Friday, February 28, 2025

The Low Mariology of Theophylact of Ohrid (1050-1107) in his Commentary on Mark 3:31-35

  

The brothers of the Lord out of envy approached to lay hold of Him as one who was ‘‘beside himself’’ and demon-possessed. Vainglory perhaps had taken hold of His mother, and she came to draw Him away from His teaching, thus showing the multitude that she could lead around the One at Whom they marvelled, and even make Him leave His teaching. The Lord therefore replies, “‘My mother will derive no benefit from being My mother unless she has the other virtues as well; likewise, neither will kinship of the flesh benefit My brothers.’’ For Christ’s true kin are they who do the will of God. By saying these things, the Lord is not thereby denying His mother, but He is showing that she will not be worthy of honor only because she gave Him birth, but because she also possesses every other virtue. And if she does not have these virtues, others will be shown greater honor for their true kinship to Him. (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark [trans. Christopher Stade; Bl. Theophylact's Explanation of the New Testament 2 House Springs, Miss.: Chrysostom Press, 2000], 35)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Andrew Hronich on Philippians 2:10 (Part 2)

  

Others will point to the fact that Paul is quoting Isaiah 45:23 (which Paul also quotes in Romans 14:11) and baldly assert that ultimate reconciliation cannot be Paul’s meaning since Isaiah speaks of those put to shame, who must summarily be seen as those excluded from reconciliation with God. This remains to be seen. Let us examine the wider passage in question at greater length.

 

20 “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, you survivors of the nations! They have no knowledge who carry about their wooden idols, and keep on praying to a god that cannot save. 21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. 22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. 23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ 24 Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. 25 In the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory.”

 

Here, Yahweh gives a command for the nations to turn from their idols, which cannot save them, and to the only God who can save. Yahweh then swears by Himself that every knee shall bow and tongue confess allegiance to Him. Non-universalists will claim that by this, Yahweh simply means that He will subjugate all rule, but this is not so. The context clearly indicates salvation, as Yahweh has just instructed the nations to turn to Him for salvation, not merely subjugation. Still, non-universalists will insist that verse 24’s statement concerning those who are put to shame excludes the notion of ultimate reconciliation. Yet verse 24, when understood in its broader context, is speaking of those who were formerly idol worshipers.

 

They are turned back and utterly put to shame, who trust in carved idols, who say to metal images, “You are our gods.” (Isa 42:17)

 

All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together. (Isa 44:9–11)

 

All of them are put to shame and confounded; the makers of idols go in confusion together. (Isa 45:16)

 

Such people were formerly enemies of God, trusting in carven images, and so when they turn to God, there is shame that comes with the acknowledgment of their former rebellion and ignorance, but such is the case for all believers. I myself was ashamed of who I once was when I came to Christ, but this did not mean that I was therefore excluded from His salvation. Notice, also, in the Isaianic portion quoted by Saint Paul that in the following verse (24) those same individuals who shall confess before Yahweh cry, “Only in the Lord . . . are righteousness and strength.” Who could utter these words if not a genuine believer? As Jerome once said: The nations are gathered to the Judgment . . . that in Jesus’ Name every knee may bow, and every tongue may confess that He is Lord. All God’s enemies shall perish, not that they cease to exist, but cease to be enemies.

 

Even so, this passage seems too good to be true. How do we know that Yahweh has not sworn in vain? How do we know that His word shall not fail?

 

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:10–11)

 

Some final points as I attempt to drive the point home. Paul directly links salvation to the situation in verse 11 by writing, “Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore . . . work out your own salvation . . . for God works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil 2:11–13). The word “therefore” joins together confession and salvation, which was a given in the early church, where the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord was used in baptismal services to express one’s commitment to Christ and thus subsequent deliverance. (Andrew Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2023], 307-8)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Andrew Hronich on Philippians 2:10 (Part 1)

  

The most common approach is to insist that those who bow are doing so forcibly. Their confession is motivated more so out of trepidation than it is of joy. This profoundly stupid suggestion will not do for any number of reasons. Firstly, kampto, here used for “bow,” according to Vine, is used for religious veneration (Rom 11:4, 14:11; Eph 3:14). On the other hand, sunkampto, used in Romans 11:10, “signifies . . . to bend down by compulsory force.” Furthermore, whereas the ESV and other translations would attempt to render the verse as suggesting that the confessors pay homage at the name of Jesus, Ken Eckerty, in an article titled “The Work of the Cross,” writes:

 

I think it’s significant that the bowing of every knee and the confessing of every tongue is done “in” the name of Jesus, not “at” as translated by the KJV. Scholars such as Vincent, Robertson, Young, Rotherham, and Bullinger (just to name a few) all say that it is best translated “in.” “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I . . .” Mt. 18:20 “In” Christ’s name implies an “entering into” or an intimacy with His name. Confession “in” His name cannot mean anything but intimacy.

