Note on "Know" in 1 John 5:13

 

“Know” is the Greek 2nd person, plural, subjunctive mood of ειδητε from the second perfect tense, of which the indicative οιδα is commonly translated in classical and Koine Greek as “I know” or “you know.” All the other Greek moods take their conjugations from the irregular verb οιδα, which means “to see,” and as such, οιδα and ειδω are used interchangeably in the New Testament. John does so in many cases (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 21, 29). These words appear over 600 times in the New Testament. In each case, the kind of “knowing” is conditioned by the entity doing the knowing and the thing known. John frequently speaks of factual knowledge about the Christian faith that can be known absolutely (e.g., 1Jn 3:15 — “we know that no murderer has eternal life”; 1Jn 5:20 — “we know also that the Son of God has come”), yet knowledge that is also conditioned on how God wishes to reveal it to us (e.g., 1Jn 5:15 — “And if we know that he hears us, whatever we ask, we know we have what we have asked of him.”). In any case, except for one instance, John invariably uses “know” in the plural verb form, denoting that it is the community of believers who possess the factual knowledge of the aspects of the Christian faith, not the individual possessing factual certainty of his own salvation without contingencies (cf. 1Jn 2:20, 21, 29; 3:2, 5, 14, 15; 5:13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; 3Jn 12, 14). John’s use of “know” in the singular appears in 1Jn 2:11. Here, however, he is speaking of an individual in sin who does not know where he is going. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 456 n. 631 [print ed.])

 

Umberto Cassuto on Exodus 6:3

  

The announcement in v. 3 is also to be explained on the basis of usages current in the ancient ear. The text states: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob as אֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י ‘El šadday [‎‘God Shaddai’], but by My name YHWH I was not known [‎לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי lō nōdha’tī] to them. Although many scholars have inferred from the wording that the verse derives from a document according to the Patriarchs did not use the name YHWH, and consequently the passage has become one of the fundamental pillars of the documentary hypothesis, yet in this case, too, we can say that if this had been the intention of the text it would have been phrased differently. The verse would have read, ‘but My name YHWH I did not make known’, or ‘but My name YHWH was not known to them’, and not as in the present text, ‘I was not known to them.’ The ancient versions, which render as though it were written, ‘I did not make known’, do not point to a different reading from that of the Masoretic text; they are merely giving their interpretation of the verse, since its form appeared to them obscure. It is precisely the more difficult text that is to be preferred in accordance with the rule of lectio difficilior. This aside, the antiquity of the Masoretic reading is attested by Ezek. xx 9-10, which forms part of a paragraph that is undoubtedly dependent on our paragraph ‘But I wrought for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they were, in whose sight I made Myself known [‎נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי nōdh’tī], so as to bring them fourth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.’ The correct meaning, again, of our passage becomes clear, as I have stated, when we examine the traditionary usages of the ancient east. The people of the Orient used to attribute to each of their gods a variety of names and qualities, and they associated with each designation specific concepts and characteristics. In the Egyptian texts, for example, it is stated that a certain deity is accustomed to do one kind of work under such a name, another kind of work under a different appellation, and a third task under yet another title, and so forth. Compare also Psa. lxviii 5: ‘Extol Him that rides upon the skies, whose name is יָהּ Yāh [‘Lord’].’ With the name ‎שַׁדָּ֑י šadday [‘Shaddai’] (be its etymology what it may; see in this connection my article in the Encyclopaedia Biblica [Hebrew], Vol I, pp. 290-292) the Israelites were wont to associate the idea of the Divinity who rules over nature and bestows upon mankind fertility, as we can see from each verse in the Pentateuch, in which this name occurs; for example, Gen. xvii 1-2: ‘I am El Shaddai . . . and I will multiply you exceedingly’; ibid, xxviii 3; ‘And El Shaddai bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you;’ Ibid. xxxv 11: ‘I am El Shaddai. Be fruitful and multiply: a nation and a company of nations shall be of you’; see further ibid, xlviii 3-4; xlix 25 (in Gen. xliii 14 there is also a reference to bereavement, as though the Power that bestows fruitfulness acts at times to annul it; so, too, in Ruth I 20-21). This enables us to understand the text before us clearly: I revealed Myself (God declares) to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in My aspect that finds expression in the name Shaddai, and I made them fruitful and multiplied them and gave them children and children’s children, but by the name YHWH (the word ‎שְׁמִ֣י š^emī [‘My name’] is to be construed here as an accusative of nearer definition, and signifies ‘by My name’), in My character as expressed by this designation, I was not known to them, that is, it was not given to them to recognize Me as One that fulfils His promises, because the assurance with regard to the possession of the Land, which I had given them, I had not yet fulfilled. Although one of the attributes connected with the Tetragrammaton—the attribute of being with His creatures—was fulfilled also in the Patriarchs, yet in the implementation of the meaning of this name—namely, that He is One who carries out His promises—God was not known to the fathers of the nation. If we interpret v. 3 in this way, we shall also clearly understand the connection between it and what is narrated subsequently in the rest of the paragraph. (Umberto Moshe David Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus [trans. Israel Abrahams; Varda Books, 2005], 77-79)

