Brian Stubbs' Response to Chris Rogers

Brian Stubbs is the author of Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan and Changes in Language from Nephi to Now. In the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, a "review" of these volumes was written by Chris Rogers, "A Review of the Afro-Asiatic: Utzo-Aztecan Proposal." Brian has recently sent Jeff Lindsay his response which Jeff has posted on his blog:

Guest Post from Brian Stubbs: A Response to Chris Rogers’ “A Review of the Afro-Asiatic: Uto-Aztecan Proposal” in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (PDF version of Stubbs' review)

Rogers' "review" seems basically to be along the lines of, "Well, Stubbs believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and we can't have that!!!!" (which fits much of what the Maxwell Institute are producing these days where any view but the traditional view [read: believing Joseph Smith told the truth] is acceptable). It is also a devasting review by Stubbs and a solid defence of his books.

Noel B. Reynolds, The Language of the Spirit in the Book of Mormon

Pneumatology (theology of the Spirit) is an area that Latter-day Saints need to do better work in, as a lot of the material LDS authors who have addressed this topic have been, to be blunt, superficial at best (e.g., Robert Millet's recent book, The Holy Spirit: His Identity, Mission, and Ministry).

The Interpreter Foundation just posted a new article by Noel B. Reynolds on the topic of the Spirit in the Book of Mormon. This article is a refreshing change as it is a careful, theological and scholarly analysis of the issue:

The Language of the Spirit in the Book of Mormon (PDF)

David W. Hester on the Early Patristic attestation of Mark 16:9-20

The patristic witness supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is impressive, and one of the main reasons why I accept the longer ending. Indeed, in some cases, the evidence predates the manuscript evidence. David W. Hester noted the following on this issue:

Papias

Papias, whose Five Books on the Sayings of the Lord was completed by AD 110, had only bits and pieces of his work later cited by various writers. Though no evidence is available that Papias quoted directly from 16:9-20, he may have been familiar with the passage. Eusebius indicated this: “But as regards them let it be noted that Papias, their contemporary, mentions a wondrous account that he received from the daughters of Philip. For he recounts a resurrection from the dead in his time, and yet another paradox about Justus who was surnamed Barsabbas, as having drunk a deadly poison and yet, through the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm” (Ecc. History 3.39). An allusion to Mark 16:18 as personified by Justus is thus possible, but not certain.

Epistle of the Apostles

The Epistula Apostolorum, or Epistle of the Apostles, is an anonymous composition. First discovered in 1895 in Cairo, the first publication of the text was in 1913. It was translated from Greek into Coptic and Ethiopic (the Ethiopic alone being complete), as well as a small Latin fragment. Hannah proposed that the Epistle of the Apostles evidenced a collection of all four Gospels, thus placing them as early as the 140s. While not explicitly quoting from 16:9-20, the author seems to have been familiar with the passage—as indicated by several instances in his writing. It speaks of Jesus’ position in heaven where he “sits at the right hand of the throne of the Father” (Epistle of the Apostles, 3), a reference to Mark 16:19. It also describes the women at the tomb “weeping and mourning” (Ibid., 10). This phrase is identical to that used in Mark 16:10. There is also this statement: “Come, our Master has risen from the dead. And Mary came and told us. And we said unto her: What have we to do with you, O woman? He that is dead and buried, can he then live? And we did not believe her, that our Savior had risen from the dead” (Ibid.). This seems to indicate that the author was at least familiar with the passage; he describes the apostles collectively rejecting the testimony of the women who had seen Jesus (as in Mark 16:11-14). Further, the text states: “Then she went back to our Lord and said unto him, ‘None of them believed me concerning your resurrection.” Again, this seems to parallel 16:11. Consider also these citations: “Then the Lord said to Mary and to her sisters, ‘Let us go to them,’ And he came and found us inside, veiled . . . and he said to us, ‘Why do you doubt and are not believing?’” (Ibid., 11).  This seems to be another allusion to the collective disbelief of the apostles, only found in 16:11-14—especially verse 14, where Jesus rebukes the apostles for rejecting the testimony of those who had come to tell them of his resurrection. Later, it has Jesus saying, “Go and preach to the twelve tribes of Israel and to the Gentiles and Israel and to the land of Israel towards Easter and West, North and South” (Ibid., 30). This could be from Mark 16:15. Taken as a whole, the author of Epistle of the Apostles seems to demonstrate a familiarity with 16:9-20. In his commentary on Mark, Robert H. Stein rejected 16:9-20 as authentic. He yet acknowledged that Epistle of the Apostles used the passage (Stein, Mark, 728) as did Hengel—who declared “the connections . . . are particularly striking” (Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 168). Hengel also concluded that the account of the resurrection found in Epistle of the Apostles matches best with 16:9-20, dating Epistle “at the latest in the middle of the second century, and very probably earlier,” and 16:9-20 “to the first decades of the second century” (Ibid.)

