Friday, June 5, 2026

Arie W. Zwiep on Sirach 48 and the Return of Elijah

  

The earliest expression of belief in a return of Elijah is found in Mal 3:23-24 MT, where God promises to send the prophet Elijah 'before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes' (לפני בוא יום יהוה הגדול והנורא) ,to prepare the covenant people for God's visitation at the day of judgement. His specific task is here described as והשיב לב־אבות על־בנים ולב בנים על־אבותם,i.e. 'to turn the heart of fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers', envisaging a reconciliation between the generations (so LXX), or 'to turn the heart of the fathers (to God) with the children, and the heart of the children (to God) with their fathers', thus restoring the covenant community.

 

In Sir 48:9-12 the ascension of Elijah and the Malachi prophecy have merged into a coherent picture4. Beyond Mal 3:23-24 Elijah is now expected 'to restore the tribes of Israel' (להשרן שבטי ישראל και καταστησαι φυλας Ιακωβ), a ונצירי ישראל להשיב 49:6 task elsewhere ascribed to the Servant of YHWH (‎ להקים את־שׁבטי יעקב ונצירי ישׂראל στήσαι τάς φυλάς Ιακωβ και τήν διασποράν τού Ισραηλ έπιστρέψαι) (cf. Ezek 47:13-48:29; PssSol 17:28). Unfortunately, the Hebrew text of v.11 has been badly damaged. Line 'a' probably read ... ימ[ת] אשר ראך 'blessed he who sees you and dies', but what follows (perhaps an explanatory comment) is so mutilated that it is impossible to restore the original text beyond the level of conjecture. This is complicated by the fact that LXX suffered from several editorial operations. Given the use of the second person in vv.4-10, Elijah rather than YHWH is addressed. The reference is more likely to the return of Elijah than to his earthly life. The sense of the words may be best captured in the translation: ‘blessed he who has seen you before he dies’. For an author alien to the idea of an afterlife such as Ben Sira, it makes good sense to call a blessing upon those who will see Elijah before they die, i.e. experience the blessing of the preparatory actions before the Day of the Lord and thus witness the dawn of the age of salvation. (Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 60-62)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Ezekiel 28:14

  

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:1

את כרוב ממשח הסוכך.  דמה אותו לכרוב לרוב מעלתו: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:2

ממשח. ענין גדולה כמו אל תגעו במשיחי: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:3

הסוכך. לפי שנאמר בכרובים סוככים בכנפיהם ודמה אותו לכרוב אמר עליו גם כן הסוכך כלומר סוכך על עמו וממשח שם תואר ואף על פי שהוא פתח שלא בסמיכות הנה כמוהו ומקסם חלק ולשומו מרמס ויהי המלצר ורבי יונה פירש כי סוכך שם השמן הטוב שמושחין בו המלכים מן וסוך לא סכתי ויהיה ממשח תואר סמוך: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:4

ונתתיך. אני נתתיך בזאת הגדולה ואתה לא ידעתני והתגאית על עמי: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:5

בהר קדש אלהים היית. אמר כנגד מלך צור לא כנגד זה שהיה היום מלך כאילו אמר מלך צור כבר היה טוב והיה בהר הקדש כי חירם מלך צור היה בירושלם ושלח לשלמה המלך עצים לבנות בית המקדש הכל כמו שכתוב במלכים: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:6

בתוך אבני אש התהלכת. לישראל קרא אבני אש שהיו עם קדוש. ואדוני אבי ז"ל פירוש הפסוק בלשון תמיה ופירוש בתוך אבני אש גופים רוחניים של אש עליונים ופירש בו עוד פירש אחר עוד חשבת בלבך שאתה כרוב כי אתה התהלכת בתוך אבנים יקרות אבני אקדח מאירות כאש שהיו מוליכים לפניך במקום נרות להאיר בלילה: (source)

 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:1
The anointed cherub that covers. He compared him to a cherub because of the greatness of his rank.”