 

Umberto Cassuto on the use of "Jethro" and "Reuel" for Moses' Father-in-law

  

His father-in-law is called here [in Exo 3:1] Jethro, and seemingly this presents a difficulty, for earlier the Bible refers to him as Reuel. The difficulty is not to be explained by the usual premise that the redactor excerpted mechanically texts from different sources, for it is inconceivable that the editor should not have noticed the discrepancy between the sources, and should unwittingly have put the two conflicting names within a few lines of each other. It seems more probable to suppose that there existed among the Israelites variant traditions concerning the man’s name, which were well known to the people, and that the Torah deliberately chose the name Reuel when alluding to him only as the priest of Midian, but preferred to use here, when speaking of him as Moses’ faither-in-law, the name Jethro [‎יִתְר֥וֹ Yithrō, from a stem meaning ‘abundance’, ‘superiority’], the more honoured designation, which points to his pre-eminent status. His importance rose in our estimation when he became Moses’ father-in-law. (Umberto Moshe David Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus [trans. Israel Abrahams; Varda Books, 2005], 30, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

Umberto Cassuto on the "Angel of the Lord" being YHWH Himself

  

Exo 3:2:

 

On this mountain Moses was vouchsafed a vision of God. In the sense, And the angel of the Lord [YHWH] appeared to him, the expression, the angel of the Lord, means a manifestation of the Lord. (Umberto Moshe David Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus [trans. Israel Abrahams; Varda Books, 2005], 31)

 

On Exo 23:20:

 

The initial words, Behold I send an angel before you od not imply a being distinct from God. In ancient through-processes the line of demarcation between the sender and the sent is liable easily to be blurred; in the final analysis the angel of God is simply God’s action. From another part of the Bible we learn what is meant by an angel of the Lord being sent before one. In Gen. xxiv 7 Abraham says to his servant: ‘The Lord, the God of heaven . . . He will send His angel before you’, but in the continuation of the narrative there is not the slightest reference to an actual angel accompanying the servant; it is only related that the Lord prospered his way; and the servant says (ibid., v. 27): ‘As for me, the Lord had led me in the way.’ Compare also ibid., vv. 40, 48, 56. It is clear from the passage, therefore, that the angel stands only for the guidance and help of the Lord. Similarly it is stated in Num. xx 16: ‘and sent an angel and brought us forth out of Egypt’; but above (xiv 19) the Bible designates the pillar of cloud ‘the angel of God.’ Hence the words under discussion here mean only: I will guide you and prosper you. In the continuation of the passage at the end of v. 22 and also further on, it is clear that the reference is to the actions of God Himself. (Ibid., 305-6)

 

Baptismal Regeneration Affirmed in Daryl Chase, Christianity Through the Centuries (1947)

  

Ordinances of the Early Church.

 

The sacraments or ordinances of the early church were baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The former was performed by immersion which was done quickly after the applicant’s conversion. This sacred rite was followed by the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (See Acts 8:17; 19:6.) The significance of baptism lay first in its moral importance. It was a sign of dedication to lead a higher, nobler life. Second, it was a means to obtain remission of sins. Third, it made one a member of the Christian church. Fourth, it was a means of spiritual regeneration; it brought the Christian into union with Christ. Immersion in the water was also highly symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It was so important for the individual’s salvation that it was even practiced with reference to the dead. (I Corinthians 15:29.)

 

(Daryl Chase, Christianity Through the Centuries: A Brief Study of the Origin and Development of Christianity and its More Significant Divisions [Salt Lake City: The Department of Education of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1947], 31)

 

Bernard F. Batto on the Merit of the Subjective Genitive Reading of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:16; 3:22

  

The debate over which view is correct, the objective genitive interpretation or the subjective genitive interpretation, can get very technical and involved. Both views have been well argued by very competent Pauline scholars. Nevertheless, there are multiple indications in Paul’s Pauline scholars. Nevertheless, there are multiple indications in Paul’s letters, taken as a whole, that incline me at least to believe that the subjective genitive interpretation (“the faith of Christ” [Jesus’s own trust in God]) was indeed what Paul intended, as that better corresponds to Paul’s Christology, especially regarding his view of Jesus Christ as the second Adam.

 

In the first three centuries a subjective genitive interpretation was commonplace among Christians, but in the fourth century it was abandoned by orthodox Christians—a casualty of the ongoing christological debates, particularly in the struggle against Arianism. Thereafter, an objective genitive interpretation became standard, to the extent that since the Protestant Reformation it has become almost exclusively the sole interpretation that Christians learned. Only with the advent of modern critical Pauline scholarship, with its goal to recover the “authentic Paul,” has the subjective genitive interpretation reemerged—and is steadily gaining adherents. An important recent study of the subjective genitive interpretation in Pauline literature is that of Richard B. Hays, who steadfastly maintains that “the faith of (Jesus) Christ” is the correct rendering of Paul’s meaning. (Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 115-62). The fact that the earliest Christians mostly understood a subjective genitive construction here is in and of itself a powerful argument for thinking that such was indeed Paul’s meaning, since those ancient readers, being closer in time and cultural context to the author, are more likely than later Christians to have understood correctly the mind of Paul.

