Some Excerpts from Dellas W. Lee, The Infinite Christ (2020)

 

 

This redemption process may be further illustrated by the case of the man who stole money from a Bank. The man felt guilty, regretted his act, and wanted to make restitution. But he no longer had the money. He faced prison. In desperation, he told his Friend about his dilemma. His Friend agreed to reimburse the Bank on condition that the man would agree to his Friend’s terms, and never steal again. The man gladly agreed. His Friend paid the debt, and plead for mercy. Mercy was granted. The Bank forgave the man, the man was not charged, and he did not have to go to prison. At this point, secular justice was fully satisfied. We see the saving power of Christ’s atonement in the illustration. Through repentance the man would be forgiven through the mercy of God (“justified”), and would now stand untainted before God (pardoned, clean and innocent). (Moses 6:59-60.) No Justice would have been robbed, “Nay; not one whit,” because the man’s debt to God was paid by the suffering of the Only Begotten. (Alma 42:24-25.)

 

Continuing with the analogy, suppose that after the man had repented, he robbed the bank again? The Lord gave the governing principle: “unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return.” (D&C 82:7.) This debt, and all others, has been eternally paid by the infinite suffering of the Lord, and that payment is final under the eternal laws of justice and mercy. But the cleansing that comes through the atonement is conditional upon repentance. Now to be cleansed from this and his former sins and have mercy extended, the man must repent again. We see that “cleansing” from sin and the “payment” to justice are two different things. The atoning payment to justice was final, the Lord paid it in the Garden and on the Cross, but cleansing—the extending of mercy—is conditional upon repentance of the beneficiary, which in reality is often a repeated event, and will continue to be so until we learn the beauty of perfect obedience, (D&C 82:7; 58:42.) Mercifully, through repentance, President Packer has said that: “The Atonement . . . can wash clean every stain no matter how difficult or how long or how many times repeated (President Boyd K. Packer, The Plan of Happiness, General Conference, May Ensign [2015]). We rely upon this truth as we renew our covenant of baptism weekly at the sacrament table (Elder D. Todd Christofferson, The Living Bread Which Came Down from Heaven, General Conference, Nov Ensign 36 [2017]). (Dellas W. Lee, The Infinite Christ: The God of Israel and the God of the Whole Earth [Lubbock, Tex.: Wordsworth Books, 2020], 247-48)

 

Was baptism necessary for Jesus to obtain the exaltation?

 

First we note that Jehovah needed a body of flesh and bone in order to obtain exaltation. Although the Savior had achieved perfection in the premortal world, he could not have exaltation without a mortal body. Nor could He have exaltation without keeping all the commandments the Father had given Him, and baptism was one of them. (Matt 3:13-17.) He was the Prototype for His brother and sisters. (2 Ne 31:12-13) As our Mentor, here in mortality He would demonstrate His willingness to obey all the laws of God an receive the ordinances of the gospel in perfection, show that He was the revelation of the Father through works of righteousness, and then fulfil His primary mission by making an infinite atonement, thereby taking upon Himself the sins of the world. This would make it possible for all mankind to receive exaltation through obedience to the same commandments.

 

Thus, the Savior would need to be baptized, not for the remission of sins, as He had none, but to be perfectly obedient to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, and to humble Himself before the Father as He will do in the Garden and on the Cross, and to show the way to salvation for all the rest of us. (Matt 3:13-17; 1 Ne 10:9-10 . . .) Nephi captured the message in these words of irrefutable logic: “5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water! 6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? 7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.” (2 Ne 31:5-7. He then taught this universal commandment to Nicodemus “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5; and see 2 Ne 31:10-12.) (Ibid., 726-27)

 

We have New Testament evidence that Christ instituted temple work for the salvation of the dead either before or after His ascension (1 Cor 15:29). However, in view of the hostility of the rulers of the Jews against the Christians it is unlikely that Temple ordinances for the dead were performed in the Temple rebuilt by Herod, where Jesus has been teaching these last few days. More likely, during the meridian of time Temple ordinances were done in some other sacred place properly dedicated for that work. (Ibid, 1364)

 

Joan Smyth Iversen on the Presence and Absence of Romantic Love in Polygamous Marriages

  