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:2
Anointed. This has the sense of greatness, as in, ‘Touch not my anointed ones.’”

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:3
That covers. Since it is said of the cherubim that they were ‘covering with their wings,’ and he compared him to a cherub, he therefore also called him ‘the covering one,’ meaning one who covers over his people. And mimashach is an attributive form, even though it is vocalized with a pataḥ and is not in a construct relation; there are similar cases, such as u-mekhasam ḥeleq (‘and he made them a portion’) and li-sumo mar’ms (‘to make it a trodden place’), and vayehi ha-meltsar (‘and the steward was’). Rabbi Jonah explained that sokhakh is a noun meaning the good oil with which kings are anointed, from u-sokh lo sakhti (‘and I have not anointed myself with oil’), and then mimashach would be an adjective in construct form.”

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:4
I placed you. I placed you in this greatness, but you did not know Me, and you became arrogant over My people.”

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:5
You were upon the holy mountain of God. He said this in reference to the king of Tyre, not to the one who was king at that time, as though to say: the king of Tyre was once good, and he was on the holy mountain, for Hiram king of Tyre was in Jerusalem and sent timber to Solomon the king to build the Temple, all as written in Kings.”

 

Radak on Ezekiel 28:14:6
You walked among stones of fire. He calls Israel ‘stones of fire,’ since they were a holy people. And my father, of blessed memory, explained the verse as an expression of wonder, and interpreted ‘among stones of fire’ as spiritual, supernal fiery beings. He also offered another explanation: you even thought in your heart that you were a cherub, because you walked among precious stones—sparks of jasper shining like fire—which were carried before you in place of lamps to give light at night.”

 

 

Thursday, June 4, 2026

Joseph W. Summerhays's (late) recollection concerning Oliver Cowdery Affirming the Book of Mormon

  

I am abroad a[?] and [illegible]

half and more, your home disunion[?]

of our Salt Lake City that had been [illegible]

deare home, Sharon, [illegible] to Mr. [illegible],

Harris, David Whitmer, & Oliver.

Cowdery, I meant to tell, commencing

them, Oliver Cowdery, [illegible] and,

he acted before my time, he was

termed in Richmond Mormons, I should

[illegible] before on his dying bed, and

the then letter, home, I mean one time

within a spirit from feeling him enter

the present, a state of framing,

sure his heart and have a

perfectly satisfactory to the truth

of what he had signed his name

he as one of The Three Witnesses,

[illegible], David Whitney, in Richmond.

 

Joseph W. Summerhays letter to Joel Summerhays, Hamburg, Germany, p. 4 (CHL call no.: MS 2853)

Note: the pages of the entire letter are very faint. If anyone can improve upon this transcription (and/or provide a transcription of the entire letter), let me know.

Daniel C. Ullucci on Sacrifice, the Eucharist, and the Didache

The following comes from:

 

Daniel C. Ullucci, The Christian Rejection of Animal Sacrifice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 96-97, 187-88

 

The Didache: Christian Sacrifice Without Jesus

 

The text known as the Didache ("teaching," ca. 100) provides a useful comparison to Hebrews. Like Hebrews, the dating of the Didache is uncertain, but the texts are from roughly the same period (end of the first century). [121] Unlike Hebrews, sacrifice is not a major focal point of the Didache. Rather, this text is concerned with proper ethics and ritual practice within an early Christian group. [122] The Didache assumes a nonsacrificial context. Meat offered to idols is explicitly for- bidden in a passage that echoes Paul and Acts: "And concerning food, bear what you can. But especially abstain from food sacrificed to idols [ειδωλοθύτου]; for this is a ministry to dead gods" (Did. 6:3). Just as in the case of Paul, this passage does not directly reject animal sacrifice (the Christian god is certainly not included among the dead idols), but unlike Paul the Didache is written after the Temple destruction, meaning that for these Christians there is now no place to sacrifice. [123] The text discusses sacrifice directly in the context of regulations about ritual practices. The Didache discusses two communal eating practices, the "eucharist" and the "Lord's Day." The precise connection between these two events is not clear from the text; it is very likely these are different terms for the same ritual event, but this is not crucial to my argument. These practices do not involve actual animal sacrifice; however, the text uses sacrificial terminology to describe them.