 

Furthermore, if one leaves aside those passages containing the controverted phrase pistis Christou (or the equivalent, there are no examples of Paul using pistis (“faith”) with an objective genitive. By contrast, Paul used pistis with a subjective genitive some twenty-four times.

 

The most convincing example is Romans 4:16, where Paul employs a subjective genitive construction to highlight “the faith of Abraham.” (The phrase “from the faith of Abraham” [ek pisteōs Abraam] in Rom 4:16 is an exact grammatical parallel to the phrase “from the faith of Jesus” [ek pisteōs Iēsou (Christou)] in Rom 3:26 and Gal 3:22) In Paul’s view, there is a kind of symmetry between ”the faith of Abraham” and “the faith of Christ.” God declared Abraham righteous—right (with God)—because Abraham trusted God. At the same time, God’s “righting” of Abraham served a larger purpose in God’s salvific plan to save all people. “Now the words, ‘it was reckoned to him,’ were written not just for his sake alone, but for ours also” (4:23-24). Like Abraham, Paul argues, we also will be declared “right” before God if we trust the God who raised Jesus from death. Abraham is thus a prototype of Jesus.

 

Jesus is greater than Abraham, of course, not just because Jesus’s trust in God was absolute while Abraham had to be further tested (Gen 22:1), but also because through Jesus’s fidelity God accomplished the salvation of all humankind, Jesus’s place in the divine plan is therefore much more radical than that of Abraham. The effects of Jesus’ absolute trusting of God reach both forward and backward. Forward, to all who follow Jesus; and backward, all the way to Adam himself. No one is excluded from God’s saving grace effected through the second Adam. Everyone is saved through “the faith of Christ” so long as one is “in Christ.” (Bernard F. Batto, The Many Faces of Adam and Eve [Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2022], 144-46)

 

Brant Gardner, "Where are the Nephite Sea East and Sea West?"

  

Where are the Nephite Sea East and Sea West?

 

Another possible contraindication for Sorenson’s geographic correlation is the relationship of that geography to surrounding seas. Helaman 3:8 clearly mentions four seas: “And it came to ass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth form the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.” Some Book of Mormon geographers therefore insist on identifying four surrounding bodies of water. However, John E. Clark notes of these seas:

 

I am convinced that the reference to a north sea and a south sea is devoid of any concrete geographical content. All specific references or allusions to the Book of Mormon seas are only to the east and west seas. Any geography that tries to accommodate a north and south sea, I think, it doomed to fail. But we cannot dismiss the reference to these seas out of hand. If they are metaphorical, what was the metaphor?

 

[The accompanying figure] shows a conceptualization of Nephite lands. The city of Zarahemla and the lands immediately surrounding it were at the “center” (Helaman 1:24-27) or “heart” Alma 60:19; Helaman 1:180 of the land. The surrounding lands, to the various wildernesses, were considered quarters of the land. A Bountiful quarter (Alma 52:10, 13; 53:8; 58:25) and a Manti quarter (43;26; 56:1-2, 9; 58:30) are mentioned. Moroni was another “part” of the land (Alma 59:6). We lack information on the eastern quarter; my designation of “Melek” is merely my best guess.

 

We have seen that the Nephites were surrounded by wilderness on every side. And, conceptually, beyond each wilderness lay a sea to the south, north, west, and east. Thus the land was conceived as surrounded by seas or floating on one large sea. The land was divided into a center and four quarters. Each quarter duplicated the others. The quartering of the land was not the way most of us would do it, by making a cross following the cardinal directions, but was a cross. . . . Such a conception of the world would not be out of place in the Middle Easter at the time of Lehi; and it is remarkably close to the Mesoamerican view of their world. . . . The main point is that the references to north and south seas fits nicely into the Mesoamerican scene as part of a metaphor for the whole earth and was probably used in a metaphorical sense in the Book of Mormon. (John E. Clark, “Revisiting ‘A key for evaluating Nephite Geographies,’” 41)

 

Clark’s proposal that the north and south seas are metaphorical rather than physical finds an interesting parallel in the use of the phrase “the other side of the sea” in various Maya documents. Frauke Sachse and Allen J. Christenson notes that it is a metaphor that “remains hitherto largely unrecognized because a presumed literalness obscured its metaphorical interpretation.” (Frauke Sachse and Allen J. Christenson, “Tulan and the Other Side of the Sea: Unraveling a Metaphorical Concept form Colonial Guatemalan Highland Sources,” 1-2) They conclude by nothing that “the phrase ‘the other side of the sea’ in the Colonial sources is only a metaphor for a place of origin in the sense of creation and not departure, and thus does not necessarily refer to an actual location that could be found on any map.” (Ibid., 25-26) It is perhaps not coincidental that the metaphorical meaning that Clark suggests for the sea north and sea south is also associated with a conceptual organization of the world.

