבר זכר זה בבאור באמרו אשר כרת את אברהם ושבועתו ליצחק. הפנה השנית היא להודיע שיעדיו על ידי נביאיו הם קימים ולזה אמר ומשפטי פיהו כמו שבארנו. ואמר דבר צוה לאלף דור אשר כרת את אברהם ושבועתו ליצחק וגו'. ומזאת הפנה תתקיים פנה אחרת והיא מציאות הנבואה כי לולא ההודאה בה תפול התורה בכללם. הפנה השלישית היא אמונת חדוש העולם. והוא אמרו וה' שמים עשה. הפנה הרביעית היא שתכלית השמחה והתענוג היא אצל ה' ית' ולזה ראוי לכל אדם שיתחבר לזאת השמחה הנפלאה לפי מה שאפשר לו וזה יהיה לו בשישכיל וידע ה' ית' לפי היכולת. הפנה החמישית היא שעוד יעבדו כל הגוים את ה' כאמרו ויאמרו בגוים ה' מלך והנמשך לזה מהדברים כמו שבארנו אצל באורנו לאלו הדברים וכן אמר הנביא כי ה' ית' יהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרא כלם בשם ה' ולעבדו שכם אחד (צפניה ג' ט'). והנה הישיר בזה גם כן לדבר הגלות אשר אנחנו בו כי הוא יהיה הכלי להביא כל הגוים לאמונה האמתית כי בצאתנו מהגלות הזה יהיה מה שזכר מענין מה שיאמר בגוים ה' מלך כמו שנתבאר מס' דניאל לפי מה שבארנו שם. התועלת השביעי. הוא להודיע שבית המקדש אשר בירושלם הוא נבחר לעולמי עד. ולזה אמר זה בית ה' האלהים וזה מזבח לעולם לישראל ואמר אני עם לבבי לבנות מנוחה לארון ברית ה'. התועלת השמיני. הוא להודיע כי לעוצם חשק דוד לבנות בית המקדש הכין מעת עניו אוצר לבנינו והכין הכל לשלמה בטרם מותו ונתן לו תבנית כל חלקי הבנין ותבנית הכלים ומשקלם ויסד דבר מחלקות הכהנים והלוים להעמיד עבודת הבית בתכלית מה שאפשר מהשלמות והיה כל זה לדוד מפי ה' כמו שזכרנו הנה כמו שמשה כשלא יכול להנחיל לישראל הארץ מפני חטאיהם כמו שזכרנו שם הישיר יהושע והעמידו על כל מה שיעשהו בהנחילו הארץ לישראל כן היה הענין בזה בדוד עם שלמה בשוה וכמו שלא מנע ה' ממשה הנחלתו בארץ לישראל מפני היות יהושע גדול ממנו כן הענין בזה בדוד עם שלמה בשוה כי כבר היתה מעלת דוד גבוהה ממעלת שלמה אלא שלא רצה ה' ית' שיבנהו דוד כי דמים רבים שפך ויחשבו הגוים בבא קץ הבית בעבור חטא ישראל שבעון הדמים ששפך דוד קרה זה הרע לזה הבית כמו שזכרנו. התועלת התשיעי. הוא להודיע שהטוב שיעד ה' ית' לשלמה היה בו תנאי והוא שאם ילך אחר ה' ית' לעשות מצות התורה וחוקיה ומשפטיה ימשך לו זה הטוב. ולזה אמר דוד לשלמה אז תצליח אם תשמור לעשות את החקים ואת המשפטים אשר צוה ה' את משה על ישראל (כ"ב י"ג) ויאמר והכינותי את מלכותו עד לעולם אם יחזק לעשות מצותי ומשפטי כיום הזה (כ"ח ז'). התועלת העשירי. הוא לפרסם קיום הברית שכרתה' ית' לפנחס להיו' לו ברית כהנ' עולם עד שכבר תמצא כי הכהונה הגדולה לא היתה כי אם מעט לזרע איתמר ורבה היתה לפנחס. גם תמצא כי במשמרות הכהנים ששש עשרה מחלקות היו שם לאלעזר ולא היו מהם לאיתמר כי אם שמונה. ונתבאר גם כן בס' יחזקאל התקים הכהונה הגדולה לבני צדוק (מ' מ"ו. מ"ג. י"ט. מ"ד. ט"ו. מ"ח י"א) שהיו מזרע פנחס. התועלת האחד עשר. הוא להודיע שאין ראוי שישתמש אדם בשתי מלאכות או שתי פקדות יחד כי מפני עסקו באחת ימנע שלמות עסקו בשנית עד שיקרה שיעדר השלמות משתי המלאכות. ולזה תמצא שהגביל דוד לכל מלאכה ומלאכה ללוים אנשים מיוחדים ולכל פקדות ופקדות ממלאכותיו וקניניו שם איש מיוחד. והמשל שמי שהיה ממונה על מלאכת הכרמים לא היה ממונה על שבכרמים לאוצרות היין ואשר היה על הבקר הרועים בשרון לא היה ממונה על הבקר אשר בעמקים. התועלת השנים עשר. הוא לפרסם טוב תכונת דוד ואהבתו ה' ית' ועמו ישראל. ולזה תמצא שצוה שלמה בנו לפני מותו שילך בדרכי ה' ית' ולשמור מצות התורה. ובזה תתקיים לו המלוכה תמיד ולזרעו וימצא לו בכל אשר יקראהו. וצוה גם כן כל ראשי ישראל ללכת בדרכי ה' ית' לשמור ולדרוש כל מצותיו כדי שתתקיים להם ולזרעם ירושת הארץ תמיד. ולזה גם כן תמצא שסבב שהתנדבו השרים כלם לעבודת בית אלהים כדי שיהיה להם גמול טוב מאת ה' ית'. התועלת השלשה עשר. הוא להודיע שמהשגחת ה' ית' בדבקים ימשך להכין לבבם אליו במה שיחדש מהדברים אשר יישירום לעבודתו ית'. וזה הוא אמרו שמרה זאת לעולם ליצר מחשבות לבב עמך והכן לבבם אליך. ולזה אמרו ז"ל בא לטהר מסייעין אותו (שבת ק"ד) והיה זה כן כי כמו שישפיע ה' ית' לאוהביו דברים ישמרום מהרעות הגופיות בהשגיחו בהם כן ימצא להם דברים ישמרום מהרעות הנפשיות כמו שבארנו ברביעי מס' מלחמות ה':

 

“Written concerning the words of Samuel the seer.” That is, alongside the words of Samuel the seer, and this is in the Book of Samuel. It also seems that the words of Nathan the prophet and the words of Gad the seer, whom he mentioned in this verse, are there as well. This is what we have seen fit to explain here, in what we have limited ourselves to explaining from this book in this place, among the things not mentioned in the Book of Samuel.

 

But the benefits that follow from it, apart from what we have listed from this in the Book of Samuel, are these:

 

The first benefit. It teaches the greatness of divine providence in bringing the kingship to David, so that even while he was being pursued by Saul, the hearts of the mighty men of Israel and their leaders were turned to join him. Among them were also men of Benjamin, Saul’s kinsmen. Their desire to come to David was such that they crossed the Jordan in the first month and had to make bridges over all the valleys so that they could pass over them, and they did not slacken in coming to him until the waters subsided, for it was from the Lord. Day by day they kept coming to aid him until he became a large army. And even when they came to Hebron, the men of Benjamin, Saul’s kinsmen, came to make David king, although most of them were still guarding the interests of the house of Saul.

 

The second benefit. It teaches that the ark of God is to be carried only by the Levites on the shoulder. From this we learn that the Torah’s statement, “the service of the holy things is upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry,” is a positive commandment.

 

The third benefit. From this account we learn about the divisions of the priests, which were established by God, as will be explained from David’s words. From this place we are enabled to understand the intention of the Torah in saying, “they shall eat equal portions, besides that which comes from the sale of their fathers’ property” (Deut. 18:8), and it was fitting that it should be so in this noble service—namely, that everything in it be fixed in such a way that nothing be lacking. Therefore it was fitting that they should know who would perform the service on each day, and thereby contention and dispute would be removed from among them.