The rejection of the ideology of romantic love was characteristic of many accounts of Mormon plural marriages. Some of the memoirs of plural wives revealed that they accepted marriage with a man whom they did not initially like. Mary Elizabeth Cox Lee recalled that she did not like Bishop Lee when he first proposed but married him a year later after following her mother’s advice to pray for guidance (Mary Elizabeth Cox Lee, “An Inspired Principle and a Remarkable Lady.” Mormon File, Huntington Library [microfilm]). Martha Spence Heywood (1812-1873) accepted her husband’s proposal although she had apparently been romantically interested in another man shortly before. She also noted that her husband possessed annoying qualities similar to her brother and that while he was a good man, he was not interesting (Juanita Brooks, ed., Not by Bread Alone: The Journal of Martha Spence Heywood, 1850-1856 [Salt Lake City, Utah State Historical Society, 1978], 36)!

 

There are examples of romantic bonding between husbands and wives in polygamy among the recollections of first marriages. Sarah Rich (1814-1893) recorded in her journal a marriage of destined, true love. She and her husband, though they had only corresponded, recognized each other at first sight and married only four months after their meeting (Journal of Sarah Rich. Mormon File, Huntington Library, San Marino CA, 19-20 [microfilm]). By contrast, courtship of a plural wife might be undertaken in the company of the first wife. On occasion, the first wife made the marriage proposal. Courtships of plural wives were often “short and direct,” to avoid the appearance of impropriety, i.e., married men chasing younger women (Stephanie Smith Goodson, “Plural Wives,” in Mormon Sisters, edited by Bushman, 99). One of the daughters of a polygamist family concluded that polygamists never knew the meaning of romantic love (As quoted in Young, Isn’t One Wife Enough?, 117).

 

This is not to say that there was not the love and affection in Mormon marriages. Plural wife Ellis Reynolds Shipp (1847-1939) confided to her diary that her husband of five years was her “dearest friend—companion of [her] inner soul.” Similarly, after many years of marriage, Mary Ann Freeze (1845-1912) was thrilled at the prospect of being able to celebrate her anniversary in the company of her husband (Ellis Reynolds Shipp, Diary, 9 May 1871, Utah Historical Society; Mary Ann Freeze, Diary, 8 March 1891, LDS Archies.). The histories of Mormon marriages contain many examples of love, loyalty, and extraordinary sacrifice. But the need to restrain jealousy and avoid exclusivity in plural marriage—the very nature of polygamy—of necessity required a detachment and emotional distance. Historian Lawrence Foster, commenting on the detachment required within plural marriage, noted that it was required of the men as well as the women (Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 209-12). Brigham Young’s daughter reported that her father said that polygamy taught him to curb his temper but that it was not easy: “I have to walk carefully as if I was walking between bayonets” (As quoted in Susa Young Gates, “Woman Suffrage,” typescript [microfilm], reel 4. LDS Archives).

 

Zina D.H. Young (1821-1901), who was the plural wife of the late Joseph Smith and then Brigham Young, described the need for detachment when she observed that “a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference . . . [because] love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy” (As quoted in Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986], 102).  When her husband married a few plural wife, Mary Ann Freeze observed in her diary that she had no “sorrowful” feelings. Rather, she felt as if “it had been someone that was nothing to me” (Mary Ann Freeze, Diary, 29 April 1879). This evidence of emotional distancing emerges again and again in the sources. Ida Hunt Udall recalled how tense and careful she was on her wedding trip so that she would not make any gesture that might cause further unhappiness to the very reluctant first wife (Ellsworth, ed., Mormon Odyssey, 54).

 

In conclusion, while Mormon plural marriages certainly demonstrated affection and commitment, the record suggests that romantic love as the monogamous, exclusive, sexual relationship of a man and a woman could not be incorporated into the successful practice of plural marriage. Perhaps, as one historian observed, romantic love was a “salient feature of monogamy” and simply not adaptable to polygamy (Reymond Lee Munch, Sex and Marriage in Utopian Communities [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973], 158-59). (Joan Smyth Iversen, The Antipolygamy Controversy in U.S. Women’s Movements, 1880-1925 [London: Routledge, 1997], 65-66)

 

Further Reading

Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage

Boyd K. Packer on Judas' Betrayal of Jesus being Influenced by Satan

In his October 2003 General Conference talk, "The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected," Boyd K. Packer said that:

 

Satan, with his angels, will try to capture your thoughts and control what you do. If he can, he will corrupt anything that is good.

