David L. Petersen on Jacob “seeing God” in Genesis 32

  

The denouement begins with an etiology for the toponym Peniel, which means “the face of God” (cf. the spelling “Peniel” in v. 31). Oddly, the notion of seeing God per se is not an issue in the story. Exodus 33:20 (and Isa 6:5) attests to the notion that seeing the deity means risking death, a conviction that lies behind Jacob’s remark that he has seen God face-to-face and remained alive. This comment about seeing the face of God derives more from the name and secondary etiology of Peniel then it does from the narrative itself. Only in verse 30, in a secondary etiology, does explicit reference to the deity appear. Read without this verse, the narrative is inherently ambiguous about the identity of “the man.” The narrative admits that he is strong, though not strong enough to defeat Jacob; devious (the dislocation of Jacob’s hip); and able to change a person’s name as well as to offer a blessing. That conjunction of features may well explain why Hosea 12 characterizes his struggles as with God // messenger. Also present is the denouement is a dietary etiology (V. 32). Now vocabulary occurs here gîd, tendon, of the nāšeh, muscle. This dietary prohibition occurs nowhere else in the OT. (David L. Petersen, Genesis [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2025], 282)

 

David L. Petersen on Genesis 49:22-26

  

22 Joseph is a young bull,
a young bull near a spring,
that walks around the wall.
23 They attacked him furiously,
they fired at him, the archers assaulted him fiercely
24 Nonetheless, his bow remained ready,
his hands and arms agile,
due to the Powerful One of Jacob,
due to the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
25due to God, your father, who will help you,
due to Shaddai, who will bless you:
with blessings of the heavens above,
blessings of the deep that lies below,
blessings of breasts and womb.
26 The blessings of your father
are stronger than the blessings of the eternal mountains,
than the desirable things on the everlasting hills,
May these rest on the head of Joseph,
on the forehead of the one distinguished from his brothers. (David L. Petersen, Genesis [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2025], 372-73)

 

 

Commenting on “a young bull” in v. 22:

 

The entire verse is uncertain. See comments. (Ibid., 373 n. e)

 

 

[22-26] The saying concerning Joseph is, at the outset, difficult to translate. Many translators consider Gen 49:22 to reflect floral imagery. IT seems preferable, however, to see Joseph characterized as an animal, here a bull, as has been the case in so many of the other pronouncements (so CEB). (Though using a different noun, Deut 33 also characterizes Joseph as a bull.) Genesis 49:22-23 situate the bull near a spring and soon coming under attack from archers. Then in verse 24a, the imagery switches to that of a person, Joseph himself as archer. That movement from animal to human also takes place in the saying about Judah.

 

In verse 24b, the poet offers a remarkable theological inventory, ways of describing the deity who has enabled Joseph to defend himself. The assemblage in verses 24-25 alludes to the deity’s hands and name, to the deity who has been specially related to Jacob, to metaphors of rock and shepherd for the deity, and to the archaic notion of the deity as Shaddai. After developing that theological resource, the poet highlights the blessings that lie in Joseph’s future. They are cosmic in scope, stemming from the heavenly heights and the cosmic deep. They involve human fertility as exemplified by the birth and feeding of the children (womb and breast). The blessings that come from Jacob are stronger than those provided by mountains, probably a reference to crops and/or herds located on the sides of hills. The saying about Joseph in Deut 33 also refers to the heavens and cosmic deep; but unlike Gen 49, it emphasizes the produce that will stem from the mountains. In Gen 49, it is as if the poet knows that tradition in Deuteronomy but contends that the blessings from Jacob, which involve human fertility, are even greater than that promised in Deut 33:13-16. The phrase “your father,” which appears twice, highlights the special relationship that Joseph has with Jacob. (David L. Petersen, Genesis [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2025], 375-76)

 

 

Clines, HALOT, and TDOT on פרה (cf. Genesis 49:22)

  

*פֹּרָת I ₂ n.f. tamarisk (unless פרה ptc. fruit-tree or פֹּרָת II female wild ass or III cow), <cstr> בֵּן פֹּרָת bough of a tamarisk Gn 49:22. <coll> בֵּן פֹּרֶת יֹוסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי־עָ֑יִן Joseph is (like) the bough of a tamarisk, a tamarisk-bough by a spring Gn 49:22.

 

*פֹּרָת II ₂ n.f. female wild ass (unless פרה ptc. fruit-tree or פֹּרָת I tamarisk or III cow), <cstr> בֵּן פֹּרָת son of a female wild ass Gn 49:22. <coll> בֵּן פֹּרָת יֹוסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי־עָ֑יִן Joseph is (like) the son of a wild ass, the son of a wild ass by a spring Gn 49:22.

 

*פֹּרָת III ₂ n.f. cow (unless פרה ptc. fruit-tree or פֹּרָת I tamarisk or II female wild ass), <cstr> בֵּן פֹּרָת son of a cow Gn 49:22. <coll> בֵּן פֹּרָת יֹוסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי־עָ֑יִן Joseph is (like) the son of a cow, the son of a cow by a spring Gn 49:22. (The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines, 8 vols. [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011], 6:789)

 

 

פרה: by-form of פרא: MHeb., DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 180) to be fruitful; JArm. to shoot, sprout; Syr. pəry/pərā to be fruitful; Sam., CPArm. pa. (denominative) to produce fruit (Schulthess Lex. 162b); Eth. farya and faraya to blossom, bear fruit (Dillmann Lex. 1355); Tigr. farā (Littmann-H. Wb. 659a) to bear fruit, increase, reproduce; Eg. pry to go out (Erman-G. 1:519).

 

qal: pf. פָּרוּ, פְּרִיתֶם, פָּרִינוּ; impf. יִ/תִּפְרֶה, יִפְרוּ, וַיִּפְרוּ; impv. פְּרֵה, פְּרוּ; pt. masc. פֹּרֶה, fem. פֹּרִיָּה, פֹּרָת Gn 49:22 (Bauer-L. Heb. 511v; R. Meyer Gramm. §82:2 i).

 

—1. of plants: —a. to bear fruit גֶּפֶן פֹּרִיָּה Is 32:12 Ezk 19:10 Ps 128:3, pt. as sbst. פֹּרִיָּה fruit-tree Is 17:6, cf. Wildberger BK 10:637; metaphorically פֹּרָת (SamP. fā̊råt) fruitful vine Gn 49:22 (rd. בֶּן־פֹּ׳) a young vine producing much fruit, see e.g. Dillmann Die Genesis⁶ (1892) 469; Zobel BZAW 95 (1965) 21 :: Emerton Fschr. D.W. Thomas 91-93: פֹּרָת = purattu the River Euphrates, בֵּן corresponds to Akk. bīnu tamarisk: Joseph is a tamarisk by the Euphrates, cf. Albright BA 36 (1973) 27, who translates this first line of the Blessing of Jacob as: Son of Euphrates is Joseph, Son of Euphrates, lofty of source :: Speiser Genesis 368: פֹּ׳ to be understood as fem. of פֶּרֶא, cf. Gevirtz HUCA 46 (1975) 37ff; :: cj. rd. בֵּן פָּרָת meaning son of a heifer, or alternatively of a young bull, see Salo BZ 12 (1968) 94f; TOB 127; Dahood Biblica 51 (1970) 401; —b. with obj., פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה a root producing poisonous and bitter sprouts: Dt 29:17.