 

The fourth benefit. It teaches us that the Levites’ service was song, with the mouth, in praise of the Lord, by whomever among them was more fit for it, as it says, “he shall be set aside from carrying, for he is understanding” (15:22). From this we understood the intention of what the Torah says, “to stand to minister in the name of the Lord” (Deut. 18:5). From this also it follows that there should be among them singers in every kind of music. And we also learned from this that what the Torah established for the Levites—“to keep the charge of the house of the Lord”—includes that they be gatekeepers; that they guard the holy things from all impurity; and that they guard the treasuries and the dedicated offerings and the vessels of the Temple, and the fine flour, wine, and oil set aside for the meal offerings, and that they prepare the showbread and the fine flour and the high priest’s daily griddle-cakes. In general, they were to serve in everything in which it was possible for them to assist the priests in the affairs of the Temple and its sacred objects. David established divisions for all these matters so that each man would be at his service, just as the Torah was careful in this matter that each man be at his service and burden.

 

The fifth benefit. It teaches that one should walk before the Lord in clothing that indicates cleanliness—namely, white garments—and in clothing that does not indicate rulership or kingship. Therefore it says that David was not dressed in royal garments when he went before the ark of God, but was wrapped in a linen robe and girded with a linen ephod. In keeping with this intention, David danced and played before the Lord and did not behave as a king.

 

The sixth benefit. It teaches the wondrous praise uttered by the singers, which encompasses great principles of Torah and faith. The first is that those who seek His face—that is, those attached to Him—will have the Lord perform wonders for them, to benefit them and save them from evil, as it says, “Seek the Lord and His strength; seek His face continually.” This principle also includes another principle: that the Lord watches over individual human beings. He made this explicit when He said, “the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.” The second principle is to teach that His declarations through His prophets are established; therefore it says, “and the judgments of His mouth,” as we explained. It says, “the word which He commanded to a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham and His oath to Isaac,” and from this principle another principle is confirmed, namely the existence of prophecy, for without belief in it the Torah as a whole would fall. The third principle is the belief in the creation of the world. This is what is meant by, “and the Lord made the heavens.” The fourth principle is that the ultimate joy and delight are with the Lord, and therefore every person ought to join in this wondrous joy as much as possible, and this will be his through knowing and understanding the Lord to the extent of his ability. The fifth principle is that all the nations will yet serve the Lord, as it says, “and say among the nations: The Lord reigns,” and all that follows from this, as we explained in our commentary on these words. So too the prophet says that the Lord will turn to the peoples a pure language, that all of them may call upon the name of the Lord and serve Him with one consent (Zeph. 3:9). This also points us toward the exile in which we are, for it is the means by which all the nations will be brought to true faith; for when we come out of this exile, what is foretold concerning “they shall say among the nations: The Lord reigns” will come to pass, as is explained from the Book of Daniel, according to what we explained there.

 

The seventh benefit. It teaches that the Temple in Jerusalem is chosen forever. Therefore it says, “This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar for Israel forever,” and it says, “But I had it in my heart to build a resting place for the ark of the covenant of the Lord.”

 

The eighth benefit. It teaches that because of David’s intense desire to build the Temple, he prepared from the time of his affliction a treasury for its building, and prepared everything for Solomon before his death, and gave him the plan of all the parts of the building and the design of the vessels and their weights. He also established the divisions of the priests and Levites so as to maintain the service of the house in the fullest possible perfection. All this came to David by the word of the Lord, as we mentioned. Just as Moses, when he could not bring Israel into the land because of their sins, as we noted there, guided Joshua and put him in charge of everything he would do in bringing Israel into the land, so too was the matter here with David and Solomon. And just as the Lord did not prevent Moses from bringing Israel into the land because Joshua was greater than he, so too here the matter is the same with David and Solomon, for David’s rank was in fact higher than Solomon’s. Rather, the Lord did not want David to build it because he had shed much blood. And the nations might think, when the time for the Temple’s destruction came because of Israel’s sin, that this evil had befallen the Temple because of the blood David had shed, as we have noted.

 

The ninth benefit. It teaches that the good promised by the Lord to Solomon was conditional: if he walks after the Lord, doing the commandments of the Torah and its statutes and judgments, then that good will come upon him. Therefore David said to Solomon, “Then you shall prosper, if you observe to do the statutes and the judgments which the Lord commanded Moses concerning Israel” (22:13). And he said, “And I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is strong to do My commandments and My judgments, as at this day” (28:7).

 

The tenth benefit. It makes known the fulfillment of the covenant which the Lord made with Phinehas, namely, that there would be to him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood. For you find that the high priesthood was with the line of Ithamar only for a short time, while it was largely with Phinehas. You also find that among the priestly divisions, sixteen courses were there for Eleazar and only eight for Ithamar. It is also explained in the Book of Ezekiel that the high priesthood was established for the sons of Zadok (40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11), who were of the seed of Phinehas.

 

The eleventh benefit. It teaches that a person should not engage in two crafts or two offices at once, because being occupied with one will prevent him from fully attending to the other, until it may happen that both become deficient. Therefore you find that David appointed specific men for each task among the Levites, and specific men for each office from among his own officials and possessions. For example, the one appointed over the work of the vineyards was not appointed over the wine-cellars, and the one over the cattle and the shepherds in Sharon was not appointed over the cattle in the valleys.

 

The twelfth benefit. It makes known the goodness of David’s character and his love for the Lord and for Israel His people. Therefore you find that he charged Solomon his son before his death to walk in the ways of the Lord and keep the commandments of the Torah. In this way the kingship would remain secure for him and his offspring, and he would prosper in all that he encountered. He also charged all the leaders of Israel to walk in the ways of the Lord, keeping and seeking all His commandments, so that possession of the land would remain secure for them and their offspring forever. For this reason too, you find that he caused all the princes to volunteer for the service of the house of God, so that they would receive a good reward from the Lord.

 

The thirteenth benefit. It teaches that from the Lord’s providence over those who are attached to Him there follows the preparing of their hearts toward Him through the things He brings about that direct them to His service. This is what is meant by, “Guard this forever in the inclination of the thoughts of the heart of Your people, and direct their hearts toward You.” For this reason our sages said, “One who comes to purify himself is assisted” (Shabbat 104a). And this is so, because just as the Lord bestows on His beloved things that protect them from bodily harms through His providence over them, so too He provides them with things that protect them from spiritual harms, as we explained in the fourth part of Wars of the Lord.

 

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 106: Josh Palmer on his book "The Shadow of Truth: My High School Conversion Story"

 

Episode 106: Josh Palmer on his book "The Shadow of Truth: My High School Conversion Story"

Brigham Young vs. Common Misconception Chruch Leaders Must Receive a Christophany to be Called to the Apostleship

There is a common misconception that LDS apostles have received a Christophany. However, note the following from Brigham Young (September 1, 1854):

 

. . . I understand now brethren where I commenced you can’t learn it all at once I can’t I have flattered myself if I am just as faithful as I know how to be to my God my brethren to all of my covenants and faithful in discharge of my duty when I live to be as old as Moses was when the Lord appeared to him that perhaps I can hold communion with the Lord as well as Moses did I am not there now I know great deal more than I did ten years ago 5 or 20 years ago but have I arrived yet at that state of perfection that I can commune with the Father and Son at my will or pleasure no but I hold myself in readiness that he can with me do his will and pleasure but I have not the power although I have as much as many of my brethren have I may not until I am 80 years old perhaps the Lord appear to me and dictate me in leading forth this people to victory and glory it won’t be long little over 20 years and if I am faithful] to that time perhaps I will obtain favor with my Father and God I am not to obtain all this in a moment Joseph Smith it is true had revelations from God in his youth he saw and understood for himself are you acquainted with his life you can read the history of it I have been acquainted with him for many years he had visions the angels would administer to him and the vision of his mind would be open and see and understand heavenly things and the Lord would reveal his will to the people and after all this was made acquainted with brother Joseph he had all the weakness when the vision was off from him and he left to himself he was like any other man and he would have to live years and years longer to become a Moses in all things but so far as he lived and his experience went he was as good a man as every lived in flesh Jesus excepted but yet a man has to live and gain by their experience that knowledge and wisdom that character form that stability in their character that will present them favorably to the heavenly host at all times and under all circumstances then we will say Brother Spencer and the brethren all of us I will keep myself improving as to doing any better] . . . (“Brigham Young, 1859 September 1,” CR 100 912, Church History Library, pp. 14-15)

