Michael J. Gorman on Faith, Baptism, and Justification in Galatians 2 and Romans 6

  

Repentance and Justification

 

Many interpreters of the letter’s theologically and rhetorically powerful chapter 6 think Paul has left the subject of justification behind and is now describing the process of sanctification, of becoming more and more holy, or Christlike. Although we do find the language of holiness or sanctification in this passage (6:19, 22), it is a mistake to separate sanctification from justification.

 

Paul, in fact, has not left justification in the dust but is further explaining its significance by once again stressing the transition from death to life that has occurred for believers. To do this, he draws on his discussion of justification from the letter to the Galatians. Paul depicts justification in Galatians and baptism in Romans within the same framework: participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. (The connection of baptism in which his disciples would share; Mark 10:38-39.) The following table shows the similarities between justification according to Galatians and baptism according to Romans

 

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN GALATIANS 2:15-21 (JUSTIFICATION) AND ROMANS 6:1-7:6 (BAPTISM)

 

FEATURES	GALATIANS 2:15-21 JUSTIFICATION	ROMANS 6:1-7:6 BAPTISM
Transfer into Christ	“we have come to believe in [Gk. eis; “into”] Christ Jesus” (2:16); “justified in Christ” (2:17); cf. Gal 3:27	“baptized into [Gk. eis] Christ Jesus” (6:3); “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11); “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (6:23).
Death to the law/law and Sin	“through the law I died to the law” (2:19)	“you have died to the law through the body of Christ” (7:4); cf. “died to Sin” (6:2); “so that the body of Sin would be destroyed, and we would no longer be enslaved to Sin” (6:6); “dead to Sin” (6:11)
Co-crucifixion (expressed in the passive voice), death of self	“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live” (2:19-20)	“baptized into [eis] his death” (6:3); “buried with him by baptism into death” (6:4); “United with him in a death like his” (6:5); “our old self was crucified with him” (6:6); “we have died with Christ” (6:8)
Resurrection to new life	“so that I might live to God. . . . And the life I now live in the flesh” (2:19-20)	“just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (6:4); “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11); “those who have been brought from death to life” (6:13); “died to the law . . . the new life of the Spirit” (7:4, 6).
Present and future dimensions	Present: see 2:19-20 Future: “no one will be justified” (2:16)	Present: throughout Future: “we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (6:5b); “eternal life” (6:2, 23)
Participation with Christ and “go” God	“so that I might live to God . . . it is Christ who lives in me” (2:19-20)	“alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11); “so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God” (7:4)
Faith and love (Christ’s and ours); that is, proper covenantal relations with God and others	“faith of Jesus Christ . . . faith of Christ” (2:16); “we have come to believe in [eis; “into”] Christ Jesus” (2:16); “I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me and giving himself for me” (2:20 MJG). Cf. Gal 5:6 for believers’ faith and love explicitly	“No longer present our members to Sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness [/justice]” (6:13); “you . . . have become slaves of righteousness [/kjustice]” (6:18; cf. 6:19b); “the advantage you get is sanctification” (6:22) Cf. Rom 5:19; 8:34-35 for Christ’s faith/obedience and love explicitly.

 

In 6:1-7:6, then, Paul is depicting the same sort of reality he describes in Gal 2:15-21: namely, a participatory experience of co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Christ. (The only two occurrences of the verb “co-crucify” in Paul’s letters are in Gal 2:19 and Rom 6:6. Paul has apparently borrowed the word used in the gospel tradition referring to those literally crucified with Jesus [Matt 27:44; Mark 15:32; John 19:32]) Justification is like baptism, and vice versa. More precisely, justification and baptism are two sides of the one coin of entrance into Christ and his body through dying and rising with him. Both faith and baptism involve transferal into Christ by means of dying and rising with Christ. The result is life: being “alive to God” now (6:11) and one day having “eternal life” (6:22-23). And this means that in Christ, we are meant to become like Christ. (Michael J. Gorman, Romans: A Theological and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022], 165-67)

