K.L. Noll on Unfulfilled Prophecies from Biblical Prophets and the test for a Prophet in Deuteronomy 18:21-22

On biblical prophets prophesying events that did not happen:

 

. . . a prophet who accounted a future event was, quite frequently, incorrect. For example, a prophet at the Mesopotamian city of Mari announced, in the name of the god Dagan, that the king of Babylon had done evil and would be punished. He would be delivered into the power of the king of Mari, said the prophet. This prophecy proved incorrect. Mari’s king was defeated by the Babylonian king. Likewise, biblical prophets were wrong from time to time. After Babylon’s victory at Carchemish in 605 BCE, Jeremiah had the temerity to predict that his lord, Nebuchadnezzar II, would invade Egypt successfully (Jer. 46.13-24), but the invasion of 601 BCE was turned back at Migdol. Jeremiah was incorrect. (K.L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction [The Biblical Seminar 83; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 275)

 

On Deut 18:21-22:

 

Here the reader is advised that the way to discern whether a prophet is truly sent by Yahweh is to wait until the prophecy has been fulfilled. At a casual reading, these two verses give the impression that prophecy was mechanical prediction of future events. Those who cannot predict are not prophets. Not only is this a false impression of ancient Near Eastern prophecy, but it is, from a pragmatic viewpoint, horrible advice. What good is it to make a decision about a prophetic utterance after it is too late to respond to the prophetic sermon? Would the advice of Deut. 18.21-22 have served the royal officials who were compelled to make a decision about Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jer. 26.1-19? One presumes that, had they employed the ‘wait and see’ approach, they would have ensured the destruction of their city and themselves! Likewise, would the people of Nineveh have been better off to use this ‘wait and see’ method in the book of Jonah? The advice of 18.21-22 seems designed to ensure that no one who reads and accepts Deuteronomy will trust the words of any prophet. That is the key to understanding this strange passage.

 

As a historian of ancient religion, I am convinced that the reader was not supposed to read Deut. 18.21-22 out of literary context. As a matter of fact, this passage is a purely literary device, not meant to have any function in a real, social world. Allow me to explain: Deuteronomy is a highly complex and artistic religious tract. Its primary purpose is to convince its reader that (1) there is no god worthy of worship except Yahweh (e.g. 6.4-9), and (2) there has been no prophet of primary importance except Moses (e.g. 34.1-12). Yet, Deuteronomy promises the coming of a great Prophet-like-Moses (18.15-20). Superficially, this seems to mean that, one day, there will be an equal to Moses and the book of Deuteronomy will become irrelevant, since a book is not as important as a prophet of Moses’s stature. In reality, the book of Deuteronomy has no intention of every relinquishing its religious authority to a man (or woman); rather, it is designed to be the Prophet-like-Moses for all times. The scroll purports to be the words of Moses in the past, but the final passage is written from a much later perspective, since it knows that there has never been an equal to Moses. Indeed, it is not the final passage alone that is composed from the later perspective, but the whole scroll. As a scroll, Deuteronomy is designed to transcend time. Moses speaks to every generation through this scroll (e.g. 5.1-5). Thus, the Prophet-like-Moses promised in 18.15-20 is perpetually fulfilled each time the scroll is read (31.10-13). No wonder 18.21-22 follows immediately, for if the Prophet-like-Moses lives perpetually in a text, he cannot appear in the flesh—ever. Verses 21-22 are designed to ensure that the reader will never follow a living prophet. Deuteronomy 13.1-6 is a passage that reinforces this anti-prophetic stance. (Ibid., 277-78)

 

 

Some Friday Humor: Moses Punching an Angel in the Hadith

In the Hadith collection, Sahih al-Bukhari, we read the following in Hadith 3407:

 

The Angel of Death was sent to Moses when he came to Moses, Moses slapped him on the eye. The angel returned to his Lord and said, "You have sent me to a Slave who does not want to die." Allah said, "Return to him and tell him to put his hand on the back of an ox and for every hair that will come under it, he will be granted one year of life." Moses said, "O Lord! What will happen after that?" Allah replied, "Then death." Moses said, "Let it come now." Moses then requested Allah to let him die close to the Sacred Land so much so that he would be at a distance of a stone's throw from it." Abu Huraira added, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, 'If I were there, I would show you his grave below the red sand hill on the side of the road."