 

As Hopkins and Josserand worked through the vocabulary terms used for east and west, they presented their reconstruction of what Classic Maya terms might have been. For east and west they reconstruct both the words and the plausible original meanings: “*’el-ab k’in “the front porch of the house of the Sun (where the Sun exists)’, and *’och-ib k’in “the door of the house of the Sun (where the Sun enters.” (Hopkins and Josserand, “Directions and partitions,” 708The * at the beginning of the word indicates that it is a reconstruction of an early form and is not actually found in that form in the later data) They argue that these proto-forms may be traced as early as 2000 B.C. (Ibid., 8)

 

In a world conceptually surrounded by seas, the house of the sun would lie across the sea, or on “the other side of the sea.” Thus Sachse and Christenson explain: “We understand that in the Maya world view all creation involves the underlying concept of birth form a primordial sea in darkness. The world came into being because the earth and the mountains arose from the sea and the sky was lifted from the water. Creation thus involves dawning.’” (Sachse and Christenson, “Tulan and the Other Side,” 2) The “other side of the sea” refers metaphorically to an origin in the conceptual east sea, the place of dawning and creation. Thus there was a very strong cultural preference for having a sea east and the parallel sea west. The question is how that conceptual world might have been related to the physical seas that the Book of Mormon text requires.

 

In contrast with the metaphorical meanings for sea north and sea south, and the metaphorical meaning associated with the east sea, the Book of Mormon text clearly supports the physical presence of a sea east. Sorenson’s correlation has the expected sea east but applies the designation to the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone examining a modern map perceives the Gulf of Mexico to be north of the lands surrounding the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. How can this body of water in the north be the sea east? In Sorenson’s correlation, that is part of the skewing of directions. I suggest that no skewing is necessary, only the application of the principles of Mesoamerican directions.

 

The first important part of the explanation is the Mesoamerican concept of the center. Any directions given in the Book of Mormon necessarily related to some location that is conceptually the center of the world for those who live there. Directions related to a different center might result in different locations being placed in the direction quadrants. We can see this same principle even in our modern directional system. We may describe Denver as being east when we are located in Salt Lake City, but in the west when we are located in St. Louis. What is in the west (or west) depends upon the vantage point from which we view the direction. I propose that the term “sea east” is a description rather than a name, and that two different bodies of water might have been considered the sea east based upon different center points from which they are described.

 

The original Nephite center point was not Zarahemla, but rather the City of Nephi. In Sorenson’s correlation, we have the highland valley of Guatemala as a plausible land of Nephi. From that center, the east sea would be right where several Book of Mormon geographers suggest—off the coast of Modern Belize. From that original center point, the Nephites would then have had the option of calling the Pacific either the sea west or sea south, since it creates the coastline that would be both south and west of the land of Nephi. Because the definition of Mesoamerican direction system had the sun setting in the sea west it is logical that they would have selected that designation for what we know as the Pacific Ocean. The interesting combination of the sea west being both west and south helps explain Alma 53:22: “And now it came to pass that Helaman did march at the head of his two thousand stripling soldiers, to the support of he people in the borders of the land on the south by the west sea.” The land south of Zarahemla bordered the west sea, not a south sea even though there was a coastline on the south.

 

While there is a reference to a sea east from the land of Nephi, most references to the sea east come form the time when directions were given in relation to the City of Bountiful, not the city of Nephi or even the city of Zarahemla. (Nephi as the center: Alma 22:27. Bountiful as the center: Alma 22:32-33; 27:22; 50:34; 52:13; Helaman 4:6-7. There are two other references I am not listing because the east sea occurs in a context that reads better as a metaphor for “the whole world”: Helaman 3:8; 11:20) Using Sorenson’s correlation, Bountiful would be located to the northern side of the isthmus of Tehuantepec. With that location as the center point, the Gulf of Mexico lies both on the north and on the east. Just as the cultural necessity of the sun rising across a sea east and setting in the sea west allowed the Nephites to define a sea west from the center point of the city of Nephi, the same cultural preference would naturally select sea east as the appropriate designation of that major body of water. No skewing of directions is necessary to see the Gulf of Mexico as the sea east based on the perspective of Bountiful as the center. Regardless of the body of water, the sea east existed as a description that was related to the cosmological understanding of the east as a place of creation and of the rising/birth of the sun. In the Book of Mormon, it is plausible that two different bodies of water served that function and were designated (not named) sea east to conform to the cosmological principle. (Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015], 143-46)

 

Further Reading:

Brant Gardner on Helaman 3:8

Margaret and Stephen Bunson on "Cardinal Points" in Ancient Mesoamerica

Freidel, Schele, and Parker on Mesoamerican peoples symbolically centering themselves in a universe that existed inside the four directions

John Tvedtnes on "Cite your minds forward" in Alma 13:1

  

Cite your minds forward. In one of his discourses, Alma₂ declared, “I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests . . . to teach these things unto the people” (Alma 13:1). In English, the word forward implies the future, which does not fit with such past-tense verbs as gave and ordained, and cannot be “remembered” since it has not yet happened. If the Hebrew word rendered “forward” is קדם (qedem), which means “before, in front of,” (HALOT, 1069-70) in both a temporal and locative sense, it would here have a temporal meaning, and hence it refers to something that has gone “before,”—that is, in the past. (John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Words Reflected in the Book of Mormon,” in Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies on the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks, ed. Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn, and Shon D. Hopkin [Provo, Utah: Interpreter Foundation and Religious Education, Brigham Young University, 2020], 146)