 

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Isaiah 51:19 in the Great Isaiah Scroll reading שׁתים המה vs. MT שׁתים הנה

The following image is taken from The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a): A New Edition, ed. Donald W. Parry and Elisha Qimron (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 86:

On this, see:

The Great Isaiah Scroll Text of Isaiah 51:19: Potential Light Shed on 2 Nephi 8:19

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Michael J. Gorman on the Transformative Nature of Justification in Romans

  

Justification, God’s Glory, and the Spirit

 

It is important, therefore, to stress the transformative and restorative substance of what God does, for justification is even more than a powerful legal pronouncement or act of pardon. Romans 3:24 implies that justification solves the problem of humans missing out on the divine glory (3:23). Justification means, in part, restoration to the glory we once possessed—to true humanity that renders glory to God as the essence of true humanity, experiencing the presence of God individually and in community. Justification is the beginning of a new reality that will reach its ultimate goal in eternal life and final glorification (5:2; 8:18).

 

Yet another key phrase in Rom 3:23 has been understood in several different ways. Does Paul say “we fall short of the glory of God” (NRSV, NIV, NET, RSV, NASB, ESV) or we “lack God’s glory” (NJB; cf. NAB “are deprived of”)? Despite the answer expressed in multiple translations, it is best to understand this verse in the second sense. That is, we are (or were, prior to justification) lacking God’s glory. The basic meaning of glory (Gk. Doxa) here seems to be divine presence, as in the glory of the Lord that filled the tabernacle and the temple.

 

Lacking that glory is one way, then, of describing the fundamental human predicament of life apart from God, when we have turned our backs on God and become un-godded. At the same time, then, what humans need, is precisely the glory of God. In justification, doxa is restored to humans who have been characterized by lacking doxa. This is likely what Paul means in  8:30 when he says believers have been “glorified” by God. (At the same time, it must be remembered that full and final glory is in the future [5:2], and that whatever glory believers experience now by virtue of the presence of the Spirit is stamped with the pattern of the cross [see esp. 5:3; 8:17]. We can refer to the present experience of the Spirit as cruciform glory and as resurrection infused, or resurrectional, cruciformity)

 

Paul asserts that divine glory was one of the blessings God gave to Israel (9:4). We see this glory especially in the experience of Moses and the children of Israel at Sinai and in the wilderness, particularly at the tabernacle, or tent meeting (e.g., Exod 29:43-46; 40:34-35), and later in association with the temple (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Chron 7:1-2). As a Jew, Paul of course also believes that not only his fellow Jews, but all human beings, were created in the image of God and given the breath of life from God (Gen 1:27; 2:7). As such, they were both to give glory (honor and praise) to God and also to be—individually and corporately—an ongoing representation of God and God’s presence on earth. (Paul would also affirm with the Scriptures that the whole earth is full of God’s glory [e.g., Isa 6:3] and that salvation consists of seeing and experiencing that glory—which is something for “all flesh” [Isa 40:1-5]) God’s glory is to be displayed in God’s people (Isa 49:3).

 

We see this clearly when Paul designates both the church (1 Cor 3:16) and individual believers (1 Cor 6:19) as the temple of the Holy Spirit. When he speaks of lacking God’s glory, he may once again have in mind the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel spoke of God’s glory leaving the temple and God’s people (e.g., Ezek 10:18-19; 11:23), but he also promised that God’s glory would return (Ezek 43:4-7) to dwell, by the Spirit, in the people (Ezek 36:25-28) and also in a rebuilt temple (Ezek 40-48). (Michael J. Gorman, Romans: A Theological and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2022], 121-22)

 

 

Justification: Vertical and Horizontal

 

This aspect of justification as involving becoming God’s temple, individually and corporately, also helps us settle another debate about justification that has been important especially in recent years. Is justification (1) about how an individual is restored to right relationship with God (a “vertical” understanding of justification) or (2) about who, and how, all people—especially gentiles—are included in the people of God (a “horizontal” understanding of justification)?

