Arthur A. Tiger on the Debates Among Protestants Concerning Soteriology

  

The doctrine of salvation stands at the heart of Protestant theology, yet no area generated more passionate disagreement among orthodox believers than the precise nature of how God saves sinners. These soteriological debates, involving questions about divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the nature of faith, the security of salvation and possibility of apostasy, represent not merely academic theological disputes but fundamental differences in understanding God’s character, human nature, and the very essence of the gospel. With hundreds of millions of Protestants aligned with different soteriological systems—Reformed, Arminian, Lutheran, Baptist, Wesleyan—these debates shape preaching, evangelism, discipleship, and Christian experience across denominational lines. (Arthur A. Tiger, The Encyclopedic Handbook of Protestant Denominations: Systematic Analysis of History, Theology, and Contemporary Challenges [His Story for Us Publishing, 2025], 437, emphasis in original)

 

 

These debates matter profoundly because they affect every aspect of Christian life and ministry. The Calvinist preaching God’s sovereign grace to totally depraved sinners, the Arminian calling for decisive faith response to prevenient grace, the Lutheran proclaiming objective justification through Word and Sacrament, and the Wesleyan pursuing entire sanctification through grace-empowered holiness each reflect different soteriological convictions with practical consequences. The contemporary resurgence of Reformed theology among young evangelicals, the growth of “Traditionalist” Southern Baptists opposing Calvinism, and the popularity of “Free Grace” theology demonstrate these ancient debates’ ongoing vitality and divisive potential. (Arthur A. Tiger, The Encyclopedic Handbook of Protestant Denominations: Systematic Analysis of History, Theology, and Contemporary Challenges [His Story for Us Publishing, 2025], 438)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 45:13 (Hebrew: v. 14)

  

All the princess’s treasure is pearls. The Masoretic Text reads literally “all the princess’s treasure is inward,” which Jewish tradition has taken as a slogan for the virtuous wife’s conjugal modesty. But the immediately following word has a superfluous mem at the beginning. If one moves it back to the end of the previous word and inserts a second nun for the mem in the middle of the word, instead of penimah, “inward,” the consonantal text would read peninim, “pearls,” which makes more sense and a much better parallelism. There is also a syntactic problem here, because “princess” would have to be a vocative (“All the treasure, princess”), but because the royal bride is spoken of in the third person in the last half of the verse, the translation does not represent the vocative. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:120)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 38:19 (Hebrew: v. 20)

  

my wanton enemies. The Masoretic Text reads ʾoyvay ḥayim, literally, “my enemies of life,” which some construe as “my mortal enemies,” though it is not a biblical idiom as it is worded here. A scroll of Psalms found at Qumran reads ʾoyvay ḥinam, “my wanton enemies” (that is, “enemies for no good reason”), which is nicely idiomatic and makes the parallelism in the two versets here exactly that of 35:19 (where sheqer, “unprovoked,” appears in the first verset and ḥinam in the second, rather than the other way around as here). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:105)

 

The BHS of this verse reads:

 

‎  וְאֹיְבַי חַיִּים עָצֵמוּ וְרַבּוּ שֹׂנְאַי שָׁקֶר

 

The verse in 4Q83 Psalms a (fragment 9, column ii, line 3), the text from Qumran Alter references, reads:

 

וֿאיב̇י ח֯נ̇ם

 

Arthur Weister on Psalm 38 and לְהַזְכִּיר (cf. εἰς ἀνάμνησιν [LXX: Psalm 37])

  

A Psalm. Of David. For the purpose of making a confession(?) (Arthur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1998], 323)

 

 

Cf. the title of Ps. 70. Luther translates: for a memorial (l hāzkīr). Others relate the term to the’ azkārā, the offering of incense, which was part of the ‘meal offering’ (minḥā) and in the course of which the worship of late Judaism is said to have used the psalm as a prayer. (Ibid., n. 1)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 38 and לְהַזְכִּיר (cf. εἰς ἀνάμνησιν [LXX: Psalm 37])

  

to call to mind. The Hebrew infinitive lehazkir is anomalous in the superscription of a psalm, appearing here and at the beginning of Psalm 70. It may simply refer to the speaker’s intention to bring to mind his suffering in his supplication to God. It might also have a connotation of confession: compare the words of Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer in Genesis 41:9, “My offenses I recall [mazkir] today,” and those of the widow from Zarephath to Elijah in 1 Kings 17:18, “You have come to me to recall [lehazkir] my crime.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:104)

 

Nathan B. Oman on Extended "Families" or "Kingdoms" and Early Latter-day Saint Plural Marraige Among Brigham Young and Others

  

