Irenaeus was not a Trinitarian

A very common misleading claim, even by scholars who should know better, is that the earliest Christian authors (e.g., the Apostolic Fathers) were Trinitarian, or at the very least, "proto-Trinitarian." I just recently encountered this claim in the recent volume by Roger Olson (pp.25-26 of Counterfeit Christianity: The Persistence of Errors in the Church [Abingdon Press, 2015]). However, when one read Irenaeus (as opposed to isolated proof-texts), one will realise that Irenaeus was not a proto-Trinitarian of any sort. I would highly recommend the following four articles on the Christology of Irenaeus of Lyons which refute this claim:

Irenaeus of Lyons

Irenaeus on Jesus' Ignorance

Irenaeus' stage 2 Logos Theory

Irenaeus' Reported Creeds

A Savior is Born

Enjoy this video from the LDS Church here.

Trinitarians admitting to the Trinity being Irrational and Illogical

 John H. Fish III, a Trinitarian, in an article entitled, “God the Son," wrote the following as an admission of the illogical nature of the Trinity:

Theologically it is correct to say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But these statements cannot be reversed. We cannot say God is the Father, because that would omit the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor can we say God is the Son, or God is the Holy Spirit. (John H. Fish III, "God the Son", Emmaus Journal Volume 12, 2003 (1) (34), Dubuque, IA: Emmaus Bible College).

To transpose this admission from theological to mathematical language, it is the equivalent of saying while 3=1+1+1, 1+1+1 does not equal 3, which is utterly absurd. Also, Fish's claim means one cannot say that any singular person of the Tri-une being is God (e.g., "God is the Father"), notwithstanding passages such as 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Cor 8:4-6 that predicate "God" upon the person of the Father.

This is echoed by John V. Dahms in his article, "How Reliable is Logic?" (Journal of Evangelical Theology 21/4 [December 1978] 369-80); on p.373, Dahms (another Trinitarian) makes this startling confession (comment in square brackets mine for clarification):

The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation [read: Hypostatic Union] also provides a problem for those who insist that logic is universally applicable. how can there be two natures but only one person, especially if it be remembered that the debate over monothelitism led to the conclusion that the two-natures doctrine implies that Jesus Christ had two wills? That one person can have two wills would seem to be contrary to the law of contradiction. Of course there are "conservatives" who declare that in Christ "there are not two wills, one Divine and one human." One suspects that the law of contradiction has inspired such a judgment, though one wonders whether they are not violating the same law when they continue to affirm that "each nature is complete in itself." Be that as it may, by what logic is it possible for a nature that cannot be tempted to be united with a nature that can be tempted, or for a nature that can grow in favor with God? The Monophysites and the Nestorians had more respect for logic than the orthodox, as did the Docetists and the Ebionites before them, as do those liberals who deny the incarnation today. It is not without some justification that Paul Tillich speaks of the "inescapable contradictions and absurdities into which all attempts to solve the Christological problem in terms of the two-nature theory were driven."

One has to appreciate the intellectual integrity of these Trinitarians to admit to something that Latter-day Saints and other non-Trinitarians have been saying for centuries—what masquerades as “orthodoxy” is nothing short of illogical nonsense. Would that members of groups that hold to the Trinitarian dogma would reconsider their beliefs in light of Scripture and reason and consider the strong biblical and rational case for Latter-day Saint Christology.

Irenaeus did not hold to Sola Scriptura

In my previous post, I discussed C. Michael Patton's (actually, Keith Mathison's) eisegesis-driven abuse of Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem to support the historicity of sola scriptura. In this post, I will discuss Patton's egregious claim Irenaeus of Lyons held to sola scriptura.

Patton (via Mathison) quotes Irenaeus thusly:

“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”  (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Firstly, one should notice what Patton conveniently leaves out. As one commentator ("Basilio") notes, when one examines the entirety of the texts referenced by Patton, it refutes, not supports, his egregious assertion Irenaeus held to sola scriptura; I will reproduce Bailio's comments in full:

Went through Irenaeus as quoted by the blog. I found that the blogger concatenated four verses (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9) into 2 continuous paragraphs – without showing in-between chapters and verses. In effect he made it look like Irenaeus was teaching sola scriptura when in actuality he wasn’t.