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr, who dates ca. AD 153, shows a familiarity with the passage. The phrase ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν (First Apology 45.5) (“having gone forth, preached everywhere”) is the same as found in Mark 16:20, with one difference. The order of the last two words is reversed. While it is feasible that Justin knew the passage, there are those who take issue. In the most recent critical text published of Justin’s Apology, the editors do not list 16:20 as a Scripture cited. Yet, the very words chosen by Justin seem to be more than coincidental. The phrase from both works is virtually the same. It is probable that Justin was at least alluding to Mark 16:20. Kelhoffer used Justin as a witness to the antiquity of the passage, and also referenced words and phrases used by Justin that possibly reflect knowledge ad use of the passage (Kelhoffer, “Miracle and Mission,” 170-75). Assuming Justin cited it, it would indicate that the long ending existed prior to AD 150.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus also dates toward the middle of the second century. In Against Heresies, there seem to be two citations from 16:9-20. In book 1, there is this statement concerning Jesus, which is a reference to verse 19: “Then he was assumed into heaven, where Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.” In book 3 there is a quotation from Mark 16:19: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God” (Against Heresies 3:10:5). This statement about Mark 16:19 is specifically mentioned in a Greek margin note in Codex 1582 and in Codex 72 (which implies that the note was present in the archetype of Family 1, in the late 400’s). Westcott and Hort accepted this quotation by Irenaeus as genuine (Introduction to the New Testament, 39). One might dispute this by pointing to the uncertainty of the text. The writings of Irenaeus are known in a Latin translation of a later date, and how much it was emended is unknown. However, Kelhoffer had no problem citing Irenaeus as using the passage. Kelhoffer refers to it as an “unambiguous citation of Mark 16:19 as a part of the end of Mark’s Gospel” (Miracle and Mission, 170). Because of the patristic evidence, Kelhoffer stated that 16:9-20 dates at least t the early decades of the second century (Ibid., 175). In light of the support of Markan authorship of 16:9-20 by mid-second-century authors—whether one accepts or rejects 16:9-20—the passage is ancient, well-attested, and accepted by the early church. (David W. Hester, Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament? [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2015], 118-21, emphasis in bold added)

Baba Bathra 14b-15a and the Question of "Authorship" of Scriptural Texts

Commenting on how “authorship” could be understood rather broadly, even with respect to sacred scripture, one Church of Christ (not the former RLDS; the Campbellite movement, so hardly a liberal) wrote:

Even though ancient Jews did not believe that Moses prophetically wrote of his own death in the last chapter to Deuteronomy, they still regarded all thirty-four chapters as canonical and thus authoritative. According to the Babylonian Talmud (b. Baba Bathra 14b-15a), Joshua the successor to Moses, wrote the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, describing Moses’s death. And Joshua’s sons Eleazar and Phinehas completed the book of Joshua, after Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29-33). And Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet completed the two books of Samuel after Samuel’s death (recorded early in 2 Sam 25:1). Even though someone besides the original authors supplied the conclusions to these canonical books, the Jews still attributed them to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel respectively. (David H. Warren, “Foreword” in David W. Hester, Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2015], ix).

As one who holds that Luke wrote Hebrews (after being commissioned by Paul to use and appropriate a sermon he gave, similar to the early Christian tradition about Hebrews), and open to the thesis that Paul commissioned someone from Colossae to “Colossian-ise” Ephesians (resulting in the letter to the Colossians), such shows that, in antiquity, one could attribute authorship of a work to person “X” even if “X” did not personally write/dictate the text itself (while they would be commissioned by “X” to do such in some way, whether directly or indirectly [in the case of Joshua, being the designated successor of Moses; in the case of Luke, in my view, being directly commissioned by Paul himself]).

B. Baba Bathra 14b-15a itself reads as follows for those interested:

Who wrote the Scriptures? — Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam  and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and [the last] eight verses of the Pentateuch.  Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders, namely, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Yeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah.  Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote (Mnemonic YMSHK)  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (Mnemonic KNDG)  Ezekiel,  the Twelve Minor Prophets,  Daniel and the Scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote the book that bears his name  and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time. This confirms the opinion of Rab, since Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: Ezra did not leave Babylon to go up to Eretz Yisrael until he had written his own genealogy. Who then finished it [the Book of Chronicles]? — Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.

The Master has said: Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. This statement is in agreement with the authority who says that eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua, as it has been taught: [It is written], So Moses the servant of the Lord died there.  Now is it possible that Moses being dead could have written the words, 'Moses died there'? The truth is, however, that up to this point Moses wrote, from this point Joshua wrote. This is the opinion of R. Judah, or, according to others, of R. Nehemiah. Said R. Simeon to him: Can [we imagine the] scroll of the Law being short of one word, and is it not written, Take this book of the Law?  No; what we must say is that up to this point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated and wrote, and from this point God dictated and Moses wrote with tears, as it says of another occasion, Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.  Which of these two authorities is followed in the rule laid down by R. Joshua b. Abba which he said in the name of R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab: The last eight verses of the Torah must be read [in the Synagogue service] by one person alone?  — It follows R. Judah and not R. Simeon. I may even say, however, that it follows R. Simeon, [who would say that] since they differ [from the rest of the Torah] in one way, they differ in another.

[You say that] Joshua wrote his book. But is it not written, And Joshua son of Nun the servant of the Lord died?  — It was completed by Eleazar. But it is also written in it, And Eleazar the son of Aaron died?  — Phineas finished it. [You say that] Samuel wrote the book that bears his name. But is it not written in it, Now Samuel was dead?  — It was completed by Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet. [You say that] David wrote the Psalms, including work of the ten elders. Why is not Ethan the Ezrahite also reckoned with? — Ethan the Ezrahite is Abraham. [The proof is that] it is written in the Psalms, Ethan the Ezrahite,  and it is written elsewhere, Who hath raised up righteousness from the East.

[The passage above] reckons both Moses and Heman. But has not Rab said that Moses is Heman, [the proof being] that the name Heman is found here [in the Psalms] and it is written elsewhere [of Moses], In all my house he is faithful?  — There were two Hemans.

You say that Moses wrote his book and the section  of Balaam and Job. This supports the opinion of R. Joshua b. Levi b. Lahma who said that Job was contemporary with Moses — [The proof is that] it is written here [in connection with Job], O that my words were now [efo] written,  and it is written elsewhere [in connection with Moses], For wherein now [efo] shall it be known.  But on that ground I might say that he was contemporary with Isaac, in connection with whom it is written, Who now [efo] is he that took venison?  Or I might say that he was contemporary with Jacob, in connection with whom it is written, If so now [efo] do this?  or with Joseph, in connection with whom it is written, Where [efo] they are pasturing?  — This cannot be maintained; [The proof that Job was contemporary with Moses is that] it is written [in continuation of the above words of Job], Would that they were inscribed in a book, and it is Moses who is called 'inscriber', as it is written, And he chose the first part for himself, for there was the lawgiver's [mehokek, lit. 'inscriber's'] portion reserved.  Raba said that Job was in the time of the spies. [The proof is that] it is written here [in connection with Job], There was a man in the land of Uz, Job was his name,  and it is written elsewhere [in connection with the spies], Whether there be wood [ez] therein.  Where is the parallel? In one place it is Uz, in the other EZ? — What Moses said to Israel was this: [See] if that man is there whose years are as the years of a tree and who shelters his generation like a tree.