During the 19th century, what can be called kingdom theology dominated sealing practices. Kingdom theology can be seen most clearly in the law of adoption, where sealings between non-biologically related adults were designed to bind individuals in eternal, dynastic structures with patriarchal heads. Joseph Smith’s sealing practice was confined to marriage, but shortly after his death. Brigham Young and his associates instituted adoptive sealings. Initially these took the form of sealing nonbiological relationships in which adults were sealed to high church leaders as members of their extended adoptive “families” or “kingdoms.” These massive “families” proved important organizational structures during the Mormon exodus to the Great Basin. Thereafter the so-called law of adoption was suspended until the first Utah temple was dedicated in 1877 at St. George. At that point, there was an effort to reinstitute the practice. Within this theological frame, marriage sealings were another mechanism for creating priestly connections, at times in disregard of temporal family relationships. Where modern Latter-day Saints think of such sealings in terms of “eternal families” using ideas of companionate marriage and nuclear families, their 19th-century forebearers thought in terms of kingdom and sacral networks. (Nathan B. Oman, Living Oracles: Law and the Latter-day Saint Tradition [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2026], 168-69)

 

 

This explains, for example, the bewildering variety of Brigham Young’s plural marriages. Fifty-five women were sealed to Young. Only sixteen of these women bore his children. Twenty-three of the women belonged to Young’s households, although some of these wives likely did not have a sexual relationship with Young. The other women were sealed into Young’s eternal kingdom without becoming part of his earthly family. Some of these women were much older when they were sealed to Young, including one woman sealed on her deathbed. Some of them held themselves out as “wife of President Young” without being part of his household. Some of the women were sealed to Young while continuing to be married to other men, presumably to be included in Young’s postmortal dynasty. See generally Jeffrey Ogden Johnson, “Determining and Defining ‘Wife’: The Brigham Young Households,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 3 (1987): 57-70. (Ibid., 274 n. 43)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 110: Stanford Carmack on Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon

 

Episode 110: Stanford Carmack on Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon

Eliza R. Snow (October 20, 1874): The Return to Jackson County to Build the Temple (cf. D&C 84) Being Contingent

On October 20, 1874, Eliza R. Snow stated that:  

I have always felt myself in the United Order, and I expect the sisters will have more time to improve their minds, and it will help us the sooner to go back to Jackson County and build a temple where the glory of God will rest upon it. (Eliza R. Snow, “I Would Have Walked to the Ends of the Earth,” Salt Lake City Nineteenth Ward Relief Society, Nineteenth Ward Hall, Salt Lake City, October 20, 1874, in Rise Up and Speak: Selected Discourses of Eliza R. Snow, ed. Jennifer Reederm, Sharlyn D. Howcroft, Elizabeth A. Kuehn, and Jessica M. Nelson [Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2026], 158)

 

It appears that she believed that the return to Jackson County to build the temple was contingent upon the actions of the Latter-day Saints. On this, and other issues relating to Joseph Smith's prophecies, see:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Eliza R. Snow (October 20, 1874) on Temptation and Christ's Peccable Nature

  

We have had some very good instructions this afternoon, and the question is, How can we live up to them and live so as to have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit? It is not to be obtained except in the way God has appointed. We are frail and subject to many trials and temptations—it is no sin to be tempted, but the sin is yielding to temptation. Had Jesus yielded when Satan tempted Him, He would have lost the smiles of His Father. We should be always on our guard. Paul says, “Pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks,” and if we do this, we shall not have time to brood over our troubles, and the little vexations and cares of life would not be noticed. Gratitude is sweet to our fellow beings, but it is elevating and ennobling in the sight of our Father in Heaven. (Eliza R. Snow, “I Would Have Walked to the Ends of the Earth,” Salt Lake City Nineteenth Ward Relief Society, Nineteenth Ward Hall, Salt Lake City, October 20, 1874, in Rise Up and Speak: Selected Discourses of Eliza R. Snow, ed. Jennifer Reederm, Sharlyn D. Howcroft, Elizabeth A. Kuehn, and Jessica M. Nelson [Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2026], 156)

 

Here, Eliza (correctly) notes that temptation, in and of itself, is not sinful (contrary to Calvinism and other theologies); further, she also (correctly) rejects the impeccability of Christ.

Heber J. Grant (Journal Entry for September 8, 1887)

  

Moses Thatcher, Jos. F. Smith, John Hy. Smith each favored calling men, instead of allowing them to come or go, when we desire to establish settlements.

 

Moses thought that fully one million of dollars had been wasted by our people in wandering up and down the country aimlessly.

 

If we feel that we should establish settlements in Canada and Mexico, the brethren felt that our only way to do so successfully will be to call men and not ask them to volunteer. Under Brigham Young’s administration men were called and had no idea of leaving a place unless they were released.