 

Reading the above makes me wish we could have the ultimate showdown: Moses vs. St. Nick:

 

 

Carol R. Holladay on Baptism being Salvific in Acts 22:16 and 10:47-48

 

 

“Get up [anastas, 22:16, with the participle functioning as an imperative], get yourself baptized [baptisai, aorist middle imperative, thus indicating action that ls self-referential rather than purely passive: “Be baptized”], and wash away [apolousai, aorist middle imperative, again reflecting Paul’s initiative] your sins [tas hamartias sou],” the first time Paul’s actions are described as sinful. Paul’s action thus qualifies as a baptismal initiation that bestows forgiveness of sins, comparable to that of his fellows Jews on the Day of Pentecost. “Calling on his name,” meaning the name of the Lord Jesus, connotes prayer, especially confessional prayer, yet here expresses newly redirected loyalty. (Carol R. Holladay, Acts: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016], 425, emphasis in bold added)

 

Peter’s remark in Acts 10:47 equates the gentiles’ reception of the Holy Spirit with that of the apostles and other Jews at Pentecost: “they have received the Holy Spirit in the same way we did.” As at Pentecost, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is required for gentiles to be admitted to full fellowship (2:38; 8:16; 19:5; cf. 1 Cor 1:13-15); and given the promise in the concluding words of Peter’s sermon (10:43), baptism also bestows forgiveness of sins. Peter’s willingness to remain a few days with these new gentile converts signals his full acceptance of them and his willingness to fellowship with them (cf. John 4:40). (Ibid., 240, emphasis added)

 

Further Reading

Robert S. Boylan, Born of Water and of the Spirit: The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration

Edward Leen on God being Glorified not being an Act of Egotism on His Behalf

 

 

Here there is question of the secondary end of creation. The primary end is the glory of God. It is only for shallow thinkers that this proposition savors of egotism. Were God’s life not a self-conscious life, it could not be a happy one. To be conscious of the beauty of the divine reality and to exult in it—this is God’s happiness. That consciousness of, and exultant joy in, the Godhead is the intrinsic glory of God. Man, called to grace and glory, is thus called to participate in this conscious life of God. To share God’s life is to share God’s exultancy. To behold the Divine Beauty, to extol it and to exult in it, is true beatitude. But this exultant apprehension of, appreciation of, and joy in the Godhead revealed, is the extrinsic glory of God. It is obvious it is coincident with the creature’s beatitude. The extrinsic glory mirrors the intrinsic glory. God does not create to acquire beatitude, but to impart beatitude. When, then, God is said to have created the world for His own glory, thus must not be understood as if God were moved to create in order to secure the admiration, the applause, and the adulation of creatures. The glory that they give is not something extorted from them, but something that arises spontaneously from the perfections with which they have been endowed. (Edward Leen, Why the Cross? [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938; repr., New York: Scepter Press, 2001], 116 n. 10)

 

Compare the above with the following representative texts from uniquely Latter-day Saint texts:

 

There are those among you who have sinned; but verily I say, for this once, for mine own glory, and for the salvation of souls, I have forgiven you your sins. (D&C 64:3)

 

For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

 

More on the Particularism to God's Love in John 3:16

  

The Venerable Francis Libermann, C.S.Sp., commenting on the text in St. John (3:16)—“That whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting”—writes: “It is to be noted that our Lord says, that all who believe in Him and not believe in His name, for the latter expression signifies but a belief in the Person of our Lord, or in the doctrine which He preaches—a belief which can coexist with very indifferent conduct. Those who have this kind of belief should not place a false confidence in the Cross of our Savior: it will condemn instead of saving them. There is required a faith in Him (in eum, not in ipso—in Latin it is the accusative, not the ablative, case)—a term which signifies union and adhesion to the soul to our Savior. This implies an estrangement from sin and the putting of a supernatural principle and motive into one’s activity. For if the soul is truly united to our Lord by this perfect and real faith, then its action is united to His and the Savior is the principle of that action.” (Edward Leen, Why the Cross? [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938; repr., New York: Scepter Press, 2001], 47 n. 14)

 

Further Reading

God's Love being conditional and unconditional

Eyal Regev on the New Priesthood in the Book of Revelation

 

 

The New Priesthood

 

Revelation opens with a declaration that Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth who frees the believers from their sins by his blood and “made us to be a Kingdom, priests serving his God and Father” (1:6). Later, the living creatures sing to the Lamb: “You have made them [the saints from every tribe and language and people and nation] to be a Kingdom and priests [basilian kai hiereis] serving our God, and they will reign on earth” (5:10). Here John thinks that all Christians are included in the new priesthood. This idea is also found in 1 Pet. 2:9, where the author argues, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him.” These passages follow Ex 19:6, according to which all Israel are “a priestly Kingdom, a holy people.” The notion that the believers become priests means that, just as the priests are chosen from the Israelites, they too are chosen from other humans and subsequently are separated by God to become holy people.