 

Further Reading:

 

Alma 13:1 and the Past Being "Before" and the Future Being "Behind" People

 

Exodus 9:34 and Pharaoh's Hardening of of His Heart

 

Many Reformed commentaries simply ignore the stipulation in Exodus 9:34 that Pharaoh and his officials hardened their own hearts. If an explanation is attempted, Reformed theologians claim that Pharaoh’s sin is attributed to the removal of God’s restraint of sin in men so that, in the words of one author, “God gives them enough rope to hang themselves” (Sproul, Chosen By God, p. 145). Rather than attributing Pharaoh’s actions to his own free will, or at least saying that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart because of or in conjunction with Pharaoh’s free decision to harden his own heart, the Reformed view persists, perhaps inadvertently, to make God responsible for Pharaoh’s sin. For if God removes “restraint” arbitrarily from one individual but not another — a removal that is not contingent on the individual’s free choice or some other indication that he is moving away from God, then the Reformed view has not escaped the clutches of a determinism that makes God into a tyrant who arbitrarily imposes his will on his creatures. Conversely, we should not understand Paul’s statement in Rm 9:18-20 (“...he hardens whom he wants to harden...Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”) as referring to an arbitrary imposition of God’s will on men irrespective of their free will, but precisely an imposition that takes into account or is the result of their free decisions. In this way, one cannot complain to God (i.e., “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”) because as men make decisions, God makes decisions, for he is not neutral with respect to the free acts of men. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 392 n. 493 [print ed.])

 

Andrew Perry on the meaning of μονογενής

Christadelphian Andrew Perry has posted a new article on the meaning of μονογενής, defending the thesis that it means "only begotten." See:

ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ -'the only-begotten son' -John 3:16 and the RSV

John Tvedntes on "Place" in the Book of Mormon

  

Place. Another Hebrew word is used in the Book of Mormon for the term place. The Hebrew word in the King James Bible is מקום (māqōm), literally “place of arising.” (HALOT, 626-27, 1086-89) Some Bible scholars have suggested that, in at least some passages (for example, Job 16:18; Eccles. 3:20; 6:6), it should be rendered “grace” or “destruction of the dead” (BDB). Indeed, this is the meaning of the word when it appears in the inscriptions found on the sarcophagi of the ancient Phoenician kings Panamuwa and Eshmunezer, found in Lebanon. The Arabic cognate maqam is used to denote the tomb of a prominent individual, usually an ancient prophet. The renowned Arabist William M. Brinner, while acknowledging its primary meaning of “standing-place,” noted that “maqam, today usually, means ‘shrine’ or ‘place of martyrdom.’” (William M. Brinner, trans., The History of al-Tabari Vol 2: Prophets and Patriarchs [Albany, MY: State Univ. of NY Press, 1978], 78n210) Significantly, the Book of Mormon uses the word place once to denote where someone was buried (1 Ne. 16:34), twice to denote where people died (Mosiah 9:4; Alma 14:9), and ten times to denote the destination of the spirits of the dead (1 Ne. 15:34-35; 2 Ne. 28:23; Jacob 6:3; Enos 1:27; Mosiah 26:23-24; Alma 5:24-25; 54:22). (John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Words Reflected in the Book of Mormon,” in Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies on the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks, ed. Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn, and Shon D. Hopkin [Provo, Utah: Interpreter Foundation and Religious Education, Brigham Young University, 2020], 145-46)

 

"Testing the Spirits" in D&C 50 and the April 1, 1842 Times and Seasons

 In 1 John 4:1-3, we read:

 

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

This is often used as a proof-text against Latter-day Saints, sometimes being used as a "proof-text" for Sola Scriptura and/or against the LDS belief in the "testimony of the Holy Spirit." I have addressed these issues before (see the articles under "further reading").

 

It should be noted that early Latter-day Saints did believe in the importance of "testing the spirits." Consider the following two examples:

 

In a revelation dated May 1831, we have warnings against false spirits:

 

Hearken, O ye elders of my church, and give ear to the voice of the living God; and attend to the words of wisdom which shall be given unto you, according as ye have asked and are agreed as touching the church, and the spirits which have gone abroad in the earth. Behold, verily I say unto you, that these are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world. . . . Wherefore, it shall come to pass, that if you behold a spirit manifested that you cannot understand, and you receive not the spirit, ye shall ask of the Father in the name of Jesus; and if he give not unto you that spirit, then you may know that it is not of God. And it shall be given unto you, power over that spirit and you shall proclaim against the spirit with a loud voice that it is not of God. (D&C 50:1-2, 31-32)

 

In the article, probably authored by Joseph Smith (*), "Try the Spirits," Times and Seasons 3, no. 11 (April 1, 1842): 744-45, 747, we are told how to discern the different manifestation of "spirits" among various groups:

 