 

Franklin D. Richards, regretted very much that he had not felt to endorse the policy of allowing men to go or not when a call was made to help one of our settlement. He did not think the gospel could ever be preached or the Church built up upon any such a principle and in his inmost soul he had no faith that we could ever build up Zion on the volunteer principle. When men are called on a mission or to locate in any place they feel by the Spirit within them that they were working where the Lord desired them to do so. He related the failure of attempts to get needed help in Arizona and San Juan on account of the people feeling that they were at perfect liberty to go or not. Brother Franklin’s remarks were very spirited indeed and while he was talking I felt that his remarks were dictated by the good spirit.

 

Erastus Snow felt that the Twelve should report names of men and that then we should send them with the backing and support of the Priesthood. He felt that Bro. Franklin had struck a keynote which most of the Twelve have experienced during the administration of Prest. Taylor and that his policy of only using volunteers had discouraged the labors of our quorum.

 

In the days of Brigham Young some men had felt that they were sent on missions because of some private spite. The feeling existed that brother Young had not counseled as much with the Council of the Apostles as with those persons with whom he was surrounded.

 

Prest. Taylor desiring to correct this evil had gone to an extreme on the other hand that had made the efforts of the brethren in attempts to strengthen up our settlements, a failure.

 

A motion was carried that Pres Card be informed to continue his labors in Canada, and that additional help will be sent to him. ... (Heber J. Grant, Journal, September 8, 1887, in The Diaries of Heber J. Grant, 1880-1845 Abridged, comp. D. Michael Quinn [Digital Edition; Salt Lake City, 2015])

 

 

Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457) on Baptismal Regeneration and Paul's Epistles

  

1 Cor 15:15-17:

 

We are found to be giving false witness to God as well, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whereas he did not raise him (v. 15): we are liable on the score of calumny for presuming to claim God raised Christ, whereas he did not raise him. Then in turn he reverses the same ideas, intent on strengthening faith in the resurrection with further arguments, saying, After all, if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised. But if Christ had not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (vv. 16-17): baptism is a type of the Lord’s death, but the type has no force if it does not involve the forgiveness of sins; so the burden of sins is still to be carried. He included this in view of the statement, Christ died for our sins, in keeping with the scriptures. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 1:226)

 

 

Eph 2:8-9:

 

By grace, in fact, you are saved through faith (v. 8): the grace of God regaled us with these good things; we had only faith to offer, but divine grace worked with it. He went on in this vein: This is no doing of yours; it is the gift of God, not from works lest anyone boast (vv. 8-9): we have not believed of our own volition; rather, we made our approach when called, and when we did he did not require of us purity of life—instead, he accepted faith alone and granted us forgiveness of sins. In other words, we are of his making, created in Christ Jesus for good works for which God prepared us so that we should walk in him (v. 10). He used created there of the regeneration: he called us (he is saying) out of ins ineffable goodness; we responded, and by coming to faith we attained salvation. Before baptism, however, he did not require of us the practice of virtue, whereas after baptism he urges us to cling to it as well. This, in fact, is what he means by for good works so that we should walk in him. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:39; on “faith alone” in the patristics, see this post)

 

The translator Robert Charles Hill offered this note:

 

In these vv. 8-10, where Paul is stressing the gratuity of the divine call, Theodoret is prepared to concede it, achieving his usual Antiochene balance by seeing faith as a personal response to the call in the first place, and then a virtuous life in consequence of reception of baptism and its forgiveness of sins. (Ibid., 1:59-60 n. 4)

 

 

Col 2:11-13:

 

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not done by human hand, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh through the circumcision of Christ (v. 11). In other words, since under pressure they embraced the way of life of the Law, he brings out once again the difference in circumcision: it is not of the flesh (he is saying). But of the spirit, not done by human hand but divine, not a removal of a fragment of flesh but freedom from all corruption. IT is not the Law that is responsible for this but Christ the Lord, the giver of the Law; he says, note, in him also you were circumcised, and again, through the circumcision of Christ. By putting off the body of the sins of the flesh he referred to saving baptism: in it we put off the soiled garment of sin. In the life to come, on the other hand, the body, rendered incorruptible and immortal can no longer be affected by the stain of sin. Now, to the fact that this refers to baptism the sequel also testifies. Buried with him in baptism (v. 12). Since he called saving baptism a type of death (implying this in buried), he gives the good news of resurrection: in whom you were also raised. And since we still have a mortal nature, he went on, through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead: believing is the power of God we await the resurrection, having the resurrection of Christ the Lord as a pledge.

