Powerpoint slides for presentation on Acts 2:38

I just gave a presentation on Acts 2:38 and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; one can find the slides here.

I have discussed this particular issue a couple of times on this blog; one important article is a response to Michael Flournoy's misinformed comments:

Christ's Baptism is NOT Imputed to the Believer

Also, on John 3:3-5:

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Illogical attempt at logic refuted

Recently, a Trinitarian offered the following argument against the Mormon concept of God:

1.Jesus is the only Sovereign and Lord of Christians (Jude 1:4)

2.Jesus and the Father are seperate beings

3.Since Father and the Son are not the same being if one is characterised as only in a category,

the other one cannot be included into it

4.If above premises are true,Father cannot be our only Sovereign and Lord

5.If father is not our Sovereign and Lord he could not possiblly be our God

6.Therefore either premise 2. is false or Father is not God!

Firstly, why stop at separate beings; this "logic" can also work for Modalism--just replace "beings" with "persons" in no. 2 (unfortunately, my point here and elsewhere was missed by the author in an attempted "response"--I am aware of Christological heresies, Modalism included; however, what can be said of the persons having the same "being" [ousia] á la Latin/Creedal Trinitarianism could also be used for those who hold to a form of Modalism who hold that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same numerical person)

Using such "logic," Jesus and Moses are the same "being." Jesus is referred to as being the only μεσίτης (mediator) in 1 Tim 2:5, and yet, Paul uses the term for Moses in Gal 3:19. Now, one may claim that μονος (only) is not used in 1 Tim 2:5, this is not a perfect parallel, but the number εἷς meaning "one" is used in this text, and I doubt that the Trinitarian apologist who would use such an argument will hold that there are other mediators with Jesus, even "co-mediators" a la Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology. So, to rework Vladimir's "logic":

1.Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5)

2.Jesus and the Moses are separate beings

3.Since Moses and Jesus are not the same being if one is characterised as only in a category,

the other one cannot be included into it

4.If above premises are true, Jesus is not the only mediator

5.If Jesus is not the only mediator, then

6.Therefore either premise 2 is false and Moses and Jesus are indeed the same "being" or the Jesus is not the only mediator between God and man!

If the above sound stupid, at least I will admit that this is a bit of a parody; the original attempt at deductive logic, however,

It also works from the inane approach that any title and/or function predicated upon Jesus ipso facto can be predicated upon the person of the Father (as well as the person of the Holy Spirit), and yet we know there are titles and functions predicated singularly upon Jesus that are not, and cannot be said of, the Father and Spirit. Jesus is the only Lamb of God who remits our sins, for example (John 1:29). But as the "being" of the Son is shared by the Father and the Spirit, the Trinitarian apologist, if he were consistent, would have to argue that the Father and Spirit were slain for the sins of the world, too.

Furthermore, it does smack of the whole “the NT uses a title/function of Jesus that is a title/function of God in the OT, ergo, Trinity!” nonsense one often finds.

E.g.:

First premise: If Jesus is Yahweh, he will be called “the Good Shepherd”

Second premise: Jesus is called the Good Shepherd

Conclusion: Thus, Jesus is Yahweh

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Also:

First premise: If Jesus is God, he would be called Saviour

Second premise: Jesus is called Saviour

Conclusion: Thus, Jesus is God.

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent

I am sure you get the point, but here are some others:

First Premise: Yahweh is said to be the only "saviour" (מוֹשִׁיעַ) in Isa 43:11

Second Premise: Othniel, the son of Kenaz, is a "saviour" (מוֹשִׁיעַ) in Judg 3:9

Conclusion: Othniel is numerically identical to Yahweh

First Premise: Only God knows the heart of man

Second Premise: Peter knew the heart of Ananias and his wife in Acts 5

Conclusion: Peter is Yahweh

First Premise: Only Yahweh knows the heart of man

Second Premise: David knew the heart of Eliab in 1 Sam 17:28

Conclusion: David is Yahweh

To further see the inanity of this:

Psa 2:9 is applied to Jesus in Rev 19:15
Psa 2:9 is applied to Christians who endure to the end in Rev 2:27

Ergo, Christians = Jesus, and by extension of Jesus having the same being as the Father, Christians = part of the Tri-une being?