 

—2. to be fruitful: —a. people Gn 1:28 9:1, 7 35:11 Jr 3:16, metaphorical Jr 23:3 (parallel with רָבָה), Ex 1:7 (parallel with עָצַם), Gn 26:22 Ex 23:30 Sir 16:2; —b. animals Gn 1:22 8:17 (parallel with רָבָה); —c. people and animals Ezk 36:11 (parallel with רָבָה); —cj. Is 11:1 for יִפְרֶה prp. with versions יִפְרַח (e.g. Wildberger BK 10:437) :: e.g. Dillmann Der Prophet Jesaia⁵ (1890) 116; Delitzsch Das Buch Jesaia⁴ (1889) 191; König Das Buch Jesaia (1926) 154; cf. Seybold FRLANT 107 (1972) 94¹² with MT: will produce fruit; Barr Philology 333 entry 263: to come out in front, cf. Eg. pry; Is 45:8 for וְיִפְרוּ prp. with Sept., Vulg., sg. וְיֵפֶר, or with 1QIs^a וְיִפְרַח. †

 

hif: pf. וְהִפְרֵ(י)תִי, sf. הִפְרַנִי; impf. וַיֶּפֶר, וְיַפְרְךָ; pt. with sf. מַפְרְךָ: to make fruitful (people, Zorell Lex.: to make someone the ancestor of a multitude of descendants) Gn 17:6 41:52 Ps 105:24; Gn 17:20 28:3 48:4 Lv 26:9 (parallel with הִרְבָּה); in Gn 41:52 there is a word-play הִפְרַנִי … אֶפְרַיִם. †

 

Der. פְּרִי; [? n.m. אֶפְרַיִם, n.f. אֶפְרָת, n.loc. אֶפְרָ֫תָה]. (HALOT)

 

 

III. OT

 

1. Verbal Forms. In Biblical Hebrew the etymological relationship between the verb pārâ and the noun p^erî can be understood only from the perspective of semantic development. From the original meaning of the verbal root “break forth, sprout,” the nominal construction p^erî, “fruit,” developed, which in its own turn then generated denominative verbal forms meaning “to be fruit bearing, fertile.”

 

The original meaning is preserved in only a few passages. The prophecy of messianic peace in Isa. 11 reads: “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch yip̱reh from his roots.” Hasty association with the noun prompted some scholars to translate or explain the Hebrew form as “to bear fruit” (Luther). Because this notion is hardly appropriate to the image of a tree stump or roots, many interpreters prefer an emendation (cf. BHK). Such textual emendation is superfluous, however, if one focuses on the basic meaning just mentioned, a meaning also supported by the parallel verb yāṣāʾ: “a branch emerges/arises (yip̱reh) from the root” (similarly also LXX, Vulg.).

 

This basic meaning is also behind Yahweh’s blessing in Isa. 45:8, regardless of whether one keeps the plural form of the MT (in which case the subject is “salvation and righteousness”¹⁷) or prefers the singular: w^eyip̱reh, “salvation will spring up” (cf. LXX, Vulg., Theodotion; 1QIsa^a confirms the singular form, albeit constructed from the root prḥ). Dt. 29:17(18) can be explained similarly, though this involves making the qal transitive: “a root sprouting (pōreh) poisonous and bitter growth.”

 

The denominative meaning “to be plentiful with fruit” or “to have proven to be fruitful” is found in the qal feminine participle. The pōrîyâ is the olive tree (Isa. 17:6) as well as the grapevine (Isa. 32:12) that, once planted by the water, becomes full of branches (Ezk. 19:10); the mother of a family with many children is like such a plant (Ps. 128:3). This participial form can represent the entire syntagma as an ellipsis, i.e., can refer to “the fruitful/fertile one” instead of “the fruitful olive tree” (Isa. 17:6) and “fruitful bough” (Gen. 49:22).

 

Scholars generally agree that this participle is also the basis of the form pōrāṯ (Gen. 49:22). On this view Joseph would be addressed as the “son of the fruitful one,” i.e., as the branch of a fruitful vine, or as a fruitful branch. Others have read prt as p^erāṯ and understood it as an allusion to the geographical name Ephraim, Ephrath, the form then being a reference to “fertile land.” Since most of the metaphors in the blessing of Jacob are taken from the world of animals rather than that of plants, however, one might explain prt as “bullock” or “wild female ass” (fem. form of pereʾ). On this view Joseph would receive a designation (“Son of a Young Cow” or “Son of a Wild Ass”) that resonates in Dt. 33:17. The midrash plays off both possibilities in its own assertion that Joseph attained high office and honors because he was able to interpret the one dream image of pārôṯ, “cows,” as well as the other of pērôṯ, “fruits” (i.e., ears of grain) (Gen. Rab. on 41:25–27).

 

In the remaining passages, the verb means “multiply, have many descendants,” and is contextually contiguous with forms of the root ʿṣm, “be/become mighty” (Ps. 105:24), šrṣ, “swarm, teem” (Ex. 1:7), mlʾ, “fill up something” (Gen. 9:1, et passim), and especially rbh, “be plentiful” (Gen. 9:1, et passim). The combination of prh and rbh in the imperative (“be fruitful and multiply”), directed either to animals (8:17) or, more frequently, to human beings, appears especially frequently in P (1:22, 28; 9:1, 7; 35:11; 47:27, etc.). This expression might reflect an ancient blessing formula intended to insure the fertility of a young couple (cf. 28:2–3); the redundant combination was then also incorporated into texts speaking of plentiful descendants and a growing population, and the condition itself understood as the fulfillment of an earlier blessing or as future good fortune.

 

The secondary sense “to spread out” (so Tgs.) emerges clearly from the context in two passages using prh without the stereotypical synonymous root rbh. Isaac justifies the well name r^eḥōḇôṯ, “widen,” by explaining: “Now Yahweh has made room for us, and we shall spread out (pārînû) in the land” (Gen. 26:22). In the epilogue to the Covenant Code, God promises his people gradually to drive out Canaan’s hostile inhabitants “until you have spread out (tip̱reh) and possess the land” (Ex. 23:30).

 

Since fruitfulness is viewed as a blessing sent by God, the hiphil form “to make fruitful, plentiful,” always has God as its subject, who either promises or grants such blessing to the individual or people (Gen. 17:6, 20; Lev. 26:9; Ps. 105:24) or is petitioned to do so.