 

And you, dead as you were in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made alive with him, forgiving you all your trespasses (v. 13): sin destroyed us all, imposing on us the sentence of death. But the God of all made us sharers in the life of Christ the Lord, and bestowed on us forgiveness of sins. By uncircumcision of the flesh he referred to wickedness, explaining that whereas uncircumcision of the body causes no harm to those in that condition, uncircumcision of the body causes no harm to those in that condition, uncircumcision of the soul harms both body and soul. From this he shows that bodily circumcision is of no benefit to the circumcised; on the other hand, it is removal of wickedness that brings about true salvation. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:93-94)

 

 

2 Tim 2:11-13:

 

Having thus brought out the reward for the hardships, he went on, The saying is trustworthy (v. 11), that is, true, indubitable, free of falsehood. If we died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endured with him, we shall also reign with him (vv. 11-12). The phrase, we died with him, he applied not only to those taken up for burial but also to the baptized: those who sincerely believe and give evidence of a life in keeping with their faith will share life with the Lord. If we deny him, he will also deny us. The Lord himself said as much in the sacred Gospels, “Whoever denies me before human beings I myself shall deny before my Father, who is in heaven.” Then he explains that the one denying him will not harm him but will bring harm on himself. If we are unfaithful, he remains unfaithful: he cannot deny himself (v. 13): those with faith do not render him God, nor do those without faith remove the divine nature from him; rather, whether we believe or not he is God. So it is we the believers who reap the benefit. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:241)

 

The translator, Robert Charles Hill, offered the following comment on the above:

 

The bishop, we have seen, is always ready to recall the baptismal ritual in connection with death and rising. (Ibid., 2:250 n. 4)

 

 

Titus 3:4-7:

 

But when the goodness and lovingkindness of God our Savior, appeared be saved us, not through works of righteousness we had done but in his mercy through the washing of regeneration and through renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out richly on us through Jesus Christ our Savior that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (vv. 4-7). Exercising lovingkindness, he is saying, the Lord freed us from our former vices through the Only-begotten, according us forgiveness of our sins through saving baptism, creating us anew and renewing us, regaling us with the gift of the Spirit, and showing us the way of righteousness. To those traveling by this way he promised the kingdom of heaven. And since this way is not visible (hope which is seen, remember, is not hope), he was obliged to add, The saying is sure (v. 8), that is, true: let no one be in any doubt. I want you to harp on this so that those who believe in God may be sure to devote themselves to good works: for those devoid of good works faith is not sufficient for salvation. These things are good and of benefit to everyone: believing in God and living according to the laws. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:257, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457) on the Epistle of Philemon and Slavery

  

Phlm 1:21:

 

I have written to you in the knowledge that you will do even more than I ask (v. 21): I know your obedience of soul—hence my writing, trusting that you will provide more than I asked. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:264)

 

The translator, Robert Charles Hill, offered this note:

 

A modern commentator, like Fitzmyer wonders if Paul is asking for the emancipation of the slave. Perhaps Theodoret in his time would prefer not to entertain the possibility of what “more” could involve (cf. his comment on v. 25). (Ibid., 2:265 n. 9)

 

Phlm 1:25:

 

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen (v. 25). It behooves those who vouchsafed the divine teaching to follow these laws, and thus to teach the servants to give service to their masters, so that in every way Christ the Lord may be celebrated, to whom with the Father and the all-holy Spirit belong glory and magnificence, now and forever, for ages and ages. Amen. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:264-65)

 

For Those Who Wish to Support the Blog/Youtube Channel

Just a regular-ish reminder for those who wish to support the blog and/or youtube channel:

Paypal: 

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: Irishlds87@gmail.com

Patreon

Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457) on 1 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13

1 Thess 2:15:

 

So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast to the traditions you have been taught, either in word or in our latter (v. 15): keep as the norm of doctrine the words offered you by us, which we preached to you when present and wrote when absent. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:130)

 

 

2 Thess 2:13:

 

We also give thanks unceasingly to God for this, that you received the word of God you heard from us and accepted it, not as a word of human beings, but as it really is, word of God, which is also at work in you believers (v. 13). Since he had instilled fear into them with his adjuration, he comforted them with commendation, saying, You accepted not as human words but as divine words what was offered by us. Actual experience also shows them to be like that: in receipt of the charism of inspiration, they themselves prophesied, spoke in tongues and performed remarkable wonders. The text hinted not only at that but also at the perils brought upon them by the adversaries; the sequel indicates as much, In fact, you became imitators, brethren, of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea in suffering the same things form your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, and are hostile to everyone (vv. 14-15). (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 2:111, emphasis in bold added)

 

Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457) on 2 Corinthians 5:18-21

  

Now, all this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation (v. 18). He indicated God’s ineffable lovingkindness: who was not reconciled to us (he is saying), although he it was who was insulted by the Fall; rather, he reconciled us to himself, not employing a human being as mediator, but making the only-begotten Son a mediator of peace. To us he also entrusted the good news of reconciliation. Namely, God it was. A break must be observed here. In Christ reconciling the world to himself (v. 19): the God of all it was who by means of Christ achieved reconciliation with human beings. Now, what is the manner of this reconciliation? Not reckoning their falls against them, and assigning to us the preaching of reconciliation: he granted the forgiveness of sins, and commissioned us as ministers of peace.