 

In a footnote to this, Packer references Luke 22:3:

 

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

 

This shows that Packer did not hold the really silly view that Judas was well-intentioned in his betrayal of Jesus, a silly (and frankly, blasphemous) view some Latter-day Saints have forwarded.

Bruce McConkie on Hebrews 5:7-8 and the Errancy of Footnotes in LDS Editions of Scripture

Commenting on Heb 5:7-10, Bruce McConkie wrote:

 

These verses make clear reference to Christ and his mortal ministry and are in complete harmony with other scriptures which bear on the same matters, as also with the sermons of the early brethren of this dispensation who quote them as applying to our Lord.

 

However, there is a footnote in the Inspired Version which says, "The 7th and 8th verses allude to Melchizedek, and not to Christ." Standing alone, and because it is only part of the picture, this footnote gives an erroneous impression. The fact is verses 7 and 8 apply to both Melchizedek and to Christ, because Melchizedek was a prototype of Christ and that prophet's ministry typified and foreshadowed that of our Lord in the same sense that the ministry of Moses did. (Deut. 18:15-19; Acts 3:22-23; 3 Ne. 30:23; Jos. Smith 2:40.) Thus, though the words of these verses, and particularly those in the 7th verse, had original application to Melchizedek, they apply with equal and perhaps even greater force to the life and ministry of him through whom all the promises made to Melchizedek were fulfilled. (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 3:157)

 

Such shows that, contra some Protestant critics, McConkie (who played an important role in the current headings and footnotes in the LDS publication of the Scriptures) did not view the footnotes and other apparatuses as inerrant (cf. Bruce McConkie on the Fallibility of the Chapter Headings)

On the JST of Heb 5:7-8, see:

Is Hebrews 5:7-8 speaking of Melchizedek or Jesus? 

Dellas Lee (LDS) Sounding like an Open Theist

 

I am currently reading Dellas Lee’s 1,700 page book on Christ. While a lot of the book is poorly researched and argued, there are some gems here and there (to be expected in a tome of that size). In the following, Lee seems to reject God existing in an “eternal now” and that God has "discursive knowledge" based on God's observation of people and events (here, in the pre-existence):

 

Why was God confident Jehovah would succeed?

 

The Father had observed his Firstborn honor the holy order of God over eons of time, and thus knew of his unwavering capacity to honor covenants with exactness, and this with “a glad heart and a cheerful countenance.” (D&C 59:15; Prov 8:30.) From the beginning, God had anticipated the need for a Redeemer who could satisfy the demands of justice through an infinite atonement, and in his omniscience he knew that his Firstborn would qualify.

 

President Lorenzo Snow had pondered this question and made the following observation: “Thousands of years before He came upon earth, the Father had watched His course and knew that He could depend upon Him when the salvation of worlds should be at stake; and He was not disappointed” (Lorenzo Snow, 24 August 1899, Millennial Star, 61:532). Thus, eons back, upon Jehovah’s covenanting, “Father, why will be done, and the glory be thine forever,” the Savior had given his word of honor, which he would not break, because Gods do not break their covenants. Henceforth the Father was able to describe him as, and thus he became, “the Lamb . . . slain from the foundation of the world.” (Moses 7:47; 1 Pet 1:20; Rev 13:8.) And so of the Savior, he was free to choose the path he would follow at any moment in the many events leading up to and during his final tribulation. His infinite suffering would cause himself, “even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that [he] might not drink of the bitter cup, and shrink—” Though he foresaw the depths of pain, knowing that worlds without number depended upon him, or all was lost, he did not waver, he did not shrink. Thus, the Great Jehovah, our Beloved Savior, midst unimaginable agony, “partook and finished [his] preparations unto the children of men” (D&C 19:18). (Dellas W. Lee, The Infinite Christ: The God of Israel and the God of the Whole Earth [Lubbock, Tex.: Wordsworth Books, 2020], 50-51, emphasis added)

 

Gleason Archer vs. Daniel Being Composed During the Maccabean Era: The Identity of the Four Empires of Daniel 2

 

