Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Johann Gerhard (1634) Providing Roman Catholic Exegetes Interpreting Malachi 1:11 as a Prophecy of Spiritual Sacrifices and Prayers

  

Argument IV. Malachi 1:11: “In every place an oblation is offered to my name, a pure offering.” He responded, 1. Benedict Arias Montanus annotates on this message: “Although the meaning of this passage is clear from the words themselves, yet the secret reason of its signification is to be observed from the construction of the words, which the ancient interpreters carefully considered but certainly did not sufficiently explain. God had severely rebuked the priests for having so despised and diminished his name that they judged it to make no difference by what manner and with what victim he was worshipped.” And afterward: “But the other nations, led not by the open norm of the Law and the divine oracles, but only by the contemplation of the works of Nature, earnestly and attentively worshipped God, whom they believed to be the Lord and Ruler. By what name they undertook this, God himself explains: ‘Great is my name among the nations.’ By reason of greatness and as a matter of definition, he testifies that he is worshipped by them; and by that right he even strongly surpasses the Jews, to whom his name was a matter of contempt. Therefore, although the proper name of God was unknown to the nations, yet certainly the surname of the great, which God had by nature had earned for itself a place among all nations through the alternating sequences of day and night and the constant fourfold change of the seasons.” And afterward: “We said at the outset that this discourse is recondite, inasmuch as with the same simple utterance of words it embraces simultaneously a double meaning: that the name of God is great from the rising of the sun to its setting, and that the very rising and setting of the sun is regarded as the greatness of the divine name. IT was fitting, moreover, that by the same name of greatness, God should be known and also worshipped among the nations” (Benedict Arias Montanus, Commentary on Malachi, p. 935). This explanation of Benedict Arias is contained in that volume concerning which Antwerp censure pronounced that it not only presents piety and the true meaning of prophecy, but also contributes greatly to the extirpation of heretical dogmas and to be promotion of piety among all preachers. Although Bellarmine truly (Robert Bellarmine, On the Mass, book 1, ch. 10) and Suárez (Franciso Suárez, Disputations, part 3, disp. 74, art. 1, sect. 1) judge is inadmissible in any way, they do not refute it with suitable and compelling arguments.

 

2. Antonius Possevinus does not dare disapprove this explanation of Benedict Arias, for he writes thus: “Nevertheless there are not lacking most learned men who, in this royal work prepared by Arias, have desired that certain things drawn from the Rabbis should be referred to the sense of the Catholic Church, such as those concerning the continual and bloodless sacrifice, which has been foretold by the testimony of Malachi as yet to come, which Arias seems to have referred to the sacrifice of the gentiles, But since it is not for us in this place to pass judgment on that work, we advise the reader to compare the Greek edition of the Septuagint, the Latin translation of this edition published at Rome by order of Pope Sixtus V, that which appeared at Antwerp. From which also the Spanish Index Expurgatorius, while noting other things in it, does not touch upon the passage” (Antonius Possevinus, Select Library, book 2, ch. 21, vol. 1, p. 63).

 

3. Isidorus Clarius likewise does not take this passage of the Mass sacrifice, but of the interior and spiritual sacrifices of the New Testament, for he annotates on this passage: “It is clear from this that the ceremonies of the Law were to be abolished at the time of Christ, and that all the faithful throughout the whole world were to sacrifice the pure offering of prayer” (Isidorus Clarius, Commentary on Malachi, p. 386, Venice edition).

 

4. Franciscus Vatablus expounds on the passage in the same manner in his notes (p. 47): “There will be, at the time, namely, of grace, a great thing, that is, it will be held in great esteem among the nations, which is said, ‘I will accept the offering of the nations which they shall offer to me.’ The calling of the nations is proclaimed.” (p. 48): “It will be offered and pure. Understand: and not impure. By the worship of the old law he understands the worship of the new.” This exposition of the prophetic prediction concerning the calling of the nations agrees with the apostolic sayings (Romans 15:16; 2 Corinthians 2:14; Philippians 2:17). (Johann Gerhard, Confessio Catholica: On the Sacrifice of the Mass—Article XV [trans. Koden A. Green [2026], 45-47)

 