 

Mark E. Biddle on Jeremiah 8:8-9

  

The wise/scribes responsible for transmitting the Torah in written form mishandled the law, misleading the people. Scholars puzzle over this accusation, especially the reference to “the false pen of the scribes.” Does this suggest Jeremiah’s disillusionment with the Deuteronomistic reform (cf. 2 Kgs 23)? While the expression “Torah/torah of YHWH” can designate the Torah scroll or part of it (Deuteronomy?), however, it can also refer more generally to ‘YHWH’s will/way’. The interpretation of Torah/torah fell properly within the purview of the priests. In any case, YHWH’s verdict on the illogical and unnatural conduct of the people and their leadership includes prophets and priests. They, too, “behave deceptively,” falsely declaring that “brokenness” is “peace” (vv 10-12). Since Judah’s failure to act rationally extends to the leadership, YHWH announces that they will be stripped of family and possessions: “they will fall with the fallen.” The section concludes with YHWH’s statement of disappointment, which compares his people to barren grapevines and fig trees (v 13). (Mark E. Biddle, Jeremiah: The Contextual Critical Commentary [The Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 97)

 

Mark E. Biddle on Jeremiah 36:28-32

  

Reminiscent of YHWH’s preparation of a second pair of tablets at Mount Sinai after Moses destroyed the originals, YHWH instructs Jeremiah simply to dictate a second scroll identical to the first. Now, however, YHWH supplements the message for Jehoiakim contained in the scroll with an announcement of consequences for rejecting Jeremiah’s preaching. YHWH will bring upon the king, his house, his servants, and the entire population of Jerusalem and Judah “all the disaster that I announced for them” (v 31). So Jeremiah dictated another scroll, adding “many similar words” (v 32). (Mark E. Biddle, Jeremiah: The Contextual Critical Commentary [The Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 292)

 

Mark E. Biddle on Jeremiah 10:11

  

¹¹ Thus you will say to them, “let the gods who did not make the heavens and the earth perish from the earth and from beneath the heavens.”

 

. . .

 

This verse is the solitary example of Aramaic in Jeremiah. Because in addition to being a linguistic departure it also interrupts the flow of the surrounding hymn, many consider it a late insertion into the hymn. This possibility notwithstanding, it had found its way into the text before the book attained its final, canonical form and should not, therefore, be excised. (Mark E. Biddle, Jeremiah: The Contextual Critical Commentary [The Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 109, 109 n. 4)

 

 

The gods of the Semitic pantheon were typically associated with astral bodies (v 2); the polemic implies that objects in the created order cannot command the reverence due the creator. Likewise, the statues that represent the deities of the pantheon are empty vanities (v 3 hebel; cf. Eccl 1:2). How can they deserve the reference of human beings when human beings manufacture them, carving them from wood (v 3), plating them with silver from Tarshish and gold from Uphaz, nailing them down so that they cannot tip over (v 4), and dressing them in royal fabrics (v 9). These adorned woodcarvings are mute, immobile, and impotent—neither posing a threat nor capable of bestowing blessing (v 5). In sum, they are lifeless (v 14). The idea that these metal-plated woodcarvings, manufactured by creatures, merit reverence as creators of the world only mocks and shames their makers. Significantly, the Aramaic v 11, which functions as a summation of this polemic, highlights this very element. These figurines are “the gods who did not make the heavens and the earth.” On the other hand, the polemic depicts YHWH as the incomparable, true, and living God. The maker of all things with power, wisdom, and understanding, YHWH rules over all things. He shakes the whole earth; his voice disturbs the waters; he sends lightning, rain, and wind. Perhaps most importantly, YHWH is the “Portion of Jacob” and Israel, “the tribe of his inheritance.” (Mark E. Biddle, Jeremiah: The Contextual Critical Commentary [The Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 112)

 

Ryan E. Meyer on the Use of Hosea 11 in Matthew 2:15

  

Demonstrating again how Hosea is “closely linked to Deuteronomy,” Hosea 11:8 compares Israel to two of the four cities of the plains, Admah and Zeboyim (cf. Gen 14:8), named in Deuteronomy 29:22. The parallel is striking because Hosea references only the more obscure towns and does not mention their two infamous neighbors (Sodom and Gomorrah). Since Deuteronomy 29 and Hosea 11 are the only two OT passages (part from Genesis 14:8-9) that reference the two lesser-known communities, Hosea is likely intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 29. In the earlier passage, God predicted that he would one day destroy the nation of Israel as he did the four wicked cities in Genesis 19. Similarly, in the Song of Moses, God that the nation’s “vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah” (Deut 32:32). However, in Hosea 11:8, God says that he cannot ultimately leave Israel like Sodom and Gomorrah. When the destruction predicted in Deuteronomy 29:22 occurs, this cannot be the end of Israel’s story because of his promises to the patriarchs. This matches Deuteronomy 32:36’s statement that God will “relent concerning his servants.” . . . rather than saying Matthew is using Hosea 11 typologically it might be better to say that Matthew is pointing to a typology that was already within Hosea 11 (exodus and new exodus). (Ryan E. Meyer, “This Generation” in Matthew 24:34 and the New Exodus [Studies in Judeo-Christian Thought Monograph Series 2; El Cajon, Calif.: SCS Press, 2025], 99-100, italics in original)

 

Chris M. Hansen on 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 and the the Importance of Water Baptism in Paul's Theology

 

 

Paul attests in 1 Cor 1:10–17 that baptism was exceptionally important in nascent Christian communities, to the extent that baptized Christians considered who baptized them to be something of a status symbol, which in some cases caused dissent among ranks (and consternation for Paul). (Chris M. Hansen, The Empty Prison Cell: The Authenticity of Philemon Reconsidered [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2024], 66)

 

Further Reading:

 

Refuting Jeff McCullough ("Hello Saints") on Baptismal Regeneration

Marcelo R. Sánchez-Villagra, Cristiana Bertazoni, and Felipe Vander Velden on "Loan Shifting"

  

The European colonizers named the native species they encountered using the categories that they already knew (dog, fox, wolf) based on morphological similarities (Vander Velden 2009). This is one of the challenges when sealing with the reading of ethnohistorical sources: telling if the dogs encountered by Europeans were indeed domestic dogs or some other species of canid . . . (Marcelo R. Sánchez-Villagra, Cristiana Bertazoni, and Felipe Vander Velden, “On the Lack of Domestic Dogs in Pre-Columbian Lowland Amazonia and Their Deep History of Entanglements With Humans in South America,” The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology [March 17, 2025]: 7)

 

The above refers to:

 

Vander Velden, F. 2009. “Sobre Caes e Indios: Domesticidade, Classificacao Zoologica e Relacao Humano-animal entre os Karitiana.” Ava 15:125–143

 

The article can be read here. The following is a transcription of the introduction of the article (pp. 126-27) and an English translation thereof:

 

Introdução

 

Em um curto artigo para uma prestigiada revista científica norte-americana, a zoóloga Juliet Clutton-Brock (1977) sugeriu que os povos indígenas sul-americanos teriam adotado rapidamente o cão de origem européia pelo fato de que as cerca de onze espécies de canídeos existentes na América do Sul (do gênero Dusicyon, e não do gênero Canis, este último ao qual pertencem o cão domesticado e o lobo) prestavam-se mal à domesticação: podiam ser no máximo “amansados” (tame), mas seus “recalcitrantes” (recalcitrant) hábitos de roubar alimentos (são excessive thieves) e de “vaguear” pela floresta (go to prowl in the forest) tornaram-nos, ao longo dos séculos, maus companheiros dos humanos e, portanto, imprestáveis a uma efetiva domesticação (1977: 1341-1342). Esta constatação decorre da sugestão, expressa no mesmo texto, de que estes canídeos não seriam animais muito propensos a formação de grupos sociais, e comparados aos seus parentes do gênero Canis, que inclui espécies altamente gregárias e organizadas em estruturas sociais relativamente complexas: de um paralelismo entre a organização social dos animais do gênero Canis e aquela dos humanos teria surgido o laço duradouro que consolidaria a domesticidade:

 

“A domesticação só acontece, entretanto, se os padrões de comportamento social dos animais amansados [tamed] são suficientemente bem desenvolvidos para permitir que gerações sucessivas se reproduzam em cativeiro, separadas das espécies selvagens” (Clutton-Brock, 1977: 1342; meu grifo).