 

After the fall of Babylon and the capture of the dragon, John sees the divine judgment and the martyrs’ souls reigning with Christ (20:4-5). Then he adds his own message about their status as priests: “Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years” (20:6). The idea that the people of God will be redeemed, their enemies will be punished, and they will be called Priests for the Lord and servants of God is found in Isa 61:6. In both passages victory and ruling are connected with the official role of serving God. John’s proclamation of their priestly status is certainly related to the fulfillment of messianic promises. The priesthood reflects perfect closeness to the Lord.

 

It is commonly argued that the believers’ priesthood is implied earlier in a number of passages. The angels, living creatures, or martyrs execute cultic, priestlike acts, serving and worshipping God in the heavenly Temple as if they are priests. Nevertheless, although these elements have some common ground with priest and priesthood, they are not designated as priestly markets.

 

There are exegetical and theological difficulties in understanding the relationship between the concepts of priesthood in these passages. In 1:6 and 5:10 the believers are already priests, since the author uses the past tense. In contrast, in 20:6 they will become priests in the future. There seem to be two different types of priesthood in Revelation. The priesthood in the present is not related to the heavenly Temple. The Kingdom of priests modelled after Ex 19:6 is merely a designation for the people of God. Nothing in Rev 1:6 and 5:10 or their literary context suggests that the believers are acting as priests. Like the people of Israel in the wilderness, they are designated as priests only as a means of demonstrating that they are the chosen ones—priesthood is a metaphor. This priestly designation or metaphor should be contrasted with the believers’ priesthood in 1 Pet 2:5, where the author tells his readers, “Let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood [hierateuma], to offer spiritual sacrifices.” Unlike Rev 1:6 and 5:10, in 1 Pet 2:5, the author does not merely refer to the priestly status but instructs the addressees to act as spiritual priests—to offer sacrifices—even though this seems to amount to belief and the telling of God’s glory (1 Pet 2:9).

 

In contrast to Rev 1:6 and 5:10, where only the holy status of the priest is at stake, in Rev 20:5-6 believers in Jesus are found in heaven. They are nominated as priests of God and Christ (and not merely a “Kingdom of priests,” which originally refers to the entire people of Israel) and reign with Christ for a thousand years. It therefore appears that they actually serve as priests by the throne. Thus the difference between the two priestly types not only is a matter of present-future but also concerns the identity of the new priests and the essence of their priesthood. In addition, those ministering as priests in the heavenly Temple cannot be traditional Aaronite priests, since the latter serve only on earth. Heavenly priesthood is “new”; namely, these priests are different from those in the Jerusalem Temple because they are chosen by merit, not by descent. By comparison, on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifices the ministering angels in heaven serve as priests (4Q400ShirShab 1 I, 3, , 12; 2 6-7, where they praise God and give Him glory, quite like Revelation).

 

In all of these passages the new priesthood of the believers or martyrs is interwoven with a complimentary one: their being like rulers. Rev 20:6 refers to priests who reign for a thousand years, and this is mentioned in the context of their refusal to serve the beast and its image (20:4), implying the Roman ruler cult. This may hint that they rule instead of the emperor. The concept of reign is also implied by the designation of “a Kingdom of priests” in 1:6 and 5:10. This slogan is not only confined to the priestly domain but also contains the aspect of the Kingdom (basilea)—the power to rule and the freedom from subordination to foreign kings and rulers. Thus I suggest that by using the term “a Kingdom of priests” John claims that the believers are already sovereign and free in spirit and that the martyrs will join God and the Lamb in heavenly rule. (Eyal Regev, The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred [The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019], 234-36)

 

Further Reading

After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

K.L. Noll on the importance of knowing the "mundane" everyday life of Ancient Cultures

 

 