 

We act, therefore, as ambassadors of Christ (v. 20). Since he claimed to have appointed minister of reconciliation, he was obliged to set the ambassadorship; and to show its trustworthiness he went on, since God’s exhortation comes through us. Now, what is the message he brings as ambassador? We beg you in Christ’s name, be reconciled to God. The words are sufficient to make even the most unfeeling be ashamed: he said first that with the execution of Christ he not only did not bear resentment but sent us as ambassadors to win all people over, respect his longsuffering, be ashamed at the murder of Christ, and be reconciled to the Creator, God and Lord. He goes on to add to the aforesaid the dishonor of the passion. After all, the one who did not know sin he made sin for our sake so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (v. 21): though free of sin he underwent the death of sinners in order to undo people’s sins, and bearing the name that we have he gave us the name of what he himself is—that is, he regaled us with the riches of righteousness. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 1:273-74)

 

Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457) on Romans 5:12

  

From this point on he reveals the mystery of the Incarnation, and brings out the reason for becoming man. Hence, just as through one human being sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus death spread to all human beings for the reason that all sinned (v. 12). On creating Adam and dignifying him with the gift of reason, the Lord God gave the single commandment of exercising his reason; it was impossible that, sharing in reason and enjoying the discernment of good and its opposite, he should live his life apart from any law. He was deceived and broke the law; and from the beginning the lawgiver linked the threat of punishment to the commandment. Becoming subject to the rule of death, then, Adam begot Cain, Seth and the others. All of them, therefore, on the grounds of their lineage from his man, had a nature subject to death; such a nature is in need of many things—food and drink, clothing and habitation, and diverse skills. Use of these things, however, often stimulates the passions to intemperance, and intemperance generates sin. Consequently, the divine apostle means that, since Adam had sinned and death had occurred through sin, both spread to the race: death spread to all human beings for the reason that all sinned. In other words, it is not because of the sin of the first parent but because of their own that each person is liable to death. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 2 vols. [Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], 1:72)

 

The translator Robert Charles Hill noted that:

 

Theodoret, like all the Greek Fathers before John Damascene, reads εφ’ ω in this verse and renders it “for the reason that”; he is well aware that Paul is referring to the etiological story of the Fall in Gen 3 but does not see Adam as an antecedent to the pronoun (as likewise in commenting on Ps 51.5). Adam’s sin is beyond question for him, and—without explaining how—he sees both sin and death spreading to the whole race; but he is insistent that each person’s sin and not Adam’s is responsible for each one’s liability to death. As always, he avoids the heavy moralizing tone of preachers like Chrysostom in commenting on the Fall, as well as their tendency to transfer guilt to the woman. (Ibid., 1:146 n. 7)

 

Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457) Teaching Baptismal Regeneration in his Commentaries on Jeremiah and Ezekiel

  

Jer 31:34 (LXX: 38:34):

 

They will no longer teach one another, each one their neighbor and each one their brother, saying, Know the Lord, because all will know me, from the least to the greatest of them (v. 34). The future life achieves the fulfilment of these words: in it we shall no longer need instruction from one another, things being patently obvious, sufferings at an end, bodies incorrupt, souls immune to change. Now it is customary with the divine Scriptures to mix the prophecies together: it connects those about the recall with those about the captivity, and the Lord in the sacred Gospels cites at the one time the sayings about Jerusalem and those about the consummation. Because I shall be merciful to their iniquities, and shall no longer remember their sins. The grace of all-holy baptism grants this favor: after forgiveness, he does not remember the former sins. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, 2 vols. [trans. Robert Charles Hill; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006], 1:117-18, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

Ezek 36:25:

 

The blasphemy will be canceled though your being saved, which will demonstrate my power; learning how my name is great and sufficient for the assistance of my own, they will glorify and sing the praises of my lordship. He indicated as much, in fact, by saying, The nations will know that I am the Lord God when I am sanctified in you before their eyes. I shall take you from the nations, and gather you from all the races, and I shall bring you into your land (vv. 23-24).