Monday, November 2, 2026

Lutheran Theologian Johann Gerhard (1634) vs. Roman Catholic Appeals to Melchizedek's Sacrifice being a Type of the Mass

  

If the sacrifice of bread and wine by Melchizedek and been offered to prefigure the sacrifice of the Mass, it would follow: Alpha. That Christ would also have to be offered under the species of the Aaronic sacrifices. For since he is said to be offered under the species of bread and wine because Melchizedek, on the hypothesis, offered bread and wine, why should it not also be said that Christ must today be offered under the species of animals, since those same things were offered by the Aaronic priests to represent Christ? Beta. That Christ is a priest not only according to the order of Melchizedek, but also according to the order of Aaron. For since he is called a priest according to the order of Melchizedek because he offered bread and wine according to the type of Melchizedek’s sacrifice, why should he not also be called a priest according to the order of Aaron, since in the Aaronic sacrifices as well there was use of bread and wine? Gamma. That there is no transubstantiation in the Eucharist, because Melchizedek did not transubstantiate bread and wine into something else to be offered under the species of bread and wine. Delta. That the use of Eucharistic wine is not to be denied to the laity, because Melchizedek distributed not only bread abut also wine to each and every one of Abraham’s soldiers. Epsilon. That the Roman Pontiff, whom they wish to be supreme priest on earth, is not the Vicar of Christ, because there is not a single iota in Scripture about a Vicar of Melchizedek. Zeta. That the sacrifice of the Mass pertains to the sacrifice of the Mass pertains to the sacrifices and figures of the Old Testament, because Christ, offering himself to the heavenly Father on the cross and testifying that all things were now consummated, at last brought fulfillment and end to the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Eta. That the sacrifice of the Mass is neither propitiatory nor impetratory, because the sacrifice of Melchizedek was not eucharistic. Theta. That it is not necessary for the body of the Lord, offered under the species of bread in the Mass, to be received by those fasting, since Melchizedek distributed his sacrifice to those whom he knew had been refreshed from the spoils of the enemies. Iota. That the mixing of water with wine is not necessary in the sacrifice of the Mass, since Melchizedek brought forth undiluted wine, not a mixture. Kappa. That Christ sacrificed the body and blood of his own person alone under the species of bread and wine, and has no ministers in this bloodless sacrifice, because he alone is the priest according to the order of Melchizedek not together with the Mass-priests, and it is annexed to the order of Melchizedek that no one other than Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine thus for the living. Mu. That the consecrated bread is not to be reserved and adored, because the bread and wine of Melchizedek none of these things is read. But the Pontificans will never admit these consequences; therefore neither should they posit the antecedent. (Johann Gerhard, Confessio Catholica: On the Sacrifice of the Mass—Article XV [trans. Koden A. Green [2026], 35-36)

 

Geoffrey Clarke on the Problem Posed to Trinitarianism by Passages Speaking of Jesus Having a God of His Own

  

The third group is the smallest and, for its size, the most pointed: the texts in which Jesus, including the risen and glorified Jesus, has a God of his own. On the morning of the resurrection he tells Mary that he is ascending to the Father and her Father, to his Son and her God (John 20:17), ranging his own relation to God alongside hers and naming God as his. Paul speaks of the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory (Ephesians 1:17). God is the God of the Lord Jesus. And the exalted Christ of the Revelation, speaking from heaven in glory, refers four times in a single verse to “My God,” promising to write upon the faithful the name of his God and the name of the city of his God (Revelation 3:12). The inference the Unitarian draws is blunt and not easily blunted. The one who has a God is not that God. Distinction might be borne, and even rank; but worship is owed to God, and one who himself worships, who names another his God after his exaltation and in the height of heaven, stands among the worshippers and not among the worshipped.