One must research ancient events, and ancient events are very difficult to research. Not only have all eyewitnesses passed from the scene centuries before, but the cultural assumptions of ancient people have disappeared as well. Those cultural assumptions of ancient people have disappeared as well. Those cultural assumptions are crucial, for they gave meaning to everything an ancient person did or said. Think of all the routine activities in your own life. Would you bother with most of them if you were suddenly transported out of your culture and into a wholly different one, with alien values and assumptions? Your deeds and words have meaning to you because they are grounded in a particular social context; out of that context, they become meaningless. It is this same subjective meaning that brings evidence from the ancient past to life. If historians examine an artifact or document from ancient times but do not know the cultural values that made the artifacts or documents important, how can they evaluate its significance? Both artifact and document were part of a network of interrelated activities and their associated meanings. A modern historian must develop tools for recapturing as much of that network as possible. (K.L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction [The Biblical Seminar 83; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 41-42)

 

K.L. Noll on "Monotheism," "Monolatry," and "Henotheism" in the Hebrew Bible

  

Terminology is difficult since individual scholars employ the terms in a variety of ways. My discussion is designed to be useful, but not necessarily representative of all academic viewpoints. ‘Henotheism’ can be understood to mean belief in ‘my’ god while at the same time not excluding the possibility that ‘your’ god exists as well. In ancient context, this was expressed frequently as belief that ‘my’ god is highest of the gods: god of gods and lord of lords (cf. Deut. 10.17; Ps. 29.1-2, etc). (K.L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction [The Biblical Seminar 83; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 135 n. 8)

 

Monotheistic passages are rare in the Bible. For example, the famous Shema, a fundamental Jewish confession of faith found in Deut. 6.4, is grammatically ambiguous in the original Hebrew, but no matter how this grammar is interpreted or translated, the passage does not affirm monotheism. Either the text says that Yahweh is ‘one god’ (perhaps a polemic against the high god’s absorption of lesser gods?) or it affirms that Yahweh ‘alone’ is Israel’s god (which is monolatry, not monotheism). The only portion of the Bible with a relatively high cluster of monotheistic affirmations is the second half of Isaiah (chs. 40-66), which many scholars call Deutero-Isaiah, and date to the late-sixth century BCE. The remainder of the Bible contains random monotheistic statements among monolatrous and henotheistic passages.

 

A very good example of monolatry in the Bible is the dual stipulation in the first two of the famous Ten Commandments, a stipulation that presumes the existence of lesser gods, but prohibits worship of them because the high god is ‘jealous’ of them (Deut. 5.7-10). Years after the Ten Commandments had been formulated, a scribe interpreted them to mean that Yahweh is the only god who exists, and so added Deuteronomy 4, a chapter that includes two explicitly monotheistic verses (4.35, 39). When a biblical text was updated in this way, biblical scholars call it ‘redaction’ (or ‘editing’) of the text. In this instance, Deuteronomy 4 offers ‘redactional’ reinterpretation of Deuteronomy 5. Sometimes the redaction is such a short addition that it is better to call it a ‘gloss’ on the text.

 

Here is an example of a monotheistic gloss in a henotheistic biblical poem found at1 Sam. 2.2:

 

Verse 2a: None are holy like Yahweh

Verse 2b: For none exists except you

Verse 2c: And there is no rock like our god

 

The first and last portions are henotheistic. The poet proclaims that Yahweh is supreme over other gods. The middle portion (v. 2b) is clearly monotheistic, affirming that there is no god except Yahweh. But this phrase does not exist in some ancient manuscripts of the passage, which suggests that it was a later addition that failed to make its way into some manuscript copies. In those manuscripts that include the phrase, there is a grammatical indication that it was not part of the original poem. Notice that v. 2a and v. 2x are written in the third person but v. 2b is in the second person. Applying the historical method called textual criticism the middle portion is judged to be a monotheistic gloss, a later addition to an originally henotheistic poem. (Ibid., 249-50)

 

A cryptic biblical passage hinting that Yahweh began his career as a lesser god in someone else’s pantheon has survived-barely survived—reactional activity by later scribes. This text, Deut. 32.8-9, appears in two versions among the best ancient manuscripts:

 

The Common Hebrew Version:

 

When Elyon gave peoples their inheritance,
When he divided up humanity;
When he fixed the boundaries of countries,
According to the number of the sons of Israel;
Then the portion for Yahweh was his people,
Jacob, the allotment of his inheritance.

 

An Alternate Hebrew Version:

 

When Elyon gave peoples their inheritance,
When he divided up humanity;
When he fixed the boundaries of countries,
According to the number of the sons of god;
Then the portion for Yahweh was his people,
Jacob, the allotment of his inheritance.