As Dale Tuggy pointed out in the entry on the History of Trinitarian Doctrines for The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

Another form of argument runs as follows.

1.     Passage E is a true prophecy predicting that the God of Israel, Yahweh, will do action A.

2.     Passage F truly asserts that the prophecy in E was fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ.

3.     Therefore, Jesus Christ just is the God of Israel, Yahweh.

Opponents reply that this argument is invalid; it is possible for the premises to be true even though the conclusion is false. Even though the prediction “George W. Bush will conquer Iraq” may be said to be fulfilled by the actions of General Smith, it doesn't follow that Smith and Bush are one and the same. Rather, Smith acted as the agent of Bush. Similarly, Yahweh acts through his servant Jesus. Another disadvantage of this argument is that even if it is sound, the conclusion is undesirable. If Jesus and God are held to be (numerically) identical, and one adds that the Father is “fully divine” in this same sense, i.e. the Father is numerically identical to God, then it logically follows that Jesus just is (is numerically identical to) the Father. And yet, according to any trinitarian, some things are true of one that are not true of the other. This is why nearly all trinitarian theories decline to identify more than one of the three persons with God. On the other hand, some embrace this as a mystery —something which appears contradictory but is in fact true. (See main entry section 4.2.)

One could also use this for texts that clearly differentiate between θεος and Jesus, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6 (cf. John 17:3), unless one wishes to argue in favour of Bauckham's nonsense of "divine identity."

It should also be note that "master" (δεσποτης) in Jude 4 is predicated upon Jesus as it is used figuratively of Jesus to denote His being the one who "purchased" us through His atoning death (something the persons of the Father and the Spirit did not do). Note the parallel text in 2 Pet 2:1:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord (δεσπότης) that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Obviously, the singular person of Jesus, not the three persons of the “being” of the Trinity, is the Master/Lord (δεσποτης) whose atoning sacrifice purchased us, showing the anti-biblical basis of the Trinitarian apologist’s attempt at “logic” (which itself is illogical, too).

As Richard Bauckham noted about Jude 4:

The term δεσποτης is appropriate to the image of Jesus as the Master of his household slaves. This is how it is used in 2 pet 2:1 ("the Master who bought hem"), and it is how the equivalent term οικοδσποτης, "the master of the house," is used, figuratively, of Jesus in Matt 10:25 and, in parables, in Mark 13:27; Luke 13:25 (where P⁷⁵ has δεσποτης). Of course, κυριος was used in the same way, but as a Christological title it rapidly acquired much broader and more exalted connotations. Perhaps, then, it was in order specifically to involve the image of Christ as the Master of his Christian slaves specifically that δεσποτης was used [in verse 4], and this will explain why Jude should *add* δεσποτης to κυριος. For Jude, κυριος is the title of Jesus' divine authority as the one who exercises the divine function of judgment (v 14, and perhaps vv. 5-6, 9); in v 4 he adds δεσποτης to convey the thought that, as Christians, the false teachers belong to Jesus as his slaves whom he has bought. They are both disowning him as Master and flouting his authority as universal Judge. (Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter [Word Biblical Commentary vol. 50; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996], 39 [comment in square brackets added for clarification]

One final problem is that of theology and exegesis--it ignores the fact that Jesus is not God in an underived sense (i.e., he is not autotheos). Consider Heb 1:3

Who [Christ] being the brightness of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

A careful, succinct exegesis of this text from the Greek was presented by D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text"

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.

Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.

Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek και kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.

Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.

To read an actually sound logical presentation on the problems of the Trinity, see the following essay by Richard Cartwright:

 On the Logical Problem of the Trinity

A friend shared the following comments which were rather spot-on with the problems with the apologist’s “arguments”:

I believe this type of argument falls in the same category as the "no god bedside me" Second Isaiah argument. Just as cities/peoples could declare the same thing to promote their superiority, it never meant they thought that no other city/people had ever existed: "I am, and there is none else besides me" (Isa 47:8; see also Zeph 2:1).