 

These texts do not merely undercut the high Christology; the Unitarian offers them a positive home, and the home is the framework the Old Testament had already supplied and the Second Temple period elaborated—the framework of the supreme agent. A king’s plenipotentiary may bear the king’s own authority, act and speak in the king’s name, and receive honours that in another mouth would be treason, and none of it makes him the king. So, the Unitarian argues, with Jesus, God has made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36); the authority he wields is given to him, the name above every name is bestowed on him, the judgment is committed to him, the kingdom is handed over and will be handed back. Wherever the exalted language is examined, a giver stands behind the gift, and the giver is God. On this reason the worship of Jesus is the honour rightly paid to the one whom God has raised to his right hand and through who God not acts and will judge—worship that terminates, as the Philippian hymn says in so many words, in the glory of God the Father. Jesus is the unique image and agent of the one God, the main in whom God’s purpose is accomplished and through whom God’s reign is exercised, exalted above every creature and worthy of the homage due to God’s appointed Lord, and a creature still, the highest of God’s work and not the uncreated God himself Tuggy, 2025). The strength of the construal is that it accounts for the evidence of the previous chapter without straining against the evidence of this one. It can grant the exaltation, the authority, and even the worship, and still hold the line the whole New Testament appears to hold: that the one God is the Father, and that Jesus is his Christ. (Geoffrey Clarke, Christian Concepts of the Godhead: The Unitarian-Trinitarian Distinction [2026], 35-36)

 

 

Peter Schäfer on Genesis Rabbah 1:5 Teaching Creation Ex Materia

  

רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא פָּתַח (תהלים לא, יט): תֵּאָלַמְנָה שִׂפְתֵי שָׁקֶר וגו', אִתְפַּרְכָן, אִתְחַרְשָׁן, אִשְׁתַּתְּקָן. אִתְפַּרְכָן אִתְחַרְשָׁן, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות ד, יא): אוֹ מִי יָשׂוּם אִלֵּם אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ פִקֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר הֲלֹא אָנֹכִי ה', וְאוֹמֵר (בראשית לז, ז): וְהִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ מְאַלְּמִים אֲלֻמִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה וְהִנֵּה קָמָּה אֲלֻמָּתִי. אִשְׁתַּתְּקָן, כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ (תהלים לא, יט): הַדֹּבְרוֹת עַל צַדִּיק, חַי הָעוֹלָמִים. (תהלים לא, יט): עָתָק, שֶׁהֶעְתִּיק בִּבְרִיּוֹתָיו. (תהלים לא, יט): בְּגַאֲוָה, אֶתְמְהָה בִּשְׁבִיל לְהִתְגָּאוֹת וְלוֹמַר אֲנִי דוֹרֵשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית. (תהלים לא, יט): וָבוּז, אֶתְמְהָה מְבַזֶּה עַל כְּבוֹדִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא כָּל הַמִּתְכַּבֵּד בִּקְלוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, בִּכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, וּמַה כְּתִיב אַחֲרָיו (תהלים לא, כ): מָה רַב טוּבְךָ אֲשֶׁר צָפַנְתָּ לִירֵאֶיךָ, לִירֵאֶיךָ וְלֹא לַבּוֹזִים אֶת מוֹרָאֲךָ [הרב] אַל יְהִי בְּמָה רַב טוּבְךָ, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין בִּמְקוֹם הַבִּיבִים, וּבִמְקוֹם הָאַשְׁפָּה, וּבִמְקוֹם הַסָּרִיּוֹת, כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּא לוֹמַר פָּלָטִין זוֹ בְּנוּיָה בִּמְקוֹם הַבִּיבִים וּבִמְקוֹם הָאַשְׁפָּה וּבִמְקוֹם הַסָּרִיּוֹת, אֵינוֹ פּוֹגֵם. כָּךְ כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּא לוֹמַר הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה נִבְרָא מִתּוֹךְ תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ, אֵינוֹ פּוֹגֵם, אֶתְמְהָה. רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר, אִילוּלֵי שֶׁהַדָּבָר כָּתוּב אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאָמְרוֹ, בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, מִנַּיִן הֵן, וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ.