 

Didache 9 and 10 outline the procedures for the practice the text refers to as the eucharist. The practice is similar to the so-called lord's supper in Paul and the gospels and involves eating bread and drinking from a cup. The Didache does not present a sacrificial interpretation of this practice. No reference is made to Jesus' death; nor are the bread and unspecified drink referred to as body and blood. The picture is complicated, however, by the discussion of the Lord's Day in Didache 14. Here the author describes people coming together to break bread and give thanks. Participants are first to confess their sins "so that your sacrifice [θυσια] may be pure" (Did. 14:1). Anyone who has a conflict must reconcile it: "Lest your sacrifice be defiled. For it was of this sacrifice that the lord said, 'Always and everywhere offer me a pure sacrifice'" (Did. 14:2-3). [124] This passage refers to communal breaking of bread and giving of thanks as a sacrifice. It is, in fact, the first time the term θυσια is used in reference to a Christian ritual. [125] Unfortunately, the author gives no indication of what he means by calling this practice a sacrifice. There is a concern that participants confess their sins and reconcile conflicts before participating, but that is all. There is no reference to Jesus' death as a sacrifice. It is therefore impossible to say here what the author of the Didache meant by this metaphor. [126] Whatever is meant, it is people who are the agents in this sacrifice. They are performing it to the lord ("Always and everywhere offer to me a pure sacrifice"), and it is they who are responsible for keeping it pure.

 

For the author of the Didache, certain communal practices may be referred to as a sacrifice, but these sacrificial metaphors are significantly different from the positions on sacrifice in Hebrews. For the author of Hebrews, Jesus is himself both the perfect sacrifice and the perfect sacrificer. It is Jesus who offers sacrifice in Hebrews, not the Christian community. The Didache, on the other hand, shows no understanding of the death of Jesus as a sacrifice; nor does it argue that the purpose of sacrifice is to forgive sins, the other key element of the Hebrews position. In fact, the whole point of Didache 14:1 is that sins (whatever the author means by this) must be dealt with before the Lord's Day ritual.

 

Comparing the sacrificial metaphors in the Didache with Hebrews yields two important conclusions. First, both texts use the terminology of animal sacrifice for things other than sacrifice, but they do so very differently. These two texts from the late first century suggest that there is no single position on sacrifice among Christians in this period. Rather, individual Christian authors use sacrifice differently for their own purposes. Second, Didache 14 suggests that early Christian groups could refer to some of their practices as a sacrifice without connecting this explicitly to Jesus' death. [127]

 

Notes for the Above:

 

121. The date of 100 CE is little more than a guess. The question is complicated by the observation that the text as we have it is likely a compilation of several texts potentially from different periods. For discussion of the dating of the texts and its parts, see Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 19-55; and Bentley Layton, "The Sources, Date, and Transmission of Didache I.3b-2.1," Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968), 343-83.

 

122. The Didache clearly imagines a group of early Christians who see themselves as a collective, recognize an established hierarchy, and come together frequently as a group. The actual relationship between this text and a real group is, unfortunately, unknowable. It is impossible to say whether the Didache served as the guidelines for a real assemblage of persons or whether it represents an idealized vision.