It was a manner of speaking to identify an incomparable or supposed status among others. The gospel of John alone gives several examples of this manner of speaking. First, the Jews boldly state, "Abraham is our father" (John 8:39) only to say a few verses later, "We have one Father—even God" (John 8:41). Were they denying what they had just said of Abraham? No.

Jesus calls the Father "the only true God" (17:3). Yet, the author calls the Word "God" (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) in the first chapter verse 1, distinguishing him from the God with whom he had been in the beginning (ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν). Again in verse 18, the prologue identifies God the Father and the only begotten God (μονογενὴς θεὸς). That makes two. At the end of the gospel, Jesus is called God (20:28) and he distinguishes himself from his own God (20:17).

Even when calling the Father "the only true God," Jesus did not deny his own divinity (nor does it ever say they are the same ontological divinity).

The word μονογενής (John 1:14, 18; 3:16) has been translated as "only begotten," "unique," etc. and can mean the only child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). However, it can also be used for a unique or special child as in Hebrews 11:17 for Isaac. As we know, Ishmael was a Abram's (Abraham's) child also but not the child of promise (Gen 16:15). Jesus also acknowledges that he has siblings: "...go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father" (John 20:17; cf. 1:12).

Jesus of himself says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Yet Jesus associates some of these same attributes to the Spirit. Of truth he says, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). Of life he says, "It is the Spirit who gives life" (John 6:63). Of approaching the Father he says, "the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him" (4:23). Thus, through the Spirit we can come to the Father also but this is because of Jesus.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in MY NAME, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I HAVE SAID to you" (John 14:26; emphasis added).

Further Reading

Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008)

For a TL;DR version of the "response" from the Trinitarian apologist (which sums up all his comments online and elsewhere):

Bede on the identity of the "woman" in Revelation 12

In his commentary on the book of Revelation (written about AD 710-716), Bede (AD 672-735) offered the following interpretation of the "woman" in chapter 12, showing that, even as late at the eighth century, the Marian interpretation of the "woman" was not the predominant understanding:

v. 1. sign. It is the same sign which now also appears in the Church, that God is born of man.

a woman. The Church is clothed with the light of Christ, and treads upon temporal glory. “Righteousness,” he says, “will arise in his days, and abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away, or consumed.” That is, the abundance of peace will greatly increase, until it consume all the changeableness of mortality, and then death, the last enemy^a, will be destroyed. Or: because the same Church has partly the fruition of Christ, the Sun, in heaven, and is partly absent from the Lord, that which he says, “His left hand is under my head, and his right embraceth me,” may be understood here . . . 5. man child. Although the dragon oppose, the Church ever brings forth Christ. But he spoke of the man child as conqueror of the devil, who had conquered the woman. For who but the man child, who is “to rule all nations with a rod of iron,” rules the good with inflexible justice, breaks in pieces the bad? And this is also promised to the Church, in that it is said above, “I will give Him power over the nations, and He shall rule them with a rod of iron.” For the Church, too, daily generates the Church, which rules the world in Christ. (The Explanation of the Apocalypse by the Venerable Beda [trans. Rev. Edward Marshall; Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1878], 80, 82)

Looking for a Book on the Minor Prophets and LDS Theology

I only recently became familiar with the following volume:

Rex Lorenzo Christensen, A Study of the Minor Prophets with Special Reference to Latter-day Saint Theology (Brigham Young University, 1939)

As one who has an interest in the relationship between biblical studies and exegesis and its relationship to Latter-day Saint theology, I would be interested in acquiring a copy of this book, but I cannot locate any secondhand copy of the volume.

This is probably a long-shot, but if any of my readers has a copy, or knows where one can find an electronic copy, I would appreciate it. If one has a copy to sell, I would be interested in purchasing it from you (as long as it is at a reasonable price [will happily purchase it in exchange for an Amazon gift card, including the shipping cost to Ireland).

John Dehlin outdoes Bill O'Reilly

Ignoring that the Brass Plates and the plates Joseph Smith translated are not one and the same . . .