 

Rav Huna began in the name of bar Kapara: “May they be silenced [te’alamna], those lying lips [that speak harsh words against the righteous one with arrogance and contempt]” (Psalms 31:19) – may they be bound up, may they become mute, may they be silenced. May they become mute – as it says: “Who gives a mouth to a person, or who renders one mute [ilem] or deaf, or sighted or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11). And [may they be bound up,] as it says: “Behold, we were binding [me’alemim] sheaves in the field and behold, my sheaf arose” (Genesis 37:7). May they be silenced – that is its plain sense. “That speak…against the Righteous One” (Psalms 31:19) – [this refers to] Him of eternal life. “Harsh words [atak]” (Psalms 31:19) – matters that He concealed [shehe’etik] from His creations. “With arrogance” (Psalms 31:19) – this is an expression of bewilderment: [Do they do this] in order to boast arrogantly: I am expounding the act of Creation? “And contempt” (Psalms 31:19) – this [too] is an expression of bewilderment: Is it in order to show contempt for My honor? As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Anyone who attains honor through the degradation of another person has no portion in the World to Come; how much more so is this so regarding the honor of the Omnipresent. What is written following this? “How great is the goodness You have in store for those who fear You” (Psalms 31:20) – for those who fear You, but not for those who demean the [awesome] fear of You. They will not be included in: “How great is the goodness.”


The way of the world is that when a flesh-and-blood king builds his palace in [a location that had been] a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place, anyone who comes and says: ‘This palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place,’ is this not an insult? So, too, anyone who comes and says: ‘This world was created from emptiness and disorder,’ is this not an insult? This is a rhetorical question. Rav Huna said in the name of bar Kapara: Were the matter not written explicitly it would not have been possible to say it: “In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) – from what? “The earth was emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2). (Genesis Rabbah [AKA Bereshit Rabbah] 1:5)

 

 

BeR 1:5

 

This is a petihah connecting Gen 1:1 with the petihah verse Ps 31:19, put in the mouth of Rav Huna in the name of Bar Qappara. Bar Qappara is a Tanna of the fifth and last generation that leads to the first generation of Amoraim (early third century). He was the teacher, among others, of R. Oshaya who opens the very first sub-section of BerR and founded an academy in the ‘South’, presumably in Lydda. Similar to the first sub-section, the petihah begins with interpreting a difficult word in the petihah verse, this time te’alamnah: ‘Let the lying lips be made dumb (te’alamnah)’, translating it into Aramaic and making clear that it indeed means ‘be bound’, ‘be made dumb’, ‘be silenced’. The lying lips that must be silenced, the petihah continues explaining the petihah verse Ps 31:19, are the lips ‘that speak arrogantly against the righteous’. ‘The righteous’ is understood as referring to God, and speaking arrogantly against him as revealing things that God wants to be kept away (kept secret) from his creatures. And finally, the continuation of the petihah verse ‘with pride and contempt’ (Ps 31:19) is interpreted as proudly expounding the ‘work of creation’ (ma’aseh bereshit) and contemptuously disgracing the honor of God.

 

The reference to the ‘work of creation’ alludes, of course, to the well-known mishnah in Ḥagiga 2:1: ‘Forbidden sexual relations may not be expounded (en doreshin ba-‘arayot) by/to three, nor the work of creation (ma’aseh bereshit) by/to two, nor the Merkabah by/to an individual, unless he is wise [a scholar] and understands on his own’. The ‘work of creation’—that is, the exegesis of Gen 1—belongs to the topics that the Mishnah wants to be restricted, taking a middle position between expounding forbidden sexual relations (least restricted) and expounding the Merkabah (that is, Ezek 1: most restricted). From this it becomes clear that it is the ‘work of creation’ that God wants to keep secret from his creatures: whoever expounds Gen 1, disgraces God’s honor.

 

As in the first petihah, a parable is added to explain what precisely this means—and to lead back from the petihah verse Ps 31:19 to the Seder verse Gen 1:1: If a human king builds his palace at a place of sewage, garbage, and rubbish—does not one of his subjects, who passes by and publicly points to this unpleasant fact, disgrace the king? Similarly, everyone who publicly points to the fact that ‘this world is created from tohu and bohu and darkness—does he not disgrace [God]?’ The petihah climaxes in another dictum by Rab Huna in the name of Bar Qappara which closes the circle and explicitly refers to Gen 1:1f.:

 

If the matter were not (explicitly) written [in Scripture], it would be impossible to state it: God created heaven and earth (Gen 1:1)—from what? From: and the earth was tohu and bohu etc. (Gen 1:2).