 

While this applies to all who returned, since those wanting to return were granted the right of return, what follows applies not to everyone but only to those choosing to believe in the Gospel. He says, in fact, I shall sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be cleansed of all your uncleanness, and I shall cleanse you of all your idols (v. 25). By clean water he referred to the water of rebirth, in which we are baptized and receive the forgiveness of sins. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, 2 vols. [trans. Robert Charles Hill; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006], 2:242, emphasis in bold added)

 

As Robert Charles Hill, the translator, noted about Theodoret reading baptismal regeneration into various Old Testament texts:

 

The bishop can always find a baptismal reference in a text. (1:220 n. 15)

 

Theodoret is simply reflecting the unanimous consent of the earliest Christians on water baptismal regeneration.

Examples of "Non-Calvinistic" Interpretations of Passages in Theodoret of Cyrus's (393-457) Commentary on Jeremiah

  

Jer 1:4-5:

 

The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you left the womb I consecrated you (vv. 4-5). The election was not without basis: knowledge preceded it. He had knowledge, note, and then he consecrated; for he knows everything before its coming to be. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, 2 vols. [trans. Robert Charles Hill; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006], 1:23)

 

 

Jer 18:7-8:

 

Do not despair of salvation, he is saying: even if I condemn a nation and threaten ultimate punishment, I extend mercy. On the other hand, if I promise an abundance of good things, but they scorn me and embrace wickedness, I shall not fulfill the promise of good things. Knowing this, then, do not despair of better things, but apply repentance and reap salvation. (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, 2 vols. [trans. Robert Charles Hill; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006], 1:85)

 

Matthew J. Grey and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel on the Use of εγω ειμι in John 18:6

  

Jesus’s simple response, “I am he,” is more theologically loaded than the King James Version suggests. First, note that “he” is italicized. In the King James Bible, words that were added by the translators but that are not found in the original Greek manuscripts are placed in italics. These added words were meant to make the translation more readable when it was difficult to find a corollary word in English. To ensure that the reader knows that these words were not in the original manuscripts, they are printed in italics.

 

While in some instances this type of clarification is helpful, in others it can obscure the intended nuances of the Greek text. In the case of Jesus’s utterance in the garden, removing the italicized word renders Jesus’s response as “I AM” (Greek: ego-eimi). Therefore, Jesus’s response is not merely an indication that he is the one the arresting party is looking for; rather it is a declaration of the divine name of God from the Old Testament. For instance, the story of Moses’s encounter with God at the burning bush reads: “Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me not you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:13-14).

 

In uttering the name I AM, therefore, Jesus seems to be referring to himself as the God who appeared to Moses and who desires the full trust of his people. Jesus applied this same name to himself earlier in John’s Gospel (see, for example, John 8:58), and in this moment in the garden, he applies it to himself again. To heighten the impact o this declaration during Jesus’s arrest, John notes that the large, armed party of Roman soldiers and Jewish temple police all step backward and fall to the ground in response (see John 18:6; cf. Psalms 27:2; 35:4). In doing so, John describes Jesus’s adversaries as falling to the ground in the garden, rather than Jesus falling to the ground as recorded in the Gethsemane narratives of Mark and Matthew.

 

These details in John’s Gospel suggest that Jesus, as God, has power over the forces of darkness that have come out to arrest him in the middle of the night with torches. His statement of “I AM” reinforces the idea that Jesus could not have been arrested unless he permitted it. That belief is further substantiated by Jesus when he later stands before Pilate and says: “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above” (John 19:11). In these remarkable ways, John’s account of Jesus’s final night replaces the synoptic emphasis on Jesus’s suffering in Gethsemane with an emphasis on Jesus’s revelation of his divine identity in the garden. (Matthew J. Grey and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Place Called Gethsemane: Seeing the New Testament Story and Site in Its First-Century Context [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2025], 58-59)

 

The TRUTH About Eucharistic Miracles? A Catholic Chemist Investigates (w/ Dr. Stacy Trasancos)

 

The TRUTH About Eucharistic Miracles? A Catholic Chemist Investigates (w/ Dr. Stacy Trasancos)

Trasancos is a Catholic, but, unlike some, not obsessed with prepubescent children, unlike some people . . . 

The Salvation and "Baptism" of Old Testament-Era Saints in "Greek Fragments: Abū Qurrah Was Questioned by an Unbeliever"

  

Unbeliever: Christ declared, “Whoever has not been begotten of water and Spirit will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” What of the righteous who lived before his coming and were not baptized? How can they enter it?

 

Christian: Christ was baptized for them, even as he died for all. It is as he said, “I sanctify myself for them.” At the same time, they too were baptized in a bodily manner.

 

Unbeliever: How can this be?

 

Christian: Don’t you know that those who die are not completely destroyed? Rather, they are dissolved into their composite elements.