 

Discutir a natureza dessas “sociedades animais”, ou os graus de complexidade da organização social das diferentes espécies—e isso em relação aos processos de criação de vínculos duradouros entre estes e os humanos—parece ser a questão para as narrativas científicas que perseguem os mistérios da domesticação. De fato, a relação entre os hábitos sociais complexos de certas espécies animais e sua domesticação por grupos humanos é um fato reconhecido há tempos pela zoologia (cf. Zeuner, 1963). Não obstante, incomoda-me a comparação entre Canis e canídeos nativos, entre os animais que têm e os que não têm, digamos, “sociedade”, e o quanto destas características efetivamente desenham os modelos de relação entre seres humanos e não-humanos. Assim, algumas das perguntas que se pode colocar são: terão os grupos indígenas nas terras baixas sul-americanas adotado os cães introduzidos após a conquista tão somente porque careciam de animais com hábitos semelhantes aos daqueles? Haveria, então, uma espécie de “déficit de sociabilidade” que não permitiu a domesticação dos canídeos nativos? Terão esses povos reconhecido imediatamente nos cães europeus, as formas familiares de seus “recalcitrantes” canídeos selvagens e, por esta razão, contornariam, via adoção do exógeno, as experiências fracassadas de domesticação das espécies nativas aparentadas? Essas questões nos levam, por fim, a perguntar: se a projeção de uma idéia de sociedade sobre os grupos organizados de lobos—ancestrais do cão—permitiu a interpenetração da sociedade humana com aquela dos animais, em que medida faz sentido projetar esta mesma idéia sobre a relação entre homens e Canidae em povos com distintas noções do que é o social?

 

Este artigo busca explorar algumas das contradições localizáveis em certas narrativas científicas sobre a domesticação do cão, sobretudo no tocante ao conceito de sociedade utilizado pelas ciências biológicas quando discutem a história da associação entre humanos e animais. Estas contradições parecem emergir quando confrontamos os discursos desta ciência hegemônica da vida com outras narrativas, indígenas e antropológicas, que oferecem possibilidades alternativas para o entendimento das relações inter-específicas, e propõem desafios para uma história que, da perspectiva de zoólogos, etólogos e paleontólogos, parece estar cada vez mais próxima da verdade dos fatos.

 

Necessário assinalar que estou utilizando a noção de “domesticação” (doméstico/domesticado) em geral empregada nos estudos zoológicos sobre o processo, tal qual expressa no próprio fragmento de J. Clutton-Brock transcrito acima, e definida a partir do controle—especialmente do controle reprodutivo—de certas espécies pelo homem; acrescente-se um componente adicional—definido como “dominação”, “servidão” ou “escravidão” dos animais—que é parte tanto de um conjunto de saberes que contesta as narrativas zoológicas dominantes (Serpell, 1996; Singer, 2004; Regan, 2006) como integra, por vezes, mesmo estas últimas (cf. Zeuner, 1963). Ambas as interpretações podem ser bem resumidas na definição de A. Gautier (apud Delort, 2002: 58, meus grifos), com particular atenção às palavras por mim destacadas: domesticação é “um processo de microevolução iniciado pelo isolamento de um número restrito de indivíduos de uma espécie selvagem particular, em um nicho ecológico especial, estabelecido pelo homem e que obriga esses animais a viverem e se reproduzirem sob sua tutela e em seu proveito”.

 

A mesma cautela deve ser assumida quanto ao conceito de “amansamento” (que tenta traduzir o termo inglês taming) que, a partir do texto de Clutton-Brock, parece constituir-se como uma primeira e necessária etapa da relação entre animais e humanos que segue depois rumo à domesticação; nesse sentido, o conceito é um tanto diverso do uso que a literatura etnológica faz do termo “familiarização” (que, por vezes, também traduz a palavra inglesa taming. Cf. Erikson, 1987), embora as traduções por vezes pareçam confundir as duas noções. Uma discussão mais detalhada de todos esses conceitos faz-se necessária, mas não tenho aqui espaço para tanto.

 

 

Introduction

 

In a short article for a prestigious North American scientific journal, the zoologist Juliet Clutton-Brock (1977) suggested that South American indigenous peoples would have rapidly adopted the dog of European origin because the approximately eleven species of canids existing in South America (of the genus Dusicyon, rather than the genus Canis, the latter including the domesticated dog and the wolf) were poorly suited to domestication: at most, they could be “tamed” (tame), but their “recalcitrant” (recalcitrant) habits of stealing food (they are excessive thieves) and of “wandering” through the forest (go to prowl in the forest) had, over the centuries, made them poor companions for humans and, consequently, unsuitable for effective domestication (1977: 1341–1342). This observation derives from the suggestion, expressed in the same text, that these canids would not be animals particularly inclined to form social groups, in comparison with their relatives of the genus Canis, which includes highly gregarious species organized into relatively complex social structures: from a parallelism between the social organization of animals of the genus Canis and that of humans, the enduring bond that would consolidate domestication would have emerged:

 

“Domestication only occurs, however, if the patterns of social behavior of tame [tamed] animals are sufficiently well developed to permit successive generations to reproduce in captivity, separated from wild species” (Clutton-Brock, 1977: 1342; my emphasis).

 

Discussing the nature of these “animal societies,” or the degrees of complexity in the social organization of different species—and this in relation to the processes involved in creating enduring bonds between them and humans—seems to be the issue underlying the scientific narratives that pursue the mysteries of domestication. Indeed, the relationship between the complex social habits of certain animal species and their domestication by human groups has long been recognized as a fact by zoology (cf. Zeuner, 1963). Nevertheless, I am troubled by the comparison between Canis and native canids, between animals that have and those that do not have, so to speak, “society,” and by the extent to which these characteristics actually shape models of relations between human and non-human beings. Thus, some of the questions that may be posed are: did indigenous groups in the lowlands of South America adopt the dogs introduced after the conquest solely because they lacked animals with habits similar to those of the latter? Was there, then, a kind of “sociability deficit” that prevented the domestication of native canids? Did these peoples immediately recognize in European dogs the familiar forms of their “recalcitrant” wild canids and, for this reason, circumvent, through the adoption of the exotic, the failed experiences of domesticating related native species? These questions lead us, finally, to ask: if the projection of an idea of society onto organized groups of wolves—the ancestors of the dog—allowed human society to interpenetrate with that of animals, to what extent does it make sense to project this same idea onto the relationship between humans and Canidae among peoples with different notions of what constitutes the social?

 

This article seeks to explore some of the contradictions that can be located in certain scientific narratives concerning the domestication of the dog, particularly with regard to the concept of society employed by the biological sciences when discussing the history of the association between humans and animals. These contradictions seem to emerge when we confront the discourses of this hegemonic science of life with other indigenous and anthropological narratives, which offer alternative possibilities for understanding interspecific relations and pose challenges to a history which, from the perspective of zoologists, ethologists, and paleontologists, seems to be coming ever closer to the truth of the facts.

 

It is necessary to point out that I am using the notion of “domestication” (domestic/domesticated) as it is generally employed in zoological studies of the process, as expressed in the passage from J. Clutton-Brock transcribed above, and defined on the basis of human control—especially reproductive control—over certain species; an additional component should be added—defined as “domination,” “servitude,” or “enslavement” of animals—which forms part both of a body of knowledge that challenges the dominant zoological narratives (Serpell, 1996; Singer, 2004; Regan, 2006) and, at times, of those very narratives themselves (cf. Zeuner, 1963). Both interpretations can be well summarized in the definition of A. Gautier (apud Delort, 2002: 58, my emphases), with particular attention to the words I have highlighted: domestication is “a process of microevolution initiated by the isolation of a restricted number of individuals of a particular wild species, in a special ecological niche, established by man, which compels these animals to live and reproduce under his tutelage and for his benefit.”