1:8:1 for example was not about using scriptures alone – it was about ‘How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions’.

3:1:1 wa not about using scriptures alone – it was about how ‘The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth’.

In fact the next chapter was about how ‘The Heretics Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition’.

3:3:1 actually spoke about tradition: “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times”

3:12:9 Actually did not start with

“Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures…”

but rather

“But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”

It pertains to those contained only in scripture – it did not pertain to everything (inculding traditions that Irenaeus spoke of repreatedly).

I encourage everyone to scrutinize what is written in the blog by going through the actual writings of the early Christians. You will find that the blog is actually contrary to what the early Christians wrote.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

In addition to this rather devastating revelation of Patton's abuse of Irenaeus (again, one has to wonder if he has actually read the writings of the early Church Fathers as opposed to relying on cutting-and-pasting from Mathison [and perhaps William Webster/David King]?), when one actually reads Irenaeus, we find that he privileged oral tradition and held to an authoritative teaching of the Church which would be beyond what Patton, a Protestant, would hold to:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say], by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two more glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies, 3.2.2)

Notice that Irenaeus mentions that ". . . it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of al the Churches . . ." What he means by the phrase, "succession of all the Churches" is explained later in the paragraph by the words "that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two more glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops . . ." In other words, the "tradition" is identified by that which is presently held by the "successions of bishops." Thus, the "successions of all the Churches" and the "successions of bishops" are the same. It is within this "succession" that Irenaeus says it would be "very tedious" to "reckon up" (or catalogue) what was contained in that "succession."

Evidently, Irenaeus understood that there was a body of tradition contained in the "succession" which was voluminous. It was so voluminous that it would have been "very tedious" to uncover it all. This volume of knowledge cannot refer merely to Scripture, for that was never considered "very tedious" in discovering or collating. It could only refer to unwritten teachings outside of the Bible.

Contra Mathison and other Protestants who claim the early Christian use of "tradition" simply referred to the correct interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus never understood such tradition as merely the interpreter of Scripture; instead, such tradition has an authority all its own. We can verify his understanding of tradition by noting the issue which is at stake in the above paragraph. The issue concerns those who "assemble in unauthorised meetings." Apparently, there were those in Irenaeus' day who thought that they could abstain from the established places of meeting set up by the Church. It is equally apparent that these men were also making decisions for the Church that were not sanctioned by either Irenaeus or the other Fathers

In speaking against their unauthorised meetings, Irenaeus appeals to ". . . the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" as that which is the established authority and place of meeting.

It is obvious by a perusal of the Bible that Irenaeus cannot be referring to Scripture, since nowhere does the Old or New Testaments mention the Church at Rome as being the one and only established authority or place of meeting. Irenaeus is acquiring this "tradition . . . very great . . . and very ancient" from sources external to the Bible, as it has been passed down by Peter and Paul and to the "successions of bishops." moreover, this "tradition" which Irenaeus appeals to is not a mere matter of the correct interpretation of the Bible, since the Bible offers no instance where Rome and its authority is a matter of interpretation.

Another passage from Against Heresies further refutes the utterly fallacious claim Irenaeus held to sola scriptura:

On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (3.4.1)

As we have seen previously with Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem, Irenaeus of Lyons most certainly did not hold to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

The Early Church Fathers Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

C. Michael Patton, an Evangelical Protestant apologist, has recently written an article attempting to support the man-made tradition of sola scriptura by arguing that early Christians actually believed in this doctrine. One can read the article (which really amounts to Patristic “proof-texting”) at:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2015/04/did-the-early-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura

Practically, the article is nothing short of cutting and pasting, not from the Patristic texts themselves, but a book by Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001), which is a very popular volume attempting to defend, both biblically and historically, the formal doctrine of Protestantism—one has to wonder if Patton has actually read the works of Hippolytus et al; in light of the lack of critical usage of Mathison’s work, one has to doubt such.

I won’t interact with all the early Christian writers Patton (and Mathison) appeal to, but I will focus on two: Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem.