I think John Dehlin was successful in his goal in this tweet--to outdo Bill O'Reilly's illogical arguments against atheist David Silverman:

Further Problems with the Christadelphian Interpretation of Jude 9

But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9 NRSV)

To see a common Christadelphian approach to Jude 9, see this page, derived from the book by Ron Abel, Wrested Scriptures: A Christadelphian Handbook of Suggested Explanations to Difficult Bible Passages. However, such an extremely eisegetical approach to this passage can be easily refuted. One recent book interacting with the Christadelphian view of Satan and Demons wrote the following in response to this and similar counter-explanations of this verse:

1.     If one believes that Michael the archangel was just a human messenger then one must believe this also about the archangel Gabriel. However, Gabriel was in existence in Daniel’s time and also in Mary’s time, and so living well beyond any human longevity and so cannot have been human.

2.     Michael is shown to be a supernatural being (1Thess. 4:16) with his own angels (Rev. 12:7). It is fantasy to imagine that an archangel is human. In Jude 8 and 9 there is an implication that Michael and the devil are “supernatural beings” (NLT), “celestial beings” (REB, Barclay, NIV), “angelic glories” (Moffatt), or “glorious ones” and who are defined as angels in the commentaries.

3.     One would have to question whether those who fail to identify Satan as a real person really do believe in supernatural angels if they should turn angels into human messengers whenever it is inconvenient to have them as being supernatural persons.

4.     The real dispute between Michael and the devil is recorded in the Targum of Jonathan on Deuteronomy 34:6 and so is a long past event. Lange’s commentary explains from Jewish tradition:

. . . that God had charged Michael the archangel with the burial of Moses; that Satan opposed him bringing an accusation against him relative to the murder of the Egyptian; in consequence of which he was unworthy of such an honourable burial.

5.     There is no biblical or logical reason to believe that Zechariah 3 and Jude passages are even remotely connected.

6.     There is no biblical text or indicator that “the body of Moses” = the congregation of Israel or Joshua the high priest. It clearly refers to Moses’ literal dead body.

7.     There is no biblical text or any indicator that the devil = Tattenai (Ezra 5). This would mean that the archangel Michael must become the human high priest, in spite of the fact that an archangel is clearly shown to be a supernatural being (1Thess. 4:16) with his own angels (Rev. 12:7).

8.     The trio of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Again, this is simply an arbitrary interpretation.

9.     Zechariah 3:2 uses the term “the Satan” and in being singular and definite cannot refer to the group of persons—Korah, Dathan and Abiram. (Raymond C. Faircloth, Don’t Misjudge Who Your Real Enemies Are! A Biblical Study on the Reality of Demonic Forces [Concise Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 4; 2016], 2-3)

Further Reading

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues - my response to various aspects of Christadelphian theology (e.g., Christology; Satan & Demons; Christadelphian critiques of LDS theology)

MRM quote mining Brigham Young

I have discussed Bill McKeever and his organisation, Mormonism Research Ministry a few times on his blog, including the following detailed posts:

Review of the Holt/McKeever Debate on LDS Soteriology

Top 17 Reasons Bill McKeever Doesn't understand the Latter-day Saint Faith

To say that Bill McKeever et al lack intellectual integrity is an understatement. Another clear witness of this can be seen in a recent thread on their facebook page where they quote-mine Brigham Young:

According to Brigham Young: “You ought to love a woman only so far as she adorns the doctrine you profess” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 199).

LDS apologist Seth Rogers wrote a response on the thread which MRM deleted. Here is his response which MRM censored:

If you're going to quote mine Brigham Young - provide the entire quote. Not just the part you think looks the most juicy.

"I will speak a little more upon placing your affections on beings who are not worthy of them. Take a Prophet, an Apostle, a man of God, one who is just as good in his calling and capacity as Jesus Christ was in his, a man who has adorned the doctrine of his profession, until he is sealed up unto eternal lives by the power of the Priesthood, one who is sure of a glorious resurrection, and let him desire to have a wife. Now suppose that he gains the affection of a lovely woman and marries her, how much shall that righteous man love that woman? Shall he say, “I love this woman to such a degree that I will go to hell rather than not have her, I will do even this rather than lose my wife?” No, for you ought to love a woman only so far as she adorns the doctrine you profess; so far as she adorns that doctrine, just so far let your love extend to her. When will she be worthy of the full extent of your affection? When she has lived long enough to secure to herself a glorious resurrection and an eternal exaltation as your companion, and never until then.

