Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Thomas S. Monson (1927-2018)

As many should know by now, President Thomas S. Monson passed away last night. He was 90 years of age.

The following video is a one-hour overview of his life: On the Lord's Errand: The Life of Thomas S. Monson:

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer on Zechariah 3 and the Divine Assembly

In the prophet Zechariah’s fourth vision, recorded in Zech 3:1-10, we read the following:

Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua, saying "Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day. On that day, says the Lord of hosts, you shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig tree." (NRSV)

Most modern biblical scholars holds that this is set in the Divine Assembly/Council of the Gods. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer offers some of the reasons why modern exegetes of this scene hold to such a view:

[A] few scholars maintain that the scene in Zech 3:1-5 takes place in the earthly temple in Jerusalem. Yet this kind of interpretation does not sit well with the appearances of God, the Adversary, and the various angels. Rather, the whole layout, with divine dramatic personae aplenty, suggests a non-earthly setting. More specifically, Zech 3:1-2 belongs to a larger group of interconnected descriptions of the Divine Assembly:

1. First, the description in Zech 3:1-2 shows familiarity with the description in Isa 6. Jeremias highlights six conceptual similarities between the two vision accounts. In both accounts, (1) the heavenly court is gathered; (2) one named human individual is present; (3) members of the Divine Assembly (e.g., the seraphim, the Adversary, and the Angel of YHWH) act; (4) the key question is the impurity of a human being (Isa 6:5; Zech 3:3); (5) the human being is cleansed form his impurity (Isa 6:6-7a; Zech 3:4a); and (6) the human being is presented with a task. These similarities are unlikely to be coincidental. One the contrary, Zech 3 is probably influenced by Isa 6 in both form and structure.

2. The description in Zech 3:1-2 is reminiscent of the prologue of the book of Job. Both the setting of Zech 3:1-2—the Divine Assembly—and the dramatic personae—God and the Adversary—are known from Job 1-2. In many ways, Zech 3:1-2 is an amalgamation of the imagery from Isa 6 and Job 1-2.

In addition, Parker has shown how the structure of Zech 3:1-7, as well as the narratives about the Divine Assembly in Isa 6:1-3; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; and Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7a, conforms to the structure of many Mesopotamian accounts of the Divine Assembly. This kind of text typically features a dialogue between the supreme deity and the members of his council. God asks who will undertake a certain mission, members of the council offer various suggestions, and one individual finally makes a proposal which God accepts whereupon he commissions the proposer to carry out his/her suggestion. In Zech 3:1-7, the Angel of YHWH represents God and the topic of interest is the priest. God or the Angel (v. 2) rebukes one member of the council who is maligning the priest, directs others to dress the priest, and then gives the priest a charge. (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 605; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 118-19)

For a discussion of Zech 3 and the Council of the Gods from a Latter-day Saint perspective, see:


William Riley on the Davidic King as a Priest in Psalm 110:4

Commenting on the Davidic Kings as being “priests,” Old Testament scholar William Riley wrote the following:

The Cultic Role of David

The sacral character of the ancient Near Eastern monarch manifested itself in the priestly function of the king. As Keel observes:

Throughout the entire ancient Near East, but especially in ancient Sumer, cultic responsibilities devolve upon the king. The ancient Sumerian Ensi was as much priest as prince. He resides in the temple and is responsible for the welfare of the city god . . . As late as the Neo-Sumerian period, Ur-Nammu appears not only as temple builder but also in a priestly capacity. Iconographic evidence for the priestly functions of Mesopotamian kings are extant well into the latest Assyrian epoch. (O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, pp. 278-79)

The reference to king as כהן in Ps. 110.4 testifies to the survival of this aspect of kingship in Israel, even though the priestly nature of Israelite kingship remain ambiguous in some Old Testament texts. (William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History [JSOT 160; Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1993], 58)

In a footnote commenting on certain texts that seem, at first reading, to be ambiguous as to whether it is proper for a Davidic king to also serve as a priest, Riley noted:

Indeed, passages such as 1 Sam. 13.8-14 and 2 Chron. 26:16-20 seem to condemn kings who take it upon themselves to exercise a priestly function. However, the biblical author may not have placed the emphasis in 1 Sam. 13.8-14 on the cultic action as it appears at first place. Cultic activity was not incompatible with military or tribal leadership in pre-monarchial Israel, as can be seen from Jud. 6.24-26 or from the figure of Samuel himself. H.W. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, p. 106, interprets the sin of Saul as having no patience and allowing ‘the disturbing situation to be the most important factor in his decision’. Such an interpretation, which takes the emphasis from the cultic nature of Saul’s impatient action, also resonates with the demand of the holy war that fear be excluded since the nation depends utterly on the victorious presence of Yahweh (cf. Deut. 20.3-4, 8). Similarly, it is possible that the condemnation of Uzziah’s action in 2 Chron. 26.16-20 may not be a statement against the priestly nature of kingship so much as the delineation of a priestly action not permitted to kings in the later Priestly legal tradition (Exod. 30.7-10; Num. 16.40); cf. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, p. 286; J. Becker, 2 Chronik, p. 87. The Chronicler might even here be addressing a specific cultic problem of the illicit offering of incense, given the large number of incense altars excavated from Persian period Palestine (including over two hundred at Lachish alone); cf. A. Rolla, ‘La Palestina Postesilica alla luce dell’archeologia’ pp. 117-18. (Ibid., 58-59, n. 5)

Such is a further refutation of the claim that Psa 110:4 and other priestly texts were about Jesus only and never applied to the Davidic Kings, contra some Evangelicals who forward this eisegetical claim (a claim they forward to defend the thesis that only Jesus is a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” [cf. Biblical Evidence of Multiple People Having Held the Melchizedek Priesthood
Response to The Narrows Church on the Melchizedek Priesthood)


Does Jeremiah 15:1 support the Roman Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints?

Commenting on Jer 15:1, Catholic apologist Mario Lopez wrote:

In the Old Testament we see in Jeremiah a reference to people in God’s presence interceding for those on earth, Jer. 15:1

Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!

The background is the prophet Jeremiah had been interceding for the people, who had abandoned God and turned to everybody and everything except him (Jer. 14). God refused to listen to Jeremiah’s pleading because of their wickedness. Then God says that Moses and Samuel were interceding for them!!! In the Old Testament, Moses and Samuel always interceded for their people (Ex. 32:11-14, Nm 14:11-25, 1 Sm 7:5-9, 12:19-23). Well, Moses and Samuel were both long physically dead, but now, during the time of Jeremiah, they were still interceding!!! Moses and Samuel had such charity, that God truly considered their prayers. But since the people were so wicked, even their intercession would not succeed. We need to be in God’s grace in order for the prayers to be the most efficacious. Even though God denied their prayers, it was because the people were so wicked, that they would get punished. Implied is that Moses and Samuel’s intercession was even more effective than the prophet Jeremiah, but they were not listened to only because of their wickedness. So, in the time of Jeremiah, there is intercession for people by Moses and Samuel, who while dead physically, were still alive spiritually.


Actually, Jer 15:1 does not teach that Moses and Samuel were before God, interceding before the people, at the time of Jeremiah. The Hebrew of this verse reads:

‎ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֵלַ֔י אִם־יַעֲמֹ֙ד מֹשֶׁ֤ה וּשְׁמוּאֵל֙ לְפָנַ֔י אֵ֥ין נַפְשִׁ֖י אֶל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה שַׁלַּ֥ח מֵֽעַל־פָּנַ֖י וְיֵצֵֽאוּ׃

The Hebrew uses the particle אִם “if”; according to HALOT, in the context of Jer 15:1 and other passages, it has the sense of:

concessive even though, Arb. waÀin = Latin etsi: אִם צָדַקְתִּי even if I were innocent Jb 915, יַעֲמֹד אִם even though he stood Jr 151;

The 1985 JPS Tanakh correctly translates this verse thusly:

The Lord said to me, "Even if Moses and Samuel were to intercede with Me, I would not be won over to that people. Dismiss them from My presence, and let them go forth!

This is also reflected in the LXX:

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρός με ἐὰν στῇ Μωυσῆς καὶ Σαμουηλ πρὸ προσώπου μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ψυχή μου πρὸς αὐτούς ἐξαπόστειλον τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐξελθέτωσαν

The Greek uses εαν, a conjunction which, according to BDAG, is a

marker of condition, with probability of activity expressed in the verb left open and thereby suited esp. for generalized statements

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) renders the passage as follows:

And the Lord said to me: If Moyses and Samouel stood before me, my soul would not be toward them. Send this people away, and let them go!

Commenting on this verse, William McKane wrote:

Jeremiah is portrayed as one who seeks to prevail with Yahweh on behalf of the people, but his plea is refused and a threat of carnage, famine, pestilence and exile is issued. For those who ponder these matters, probably in the exilic period, there are exceptional factors which influence the outcome of Jeremiah’s ministry and make him both a true prophet and an ineffective intercessor. It was a time, so they represent, when not even Moses and Samuel could have deflected Yahweh from his purposes of retribution. (William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah [2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1986], 1:333)

So, this verse is not teaching that Moses and Samuel were interceding in heaven when Jeremiah wrote these words; instead, God, in his oracle to Jeremiah, is engaging in hyperbole to stress the sinful nature of the people at the time of Jeremiah.