 

The hiphil form hip̱ranî, “he granted me fruitfulness, made me fruitful,” a term possibly aramaized as ʾap̱ with ʾālep̱, became a popular etymological explanation for the name Ephraim (Gen. 41:52). (B. Kedar-Kopfstein and Heinz-Josef Fabry, “פָּרָה,” TDOT 12:84-86)

 

Robert Alter on Genesis 49:22

  

A fruitful son. The morphology of the reiterated noun in this line is to peculiar that some scholars have imagined a reference to branches, others to a wild ass. There is little philological warrant for the former, and the connection between the term used here, porat and pere’, “wild ass,” seems strainted. (The main argument for the wild ass is that it preserves the animal imagery, but there are several other tribes in the poems that have no animal icons.) A link between porat and the root p-r-h, “to be fruitful,” is less of a grammatical stretch, and is encouraged by Joseph’s play on that same root in naming his soon Ephraim. Joseph and Judah, as the dominant tribes of the north and the south respectively, get far more elaborate attention in the poem that do any of their brothers. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 1:196)

 

William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry on Genesis 49:22

  

Genesis 49:22

 

Joseph is Rachel’s first son.

 

Verses 22–26 are filled with praise for Joseph and are as warm in blessings as those for Judah in verses 49:8–12. Each of these verses contains serious textual problems.

 

Joseph is a fruitful bough: in this verse Joseph is praised for his numerous descendants and is compared to a fruitful spreading vine that sends out branches (see Deut 33:17, which speaks of the great numbers of offspring from Ephraim and Manasseh). nrsv, unlike rsv, has a footnote, “Hebrew uncertain.” Note that tev’s rendering is entirely different, as it continues with animal metaphors similar to that in the previous verse.

 

The Hebrew text appears to say literally “son of a fruitful [vine] Joseph” and then a second time “son of a fruitful [vine].” Speiser regards the use of fruitful bough (or vine) inaccurate. He objects to breaking with the animal metaphors in 9, 14, 17, 21, and 27. He observes that the first line in verse 22 is closely paralleled in Deut 33:17, where the ox and wild ox are used, and then proposes that the Hebrew expression rendered fruitful, which is literally “son of fruitful,” should be understood as “wild ass.” This is followed by tev and nab and is given as an alternative translation by niv (footnote). tev gives the alternative translation (as in rsv) in its footnote. (hottp, which does not consider the Speiser argument, recommends a translation that is equivalent to that in rsv.)

 

The Handbook recommends either the rsv or the tev model. However, if the tev is followed, the alternative translation should be given in a footnote.

 

His branches run over the wall: branches is literally “daughters.” Speiser finds the Hebrew of “daughters run” to be the same as the Arabic for “wild asses.” Over the wall he understands to refer to an elevated place, which tev renders as “hillside.”

 

The recommendation of the Handbook is the same here as for the first line. (William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1998], 1094-95)

 

Roy Neal Runyon on Mark 16:16 and the Necessity of Water Baptism

Roy Neal Runyon, while a critic of baptismal regeneration, teaches that baptism is a commandment and is necessary for salvation. In response to a sneaky apologetic to explain Mark 16:16, responded thusly:

 

Mark 16:16 Doesn’t Say, ‘He Who Is Not Baptized Will Be Condemned’

 

This objection, though often repeated lacks both logical and grammatical merit. Mark 16:16 does not need to say, “He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned,” because belief is the prerequisite to baptism. One who does not believe will not be baptized, making the second clause redundant. To demand that “and is not baptized” be added to the condemnation clause is to insist on the grammatical excess where the logic is already complete. In fact, Jesus explicitly stated in John 3:18 that “he who does not believe is condemned. It is a dangerous misuse of Scripture to argue that the presence of baptism in the salvation clause can be undone by its absence in the condemnation clause. How can what the text does not say negate what it explicitly does say? The omission does not weaken the first statement—it presupposes it.

 

Scripture often uses this kind of parallel structure without restating all conditions in the negative clause. For example, John 5:28-29 says, “Those who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life; those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” It doesn’t say “those who have not done good,” yet the inverse is understood. The same is true in Proverbs 18:13: “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him”—it doesn’t need to say “he who does not answer after hearing” to make the opposite truth clear. More importantly, Scripture makes clear that refusing baptism is a form of unbelief—a willful rejection of God’s command. Luke 7:30 states of the Pharisees, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of [John].” This shows that rejecting baptism is not a neutral act—it is a rejection of God’s revealed will. Likewise, John 12:42 records that many of the rulers believed on Jesus, but because of fear they would not confess Him publicly. Their belief was rendered powerless by their unwillingness to act on it. Jesus said, “He who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God” (Luke 12:9). Baptism is the very moment one confesses Christ openly (Acts 8:37), and to shrink back from it is to deny Him in the very act where one is commanded to submit to Him. (Roy Neal Runyon, Misunderstood Conversions of the New Testament [2025], 188-89)

 

For those who wish to support this blog in 2026

 As it is almost 2026:

I hope everyone had a great Christmas and wishing all of you a great 2026! Tonight's livestream at 7pm Irish time will be the final stream of the year, but I do have some exciting podcast episodes and guests lined up (topics include linguistics and the Book of Mormon; anti-Mormon pamphleteering in Great Britain in the 19th cenutry; varous women & polygamy-related issues, etc). If you wish to support the blog and/or podcast, you can do such via: Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/irishlds/ Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Robert-Boylan-16 Amazon Gift Card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com Logos Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com Amazon Wishlist: https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/1BLP4MJOS5LHB?ref_=wl_share Some already know, but I recently found out that I will need to be on medication to treat my liver–will see how it is a year or so from now. So, for those who wish to help me with my ever-growing medical expenses (as well as my chronic migraines and occasional OCD), you can do so via: https://www.gofundme.com/f/d285a-medical-expenses Thanks!

Robert Alter on Genesis 30:38

  

he stood the rods he had peeled in the troughs . . . opposite the flocks, which went into the heat. The mechanism of Jacob’s ingenious scheme has long perplexed commentators. At least on the surface, it appears to involve the age-old belief that sensory impressions at the moment of conception affect the embryo—here, the peeled rods, with their strips of white against the dark bark, would impart the trait of spots or brindle markings to the offspring conceived. (The same effect would then be achieved for the sheep by making them face the flocks of speckled goats during their own mating time.) Yehuda Feliks, an authority of biblical flora and fauna, has proposed that the peeled rods are only a dodge, a gesture to popular belief, while Jacob is actually practicing sound principles of animal breeding. Using a Mendelian table, Feliks argues that the recessive traits would have shown up in 25 percent of the animals born in the first breeding season, 12.5 percent in the second season, and 6.25 percent in the third season. Jacob is, moreover, careful to encourage the breeding only of the more vigorous animals, which, according to Feliks, would be more likely to be heterozygotes, bearing the recessive genes. It is noteworthy that Jacob makes no mention of the peeled rods when, in the next chapter, he tells his wives how he acquired the flocks. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 1:110-11)

 

"Land of Jerusalem" (ארץ ירושלים) in Lechem Dim'ah on Eikhan 2:1 (16th century)

The “Lechem Dim’ah” (“Bread of Tears”) is

 

a 16th-century commentary on the book of Lamentations that describes the destruction of the ancient Jewish Temples and city of Jerusalem. The author, Samuel de Uçeda, writes in an introduction that he published his commentary on the mishnaic tractate Pirkei Avot first because of the importance of its ethical lessons. He prioritized Lamentations next because of his intense grief over the destruction of the Temples and the centuries of suffering that ensued, as if his tears were the bread he consumes, an allusion to Psalms 42:4 and 80:6. (source)

 

The following is taken from Lechem Dim’ah on Eikhan 2:1:

 

איכה יעיב וגו'. השליך משמים ארץ וגו'. הכונה ידוע הוא שירושלם של מעלה מכוונ' כנגד ירושלם של מטה וכמש"ה ירושלים הבנויה כעי' שחוברה לה יחדו וכן ג"כ ב"ה של מטה מכוון כנגד ב"ה של מעלה וכשנחרב הבית עשה השי"ת כאשר הוא עושה לאחרים כי יפקוד ה' על צבא המרום במרום ואח"כ על מלכי האדמה באדמה וז"ש איכה יעיב באפו ה' כלומר תדע לך איכה עשה כיעיב ויחשיך באפו ה' את בת ציון החשיך אותה במה שהשליך משמים ארץ תפארת ישראל כלומר שהשליך מן השמים ארץ ירושלים העליונה שהיא היתה תפארת ישראל כיון שהשליך אותה שהיתה בשמים זה היה סבה אשר לא זכר אותה ירושלים של מטה שהיא היתה הדום רגליו כמד"א השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי לא זכר אותה ביום אפו וחמתו והחריב גם אותה:

 

English translation:

 

“‘Eikhah ya‘iv…’ ‘He cast from the heavens the earth…’ — the intent is well known: this is the Jerusalem of above as opposed to the Jerusalem below. And as it is said, ‘Jerusalem is built as a city that is compact together.’ Likewise the House of God below corresponds to the House of God above; and when the Temple was destroyed the Holy One, blessed be He, acted as He acts elsewhere — first He visits (pours out judgment upon) the host of the heights in the heights, and afterwards the kings of the earth on the earth.

 

And concerning the phrase ‘Eikhah ya‘iv be-apho Adonai’ (How He has made desolate in the anger of the Lord): that is, know how He acted — ‘He darkened/made desolate in His anger the daughter of Zion.’ He darkened her by casting down from the heavens the land that was the glory of Israel — i.e., He cast down from the heavens the upper land of Jerusalem which had been the glory of Israel.

 

For when He cast down that which had been in the heavens, that was the reason He did not remember the Jerusalem below, which had been His footstool — as it is said, ‘The heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool’ — He did not remember it in the day of His anger and wrath, and He destroyed it as well.”

 

Note how the phrase ארץ ירושלים (land of Jerusalem) appears in the above text.

"The Land of Jerusalem" (הארץ ירושׁלים) in Moshe Reicher, Book of Gates of Jerusalem

 In the book, Book of Gates of Jerusalem, we read the following:

 

 

 

שער ה שבחי הארץ ירושׁלים

 

This would be rendered into English as:

 

“Gates of Praises of the Land of Jerusalem”

 

Source: Moshe Reicher, ספר שערי ירושלים (Book of Gates of Jerusalem) (Lemberg, Germany: S. L. Kngel, Lewin and Comp., 1870), 14:41

Anthony F. Buzzard Offering a Premillennial Interpretation of Daniel 2:44

  

Taking our cue from the book of Daniel, we may easily establish the fact that the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven) is a real, external empire. Not only this, it is to be a government which will seize power suddenly and dramatically. Its administration will be in the hands of “the Son of Man” (Dan. 7:13, 14) and “the saints” (Dan. 7:27). On no account, from the evidence of Daniel, could it be an invisible reign established only in the hearts of believers. Its political dimension as well as its location on earth is unmistakably clear. It is equally obvious that the Kingdom of God described by Daniel has not yet appeared.

 

And in the days of those kings, the God of heaven will establish a Kingdom [in the New Testament, the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven] which will never be destroyed, and that Kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever (Dan. 2:44, NASV).

 

In the next verse the impact of the Kingdom is likened to a stone crushing the “iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold” of former world empires. According to the prophet, whose message we are challenged to believe, “the great God has made known to the king [Nebuchadnezzar] what will take place in the future [in Hebrew, ‘be acharit hayamim,’ i.e., in future Messianic times]; so the dream is true and its interpretation trustworthy’ (Dan. 2:45, NASV). The Son of Man is to be appointed monarch of the divine Kingdom, sharing rulership with the saints:

 

To Him [the Son of Man — Jesus’ favorite self title] was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His Kingdom is one which shall not be destroyed...And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High. Their Kingdom will be an everlasting Kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey them (Dan. 7:14, 27, RSV).

 

The Kingdom of God is evidently an empire, exercising sway over all nations. It will come to power on the earth (“under the whole heaven, ” Dan. 7:27) and its establishment will be by a catastrophe, an international upheaval resulting in a complete political reorganization. Before its irresistible power the nations of the world will have to bow. A recurring theme of the New Testament (but infrequently preached) is that Jesus and His followers will be the executives of the new World Government — the Kingdom of God." To be a saint in the New Testament is to be one appointed to rule in the coming Kingdom. (Anthony F. Buzzard, Our Fathers Who Aren’t in Heaven: The Forgotten Christianity of Jesus, the Jew [Atlanta: Atlanta Bible College, 1995], 86-87)

 

Justin Martyr and Tertullian: It was Possible to Verify the Census in Luke 2 in Then-Extant Roman Records

  

526. From relatively early times Christian writers declared that it was possible to verify the “census” in official Roman records. Justin Marty (A.D. c. 115-165) speaks of “the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius” (Apology 1.34) and Tertullian (A.D. c. 145-220) mentions the records of the census “kept in the archives of Rome” (Against Marion 4.7). These records have not been found. (Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology [rev ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008], 306)

 

The census returns were no doubt preserved in the Roman archives and were probably accessible in Justin’s day. (Leslie William Barnard in St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [Ancient Christian Writers 56; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], 47 n. 234)

 

Roy Neal Runyon on the Necessity of Water Baptism and the Thief on the Cross

Roy Neal Runyon, while a critic of baptismal regeneration, teaches that baptism is a commandment and is necessary for salvation. In response to the thief on the cross, he wrote the following:

 

“The Thief on the Cross Wasn’t Baptized!”

 

This is easily one of the most frequently cited objections against the necessity of baptism for salvation. When faced with the plain teachings of Scripture—“Repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), “Baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21)—some immediately pivot to the thief on the cross, insisting that he was saved without being baptized, and therefore baptism cannot be essential.

 

Let us concede up front: the thief did not come down from the cross, undergo water baptism, and return to his execution. That is true. But what our opponents fail to see—or perhaps ignore—is that he didn’t need to. Why not? Because he had already been baptized.

 

Jesus Himself laid down the universal condition in John 3:5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” That word “except” (ean mē) is a word of exclusion. No one—not even the thief—could enter without being born of water and Spirit. Yet Jesus told the thief: “Today you will be with Me in Paradise,” (Luke 23:43).

 

We are therefore left with only two options:

 

1.     Either Jesus contradicted His own teaching in John 3:5,

2.     Or the thief had already met the condition of being born of water and Spirit.

 

The only conclusion consist with Jesus’ own words is that the thief had previously been baptized, likely under the ministry of John the Baptist or Jesus’ disciples (John 3:22; 4:1-2), and had later fallen back into sin—like Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:13, 22-24). As a Jew and son of Abraham, his path back to God was the same as Simon’s: repentance and a plea for forgiveness.