 

Moreover, should one examine the words of the psalmist when he speaks of individuals submitting to God in worship, they will find these words:

 

Say to God, “How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies come cringing to you. All the earth worships you and sings praises to you; they sing praises to your name.” Selah Come and see what God has done: he is awesome in his deeds toward the children of man. (Ps 66:3–5)

 

Couple this passage with Revelation 5:13 (“And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!’”) and pray tell, where does one find ever so much as the slightest hint of forced worship? Notice that the individuals in question are submitting themselves, not themselves being submitted (as if they are passive in the matter). Philippians 3:21 references God’s power “that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” The words “even to” imply some sort of impressive ability on the part of God. I fail to see how forced submission is at all impressive, yet to be able to melt even the hardest of hearts, to bring Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins to the point of ecstatic, jubilant worship, surely only God can do such a thing!

 

I also find it intriguing that whenever a demoniac praises Christ, He becomes perturbed and mildly indignant. Yet, should one believe the traditionalist objection, this is somewhat awkward given that this is the kind of worship Christ will extract from countless billions in the ages to come. It is plainly obvious to even the most casual reader that God frequently chastises irreverent worship. Shall God delight in abominable sacrifices (Mal 1:10)? “Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD.” (Mal 1:13). If God is pleased with such disingenuous worship, then why on earth did He roast Aaron’s sons for offering profane sacrifice (Lev 10:1–7)?

 

It is inconceivable how God the Father might be glorified through a ruse, whereby those in hell begrudgingly acknowledge His lordship. This might do for Napoleon, but not for the Abba of Christ. Does not Christ say that the worship God desires is one that comes from those who “worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24)? What manner of worship, sincere or insincere, would highly exalt Christ? The whole notion of forced, submissive worship is foreign to the text and a blasphemous insult to the very nature of God, making Him out to be some sort of oriental despot.

 

Other commentators have confessed that “While the bowing of the knee might be reluctant, it seems harder to regard the tongue’s confession in that light.” This owes to Paul’s understanding of what it means to confess Jesus as Lord, which he elucidates in other passages like 1 Corinthians 12:3. “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus is accursed!’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit.” How many individuals can confess Jesus as Lord? None, except those who do so in the Holy Spirit. “Confessing is not a neutral act. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit. For those in the three locations, including those “under the earth,” the tenor seems to be promising. All things in heaven and earth will finally be one in acclaiming Christ for who he is (Eph. 1:10).”

 

Another rejoinder to the traditionalists concerning the text’s clear implications of universal reconciliation centers on the etymology of exomologeomai. Christ Himself uses this word in praising His Father in Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21. It is used eleven other times in the NT. In none of these texts does the word denote forced obeisance, but rather that which appraises itself as a natural manifestation of the person’s condition and disposition towards God. Are we to think that when Jesus says in Matthew 11:25, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children,” that because Matthew uses exomologeomai, Jesus is uttering these words forcibly? Absit! A mere reflection of worship integrated in the Psalms would lead all men to the conclusion of scholars that exomologeomai literally means “gladly confess.” It denotes exuberance, whereby those who are confessing the lordship of Christ are doing so from a standpoint of gladness. It is also of pertinence to recall the means by which Paul says one confesses Jesus to be Lord. He tells the church in Corinth, “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus is accursed!’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3). How many people can confess Christ as Lord apart from the Spirit of God? None. Yet, Paul says in Philippians 2:10–11 that “every tongue” shall confess. What is the logical implication as such? There is only one plausible answer: eventually, every tongue shall gladly confess in the Holy Spirit that Christ is Lord, and it is through confession and conviction as such that one is reconciled to Christ (Rom 10:9). (Andrew Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2023], 305-7)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Thursday, February 27, 2025

Andrew Hronich's Helpful Summary of the Egyptian Tale Informing Luke 16:19-31

  

The Egyptian tale in question is that of a man named Setme and his adult son Si-Osiris. Si-Osiris was an Egyptian granted the ability to return from Amente, the realm of the dead, to earth as the reincarnation of a childless couple. He was charged with dispatching an Egyptian magician whom the other magicians could not control. By the age of twelve, he succeeded in his mission, but not before both he and his father observed the funerals of a rich man and poor man alike.