 

This is an exceptionally bold and clear statement, presumably the earliest one in rabbinic Judaism that refers to a doctrine of creation out of pre-existing matter (creatio ex hylis). Obviously, Bar Qappara reads Gen 1:1–3 in the same way as, much later, Rashi understood it (and the JPS English version translates it), namely: ‘(1) When God began to create (reading bereshit bero elohim instead of bereshit bara elohim) heaven and earth—(2) the earth being unformed (tohu) and void (bohu), with darkness (hoshekh) over the surface of the deep (tehom) and a wind (ruah) from Good sweeping over the water—(3) God said: Let there be light!’ According to this translation, the first thing that God created was light, and what is listed in the parenthesis was already there, as pre-existent matter, when God started his creation with the light. The philosophical or theological context of this statement is difficult to determine—whether, still untroubled by a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, it ‘innocently’ propagates a creatio ex hylis, or, on the contrary, whether it explicitly and aggressively argues against an already existing doctrine of creatio ex nihilo—but what seems to be clear is the fact that Bar Qappara draws his conclusion about God using pre-existing matter for his creation from the Bible: I would rather prefer to not make this point, he says, but unfortunately the biblical text compels me to make it. Moreover, Bar Qappara evidently does not contest the idea of the creatio ex hylis as such (it is unavoidable, he implies, if we read the Bible properly); rather, he speaks against those who ma God’s ‘secret’ public by proudly and spitefully advertising it and thereby putting God in a dubious and unfavorable light. What the Bible says is certainly correct, but one should not speak openly and publicly about this shameful case. Finally, despite Bar Qappara’s attempt to connect the creatio ex hylis with the Bible, it is obvious that this doctrine is well-grounded in Greek philosophy, following a literal reading of the cosmology in Plato’s Timaios.

 

If we now look at the first two sub-units of our parashah from the point of view of the editor, we observe a stark contrast between the two. Whereas 1:1 emphasizes that the world was created by means of the Torah, 1:5 claims that the world was created by means of pre-existing matter. The first option is the essence of what the rabbis of rabbinic Judaism have to offer; the second option is the essence of what pagan philosophy suggests. To be sure, according to Bar Qappara even pagan philosophy has its origin in the Hebrew Bible; but this (for the rabbis self-evident) insight cannot conceal the fact that 1:5 presents the antidote to 1:1, or, to put it differently, that the first two sub-sections produce an almost unbearable tension between a rabbinic-theological and a pagan-philosophical worldview. There can be no doubt that our editor favors 1:1, and one could therefore more precisely speak of the two sub-sections as the thesis (1:1) and the antithesis (1:5) of the parashah—the thesis and antithesis that define the subject that the editor sets out to unfold in what follows. (Peter Schäfer, “Bereshit Bara Elohim: Bershit Rabba, Parasha 1, Reconsidered,” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity—Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert De Jong, and Magda Misset-Van De Weg [Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008], 269-72)

 

 

Albert de Jong on the Elchasaites

  

The Elchasaites

 

The fate of the Elchasaites in recent scholarship has been prodigious. This is an amazing accomplishment, for the sources for this movement are scanty and deeply beset with historical problems. The academic study of Elchasai, his book and the movement named after him was first attempted systematically by W. Brandt, professor of the history of religions in Amsterdam, whose main reputation lies in the field of Mandaean studies. He boldly presented Elchasai as the founder of a new religion, which he identified as a reform movement within Judaism. Although his views were contested immediately upon their publication, the fact that no systematic study of Elchasai was undertaken for seventy years ensured Brandt’s views a lingering influence for a very long period.

 

A watershed in academic opinion about the movement was the publication of the Cologne Mani Codex (CMC), a miniature parchment codex from Egypt, containing a Greek version of a Manichaean text on the early history of Manichaeism, in which a few references to Alchasaios as the ‘leader’ or ‘founder’ of the Law of Mani’s baptists were found. Since this accorded well with information that had long been known from the Fihrist of al-Nadīm and appeared to be confirmed by the appearance of the name of Elchasai (written ’lxs’) in a Parthian Manichaean fragment (without, however, any recognizable context), a renewed interest in the Elchasaite movement naturally emerged. This led to the almost simultaneous publication of two monographs devoted to the subject, with opposing conclusions. In 1984, Luigi Cirillo, a noted specialist in Manichaean studies, attempted to squeeze as much information from the sources as he could, chiefly by skilfully combining the disparate sources and framing them in a harmonic historical narrative. In 1985, Gerard P. Luttikhuizen published the revised version of his 1984 Groningen dissertation, in which he also scrutinized all the available sources, but warned strongly against combining them into a single history. To support this caution, he presented a clear-cut source-critical evaluation of the main sources (chiefly Hippolytus and Epiphanius), pointing at numerous discrepancies and manifestly unreliable elements, but he added to this an unfortunate observation that is unlikely to carry conviction. This was that the variety in spelling-forms of the name of Elchasai (reported as Alchasaios, Elchasaios, Elxai and numerous other forms) should not automatically be interpreted as referring to the same (historical) person. If the point is the historicity of the person, there is no doubt that he is right: the sources are excruciatingly vague about his identity, but there can be no uncertainty that all these names refer to the same ‘authority’ invoked.