 

According to the alternative version of this poem, Elyon (an alternate name for El), as highest god, divided all the people of the Earth into political groups and assigned each group an inheritance (of land) and a patron go (one of his divine sons). At Bronze Age Ugarit, El had 70 divine sons, so we can assume the poet has quite a few kingdoms in mind. One of the divine sons, Yahweh, received the people Jacob, an alternate name for Israel. Thus Yahweh is a son of Elyon, a lesser god in the high god’s pantheon.

 

The common version is a ‘doctored’ version of the poem. Apparently, in a later period, it was no longer acceptable to assign Yahweh a lesser status in the Canaanite pantheon. So the scribe changed one word. Hebrew bene-elohim (‘sons of god’) became bene-yisrael (‘son of Israel’). This one small change did away with any hint of multiple gods in the poem, and therefore permitted a reader to equate Elyon in the first line with Yahweh near the end of the segment. Now it is Yahweh-Elyon who divides the people, and retains one of those groups, Israel/Jacob, for himself. Of course, the scribe who made this small change has introduced a small problem as well. The passage in the common version makes no sense. Literally it means that the number of political units on earth equals the number of Israelites! Nevertheless, the scribe has accomplished what mattered most to him; he has brought Deut. 32.8-9 into line with the henotheism of other biblical passages, such as Mic. 4.5: ‘As each of the peoples walk in the name of their god, so we will walk in the name of Yahweh our god, for all time’.

 

The value of Deut. 32.8-9 to a historian is that it offers a glimpse of Yahweh’s status in Israel prior to his rise as high god. Yahweh was a part of the Israelite pantheon as a son of the high god; only later was he equated with the high god. The high god was El, sometimes called Elyon, and also called El Shaddai. Biblical authors remembered quite clearly that this was the case. For example, in Gen. 33.20, the ancestor Jacob is reported to declare ‘El is the go of Israel’. The name El Shaddai in the key passage of Exodus 6.2-3 also suggests that Israelite scribes remembered, and were satisfied with, the deliberate fusion of Yahweh and El: ‘God spoke to Moses, “I am Yahweh, I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai. But my name, Yahweh, I did not reveal to them.”’ (It is possible that Yahweh was an epithet for El in an early period, as frequently suggested in the scholarship. If this was the case, the epithet had become detached from El as an independent deity well before traditions recorded in the Bible were conceived. The reuniting of El and Yahweh in the Iron Age is not surprising since Yahweh would have retained much of El’s personality, making fusion natural.)

 

Interestingly, the book of Psalms preserves an alternate ‘explanation’ for Yahweh’s ascent to high god, one that is far more entertaining, and may have been preserve for precisely that reason. Psalm 82 tells a delightful tale that seems to presuppose the tradition of Deut 32.8-9:

 

God stool in El’s courtroom,
Among the gods, he judged.
‘How long will you gods judge wickedly?
how long will you favor dishonestly?
Bring justice to the weak and the orphan,
Favor the oppressed and impoverished,
Release the weak and the poor.
From the power of the wicked, rescue!

‘They do not know and they can’t perceive,
In darkenss they all walk about,
So the foundations of the earth will stagger.

‘I declare, “Gods are you!
Sons of Elyon, all of you!
Yet, like humans you shall die.
As any ruler, you will fall!”’

Rise, O god, judge the earth!
You shall inherit all peoples!

 

This poem presents a minor deity in revolt against all his divine siblings, the son of El. He kills them as though they were merely human, then he ‘inherits’ their allotments of humanity. The poet has in mind the myth we encountered in Deut. 32.8-9, in which El parcels out the peoples of the Earth, assigning a patron god to each. The allotments had been made, but the sons of El had ruled their fiefs corrupt. The one just god convicts them and overthrows them. Who was that one just god? He is called, simple, ‘god’. The poem was preserved in a portion of the book of Psalms that is called the Elohim Psalter (Pss. 42-89). It is called Elohim because these psalms usually substitute the generic elohim (‘god’) for the person name yhwh (‘Yahweh’). It is probable, therefore, that before it was gathered into the Elohim Psalter, the original poem identified ‘god’ as Yahweh. This psalm records the myth in which Yahweh ascends from a minor deity in the pantheon to only god of the cosmos. Yahweh has created monotheism by deicide!