 

The answer to this question is “Yes.” Once again, we are faced with a false either-or. Justification is about both the individual and the community; when we are justified, we are transferred into Christ, into the people of God, into the community of the just/righteous. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, the justified share in the holiness, faithfulness, and righteousness/justice of God (2 Cor 5:21).

 

The idea that God’s saving act of justifying sinful human beings includes remaking them into the temple of the Holy Spirit, individually and corporately, is not an aspect of justification that has received sufficient attention. Paul only hints at this truth here, when he implies that those lacking God’s glory will now possess that divine glory. This sharing in God’s glory will be only partial in the present, but full in the eschatological future. The apostle refers to this glorious future reality in 5:2-5 and then puts all of its significance on display in chapter 8. We were made to be temples of God’s glory, indwelt and transformed by God’s Spirit, serving God in service to the world. That is why justification is inseparably connected to justice/righteousness—to holiness in living. Human adikia is being undone. Sin is being interrupted and replaced with the divine presence. Christ’s death makes all of this possible (see also Gal 3:1-5). (Ibid., 123)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Kevin George on 2 Corinthians 5:21

  

This is perhaps the primary text that is commonly used to claim that Jesus paid for our sins and that the righteousness of Christ is transferred to us. The typical PSA proponent reads this verse as if it says something like this, “For our sake God put our sin on Christ’s so that we would have the righteousness of God transferred to our account.”

 

This reading and understanding is seriously incorrect for the following reasons:

 

1.     This verse says, “. . . so that in him we might become the righteous of God,” not “from him.” To be “in” Christ is a Greek way of saying “In his group,” or “on his team,” or “linked to him,” or “in his sphere of influence.” The Greek word “en,” which is the English “in” has to do with our identification with Christ, not about something being passed from him to us. “In” is a word that involves association, not a transfer.

2.     Righteousness is a virtue like love, patience, gentleness, etc. There are also anti-viruses like hate, bitterness, impatience, etc. Neither virtues not anti-virtues can be transferred. I cannot transfer some at my patience or love to you. Right living is also virtuous living. Righteousness is not something that can be transferred to delegated. Neither can wickedness. This passage says nothing about the righteousness of God or of Jesus actually being transferred to us. It is by being “in “ Christ that we can have God’s righteousness, which is about following Christ as our leader, living and behaving as he did. Righteousness is what we do because we are associated with Christ. It is not delegated or assigned to us.

3.     The phrase, “we might become the righteousness of God.” It is more literally translated as, “that we might be becoming the righteousness of God.” This is about transitioning from a condition of unrighteousness, toward righteousness. Becoming righteous is not a status or a position or a transfer, or a declaration. Becoming righteous is a movement, a transition. So, properly understood, this phrase has nothing to do with God transferring righteousness to us, but of us transitioning from our unrighteous behavior toward godly, righteous behavior. It is similar to, “that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” in 1 Peter 2:24.

4.     The greater context of verse 21 is also problematic because the entire passage is about Christ reconciling us to God. If we claim that verse 21 teaches that God transfers Christ’s righteousness to us, we would have a false or reverse reconciliation. The context pleads with us to be reconciled to God. It is us being relationally reconciled to Him, not Him being reconciled to us because someone else paid Him to delete our record of sins in heaven or because He is blinded by a covering of Christ’s righteousness. We have offended God. We must stop offending Him if reconciliation is going to occur. If somehow some external righteousness is transferred to us, and this is called reconciliation in total disregard of our actually ceasing to offend God, then is being bribed or blinded by Christ, and no genuine reconciliation has occurred. The plea of Paul is that WE be reconciled TO God. What Christ did was not a divine maneuver for God to be reconciled to us! The first step in any process of reconciliation is to stop offending. Until the offenses case, there can be no genuine reconciliation. So, to read this passage with the idea that we are not required to stop offending and that reconciliation occurs due to an imparting righteousness from a third party destroys the very intent of the passage, which is that we be reconciled TO God. If a transfer of righteousness is occurring without us ceasing to offend, this would be reconciliation in reverse, a fake reconciliation, if you can even imagine God agreeing to such a thing!