It is fair to say that the weakest spot in the whole structure of the Maccabean theory is to be found in the identification of the fourth empire predicted in chapter 2. In order to maintain their position, the late-date theorists have to interpret this fourth empire as referring to the kingdom of the Macedonians or Greek founded by Alexander the Great around 330 B.C. This means that the third empire must be identified with the Persian realm established by Cyrus the Great, and the second empire has to be the short-lived Median power briefly maintained by the legendary Darius the Mede. According to this interpretation, then, the head of gold in chapter 2 represents the Chaldean empire, the breast of silver the Median empire, the belly and the thighs of brass the Persian empire, and the legs of iron the Greek empire. Although this identification of the four empires is widely held by scholars today, it is scarcely tenable in the light of internal evidence. That is to say, the text of Daniel itself gives the strongest indications of the one and the same empire, and that despite his designation of King Darius as “the Mede,” he never entertained the notion that there was any time a separate and distinct Median empire.

 

In the first place, the symbolism of Daniel 7 precludes the possibility of identifying the second empire as Media and the third empire as Persia. In this chapter, the first kingdom is represented by a lion. (All scholars agree that this represents the Chaldeans or Babylonian realm.) The second kingdom appears as a bear devouring three ribs. This would well correspond to the three major conquests of the Medo-Persian empire: Lydia, Babylon and Egypt (under Cyrus the Great and Cambyses). The third empire is represented as a leopard with four wings and four heads. There is no record that the Persian empire was divided into four parts, but it is well known that the empire of Alexander the Great separated into four parts subsequent to his death, namely, Macedon, Asia Minor, the Seleucid empire (including Syria, Babylonia and Persia) and Egypt. The natural inference, therefore, would be that the leopard represented the Greek empire. The fourth kingdom is presented as a fearsome ten-horned beast, incomparably more powerful than the others and able to devour the whole earth. The ten horns strongly suggest the ten toes of the image described in chapter 2, and it should be noted that these toes are described in chapter 2 as having a close connection with the two legs of iron. The two legs can easily be identified with the Roman empire, which in the time of Diocletian divided into the Eastern and the Western Roman empires. But there is no way in which they can be reconciled with the history of the Greek empire which followed upon Alexander’s death.

 

In Daniel 8 we have further embolism to aid us in this identification of empires two and three. There a two-horned ram (one horn of which is higher than the other, just as Persia overshadowed Media in Cyrus’ empire) is finally overthrown by a he-goat, who at first shows but one horn (easily identified with Alexander the Great) but subsequently sprouts four horns (i.e., Macedon, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt), out of which there finally develops a little horn, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes.

 

From the standpoint of the symbolism of chapter 2, 7 and 8, therefore, the identification of the four empires with Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome presents a perfect correspondence, whereas the identifications involved in the Maccabean date theory present the gravest problems and discrepancies.

 

In this connection it ought to be noted that the strongest argument for identifying Daniel’s fourth empire with that of Alexander and his Greek successors is derived from the appearance of the little horn in chapters 7 and 8. That is to say, in chapter 7 the little horn admittedly develops from the fourth empire, that is, from the fearsome ten-horned beast who overthrows the four-winged leopard. But in chapter 8, the little horn develops from the head of the he-goat, who plainly represents the Greek empire. As we have already mentioned, this goat commenced its career with one horn (Alexander the Great), but then produced four others in its place. There can be no question that the little horn in chapter 8 points to a ruler of the Greek empire, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes. The critics therefore assume that since the same term is used the little horn in chapter 7 must refer to the same individual. This, however, can hardly be the case, since the four-winged leopard of chapter 7 clearly corresponds to the four-horned goat of chapter 8; that is, both represent the Greek empire which divided into four after Alexander’s death. The only reasonable deduction to draw is that there are two little horns involved in the symbolic visions of Daniel. One of them emerges from the third empire, and the other is to emerge from the fourth. It would seem that the relationship is that of type (Antiochus IV of the third kingdom) and antitype (the Antichrist who is to arise from the latter-day form of the fourth empire). This is the only explanation which satisfies all the data and which throws light upon 11:40ff., where the figure of the historic Antiochus suddenly blends into the figure of an Antichrist who is yet to come in the end time.