 

So the Bible preserves at least two version of Yahweh’s rise to high god. In one version, Yahweh was simply equated with El Shaddai, In the other, Yahweh killed El and his sons and took over, thus becoming the sole god, not just the high god. Perhaps the creators of the biblical anthology saw these two traditions as steps in a single progression. Yahweh reveals that he is El, then El-Yahweh kills his own sons. (Ibid., 253-56)

 

Lyndon W. Cook on the Success of Zion’s Camp

 

 

On Sunday, 8 February 1835, Joseph Smith met with Brigham and Joseph Young to inform them that the twelve apostles and the seventy would soon be called and that Brigham would serve in the former and his elder brother, Joseph, would be a president in the latter. In the Prophet's mind, the march of Zion's Camp played an essential role in the selection of members of the twelve and the seventy. Indeed, the Mormon paramilitary expedition to Missouri in 1834 was regarded as something of a rite of passage for those who would become leaders. And, it is perhaps noteworthy that, without exception, all of the 71 brethren called to serve in the seventy in February 1835 were Zion's Camp veterans. (Lyndon W. Cook, The Office of Seventy 1835-1845 [Provo Utah: Grandin Book Company, 2010], 13. 15, emphasis in bold added [p. 14 is an image])

 

On why there was 71, not 70 who were called, Cook noted that:

 

Seventy-one, instead of seventy, were called because Ezra Thayer, a civil engineer from upstate New York, was judged unacceptable for the office after his ordination. He found himself censured or excommunicated more than a few times in the 1830s because of his defiance to Smith's authority. Thayer's call to the seventy coincided with one of his rebounds, but ultimately he was dropped from the roster (his church membership held in abeyance) and Cyrus Smalling was installed in his place. (Ibid., 15)

 

D&C 87 and Joseph Smith's Letter to Noah C. Saxton (January 4, 1833)

Commenting on D&C 87, we read the following commentary from a RLDS work:

 

On Tuesday, December 25, 1832, the revelation on the Rebellion was given, foretelling accurately, as the reader will see, many of the leading events of the late war. South Carolina had, the November before, in convention assembled, passed the famous Nullification Act. This was met by the prompt and decisive action of President Jackson, in declaring that he would treat nullification as treason, and for a time war was threatened. The government made preparations to invade South Carolina, and the State prepared to defend. This difficulty was finally settled by Henry Clay’s compromise Tariff Acts of 1833, and all preparations for hostilities ceased.

 

To those who supposed that it was based upon the then existing South Carolina trouble, it began to look as though the revelation had failed. Probably some who had looked for its fulfillment may have grown doubtful, for surely that would have been the tendency of the natural mind.

 

Joseph, however, still remained confident that a great and bloody conflict would be forced upon our country, for on Friday, January 4, 1833, he wrote Mr. [Noah C. Saxton], editor of a paper published at Rochester, New York, from which letter we make the following extract:--

 

“And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United states shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquakes will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way of the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requisitions of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the State of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded me to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I say, wishing nothing worse to my fellow men than their eternal salvation; therefore, ‘fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is come.’ Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant, and flee to zion before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled. Remember these things; call upon the Lord while he is near, and seek him while he may be found, is the exhortation of your unworthy servant,

Joseph Smith, Jr.”

--Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 707

(The History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Volume 1: 1805-1835 [Independence, Miss.: Herald House, 1952], 261-62)

 

One can find the letter by Joseph Smith to Saxton here. Here is a scan of the relevant portion:

Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

"Tarik LaCour and Hanna Seariac Discuss Metaphysics, Consciousness, and Miracles"

 

Tarik LaCour and Hanna Seariac Discuss Metaphysics, Consciousness, and Miracles

Kaus Haacker on why Paul Regarded the Early Jesus/Christian Movement as a Danger to Israel's Purity

Kaus Haacker, in an essay on the New Perspective on Paul, wrote the following about why Paul, prior to his conversion, may have opposed the fledgeling Christian movement: 

 

Unfortunately, we cannot be sure about the reasons why young Paul regarded the Jesus movement as a danger to Israel’s purity. In my opinion, a man offence (as reflected in Acts 45) was that the apostles practiced healing miracles in the name of a dead person named Jesus. Apart from belief in Jesus’ resurrection that could be labelled as black magic, and pagan magic was among the was among the primary targets of Zealotism. (Kaus Haacker, “Merits and Limits of the ‘New Perspective on the Apostle Paul,’” in Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, ed., History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80^th Birthday [New York: T&T Clark, 2006], 275-89, here, p. 283)

 

The footnote for the above paragraph reads:

 

See Sanh. 9:6 on zealots in general and Sanh. 6:4 on Shimeon ben Shetah. (Ibid., 283 n. 31)

 

These texts read thusly:

 

San 9:6 MISHNA VI.: If one committed a crime which deserves two kinds of death (e.g., one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law who is married, commits two crimes--with a married woman, to which choking applies, and with his mother-in-law, to which burning applies), he must be tried for the more rigorous one. R. Jose, however, maintains: According to that act, he began first. (Illustrations in the Gemara.)