 

123. The text makes a nod to this fact by redirecting the traditional temple tax in the Hebrew Bible. Didache 13 discusses support for people called prophets (προφητης). The author argues that true prophets and teachers have the right to receive support from the community: "Hence take all the first fruits of vintage and harvest, and of cattle and sheep, and give these first fruits to the prophets. For they are your High Priests. If however, you have no prophet, give them to the poor" (Did. 13:3-4). He goes on to argue that the same things should be done with bread, oil, money, clothing and ultimately "all of your possessions" (Did. 13:5-7). I argue that this passage, in actuality, tells us nothing about the author's position on sacrifice. First, the issue here is first fruits; within a Judean context, these are offerings made to the temple. They are not properly sacrifices, since no portion of them (including the animals) is burned on the altar. First fruits are economic support for the temple akin to a tax in kind, and very different from the practice of traditional animal sacrifice. This passage is not evidence that early Christian "prophets" replaced the role of the high priest, since receiving first fruits was only one of the functions of the high priests. The Didache does express the idea that support once directed to the temple should now go to members of the Christian community. However, this is not an either-or situation. The Didache was almost certainly written after 70 CE. Perforce, there are no first fruits going to the Jerusalem temple. The Didache represents the co-opting of a defunct tradition; it does not represent a critique of or opposition to the temple cult-only recognition of its end.

 

124. Ferguson points out that the quote from Malachi 1:11 in this passage occurs frequently in Christian texts referring to pure sacrifice. See his "Spiritual Sacrifice," 1167; and Jean Paul Audet, La Didache (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1958), 462.

 

125. Ferguson, "Spiritual Sacrifice," 1167.

 

126. In commenting on this passage Ferguson makes the opaque statement, "Since the sacrifice is not identified with the material elements, this qualifies as rational or spiritual sacrifice, although the action of breaking bread as well as the words are included" ("Spiritual Sacrifice," 1167-68). I believe Didache 14:1-3 very clearly associates sacrifice with the material offerings of bread and wine. The problem is what is meant by the association. Do the bread and wine fill in for the animal? Do they represent the sacrifice of Jesus? The text is simply not forthcoming.

 

127. The Didache's position on Greek and Roman sacrifices is clear: they are forbidden (Did. 6:1-4).

 

Dale G. Renlund and Ruth Lybert Renlund on how Jesus is our "Friend"

Dale G. Renlund and Ruth Lybert Renlund, in their 2018 book on the Melchizedek Priesthood, have a good discussion of how Jesus is our "friend," and it is based on faithfulness to Him as our Lord, not our modern view of "friendship":


COMMANDMENT 4: Become the Savior’s friend

 

The fourth commandment associated with magnifying one’ calling in the priesthood is an all-encompassing and intimate invitation: “And again I say unto you, my friends, for from henceforth I shall call you friends, it is expedient that I give unto you this commandment, that ye become even as my friends in days when I was with them, traveling to preach the gospel in my power” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:77; emphasis added).

 

The commandment stated imperatively, is: “Be My Friend.” The Savior told His Apostles of old: “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:14-15).

 

The way to become His friend today is no different than in days of old. It starts with a commitment to keep HIs commandments. The Savior cannot share all that Heavenly Father has communicated to Him unless the priesthood holder is willing to completely align his will with God’s. Once a priesthood holder is so aligned and willing to consecrate his life to the Savior, his standing with the Savior changes. He is not simply a disciple; he is certainly not a hireling or an evangelical mercenary. He is the Savior’s friend, and the Savior will be his friend—but not an ordinary friend. He is a friend who carries burdens, cares for needs, and sustains a priesthood holder on His errand.

 

The Savior says to the priesthood holder that he will receive help in teaching the gospel: “Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:85).

 

In addition, the priesthood holder is not left to labor alone. The Lord Himself will work with him just as a friend would. In the allegory of the olive tree, the Lord of the vineyard, who represents the Lord, joins the priesthood holders in the vineyard. “And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard also with them; and they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things” (Jacob 5:72).

 

Through Joseph Smith, the Lord revealed: “And whoso receiveth you, there I will be also, for I will go before your face. I will be on your right hand and on your left, and my Spirit shall be in your hearts, and mine angels round about you, to bear you up” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:88).