5.     Now let’s focus on the phrase “to be sin.” Sin is an action that takes place in time, and therefore cannot be transferred to another time or another actor, nor can something or someone become literally sin. Sin is not an object or a substance that can be moved or transferred, bought or sold. Some may say that Christ became legally sin in our place. This idea would mean that Christ merely accepted a temporary legal label called “sin.” But a mere label called “sin” does noting at all to motivate us to live righteously, and the verse flatly states that “ . . . he made him to be sin who knows no sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Simply having Jesus become temporarily labelled as a legal sinner provides no motivation of any significance that would move us toward righteous living and genuine reconciliation. Claiming that God labelled Jesus as “sin” in order to effectuate atonement is to have God agree to a fraudulent scheme that you would expect from a shady lawyer or politician. Nevertheless, various prominent preachers have thundered this very idea from their pulpits.

6.     If Jesus was literally “made sin,” then he would not have been an acceptable sacrifice to God. A polluted sacrifice offered as a reconciliational gift would be an insult, not a gift comparable to a husband giving old, wilted flowers to his wife after apologizing for an offense. The prophet Malachi railed against such an idea in Malachi 1:7-9 “By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the LORDS’s table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. 9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts.”

7.     Using verse 21 as a means of transferring Christ’s righteousness is a denial of being made a new creature as stated in verse 17. A transfer of righteousness is a legal fiction, and has no immediate bearing on our behavior. Being labelled “legally righteous” does not make us new, where old things have passed away. We would merely have a new fictional legal status called “the righteousness of Christ.” This is functionally equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig—where we are the pig. It makes a mockery of us actually becoming new, and discards God’s demand that we sop sinning and be becoming righteous.

 

Now that we have examined that the verse does not say, what then is it saying? “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

 

The word “to be” in the phrase “to be sin” are not in the Greek. Without these extra words the text says “ . . . he made him sin . . .” In what sense was Jesus made sin for our sake? This is probably a reference, a picture, an illustration, of what sin looks like—the agony, the cruelty, the wickedness, all put on public display with the intended end result being, “ . . . so that in him we might be becoming the righteousness of God.” We see the innocent Son of God tortured, suffering and dying, knowing that it is because of our collective sinful actions and attitudes. Our sin, our unrighteousness, is the cause of this story, and we should recoil in shock and run away from evil and toward righteousness.

 

This should bring Isaiah 53:4-5 to mind, “Surely he has endured our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced because of our transgressions; he was crushed because of our iniquities.” A careful reading of the text shows that we wrongly esteemed, wrongly concluded, that God caused the suffering. Instead, his suffering is our fault! We should reflect on this and be shocked and horrified that our sins led to this degree of unrighteousness, and then flee from our unrighteousness and toward God’s righteousness by stopping all sin and doing what God considers right living. The very Son of God was nailed to a cruel cross because of our sin. What a shame. May we flee from all sin so that his suffering will not be in vain. If we do this and become a follower of Christ, we will then have as the text says, “the righteousness of God” and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. This fits the context perfectly and fulfills its author’s intent. (Kevin George, Atonement and Reconciliation: On what basis can a holy God forgive sin? A search for the original meaning, contrasted with Penal Substitutionary Atonement [2023], 164-67)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Carl J. Cranney, "The Final Answer to God: The Fate of the Unevangelized in Catholic and Mormon Thought": Children Who Die Before the Age of Accountability

  

Children Who Die Before the Age of Accountability

 