 

Unbeliever: That’s true.

 

Christian: It is written that when he was pierced in the side by the lance, water and blood flowed from his side.

 

Unbeliever: Indeed.

 

Christian: Accordingly, when that water was dissolved into the elements, he sanctified all things and baptized those who had been dispersed and dissolved into the elements.

 

Unbeliever: On this account, unbelievers and absolutely all who died before his coming were baptized.

 

Christian: Not at all. Rather, only the bodies of believers, whose souls had faith in Christ when he (that is, his holy soul) descended into hell. Here’s an analogy. Imagine an aqueduct or river of fresh water, one with many trees planted along its banks. Some of these trees are dead and totally desiccated; others are still alive. What do you think? When the water touches them, will all the trees benefit by drawing up water and life, or only those with the ability to receive or attract it? Those that are completely dry will benefit not in the least from the water. In the same way, unbelievers will benefit not in the least from the dissolution of that water into the elements. (“Greek Fragments: Abū Qurrah Was Questioned by an Unbeliever,” in Theodore Abū Qurrah [trans. John C. Lamoreaux; Brigham Young University Middle Eastern Texts Initiative; Library of the Christian East 1; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2005], 254)

 

Witnesses Of The Resurrection Compared to Book of Mormon Witnesses

 

Witnesses Of The Resurrection Compared to Book of Mormon Witnesses

Harriet Jane Osborn’s Patriarchal Blessing from 1882 and "war [being] poured out upon all generations" in the Then-Future

 David Osborn (1807-1893), in his journal for September 6, 1882, recording his daughter’s patriarchal blessing:

 

While I was at Montpelier, Jane gave me a Patriarchal Blessing she received last spring, which I will here record for safe keeping, by Thos. R. McCaxin.

 

Sister Harriet J., in the name of Jesus of Nasareth, I place my hands upon thy head to bless you with a father's blessing. The heavens shall be opened to you and thou shalt converse with Angels and with the Church of the First Born, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon thee and it will lead thee into all truth. Thou shall receive much valuable information concerning the Genealogies of the dead, for thy lineage is of Joseph and thou shall go into the Temple of the Lord and receive thy washings and annointings, and shall represent thy Father's and Mother's House in the interests of humanity until thou art satisfied; for they have heard of thy privilege in as much as it is a Dispensation of building Temples, that thou wouldst remember them. And thou should go into the Sisters meeting and bear thy testimony of the goodness of God. And thou shalt pray in secret and be rewarded openly. And thou shalt have the gift of discernment, and have power over foul spirits, to rebuke them. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon thee. And thy mind shall be enlightened by its blessed influence. And thou shalt be able to discern thy cunning of Satan. Thy name shall be had in honorable remembrance among the Daughters of Israel, and shall be handed down from generation to generation, in as much as thou wilt seek unto the Lord and observe his commandments. Thou shalt see many signs of the coming of thy Redeemer. Thou shalt see many hearts fail them for fear of the things that are coming upon the earth. Thou shalt see the Heavens clothed with blackness and war poured out upon all generations. Thou shalt see signs in the Sun and in the Moon. Thou shalt see Israel returned from the North where they have been hid up for a long time bringing with them the Records of Jesus, and an account of God's dealings with them. And thou shalt see the Lamanites become a white and delightsome people, and turn unto the Lord with full purpose of heart. And thou shalt teach thy children the ways of the Lord, and plant in their minds the Standard of Truth, and the time worn ages of Eternity will not obliterate it. I seal these Blessings upon Thee through thy faithfulness and I seal thee up to come forth in the morning of the first Resurrection, and against the powers of the destroyer. Amen. (David Osborn, Journal, September 6, 1882, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [69], emphasis in bold added, Church History Library, MS 23445, copy in my possession)

 

Harriet Jane received her patriarchal blessing 18 years after the end of the U.S. Civil War. However, the patriarchal blessing uses the language of war being poured out at a then-future time (cf. D&C 87:2). This indicates that Latter-day Saints did not interpret D&C 87 to speak of one then-future war (i.e., the U.S. Civil War) that would spread all over the world (a criticism some critics raise against D&C 87).

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

The Epiclesis as the Moment of the Eucharistic Transformation in "Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abū Qurrah"

  

Theodore: Understand our sacrament to take place in the same manner. The priest puts the bread and wine on the holy altar; and when he prays the sacred Eucharistic prayer, the Holy Spirit descends on the gifts placed there. Through the fire of his divinity, he transforms the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, no less than the liver transforms food into the body of a person. Or don’t you concede, my friend, that the Holy Spirit can do what the liver can do? (“Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abū Qurrah, the Bishop of Harran, As Reported by John the Deacon,” in Theodore Abū Qurrah [trans. John C. Lamoreaux; Brigham Young University Middle Eastern Texts Initiative; Library of the Christian East 1; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2005], 220)

 

David Osborn (1807-1893): Did He Believe Joseph Smith Predicted the Second Coming in 1890/91?