 

Responses to Luttikhuizen’s work, though generally commending it for its clarity and the fullness of its treatment of the sources, took on various shapes. Almost immediately, Reinhold Merkelbach attempted to discredit the main points Luttikhuizen made by simply restating everything Luttikhuizen had questioned, that is, by again harmonizing manifestly unrelated traditions. Other scholars apparently preferred to simply ignore the very real problems Luttikhuizen had noticed, reporting magisterially, for example, that ‘[c]ontroversies over the existence of Elchasaios […] have been relegated to the sidelines in Manichaean studies’, chiefly because of new materials that have emerged from Egypt (but without any justification of their relevance for this particular question). Thus, the identification of the baptist community in which Mani grew up with the Elchasaites of early Christian heresiography slowly came to be accepted as fact by many, which shows itself frequently in positive statements of the fact that Mani grew up in an ‘Elchasaite community’.

 

It is important to stress here that no such claim can be found in any Manichaean source. There are, in fact, no primary sources from any ‘Elchasaite community’ and it is extremely unlikely that a term such as ‘Elchasaite’ was ever used as a term of self-designation. All we have are reports on purported Elchasaite communities and even this is far from certain with regard to the CMC. There, the community is referred to generally as ‘the Law’ (‘our Law’, ‘their Law’ etc.) and as the ‘religion (dogma) of the Baptists’, individual members are referred to as ‘a baptist’ and stray indications are given of the hierarchical structure of the community. The information provided by al-Nadīm in his Fihrist is similar and presumably goes back to (a version of) the same text; he mentions the sect of al-mughtasilah, ‘they who wash themselves’, i.e. the CMC’s ‘baptists’. In both traditions (CMC and al-Nadīm), a leader (Greek archēgos, Arabic raʾīs) is mentioned, who can certainly be identified with Elchasai, but it is unclear what the term here translated as ‘leader’ really means. All this shows sufficiently that the community to which Mani’s father belonged, and in which Mani grew up, was one of the many baptist sects and that the name of Elchasai was known among them. In most other respects, the information on the baptists’ beliefs is frustratingly sparse, as opposed to information on their way of life.

 

The CMC gives information chiefly on those aspects of the baptists’ Law, their ritual and religious duties and their way of life, that were rejected by Mani and, as a consequence, in Manichaeism. Two crucial subjects are highlighted: purity laws (‘baptism’) and dietary rules, including (significantly) rules governing the way in which food is procured. Thus, there is evidence for a communal vegetable garden, for the felling of wood from a (communal?) grove and for the insistence by members of the community that they bake their own bread in their own (again, most likely, communal) baking oven. The first two aspects are highlighted because in Manichaeism, agricultural work (the picking of vegetables, cutting wood) was forbidden for the Elect (who are supposed to receive their food from the Hearers). From the text, it emerges that the baptists were vegetarians, who also rejected a range of (unspecified) vegetables and fruits as forbidden by their Law. The only foodstuff that is explicitly named as being forbidden is wheat for the making of bread. The question of ovens seems to be different: in the CMC, the notion that bread must be baked in a special oven is flatly rejected. How this ties in with Manichaean practice is unclear, but it is likely that it is to be connected with the other subject of interest for the CMC: the purity laws. Like the alimentary rules, the purity laws are chiefly referred to in vague terms. The only thing that is clear is the practice of baptism, both the repeated washing of the body in running water and the washing of all vegetables. In Manichaeism, these washing rituals were rejected as pointless, since true cleansing could only be brought about by knowledge.