Elders, never love your wives one hair's breadth further than they adorn the Gospel, never love them so but that you can leave them at a moment's warning without shedding a tear. Should you love a child any more than this? No. (Matt. 10:37)

Here are Apostles and Prophets who are destined to be exalted with the Gods, to become rulers in the kingdoms of our Father, to become equal with the Father and the Son, and will you let your affections be unduly placed on anything this side that kingdom and glory? If you do, you disgrace your calling and Priesthood. The very moment that persons in this Church suffer their affections to be immoderately placed upon an object this side the celestial kingdom, they disgrace their profession and calling. When you love your wives and children, are fond of your horses, your carriages, your fine houses, your goods and chattels, or anything of an earthly nature, before your affections become too strong, wait until you and your family are sealed up unto eternal lives, and you know they are yours from that time henceforth and forever.

I will now ask the sisters, do you believe that you are worthy of any greater love than you bestow upon your children? Do you believe that you should be beloved by your husbands and parents any further than you acknowledge and practice the principle of eternal lives? Every person who understands this principle would answer in a moment, “Let no being's affections be placed upon me any further than mine are on eternal principles—principles that are calculated to endure and exalt me, and bring me up to be an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.”

This (Rom. 8:17) is what every person who has a correct understanding would say.

Owing to the weaknesses of human nature you often see a mother mourn upon the death of her child, the tears of bitterness are found upon her cheeks, her pillow is wet with the [p. 361a]dews of sorrow, anguish, and mourning for her child, and she exclaims, “O that my infant were restored to me,” and weeps day and night. To me such conduct is unwise, for until that child returned to its Father, was it worthy of your fullest love? No, for it was imperfect, but now it is secure in the bosom of the Father, to dwell there to all eternity; now it is in a condition where it is worthy of your perfect love, and your anxiety and effort should be that you may enter at the same gate to immortality.

When the wife secures to herself a glorious resurrection, she is worthy of the full measure of the love of the faithful husband, but never before. And when a man has passed through the veil, and secured to himself an eternal exaltation, he is then worthy of the love of his wife and children, and not until then, unless he has received the promise of and is sealed up unto eternal lives. (D&C 132:24, D&C 131:5, 1 Jn. 4:16)

Then he may be an object fully worthy of their affections and love on the earth, and not before."

http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=03&disc=50

Another strike against MRM’s intellectual integrity . . .

John Tvedtnes on the Imprisonment of Jeremiah

In 1 Nephi 7:14, Nephi laments the fact that Jeremiah had been cast into prison. According to the Bible, Jeremiah was imprisoned in the tenth year of King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 32:1-2), yet Nephi and his family left Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4), so they were no longer in the region at the time of Jeremiah’s imprisonment.

On his excellent Book of Mormon Research Website, John Tvedtnes answered the above query thusly:

Jeremiah was imprisoned at least twice during the reign of Zedekiah. The first time was just after Zedekiah was made king. The prophet was imprisoned “in the house of Jonathan the scribe” (Jeremiah 37:1, 15). This was in the same year that Lehi brought his family out of Jerusalem. After “many days,” the king released Jeremiah briefly, then sent him to live in “the court of the prison” instead of the dungeon of Jonathan’s house (Jeremiah 37:16-21).

According to Jeremiah 20:1-3, Pashur placed Jeremiah in the stocks, then released him. The Greek Septuagint version, prepared in the second or third century BC, says he was placed in a “dungeon” adjacent to the temple. The text does not tell us in which year this imprisonment took place.

At some point, Jeremiah was free and able to speak to the people, which displeased the leaders, who “cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the court of the prison,” where he “sunk in the mire” (Jeremiah 38:1-6). He was subsequently drawn out of the dungeon and “abode in the court of the prison until the day that Jerusalem was taken” by the Babylonian army (Jeremiah 38:13, 28).