 

The same caution must be exercised with regard to the concept of “taming” (which attempts to translate the English term taming) which, on the basis of Clutton-Brock's text, appears to constitute a first and necessary stage in the relationship between animals and humans that subsequently proceeds toward domestication; in this sense, the concept differs somewhat from the usage that ethnological literature makes of the term “familiarization” (which, at times, also translates the English word taming. Cf. Erikson, 1987), although the translations sometimes appear to conflate the two notions. A more detailed discussion of all these concepts is necessary, but I do not have space for it here.

 

Also note the following on p. 135:

 

Os colonizadores europeus (e seus cientistas) nomearam as espécies nativas (para eles exóticas) utilizando uma categoria que já conheciam [...] fundamentando-se na lógica das semelhanças morfológicas (e posteriormente genéticas)

 

The European colonizers (and their scientists) named the native species (exotic to them) using a category they already knew [...] on the basis of the logic of morphological (and subsequently genetic) similarities.

 

Mark E. Biddle on Jeremiah 26:16-19 (cf. Micah 3:12) and Jeremiah 18:7-10

  

The remainder of the chapter reports in five phases the reaction to Jeremiah’s sermon. (1) Immediately, the priests, the prophets, and the people mobbed Jeremiah, calling for his execution and charging him with prophesying falsely or blasphemy. The royal court heard about the trouble at the temple and took seats in the gate, perhaps an indication that they intended to judge the case (vv 7-10). (2) Consequently, the priests and the prophets stated their accusation to the princes and “all the people” (v 11). Jeremiah had prophesied against Jerusalem, an act of treason. (3) Jeremiah offered a rebuttal and a warning concerning the danger of incurring guilt for shedding innocent blood (vv 12-15). Twice Jeremiah explained that he preached the sermon for no other reason than that YHWH had sent him to do so (vv 12, 15). (4) The princes announced their ruling, supported by “some of the elders of the land,” who cited in justification the cases of Micah of Moresheth and the more obscure Uriah son of Shemaias. (5) Finally, Ahiqam, a member of the Shaphanide family of court officials, lent his support to the verdict. Thus, Jeremiah escaped execution.

 

The logic employed by the princes and the elders of the land proves to be the crux of the passage. Appealing to one criterion outlined in Deut 13 and 18, the princes argued that, since Jeremiah had spoken “in the name of YHWH our God,” he could not be labeled a false prophet. This criterion, however, does not distinguish between those who speak authentically in YHWH’s name and those who only claim to do so. The reasoning of the elders, by contrast, relied on the wisdom of experience. Citing Micah’s prophecy in Hezekiah’s day concerning Zion, Jerusalem, and the temple mount (cf. Mic 3:12), virtually identical in sentiment to Jeremiah’s preaching, the elders pointed out that the king and the people responded to Micah’s preaching by repenting, averting calamity.

 

The elders’ logic confronted the fundamental problem of the nature of prophecy involved in another of the Deuteronomic tests, namely whether the prophecy comes true. Micah’s prophecy had not been fulfilled even over a century later. The elders suggested, however, that prophecies such as Micah’s, and Jeremiah’s intend to motivate changes in behavior, not to make predictions about an inevitable future. YHWH stands ready to “reconsider” his plans in response to human behavior.

 

Jer 26, then, offers three insights into the problem of identifying authentic prophets and prophecy. First, true prophets stands in the tradition of authentic Israelite prophecy (cf. vv 5, 12, 15). Second, the fulfillment criterion is unreliable. Whether because there is no time limit on a prophecy of disaster such as Micah’s or because if such prophets are successful in their purpose, their prophecies motivate behavior change and thus obviate the threat they announce, a prophet cannot be condemned when the message does not “come true.” Third, Jer 26 emphasizes that the fulfillment criterion also suffers as a tool because of God’s character as a responsive deity, open to human choice and willing to reconsider a plan of action. (Mark E. Biddle, Jeremiah: The Contextual Critical Commentary [The Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 229-30, emphasis in bold added)

Compare with the author’s exegesis of Jer 18:7-10 in light of the potter-clay analogy earlier in the chapter:

 

The immediately apparent implications of the object lesson and YHWH’s explanation of its significance contrast with one another significantly. Jeremiah watched as something went awry with the clay on the wheel and the potter effectively started over. Incidentally, the text does not indicate whether he reworked the same clay or began anew with fresh clay. In any case, YHWH initially explained that YHWH, like the potter, can rework Israel. The implication would seem to be that YHWH can mold and remold Israel as he wishes. The potter’s inanimate clay did not willfully resist the potter’s intentions. It was no uncooperative; it was “marred.” The text does not specify how. To employ the language of classical theology, the potter/YHWH in this case exercised sovereignty over the clay/Israel. Only the will of the potter/YHWH mattered. Indeed, some commentators understand the metaphor here as an assertion concerning YHWH’s “absolute sovereignty over nations . . . in that God’s actions are never dependent upon human actions.”

 

All metaphors have limited utility, however. YHWH’s extended interpretation of the potter’s actions (vv 7-10) hinges, in fact, on the difference between Israel and clay, namely that Israel, indeed any nation, can exercise volition. As Jack Lundbom notes, “while the analogy speakers about the power of Yahweh, it says at least as much about the malleability of creation in fulfilling or frustrating the divine will.” Furthermore, YHWH explains that he will adjust his plans for a nation in reaction to its behavior. Theologically, the potter/clay example as YHWH interpreted it contradicts the idea of a God whose inalterable will has been determined since before the creation of the world. “Jeremiah 18:7-11 announces a fundamental theological principle—God responds to repentance.” In fact and notably, translators regularly render the verb employed to describe YHWH reaction to human behavior, nḥm as “repent,” “regret,” or relent.”

 

Verse 11 reveals the purpose of this incident and its explanation. Because YHWH stands ready to change his plans in response to changes in human behavior, Jeremiah should urge Judah to “turn” and “improve.” The people reject the offer. It is too late. Interestingly, the verbal form translated “they said” above has a simple waw prefix instead of a waw consecutive. The latter would denote the next in a sequence of actions: That is, Jeremiah issued the call to repentance “but they had already said.” The historical perspective of the editor(s) may shine through here. (Mark E. Biddle, Jeremiah: The Contextual Critical Commentary [The Contextual Critical Commentary; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2026], 171-72)

 

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

 

Robert Alter on 1 Chronicles 24:1

  

And Satan stood up against Israel. This episode replicates 2 Samuel 24, with certain changes, additions, and omissions. That chapter, on the evidence of its style and theology, is not by the same hand as that of the author of the David story, although the Chronicler surely did not see any differentiation. In 2 Samuel 24 it is God Who incites David, but the Chronicler, not wanting to represent God as perverse, makes Satan the agent. At this late period, it looks as if “The Adversary” (hasatan) is moving into becoming a demonic figure, and he appears here without the definite article ha, suggesting it has become a name, not just a function. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:907)

 

Robert Alter on 1 Chronicles 18:17

  

and David’s sons were the first ones alongside the king. This is a substitution for “and David’s sons served as priests” in 2 Samuel 8:18. The Chronicler is concerned to preserve the prerogatives of the priestly line, whereas in the early days of the monarchy, it appears that members of the royal dynasty at times could perform priestly functions. “The first ones” is a little ambiguous: while it probably indicates that they had some role as ministers or councillors, it could also conceivably mean the sons born early, as against the many sons David begot during his years in Jerusalem. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:904)

 

Anthony N. S. Lane's Caution to Protestants Misinterpreting the Material Sufficiency of Scripture Held by Medieval Theologians

On medieval theologians affirming a form of “material sufficiency”:

 

A third response is also found in medieval Catholicism. This was to continue to affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture and to use allegory to derive from it the desired results. Given the ingenuity of medieval allegorists, this posed no serious problem. It was such an approach that caused Scripture to be described as a nose of wax. As an ancient ditty put it: Hic liber est in quo sua quaerit dogmata quisque; invenit et partier dogmata quisque sua. Thus medieval Catholicism repeatedly affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. But such affirmations should not be taken as indicating that the medieval Catholic Church was willing to affirm only that which could be supported from Scripture—rather that it was confident that whatever it affirmed could be supported in Scripture. (Anthony N. S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite and David F. Wright [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994], 315-16, emphasis in bold added)