 

In this portion of the tale, the two are watching from a window as a rich man is buried in all his pomp, before their gaze turns to a miserable deceased beggar whisked away on a mat. Setme turns to his son and says, “By Ptah, the great god, how much happier is the rich man who is honored with the sound of wailing than the poor man who is carried to the cemetery.” Si-Osiris explains, to his father’s bewilderment, that the poor man will receive better treatment in Amente than the rich man. To prove his point, he takes his father on a tour of the seven halls of Amente, where its inhabitants are categorized by those whose good deeds outnumber their misdeeds, those whose misdeeds outnumber their good deeds, and those whose misdeeds and good deeds are equal. Witnessing the punishments of the wicked, father and son perceive amongst such rabble a man sprawled on the ground facing a great hall, whose large gate’s hinge is fixated in the man’s eye socket. As it opens and closes, the man shrieks in pain, and, as it so happens, this man is none other than the rich man. Unfortunately, when the time had come for his righteous deeds to be weighed against his evil actions, he had been found seriously wanting, whereas the poor man had been adorned in lavish garments (ironically enough the rich man’s own former garments) and stood at the side of the god Osiris. The story concludes with the ominous words, “He who has been good on earth, will be blessed in the kingdom of the dead, and he who has been evil on earth, will suffer in the kingdom of the dead.”

 

Does any of this sound familiar? It should, for in no small way does Jesus’ parable emulate this Egyptian tale. (Andrew Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2023], 254-55)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Andrew Hronich on Hebrews 9:27-28

  

Several things can be said here. It is understandable, due to the traditionalist lens many subconsciously wear when they approach the Scriptures, that whenever they read of “judgment,” they think in negative (retributive) terms. However, the author of Hebrews says nothing concerning the nature of the judgment, and, for all we know, the judgment may have a restorative purpose in mind. Alas, the author does not elaborate, and so neither position must pronounce infallibly on the basis of this passage alone concerning the possibility of posthumous repentance following “the judgment.”

 

Moreover, there is the obvious rejoinder to a literalistic interpretation of this passage that not everyone dies once. Some die twice. These would be individuals God resuscitated from the dead who, upon lacking resurrected bodies, would succumb to death a second time. What is interesting on these occasions is that not all those who died only to be resuscitated in Scripture and the tradition were believers prior to death.

 

So, is God bending the rules? I thought it was appointed to man once to die, but apparently some get second chances . . . This can complicate the systematics of any who vigorously affirm the finality of death, for the Bible simply does not teach such a thing. On the other hand, if God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11), if He is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9), but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4), and He is the one who holds the keys to hades and death (Rev 1:18), pray tell, what will He do with those keys? Use them to lock hell’s inmates in eternal confinement? No rebuttal is more to the point than J. A. T. Robinson’s.

 

No Being who had an infinite concern for the salvation of every soul could possibly be conceived as saying in effect: ‘Unless you turn to Me by the age of seventy, or seven, or seven weeks (whatever it may be), I cannot give you a further chance.’ A God like that is either at the mercy of death, or He is not the God of the parable of the Prodigal. (Robinson, In the End, God) (Andrew Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2023], 251)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Andrew Hronich on 1 Timothy 2:4

  

For the sake of argument, even if Augustine were right in his assumption that this passage refers to all without distinction, this would not therefore rule out all without exception also being entailed. Is there anybody in this world for whom we should not pray? Should we pray for some kings but not all kings? Are there some people for whom we should not pray at all? After scrupulously analyzing Augustine’s five interpretations he offered over the course of twenty years regarding this passage, Hwang astutely notes:

 

Then the radical shift occurred, brought about by the open and heated conflict with the Pelagians. ‘Desires’ took on absolute and efficacious qualities and the meaning of ‘all’ was reduced to the predestined. 1 Tim. 2:4 should be understood, then as meaning that God saves only the predestined. All others, apparently, do not even have a prayer.