A brief sidenote should be mentioned here to demonstrate some of the complexities of determining when a moment of perfect decision is reached. For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the age at which children are baptized is at eight years old (D&C 68:25-27), and this is sometimes called “the age of accountability” (a term slightly modified from D&C 20:71). Children who die before the age of eight do not have their temple work performed for them. It is assumed it is unnecessary for them based on a passage in the Book of Mormon, where Mormon states:

 

But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. (Moroni 8:12-13)

 

Latter-day Saints have a clear sense that we will be punished only for our own sins, not Adam’s (Articles of Faith 1:2), which is even labelled a less-condemnatory “transgression” as opposed to a “sin,” a clear repudiation of at least some notions of original sin. It is thought that children are not capable of making decisions they are fully culpable for before the age of eight. But they are culpable in the next life. What of their fate in the spirit world before resurrection? It is unclear. Will they be in the resurrection? There are hints they will be resurrected as children and allowed to be raised in the millennial reign of Christ (D&C 101:30-31). Are they not culpable in mortality (not even temptable, according to D&C 29:47), die before the age of eight, become culpable in the spirit world, then not culpable after resurrection? There is much here that is unclear and unrevealed.

 

Again it seems that the broad strokes of LDS theology come into play more than the finer details. Everybody will have a full chance and opportunity to understand and accept the gospel. Salvation is never forced. The fact of the matter is, there is no firm Latter-day Saint revelation on how and when children who die before the age of eight will have their full understanding of the gospel and are thus able to make a decision to accept or reject Christ. It is clear that they are not punished for their failure to make this a decision in mortal life before they are capable of fully doing so. The rest is very murky, and when their moment of perfect decision could be reached is unclear. Paul’s statement that, “for now we see in a mirror, dimly,” (1 Corinthians 13:12) seems apropos. (Carl J. Cranney, "The Final Answer to God: The Fate of the Unevangelized in Catholic and Mormon Thought" [Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 2020], 177-78)

 

David Brakke and David M. Gwynn on Athanasius's 39th Festal Letter

In their introductory comments concerning Athanasius 39^th Festal Letter (AD 367), David Brakke and David M. Gwynn wrote:

 

Outside his canonical Old and New Testaments, Athanasius refers to two additional categories of writings, although they lack canonical status. Into this category go the Wisdom of Solomon; the Wisdom of Sirach; Esther; Judith; Tobit; the Teaching of the Apostles (Didache); and the Shepherd of Hermas (a work that Athanasius once praised as a “most edifying book” (On the Incarnation, 3), even if noncanonical (On the Council of Nicaea 181)). Far more dangerous in Athanasius’ eyes are the true apocrypha, which heretics have invented and attributed to figures such as Enoch, Isaiah, and Moses. These works spread deceit and discord, and must be rejected lest they cause the faithful to falter. (in The Festal Letters of Athanasius of Alexandria, with the Festal Index and the Historia Acephala [trans. David Brakke and David M. Gwynn; Translated Texts for Historians 81; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 232)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Arthur A. Just, Jr., on the Use of Deuteronomy 18 in Luke

  

The resurrection of Christ is the final consummation of all Scripture—it is the sign of fulfillment. Jesus fits the pattern of the prophets in his life and death and completes it. Deuteronomy 18:55f becomes the programmatic text in the Old Testament for Jesus’ interpretation of the Scriptures as fulfilled in himself. As Bock suggests in his exposition of the transfiguration imperative “listen to him” in 9:35, Deuteronomy 18 is Luke’s source, and Moses is the one who sets the pattern for Jesus’ rejection of well as his teaching and miracles:

 

“This use of Deuteronomy 18 as a call to understand God’s plan as revealed in the prophet like Moses, Jesus is present also in Acts 3.19-24. Its connection with teaching about Jesus’ suffering and coming glory suggests that these points of Jesus’ ministry may not have been appreciated as a part of the OT hope about Messiah.” (Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern, 115)

 

Even the use of “to raise up” (anasthêsei) in Deuteronomy 18:15 could be seen as an allusion to the resurrection of Jesus. Luke’s phrase “beginning with Moses” suggests that we read back into the Gospel to see the evangelist’s development of his Moses typology that sets the pattern par excellence for the progressive unfolding of those prophetic characteristics that will mark the Messiah, a pattern that may be seen in Abraham, David, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, the future apostolic community in Acts, and in Israel itself.