We answer that no man can do this without the Priesthood, and having a knowledge of the laws by which spirits are governed; for as, “no man knows the things of God but by the spirit of God,” so no man knows the spirit of the devil and his power and influence but by possessing intelligence which is more than human, and having unfolded through the medium of the Priesthood the mysterious operations of his devices; without knowing the angelic form, the sanctified look, and gesture, and the zeal that is frequently manifested by him for the glory of God:—together with the prophetic spirit, the gracious influence, the godly appearance, and the holy garb which is so characteristic of his proceedings, and his mysterious windings. A man must have the discerning of spirits, before he can drag into daylight this hellish influence and unfold it unto the world in all its soul destroying, diabolical, and horrid colors: for nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit, when they think they have the spirit of God. . . . As we have noticed before, the great difficulty lays in the ignorance of the nature of spirits, of the laws by which they are governed, and the signs by which they may be known; if it requires the spirit of God, to know the things of God, and the spirit of the devil can only be unmasked through that medium, then it follows as a natural consequence that unless some person, or persons, have a communication or revelation from God, unfolding to them the operation of spirit, they must eternally remain ignorant of these principles:—for I contend that if one man cannot understand these things but by the spirit of God, ten thousand men cannot; it is alike out of the reach of the wisdom of the learned, the tongue of the eloquent, and the power of the mighty. . . . A man must have the discerning of spirits as we before stated to understand these things, and how is he to obtain this gift if there are no gifts of the spirit? And how can these gifts be obtained without revelation?—“Christ ascended into heaven and gave gifts to men, . . . “and he gave some apostles and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.” And how were apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists chosen? by “prophesy (revelation) and by laying on of hands:”—by a divine communication, and a divinely appointed ordinance—through the medium of the priesthood, organized according to the order of God, by divine appointment. The apostles in ancient times held the keys of this priesthood—of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and consequently were enabled to unlock, and unravel all things pertaining to the government of the church, the welfare of society, the future destiny of men, and the agency, power, and influence of spirits; for they could control them at pleasure, bid them depart in the name of Jesus, and detect their mischievous and mysterious operations when trying to palm themselves upon the church in a religious garb, and militate against the interest of the church, and the spread of truth—we read that they “cast out devils in the name of Jesus,” and when a woman possessing the spirit of divination cried before Paul and Silas “these are the servants of the most high God that shew unto us the way of salvation:” they detected the spirit, and although she spake favorably of them Paul commanded the spirit to come out of her, and saved themselves from the opprobrium that might have been heaped upon their heads, through an affiance with her, in the development of her wicked principles:—which they certainly would have been charged with if they had not rebuked the evil spirit. . . . Some will say ‘try the spirits’ by the word. ‘Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.’ John iv, 2, 3.66 One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, ‘I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.’ And yet these prophesies failed, their Messiah did not come; and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? did not the apostle speak the truth? certainly he did—but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death, the moment they embraced christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death: and this was consequently given as a criterian to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the devil on a certain occasion cried out, ‘I know thee who thou art the ‘Holy one of God’[’]67 Here was a frank acknowledgement under other circumstances,—that ‘Jesus had come in the flesh.’ On another occasion the devil said ‘Paul we know, and Jesus we know;’ of course come in the flesh. No man nor set of men without the regular constituted authorities, the priesthood and discerning of spirits can tell true, from false spirits. This power they possessed in the apostles’ day, but it has departed from the world for ages.

 

(*) According to the Joseph Smith Papers website:

 

JS likely authored the article, which was signed “Ed.” . . . Although it was not uncommon for JS’s amanuenses to author documents on his behalf using that pronoun (for instance, Willard Richards used “I” to describe JS when keeping the latter’s personal journal), it was not typically used in Times and Seasons editorials written by someone other than JS. The frequency of use in this editorial, particularly in informal parenthetical asides, suggests JS’s authorship. Certain examples of authoritative pronouncements in the editorial—like the author’s statement that a “bad angel” could be identified by “the color of his hair”—seem to also suggest JS’s authorship.

 

Further Reading:

 

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

Personal Divine Revelation and the Knowledge the Bible is the Word of God and/or one is "Saved" in the Protestant Traditions

“Testing God,” Gideon, and Praying about the Book of Mormon (cf. Gideon and the Dry Fleece, God giving "signs" to His people, and Praying about the Book of Mormon; Roger Ryan on Gideon and the Fleece; Notes from David Marcus, “Gideon’s Two-Part Tests As Signs of Assurance (Judges 6.36-40)")

 

Peter Bartley (Catholic): Paul's Mistaken Views about the Timing of the Parousia Appears in the New Testament

In a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot (here, implicitly denying the inerrancy of the autographia of the Bible [which is a Catholic doctrine]), Peter Barley wrote the following to 'answer' the LDS understanding of Rev 14:6-7:

LeGrand Richards, taking as his text Revelation 14:6, 7, comments: ‘John saw the bringing back of the gospel to the earth to be preached to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.’ Several texts of St. Paul are pressed into service as additional proof.