 

“All” has been transmuted to mean some of “all kinds of people.” Yet, “all” in verse 4 is an adjective modifying “men,” making it impossible to change “all” into “some men of all kinds,” whereby “all” would modify “kinds,” and not “men” as the text properly dictates. Some Calvinists may argue that “all” has a more limited sense in other contexts (where it can mean some of all sorts or some of all kinds), but even if this were true, does this therefore justify the Calvinist in declaring that “all” cannot mean all without exception in any atonement context? In this specific passage, Paul calls for believers to pray for actual people, not classes of people. His point is simple: “Don’t exclude anyone from their prayers, no matter their social status.” Moreover, as I. Howard Marshall notes, Paul maintains his focus on all people whilst specifically calling for prayers to be offered for rulers, since rulers are the ones who facilitate an environment in which their subjects are able to live godly and peaceful lives. Thus, the prayer for rulers is not strictly a prayer for their salvation; rather, it is enjoined in support of Paul’s injunction in verse 1 for his readers to pray for all men.

 

Furthermore, the verses following 1 Timothy 2:4 obliterate Augustine’s eisegesis. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Tim 2:5–6). Christ is the mediator between God and whom? Between God and all kinds of men, or between God and every individual man? Did He give Himself as a ransom for all kinds of men or every individual man? If Paul had wanted to say that Christ gave Himself as a ransom for every individual, how else might He have communicated this truth if not in the same manner which He did? Nevertheless, Augustine defends his interpretation by saying, “We could interpret it [1 Tim 2:4] in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed something to be done which was not done.” Here it becomes clear that Augustine refuses to take the text at face value but instead hoists external implications onto the text that lead him to reinterpret it all together. Moreover, had Augustine surveyed Paul’s usage of “all” elsewhere in his epistle to Timothy, he would have stumbled across a passage quite similar to 2:4, 4:9–10, which reads, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” Notice Paul’s differentiation between “all men” and “those who believe.” Believers are merely a subset of “all men.” Thus, a consistent exegete must acknowledge that unless there is a sufficient reason to think otherwise, Paul’s use of the same word in 2:4 must be understood in the same manner.

 

Much more could be said at length about this single passage, but the point of this exercise was to demonstrate how in order for the determinist system to be read from the text, it has to first be read into the text. Vernon Grounds once said of the great number of texts that flatly contradict the doctrine of limited atonement, “It takes an exegetical ingenuity which is something other than a learned virtuosity to evacuate these texts of their obvious meaning: it takes an exegetical ingenuity verging on sophistry to deny their explicit universality.” (Andrew Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2023], 106-7)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

"Who is Elias?"

 In a recent discussion on D&C 27-28, Patrick Mason briefly addressed the "Elias" issue:


Who Is Elias? | Sections 27-28 | Come Follow Up




His treatment was pretty superficial, though, to be fair to Mason, it was only a brief segment on the topic.


For a fuller discussion, see my work:


"Elias" as a "forerunner" in LDS Scripture


 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com






Larry J. Kreitzer on 1 Corinthians 7 and Paul's Imminent Eschatology

  

1 Corinthians 7: The Institution of Marriage and Human Sexuality in the Face of the Parousia. In this chapter Paul responds to some questions raised by the Corinthians about sex and marriage in the lives of Christian believers. It appears that the Corinthians had adopted an ascetic attitude toward sexuality in light of their belief that full salvation in Christ had already arrived (in 1 Cor 7:1b Paul cites one of their slogans to this effect). Paul writes to correct this attitude, emphasizing in 1 Corinthians 7:2–6 the mutual obligations and responsibilities of sexual relationships between husbands and wives. This section presents little difficulty as far as eschatological matters are concerned. However, in 1 Corinthians 7:7–40 Paul continues with advice that seems much more conditioned by his views of the imminent parousia of Christ; this is particularly true in 1 Corinthians 7:25–35. There he advises those who are single (for whatever reason) to remain so in light of the “present distress” (1 Cor 7:26) and the “shortening of the time” (1 Cor 7:29). The chapter is an exegetical minefield, but most scholars agree that to some degree Paul’s eschatological perspective is coloring his ethical advice to those contemplating marriage. Whatever interpretation is eventually adopted, one must give due consideration to the eschatological backdrop of Paul’s thought (see Moiser for an overview). (Larry J. Kreitzer, “Eschatology,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993], 256)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Theophylact of Ohrid (1050-1107) on Matthew 16:18-19

  

The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed Him as Son of God, the Lord says, ' 'This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation. ' ' For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but we do not have as a foundation the orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send the Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then, has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, too, had been lifted up when he said, “O Thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death.”From what gates, O David? From those twin gates of murder and adultery. (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew [trans. Christopher Stade; Bl. Theophylact's Explanation of the New Testament 1; House Springs, Miss.: Chrysostom Press, 2006], 140)