Hippolytus

Patton (actually, Mathison) quotes the following from Hippolytus (emphasis added by me):

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

For Patton, the statement, "There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source" means that Hippolytus would relegate any other authority as being subordinate to Scripture. However, this is false. Hippolytus does not mention things such as the authority of the Church or non-inscripturated apostolic teaching ("oral tradition") in this passage, let alone setting them in opposition to the Bible. Notice, however, what Hippolytus does set in opposition to Scripture--he refers to "the dogmas of philosophers" as being in opposition to the "oracles of God," but not the Church, tradition, etc. He refers to those who should not make conclusions "according to our own will, nor according to our own mind" but not a word about an authoritative Church, apostolic traditions outside the Bible, and so forth.

In Catholic apologetics, there is a common fallacy called "The Peter Syndrome," where any positive reference to Peter and/or the Bishop of Rome is taken as ipso facto of the dogmatic teachings the Roman Church has on (1) Peter and (2) the papacy; Protestants like Patton, Mathison, William Webster, et al are guilty of a similar fallacy--"The Sola Scriptura Syndrome" wherein any positive reference to Scripture, whether by biblical authors or early Christian writers, is taken as ipso facto proof of the formal sufficiency of the Bible.

When one actually reads the works of Hippolytus and not the cut-and-paste methodology of Patton, we get the following which shows Hippolytus privileged both the authoritative teachings of the Church and oral tradition:

And certain other (heretics) contentious by nature, (and) wholly uniformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more (than usually) quarrelsome, combine (in maintaining) that Easter should be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur. (But in this) they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not keep (the commandment) as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this (fact), that the legal enactment as made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover. And this (paschal sacrifice in its efficacy,) has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter (merely). They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: "For I testify to ever man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles. (Refutation of All Heresies, ch XI, The Quartodecimens).

Having come to our most important topic, we turn to the subject of the Tradition which is proper for the Churches, in order that those who have been rightly instructed may hold fast to that tradition which has continued until now, and fully understanding it from our exposition may stand the more firmly therein. (The Apostolic Tradition 1)

Cyril of Jerusalem

Again pilfering from Mathison, Patton reproduces the following from Cyril of Jerusalem:

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

Mathison, on pp.31-32 of his book, provides the following commentary on this text:

Here we find stated, about as clearly as possible, the necessity of firm scriptural proof for every article of faith. Cyril tells his catechumens not to rest their faith upon plausibility or ingenious arguments or even upon his own authority as a Bishop, but to rest it upon clear proof from the Holy Scripture.

Mathison et al. are actually faced with a dilemma when he uses the above quote from Cyril, as well as other patristic authors. If, as Mathison (and Patton via this copying-and-pasting) Cyril was teaching the Protestant understanding of sola scriptura, they have a huge problem--Cyril's Catechetical Lectures (which one can read in their totality here) are filled with forceful with teachings Patton et al. would condemn as heretical such as the Eucharist as a sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, the intercession of the saints, holy orders, the sacraments, and other teachings, doctrines which Patton would argue are alien to the Bible. If Cyril really held to the notion of sola scriptura, then it must be true that he believed he found such doctrines in the pages of the Bible itself. The counter would be, "well, Cyril was wrong in his exegetical method," but such would only further trap the proponent of sola scriptura, for it would of necessity impugn Cyril's credibility, not to mention the claim to find sola scriptura in Scripture! The second option is that Cyril was not teaching sola scriptura and that Mathison et al. are playing fast and loose with the patristic texts, similar to how Evangelicals play fast and loose with the biblical texts. As they are in many areas, Protestant apologists are trapped in a no-win situation and their lack of intellectual integrity and exegetical abilities come to light.

That Cyril did not hold to sola scriptura is not difficult to ascertain; for instance, notice the following quote:

Take heed, then, brethren and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, 7:32)

Conclusion

As we have seen on this blog, the main “proof-texts” cited by Protestant apologists in favour of sola scriptura (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Cor 4:6; Acts 17:11; Matt 4:1-11) fail when one approaches these texts using sound historical-grammatical exegetical methods; as with the biblical evidence, the purported Patristic evidence flounders when one actually reads an early Christian author in their context and their totality. Of all the historical defenses of this man-made doctrine I have ever seen, this is perhaps one of the lousiest attempts attempting to portray the early Church as holding to such an anachronistic doctrine.