 

Recent Defense of the Book of Mormon Witnesses

Two fellow LDS apologists refuted Sean McDowell (son of Josh McDowell) and Robert Bowman on the Book of Mormon witnesses:

Sean McDowell Attacks the Witnesses

Again, it only shows that Reformed Protestants are willing to deceive. Kinnda like they are totally depraved (sadly, they are also not regenerate):

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. Querying Joseph Fielding Smith on Whether an Adopted Korean Child Could be Sealed in the Temple (January 18, 1954)

  

Pres. Jos. Fielding Smith—inquiry about adoption of Korean child by some woman and question if child had negro blood if it could be sealed in temple. Pres. Smith said that had never been done. (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Journal, January 18, 1954, in The Diaries of J. Reuben Clark, 1933-1961 Abridged, comp. D. Michael Quinn [Digital Edition; Salt Lake City, 2015])

 

Anna Angelini and Edmon L. Gallagher on the Use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18

 

‎  לְמַ֙עַן יִֽירְשׁ֜וּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִ֤ית אֱדוֹם֙ וְכָל־הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָ֥א שְׁמִ֖י עֲלֵיהֶ֑ם נְאֻם־יְהוָ֖ה עֹ֥שֶׂה זֹּֽאת	ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα
In order that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by name (NRSV)	In order that the rest of humanity and all the nations upon whom my name has been called will seek me out (my trans.)

 

It is undeniable that the Greek translation of verse 12a-b displays a more universalistic understanding of the restoration, whereby all humanity can expect God’s intervention. However, it is still problematic to identify in this passage a deliberate attempt on the part of the translator to alter the meaning of the Hebrew text. The Greek rendering is probably derived from a different “decoding” of the Vorlage: the translator most likely read “Edom” (אדום, Edom) as אדם (Adam), “man” or “people” (ανθρωπων, anthrōpōn). Moreover, he read the verb יירשו (yirshu), “they possess” as ידרשו (yidreshu), “they look for” (εκζητησωσιν/ekzētēsōsin)—that is, the root ירש (yrsh) as if was דרש (drsh), with a confusion in the first letter. Furthermore, the Vorlage might well have had a slightly different spelling of the word “Edom” when compared to the MT, namely, in the short form without the waw. Finally, by the time the translator was working with the text, the reconquest of Edom announced in the Hebrew would have been unintelligible, such that the translator was simply trying to render what he considered to be the correct Hebrew text when he adopted a more universalistic reading. (Anna Angelini, “Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Septuagint Exegesis in Context,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 88-89)

 

 

 

The crucial part of the quotation in Acts reads: “so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called” (Acts 15:17 NRSV). This quotation matches Amos 9:12, whereas the Hebrew text reads differently: “in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name” (NRSV). James would have had a difficult time arguing for gentile inclusion in the church based on the Hebrew text of Amos 9:12 but the LXX more clearly provided a foundation for such a doctrine. (Edmon L. Gallagher. “The Use of the LXX in the Early Church,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 122-23)

 

 

Katell Berthelot on the Importance of Phinehas in 1 Maccabees 2

  

A crucial biblical figure to understand the description of the Hasmoneans in 1 Maccabees is Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, a priest zealous for God to the point of taking arms and killing fellow Israelites who had committed idolatry (Num 25). Mattathias’s murder of a fellow Judean who was willing to sacrifice to foreign gods, in 1 Maccabees 2, is to be understood in light of Phinehas’s behavior in Numbers 25, as 1 Maccabees 2:26 clearly indicates: “[Mattathias] became zealous for the law as Phinehas as had been [lit. “done”] against Sambri son of Salom” (ie., Zimri son of Salu in Num 25:14). In his testament to his sons, Mattathias then states: “Phinehas our father, because he became zealous with zeal, received a covenant of everlasting priesthood” (1 Macc. 2:54). Noteworthy is the fact that Phinehas is described as the Father” of Mattathias and his sons, who are thus depicted as heirs to the Aaronide priesthood. This is probably another way to confer legitimacy on the Hasmoneans. Yet as Torrey Seland notes, there is a slight difference between Phinehas’s zeal and that of Mattathias and his followers: what was zeal for God in Numbers 25 becomes a zeal for the law (Torah) in Maccabees (2:27, 50). (Katell Berthelot, “1 Maccabees,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 138-39)

 

David Lincicum: Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 Teaches that Solomon Personally Preexisted

  

Chapter 8 further expostulates on the benefits of wisdom, seeing in Solomon’s success even as a young man a concrete proof of the virtues that wisdom produces. As a sort of aside, the text presents Solomon as preexisting as a good soul before he takes a body: “I was a naturally clever child, and I obtained a good soul as my lot, or rather, being good I entered an undefiled body” (8:19-20). (David Lincicum, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 235)

 

David Lincicum on the Potential Use of Wisdom of Solomon 2:13, 18-20 in Matthew 27:43

  

Wisdom 2:13, 18-20//Matthew 27:43. As discussed above, in the speech of the wicked in Wisdom 2, they contend against a righteous person who calls himself a son (2:18; υιος, huios) or servant/child (2:13: παις, pais) of the Lord. Those who oppress him taunt and say, “If the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” (2:18 NRSV). In the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the passion, Jesus is mocked by the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders: “He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son’ [υιος, huios]” (Matt 27:43 NRSV). In Wisdom 2:18 the mockers say God “will rescue him” (ρυσεται, rhysetai), and this same verb is used in Matthew 27:43: ρυσασθω rhysasthō. The thematic parallels are strong, and the righteous sufferer of Wisdom 2 is easily read by subsequent Christian readers as a depiction of Jesus.

 

Complicating the case for direct dependence on Wisdom is the use of Psalm 22:8 (21:9 LXX) in Matthew 27:43: “He hoped in the Lord; let him rescue him; let him save him, because he wanted him.” The psalm text probably lies behind both Wisdom and Matthew, and particularly in light of the significance of Psalm 22 for Matthew elsewhere, we should probably cede the position of first influence to Psalm 22. But the invocation of the righteous one’s identity as “son” speaks in favor of Wisdom’s influence here, and may suggest that the righteous sufferer in Wisdom 2 formed part of the cultural encyclopedia that helped the earliest Christians makes sense of Jesus’s death. (David Lincicum, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 239)

 

Michael W. Duggan on the "Devil" in Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 being Cain

  

Just as immortality is the effect of associating with wisdom, so death is the consequence of abandoning wisdom (Wis 1:16). Pseudo-Solomon asserts that death did not originate with God, as it was not envisaged when created humans (1:13; 2:23; cf. Gen. 1:26). He states that death gained access to humans through “the envy of an adversary [διαβολος, diabolos]” (Wis 2:24). Traditionally, commentators have viewed the phrase as referring to “the devil,” which would be the first instance of identifying this sinister figure with the Edenic serpent in the biblical tradition (Gen 3; cf. 1 Chr 21:1 LXX; Zech 3:1-2 LXX). However, Pseudo-Solomon never mentions demons; furthermore, he describes wisdom as releasing Adam from his transgression (Wis 10:1). Hence, the diabolos is more likely Cain, who brought death into the world when he acted out of envy to kill his brother Abel (Wis 2:24; cf. 10:3; Gen 4:1-8). (Michael W. Duggan, “Creation in the Apocrypha,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 367-68)

 

Ryan W. Stickler on Leo III and the Beginning of Iconoclasm

  

Traditionally, the beginning of iconoclasm is attributed to Leo III (r. 717-741), in particular, on the occasion of a volcanic eruption on or around 726, which may have been interpreted as a sign of divine displeasure. In 730, Leo held a silention, a meeting of court and church officials theoretically meant to advise, but in reality to receive the words of the emperor, at which bishops may have been asked to sign a decree declaring the cross to be the only true object worthy of veneration. The problem with this account is there no contemporary evidence. There is no surviving iconoclastic decree of Leo III, no account of the silention. All evidence is derived from later iconodule, or pro-veneration sources. The only evidence of an imperial edict comes from an account in the Liber Pontificalis where a vague reference or an order regarding icons is mentioned in the life of Gregory II, and only involves possible personal correspondence between the emperor and pope. While it is not impossible, all evidence is circumstantial and problematic, and accounts of contemporary resistance to Leo’s policies can be easily explained by fiscal policy.