A certain Rabbi was sitting before R. Samuel b. Nahmani and in the course of his expositions remarked, Job never was and never existed, but is only a typical figure.  He replied: To confute such as you the text says, There was a man in the land of Uz, Job was his name. But, he retorted, if that is so, what of the verse, The poor man had nothing save one poor ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up etc.  Is that anything but a parable? So this too is a parable. If so, said the other, why are his name and the name of his town mentioned?

R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both stated that Job was among those who returned from the [Babylonian] Exile, and that his house of study was in Tiberias. An objection [to this view] was raised from the following: 'The span of Job's life was from the time that Israel entered Egypt till they left it. (source)

Protestant Fideism Part 2: The "Testimonies" of Evangelical Anti-Mormons: Nothing but Subjective Feelings

In an earlier post (Protestant Fideism: A Primer [a response to an inane article by a Protestant apologist on the intellectually bankrupt Bugger All Exegesis blog]) I showed the subjective nature of Protestant epistemology vis-a-vis acceptance of the Bible. Here, let us examine the "testimonies" of three anti-Mormons: Matt Slick and Mike and Ann Thomas.

Matt Slick (CARM)

In a debate against Gerry Matatics (Sedevacantist) on why he believes the Protestant canon of the Bible in general, Slick admitted (at the 14:08 mark):

Roman Catholicism Open Discussion, 4/3/2018

The reason I believe it is, I mean, it is very subjective, I believe it by faith--that's it. That's why I believe the Bible.

In a debate with Robert Sungenis on the Bodily Assumption of Mary, Slick appealed to John 10:14-16, arguing that one "knows" a book of the Bible is true as "the sheep hear Jesus's voice," so that is how he knows the Protestant canon is authoritative.

Sungenis: How do you know what books are in the Bible?

Slick: Well, Jesus tells us "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me" (35:08 mark)

Sungenis answered this argument in his book, Not by Scripture Alone:

This is the solution forced upon Protestants in their attempt to explain the final compilation of the books of the Bible—if one can’t accept the Church as an authority to determine the canon, then the only possible answer is to say that the Scripture determines itself. Thus they tell us that people of God, in their own judgment, will ultimately be able to recognize its authenticity as the word of God. We sense, however, some equivocation in this apologist’s assertion, since he adds the phrases “in a real sense” and “in the deepest sense.” What do these phrases really mean? Are there any “senses” in which the Scripture is not self-authenticating? Further exacerbating the problem is that his apologist has not given us any criteria for the mental process by which the people of God should finally judge the canon. He only makes a casual reference to John 10:14-16 in which the “sheep listen to the shepherd’s voice” as proof of his claim. But let’s examine this more closely. Is the context of John 10:14-16 speaking about such esoteric topics as determining the canon of Scripture? Certainly not. It is speaking about simple obedience to Jesus’ known commands. Moreover, since Jesus never says what constitutes the canon, how can we expect these people to “hear his voice” on that specific subject? Even if John 10 did apply to the canon, would this apologist also say that these sheep heard the words of the shepherd infallibly? If not, what kind of shepherd would lead them to fallible information? If he doesn’t lead them to green pastures but to dry weeds he is no better than the hired hand he criticizes.

We should also add that if it is the precise nature of Scripture that leads people to determine the canon, what is this definitive mark of canonicity? And if someone does propose such a definitive mark, who has the authority to judge if it is accurate and complete? If one cannot specifically catalogue and limit, can those who take it upon themselves to determine the canon rely on a mere feeling that a certain book is the word of God? Just what is the final criterion for the determination of the canon? It seems from what this apologist is saying that the criterion is more the fallible sheep rather than the infallible Scripture.

Compounding the problem of the sheep judging the word of God, certain books of the canon hardly meet even the general criterion for canonicity suggested for other books. For example, the book of Philemon lacks many of the traits of canonicity that Protestants usually associate with other books of the Bible such as Romans or Galatians. Philemon contains no gospel/salvation message, per se. It is just a short letter expressing concern about the fortunes of a runaway slave. Nor can one claim Philemon is canonical merely because it claims Paul as its author, for not only is such an assertion unprovable but Paul wrote other letters that were not accepted as canonical (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 10:10; Phil. 3:1; Col. 4:16). One can raise the same questions about intrinsic worth of such books and 2 John and 3 John, and other New Testament books. When we recall that some Protestant theologians of the sixteenth century either demoted or outright rejected even long-accepted books of the canon, such as James, Hebrews, and Revelation, which do speak heavily about gospel/salvation issues, we sense that determining the canon is not simply a matter of the lowly sheep hearing the shepherd’s voice (For example, Luther called James “an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of gospel about it” [LW 35, 362]. Martin Chemnitz was not too far behind: “No dogma ought therefore to be drawn out of these books which does not have reliable and clear foundations in other canonical books” [An Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 189]). (Robert Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2013], 193-294, here, pp. 243-45)

Mike and Ann Thomas (Reachout Trust)

In an interview the late Doug Harris in 2008, Mike Thomas (see Latter-day Saints and the Bible) said the following about his wife's "conversion experience" to Evangelical Protestantism:

She came along that evening [to a friend's Protestant church], and the love that was shared there, the gospel was preached and Ann lasted about twenty minutes into the service when she fled the building. And I thought, "what have I done? I've done something dreadful here; something is wrong and I've not picked up on this." So I rushed out to her; two of the ladies in the church came out as well--very concerned. And Ann was sobbing in the carpark. And we said, "what's wrong?" And she said, "there's nothing wrong; it's just so wonderful!" And the Spirit of God was so powerful and she just couldn't take the weight of it. It was an incredible experience." (8:23 mark)