 

 

He spoke as God, with authority, "I will give unto thee." For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By "keys" understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who, like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind. Even though the words "I will give unto thee" were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted. " Also, the words "I will give" indicate a future time, namely, after the Resurrection. "The heavens" also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in acquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins. (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew [trans. Christopher Stade; Bl. Theophylact's Explanation of the New Testament 1; House Springs, Miss.: Chrysostom Press, 2006], 140-41)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Jerry Michael Hullinger on the Sacrifices of Ezekiel's Eschatological Temple (Ezekiel 40-48)

  

The Purposes of Sacrifices in the Kingdom

 

First, sacrifice will serve to restore the individual Israelite to the theocracy of which he or she is a part. Von Rad says:

 

Sin was thus an offense against the sacral order . . . . But there was more to it still. Sin was also a social category. Through ties of blood and common lot, the individual was regarded as being so deeply embedded in the community that an offense on his part was not just a private matter affecting only himself and his own relationship to God . . . . The evil which an action had brought into existence inevitably had effects which destroyed individual and community alike, unless the latter solemnly and clearly cancelled its solidarity with the offender. Thus, in an utterly realistic and direct sense, an offender was a danger to the whole people. (Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:264, 266)

 

Whitcomb also takes this view of sacrifices in the millennium. Future animal sacrifices will be

 

efficacious and expiatory only in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal) forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel. Thus, animal sacrifices during the coming kingdom age will not be primarily memorial. (Whitcomb, p. 211)

 

This fact can be illustrated from the impairment caused by sin in this community relationship in the Old Testament. For example, if the consequences of sin were not removed, the physical destruction of the sinner was inevitable (Lev. 26:14-39). The same will be true in the millennium. Any outbreak of blatant sin will be punished by physical death as Christ rules with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9; 72:1-4; Isa. 11:4; 29:20-21; 65:20; 66:24; Zech. 14:16-21; Jer. 31:29-30). This function of sacrifices in the future will have nothing to do with eternal salvation or the forgiveness of sin before God but rather with the community adjustments within the theocracy (this will be elucidated as the discussion progresses).

 

Second, it was seen in the discussion of the meal and peace offerings that thanksgiving and worship were part of the sacrifical system. There is no reason to think that this would not continue to be an important function during the kingdom period as shown by Ezekiel's many references to these seen in Chapter 4. Cave suggests that the meal offering represented the "full dedication of one's material possessions to God." Oesterly notes concerning the peace offering, "just as the very fact of friends eating together effected a union between them, so Yahweh, by coming into the sanctuary and joining the worshipers in the sacrifical feast made them one with Himself." In addition, it was seen that the burnt offering functioned in part to demonstrate one's complete devotion to God. This also could be a function of the burnt offering during the kingdom (see Chapter 4). Wood points out that it "symbolized complete consecration of the life to God, being consumed entirely on the altar." These brief examples demonstrate that there is nothing heretical in suggesting that sacrifices will be reinstituted for there is nothing really "backward" about the sacrifices, except that to the modern mind they are culturally different.

 

A third reason for the reinstitution of sacrifices during the future theocracy is the very important fact that the divine presence will once again be dwelling in the land. As argued earlier, impurity was contagious to both persons and sancta. Further, it was inimical to Yawheh who would refuse to dwell among His people if uncleanness remained untreated. Because God has promised to keep His presence on earth during the millennium (the New Covenant) His withdrawal is not an option. Therefore, it will be necessary to reinstitute sacrifices so that judgment against impurity will not break out on earth. (Sacrifices will cease following the millennial kingdom because in the eternal state, every individual will be glorified, and there will therefore be no impurity, uncleanness, etc.) Leviticus teaches that the purgation offering served primarily to purge the sancta of uncleanness. Furthermore, Ezekiel has numerous references to the same offering, and ascribes to it an identical function during the kingdom period. Therefore, this offering will be reinstituted in order to purge the sancta so that the divine presence will be protected.

 

A fourth function of renewed sacrifice during the millennium will be the reparations made on the human level as embodied in the reparation offering. This would preserve horizontal relationships between persons within the theocracy.