 

Jesus had authority to forgive sins during His earthly ministry (Mark 2:10), and He used it often—healing the paralytic, forgiving the woman caught in adultery, and cleansing the sinful woman who anointed His feet. But notably, our opponents never cite these examples as their model of salvation. Why do they ignore the woman taken in adultery? Or the man whom Jesus told to sell everything in order to gain eternal life (Luke 18:18-23)? Why cling only to the thief?

 

The reason is simple: the thief appears to be the only case that they believe supports salvation apart from baptism. But this appeal crumbles under close scrutiny. First, because it ignores Jesus’ own teaching in John 3:5. Second, because the thief lived and died under the Old Covenant, which was still in effect until the death of Christ (Hebrews 9:16-17). And third, because it overlooks the likelihood—based on Jesus’ own conditions—that the thief had, at some point prior, submitted to the baptism preached to “all the people of Israel” (Acts 13:24).

 

It is important to remember that all Jews living at that time were accountable to the baptism preached by John and later by Jesus’ disciples (John 3:22; 4:1-2). Luke records that “all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him,” (Luke 7:29-30). To refuse baptism was to reject God’s will. The thief, by contrast, shows every indication of a heart that had once obeyed and had now returned in repentance—just as any fallen believer would. He is no exception to the gospel—he is a testimony to the power of repentance and the authority of Christ to forgive. (Roy Neal Runyon, Misunderstood Conversions of the New Testament [2025], 173-74)

 

Conservative Evangelical Protestants on Jacob's Magical Practices in Genesis 30

As one with a degree in anthropology, there is no real hard or fast distinction between “religion” and “magic.” Often, “religion” is what I do while “magic” is what you do. An example of this can be seen in conservative commentaries on Genesis 30 and the practice of Jacob (you do know that if this was something Joseph Smith practiced, Evangelicals would use it as evidence of how early “Mormonism” was saturated with “occult” practices):

 

Rather than practicing magic, Jacob may have used his years of shepherding experience cunningly to outwit Laban by manipulating normal breeding patterns to produce stronger animals for himself. Joseph did not state that he used his silver cup for divination, which is part of the ruse to determine if his brothers had repented of their crime against him. Regardless of these problems, the lack of explicit condemnations does not necessarily mean the texts support these practices, nor does it in any way contradict the clear prohibitions against divination and magic. (D. P. O’Mathúna, “Divination, Magic,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003], 194)

 

 

37–40  If he is to increase his flock, Jacob’s challenge is to get monochrome animals to produce spotted young. To that end, Jacob took shoots of various trees and peeled them in such a way that there were white stripes on them, and these he placed in the watering troughs. After the monochrome goats came to drink they mated and brought forth spotted kids (surprise of surprises!). Further, he bred variegated flocks with monochrome flocks (v. 40) to increase his flocks even more.

 

How does Jacob manage to succeed? Do one-colored animals produce bicolored young simply by looking at a bicolored object in their mating time? This interpretation borders on sympathetic magic. Jacob’s rods function much as do Rachel’s mandrakes. It is not the mandrakes that produce fertility, and it is not Jacob’s white rods that produce the right kind of offspring for Jacob—although perhaps that is what Jacob wanted Laban to think. It is God who opened Sarah’s womb, and in 31:10–12 Jacob testifies that it was God, not magic, that brought about the desired results.

 

The flock tended by Jacob had only monochrome animals in respect of phenotype. As regards genotype, however, a third were pure monochromes (homozygotes) and two-thirds were heterozygotes (who contained the gene of spottedness). By crossing the heterozygotes among themselves, Jacob would produce, according to the laws of heredity, twenty-five percent spotted sheep. Thus he multiplies his flock. Jacob has displayed ingenuity; he has not practiced deception. (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995], 283-84)

 

Further Reading:

William J. Hamblin, “That Old Black Magic,” Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (1998) by D. Michael Quinn, FARMS Review of Books 12, no. 2 (2000): 225-393

Notes on Genesis 38:18 and KJV "signet" and "bracelets" (cord) in the Ancient Near East

  

18. seal-and-cord. The two nouns of Heb. must represent a hendiadys, something like “the seal on the cord” (cf. also the plural form of the second noun in vs. 25, approximately “cording”), for the following reasons. The items named by Tamar were not chosen for their intrinsic value but for purposes of personal identification, as is made clear by vs. 25; when produced in due time, they must allow of no doubt as to their owner. The cylinder seal was such an object above all else; it served as the religious and legal surrogate for the person who wore it, and its impression on a document signalized the wearer’s readiness to accept all consequences in the event of non-compliance, through sympathetic magic among other things (like sticking pins in a doll). The possessor of such a seal was thereby marked as a responsible person; and, as Herodotus reminds us, no Babylonian of any standing would ever be seen without one. The use of the cylinder seal spread from Mesopotamia throughout the Near East, and even to Crete; and many specimens have turned up in Palestine. While the stamp seal fulfilled a similar function, its use was limited in time and space; moreover, the term for the latter would be ṭabbaʿat (41:42), not ḥōtām as here. Now all cylinder seals were perforated vertically for suspension, so that the seal and the cord or chain on which it was worn became a unit. A cord by itself would be a worthless thing, and meaningless in the present context. Incidentally, the inclusion of the cord is further proof that no signet ring was involved. (E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 298)

 

 

The word ḥôṯām is a loanword from Egyptian (ḥtm), as is also the word ṭabbaʿaṯ (ḏbʿt) of Gen 41:42 (cf. Schott, 1957, 181f). The signet or seal was made of metal or stone and worn on a cord around the neck (Gen 38:18) or as a ring on the (right) hand (Gen 41:42; Jer 22:24). With the beginning of writing in the fourth millennium b.c. seals were widely used, especially cylinder seals on clay tablets, but also stamp seals which were later used predominantly on clay or wax lumps attached to papyrus documents. The unbroken seal on letters, legal and official documents, or on a tomb, protected the contents. Storage jar handles were also stamped to indicate ownership. Thousands of seals and seal impressions have been recovered from the ancient Near East and the study of their decoration and inscriptions are fields of growing importance. Seals were made of precious and semiprecious metals and stones, elaborately and exquisitely engraved, and were thus among a person’s most valuable possessions (cf. Sir 17:22) and at the same time one’s legal signature and identification. Tamar’s acquisition of her father-in-law’s signet (Gen 38:18) kept her from being burned. The Pharaoh’s signet ring made Joseph the royal deputy (Gen 41:42). The value set on one’s signet is shown in the divine vow of Jer 22:24, “ ‘As I live,’ says Yahweh, ‘though Coniah son of Jehoakim, King of Judah, were the signet on my right hand, I would rip you off.’ ” The promised election and exaltation of Zerubbabel, Hag 2:23, is expressed in the metaphor of Yahweh’s signet, “ ‘I will take you, O Zerubbabel, my servant, son of Shealtiel … and will put you on like a signet, for I have chosen you,’ says Yahweh of Hosts.” (Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 7C; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 666)

 

Augustine on Worshiping God's "Footstool" in his Exposition of Psalm 98 (99)