Does Isaiah 40:8 conflict with LDS Views of the Bible?

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. (Isa 40:8 NIV)

This verse, alongside related texts (e.g., 1 Pet 1:25) is used against the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible and its transmission. This verse, the argument goes, states that the Bible teaches that the biblical text will never have any textual corruptions. It is often raised against the eighth Article of Faith which states that Latter-day Saints “believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.”

There are numerous problems with such an (eisegesis-driven) approach to this text, including the following:

Firstly, no one, except the most ill-informed Fundamentalist, will ever claim that there have been no textual changes and corruptions to the biblical text. The manuscript evidence of overwhelming, and it is not limited to scholarship that is deemed "liberal" (a scare word many Evangelicals use to dismiss much of the scholarship that refutes their faulty presuppositions). For instance, see the works of Philip Comfort, such as his New Testament Text and Translation: A Commentary or Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. A representative example dealing with the Old Testament would be Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Secondly, one is guilty of a common error made by many Protestant apologists, that is, that the term "word of God" is one-to-one equivalent to "the Bible." Instead, the phrase refers to Christ, the Law (Torah), God’s creative utterances, and apostolic and prophetic preaching in the Bible. Consider the following--

Luke 3:2-3: “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

Luke 4:44; 5:1: “And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee. And it came to pass that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Genesaret.”

Luke 8:11-15: “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hears, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation, fall away. And they which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which are in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

John 1:1, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Acts 4:31: “And when they had parted, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.”

1 Thess 2:13: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

Heb 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do not appear.”

When one reads the verse in context, Isaiah is not speaking of a 100% pristine textual transmission of Scripture but is speaking of the faithfulness of God to His promises and commandments. Indeed, the Hebrew term translated as "endures" by the NIV is the Hebrew verb  קום which means to arise/stand/stand up--it does not have the meaning of textual transmission, let alone 100% perfect textual transmission of Scripture itself. The NET, an Evangelical production, offers the following comment on this verse:

In this context the divine "word" specifically refers to his decreed promise assuring Jerusalem that her suffering is over and his glorious return imminent (vv. Isa 40:1-5).

Reformed Presbyterian W. Gary Crampton wrote the following which is rather a propos:

[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156)

Much more could be said about this verse, but it should be clear that critics who raise this against the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible are on an exegetical fishing trip and have forgotten to bring the fishing poles.

John Day on "image" and "likeness" in Genesis 1:26

[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as well as prophet at a time not to long before P, and whose theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek. 1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut, ‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical totality.

The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature, referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years. Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John Day, From Creation to Babel Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).

The “with God all things are possible” argument for the Hypostatic Union

Often, one will hear from proponents of the Hypostatic Union that, as impossible and seemingly illogical it is, "with God, all things are possible" is a meaningful response to overcome the inanity of the doctrine.

Dave Burke, a leading Christadelphian apologist, in a comment on a blog post, made the following comment which highlights the problems with some standard Trinitarian comments in favour of this pivotal doctrine of Trinitarianism:

[S]imply saying “God can do everything” doesn’t solve anything. I’ve seen it used by Trinitarians time and time again as an emergency theological stopgap, or a catch-all response to questions Trinitarianism cannot answer. But it results in total absurdity. For proof of this, please read on and try not to be offended.

I’ve just decided that God the Father is a cabbage. He is also Jesus, but His “cabbageness” is the most important aspect. Wait, what’s that you just said? God didn’t claim to be a cabbage? And Jesus didn’t claim to be one either? OK sure, he might not have said so, but that doesn’t prove he isn’t one. Perhaps people didn’t see a cabbage when they looked at him, but this is easily explained by the fact that he would not wish to alarm them by appearing as a talking cabbage. Surely you agree God could be a cabbage? After all, with Him all things are possible!

Oh, and before I forget: God is also a mango. An evil mango who murdered the Holy Spirit. Got a problem, with that? There’s no problem as long as you understand that with God all things are possible. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I’ll leave you with this: how would you respond if I countered every Trinitarian objection to Biblical Unitarianism with the phrase “With God all things are possible”?