 

The Book of Revelation was written to bring strength and comfort to the Christians of John’s day, who were undergoing persecution. The symbolism is not easy to understand, but what is perfectly plain, both from the opening verses of the book and from the concluding chapter, is that the author believed that the end of the world was at hand, and that the events he described would soon take place. This belief in the imminence of the end of the world was common in the early Church. We know this from St. Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians and the first letter to the Corinthians. Moreover, it seems clear from 1 Corinthians 7:25-32 that St Paul himself shared this view. It is, therefore, difficult to see how John and Paul could have been pre-announcing the advent of Joseph Smith’s restored Church, expected eighteen centuries hence, when both believed that the end of the world would come in their time. (Peter Bartley, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book and the Cult [Dublin: Veritas, 1989], 69, emphasis added)

 

This, of course, contradicts what the Biblical Commission of June 18, 1915, stated concerning the Second Coming in the Epistles of Paul:

Question 1: To solve the difficulties that occur in the epistles of St. Paul and of other apostles, where the Parousia as it is called, or the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of, is it permitted to the Catholic exegete to assert that the apostles, although under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they teach no error, nevertheless express their own human views, into which error or deception can enter?

Response: No. (DS 3628)

Evidence that Romans 2 is not Hypothetical

  

A further indication that Romans 2 is not hypothetical is the way in which Paul has arranged the flow of thought from chapter 1 through chapter 5. Protestants maintain that Paul is organizing the chapters in a specific sequential arrangement such that what is proposed as a plausibility in Romans 2 is then negated by the chronological placement of Romans 3-4. In essence, Romans 3-4 corrects, in due time, the “false” view presented in Romans 2 on how to be saved. The problem with this assumption, among other things, is that Paul is not writing these chapters chronologically as much as he is topically. Paul shows this, for example, in his opening statement in Rm 3:9: “...We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin...” We must conclude that somewhere within the first two chapters of Romans Paul “already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.” The first indications of such a “charge” on mankind appear in Rm 1:18-32, in which Paul refers to “all the godlessness and wickedness of men” (vr. 18); and “For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him (vr. 21); and, “they have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity” (vr. 29). In fact, Paul’s description of mankind’s sin in Rm 1:18-32 matches the very language of Rm 3:10-18, in which Paul states “there is no one righteous, not even one” (vr. 10); and “their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness” (vr. 14); and “there is no fear of God before their eyes” (vr. 18). Hence we see that the “charge” against mankind is identical in Romans 1 and Romans 3. Paul also reiterates the “charge” more subtly in Rm 5:12 in which he says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came upon all men, upon which all men sinned.”

 

Since Romans 1, Romans 3 and Romans 5, all stipulate the same “charge” against sin, it is obvious that Paul has arranged the Roman epistle topically. This structure allows Paul to state the same problem three times and give the same solution, but with an added nuance in each instance. For example, while Paul is levying the “charge” in Romans 1 and 2 against the sin of both Jew and Gentile, he is also offering the solution for that sin in the same context. Paul indicates this solution in Rm 1:16-17:

 

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in it a righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written: The just man will live by faith.

 

We note here that Paul presents the gospel in all its flower before he even levies the “charge” of sin against mankind. It is as if he is anticipating the solution before he gives the details of the problem. Presenting the gospel at such an early stage in the Roman epistle does not suggest an arrangement whereby Paul is setting up a hypothetical means of salvation in Romans 2 which is then followed up with the real solution in Romans 3-4. Rather, we understand from Paul’s mentioning of the gospel in Rm 1:16-17 that he has already given us the solution prior to Romans 2 and 3. In effect, Romans 2 takes the next step by completing the instruction and giving the very means of attaining that salvation.

 

To confirm this interpretation, we must look at two facets of the relationship between Rm 1:16-17 and Rm 2:5-10. First, we notice that Paul specifies the recipients of the gospel in Rm 1:16: “for the Jew first and then for the Gentile.” This is the identical language Paul uses in Rm 2:9-10: “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: for the Jew first, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good: for the Jew first, then for the Gentile.” (The Greek phrasing of Rom 1:16 is identical to that in Rm 2:9 and Rm 2:10 [Ιουδαιω τε πρωτον και ‘Ελληνι]) It would be strange indeed for Paul to use identical

language in both these passages but intend one as real and the other as hypothetical. The two passages are speaking of the same reality, albeit in different ways. Rm 1:16 uses terms such as “gospel,” “salvation” and “faith” whereas Rm 2:9-10 uses terms such as, “does good” and “does evil.” From this we can understand that he who “does good” and receives “eternal life” in Rm 2:6-10 is the same as he who lives by the “faith” of the “gospel” unto “salvation” in Rm 1:16-17. The good works of Rm 2:5-10, then, are in the same salvific category as faith. This is another clear indication that Paul is not opposing works to faith when both are included under the auspices of God’s grace.