 

GEMARA: Is this not self-evident? Should one who has committed another crime which brings an easier punishment be benefited by it? Said Rahba: It speaks of where he was tried for a case which deserved a lenient death, and was sentenced, and then committed a crime to which a more rigorous death applies. Lest one say that this man is to be considered as already killed and not to be tried again, it comes to teach us that he must be tried and punished with the more rigorous death.

 

The brother of R. Jose b. Hanna questioned Rabba b. Nathan: Whence is this law deduced? (And the answer was:) from Ezek. 18.10-13; " . . . Upon the mountains he eateth . . . and his eyes he lifteth up to the idols of the house of Israel . . . and the wife of his neighbor he defileth . . . " To bloodshed the sword applies, to adultery with a married woman choking

 

applies, and to idolatry stoning applies, and it ends with "his blood shall be upon him," which means stoning. Hence he is to be executed with the more rigorous one. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak opposed: Perhaps all the crimes mentioned in this passage come under the category of stoning, namely, a "dissolute son," means a stubborn and rebellious son, to whom stoning applies; "he defileth the wife of his neighbor" means a betrothed damsel, to whom also the same applies; "to the idols he lifteth up," which is idolatry, to which stoning applies? If it were so, then what came Ezekiel to teach? And lest one say that he was only repeating what is in the Scripture, then he ought to have done as did Moses our master, who said [Deut, 17.18]: "He shall write the repetition of the law."

 

R. Abhah b. Hanina lectured about the passage [ibid. 6]: Upon the mountains he eateth not," which ends with [ibid. 9]: "He is righteous, he shall surely live." Is it possible that, because he has not committed such crimes, he should be called righteous? Therefore these verses must not be taken literally, but "upon the mountains he eateth not" means that he does not live upon the reward of the meritorious acts done by his parents; "his eyes he lifteth not up to the idols" means that he never walked overbearingly; "and the wife of his neighbor he defileth not," means that he never tried to compete in the special trade of his neighbor; "unto a woman on her separation he cometh not near" means that he never tried to derive any benefit from the treasure of charity--and to this it reads: "He is righteous, he shall surely live."

 

Rabban Gamaliel, when he came to this passage, used to weep, saying: It seems as if he who has done all of them is righteous, but not he who has done only one. Said R. Aqiba to him: According to your theory, the verse [Lev. 18.24]: "Do not defile yourself with all of these things," also means with all of them, but one of them is allowed? Hence it means to say with "any" of them. The same is to be said here: If one does one of the things mentioned above, he is righteous.

 

"A crime which deserves two kinds," etc. There is a Boraitha: How is R. Jose's decision in our Mishna to be illustrated?--e.g., if the crime which he committed with this woman was that she became first his mother-in-law and then married. Hence the prohibition of having intercourse with her applied, even before she married again. Then he must be tried under the crime "with a mother-in-law." But if she became his mother-in-law after her marriage, then he must be tried under the crime "with a married woman," as the prohibition against intercourse with her existed already before she became his mother-in-law.

 

Said R. Adda b. Ahabah to Rabha: In the first case, in which she married after she became his mother-in-law, why should he not also be tried for the crime with a married woman? Did not R. Abuhu say that R. Jose agrees in case a prohibition were added. (E.g., when she was his mother-in-law but unmarried, she was prohibited to him only, but allowed to the whole world, and when married she became prohibited to the whole world. Hence one prohibition was added. And in such a case R. Jose agrees that the second crime must also be taken into consideration.) And Rabha answered: Adda, my son, do you want us to execute him twice? (R. Jose considers the added prohibition to be only concerning sin-offerings, when incurred through error.)

 

San 6:4 MISHNA IV.: The stoning-place was two heights of a man. One of the witnesses pushed him on his thighs (that he should fall with the back to the surface), but if he fell face down, he had to be turned over. If he died from the effects of the first fall, nothing more was to be done. If not, the second witness took a stone and thrust it against his heart. If he died, nothing more was to be done; but if not, all who were standing by had to throw stones on him. Thus [Deut. 17.7]: "The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him, to put him to death, and the hand of all the people at the last."