 

A final suggestion for the function of millennial sacrifices is that ceremonial cleansing will he made on behalf of people for their uncleanness or inadvertent sin. It has already been shown, for example, that a sin offering was required for ritual cleansing after childbirth (Lev. 12:6-8), leprosy (Lev. 14:13-17), contact with the dead (Num. 6:11, 14) , or for those suffering from abscesses and hemorrhages (Lev. 15:15, 30). Again, this cleansing would be related to the guarding of the sanctifying presence of the divine glory. It should also be kept in mind, that these items have nothing to do with personal sin, but simply with the impure state of the human race in an unglorified condition.

 

Each of these functions of the sacrifices operates in a different sphere than does the cross of Christ. There is no contradiction between the two, as there was not in the mind of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (This does not mean to imply that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were necessarily thinking of Christ but simply shows that they did not ascribe soteriological benefits to the sacrifices) (Jerry Michael Hullinger, "A proposed solution to the problem of animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48" [PhD Dissertation; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1993], 150-54)

  

 

The offering of Christ with its concomitant benefits transcends every dispensation, and is therefore entirely sufficient for the purposes which God intended. However, when the future theocracy is instituted, there will be a need for external cleansing due to the glorious presence of God. Because the cross was not intended to deal with these matters, it will be necessary to reinstitute the Levitical offenngs. (Jerry Michael Hullinger, "A proposed solution to the problem of animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48" [PhD Dissertation; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1993], 231)

 

 

It could again be objected that this demeans the cross by putting a limitation on the blood of Christ. This is not true. For example, when Christ was on earth, He did not heal everyone in the Middle East who was sick even though He had the capability. He sovereignly chose to limit His healing power. Likewise, God the Father has the ability to effect salvation for every individual who has ever lived. However, He has not chosen to do so. Yet this in no way limits His power, love or grace. In the same manner, God conceiveably could have chosen that the blood of Christ cleanse ceremonial and external defilements, but in His good pleasure He did not.

 

When sacrifices are reinstituted, they will serve to cleanse ceremonial defilement that would offend the presence of a holy God. this manner. sacrifice of Christ accomplished different things, there will be no tension when animal sacrifice is reintroduced.

 

It is true that Paul offered sacrifice in the temple when God's glory was not dwelling there. This does not negate what has been said in this dissertation for several reasons. First, since animal sacrifice and the cross can be compatible (as argued in this study), Paul's offerings in the temple was an amoral issue. Second, the period of Acts was one of transition into the church age when sacrifice would no longer be necessary. Third, Paul was being careful not to offend the Jews. Fourth, this study has offered ample documentation that sacrifice was largely occupied with the issue of the divine presence. (Jerry Michael Hullinger, "A proposed solution to the problem of animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48" [PhD Dissertation; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1993], 231-32 n. 199)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Jerry Michael Hullinger on the prince/leader of Ezekiel's Eschatological Temple

On the identity of the nasi (prince/leader) of Ezekiel’s eschatological temple:

 

This leader does not appear to be Christ, because he makes a sin offering for himself (45:22), and in addition, this leader Although some have identified this leader with David based on 34:23-24 and 37:24 (these are probably Messianic), it is really impossible to The religious privileges of this leader include supplying of the public sacrifices offered in the name of the people as he presents in person the regular sacrifices for the community. He also will have privileges of approach not accorded to ordinary worshipers. The outer court might be entered by the prince or people through the north or south gate, but not the east. The eastern gate was that by which Jehovah entered His dwelling place, and its doors are forever closed. But on the Sabbaths and New Moons, it will be opened to receive the sacrifices from the "leader" and it will remain open until evening. will have natural children (46:16). say. (Jerry Michael Hullinger, "A proposed solution to the problem of animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48" [PhD Dissertation; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1993], 54 n. 23)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Jerry Michael Hullinger on the Problems with "The Ideal View" of the Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48

Commenting on “The Ideal View” (i.e., the temple vision of Ezekeil being “an apocalyptic dream or ideal in which God gives to Ezekiel an ethereal vision of what God would do for His people” [p. 15]):

  

