Graham Stanton on the Lack of Meaningful Parallels Between Matthew 11:28-30 and Sirach 51

Arguing that purported parallels between Matt 11:28-30 and Sirach 51 “are probably misguided,” Graham Stanton noted that:

 

(a) The verbal links between Matt 11. 28-30 and Sirach are in fact quite slender. Only two words, 'toil' and 'yoke', and one phrase, 'find rest', from these three Matthaean verses are found anywhere in Sirach. The verb 'toil' is found twice with reference to the search for Wisdom, but at Sir 6. 18 and 51. 27 the sense is very different: the emphasis is not on the toil needed to find Wisdom, but on the ease of the task.

 

(b) There is nothing in Sirach quite comparable with two of the most important clauses in Matt 11. 28-29, the group addressed as 'all who toil and are heavy laden' and the reference to Jesus as 'meek and lowly in heart The portrait of Jesus as 'meek and lowly' is difficult to square with the portrait of Sophia which we find in the Wisdom writings. At Sir 24. 1, which introduces the so-called Sophia myth, Sophia speaks with pride. In Prov 1. 20ff. and again at 8. 1ff. Sophia lifts her voice and cries aloud. She stands by the gate and calls aloud in a rather arrogant manner.

 

It is, I think, not a coincidence that at the very point in 11. 28-30 where we seem to be a long way from the Wisdom tradition, we can see, in all probability, the evangelist's own hand. Many of the words in 11. 28-30 are not found elsewhere in the gospel, but 'meek' and 'lowly’ are used by the evangelist and, as we shall see in a moment, they accord well with his portrait of Jesus. So the words 'for I am meek and lowly in heart' may well be Matthew's own addition to his source.

 

As is well known, elsewhere Matthew does add interpretative phrases and clauses to his sources: there are classic examples in his version of the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes. In support of this suggestion we may note that v. 28 and v. 29a and c are parallel statements:

 

Come unto me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

 

Take my yoke and learn from me, and you will find rest for your souls.

 

Both statements are undergirded by the 'reasoning' of v. 30:

 

For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

 

It is verse 29b, 'for I am meek and lowly in heart, which breaks up the flow of the 'argument in this short section, and which seems to come from the evangelist's own hand. If this proposal is correct, the evangelist's redactional addition runs directly counter to the Wisdom tradition. But

even if this specific suggestion is not accepted, it is clear that 'I am meek and lowly in heart' is out of character with the portrait of Sophia in the Wisdom writings, but very much in line with Matthew's portrait of Jesus, as will be shown below.

 

(c) I find it difficult to see how either Matthew or his readers could make the jump from v. 27 where Jesus is presented as 'the Son' to v. 28, where, it is alleged, Jesus is Sophia /Wisdom. It is hot just that Wisdom is a feminine noun in both Hebrew and Greek. In the Wisdom tradition Sophia is always portrayed in strongly female terms. Those who search and seek after her are always men: sexual imagery lies just beneath the surface in many passages. A similar point is made by M.D. Johnson when he insists that 'it would have been as incongruous to ancient Jewish sensibilities as it is to ours to speak of Lady Wisdom being incarnated as the Son”’.

 

In short, it is not at all clear that Matthew identifies Jesus as Sophia. The use of some Wisdom themes in 11. 28-30 is not being disputed, but they do not seem to be the key to the passage as it now stands in Matthew’s gospel. Whatever may have been their origin, the evangelist has redacted these verses, probably by adding his own portrait of Jesus as ‘meek and lowly in heart’, but certainly by placing them in their present position within his gospel. (Graham Stanton, “Matthew 11.28-30: Comfortable Worlds?,” in A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992], 368-71)

 

 

Samantha L. Miller (2020) on New Testament Texts that Speak of the Devil Playing a Positive Role

  

Chrysostom writes, “The devil, if you would understand, is even useful to us—if we use him correctly—and he helps us and we gain great things, not ordinary things. And this we demonstrated from Job.” (De diab. tent. 1.4) Again, Job is the exemplar of virtue in the face of the devil’s work, showing the congregation that, employed properly, the devil can be “useful” (chrēsimos, χρησιμος) to them. If the congregation has a proper understanding of who the devil is and what his goal is, the congregation may “use” (chraō, χραω) the devil, or their knowledge of the devil, to gain advantages over him and benefits for themselves. The clause “if we use him correctly” is significant. Chrysostom’s aim is to teach his congregation the proper way to use the devil so that they may gain great benefit, salvation itself.