Often anti-Mormons caricature the LDS testimony as "mere emotions" and claim that the "burning in the bosom" is not the Holy Spirit but a sign one needs a tablet for indigestion; perhaps here Ann Thomas just needed to pop an anti-depressant and all would have been well (and seeing that Mike chokes up telling this story may hint that he needs one, too). If anything, it does show the hypocrisy of anti-Mormons such as Mike and Ann Thomas--they have a chapter in both editions of Mormonism: A Gold-Plated Religion (1997, 2008) on the LDS testimony where they mischaracterise it as mere emotions (you know, like getting emotional during a church service . . . oh, wait, if it is within a Protestant context, it is a-okay! Silly me . . . )

What is even sadder is that they both embraced a damnable false gospel, i.e., Evangelical Protestantism that has a multitude of problems, including the absolute lack of sound biblical and historical evidence for Sola Scriptura.. As with Aaron Shafovaloff, they converted based on a false hope and promise to an equally false gospel.

Off to Poland in October (Potential Fireside[s])

I will be in Szczecin, Poland from 11 to 14 October for personal reasons, but I am trying to schedule some kind of fireside for members of the Church in that area (perhaps a discussion of Hebrew names in the Book of Mormon, or, as it is a very devout Catholic country, addressing the Marian doctrines as I have written a book on the topic--I am currently discussing things with people there, so at this stage, it is super preliminary).

If/when the fireside presentation(s) go ahead, however, I will record them. I just thought I would mention this in case anyone will be in the area (unlikely as that will be!) or might wish to alert those in the area to the possibility and in case they wish to make their interest known (more people interested means a greater possibility it will happen).

For those who wish to help with this blog, possible trips like this one, firesides, and forthcoming articles and books, always feel free to make a donation via paypal (or if you wish to send Amazon voucher[s] or the like my way instead, my email is IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom). Thanks.

Jewish Parallels to the Scriptural-Based Dialogue and Temptations of Jesus by Satan in the Wilderness

In Matthew 4:-11//Luke 4:1-13, Jesus is portrayed as engaging in a “Scripture-bash” with Satan. Many errant Protestant apologists have used this as “proof” that Jesus viewed Scripture as the final authority. For a refutation, see:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

In Jewish works, Satan and a righteous figure sometimes engage in a similar dispute. For instance, in the Talmud Sanhedrin 89b, we read the following exchange between Abraham and Satan:

Satan preceded Abraham to the path that he took to bind his son and said to him: “If one ventures a word to you, will you be weary…you have instructed many, and you have strengthened the weak hands. Your words have upheld him that was falling…but now it comes upon you, and you are weary” (Job 4:2–5). Do you now regret what you are doing? Abraham said to him in response: “And I will walk with my integrity” (Psalms 26:11). Satan said to Abraham: “Is not your fear of God your foolishness?” (Job 4:6). In other words, your fear will culminate in the slaughter of your son. Abraham said to him: “Remember, please, whoever perished, being innocent” (Job 4:7). God is righteous and His pronouncements are just. Once Satan saw that Abraham was not heeding him, he said to him: “Now a word was secretly brought to me, and my ear received a whisper thereof” (Job 4:12). This is what I heard from behind the heavenly curtain [pargod], which demarcates between God and the ministering angels: The sheep is to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and Isaac is not to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. Abraham said to him: Perhaps that is so. However, this is the punishment of the liar, that even if he speaks the truth, others do not listen to him. Therefore, I do not believe you and will fulfill that which I was commanded to perform.

A similar triple dialogue between a prophet and a supernatural messenger (whether good or evil) can be seen in Deuteronomy Rabbah 11 between Moses and the angel Samael before Moses’ death.

Newel Knight on the Appearance of Christ at the Dedication of the Kirtland Temple

Commenting on events on the day of the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, Newel Knight (1800-1847) wrote the following:

March the 27th 1836. The lower room at the temple was dedicated to the Lord to day & the power of God, the ministering of Angels attended. Brother Frederick G Williams bore testimony to the whol Congregeation that that during the first prayer made by Phs Smith an Angel came & Sat between him & Father smith. When Bro. Williams gave a discription of the Angel & his dress, Bro Joseph Said it was Christ. This was to me a Satisfaction to [know] that the Lord did come in to the house we had labored so diligently to build unto his mame & that he had accepted it of his Saints. (The Rise of the Latter-day Saints: The Journals and Histories of Newel Knight, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay and William G. Hartley [Salt Lake City/Provo: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019], 89; spellings in original retained)

For more on the visionary experiences involving the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, see the essay by Steven C. Harper, "A Pentecost and Endowment Indeed": Six Eyewitness Accounts of the Kirtland Temple Experience in John Welch, ed. Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844.

Newel Knight on the Healing of Philo Dibble (and the use of one hand, not two hands in a blessing being efficacious)

In November 1833, Philo Dibble was wounded in a mob attack. Recounting his role in the miraculous healing of Dibble, Newel Knight (1800-1847) wrote:

The next day I went to see brother Dibble. I found the house where he laid surrounded with the mob. I managed to get into the house when two of the mob Seated them Selves in the door. I went up to the bed wher he lay in extreme agony. As I looked upon him, not dareing to utter a word of prayer, I laid one hand upon his head while wih the other I drawed the bed curtain to hide us a little from the mob, and lifted my desires to the Lord in behalf of Brother Dibble, after which I arose and went away. As I left him I saw tears fast streaming from his eyes, yet no word passed, but I felt that I had done my errant and felt to trust the event to the Lord. As I to well knew the design of the mob who had stationed there, the I did not feel to give my self in to their power at that time.