This view grasps the spirit of what God wanted to do for His people, however it fails in that it is unable to do justice to the details given by Ezekiel. If the point of the vision was simply to present the symbolic truth that God would one day dwell in the midst of His people, why would Ezekiel give nine chapters of specific measurements and regulations? A possible answer to this question is that Ezekiel was presenting a truth in a way that was familiar to him. While it is valid that he was presenting a truth in a familiar way, this point becomes invalid when it is realized that Ezekiel's picture of the temple is contradictory in many ways to the temple with which he was familiar, and the priestly regulations set forth in the Pentateuch. (These differences will be documented in chapter 6.) So, if Ezekiel were simply presenting a spiritual truth in an apocalyptic dream in language with which he was familiar, it is very strange that he would diverge from the temple he knew as well as standard cultic practices laid down in the Levitical law. A further difficulty with this position is that 40— 48 really gives no textual clues that it is to be interpreted symbolically as other visions in the book should be by virtue of their unrealistic characters (e.g. ch. 1). (Jerry Michael Hullinger, "A proposed solution to the problem of animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48" [PhD Dissertation; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1993], 17-18)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

The Use of "I Am" (εγω ειμι) in John 18:5-6

  

The use of the words ‘I am’ in Jn 18:5–6 and 8 clearly show that, while ἐγώ εἰμι is used as a simple identification formula, the two words may simultaneously have a deeper meaning. The reason that the soldiers fall down when Jesus utters the words ἐγώ εἰμι is not stated. It is assumed that the reader will know. While accepting the fact that Jesus identifies himself to the soldiers with these words, the reader must look for something that would explain their strange reaction. Bultmann posits a miracle to account for the reaction and there may be some truth in that, but more needs to be said. I believe Ball is right to see the words here acting as a trigger to point to the other occurrences of the term in the Gospel to explain Jesus’ words. The threefold repetition of ἐγώ εἰμι in 18:5, 6, 8 emphasizes the importance of the expression. That this saying occurs at the moment of betrayal particularly points back to 13:19, where the fulfilment of Scripture and Jesus’ own words were linked to the betrayal in order that the disciples might believe ‘that I am’. Thus a simple recognition formula in which Jesus states that he is the person whom the soldiers seek is given a double meaning by the reaction of those same soldiers to his words as well as by the previous use of ἐγώ εἰμι in the Gospel. Although it is correct to talk of Jesus’ identity in terms of Jesus of Nazareth on one level, on another there is something that cannot be explained without probing the possible background and powerful impact of the words ἐγώ εἰμι. John can take simple words and, by the way they are formulated (8:24, 28; 13:19) as well as by the reactions to them (8:58; 18:5, 6, 8), indicate that something profound is signified in relation to Jesus’ identity. It is to the significance of ἐγώ εἰμι in the lxx (especially of Deutero-Isaiah) that I turn now, and, having looked at the significance of the expression, I will then assess Deutero-Isaiah as a possible background for the unpredicated ‘I am’ sayings in John. The goal of this investigation is to endeavour to demonstrate that the name the Father has given to Jesus is the holy name of Yhwh, the name borne on the turban of the high priest and the name in which Jesus ‘keeps’ his disciples. (Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 220; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 326-28)

 

 

The polyvalent force of egō eimi finds its most dramatic demonstration in the account of Jesus’ arrest, where the soldiers’ response of drawing back and falling to the ground (Jn 18:6) demonstrates Jesus’ sovereign control over the events leading to his death. Indeed, Jesus’ twofold pronouncement of egō eimi in this scene serves as a powerful exemplification of the claims linked to this elusive expression elsewhere in John, for it encapsulates the Johannine presentation of Jesus as the one in whom God is revealed and his promises are fulfilled.(C. H. Williams, “I Am Sayings,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2013], 399)

 

While the phrase may at places constitute a simple self-reference (“It is I,” or, in more mundane terms, “It’s me”), there are places where references to Jesus in terms of “I am” in John’s Gospel almost certainly convey the notion of deity. One such place is Jesus’ statement to the Jews in 8:58, “I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” The Jews’ reaction—they pick up stones to kill Jesus—makes clear that they took Jesus’ pronouncement as involving a claim to deity. Another likely instance is 18:5–6, where Jesus identifies himself to those who would arrest him as “I am he,” at which the soldiers drew back and fell to the ground. In this case, egō eimi may constitute a self-reference on a literal level and at the same time involve a claim to deity on a secondary, deeper level, as is suggested by the soldiers’ response, which is a customary reaction to divine revelation or theophany. (See, e.g., Ezek. 1:28; 44:4; Dan. 2:46; 8:18; 10:9; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; Rev. 1:17; 19:10; 22:8) (Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Deity of Christ in John’s Gospel,” in The Deity of Christ, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson [Theology in Community; Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011], 106)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Blog Archive