I have discussed the Trinity and Christology numerous times on this blog; see my lengthy post, “Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus” which delves into the hypostatic union and related issues.

Roland Murphy on Proverbs 30:4

4 Five rhetorical questions follow which seem to underline the point that has been made about the great divide between the divine and the human. The speaker is not identified; it could be Agur himself who exalts God by these questions, or an imagined interlocutor. A. Barucq claims that v 4 is spoken by God. In any case, it seems obvious that the answer to the first four queries is: God. The questions are reminiscent of those that God directs to Job in Job 38–41. The only suggestion of sarcasm occurs at the end of the fifth question, “if you know”; cf. Job 38:18. This final question of v 4 is really a double question, and the obvious answer (God) to the first seems to be canceled by the nature of the second question: What is the name of the son? Are the questions as simple as they seem, or is some sort of riddle involved? The first four questions are straightforward: (1) God moves between heaven and earth. The idea of a human making such a move to flee from God is entertained by the psalmist in Ps 139:8, only to be recognized as impossible. What is odd is the question itself, since God is already in heaven by definition. But perhaps the question, even unconsciously, recalls the question about the torah in Deut 30:12, “who of us can go up to the heavens and get it?” Another even more pointed biblical echo is found in Bar 3:29, “who has gone up to heaven and taken her (wisdom!).” For a thorough investigation of the topos of heavenly ascent and descent in the ancient Near East, see the study by R. C. Van Leeuwen, who concludes (“Background,” 121): “The main purpose of the topos is to reaffirm the great gulf that separates humans from the divine realm and the prerogatives of deity, such as immortality, superhuman knowledge, wisdom, and power.” (2) This question is picturesque—holding the wind in the hollow of the hand. According to Amos 4:13, God created the wind, which he contains in vaults; cf. Ps 135:7. (3) The third query deals with the rainwater that is described as in Job 26:8; the “cloak” is the clouds that contain the rain. (4) Finally, it is God who has established the ends of the earth, i.e., the furthest confines; cf. Ps 22:28; see also Prov 8:27–29. (5) But the fifth question is totally different from the previous ones. It concerns identity, and it begins with “what” and not “who.” It is not easy to answer. Many commentators see it as sarcastic and ironic, as the last two words may suggest. But it is not clear why the name of the son is included with the question. Whybray remarks in his commentary that “this is not an enquiry after the nature of the identity of the creator-god; rather, Agur is asked ironically to name a human being able to do these things.” But why should a third party, “a human being,” be introduced here? Whybray is correct in pointing out that the reference cannot be to the “sons” in the heavenly court, since they are never identified by name in the Old Testament.Irony, then, does not really explain the mention of the son or the query about the son’s name. This final question has the characteristics of a riddle. If so, the most challenging explanation has been offered by P. Skehan, who finds an answer in the data of the heading (v 1, Agur, son of Jakeh [יקה]). Translated, Agur means “I am a sojourner,” and this correlates with Gen 47:9, where Jacob describes himself to Pharaoh, “the number of the years of my sojournings (מגורי) is 130 years.” And the psalmist, Ps 39:13, describes himself as a גר, a תושׁב, “a transient.” By his very name then, Agur suggests that he is a mere mortal inhabiting this earth. In addition, his denial of having knowledge of the Holy One (v 3) is reminiscent of the γνῶσιν ἁγίων, “knowledge of holy ones,” attributed to Jacob in Wis 10:10. The allusions in this passage become more striking. The initial question about going up to heaven and coming down can be associated with Gen 28:12–13 where Jacob’s dream is described: he sees “angels of God” going up and down a ladder that reaches to the “heavens,” and the Lord is standing beside Jacob. Agur is a Doppelgänger for Jacob, and Jacob/Israel is the Lord’s son according to Exod 4:22, “Israel is my son, my firstborn.” Agur/Jacob, then, is the son of יקה (spelled in English as Jakeh in v 1). But who is יקה? He is the Lord. The name יקה is “an abbreviation of Yhwh qādōš hūʾ, an antecedent to the well-known haqqādōš, bārûk hūʾ of later times” (Skehan, Studies, 43). According to this explanation, the answer to the riddle in the fifth question is: Agur (= Jacob/Israel), the son of the Lord. One should recall the mention of riddles in the prologue to the book of Proverbs, 1:6. The final question of v 4 has created a riddle out of vv 1–4. Van Leeuwen (NIB., 5:251) disagrees with the riddle interpretation because everyone knew the name YHWH. But the point of the riddle is to lead the reader to the acknowledgment of the Lord’s creative power and (covenant) relationship to Agur-Israel, not to reveal the sacred name. It may be objected that the answer to the first four questions is too obvious to form a riddle, but the riddle is not really there; it is in the final double question. The very obviousness of the first four questions sets the reader up, as it were, for the last mysterious question. (Murphy, R. E. [1998]. Proverbs [Wallas: Word Bible Commentary, Vol. 22, pp. 228–229])