Interestingly enough, Roman Catholic dogmatic theology does not allow for Lopez’s interpretation. How so? In Catholic theology, the deceased righteous saints, before the descensus ad inferos (Christ’s decent into Hades) and their release thereafter, so they could not have been in the presence of God in heaven during the time of Jeremiah! As one Catholic apologist noted:

The Church also holds as dogma that the souls of most Old Testament saints were released from “Sheol” (Hebrew: שְׁאוֹל) or “Hades” (Greek: αδης) when Christ visited this realm immediately after his death, in accord with the statement in the Apostles Creed “he descended into hell.” The descent into Sheol or Hades corresponds to other Scriptures which refer to the conscious abode of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous, before the resurrection of Christ, e.g., “he went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1Pt 3:19); “the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead” (1Pt 4:6); “the heart of the earth” (Mt 12:40); “Abraham’s bosom” (Lk 16:22-26); “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God...and live” (Jn 5:25); “the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life” (Mt 27:52-53); “he also descended to the lower, earthly regions” (Ep 4:9); “you and your sons will be with me” (1Sm 28:19); “consign to the earth below...with those who go down to the pit” (Ez 32:18ff); “he leads down to Hades” (Tb 13:2); “the dominion of Hades” (Ws 1:14; 2:1; 16:13). These interpretations were upheld at the Council of Rome (745 AD; Denz. 587); the Council of Toledo (625 AD; Denz. 485). See Catholic Catechism, ¶¶631-635. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 64 n. 90) (*)

So, we see that Jer 15:1 does not support the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) understanding of the Communion of the Saints.

For a short work on the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints, see:

Patrick Madrid, Any Friend of God's Is a Friend of Mine: A Biblical and Historical Explanation of the Catholic Doctrine of the Communion of Saints (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1996)

For more on 1 Pet 3:18-20 and Jesus' descent into Hades, see:



(*)

For those curious as to the Councils of Toledo and Rome, here are the relevant entries from Denzinger (I know Latter-day Saints are always interested in discussions of the descent of Christ into hades):

 

HONORIUS I: October 27, 625-October 12, 638

 

485-486: Synod of TOLEDO, begun December 5, 633

 

. . .

 

Trinitarian and Christological Creed

 

(Chap. 1) In conformity with the Sacred Scriptures and the teaching that we have received from the holy Fathers, we confess that the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit <are> of one unique divinity and substance; believing the Trinity in a diversity of Persons and proclaiming unity in the divinity, we neither confuse the Persons nor separate the substance. We say that the Father <was> neither made nor generated by anyone; we affirm that the Son <was> not made by the Father but generated; we truly profess that the Holy Spirit <was> neither created nor generated but proceeds form the Father and the Son. However, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, Son of God and creator of all things, was generated before all ages from the substance of the father, and in the latter times, for the redemption of the world, he descended from the Father, he who never creased being with the Father; he truly became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the glorious holy Mother of God, and he alone was born from her. The same Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, receiving the complete soul and flesh of man but without sin, remains what he was and assumes what he was not: equal to the father in regard to divinity, less than the father in regard to humanity, having in one Person the properties of the two natures; for in him <are> two natures, God and man, not, however, two sons and two gods, but the same Person in both natures; he underwent his Passion and death for our salvation, not in the power of divinity, but in the weakness of humanity; he descended into hell to free the holy ones being held there, and, after having conquered the rule and domination of death, he rose again, ascended then into heaven, and, in the future, he will come to judge the living and the dead. Cleansed by his death and blood, we have attained remission of sins in order to be resurrected by him in the last days in that flesh in which we now live and likewise in the form in which the Lord was resurrected: some receiving eternal life from him for merits of justice; others, the sentence of eternal punishment because of their sins.

 

This is the faith of the Catholic Church. This is the profession of faith we conserve and hold; and whoever will guard it with great firmness will have eternal salvation. (Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash [43rd ed; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012], 166-67)

 

587: Synod of ROME, Session 3, October 25, 745

 

. . .