The next day I had buisness about ten miles [dis]tant, where to my great joy I found Brother Dibble to all appearance perfectly well. He told me that at the time I laid my hand upon his head he felt the Spirit of the Lord rest upon him and pass gently through his body, and before it pass all pain and soreness so that he felt perfectly easy. In a few minutes he discharged about a gallon of putrid blood also the balls that had entered his body and peices of his clotheing. He rested that night and the nex day made his escape and was nearly out of the County when I met with him. (The Rise of the Latter-day Saints: The Journals and Histories of Newel Knight, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay and William G. Hartley [Salt Lake City/Provo: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019], 56-57; spellings in original retained)

Apart from being an early example of the healing associated with priesthood blessings, what is also interesting is that Knight used a single hand, not both his hands, in administering this priesthood blessing, showing that whether one uses one or both hands in such an instance is accidental—what is essential is that at least one hand is used to administer the blessing (a technical issue, sure, but I am “into” such things).

The use of καμνω in James 5:14-15 and the Physical and Spiritual Importance of "Priesthood Blessings"

Is anyone ill among you? He should call on the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him, and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (Jas 5:14-15 | Thomas A. Wayment’s Translation)

While reading this text today, I encountered something interesting. The “ill” in verse 14 is ασθενεω, which can refer to both physically, as well as spiritually ill individuals. In verse 15, however, James uses a different term. He uses καμνω, which often refers to those who are spiritually sick or sick as a result of being sinful, not simply being physically ill merely, and as linguists would agree, a change in word denotes a change in meaning. Consider the following instances of καμνω having such a meaning in the Greek pseudepigrapha and early Christian literature:

For my soul within me is weary (καμνω). (Sibylline Oracle 3:3)

Idols of dead (καμνω) gods of wood and stone. (Sibylline Oracle 3:588)

Will not escape ignoble fate, but will succumb (καμνω). A foreign dust will hide his corpse. (Sibylline Oracle 5:44)

And then, O you rich with the wealth of cities, you will be rich with distress (καμνω). (Sibylline Oracle 5:98)

Demons without life, images of the worn-out dead (καμνω). (Sibylline Oracle 8:47)

Now let me rest a little and put aside the charming song from my heart; for weary (καμνω) is my heart. (Sibylline Oracle 12:297-98)

And my father always rejoiced in my generosity. Because if someone was sick (καμνω), I offered through the priest all first-fruits to the Lord; then to my father, then to me. (Testament of Issachar 3:6)

Then there are the following attendant on these: helping widows, looking after orphans and the needy, rescuing the servants of God from necessities, the being hospitable — for in hospitality gooddoing finds a field — never opposing any one, the being quiet, having fewer needs than all men, reverencing the aged, practicing righteousness, watching the brotherhood, bearing insolence, being long-suffering, encouraging those who are sick (καμνω) in soul, not casting those who have fallen into sin from the faith, but turning them back and restoring them to peace of mind, admonishing sinners, not oppressing debtors and the needy, and if there are any other actions like these. (Hermas Mandate 8 1:10)

The only other instance of καμνω in the New Testament denotes, not physical sickness, per se, but spiritual/mental distress or physical fatigue:

For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself; lest ye be wearied (καμνω) and faint in your minds. (Heb 12:3)

This adds additional significance to κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ ("if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him" [KJV]), tying this action by the elders of the Church to those who are not (physically) sick merely but sick spiritually too, and how they can be both physically and spiritually healed as a result of this “priesthood blessing” if you will. 

That eschatological, not merely physical/temporal salvation, of the sick person is in view here can be seen in the following comment from New Testament scholar Luke Timothy Johnson:

will save the sick person: James uses the attributive participle of the verb kamnein, which when intransitive means “to be weary/fatigued” (see Heb 12:3) or ill,” either with respect to specific symptoms (Plato, Gorgias 478A; Lucian, Toxaris 60; 4 Macc 7:13) or simply in general; thus “the sick” (hoi kamnontes), in Herodotus, Persian War 1:197; Plato, Rep. 407C). The verb sōzein has in this context its familiar ambiguity. At the most literal level, it means that the sick person will be healed. But in NT literature, especially when combined with “faith,” it tends to mean “saved” in a religious sense. Indeed James’ language here (“faith saves”) is unmistakably part of early Christian argot, especially in connection with stories of physical healing. The phrase “your faith has saved you” (hē pistis sou sesōken se) is found in both Mark (5:34; 10:52) and Matt 9:22 in connection with Jesus’ healing. In Luke, the expression is used even more frequently (Luke 7:50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42), and in Acts, Luke explicitly connects “faith” to the power worked by “the name of the Lord” in healing (Acts 3:16; 4:9-10; 14:9), as well as t the joining of the Christian community (Acts 15:9, 11; 16:31). This is now the third time that James uses the language of “saving”: in 1:1 he spoke of “the implanted word that is able to save your souls/lives”; in 2:14 he declared that faith without deeds could not “save”; now the two notions are joined: the prayer of the community is certainly a “deed of faith,” and it is also “the name of the Lord” that has the power to save the life/soul of the sick person. (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 37A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995], 332-33)

As one Protestant commentator wrote about the relationship in the ancient world between sins and physical ailments which is rather apropos:

The Jewish belief on this subject may be illustrated by the following: in Test. Of the Twelve Patriarchs, Simeon, ii. 11 ff., because Simeon continued wrathful against Reuben, he says, “But the Lord restrained me, and withheld from me the power of my hands; for my right hand was half withered for seven days”; in Gad. v. 9 ff. the patriarch confesses that owing to his hatred against Joseph God brought upon him a disease of the liver, “and had not the prayers of Jacob my father succoured me, it had already failed but my spirit had departed”. That sin brings disease was, likewise, in the later Jewish literature, and article of faith, indeed here one finds specified what are the particular sicknesses that particular sins bring in their train. According to Rabbinical teaching there are four signs by means of which it is possible to recognise the sin of which a man has been guilty: dropsy is the sign that the sin of fornication has been committed, jaundice that of unquenchable hatred, poverty and humiliation that of pride, liver complaint (?) (אסכרה) that of back-biting. In Shabbath, 55, a, it says: “No death without sin, no chastisement without evil-doing,” and in Nedarim, 41 a it says: “No recovery without forgiveness”. Leprosy may be due to one of eleven sins, but most probably to that of an evil tongue. (W.E. Oesterley, “The General Epistle of James” in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, volume 4 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 475)

This adds further biblical support for the Latter-day Saint practise of "priesthood blessings," as well as highlighting their spiritual, not physical merely, importance.