 

Two other considerations should be adduced to show that the author regarded the Medes and Persians as constituting the one and same empire. In Daniel 6, Darius is said to be bound by “the law of the Medes and Persians,” so that he could not revoke the decree consigning Daniel to the loins’ den. If the author regarded Darius as ruler of an independent Median empire earlier in time than the Persian, it is impossible to explain why he should have been bound by the laws of the Persians. Secondly, we have the evidence of the handwriting on the wall as interpreted by Daniel in 5:28. There Daniel is represented as interesting the inscription to Belshazzar, the last king of the first empire, that is, the kingdom of the Chaldeans. He says in interpreting the third word, peres, “Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” This is obviously a word play in which the term parsin, or rather its singular peres, is derived from the verb p^eras, meaning to “divide” or “separate.” But it is also explained as pointing to pārās, or “Persian.” This can only mean that according to the author, the Chaldean empire was removed from Belshazzar as the last representative of the first empire and given to the Medes and Persians who constituted the second empire. This cannot mean that the rule was first given to the Medes and only later to be transmitted to the Persians, because the significant word which appeared in the handwriting on the wall was quite specifically the word “Persia.” The sequence, therefore, is clear: the empire passed from the Chaldean to the Persian. There can be no legitimate doubt that the author regarded the Persians as maters of the second empire. This being the case, it can only follow the fourth empire indeed represented Rome.

 

If, then, the fourth empire of chapter 2, as corroborated by the other symbolic representations of chapter 7, clearly pointed forward to the establishment of the Roman empire, it can only follow that we are dealing here with genuine predictive prophecy and not a mere vaticinium ex eventu. According to the Maccabean date theory, Daniel was composed between 168 and 165 B.C., whereas the Roman empire did not commence (for the Jews at least) until 63 B.C., when Pompey the Great took over that part of the Near East which included Palestine. To be sure, Hannibal had already been defeated by Scipio at Zama in 202 B.C., and Antiochus III had been crushed at Magnesia in 190, but the Romans had still not advanced beyond the limits of Europe by 165, except to establish a vassal kingdom in Asia Minor and a protectorate over Egypt. But certainly, as things stood in 165 B.C., no human being could have predicted with any assurance that the Hellenic monarchies of the Near West would be engulfed by the new power which had arisen in the West. No man then living could have foreseen that this Italian republic would have exerted a sway more ruthless and widespread than any empire that had ever preceded it. This one circumstance alone, then, that Daniel predicts the Roman empire, is difficult to overthrow the entire Maccabean date hypothesis (which of course was an attempt to explain away the supernatural element of prediction and fulfillment). (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [Chicago: Moody Press, 1964], 382-85)

  

Further Reading

Thomas E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel

Gleason Archer and the Authorship of Isaiah: "Second Isaiah" Being Quoted by Pre-Exilic Prophets

  

Zephaniah, Nahum and Jeremiah contain verses which are so similar to Isaiah II as to point to a possible borrowing by one from the other. Thus in Zephaniah 2:15 we read: “This is the joyous city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none besides me” (ASV). This bears a strong resemblance to Isaiah 47:8: “Now therefore hear this, thou that art given to pleasures, that sittest securely that sayest in thy heart, I am, and there is none else besides me” (ASV). Nahum 1:15 reads: “Behold, upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace!” (ASV). Compare this with Isaiah 52:7: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace” (ASV). Jeremiah 31:35 reads: “Thus saith Jehovah . . . who stirreth up on the sea, so that the waves thereof roar; Jehovah of hosts is his name” (ASV). This is very close to Isaiah 51:15: “For I am Jehovah thy God, who stirreth up the sea, so that the waters thereof roar; Jehovah of hosts is his name” (ASV).

 

IN comparing such resemblances as these, it might be argued that Isaiah II was borrowing from the seventh century prophets rather than the other way around, but in the case of Jeremiah 30:10ff (which bears relationship to Isaiah 43:1-6), such an explanation is hardly possible. In the Jeremiah passage, the term “My Servant” (‘abdī) occurs as a Messianic title. Nowhere else does it appear in the writings of Jeremiah, and yet it is a frequent term in Isaiah II. There can be no other reasonable conclusion to draw but that Jeremiah did the borrowing and that the Isaiah passage must have been written at an earlier time than his own. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [Chicago: Moody Press, 1964], 338)

Related to the above, note the following from Edward Young:

There are reflections upon Isaiah 40-66 in later prophecies, a fact that conclusively demonstrates that these chapters cannot come from the time of the exile . . . Let the reader make the following comparisons:

Jeremiah	13:18-26	With	Isaiah	47:1-3
	48:18	“		47:1
	31:12	“		58:11
	31:13	“		61:3
	31:22	“		43:19
	31:34	“		54:13
	31:36	“		54:10
	5:25	“		59:2
	13:16	“		59:9-11
	50:8 and 51:45	“		48:20
	17:1	“		64:8
	18:6	“		65:6
	2:25	“		57:10

In particular, it should be noted that Jeremiah uses earlier prophecies possibly more than any other of the writing prophets. To avoid the force of the argument critics are compelled to deny these sections to Jeremiah. (Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Volume 3: Chapters 40-66 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972], 547-48)

 

Gleason Archer and the Authorship of Isaiah: The Evidence from Idolatry

  

A most decisive objection to a post-Exilic date for the composition of Isaiah Ii is to be found in the numerous passages which refer to idolatry in Israel as a wide and prevalent evil. Isaiah 44:9-20 contains a long diatribe against the folly of making graven images for worship, as if this were a major problem in contemporary Judah. This passage cannot be dismissed as a mere challenge to contemporary pagan nations, for there are too many other passages which speak of idolatry having being practiced by the author’s own countrymen at that time (cf. 57:4, 5: “Against whom do ye sport yourselves? . . . Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?”).

 

Not only is ritual prostitution here referred to, but also the sacrificing of babies to Molech and Adrammelech, an infamous practice carried on during the reign of Manasseh in the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom (II Kings 21:6; II Chron. 33:6). And again, Isaiah 57:7: “Upon a lofty and high mountain thou set thy bed; even thither wentest thou up to offer sacrifice.” This is an obvious allusion to worship in the high places (bāmōt), a type of worship which flourished in the pre-Exilic period, but never thereafter. Again, 65:2-4: “I have spread out by hands all the day unto a rebellious people . . .  a people that provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens and burning incense upon bricks; that sit among the graves and lodge in the secret places, that eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels” (ASV). In the very last chapter we find that idolatry is still being practice. In 66:17: “They that sanctify themselves and purify themselves to go unto the gardens, behind one in the midst [or: one asherah], eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, they shall come to an end together, saith Jehovah” (ASV). Plainly these things represent vicious evils which were going on at the time the prophet composed these words. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [Chicago: Moody Press, 1964], 329-30)

 

Gleason Archer and the Authorship of Isaiah: Explicit Prophecy in First and Second Isaiah

 

 

If there can be no such thing as fulfilled prophecy, it becomes logically necessary to explain all apparent fulfillments as mere vaticana ex eventu, that is, prophecies after the event. The problem for the antisupernaturalist becomes particularly acute in the case of the references to King Cyrus by name (44:28; 45:1). It might be a plausible supposition that some keen political analyst living in the early 540’s could have made a successful prediction of the eventual success of the able young king who had already made a name for himself in Media by 550 B.C. But it is quite another thing for an author living in 700 B.C. to foresee events 150 years in advance of their occurrence.

 

It is usual in this connection to urge that the Scripture seldom predicts a future historical figure by name. Yet it should be pointed out where the occasion calls for it, the Bible does not hesitate to specify the names of King Josiah was, according to I Kings 13:2, foretold by a prophet of Judah back in the time of Jeroboam I (931-910), a full three centuries before he appeared in Bethel to destroy the golden calf and idolatrous sanctuary which Jeroboam had erected. This of course may be explained away as a late interpolation in I Kings; but there are other instances which cannot be so neatly disposed of. Thus Bethlehem is named by Micah (5:2) as the birthplace of the coming Messiah seven centuries before the birth of the Lord Jesus. This was a fact well known to the Jewish scribes in the time of Herod the Great.

 