 

Jesus, therefore, is the eschatological prophet, the end of the ages, the fulfillment of all Scripture. He is the teacher who, at the table, completes the teaching of the prophets—he is the miracle-worker who, through his miracles and his presence at the table, before and after the resurrection, demonstrates the presence in the world of the new age of salvation, demonstrates the presence of the world of the new age of salvation, the fulfillment of the kingdom of God—he is the rejected one who, by his death on the cross, fulfills his own prophecy that “a prophet should not perish away from Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). But the disciples or the people of Israel could not understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of Scripture until after the resurrection. As Dillon concludes: “Only at Easter could that properly Mosaic prophecy of Jesus be brought to light.” (Dillon, From Eyewitnesses, 136) (Arthur A. Just, Jr., The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1993], 214-15, italics in original)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Arthur A. Just, Jr., on the Parable of the Prodigal Son being, in part, an apologetic against the Scribes and Pharisees

  

The parable of the prodigal son is an apologetic told against the Pharisees and scribes.

 

The parable of the prodigal son is Jesus’ apologetic statement to the Pharisees, justifying his style of table fellowship, i.e., “that in his actions the love of God to the repentant sinner is made effectual.” Luke’s introductory remarks in 15:1-2 clearly draw the lines between the tax collectors/sinners and Pharisees/scribes, suggesting that in the third parable of Luke 15, the prodigal son represents all repentant tax collectors and sinners, and the older brother represents all unrepentant Jewish religious authorities, particularly the Pharisees and scribes. The charges formulated against Jesus sum up the opinion of Jesus’ opponents about his table fellowship this far in the Gospel: “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them’” (15:2).

 

By singling out the Pharisees and scribes, Luke is preparing for the charges against Jesus in his trial, and the summation of those charges by the Emmaus disciples in 24:20. BY listing the Pharisees first in 15:2, the only place where Luke makes this distinction, he signals their leadership in bringing charges against Jesus because of his table fellowship. Thus in Luke 15, the opponents of Jesus outside Jerusalem, the Pharisaic party, first state charges against Jesus based on his table fellowship first hand from the beginning of that fellowship in Luke 5. (Arthur A. Just, Jr., The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1993], 181)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

D. Michael Quinn (August 11, 1991) on "Concubines"

  

Question: you've referred to concubinage, and what does that mean in the L.D.S. Church.

 

You need to remember that if you read section 132, the 1843 revelation, that revelation not only approves plural wives, it also approves concubines.

 

The question is, what does that mean?  well, the term "concubine" as I understand it, and I'm not a biblical scholar and haven't researched this carefully, but in the Old Testament you have references to wives and concubines.  My understanding is that in the Old Testament when it used that term, whatever the original Hebrew was, it meant that it was a wife who did not have the same social and legal status as other wives. Topically, concubines were slave women or servants in the home who became wives of the master of the home.

 

Several of Abraham's wives, he had four, and two of those wives were concubines.  They were his servant women who became his wives.  I believe two of them had the higher social and legal status.  They were not his servant women. So there was that distinction.  lt related not to the legitimacy of the marriage, but to the social standing of the women in the marriage.

 

Then in contemporary use, concubine came to mean basically a woman who was in like a mistress, and that became a conventional British and American understanding of the word concubine.