The following is the Latin text of Augustine’s Expositions on the Psalms, 98.9 (note: Augustine is following the Vulgate/LXX numbering; for LDS and other non-RC/EO readers: Psa 99):

 

Et adorate scabellum pedum ejus, quoniam sanctus est. Quid habemus adorare? Scabellum pedum ejus. Suppedaneum dicitur scabellum. Quod dicunt Graeci, dixerunt υποποδιον, Latini scabellum; et alii dixerunt, suppedaneum. Sed videte, fratres, quid nos jubet adorare. Alio loco Scripturarum dicitur: Cælum mihi sedes est, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum (Isai. LXVI, 1). Ergo terram nos jubet adorare, quia dixit alio loco quod sit scabellum pedum Dei? Et quomodo adoramus terram, cum dicat aperte Scriptura: Dominum Deum suum adorabis (Deut. VI, 13)? Et hic dicit, Adorate scabellum pedum ejus; exponens autem mihi quod sit scabellum pedum ejus, dicit, Terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Anceps factus sum: timeo adorare terram, ne damnet me qui fecit cælum et terram; rursus timeo non adorare scabellum pedum Domini mei, quia Psalmus mihi dicit, Adorate scabellum pedum ejus. Quaero quod sit scabellum pedum ejus; et dicit mihi Scriptura: Terra scabellum pedum meorum. Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum quaero hic; et invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum ejus. Suscepit enim de terra terram; quia caro de terra est, et de carne Mariæ carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit, et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit; nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit: inventum est quomodo adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini, et non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando. Nunquid autem caro vivificat? Ipse Dominus dixit, cum de ipsa commendatione ejusdem terræ loqueretur: Spiritus est qui vivificat; caro autem nihil prodest. Ideo et ad terram quamlibet cum te inclinas atque prosterneris, non quasi terram intuearis, sed illum Sanctum cujus pedum scabellum est quod adoras; propter ipsum enim adoras: ideo et hic subjecit, Adorate scabellum pedum ejus, quoniam sanctus est. Quis sanctus est? In cujus honore adoras scabellum pedum ejus. Et cum adores illum, ne cogitatione remaneas in carne, et a spiritu non vivificeris: Spiritus est enim, inquit, qui vivificat; caro autem nihil prodest. Tunc autem, quando hoc Dominus commendavit, de carne sua locutus erat, et dixit: Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, non habebit in se vitam æternam. Scandalizati sunt discipuli ejus quidam, septuaginta ferme, et dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo; quis potest eum intelligere? Et recesserunt ab eo, et amplius cum eo non ambulaverunt. Durum illis visum est quod ait, Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, non habebit vitam æternam: acceperunt illud stulte, carnali ter illud cogitaverunt, et putaverunt quod præcisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo, et daturus illis, et dixerunt, Durus est hic sermo. Ipsi erant duri, non sermo. Etenim si duri non essent, sed mites essent, dicerent sibi: Non sine causa dicit hoc, nisi quia est ibi aliquod sacramentum latens. Mauerent cum illo lenes, non duri; et discerent ab illo, quod illis discedentibus, qui remanserunt, didicerunt. Nam cum remansissent cum illo discipuli duodecim, illis recedentibus, suggeresserunt illi, tanquam dolentes illorum mortem, quod scandalizati sunt in verbo ejus et recesserunt. Ille autem instruxit eos, et ait illis: Spiritus est qui vivificat; caro autem nihil prodest: verba quæ locutus sum vobis, spiritus est et vita (Joan. VI, 54–64). Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum: non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis; et bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi; spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum, et adorate scabellum pedum ejus, quoniam sanctus est. (PL 37:1264-65)

 

English translation :

 

“Worship the footstool of his feet, for he is holy.” What are we commanded to worship? The footstool of his feet. A footstool (supply-pillow) is called a scabellum. The Greeks call it υποποδιον, and the Latins rendered it scabellum; others have rendered it suppedaneum. But see, brothers, what we are commanded to worship. Elsewhere the Scriptures say: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). Therefore does Scripture command us to worship the earth, since elsewhere it says that the earth is the footstool of God? And how should we worship the earth, when Scripture plainly says: “You shall worship the Lord your God” (Deut. 6:13)? Here it says, “Worship the footstool of his feet,” and yet, to explain to me what that footstool of his feet is, it says, “But the earth is my footstool.” I was made uncertain: I fear to worship the earth lest he who made heaven and earth condemn me; again I fear not to worship the footstool of the Lord my God, because the Psalm tells me, “Worship the footstool of his feet.” I ask what that footstool of his feet is; and Scripture tells me: “the earth is the footstool of my feet.” Tossing to and fro, I turn myself to Christ, for it is him I seek here; and I find how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how the footstool of his feet may be worshipped without impiety. For he took from the earth humanity; for the flesh is from the earth, and of the flesh of Mary he took a body. And because he walked in that very flesh, and gave that same flesh to be eaten by us for salvation — and yet no one eats that flesh without first worshipping it — it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is to be worshipped; and not only do we not sin in worshipping, but we would sin by not worshipping. But does flesh give life? The Lord himself said, when speaking of that very commendation of the earth: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” Therefore, when you bow down and prostrate yourself before any earth, do not look upon it as mere earth, but upon that Holy One whose footstool you are adoring; for it is on his account that you adore it. Therefore he added here, “Worship the footstool of his feet, for he is holy.” Who is holy? He in whose honour you worship his footstool. And when you worship him, do not remain in thought only in the flesh and fail to be vivified by the Spirit: “For it is the Spirit,” he says, “who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” Now when the Lord recommended this he was speaking of his flesh, and had said: “Unless anyone eats my flesh, he has no life in him” (John 6). Some of his disciples were scandalized — about seventy, forsooth — and they said, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” And they went back from him and no longer walked with him. It seemed hard to them when he said, “Unless anyone eats my flesh he has no life”; they took the saying foolishly, construed it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was about to cut off and give them certain pieces of his body to eat; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying. For if they had not been hard but gentle in mind, they would have said to themselves: “He does not say this without reason; it is because there is some sacrament hidden here.” They would have become gentle with him, not hard; and they would have discerned from him, when those withdrew who had departed, and those who remained learned [the truth]. For when the twelve disciples remained with him and those who were going away departed, they addressed him as if grieving their death because they had been scandalized at his word and had withdrawn. He, however, instructed them and said to them: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:54–64). Understand spiritually what I have said: you will not eat that body which you see; and you will drink that blood which those will pour out who will crucify me. I have entrusted a certain sacrament to you; when understood spiritually it will give you life. Although it is necessary that it be celebrated visibly, yet it ought to be understood invisibly. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of his feet, for he is holy.