Eating and drinking Christ's body and blood: Proof of Transubstantiation in John 6?

In John 6, Christ informs the crowd at Capernaum that eternal life is predicated upon eating his flesh and drinking his blood. For instance, in John 6:51-54, we read the following:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews strove among themselves saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Numerous Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating, Tim Staples, and Robert Sungenis have argued that the standard “response” by opponents of the historical Catholic interpretation of John 6 is an impossibility, as eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood were metaphors of reviling, cursing, and/or harming one’s opponent, so the “literalistic” interpretation (a la the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation) is to be preferred. Brant Pitre in his recent book on the Eucharist writes the following which is reflective of such views:

Although the imagery of eating human flesh and drinking human blood can be used metaphorically in the Old Testament, it is never used as a metaphor for accepting someone’s teaching or believing in that person. Consider the following parallels:

When evildoers assail me, to eat up my flesh, my adversaries and foes, they shall stumble and fall. (Ps 27:2)

The Lord of hosts will protect them [the sons of Zion], and they shall devour and treat down the slingers; and they shall drink their blood like win . . .(Zech 9:15)

So I [Zechariah] said, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another. (Zech 11:9)

As for you, son of man, thus says the Lord God: Speak to the birds of every sort and to all beasts of the field, “Assemble and come, gather from all sides of the sacrificial feast which I am preparing for you, a great sacrificial feast upon the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth—of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bulls all of them fatlings of Bashan. And you shall eat fat till you are filled and drink blood till you are drunk, at the sacrificial feat which I am preparing for you. And you shall be filled at my table with horses and riders, with mighty men and all kinds of warriors, says the Lord God. (Ezek 39:17-20)

. . .[The imagery of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood] is never used as a metaphor for “believing” in them. (Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper [Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans, 2015], 206-07).

For Latter-day Saints, there is no "either-or" approach on this issue; historically and in modern times, LDS commentators have understood Christ's words to refer to both the Eucharist (simply the "sacrament" in LDS nomenclature) as well as trusting in, and believing in Christ.

For instance, in vol. 1 of his 3-volume Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Bruce McConkie wrote the following:

How Men Eat the Flesh and Drink the Blood of Jesus

How do men eat the Lord's flesh and drink his blood? Is this literal or figurative? Does it have reference to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper or to something else?

In these words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Jesus reaches the climax of his great discourse on the Bread of Life. Since he is the Bread of Life (meaning the Son of God), which came down from the Father, and since men must eat this spiritual bread in order to gain salvation, it follows that eternal life is gained only by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God, or in other words, eternal life is gained only by accepting Jesus as the Christ and keeping his commandments.

To eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God is, first, to accept him in the most literal and full sense, with no reservation whatever, as the personal offspring in the flesh of the Eternal Father; and, secondly, it is to keep the commandments of the Son by accepting his gospel, joining his Church, and enduring in obedience and righteousness unto the end. Those who by this course eat his flesh and drink his blood shall have eternal life, meaning exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world. Speaking of ancient Israel, for instance, Paul says: They "did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:3-4.)