It is important to observe that the historical situation confronting Isaiah in 690 B.C. gave ample warrant for so unusual a sign as the prediction of Cyrus by name 150 years in advance of the fall of Babylon. Judah had sunk to such a low ebb in matters of religion and morals that the very honor of God demanded a total destruction of the kingdom and a removal of the populace into exile (just as he had been foretold or forewarned in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28). If God was going to vindicate His holy law and honor His own promises of disciplinary chastisement, there was no alternative but devastation and captivity. But once a people had been carried off into exile in a distant land, there was virtually no hope that they would ever return to their ancestral soil. Such a thing had never happened before in history, and humanly speaking, there was no prospect that the dispersed Judah of a future generation would ever return to the land of promise. It was therefore altogether appropriate for God to furnish a very definite token or sign to which sincere believers might look as an indication of their coming deliverance and restoration to Palestine. This sign was furnished in the specifying of the very name of their future deliverer . . . It should be pointed out that even in the first part of Isaiah, the greatest emphasis is laid upon fulfilled prediction, and many future events are foretold. Some of these fulfillments took place within a few years of the prediction; e.g., the deliverance of Jerusalem from the power of Sennacherib by sudden supernatural means (37:33-35),the defeat of Damascus within three years by the Assyrian emperor (8:4, 7), and the destruction of Samaria within twelve years after Isaiah foretold it (7:16). Other events were not to take place until long after Isaiah’s death; e.g., the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (13:17), and the eventual desolation of Babylon which should render it an uninhabited and accursed site forever (13:19, 20). Also, another long-range prediction was the coming of the glorious Light to Galilee in a future generation (9:1, 2), which was to be fulfilled by the ministry of Christ seven centuries later (cf. Matt. 4:15, 16).

 

As for a foreknowledge of the Babylonian Exile, it should be pointed out that even chapter 6, which is acknowledged by all critics to be authentically Isaianic, points forward to the utter depopulation and devastation of Judah which took place under Nebuchadnezzar. In verses 11 and 12 we read we read that God’s judgment is to be visited upon Judah “until cities be waste without inhabitant and houses without man, and the land become utterly waste, and Jehovah have removed men far away, and the forsaken places be many in the midst of the land” (ASV). The following verse, when translated according to the indications of the context, contains a reference to the restoration of the captivity from Exile: “Yet it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten up . . .” Some interpreters have construed yāshūb (“will return”) as having the force of the adverb “again,” but such an interpretation is excluded by the appearance of the name of Isaiah’s son three verses thereafter. IT is obvious that Shear-jashub (7:3) was a name bestowed upon this child as a token of Isaiah’s faith that God would fulfill the promise of 6:13, that a remnant would return (yāshūb) . . . Isaiah 13:1 furnishes serious embarrassment to the theory of an Exilic Deutero-Isaiah. Chapter 13 contains a burden of divine judgment upon the city of Babylon, which in Isaiah’s day was a mere subject province under the Assyrian empire. Nevertheless, this opening verse states: “The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.” This constitutes the clearest affirmation possible that the Eighty Century Isaiah foresaw the coming importance of Babylon, her devastation of Palestine and her ultimate downfall before the onslaughts of the Medes (cf. v. 17). In view of the often-repeated argument that Isaiah’s name does not appear in chapters 40-66 and that therefore he is not to be regarded as the author of predictions involving a knowledge of sixth century events, it is interesting to observe that his name is expressly affixed to this earlier chapter in which such a knowledge is most clearly implied.

 

It should be noted that chapter 13 occurs in a series of burdens pronounced against foreign nations who posed a threat to Israel (chaps. 13-23). It is quote clear that the Eighth Century Isaiah wrote denunciations of this sort, and the language of chapter 13 is altogether similar to that employed in the rest of the chapters in this series. It is only in the interests of salvaging the theory of a Deutero-Isaiah that critics have been compelled to assign a late Exilic date to chapter 13. But as E.J. Young points out (Who Wrote Isaiah? p. 43): “If chapter 13 be denied Isaiah, it is practically impossible to explain its position in the prophecy. Why would a later editor ever have thought that Isaiah had prophesied concerning Babylon?” This point is especially well taken in view of the fact that denunciations is difficult to see why chapter 13 would not have been placed in close proximity to these other denunciations if in point of fact it was composed at the same time. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [Chicago: Moody Press, 1964], 321-22, 323, 337-38)

 

James Fodor vs. William Lane Craig on Counting to Infinity and the possibility of forming an actual infinite

  

Counting to Infinity

 

The most fundamental argument Craig provides against the possibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition is that, however, long one ‘counts’ or continues to accumulate, there will still always be an infinite amount to go. For example, the difference between one and infinity is the same as the difference between any finite number and infinity – namely infinite. As such, the amount remaining to count is never diminished, and no progress towards reaching infinity is ever made. Another way of putting this is that every finite number is succeeded by another finite number, so whenever we start from a finite beginning and add a finite increment, we must get a finite result. There is simply no way to turn a finite series into an infinite series by adding finite quantities to it.