 

While Leo may have been ambivalent towards images, and perhaps took some actions to curtail their widespread recognition, it was Leo’s son, Constantine V (r. 741-775), who would become the most infamous iconoclastic emperor. In addition to theologically attacking the great defender of icons John of Damascus, who ironically wrote his defence from the safety of Islamic-held Syria, Constantine convened the synod of Hieria in 754 to formally condemn icons. Due to a vacancy in the see of Constantinople, the council was presided over by Theodosius, the bishop of Ephesus. With Rome not receiving an invitation and the remaining three patriarchates under Islamic control, it was the first time an imperially convened ecumenical council was held without any patriarchal representation, a factor that assisted in its future rejection. (Ryan W. Stickler, “Dissidence and Persecution,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Byzantine Church, ed. Andrew Mellas and Bronwen Neil [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2026], 120-21)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

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

 

Craig A. Evans on the Jewish Temple at Elephantine (fifth century BCE)

  

Aramaic correspondence from Elephantine (Egypt) indicates that Jewish colonists in Egypt built a temple sometime in the late fifth century BCE. This is surprising, since Jewish law forbade building a temple other than the one in Jerusalem. In 408 BCE the Elephantine Jews received permission from Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to rebuilt their temple after it was damaged by Egyptians. The correspondence between these two parties shows that although the Jews of Elephantine worshiped Yahweh, they also honored other deities. Accordingly, the Elephantine correspondence suggests a relaxation of the strictures imposed on Palestinian Jews under the earlier leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. Apparently there were other Jewish colonies in Egypt during this period. Most or perhaps all of these colonies were destroyed sometime after 400 BCE when the Egyptians revolved against Persian rule. (Craig A. Evans, “The Apocrypha and the Time Between the Testaments,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 4)

 

David A. Desilva on Early Christian Use of the Apocrypha to Support the Salvific Efficacy of Almsgiving

  

The books of the Apocrypha would continue to be mined by the early church for the ethical value of the instructions included therein, perhaps in part because its leaders recognized the consonance of these instructions with the ethical teachings of Jesus, James, and other voices preserved in the emerging texts that would later be incorporated within the New Testament canon. Indeed, the New Testament texts could be seen to endorse a good deal of material found in the books of the Apocrypha but not explicitly present in the books of the Hebrew Bible. This might be help to account for the elevation of the value of the former alongside the latter in early Christian communities (who were clearly open to affirming the value and even authority of texts outside of the emerging Jewish canon, given the very fact of a New Testament).

 

The promotion of almsgiving, the rationale for the practice, and the specific advice found in Tobit and Ben Sira, for example, continue to appear in early Christian exhortations. Thus Polycarp in the early second century echoes Tobit’s promise that “charity delivers one from death” (Pol. Phil. 10.2; cf. Tob 4:10). The nearly contemporary church manual known as the Didache admonishes Christians not to be like “one who stretches out the hands, repeating Ben Sira to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving” (Did. 4.5; see also Barn. 19.9), repeating Ben Sira’s instructions (Sir 4:31); Didache 1.6 also cites a proverb, “Let your gift sweat in your hands until you known to whom you give,” which recalls an admonition from Ben Sira: “If you do good, know to whom you do it, and you will be thanked for your good deeds” (Sir 12:1 NRSV). The older sage had advised showing charitable generosity only to the righteous poor; the compilers of the Didache utilize the proverb to urge being a good steward of charity, taking care to bestow it on the genuinely needy. Both Ben Sira and Tobit promote almsgiving as an atonement for sins (Sir 3:30; Tob 12:9), a motivation that also persists in Christian teaching (Did. 4.6). Gaudentius of Brescia (fl. 395 CE) shows how well the ethical teaching of Tobit and Jesus might be combined in the early church, as he affirms the atoning power of almsgiving and connects this with Jesus’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31):

 

Not out of malice but out of providence has God made you rich. He intended that through your works of mercy you would again find medicine to treat the wounds of your sins. “Certainly alms freely given preserve one from death and purify from every sin.” The rich man was not tormented because he was rich but because Lazarus suffered hunger while he feasted. (Sever Voicu, ed. The Apocrypha: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010], 27)

 

Examples of how Ben Sira and Tobit’s ethical precepts pervaded early Christian discourse could be multiplied exponentially. (David A. Desilva, “The Use of the Apocrypha in the Early Church,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 35)

 

Claude Barthe (RC Priest) on the Fate of the Unbaptized Infants and the New Funeral Ritual

 On the new funeral ritual, prepared in 1965 and published in 1969:

 

Was it appropriate to introduce a Mass “for a child not yet baptized”? Without giving any details about the “state” or “place” of children who die without being baptized, the Church clearly teaches the necessity of sacramental baptism or baptism of desire in order to obtain the beatific vision: “In the present order, there is no other means [other than baptism] of communicating this life to a child who has not yet reached the age of reason. And yet, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural bliss, the beatific vision of God.” (Pius XII, speech of October 29, 1951) The highly controversial contemporary document that contradicts this is merely a study proposed as an opinion by the International Theological Commission. The Mass proposed by the new missal, although clearly intended to console parents, nevertheless says: “May they [the parents] entrust him to your love”: “tuae sentient divinae pietati commissum [infantem ejus].” And in the farewell prayer (the absolution): “With confidence, we entrust him to God.” (Claude Barthe, The Seven Sacraments, Past & Present: A Short Critical Study of the New Rituals [trans. Karen Darantiè; Lincoln, Nebr.: Os Justi Press, 2026], 59-60)

 

An Example of Cope Concerning New World Horses From 1896

  

European horses must have been cooked and eaten in the caves of Sayab, Lara, and Chekt-a-leh since the fifteenth century, to account for the fragments of bone and teeth discovered there; for we find no reason for supposing that the people of Yucatan knew the American fossil horse, or scattered its remains in late portions of their culture-layers. (Henry C. Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man’s Antiqutiy in the Caverns of Central America Being an Account of the Corwith Expedition of the Department of Archaeology and Palaeontology of the University of Pennsylvania [Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1896], 172)

 

 

The horse molars and bones found by Mr. Mercer might, so far as their structural characters go, be referred to the Equus occidentalis, Leidy, which differs from the E. caballus in characters of the skull, while the molar teeth are closely similar. E. occidentalis is, however, found in association with a different fauna in the valley of Mexico and Western North America, and its bones are always fossilized, which is not the case with the specimens found by Mr. Mercer.—E. D. COPE. (Ibid., 172 n. 1)

 

Examples of J. Reuben Clark, Jr. Querying Scholars To Better Understand the Scriptures (June 24 and June 29, 1948)

  

Checked with Dr. Sperry that there were no salacious or erotic stories in Joseph Smith’s scriptures, the Book of Mormon. (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Journal, June 24, 1948, in The Diaries of J. Reuben Clark, 1933-1961 Abridged, comp. D. Michael Quinn [Digital Edition; Salt Lake City, 2015])

 

 

Checked with Dr. Sperry about the Book of Mormon references to the Bible. (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Journal, June 29, 1948, in The Diaries of J. Reuben Clark, 1933-1961 Abridged, comp. D. Michael Quinn [Digital Edition; Salt Lake City, 2015])

 

Excerpts from Andrzej Wiszowaty (1608-1678), “Rational Religion”

Andrzej Wiszowaty (Latinized Andreas Wissowatius) was a

 

grandson of Faustus Socinus and one of the most significant theologians of the Polish Brethren. After the banishment of the Antitrinitarians from Poland and he lived in exile, finally in Amsterdam. (Marcin Poholski, “Preface,” in Andrzej Wiszowaty, Rational Religion: On the Use of the Judgment of Reason in Theological and Religious Controversies [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], [i] n. 1)

 

His book Religio rationalis was published posthumously in Amsterdam in 1685.