In the waters of baptism the saints take upon themselves the name of Christ (that is, they accept him fully and completely as the Son of God and the Savior of men), and they then covenant to keep his commandments and obey his laws. (Mosiah 18:7-10.) To keep his saints in constant remembrance of their obligation to accept and obey him—or in other words, to eat his flesh and drink his blood—the Lord has given them the sacramental ordinance. This ordinance, performed in remembrance of his broken flesh and spilled blood, is the means provided for men, formally and repeatedly, to assert their belief in the divinity of Christ, and to affirm their determination to serve him and keep his commandments; or, in other words, in this ordinance—in a spiritual, but not a literal sense—men eat his flesh and drink his blood. Hence, after instituting the sacramental ordinance among the Nephites, Jesus commanded: "Ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him." (3 Ne. 18:25-29.)

52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?] This querulous, unbelieving attitude on the part of the Jews was, not only wholly unwarranted, but from Jewish lips it bordered on absurdity. Probably no people in all history understood better or had made more extensive use of symbolical and figurative language than they had. Further, Jesus had just taught them the doctrine of the Bread of Life. For them to pretend not to know that eating the flesh of Jesus meant accepting him as the Son of God and obeying his words could only mean that they were wilfully closing their eyes to the truth. Their lack of spiritual understanding was comparable to that of modern sectarians who profess to find in our Lord's statements, about eating and drinking his own flesh and blood, justification for the false doctrine of transubstantiation.

In substance and effect Jesus then said to the Jews:

53. 'Solemnly and soberly I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink his blood, by accepting me and my mission and obeying my gospel, ye have no spiritual life in you, but rather are spiritually dead and are not born again.'

54. 'Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood—by accepting me, keeping my commandments, and enduring unto the end—shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up in the resurrection of the just to an inheritance of exaltation in my Father's kingdom.'

55. 'For my flesh is spiritual meat indeed, and my blood is spiritual drink indeed.'

56. 'He that spiritually eateth my flesh by accepting me as the Son of God, and spiritually drinketh my blood by keeping all my commandments, by the power of the Holy Spirit, he shall dwell in me and I in him; yea, we shall then be one, in that we are perfectly united in character, perfections, and attributes; we shall then have the same mind and the same judgment in all things.' (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:16.)

57. 'As the living Father, who himself hath spiritual and eternal life, hath sent me; and as I have spiritual life and shall have eternal life because I keep my Father's commandments; so he that spiritually eateth me by keeping my commandments, even he shall gain spiritual life and eternal life because of me and my atoning sacrifice.'

58. 'These things which I have told you are the true doctrine of the Bread of Life, that bread which came down from heaven. This true bread from heaven is not, as you falsely supposed, that manna which your fathers (who are dead) ate to sustain themselves temporally, for he that eateth of this true bread from heaven shall have spiritual and eternal life forever.'

LDS scholar, John A. Tvedtnes, ties the words of Christ in John 6:54 to the Lord's Supper:

There is real symbolism in the bread and wine used at the last supper to represent Christ’s body and blood. The heb word for bread is לֶחֶם lechem, which originally denoted animal flesh, as it still does in heb’s cousin language, Arabic. So when Jesus offered the bread and said it symbolized his flesh, etymologically that was true. Significantly, Christ, the “true bread” (John 6:32), was born in a town named Beth-Lehem, meaning “house of bread. (Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day Saints vol 1: The Gospels, ed. Kevin L. Barney, p. 526 footnote d.)

For Latter-day Saint interpreters, there is no issue if Christ was indeed speaking of the Eucharist/Sacrament which would later be instituted after the discourse at Capernaum.

Pitre is wrong, however, in stating that the Jews of the time would have only understood such terms to be about reviling an opponent, and it comes from the Jews' own reaction to Christ's words in John 6 itself, where they believe he is stating, not to revile him or cause harm to him, but to engage in an act of cannibalism, as seen in John 6:52.

Another attempt to foist, not just the Eucharist, but Transubstantiation, into the words of Christ in John 6 revolves around the shift from the verb εσθιω to τρωγω in John 6:54, 56, 57-58. This has been addressed in a previous post, so I will not rehash the faulty linguistic issues about this popular Catholic argument.