 

The problem with this argument is that it only establishes that one cannot turn a finite set into an infinite set by successive addition, not that it is impossible for an infinite set to be formed through successive addition. In Craig’s examples it seems that he implicitly assumes the existence of some sort of starting point which is then removed to an infinite distance. Craig rejects the notion that he assumes an infinitely distant starting point, retorting that:

 

“It is surprising that a number of critics, such as Mackie and Sobel, have objected that the argument illicitly presupposes an infinitely distant starting point in the past and then pronounces it impossible to travel from that point to today . . . But, in fact, no proponent of the kalam argument of whom we are aware has assumed that there was an infinitely distant starting point in the past.”

 

Nevertheless, I think it is clear that Craig’s examples do in fact rely on such an assumption. First, he states that):

 

“Given any finite number n, n + 1 equals a finite number. Hence ℵ₀ has no immediate predecessor.”

 

By this Craig means that the infinite value ℵ₀ can never be ‘reached’ by adding to any finite number, since there is no number x such that x + 1 = ℵ₀. This is true, but only establishes the impossibility of attaining an infinite result by adding to a finite starting point. He then argues that the result still holds even if infinite time were somehow available to perform the addition, since:

 

“Regardless of the time available, a potential infinite cannot be turned into an actual infinite by any amount of successive addition since the result of every addition will always be finite. One sometimes, therefore, speaks of the impossibility of counting to infinity, for no matter how many numbers one counts, one can always count one more number before arriving at infinity. One sometimes speaks instead of the impossibility of traversing the infinite. The difficulty is the same: no matter how many steps one takes, the addition of one more step will not bring one to a point infinitely distant from.”

 

Here again, Craig speaks of adding and counting, operations which require starting values to act upon. Addition is only possible if we have a number that we are adding to, and that number in this instance must clearly be finite, as otherwise we would already have the actual infinite that Craig is saying cannot be formed. So once again, all that Craig’s example shows is that adding a finite number to another finite number will never yield an infinite number, which is not in dispute. What Craig needs to show is not that adding two finite numbers always results in a finite result, but that it is impossible for an actual infinite to form by successive addition.

 

Even when he explicitly turns his attention to the question of whether it might be possible to form n actual infinity “by never beginning but ending at a point, that is to say, ending at a point after having added one member after another from eternity,” Craig still falsely assumes the existence of an infinitely distant beginning. This is evident from his remark:

 

“If one cannot count to infinity, how can one count down from infinity? If one cannot traverse the infinite by moving in one direction, how can one traverse it by moving in the opposite direction?”

 

The problem with this analogy is that counting is an operation that requires a beginning. One cannot just ‘count’; one always has to count by starting somewhere. Hence Craig finds that in order to apply a counting analogy to the series of temporal events, he must use absurd phrases like ‘count down from infinity’, as if infinity were a number from which we could commence counting. As Craig says, infinity has no successor or predecessor, so it is simply impossible to count either up or down ‘from infinity’. The problem thus has nothing to do with what direction we imagine counting in. Rather, the problem lies in Craig’s insistence on using the language of counting when such terms are only applicable if we have something finite to start out count with. In the case of forming an actual infinite by successive addition, however, not only is there no finite starting point, but no starting point at all. Counting analogies, therefore, simply are not applicable.

 

Craig’s fundamental difficulty seems to be that he insists on describing or conceptualising the process of forming an actual infinite by successive addition as literally an additive or counting process, which must start somewhere and then count up. This is clearly not how infinite time could work, as Craig’s examples show. Rather, a better way of describing how infinite time would operate is that there exists a process of continuous and eternal temporal becoming. Each moment continues from the previous moment and inexorably gives way to the next moment in time, a state of affairs which has always been (i.e. has been at every past moment of time). For every past moment, there was a moment of time before that. Time has always been passing, each moment giving way to the next, for an infinite length of time that has no beginning. It is this conception of a beginningless past that Craig needs to refute, not the absurd notion that involves counting up from some starting point. (James Fodor, Unreasonable Faith: How William Lane Craig Overstates the Case for Christianity [Hypatia Press, 2018], 88-91)

 

Further Reading:

 

Blake Ostler, Kalam Infinity Arguments and the Infinite Past