 

A careful sifting of the evidence pertaining to specifically Jewish elements in the description of the baptist community has shown that there is almost nothing in the CMC to substantiate the claim that the movement was a Jewish-Christian one; therefore, this claim rests entirely upon the evidence presented by Epiphanius, who traces the influence of Elchasai in a number of (Jewish-)Christian movements (chiefly the Ebionites), but remains wholly silent on this influence in his (very long) discussion of Manichaeism. The Christian background of the community, by contrast, is explicit: apart from a probable reference to ‘baptism’ as a ritual of initiation (as opposed to the daily ablutions), there is the clear reference to the words of the ‘Saviour’ (sōtēr) in a discussion of the eating of (‘Greek’) bread, followed by allusions to the Last Supper traditions and almost verbatim quotes from Matthew and Luke. It is thus evident that the Saviour is Jesus, and that the baptists are represented as Christians. (Albert de Jong, “A Quodam Persa Exstiterunt: Re-Orienting Manichaean Origins,” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity—Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert De Jong, and Magda Misset-Van De Weg [Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008], 83-87)

 

Further Reading:


G. P. Luttikhuizen on Elkesite Beliefs Concerning the origins of their Holy Book

Sunday, November 1, 2026

The Baptismal and Sacrament Prayers for the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (PKA The Church of Jesus Christ of All Latter-day Saints")

The following comes from the section, “Worship Helps” in The Book of the Little Flock, comp. Evan Sharley (2026).

 

As background, Antonio A. Feliz served as president of "The Church of Jesus Christ of All Latter-day Saints," later renamed "Restoration Church of Jesus Christ."

 

Baptismal Prayer

 

<full name>, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the Name of the Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. (p. 21)

 

 

When presenting the “Traditional” prayers of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, we have this combined prayer:

 

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the Name of Thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread and wine to the souls of all those who partake of them, that they may eat and drink it in remembrance of the body of Thy Son, and witness unto Thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the Name of Thy Son, and always remember Him and keep His commandments which He has given them; that they may always have His Spirit to be with them. Amen. (p. 22)

 

The following are “Contemporary” versions of the sacrament prayers:

 

Bread

 

Eternal God, we ask you in the name of your Son Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who receive it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of your Son, and witness to you, O God, that they are willing to take upon them the name of your Son, and always remember Him, and keep the commandments which He has given them, that they may always have His Spirit to be with them. Amen.

 

Wine

 

Eternal God, we ask you in the name of your Son Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who receive it, that they may drink in remembrance of the blood of your Son which was shed for them, that they may witness to you, O God, that they do always remember Him, that they may have His Spirit to be with them. Amen

 

Combined

 

Eternal God, we ask you in the name of your Son Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread and wine to the souls of all those who receive them, that they may eat and drink in remembrance of the body and blood of your Son, and witness to you, O God, that they are willing to take upon them the name of your Son, and always remember Him and keep the commandments which He has given them, that they may always have His Spirit to be with them. Amen. (p. 23)

 

 

Leland H. Monson Using Jesus’s Temptation in the Wilderness as Evidence of Jesus’s Genuine Ability to Accept or Reject God

  

That we do have our free agency was gloriously exemplified by Jesus in the temptation scene. Jesus, Matthew records, was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. He had fasted forty days and nights and was hungry. The tempter bade him turn the stones into bread, but Jesus refused, saying, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Then the devil took him into the holy city and set him on a pinnacle of the temple. "If thou be the Son of God," he said to Jesus, "cast thyself down: for it is written, 'He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.'

 

Jesus answered the tempter, saying: "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Finally, the devil took Jesus to an exceedingly high mountain and gave him a panoramic view of all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and said to Jesus : "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Jesus' answer has tolled through the ages: "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (See Matt. 4:1-10.)

 

From this example we learn that man is a free spirit with power to will his own destiny. God made man free. Man, however, is much too frequently unable to use his free agency judiciously. (Leland H. Monson, “Behold, many are called–but few are chosen,” The Improvement Era 67, no. 10 [October 1964]: 836; this is another example that Latter-day Saints do not believe in the impeccability of Jesus)

 

 

Blog Archive