Transformative Justification in 2 Nephi 9:14

In 2 Nephi 9:14, we read the following:

Wherefore we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt
and our uncleanness and our nakedness.
And the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge
of their enjoyment and their righteousness,
being clothed with purity,
yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

In this text, Jacob contrasts the “nakedness” (as a result of guilt/uncleanness [sinful actions]) with the righteous, who are considered “righteous” which is based, not on an imputation of an alien righteousness, but, just as their enjoyment is not a mere declaration or “label,” their “righteousness,” as a result of righteous living (the contrastive parallel with the guilty and their sinful lifestyle). As a result, we are to understand that the clothing imagery to be an outward sign of an inward reality. I have discussed this theme a few times on this blog. See, for e.g.:

Does clothing imagery support imputation?

Transformative Justification in the Odes of Solomon

D&C 138:51 and Clothing Imagery

Martha Himmelfarb on Clothing Imagery and Transformation in 2 and 3 Enoch

Clothing Imagery, Psalm 109:29, and Romans 5:19: Further Proof that the Reformed Understanding of Imputation is Unbiblical

See also:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Also, note the parallel with “purity” and “righteousness.” This is also significant. In Hebrew, the word for "clean" or "pure" is ‎טָהוֹר and is often used for "pure" gold (e.g. Exo 25:11, 17, 24, 29, 31, 36, 38, 39). The term for righteous is ‎צַדִּיק and even in legal contexts, is used to denote a reality (i.e., one is declared not guilty as they are, intrinsically, innocent/righteous; cf. Deut 25:1 and Lev 17:3-4). All this supports the view that justification is not a mere declaration wherein one is declared to be “pure” or “righteous”; we are also made such in justification, too.

Protestant Fideism: A Primer

Fideism is the core of the Protestant experience.

The highly predictable rejoinder from the Protestant who cannot substantiate the falsifiable claims of his religion (such as matters of baptism, justification, and sola scriptura) almost invariably is to reduce the dialog to the puny dimensions of personal, subjective belief. A good example is easily found every time I ask Protestants why someone should believe the objectively testable claims of their religion pertaining to such mundane issues as the very basic question of whether the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.

Consider the following subjective appeals to "prove" their doctrine of sola scriptura:

  

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1: "Of the Holy Scripture" [emphasis added])

In the Second Helvetic Confession, from 1566, under chapter 1, “Of the Holy Scripture Being the True Word of God,” we read the following in section 5:

Neither do we think that therefore the outward reaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written ‘No man shall teach his neighor; for all men shall know me’ (Jer. xxxi. 34), and ‘he that watereth, or he that planteth, is nothing, but God that giveth the increase’ (1 Cor. iii. 7). For albeit ‘no man can come to Christ, unless he be drawn by the Heavenly Father’ (John vi. 44), and be inwardly lightened by the Holy Spirit, yet we know undoubtedly that it is the will of God that his word should be preached even outwardly. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, ‘He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do’ (Acts x. 6) (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. III: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds [revised by David S. Schaff; New York: Harper and Row, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007], 832; emphasis added)

Norman Geisler, a leading Protestant apologist and philosopher, and his co-author Ralph MacKenzie, wrote the following on how they, as Protestants, "know" the Bible to be true:

Reformed theologians also believe that the Spirit of God brings divine assurance that the Bible is the Word of God. This is known as the witness of the Spirit. Only the God of the word can bring full assurance that the Bible is the Word of God.. Further, Reformed theologians acknowledge that aid of the Holy Spirit in understanding and applying the Scriptures to our lives. But he does not do this contrary to the Bible or contrary to good rules of biblical interpretation. (Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995], 179 n. 6)

Similarly, in a recent book-length defense of Sola Scriptura, God's Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2016), Matthew Barrett wrote the following:

Calvin was clear that the Scripture’s credibility does not depend on man’s reason but on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Calvin explains that we will never be persuaded of the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture’s doctrine until we are “persuaded beyond doubt that God is its Author.” Therefore, the “highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks to it.” In that light, we must look to a “higher place than human reasons, judgments, or conjectures” and turn instead to the “secret testimony of the Spirit.” The “Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.” The same Spirit who spoke through the prophets will penetrate “into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded” (Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.4). (p. 67)

Many of the “contradictions” that scholars found problematic a century ago have now been resolved with time and study. Nor can we neglect the role of the Spirit. What at first appears to be an unsurmountable hurdle later becomes a small speed bump when the Spirit illuminates the Word so that we can better understand its meaning. (p. 266)

[I]nternal clarity is quite different [to external clarify]. Because the unbeliever is spiritually blind, he cannot see the truth of Scripture in a saving way unless his eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit (Luther, Bondage of the Will, in LW 33.28 [cf. 98-99]). So while a person may read and memorize the Scriptures backward and forward, exegete its words, diagram its sentences in the original languages, and masterfully describe the historical and cultural background of an individual text, this is not to say that the person has truly understood Scripture’s message. There is knowing Scripture, and then there is knowing Scripture. The latter is work of the Holy Spirit. (p. 320)

Sufficiency does not preclude the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit. While we should not be seeking revelation from the Spirit in addition to Scripture, we must not go to the other extreme (as some evangelical rationalists have done) and eliminate the Spirit entirely. Rather, Word and Spirit go together. God gives us his sufficient Word, but he intends the Spirit to come alongside us to help us understand his Word. Therefore, must like Calvin (see chapter 1), the Westminster Confession advocates the illuminating work of the Spirit: “The Spirit . . . [is] necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word (John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:9-12).” (p. 337)