 

Our Friend is in the vineyard laboring today, supporting the priesthood holder in his responsibility. He has prepared the way over decades for those priesthood holders who trust the Lord as a friend. Friends trust each other. They work together to build God’s kingdom.

 

God has given man the Melchizedek Priesthood, with an oath and covenant, and instructed him how to magnify this priesthood. He promises great blessing to those who heed the words of eternal life, bear testimony to the world, do not boast of themselves, and become His friends. Armed with such knowledge and promises, it is time for priesthood holders to go to work.

 

God implores: “Therefore, let every man stand in his own office, and labor in his own calling” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:109). (Dale G. Renlund and Ruth Lybert Renlund, The Melchizedek Priesthood: Understanding the Doctrine, Living the Principles [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018], 82-84)

 

Nahum Sarna on Genesis 30:32-36

  

32–36. In the Near East, sheep are generally white and goats are dark brown or black. A minority of sheep may have dark patches, and goats white markings. It is these uncommon types to be born in the future that Jacob demands as wages for his unpaid services. Laban readily agrees, believing that he is getting a bargain on account of their rarity. He promptly withdraws all the livestock that already possess the specified characteristics and moves them a considerable distance away to avoid contact with the rest of the flocks that remain in Jacob’s care. However, Jacob succeeds in outwitting Laban in the course of the next six years (31:41). How does he do it?

 

One account has it that he first segregates the feebler animals. Then he subjects the sturdier ones to visual impressions at mating time, in this way influencing the character of the progeny. Of course, this interpretation rests on folkloristic beliefs and fallaciously assumes the inheritability of acquired characteristics.

 

Another explanation is given in 31:8–12. Here the preferred characteristics are obtained through controlled propagation and transmitted from parent to progeny. Scientifically, the required results could be achieved by the successive interbreeding of the monochrome heterozygotes, or the singlecolored animals that carried recessive genes for spottedness. Such animals are detectable by the characteristic known as heterosis, or hybrid vigor.

 

It should be noted that Jacob claims to have received the idea in a dream. The entire action is thus attributed to divine intervention, not to Jacob’s ingenuity. This process made it necessary for Jacob to find a way to advance the mating season so that the rare types would be induced to engage in reproductive activity before they were segregated, which they were when the normal mating time approached. If this is the true explanation, then the varied accounts need not be contradictory. The first would describe the elaborate display put on by Jacob in order to mask his secret technique. It is also possible that the three plants placed in the watering troughs, each known to contain toxic substances and used in the ancient world for medicinal purposes, could have had the effect of hastening the onset of the estrous cycle in the animals and so heightened their readiness to copulate. (Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 212)

 

 

Victor P. Hamilton on Genesis 11:1

  

1 This chapter opens with the assertion that the entire world had one language and one speech. How are we to square this information with Gen. 10, which tells us, not once but three times, that mankind already possessed multiple languages (vv. 5, 20, 31, “their languages”)? We have suggested an answer to this question in our discussion of ch. 10—we are dealing here with a case of deliberate dischronologization.

 

One can make sense of the biblical material in another way, however. Students of ancient and modern languages are well acquainted with the phenomenon of a lingua franca, a medium of communication among representatives of different speech groups. At various times in antiquity, Sumerian, Babylonian, Aramaic, and Greek each served in this capacity. In our own day the English language is taking on more and more the flavor of an international language. Thus Gen. 10 and 11 would make linguistic sense in their current sequence. In addition to the local languages (lešōnôṯ) of each nation (ch. 10), there existed “one language” (śāp̄á ʾeḥāṯ, ch. 11) which made communication possible throughout the world (ch. 10).

 

The phrase one speech is not just a repetition of one language. The two phrases are related but not interchangeable. This age possessed a common language (“one language”) with a conventional vocabulary (“one speech”). The Tower narrative has a symmetry: it begins and ends with a reference to a universal language (śāp̄á), once flourishing but now destroyed (vv. 1, 9). (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17 [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990], 350-51)

 

Blog Archive