 

Descent of Christ into Hell

 

587 . . . Clement, who by his stupidity rejects the decisions of the holy Fathers and all the synodal acts and who introduces Judaism even for Christians when he preaches that it is licit to assume the wife of a dead brother and who, moreover, preached that the Lord Jesus Christ, in descending into hell, delivered from there all the pious and the impious, is stripped of all priestly function and bound by the chain of anathema. (Ibid., 204)

 

Monday, January 1, 2018

John McHugh's The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament: Available on Archive.org





John McHugh's The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (1975) is available on Archive.org (albeit, on 14-day loan at the moment). It is one of the best books on Mariology ever published (and from me, I hope that means something!):

https://archive.org/details/motherofjesusint00mchu

Of course, yours truly has written a volume on Mary, too:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)




No, Ephesians 2:8-10 does not teach Sola Fide!


For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph 2:8-10, NIV)

I have discussed Eph 2:8-10 and how it is not a valid proof-text for the material doctrine of Protestantism, Sola Fide, a couple of times on this blog:















To add to the discussion, let me quote Catholic apologist Trent Horn on this pericope, as his analysis is pretty good here, as is the entire section of his volume on soteriology (“Part III How Am I Saved?” [pp. 179-257]):

One of the most common verses that is cited in defense of justification by faith alone is Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast” . . . In Ephesians 2:8-9 Paul is not teaching that the process of salvation involves only faith. Paul is talking about initial salvation, because he speaks about being saved as a past, completed reality. Catholics [and Latter-day Saints] agree there is no action, including acts of faith, that merits the gift of initial justification, so this verse does not prove justification is by faith alone. In fact, the next verse says, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Notice that Paul says we were not saved because of “works” but were created for “good works”. This implies that the works in verse 9 that Paul is speaking of are inferior to the good works God wants us to do in verse 10. This makes sense if Paul was saying to his audience that salvation “is the gift of God—not because of works of the Law [or works of Torah]”. Paul is telling the Gentiles that they don’t come into God’s covenant through works of Law like circumcision. Instead, like everyone else they come into the covenant through faith that is a gracious gift from God. That this is Paul’s meaning is evident in the fact that verses 11-12 speak of uniting estranged Gentile believers to God through faith in Christ rather than observance of the Torah.

Paul personally addresses the Gentiles (v. 11) and reminds them of both their separation from Christ and their alienation from God’s promises (v. 12). He says this separation has been taken away by the blood of Christ (v. 12). He says this separation has been taken away by the blood of Christ (v. 13), and in its place God has given us peace because he “has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances” (vv. 14-15). The law is the Torah, and Paul identifies it with the “dividing wall”, which some have taken as an allusion to the wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from that of the Jews in the Jerusalem Temple. Now that this boundary marker of the Old Covenant has been abolished, all people can enter into God’s covenant by faith in Christ. But this does not mean that works play no role in our salvation after this initial entry.

In I Corinthians 15:2 Paul speaks of the gospel “by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in faith”. The word “saved” (Greek, sozesthe) can literally be translated “you are being saved” because it is in the present tense. Just because we have been saved in the past, as Ephesiasn 2:8-9 says, that does not mean that our salvation was settled once and for all in the past . . . The Protestant biblical scholar Brenda Colijn notes that

salvation, for Paul, is predominately future. As we have seen, even his uses of salvation in past and present tense have a forward-looking aspect . . . Believers were already saved from their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1, 5). In the present, believers are being saved from the power of sin (Phil. 2:13; 2 Cor. 5:15, 17; cf. Eph 2:1-10). In the last day, believers will be saved from God’s wrath (his righteous response to sin) and from death (the result of sin). (Brenda Colijn, “The Three Tenses of Salvation in Paul’s Letters,” Ashland Theological Journal 22 (1990): 33). (Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections [San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2017], 234-36, comment in square brackets added)

One can find the Colijn article, “The Three Tenses of Salvation in Paul’s Letters” online here and is worth the read.


Note on John 10:27


My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. (John 10:27, NASB)

τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούουσιν, κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτὰ καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι

The terms translated by the NASB as "hear" and "follow" are ἀκούουσιν and ἀκολουθοῦσίν, respectively. They are both in the third person present indicative active of the verbs ἀκούω and ἀκολουθέω. This is important for the following reasons:

(1) The use of the active voice shows that these are actions that the "sheep" engage in themselves. This is problematic for many false conceptions of anthropology (theology of man) and soteriology (theology of salvation).

(2) The use of the present indicative shows that these are actions that, to remain to be a member of Jesus' "sheep" is predicated upon continually hearing and following Jesus--this refutes many theologies of eternal security.

(3) This leads into the following verses (vv.28-29) that are often wrested from their context in support for all the various formulations of eternal security, ignoring [i] its immediate context and [ii] the rest of the Johannine literature that explicitly teaches one can lose their salvation.

On this point, see, for instance:









Blog Archive