On 1 Cor 2:14:

 

The apostle Paul did indeed write that the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14. But first, not every man is a natural man. By “natural” is signified he who looks only to the sensual things of this earthly life, like a brute beast, following the guidance of the lower soul or of brutish appetite. See the like word at James 3:15 and Jude 19. But there are found among men, even among those not yet enlightened by the light of the gospel, some who are not of so abject and bestial a mind. Otherwise the gospel would be preached in vain to men before they became spiritual, if they were in no way capable of it.

 

Next, the apostle did not write that the natural man cannot in any way grasp, that is, apprehend with the mind or understand, the divine and spiritual things; rather he denies that he receives them, that is, acknowledges them with approval to be true and good. In the text stands the word dechetai, such as occurs also at Matt. 10:14, 40-42; 11:14; Luke 8:13; Acts 11:1; Gal 4:14 and elsewhere; in which places it certainly does not mean to perceive by understanding, but to receive. And although it is written immediately after in the same place, and he cannot know them, yet this can be taken not of a natural but of a moral inability, as it is often taken. And though he cannot know those things—that is, acknowledge them with approval as good—so long as he remains natural, yet it is not to be laid down that he cannot put off this natural disposition, and that even before he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit: for this even before he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit: for this is ordinarily wont to be given only to those who have received in faith as true the gospel of Christ preached and understood.

 

To the same effect is what the same apostle wrote at Rom. 8:7: The wisdom—rather, the inclination or striving—of the flesh is enmity against God. Here the use of sound reason is not censured, but that which savours of carnal desires and strives to satisfy them. It is said in like manner when the wisdom of this world, 1 Cor. 1:20 and 3:19, and carnal wisdom, 2 Cor. 1:19, are reproved. (Andrzej Wiszowaty, Rational Religion: On the Use of the Judgment of Reason in Theological and Religious Controversies [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 65-67)

 

 

The Objection: Then Logic and Philosophy Would Rule over the Word of God

 

Here, finally, some object: In this way logic and philosophy and human reasoning would have to obtain the governance and the dominion over the theological mysteries and over the word of God itself. Answer: Far be it! Will anyone say that grammar obtains dominion not only over philosophical, medical, and juridical writings, but also over theological ones and over the very words of God—seeing that in these two the laws and rules of grammar are to be observed, lest anything unsuited to them be said perversely and ineptly? Prudent theologians too take care not to commit, in their discourses, a solecism against the rules of grammar. But an error against the truth of things, and above all of divine things, is far worse and more harmful than a solecism committed against the syntax of little words. (Andrzej Wiszowaty, Rational Religion: On the Use of the Judgment of Reason in Theological and Religious Controversies [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 83)

 

Heber J. Grant Recording Debate Concerning Albert Carrington (August 12, 1887)

  

Brother Joseph F. Smith felt that the light and knowledge which Albert Carrington possessed was such that he had committed the unpardonable sin, and was guilty of the shedding of innocent blood. For a man to enter into plural marriage, and all the ordinances of the Gospel, in the House of God, and then willfully & viciously be guilty for years of the most heinous crimes, if he does not come as near to the shedding of innocent blood as a man possible can, then Brother Smith would like to know what he would have to do to be considered guilty of the shedding of innocent blood. For years he had daily associated with the Prophet of God. He had listened to his teachings, and he should have been an exemplar of truth and righteousness before the people. Carrington’s is an exceptional case. If he had not been an Apostle, and received so much light and knowledge, then it would be different. Brother Smith could not see why we should dignify this case because the man had once been an Apostle. He had abused his Apostleship, and lost, not only that, but his standing in the Church; and he felt that if any action was taken in the Albert Carrington case, that it should be taken by the Bishop of his ward, the same as action would be taken with any other individual, and that we should not dignify it by making any decision in the case. Brother felt that there was no comparison between him and a young man, filled with youthful passion, who had fallen in an unguarded moment, and then had sincerely and honestly repented. He felt that in such cases mercy should be extended. (Heber J. Grant, Journal, August 12, 1887, in The Diaries of Heber J. Grant, 1880-1845 Abridged, comp. D. Michael Quinn [Digital Edition; Salt Lake City, 2015])

 

Yvette Running Horse Collin and the Importance of Avoiding the "Genetic Fallacy"

  

With regard to scientific research on this subject, it is important to note that the Mormon Church has put some emphasis and financial backing toward deciphering the history of the horse in the Americas. As the Book of Mormon describes horses in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus, critics have long used the fact that "there were no horses in the Americas" as proof that their doctrine is not valid. However, just because a particular group has an interest in a topic and wishes to support research being done in the area does not mean that their scientific findings are necessarily biased, especially when independent laboratories are used. (Yvette Running Horse Collin, “The Relationship Between The Indigenous Peoples of the Americas and the Horse: Deconstructing a Eurocentric Myth” [PhD Thesis; University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 2017], 138 n. 371, emphasis in bold added)

 

Emma Marr Petersen (1893-1975) (Wife of Mark E. Petersen) Teaching Baptismal Regeneration

In a book for a young audience to understand the importance of baptism, we read the following fictional dialogue between two kids who are about to be baptized and their parents:

 

Sister Jensen had not said much during the evening, but when prayer was spoken she joined in the conversation.

 

“When Jesus was on earth,” she said, “he prayed to his Father very often. He also taught the people to pray. As he did so, he told them to ask the Lord to forgive them of the wrong things they did.

 

“This refers to baptism too,” she said. “Daddy, tell the boys about forgiveness of sin.”

 

“I will be glad to,” he said. “It surely is a part of baptism.

 

“When older people join the Church, they also must learn to live right. They may have many habits which are not good, just as some children do. They must change them, and begin living right.

 

“They know that when they sin they displease God. They ask his forgiveness. Forgiveness means that the Lord will not hold our sins against us if we stop doing the things that are wrong.

 

“When an older person joins the Church, he is baptized just like you boys will be, and then, the Lord forgives him of his sins, if he stops doing wrong. It is in baptism that God grants this forgiveness. That is why it is spoken of as baptism for the remission of sins.

 

“We must be clean and free from sin when joining the Church, for no unclean person can come into God’s house.

 

“We have done things that are wrong, and I guess we will do more in the future. But we must always try to do better.

 

“Now you boys think of the bad habits you may have, and then try to overcome them before you are baptized, so that you will be forgiven by the Lord as you come out of the water.” (Emma Marr Petersen, About Baptism: A Story of the Meaning and Purpose of Baptism [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1957], 56-57, emphasis added)

 

 

“There are two parts to baptism. One is called baptism in water, and that is that we told you about last week. The other is called baptism of the Spirit.

 

“Listen carefully while I explain this, as it is very important. When we repent of our sins, we receive forgiveness of them in the waters of baptism. That makes us clean in the sight of God.

 

“He has told us that if we do what is right our bodies may be a dwelling place for his Spirit, which really comes upon us.

 

“But he says that his Spirit will not enter an unclean tabernacle or house. He speaks of our bodies as tabernacles, or dwelling places for his Holy Spirit.

 

“As we are cleaned of sin in the waters of baptism, we are made ready to receive his Spirit.

 

“The way we receive his Holy Spirit is that the elders of the Church lay their hands upon our heads, after we are baptized in water, and bless us and say, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost.’ (Ibid., 61, emphasis added)

 

This is a teaching found in her other writings:

 

Forgiveness of sins comes by baptism, which also admits us into his Church as members. (Emma Marr Petersen, The Church that Jesus Christ Built [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Inc., 1971], 6)

 

 

The Lord taught that baptism is essential to salvation. He told Nicodemus, a Jew who came to him at night during the Lord’s mortal ministry, that without it, a person cannot even see the kingdom of heaven. (Emma Marr Petersen, The Prophet's Story For Young People [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1973], 19)

 

[Speaking of those early Saints who were baptized prior to April 6, 1830]:

 

Although a number had been baptized prior to this time, they were now baptized again, this time to become members of the Church. Their first baptisms showed an acceptance of the teachings of Joseph, and provided for them the remission of sins. They could not be baptized into the Church then because it had not yet been organized. Now that the Church was organized they were baptized again — this time into the Church. (Ibid., 61, emphasis added)

 

Further Reading:

Baptism Does Cleanse Us from Our Sins