 

As noted previously, Paul makes the connection between Rm 1:16-17 and Rm 2:9-10 even stronger by bridging these two contexts in Rm 2:4: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?” In this passage we see Paul introducing the aspect of repentance into his discourse. In stating that God’s “kindness leads to repentance,” Paul’s usage of these terms reveals the essential elements of the gospel. “God’s kindness” speaks of his grace. Rather than just obliterating us in his righteous wrath against sin, God shows grace by leading us to repentance from sin. That God is expecting “repentance” from this gracious leading conveys the essence of the gospel. After all, what is the gospel if it is not salvation through repentance from sin?

 

Right on the heels of this presentation of the gospel of grace and repentance in Rm 2:4, Paul issues the ultimatum in Rm 2:5-10. Those who do not repent will receive God’s wrath. This is noted in vrs. 5, 8, 9:

 

Because of your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself...but for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger...there will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil...

 

Next, the logical complement to those who are “unrepentant” would be those who actually do repent. Those who “persist in doing good work” and “seek for glory, honor, and immortality” in vrs. 7 and 10 must then be those who have first repented of their sins. Their “doing good” implies their repentance from sin, since one cannot do good in God’s eyes unless he has repented of sin. That they “seek for immortality” shows, in addition, that their lives are not focused on this earth but upon the heavenly kingdom that provides immortality. One cannot have a belief in immortality if he is still in the blindness of sin and has not responded to the principles of the gospel. God’s grace and the expected repentance of man in Rm 2:4 is followed by either of two responses, i.e., “doing good...seeking glory, honor, and immortality...[for] eternal life” or “self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil [will receive] wrath and anger” in Rm 2:7-8. Thus, it is only logical to conclude that the two responses to God’s calling are indicative of two different responses to the gospel.

 

If Paul lifts the doing of works for obtaining eternal life to such a height as he does in Rm 2:6-10, what, then, can we conclude about Paul’s understanding of works in relation to salvation? The conclusion must be that works are necessary for salvation, and, in fact, are one of the principle determining factors in whether or not one obtains salvation. We say this with the proviso that Paul outrightly condemns works done with a view toward obligating God to pay the worker with salvation. Man can never put God in the position of being in debt to an imperfect and sinful creature. The only way God can accept our works is through his grace. Works done under the auspices of God’s grace, that is, works done that do not demand payment from God but are rewarded only due to the kindness and mercy of God, are the works that Paul requires for salvation. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 40-43 [print ed.])

 

 

John Tvedtnes on "Isle of the Sea" in the Book of Mormon

  

Isle of the sea. Jacob also declared, “We are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Ne. 10:20), which seems a strange way to term the American contingent or even a portion of it. But the Hebrew word אי (‘ēy), generally translated “isle” in the King James Bible, has a wider range of meaning than the English term and most often refers to “coastal lands.” Thus, in Isaiah 41:5 and 42:10, the term “isles” is in poetic parallelism with “end(s) of the earth,” while in Isaiah 42:4 it parallels “earth.” In two other passages, it refers to distant lands, alluding to the edge of the continental mass (Isa. 49:1; Jer. 31:10). From the Nephite perspective, they were in a distant land or “isle,” far from their homeland. (John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Words Reflected in the Book of Mormon,” in Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies on the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks, ed. Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn, and Shon D. Hopkin [Provo, Utah: Interpreter Foundation and Religious Education, Brigham Young University, 2020], 144-45)

 

Tvedtnes references BDB. Here is the entry for אי:

 

†i. אִי S^{336, 337, 338, 339} TWOT^{39a, 43a, 76, 77} GK^{362, 363, 364, 365} n.m. Is 20:6 (†f. Is. 23:2) coast, region (contr. from אֱוִי so Ol ^{152 b}; place whither one betakes oneself for resting, etc., orig. from mariner’s standpoint)—אִי abs. Is 20:6 +; cstr. Je 47:4; (Jb 22:30 v. sub IV. אִי cf. Di) pl. אִיִּים ψ 72:10 +; אִיִּן Ez 26:18 (Co איים) אִיֵּי Gn 10:5 +;—coast, border region (mostly late), of Philistia & Phoenicia with adjacent country Is 20:6; 23:2, 6; so of Caphtor ( = Crete) Je 47:4; מַלְכֵי הָאִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיָּם Je 25:22; elsewhere pl., coasts of Kittim Je 2:10; Ez 27:6, of Elishah v 7; different countries (on or in sea) v 3, 15, 35; 26:15, 18⁽⁾ (last del. Co cf. 𝔊) cf. 39:6, so also אִיֵּי הַגּוֹיִם Gn 10:5 (P); partic. אִיֵּי הַיָּם = coast-lands & islands Is 11:11; 24:15, || הָאָרֶץ Est 10:1; v. (without הַיָּם) Dn 11:18, & ψ 72:10, so often Is 2 incl. inhabitants, 41:1, 5; 42:4, 10 (אִיִּים וְישְׁבֵיהֶם || הַיָּם וּמְלֹאוֹ) v 12; 49:1; 51:5; 59:18; 60:9; 66:19; cf. Je 31:10 ψ 97:1, Zp 2:11 (אִיֵּי הַגּוֹיִם); islands, distinctly (taken up by י׳ as little things) Is 40:15; coasts, banks, i.e. habitable lands Is 42:15 (|| נְהָרוֹת).