 

H. A. G. Houghton on Mark 1:1 and the reading Χριστου υιου του θεου

  

1:1 Χριστου υιου του θεου (lit. Christ the Son of God) {C}

 

The way in which Jesus is characterized in the first verse of the gospel has a significant bearing on how the following narrative is understood: is he identified as ‘Son of God’ from the first verse or not? The text adopted in the ECM has the support of the majority of Greek manuscripts, Χριστου υιου του θεου (‘Christ the Son of God’; 037 f¹ f¹³ etc.). Earlier hand editions employed brackets to indicate uncertainty as to whether the earliest reading was Χριστου υιου θεου (‘Christ the Son of God’; 01¹ 03 05 109 032) or just Χριστου (‘Christ’; 01* 038 and some early versions). The long string of nomina sacra abbreviations, ΙΥ, ΧΥ, ΥΥ (ΤΟΥ) ΘΥ, could easily have led to oversights or errors (as seen in 1241, which reads Χριστου υιου του κυριου, ‘Christ the Son of the Lord’). Alternatively, a shorter original first line could have been expanded by an editor who wished to make it more substantial. The fact that this is the first line of the gospel does not preclude the possibility of scribal error. The CBGM analysis indicates that, despite their earlier attestation, the two shorter forms emerged independently several times, a situation consistent with one or more words being overlooked by a copyist. In contrast, the coherence of the Byzantine reading has led to its adoption here, even though important witnesses support Χριστου υιου θεου. The latter formulation is only paralleled in Mark in the affirmation of the centurion at Mark 15:39 (in contrast to Mark 3:11 and 5:7): the absence of the article there could be translated as ‘a son of a god’, appropriately for the context, whereas in this verse the customary English rendering of ‘Son of God’ can apply whether or not του is present. Overall, however, the question remains open: The SBLGNT just reads Χριστου while the THGNT has υιου θεου. The suggestion that Mark 1:1-3 is a later addition to the gospel may also be borne in mind. The full attestation for this variant in Greek continuous text manuscripts is given in TuT Mark TS1. (H. A. G. Houghton, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion to the Sixth Edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025], 72-73)

 

Oscar Lawson on Consubstantiation As a Popular Theological View of the Eucharist Before and After Fourth Lateran (1215)

While a faithful Roman Catholic who believes in Transubstantiation, Oscar Lawson was surprisingly nuanced in his approach to the history of the Eucharist. He noted that, both before and after 1215 (the Fourth Lateran Council), “consubstantiation” was a view that existed among a number of theologians:

 

This concept [Transubstantiation] was not without controversy. Other theologians proposed alternative views, such as consubstantiation, which suggested that the body and blood of Christ coexisted with the substance of the bread and wine, or a more symbolic interpretation, focusing on the Eucharist as a sign rather than a literal transformation. These theological positions were not mere intellectual exercises, but formed the basis for religious identity and, at times, conflict. The nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist would later become a central issue in the Reformation, but it was in the medieval period that these foundational ideas were first rigorously developed and debated. (Oscar Lawson, The Medieval Scholastic Views on the Holy Eucharist [2024], 7, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

 

The doctrine of transubstantiation emerged as the dominant explanation of the Real Presence within the Catholic Church. However, alternative interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist persisted alongside transubstantiation, both within and beyond medieval Catholicism. The most notable of these alternatives is consubstantiation, a view that Christ’s body and blood coexist with the bread and wine rather than replacing their substance. This interpretation, while never officially endorsed by the Catholic Church, gained traction among certain theologians and later became prominent within the Protestant Reformation. (Oscar Lawson, The Medieval Scholastic Views on the Holy Eucharist [2024], 102)

 

Alan C. Miner on language of D&C 111:9

The current text of D&C 111:9 reads, “This place you may obtain by hire. And inquire . . .” However, a copy made between September 1836 and early 1840s in W. W. Phelps's journal reads: “This place you may obtain by hire &c . . . And inquire . . . “

 

Commenting on this and other like terms in the revelation, Alan C. Miner wrote that:

 

The use of certain modifiers like “etc,” and “in due time.” The “etc.,” seems out of place in a revelation from an all-knowing Lord who would know exactly what to say. In reviewing the early revelations contained in the Revelations Book, I found numerous instances of the symbol “&” use d for the word “and.” The symbol “&c.” (etc.) was used, but only in descriptive headings. The phrase “in due time” is apparently not found in the Book of Mormon, nor in any other place in the D&C. (Bible? – CHECK) the use of the phrase “in due time” makes the fulfillment of any promise of the revelation so vague that some LDS authors extend the realization of what is said in this revelation into the Millennium. In doing so they surely know that no one can refute such an argument, no matter whether it is correct or not. This illustrates the point that such use of an open-ended prophetic modifier such as “in due time” can retrospectively be used to cover failure. For example, in regards to the promises of “gold and silver” or “power over the city,” by including the phrase “in due time,” Joseph could still validate his original treasure-quest inspiration, even in the face of failure to recover any “gold and silver” while there at Salem in August 1836. With the same phrase (“in due time”) Joseph could continue to hold out the hope of someday recovering the treasure—thus preserving his role as a prophet. It might be well to comment here that this is the same manner of language a stone-seer directing treasure-diggers might use. When the band of treasure-diggers failed to recover the promised “gold & silver” at the precise spot designated, the treasure-seer had to cover himself for what he had said & done in order to preserve his reputation as a seer, while at the same time keeping his band of followers’ hopes alive for future digs. In his explanation the treasure-seer had to modify what had happened (for example they hadn’t followed correct procedure or the guardian spirits were too strong) or postpone the recovery to a future time (For example: the treasure had sunk back into the earth or moved to another location). (Alan C. Miner, “Joseph’s Treasure Hunting Trip to Salem and The Kirtland Bank Failure,” February 19, 2010, p. 264; Box 399, Folder 12, H. Michael Marquardt papers, 1800-2017, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, copy in my possession)

 

Such issues about the language used in prophecy can be explained through Open Theism or some other form of “dynamic omniscience,” and not “simple foreknowledge” or other popular models many Latter-day Saints hold to.

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Alan C. Miner and Donald Q. Cannon on the Fulfillment of D&C 111:10

  

Fulfillment of the Prophecy

 

The “treasures” mentioned at the end of the revelation were interpreted to mean potential converts, and missionaries thereafter regularly visited Salem. Among these were Erastus Snow and Benjamin Winchester, who were called to serve a mission to Salem in 1841, specifically for the purpose of fulfilling the revelation in D&C 111. Snow and Winchester arrived in September of 1841. They preached at public meetings, published a pamphlet addressed to the citizens of Salem, and challenged the notorious Mormon apostate, John C. Bennett to debate. Their efforts bore fruit. By March 1842 they had organized the Salem Branch with 53 members. And by the end of that summer, the branch had 90 members. The growth of the Church was noticed and commented on by two of Salem’s newspapers, the Salem Gazette on Dec. 7, 1841, and the Salem Register on June 2, 1842.