Scripture reassures us that should we come to God’s Word with the Spirit as our counselor, the Lord will reward our hungry soul with sweet and satisfying food (1 John 2:20, 26-27). (p. 344)

I cannot prove the Bible is true. Only the Spirit can do that. And until he does, you will never see Scripture as God’s Word . . . The Bible testifies to its own identity. But this isn’t enough. We must then pray that the Spirit would irresistibly persuade sinners that the Bible is what it says it is. (p. 374)

In 2005, a book was released featuring essays by a series of well-respected Evangelical theologians and scholars:

Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation of the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today, eds. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005)

After discussing his family’s battle with a son’s serious illness, Wallace wrote the following in an essay entitled, “The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical”:

Through this experience I found that the Bible was not adequate. I needed God in a personal way—not as an object of my study, but as friend, guide, comforter. I needed an existential experience of the Holy One. Quite frankly, I found that the Bible was not the answer. I found the scriptures to be helpful—even authoritatively helpful—as a guide. But without feeling God, the Bible gave me little solace. In the midst of this “summer from hell,” I began to examine what had become of my faith. I found a longing to get closer to God, but found myself unable to do so through my normal means: exegesis, scripture reading, more exegesis. I believe that I had depersonalized God so much that when I really needed him I didn’t know how to relate. I longed for him, but found many community-wide restrictions in my cessationist environment. I looked for God, but all I found was a suffocation of the Spirit in my evangelical tradition as well as in my own heart. (p. 7)

Elsewhere, in an essay entitled, “The Witness of the Spirit in Romans 8:16,” Wallace wrote:

3. How does the Spirit bear witness to our spirits? Certainly, he works on our hearts to convince us of the truth of scripture. But there is more. His inner witness is both immediate and intuitive. It involves a non-discursive presence that is recognized in the soul. This at least is the position of Calvin and the Reformers . . . Thus, the inner witness of the Spirit is supra-logical, not sub-logical—like the peace from God that surpasses all understanding. There are elements of the Christian faith that are not verifiable on an empirical plane. This makes them no less true.

4. For conflict in the academic realm: If the witness of the Spirit that I am a child of God is intuitive, then it is outside the realm of what is objectively verifiable. This does not make it any less true. We are too much sons of the Enlightenment when we deny intuition and internal apprehensions any value. When you fell in love, what scientific means did you use to verify the state of your heart? None. As every mother tells her child, “You just know.” It’s an apt analogy because it is one of the last vestiges of the pre-Enlightenment era that we still affirm. No one challenges it because there are no scientific means to determine whether a person is in love. Yet, we send bright young students armed with an M.Div. or Th.M. from an evangelical seminary into battle at secular schools, telling them only, “Trust your exegesis.” Too many have become spiritual casualties because they suppressed the inner witness of the Spirit . . . (p. 50)

In his essay, “The Witness of the Spirit in the Protestant Tradition,” M. James Sawyer discusses the various confessions (e.g., Westminster [1647]) that appealed to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, as well as various theologians in the Protestant traditions. Commenting on Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Sawyer wrote:

[H]e had a keen interest and fervent awareness of the necessity and reality of the witness of the Spirit in the life of the believer as an immediate experiential presence. He at various times makes mention of the work of the Spirit. A couple of examples will suffice to show his essential agreements with Wesley as to the nature of the witness, and his continuity with the Reformers in linking the witness of the Spirit to confirming the truth of the word of God. Edward notes:

And it seems to be necessary to suppose that there is an immediate influence of the Spirit of God, oftentimes, in bringing texts of Scripture to the mind. Not that I suppose it is done in a way of immediate revelation, without any use of the memory; but yet there seem plainly to be an immediate and extraordinary influence, in leading their thoughts to such and such passages of Scripture, and exciting them in the memory. Indeed, in some, God seems to bring texts of Scripture to their minds no otherwise than by leading them into such frames and meditations as harmonize with those Scriptures; but in many persons there seems to be something more like this . . . (Jonathan Edwards, “A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God,” The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2.1084-85)

In speaking of one of his parishioner’s experiences of the Spirit, Edwards testifies again to the immediate nature of the witness of the Spirit in confirming the truth and divinity of scripture.

She had sometimes the powerful breathings of the Spirit of God on her soul, while reading the Scripture; and would express her sense of the certain truth and divinity thereof. She sometimes would appear with a pleasant smile on her countenance; and once, when her sister took notice of it, and asked why she smiled, she replied, I am rim-full of a sweet feeling within. (ibid., 1100-1101)

Thus, with both Edwards and Wesley there is an insistence on the immediate nature of the witness of the Spirit. Neither one follows the Puritan lead of insisting on the practical syllogism in gaining assurance of salvation. For both, the evidence of the Spirit is an immediate supra-rational experience in the soul, not unrelated to the word, and not to be conceived as mysticism. (pp. 84-85)

David Eckman, in “The Holy Spirit and Our Emotions,” wrote the following in a section entitled, “The Spirit and Our Emotions”:

Since the presence of the Spirit is internal, the work of the Spirit of God is emotional. One example will illustrate the point. As the believer is involved in the exercise of faith, the Spirit of God, for example, will supply joy and peace. In the details of a particular text, Rom 15:13, the Spirit is not the only member of the Trinity relating to the Christian. Paul related the believer’s emotional life to two members of the Trinity, the Father and the Spirit. The God of hope is supposed to fill (the same word as used in Eph 5:18) the believer with every variety of joy and peace in the process of believing. All of this is to be done by the inherent power of the Holy Spirit. The process of generating these emotions is completely dependent upon the Holy Spirit’s work. (p. 212)

With respect to Gal 5:22-23 (“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” [NASB]), Sawyer writes that:

Spirituality is a life normally dominated by primary emotions—primary in the sense that these are what Christian existence is founded upon. Note how each term of the fruit of the Spirit carries an emotional connotation. (p. 213)