 

Chrysostom’s other example of using the devil for one’s own profit is Paul, who writes to the Corinthians to hand over the fornicator to the devil so that the flesh may be destroyed but the soul saved (1 Cor 5:5). Chrysostom tells his congregation to take from the devil whatever chastisement comes, for this will rid a person of his impurities and earthly desires, making it possible for the soul to be saved. The devil is only allowed to punish as much as God allows, so the devil cannot destroy a person completely. As an extreme example of the profitability of the devil, Chrysostom writes, “Behold even the devil has become a cause of salvation, but not because of his own disposition, but because of the skill of the Apostle.” (de diab. tent. 1.1-2) It is possible, therefore, for the devil even to be an aid to salvation, if one is skillful enough to use him rightly.

 

Prior to this point in the homily, Chrysostom has been expounding the reasons why God allows the devil still to roam the earth and wreak havoc. People can only win crowns if they can exhibit their power, so if there is no adversary against whom to struggle, the righteous person cannot win a crown. (De diab. tent. 1.1-2) This is another way to use the devil. To struggle against the devil is to become stronger, better able to resist, to forge one’s character out of stronger steel. Chrysostom seems to believe this is an intrinsic benefit of struggling. His illustration is that of a wrestler. Even if the wrestler’s antagonist has been taken away at the last minute, the wrestler who has prepared well, who has done all his exercises for his practice, whether in the end there is an antagonist or not. (De diab. tent. 1.1-2) (Samantha L. Miller, Chrysostom’s Devil: Demons, the Will, and Virtue in Patristic Soteriology [New Explorations in Theology; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2020], 74-75)

 

Keith C. Warner on Justification being a Process and Transformative

  

Justification: A Process and a Condition

 

Justification is both a condition being a lifelong process of obedience.

 

As a condition, justification means to be cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ and to stand before God forgiven, spotless, blameless, and guiltless as a result of claiming faith in Jesus Christ and baptism unto repentance. All the covenants we enter into through ordinances must be ratified as eternally valid and binding by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

 

As a process, justification is a lifetime of enduring to the end — retaining a remission of sin and remaining in right standing with God. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that to be justified before God, we must love one another, overcome evil, visit the fatherless and the widow in their afflictions, and keep ourselves unspotted from the world.

 

Justification is not only acquittal from guilt but also being regarded as righteous in a future day of divine judgment. To conclude: justification is a journey, a direction, and a process, as well as a condition and a state of being. (Keith C. Warner, Infinite Atonement: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, 3 vols. [Kirk Jotter Publishing, 2026], 1:414)

 

Compare:

 

Simply put, justification means being forgiven of our sins through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and through the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit. . . . Paul described justification with the God verb dikaioo, meaning “to make righteous.” He summarized it in these words: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Therefore, being justified only by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (JST Romans 3:23-26) (Keith C. Warner, Infinite Atonement: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, 3 vols. [Kirk Jotter Publishing, 2026], 3:352)

 

 

Keith C. Warner (2026) on the Importance of the Ascension of Christ

  

WHY ASCENSION

 

Why did Christ ascend into heaven? The answer: our Savior’s Ascension was a necessary part of the Atonement. It was the culmination of our interceding Redeemer’s redemptive work—the climax of his great and last sacrifice. It was expedient that he ascend into the presence of our Heavenly Father to forever make intercession for us.

 

The resurrection and ascension stands together. If our atoning Messiah had not risen from the dead, out faith would be “in vain.” If our propitiating Redeemer had not ascended bodily into heaven, there would be no celestializing intercession made in the presence of our Heavenly Father.

 

Our Lord’s first message, after his resurrection, was to tell Mary to report to the Apostles: “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” (John 20:17) (Keith C. Warner, Infinite Atonement: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, 3 vols. [Kirk Jotter Publishing, 2026], 3:92-93)

 

 

Keith C. Warner (2026) on "All We Can Do" (2 Nephi 25:23)

  

SAVED BY GRACE AND PERSONAL EFFORT

 

Nephi declared: “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). Grace is a godly gift of divine enabling power—assistance and strength given through the merciful atonement of Christ, which enables us to do good works we could not otherwise maintain on our own strength.

 

To qualify for saving grace, Nephi taught we must believe in Christ and be reconciled to God. This requires at minimum five things: (1) faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ; (2) repentance of all our sins; (3) covenant with God through baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; (4) receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost—to justify, sanctify, purify, and endow us with the divine nature so we may be prepared to dwell in God’s presence; and (5) enduring faithfully and valiantly to the end of our mortal lives.