 

Among these converts were Nathaniel H. Felt and Eliza Ann Preston. In late 1842 they joined the Church. Beginning in late 1843 Felt served as president of the Salem Branch. In 1845 he moved to Nauvoo and donated carpets and furniture to be used as furnishings in the Nauvoo Temple. Thus was fulfilled the promise of earthly treasures also coming from Salem. While in Nauvoo, Felt was the tailor for Brigham Young, John Taylor and many other Mormon leaders. (Randal S. Chase, Making Precious Things Plain: Church History Study Guide, Pt 2, 1831 to 1847 [3d ed.; Washington, Utah: Plain and Precious Publishing, 2021], 176-77)

 

 

The success of the Elders did not go unnoticed in the Salem press. Two brief examples will illustrate. On 7 December 1841 the Salem Gazette reported: “A very worthy and respectable laboring man, and his wife, were baptized by immersion in the Mormon faith.”’ The Salem Register for 2 June 1842 reported: “Mormonism is advancing with a perfect rush in this city.” Clearly the Latter-day Saint Elders had found this part of the treasure. (Donald Q. Cannon, “Joseph Smith in Salem, (D&C 111),” in Studies in Scripture: The Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson [Sandy, Utah: Randall Book Co., 1984], 436)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

 

Examples of Christadelphian (Unitarian Restorationist) Interpretations of Matthew 16:18 and the "Gates of Hell" not Prevailing against the Church

I am the Latter-day Saint apologist who has done the most work on the Christadelphians. I thought it would be worthwhile to share how Christadelphians approach the text that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt 16:18) and how they, as (Unitarian) Restorationists, approach the text (notice how they emphasize, as do many Latter-day Saints, the concept of the dead overcoming Hades or death):

 

 

1 Cor. 15:55 gives us the word “grave” in the common version, and in many other places where it is rendered “hell,” the meaning is self-evidently the grave. For instance, Peter proving the divine purpose to raise Jesus from the grave, by quoting Psalm 16:10: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell—(hades).” Jesus says, “the gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against his church, which, considering that his church never got inside the gates of hell, in the orthodox sense, is conclusive against hades meaning hell in that sense, and as conclusive of grave being the meaning; for the gates of the grave close over his church, but shall not prevail; for he has the keys of hell (hades) and death; and opening the gates will release his prisoners (Zech. 9:11.) He is “the resurrection and the life,” and says “I will raise them up at the last day.”—(John 6:39.) Again, “death and hell are to be cast into the lake of fire.” The lake of fire is explained (Rev. 20:14) to be symbolical of “the second death.” This second death destroys the wicked, and, therefore, destroys death and the grave; for when there are no wicked surviving, death and the grave disappear from earth’s experiences. (Robert Roberts, “Future Punishments Not ‘Eternal Torments,’” The Christadelphian 8, no. 81 [March 1871]: 81)

 

 

 

“The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail”

 

“I have a sister who I am sorry to say is a Roman Catholic; and whenever we speak to her about the Truth, and about there having been a falling away from the faith, she always quotes this to prove the impossibility of such a thing. What are we to say?”—G. S.

 

Answer.—There is no difficulty about the answer. The difficulty would be in the reception of it on the part of anyone in the state of mental inebriation implied in being a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic interpretation cannot be the true interpretation, because it would leave no place for those other words of Christ, that when he comes, he will find a state of things corresponding to the days of Noah and the days of Lot (Luke 17:26–30). It would leave no place for that other saying of Christ by the mouth of Paul—for the words of the apostles were the words of Christ—(Luke 10:16; Matt. 10:20), that there would come a falling away preliminary to the development of the Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2:3), a turning away from the truth to fables (2 Tim. 4:4), a departing from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1). It would also exclude the prophecy of Christ by John in Patmos, that all the nations of the European habitable would come under the perverting influence of a “mother” system established at Rome (Rev. 17:1, 2, 18).

 

What is the true interpretation? Nothing more evident. “The gates of Hades” are the gates of the grave. These shall not prevail against the church, for Christ has the keys of those dismal gates, as he says: “I have the keys of Hades and of death” (Rev. 1:18), and he will use the keys and open the gates, and his imprisoned church (Zech. 9:11, 12) will emerge and say, “O Hades, where is thy victory?” (1 Cor. 15:53). This leaves room for every other element of truth, which is the test of whether an interpretation is scriptural or not. But it requires the exercise of reason to perceive the fact. If people will not exercise their reason, you can do nothing with them; for there is no other method in this age of the world of arriving at truth than by the exercise of reason upon existing facts, of which the Bible is the greatest^. (“’The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail,’” The Christadelphian 28, no. 328 [October 1, 1891]: 381-82)

 

 

Binding and Loosing

 

Sister J.H. Asks: Could you please explain what is meant in Matthew 16:19 by being bound and loosed in earth and in heaven?

 

THIS whole passage is used by the Roman Catholic church in support of the view that Peter had unique authority not possessed by any other of the apostles. this spiritual supremacy was, so it is claimed, his alone, and was passed by him to successive Bishops of Rome. Peter is therefore seen as “the rock” on which the Church is founded, ignoring the other-passages in scripture where the Lord Jesus Christ is described as the Rock (Matthew 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Ephesians 2:20). Significantly, Peter himself refers to Jesus as the rock: “the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner” (1 Peter 2:7). But, even though “the rock” was not Peter, did he nonetheless have unique spiritual authority? And, furthermore, what are the keys? It is easy to overlook the other difficulties of this passage because of an undue concentration on denying Peter’s headship of the church.

 

The keys of the kingdom are the essential elements of the gospel appeal which it was the duty of all the apostles to make available to any who would hear. Jesus castigated the religious leaders of his day who, he said, had “taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered” (Luke 11:52). The apostles were to be different. They were to preach the word of God without fear or favour; they were to assist people to “enter in” through faith and baptism. Peter was not alone in this work. We find him preaching to Cornelius and on the day of Pentecost. But we also read of the other apostles doing similar work; Philip, for example, in speaking to the Ethiopian eunuch, assisted him by giving him the key to understanding Isaiah 53 and the message of the suffering servant. Once this difficulty had been unlocked, there was no hindrance to his baptism. In this sense, the keys of the kingdom are available today for modern believers, who are to use them, and not to hinder others from entering in.

 

This good work of building on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ started in Jerusalem and quickly spread throughout the Roman world. The opposition to it should not be underestimated. All the forces of the great Roman power were directed to crushing Christianity. But Jesus’ forecast was correct, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”! Not even death itself, which the emperors used in their attempt to stamp out the Truth, would prevent true believers from entering into God’s kingdom. Hezekiah’s prayer in Isaiah 38:10 is a useful indication that “the gates of hell” is an idiomatic expression referring to the grave. (“Answers to Correspondents: Binding and Loosing,” The Christadelphian 129, no. 1540 [October 1992]: 387)

 

 

The power of the keys given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) gave him no unique authority—no authority which the other apostles did not possess as well—Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1); John 20:22, 23.

a)         “Keys”—keys to knowledge of the Kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13). The keys were used by Peter in preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); to the household of Cornelius (Acts 14:27 cf. Acts 10); and to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).

b)         “binding”—e.g., Ananias and Sapphira—Acts 5. Here Peter’s condemnation uttered on earth was immediately enforced in heaven.

c)         “loosing”—e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32–35). Peter said, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole” verse 34; Jesus in heaven “loosed” the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12–16.

d)         “gates of hell”—the grave of Isaiah 38:10, 17, 18. Christ’s Ecclesia will prevail against “hades”—(1 Cor. 15:53–55). (Ron Abel, Wrested Scriptures: A Christadelphian Handbook of Suggested Explanations to Difficult Passages [Pasadena, Calif.: n.d.], 5, emphasis in bold added)