In a section on how to minister to our emotions, Sawyer offered the following tips to the reader which is reminiscent of how LDS missionaries teach people how to tell the difference between superficial emotions and the experience of the Holy Spirit:

What we have to do to gain and maintain spiritual health is as follows:

We have to recognize or differentiated what is going on within our emotional life and in the management of our appetites (Gal 5:16-24). This gives us information as to where we are starting from, either with spirituality or carnality . . . We have to set our minds on our relationships above; we control our thinking (Rom 8:1-6; Col 3:1-3). The terms used in both Rom 8 and Col 3 refer to perspective. By reckoning we relate to God personally instead of to our appetites (Rom 6:11-12). The focus of a person’s inner life can either be the God on the outside of the appetites on the inside. Sadly our appetites many times have far more impact on many of us than God does. The focus on our inner person has to be on God the Father, and our identity before him as found in Christ, and not in our appetites. So no matter the level of pressure from our inward desires, we must freely approach and share ourselves with God. (p. 214)

Finally, in his essay, “The Holy Spirit in Missions,” Donald K. Smith wrote the following under the heading of “Rationalism Largely Excludes the Holy Spirit,” which, if it came from a Latter-day Saint, would be branded by Evangelicals as “cultic” due to its “anti-intellectual” nature:

Why, then, does it appear that the Holy Spirit is more active in Asia, Africa, or Latin America than in Europe and North America? . . . I suggest that the real point is not a difference in the working of the Holy Spirit, but in a difference in the working of our human perceptions. Just as our unaided ear cannot detect radio signals nor can our eyes pick up television signals, the untransformed heart is unable and/or unwilling to perceive the Holy Spirit except in ways consistent with our existing understanding. Our ability to perceive anything rests not only on our physical senses but on our previous experience and on our heart belief—our world view.

In Western cultures, reason is considered supreme. The cultural mainstream says that feelings are not to be trusted, and emotion should always be controlled. The Enlightenment paradigm infuses nearly every part of Western life, even our systematic theologies. It leads us to believe that Truth must be found and proved by careful logic, and that logic rests on empirical observations. If “it” cannot be weighed, counted, or measures in some way, “it” does not exist . . . This core/heart belief in Western cultures has made it nearly impossible to perceive the genuine working of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the fundamental reason the ministry of the Holy Spirit seems more visible outside the North Atlantic nations is a matter of perception. We experience what we are conditioned to perceive. Since the dominant paradigm in North Atlantic nations is rationalistic, humanistic, and materialistic, we do not expect to see reality outside the boundaries established by our minds. (pp. 243, 244)

In reality, this is all the Protestant has, as we know the formal doctrine of their theology is anti-biblical. See:

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

This double-mindedness from Protestants is troubling. Few people want to relinquish their natural, God-given ability to reason properly. To do so is to tickle one’s toes in the pool of total insanity. But Protestants, when defending the claims of their religion, will give up their ability to reason or think clearly with almost instant and mechanically predictable regularity. They will even dive headlong into the deep pool of fideism. Behind the scenes, I think this is really just a way of dealing with their own recognition of their inability to substantiate even the most mundane and non-supernatural or spiritual claims upon which their religion was founded.

(This article was inspired by Brian Horner, Mormon Fideism: A Primer on the Bugger All Intellectual Honesty blog)

James Bannerman on the Church as the Temple of the Holy Spirit, not Individual Christians Merely

Some (mainly Evangelical) critics of the Church claim that, as Christians are said to be the temple of the Holy Spirit (e.g., 1 Cor 3:16-17), this must mean that, in the New Covenant, temple rituals and worship have been abrogated. Of course, this is fallacious as Paul is speaking metaphorically and is also reflective of the “either-or” false dilemma that plagues a lot of Protestant eisegesis. Furthermore, if Christians being said to be the temple of the Holy Spirit exhausts what can be considered a “temple” in the New Covenant, ipso facto the Church cannot be said to be the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Of course, such is absurd, but if errant Protestants who make this claim were to be consistent they would have to jettison their doctrine of inerrancy!

Furthermore, more careful Protestant theologians and authors realise that this is fallacious, too. James Bannerman (1807-1868) in his detailed study of Reformed ecclesiology, wrote the following:

. . .the Church is spoken of in Scripture as the residence or earthly dwelling-place of the Spirit, the Third Person of the glorious Godhead (Rom. viii. 9, 11, 16; 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, vi. 11, 15-17; Eph. ii. 18, 22, iv. 4. See the Greek in all these passages). It is no doubt true that the Spirit of God dwells in each individual believer, making his soul and body His temple, and glorifying the place of His presence with all heavenly and sanctified graces. But, over and above this, and in a higher sense than can apply to any individual Christian, the Spirit of God makes His dwelling in the Church, enriching that Church with all the fulness of life and power and privilege, which no single believer could receive or contain. As the body of the Son of God, as the earthly dwelling-place of the Spirit of God, the Church more than the Christian—the society more than the individual—is set forth to us as the highest and most glorious embodiment and manifestation of Divine power and grace upon the earth. And it is in reference to the society, and not to the individuals of which it is composed—to the Church and not to its single members—that very much of the language of the Bible refers. (James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline and Government of the Christian Church, volume 1 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868; repr., Vestavia Hills, Ala.: Solid Ground Christian Books 2009], 3-4)

Just as the Church (the society of believers) is, to a much greater degree, a possessor of a greater endowment of the Holy Spirit without compromising the individual believer from being a temple of the Holy Spirit, the (physical, New Covenant) temple can also be endowed with the Holy Spirit and a God-ordained temple without compromising either the Church or the individuals therein from being a temple of the Holy Spirit in some sense, too. This shows the importance of not always having an “either-or” approach to scriptural interpretation, but the allowance, when context necessitates such, of “both-and.”

On temples in the New Covenant, see, for e.g.:

The Acts of the Apostles and the On Going Need for a Temple

Are LDS Temples Condemned by Acts 7:48; 17:24?

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30