Finally, Michael Taylor, in responding to the arguments of Karl Keating et al. which mirror Pitre's arguments, wrote the following which is a propos for our discussion:

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus’ hearers would have understood both eating flesh and drinking blood as negative metaphors, and that no other metaphorical use is possible.  If so, then such a metaphorical reading of John 6:53-57 would lead to several absurd propositions.  For example, Jesus would be saying, “Unless you revile me, you have no life in you” (John 6:53);  “He who reviles me has eternal life” (verse 54); “He who reviles me abides in me” (verse 56); “He who reviles me will also live because of me” (verse 57).   Admittedly, such propositions are absurd when viewed prospectively.  But when viewedretrospectively, each one of those propositions contains an ironic ring of truth.  In the Old Testament, eating flesh and drinking blood metaphorically connoted both physical harm and psychological harm (i.e., slandering or mocking someone).   In the passion according to John, Jesus is both physically reviled (John 18:23, 19:1, 18) and psychologically reviled (John 18:40; 19:2-3, 14, 19, 24). It is therefore possible thateating flesh and drinking blood allude to the cross. 

But if such metaphors can allude to the passion, then why not the eucharist as well?   The answer is that they can.  We should not exclude the possibility that the eucharist may also be in view.  In fact, there very well may be secondary sacramental allusions throughout John’s gospel.  But the case for such allusions has to be argued, not presumed.  What we can safely say is that there are no direct references to the eucharist in John 6 or anywhere else in John’s gospel.  John has taken pains to leave out the institution of the eucharist.   While there are ample allusions to the cross, there is nothing that is unambiguously allusive to eucharist.   

Protestants sometimes object that the eucharist cannot be in view in John 6, because it had not yet been instituted.  Catholic apologists reply that by that logic, the cross could not be in view either, since Jesus had not yet died.  But there is one crucial piece of evidence that Catholics apologists should keep in mind:  Throughout John’s gospel, Jesus has been alluding to his impending death:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (John 12:24).  Jesus has even alluded to the cross itself:  “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (John 3:14, see also 8:28; 12:32).  The same cannot be said of the eucharist.   After all, John’s gospel actually has a crucifixion in it—but it takes pains to leave out the eucharist! Therefore, with all of the clear allusions to his death on the cross—and no unambiguous allusions to the eucharist—it would be most natural to understand the “flesh and blood” of John 6 as primarily an allusion to Jesus’ death on the cross. (Michael Taylor, "Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood: Metaphors of Reviling or Metaphors of Belief?")

In another article, The Sniper Who Couldn’t Aim:  Taylor Replies to Pacheco, Taylor also noted:

 

Why Jesus Probably Would Not Correct the Misunderstanding of Unbelievers

 

Instead of correcting unbelievers, it is far more likely that Jesus would not have corrected them.  After all, unbelievers are “already condemned” (John 3:18), whereas believers already possess eternal life (John 5:24).  Why, then, would Jesus need to explain himself to those who are already condemned?  Catholic apologists sometimes argue as if Jesus had a moral obligation to speak plainly.  But Jesus did not come to explain himself to unbelievers:  “For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).  And again, “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40). Unbelievers in John’s gospel do not understand because they cannot understand.  They have been blinded by the very revelation they reject, which is why they frequently take his metaphors literally, missing the spiritual meaning of his words.

 

Furthermore, we know it was Jesus’ preference to use “figurative language.”  And we know that the meaning behind Jesus’ figurative language was never intended to be obvious.  “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25).  If we consider the fact that both the events and discourse of John 6 take place chronologically before Jesus’ “hour,” then we should expect Jesus to be speaking more often in “figurative language” than “plainly.” 

 

Consider the ultimatum in John 6:53:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”   Catholic apologists sometimes argue that “truly, truly,” precludes figurative language.  Yet the parable of the Good Shepherd also begins with the words “Truly, truly” (John 10:1), and is clearly not to be taken liteally:  “This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which he had been saying to them” (John 10:6).   John 6:53, which likewise begins with “truly, truly,” is in all probability, a “figure of speech” as well.

 

To read, not the Eucharist per se, but the much later concepts of Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass and Transubstantiation into John 6 and the words of Jesus is to engage in, not meaningful exegesis, but eisegesis.

For more, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)