 

Amulek was clear that “the Son of God cannot save us in our sins” but from our sins, for “no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven” (Alma 11:37). Lehi taught that “no flesh can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah” (2 Nephi 2:8). The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that we must “rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ” (D&C 3:20). King Benjamin testified: “Salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent” (Mosiah 3:17).

 

Christ came to perform an “infinite and eternal sacrifice” (Alma 34:10)—the “great and last sacrifice” being “the Lord God Omnipotent” himself (Mosiah 3:5). Abinadi testified that “God himself” would “come down among the children of men and shall redeem his people” (Mosiah 15:1), and that without this atonement, “they must unavoidably perish” (Mosiah 13:28). The mercy released by this sacrifice “overpowereth justice, and bringeth about the means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance,” so that mercy “encircles them in the arms of safety” (Alma 34:16).

 

Ultimately, we are saved by grace—through the atonement of Jesus Christ—after all we can do. We cannot earn or work our way to celestial salvation. Exalting salvation comes through the Holy One of Israel, full of grace and truth, after we have met the conditions our Savior requires. Then we may leave the rest to our Redeemer’s mercy, his intercession, and the Captain of our Salvation’s deliverance. Moroni counseled: “Rely alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of your faith” (Moroni 6:4). (Keith C. Warner, Infinite Atonement: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, 3 vols. [Kirk Jotter Publishing, 2026], 1:34-35)

 

Hugh B. Brown (April 1962) on the Atonement

  

The transgression of Adam, together with all of its consequences, was foreseen and the expiation provided for before the foundations of the world were laid. In that primeval council, of which the scriptures speak, when "all the sons of God shouted for joy" (see Job 38:7), Christ offered himself as a ransom. He was not coerced or required to make this sacrifice. His free agency was in no way infringed or trammeled. It was a freewill, love-inspired offer, which could have been withdrawn at any time. It was optional until the very time of his crucifixion. He gently rebuked Peter, you remember, who would have defended him with a sword at the time of the betrayal, and Jesus said: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53.) (Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report [April 1962], 108)

 

Bernie Van Der Walt on Thomism and Decrees by Various Popes

  

Decrees by Various Popes

 

Various papal decrees further contributed to preventing Aquinas’ philosophy from petering out during history. The following significant events may be mentioned. In 1323, Pope John XXII declared Aquinas a saint. Aquinas’ main theological work, the Summa Theologiae, later gained a place of honour alongside the Bible on the altar in the hall where the First Council of Trent met. Leo XIII (1898-1903), in his encyclical Aeterni Patris of 1879, called Aquinas the princeps and magister who stands out far above the other scholastic intellectuals and pleaded for a revival of his philosophy. An encyclical is a circular letter from a pope himself to his bishops priests, and the Roman Catholic Church (for a summary of this particular encyclical, cf. Meuleman, 1952 and Gilson, 1972:37).

 

In Pascendi Dominic Gregis of 1907 against modernism, Pope Pius X (1903-1914) concerned with Pope Leo XIII by prescribing scholastic philosophy (meaning mainly Aquinas) as foundational to the theological sciences. Benedictus XV (1914-1922) in 1917 regarded Aquinas’ rational thinking as an example to lecturers and institutions. Pius XI (1922-1939), in his Studiorum Ducem of 1923, called Aquinas the common or universal teacher of the Roman Catholic Church, followed by the encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1939-1958) in 1950. IN this document, he did not oppose the Augustinian or Franciscan traditions in Neo-Thomism, but the nouvelle theologie (new theology) under the influence of existentialism in particular (cf. Meuleman, 1960). Once more, the philosophy of Aquinas was recommended since it would safeguard the foundations of the Christian faith.

 

In 1965 (directly after the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965), Pope Paul VI, in a decree of 28 October, on the training of priests again emphasized the meaning of Aquinas’ ideas for scientific development. Finally, in the encyclical Fides et ratio of Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), one once again finds (in the line of Humani Generis) accommodation of the Augustinian and Franciscan traditions. Augustinian and Franciscan traditions emphasize Thomism as the antipode for various irrationality and relativist tendencies. Pope Benedictus XVI (2005-2013) followed the Augustinian tradition, and the latest pope, Francis, is of the Jesuit Order. (Bernie Van Der Walt, Thomas Aquinas and the Neo-Thomist Tradition: A Christian-Philosophical Assessment [Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press, 2021], 179-80)