Lest anyone use the chapter sequence in Jeremiah to argue that what has been said here is incorrect, we should note that the book of Jeremiah was not written in chronological order, but compiled later, perhaps after his death. Some later chapters describe events that took place in the days of earlier kings, so one must pay attention to the chronological notations associated with each story, where possible. The chapter order of the book of Jeremiah in the Greek Septuagint Bible is different from that found in the Hebrew text from which the King James version of the Bible was translated.[1]

[1] The Septuagint version of Jeremiah is an eighth shorter than the Masssoretic Hebrew. One of the Hebrew texts of Jeremiah (4QJer^b) found among the Dead Sea Scrolls follows the shorter Septuagint version, previously known only from the Greek

Gregory Boyd on Yahweh's hardening of hearts in the Old Testament

Commenting on passages in the Old Testament that speak of Yahweh “hardening” people’s hearts (e.g., Pharaoh [Exo 7:3]), Gregory Boyd offered the following response to those who would read into such texts a form of determinism and/or Reformed theology:

One common defense against the charge that Yahweh was behaving immorally when he hardened Pharaoh's heart is that Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart five times, in response to the first five plagues, before Yahweh is portrayed as hardening his heart after the sixth plague. On this basis, some argue that God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart did not cause Pharaoh to sin but was rather done in response to Pharaoh's sin .  . Complimenting this perspective, some have distinguished between an "effective" and a "permissive" hardness of heart. In this view, Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart merely in the sense that he allowed Pharaoh to repeatedly harden his own heart against him . . . In this case, the author's statement that Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart need only meant that Yahweh's actions were the occasion for Pharaoh's heart becoming hard, and this could be applied to the other examples of God hardening hearts as well. One could even perhaps argue that it was Yahweh's merciful patience in giving Pharaoh repeated opportunities to save himself and his nation that increasingly solidified Pharaoh [sic] heart.

Another argument that some employ centers on the fact that the Piel form of the Hebrew word "to harden" (chazaq), which is what is used when God is said to harden Pharaoh's heart, has the connotation of strengthening something. Some have therefore argued that once Yahweh saw there was no point trying to get Pharaoh to soften his heart toward him and repent, he decided to weave Pharaoh's hardness of heart into his sovereign plan by actually helping Pharaoh do what he really wanted to do, thereby allowing his hardness of heart to run its full self-destructive course. This may only imply that Yahweh buttressed Pharaoh's courage or that Yahweh's repeated attempts at persuading Pharaoh caused Pharaoh to become increasingly resolved in his stance against him . . . However, while this consideration has some merit as applied to Pharaoh as well as to the kings who fought Joshua in Joshua 11, it is more difficult to apply it to the king of Heshbon, for the narrative of his destruction uses qashah rather than chazaq and specifically says Yahweh made his heart "obstinate" (amats; Deut 2:30)

Another possible consideration that may have some application to these portraits concerns the fact that when ancient Israelites speak of God as somehow behind events, this need not imply that God determined those events. This language may simply reflect the ancient Israelite conception of God as a sovereign ANE king who rules over, and who is in solidarity with, the whole creation, which is viewed as his kingdom. This way of speaking was simply an ancient Israelite way of expressing the conviction that all that comes to pass does so under the supervision of the one true Creator God, and even things that are against his will are nevertheless used by him to ultimately further his will. (Gregory A. Boyd, Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross, volume 2: The Cruciform Thesis [Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2017], 1268-69, 1269-70)

δικαιοω in the LXX not being merely declarative

Notwithstanding their attempt to argue for the historical Protestant view of justification, one Protestant scholar wrote that, even in legal/forensic contexts, the LXX’s use of δικαιοω is not merely declarative:

In the Greek version of the OT, the cognate verb dikaioō did not imply a legal fiction, but recognizing one as righteous, including in forensic contexts (cf. Gen 44:16; Isa 43:9, 26; Ezek 44:24): judges must not “acquit the guilty” (Exod 23:7), but must “justify,” i.e., pronounce righteous, the innocent (Deut 25:1). God himself would punish the guilty but “justify” and vindicate the righteous (1 Kgs 8:32; 2 Chr 6:23); he himself was “justified,” or “shown to be right,” when he pronounced just judgment, even against the psalmist (Ps 51:4, in Rom 3:4). (Craig S. Keener, Romans [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2009], 28)

Steve Jones, Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

On a facebook group I belong to, someone posted this essay critiquing Reformed theology and how truly anti-biblical it is. As this is a topic I have discussed a bit on this blog, readers should enjoy it as much as I did:

Steve Jones, Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

Words of Calvinism and the Word of God

Jeremy Myers, an Evangelical Protestant, has a very good series refuting Reformed/Calvinistic theology

Words of Calvinism and the Word of God

while one will disagree with him on some issues (e.g., as a Protestant, he holds to Sola Scriptura), it is a very thorough refutation of Calvinism; many more articles are being planned in this series which should also prove to be useful.

Exploring Mormon Thought Podcasts

Blake Ostler has written three volumes as part of his Exploring Mormon Thought Series published by Greg Kofford Books in Salt Lake City:

The Attributes of God (2001)

The Problems of Theism and the Love of God (2006)

Of God and Gods (2008)

Blake and his son recently started a podcast series based on this book series. One can find it on the Sound Cloud Website:

Exploring Mormon Thought

Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan

Brian Stubbs' recent volume, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan is available as a free download on Jerry Grover's Website.

Was it Jesus or John the Baptist who received angelic ministration?

Christ's temptation in the wilderness is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels: Matthew 4:1-11//Luke 4:1-13//Mark 1:12-13. I have discussed this event in the life of Christ as, alongside Jude 9, the strongest evidence of an external supernatural Satan in the New Testament:

Matthew 4 and Satan being an external person

Satan as a personal, external being in the Gospel of Matthew

In this post, I will focus on this event in the New Testament and the topic of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible.

In the accounts in Matthew and Mark, after Satan departed, angels came to minister to Christ. In Matt 4:11, we read:

Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Mark 1:13 reads:

And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Interestingly, Joseph Smith in the JST altered the text in Matthew but not in Mark, showing that the JST is not to be understood as being inspired in every change Joseph Smith made to the KJV (alas, there are many LDS who, functionally, are JST inerrantists, who treat the JST as the "final word" when it comes to the text of the Bible). Matt 4:11 in the JST reads:

And now Jesus knew that John was cast into prison, and he sent angels, and, behold, they came and ministered unto him.

However, Mark 1:11 in the JST (corresponding to v. 13 in the KJV) reads as follows:

And he was there in the wilderness forty days, Satan seeking to tempt him; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

‎In the Matthew text, the angels ministered to John the Baptist; in Mark, the angels ministered to Jesus, as it reads in the KJV of both Matthew and Mark. Indeed, with respect to evidence of the Greek NT manuscripts, the KJV of both Matthew and Mark are supported; there are no variants in any of the texts supporting John the Baptist being the recipient of angelic ministration instead of Jesus in Matt 4:11. Furthermore, there is a conflict within the JST as seen in JST Matt 4:11 and Mark 1:11 as seen above.

For those of us who do not hold the JST to be inspired with respect to every single change Joseph Smith made to the Bible, such is not a problem; it is problematic, however, to those who treat the JST as superior to the KJV (and other translations) in every respect. Another example of an error in the JST would be replacing OT Elijah with John the Baptist on the Mount of Transfiguration in Mark 9:3. The JST reads (emphasis added):

And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, or in other words, John the Baptist and Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.

Here, Joseph Smith replaced OT Elijah with John the Baptist, notwithstanding D&C 35:4 and other texts that show it was OT Elijah who was with Moses, not John the Baptist. Furthermore, in spite of rather desperate attempts to claim John the Baptist was with OT Elijah and Moses, this ignores the meaning of the phrase "or in other words." For a full discussion of OT Elijah and NT Elias, see my article:

"Elias" as a "Forerunner" in LDS Scripture