 

GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: With his own height he was thrown down from the height of three men. Was such a height necessary? Does not a Mishna in First Gate state that as a pit which causes death is of ten spans, so all other heights which may cause death must be no less than ten spans. Hence the height of ten spans is sufficient? Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: From the above-cited verse [Lev. 19.], it is inferred that a decent death must be selected for him. If so, why not from a still higher place? Because his body would be mangled.

 

"One of the witnesses pushed him," etc. The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that he must be pushed? From [Ex. 19.13]: "But he shall surely be stoned, or shot through." From the term "yorauh yeyoreh," which means pushing. And whence do we know that he must be stoned? From the term "soqueul." And whence do we know with both stoning and pushing? Therefore it reads "soquoul yisoquel auyorauh yeyoreh." And whence do we know that when he died from pushing nothing more was to be done? From "au," which means "or." And because the term is future, we infer that the same shall be in later generations.

 

"Took a stone," etc. Took! Have we not learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: There was a heavy stone, which two men had to carry, and this he took and thrust against his heart, and if he died he fulfilled his duty. (Hence if two men had to carry it, it could not be taken by one.) He lifted it up with the support of his comrade, and then he alone threw it, that the blow should be stronger.

 

"To throw stones," etc. Is there not a Boraitha: It never happened that he did not die from the hand of the witnesses, so that one should need to throw another stone? Does, then, the Mishna state that it was so done? It states, "should it be necessary."

 

The master said: "There was a stone," etc. But does not a Boraitha state that the stone with which he was stoned, as well as the tree upon which he was hanged, or the sword with which he was killed, or the muffler with which he was choked, must be buried with him? It means that before it was buried they prepared another like it, which remained. But is there not another Boraitha which states that the above things were not buried with the one executed? Said R. Papa: It does not mean that it was buried just with him, but near him, at a distance of four ells.

 

Samuel said: If before the execution the hands of the witnesses were cut off, he becomes free from death, because the commandment, "the hand of the witnesses should be on him first," cannot be fulfilled. But if so, should witnesses who have no hands be disqualified? There it is different, as the verse reads, "the hand of the witnesses," which means that when they testified they had hands. An objection was raised from the following: Every one, of whom two witnesses testify that he was sentenced at such and such a court, and A and B were his witnesses, he is to be put to death. Hence we see that in any case he is executed? Samuel may explain the Boraitha that it means that the witnesses themselves testified that they were witnesses in the former court. But is it indeed needed that it should be done as the verse dictates? Is there not a Boraitha: It reads [Num. 35.21]: "He that smote him shall surely be put to death; (for) he is a murderer." We know that one is to be put to death by that which applies to him; but whence do we know that if it is impossible that he should be killed by that which applies to him, he is nevertheless to be executed by any death which is possible? From the verse cited, "he shall surely die," which means in any case? That case is different, as it reads, "he shall surely die." But let all other cases be inferred from it? Because the verse cited, which speaks of a murder, and the verse which speaks of the avenger of the one murdered, are two verses which dictate one and the same thing (death), and there is a rule that from two such verses nothing is to be inferred. What verse of the avenger is meant? [Ibid., ibid., 19]: "The avenger of the blood himself shall slay." Infer from this that it is a meritorious aft for the avenger to do so himself. And whence do we know that if the murdered one had none such, that the court is obliged to appoint one? From the end of the verse, "when he meeteth him, shall he slay him?" Said Mar the elder b. R. Hisda to R. Ashi: How can one say that it is not needed as the verse dictates? Does not Mishna 5 in Chapter 8.of this tract state that it must be done just as the verse dictates, and it is deduced from the Scripture. With the verse cited in the Mishna in question it is different, as that verse is altogether superfluous, and is written only so that it should be done just as it dictates. But does not a Boraitha say in the eleventh chapter, concerning a misled town, that if there was not a main street in this city, according to R. Ismael such is not to be recognized as a misled town, as the verse dictates, "You shall gather all its goods in the main street," and according to R. Aqiba a main street should be made? We see, then, that they differ only if such should be made or not, but both agree that it must be done just as the verse dictates? In this case Tanaim differ, as a Mishna in Tract Negaim (xiv. 9) states. If he (referring to Lev. 14.25) lacked the thumbs of his right hand and foot, or the right ear, he can never be purified. R. Eliezer, however, said: It may be done at the place they are lacking. And R. Simeon said: It shall be placed on the left one.