 

Then you have the revelation of 1843 approving plural wives and concubines, and it doesn't explain what they are.  So you are left to wonder what we're talking about there, because there are no slaves.  Well, that's not true, there were black slaves in American society, but there were no slaves in Nauvoo society that this would have applied to, so what was it referring to?  My only understanding of this, any time the brethren referred to concubines, they never explained what they meant.  They just said "concubines." I think that what it came to mean in Mormon practice and in Mormon thought in the 19th century was a woman who was married to a man without benefit of a sealing ceremony performed by a Priesthood holder.  So it referred to a woman who became married to a man through an ordinance of what I call a "solemn covenant of marriage." And I don't like referring to those women as concubines because of the very negative connotations that term had and did have, even in the 19th century.  But I think that's what George Q. Cannon and others were referring to when they said that concubinage is a true principle of the Lord, and if necessary it's going to occur again.  It meant that if necessary, if they for, one reason or another couldn't have a Priesthood holder perform a ceremony of sealing for a couple, that the couple could enter into concubinage under the authorization of God by agreement or vow of love and fidelity between themselves and this goes to what I regard as a principle that the structure of the Church is not necessary to ratify what God approves, and that in terms of relationships, a relationship of love and commitment doesn't need to have an ordinance to perform it, to have the approval of God, that that is between the couple and their relationship and God.

 

Yet, in the 19th century, that was a minority practice.  Most of the polygamous relationships that existed began with a formal ceremony in which there was a formal officiator performing it.

 

There were very few of concubinage.  But I've traced down a number of them.  I focused on them primarily after 1890.  and there were very few of those.  That will have to be the last question, I'm afraid.  I don't want to take the patience of those sitting here wondering, "will he never stop?" So thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you. (D. Michael Quinn, "Plural Marriages After the 1890 Manifesto," Bluffdale, Utah, August 11, 1991)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

D. Michael Quinn on D&C 132 and the Exaltation of Monogamists

  

Although the 1843 revelation on the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" indicates that the revelation was in answer to Joseph Smith's inquiry about biblical polygamy, the lengthy discussion about marriage and exaltation (D&C 132:19-20) was in a monogamous context: "if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant. . . ." Despite defensiveness about the importance of plural marriage, a number of Church leaders gave their definite (or sometimes grudging) affirmation that a monogamist who was true to the sealing covenants with his single wife could be exalted if he believed in the principle of plurality of wives, even though the monogamist's exaltation would not be as "great," or "numerous," or "full," or "high" as that of the exalted polygamist: Amasa M. Lyman in 1863 (JD 10:186), Brigham Young in 1866 (JD 11:268-69), Brigham Young in 1870 (Minutes of Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 12 Feb., 2 July 1870, LDS Church Archives), Brigham Young in 1871 (Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 15 July 1871, and Wilford Woodruff, Diary, 24 Sept. 1871, LDS Church Archives), Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor in 1873 (Minutes of Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 10 Feb. 1873), Orson Pratt in 1873 (JD.16:184), Charles C. Rich in 1878 (JD 19:253), Joseph F. Smith in 1878 (JD 20:28, 30-31), George Q. Cannon in 1880 (JD 22:124), and George Q. Cannon in 1883 (JD 25:2). Nevertheless, Church authorities in the nineteenth century could not simply portray plural marriage as superfluous, in view of the difficulties its practice was causing for individuals and for the Church itself. Therefore, the same Church authorities quoted above also stated that practicing plural marriage was necessary for exaltation: Orson Pratt in 1852 (JD 1:54), Brigham Young in 1866 (JD 11:268-69), 1870 (Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 12 Feb. 1870), and 1873 (JD 16: 166, and Woodruff, Diary, 31 Aug. 1873), and George Q. Cannon in 1883 (JD 24:146). I have not included here any statements where the speaker may have been referring to sealing for time and eternity generally, rather than to plural marriage in particular. The ambiguity of the question is perhaps best indicated by Brigham Young's sermon on 19 August 1866 in which he began by saying that if monogamist Mormons were "polygamists at least in your faith" they would be exalted, but concluded by saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God are those who enter into polygamy." JD 11:268-69. More than a year following the 1890 Manifesto, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated: "We formerly taught our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come." Statement on 19 December 1891 in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:230. (D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904,“ Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18, no. 1 [1985]: 24 n. 65)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com