In his journal for April 20, 1874, David Osborn recorded his reminiscence of Joseph Smith’s teachings concerning seeing Jesus if he were to live to 85 years of age (cf. D&C 130:15):

 

In one of his discourses at Nauvoo he said at one time he inquired of the Lord how long or how many years it would be till He would come? He said the answer he received was this: "My servant, Joseph, if you live to be eighty five years old, you shall see my face." In reading his history I find that at the dedication of the Temple at Kirtland, which was in the year 1835, he prophesied the 56 years more would bring the winding up scene of this generation. Which will bring this important event to take place in the year '90 or '91. (David Osborn, Journal, April 20, 1874, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [36], Church History Library, MS 23445, copy in my possession)

 

Did Osborn believe that the Second Coming (Parousia) would occur in 1890/91? It appears that his understanding of Joseph Smith’s teachings and the “winding up scene of this generation” was not the Second Coming. For example, on April 3, 1891(!) we read the following:

 

Again I have thought if I had my life to live over again I could improve in another direction. Our errand or chief purpose in coming to this world, was to get a tabernacle of flesh and also to raise up a posterity. Well, I raised up a few children from Cynthia, my first wife, and have never regretted it, but when I lost her why did I not get a wife that was likely to bring me a few more? A question which I can not answer to my own satisfaction. So it seems that I have failed in improving on the talents with which I have been entrusted, and as it is only our privilege to pass through this life but one time, it is too late to make amends. But it may be that provisions may be made to receive wives and increase in the Millennium by proxy. I will wait and see for I did hear Joseph say that our future Kingdom or exaltation depended to a certain extent on the number of our posterity. (David Osborn, Journal, April 3, 1891, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [92])

 

Here, Osborn speaks of “the Millennium” being a then-future event as of April 1891, and says that he will “wait and see” concerning proxy provision for wives and posterity.

 

Earlier, in an entry for November 20, 1880, Osborn wrote the following:

 

I have received no reply to a very lengthy letter I addressed to S. B. Harrah, my cousin, in Indiana. In this letter I again bore my humble testimony concerning the Latterday work, appealing to the scriptures in proof of the second coming of the Savior and the great events to precede it. (David Osborn, Journal, November 20, 1880, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [57])

 

What is odd is that he would appeal to Scripture to teach about the truth of the Second Coming, but not make reference to the fact that Jesus would return in ~10 years time (unless Osborn did not believe Joseph Smith was teaching the Parousia would take place in 1890/91).

 

Elsewhere, during a High Priest’s theological class study held December 17, 1883, there is a discussion of the Second Coming, but no reference to it taking place in ~7-8 years time:

 

Last fall we had 6 or 7 Elders more ordained into the High Priests Quorum by our President Br. Roskelly. We were counseled by him to change the order of our meetings into a Theological Class, taking up at each meeting a certain subject or principle of the Gospel to investigate. We have spoken on the following subjects: Faith Repentence and Baptism, The Gift and Office of the Holy Spirit, The Gathering of the House of Israel, The Second Coming of the Savior with all His Saints, The Restitution of all Things Spoken by the Ancient Prophets. I am now engaged in getting the Genealogy of the High Priests in our ward for our President to put on the record of the Cache Valley Stake of Zion. I have written and sent off several letters inquiring for the names and Genealogy of my kindred but get no answer. I have not visited my children at Three Mile or Bear Lake Valley for the past season, it seems a long time since we were together. (David Osborn, Journal, December 17, 1883, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [71])

 

It appears that Osborn did not interpret Joseph Smith as teaching that the Second Coming/Parousia would take place in 1890/91.

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies (e.g., Did Joseph Smith Predict that the Second Coming would happen in 1890/91?)

G. P. Luttikhuizen on Elkesite Beliefs Concerning the origins of their Holy Book

Critiquing Louis Midgley and the topic of angels being used to reveal new scriptural texts, Matthew A. Paulson wrote the following:

 

Angels Who Bring Heavenly Books

 

BYU professor Louis Midgley has states [sic],

 

Those steeped in traditional theological perspectives are offended because the text Joseph Smith gave us, the story of its recovery, and the relics are difficult to explain away as allegorical, mythical, or merely highly symbolic ways of talking about what is ultimately ineffable and entirely mysterious. Among such hostile professors of religion, either sectarian or secular, is the dogma that angels simply do not bring books of new scripture.” (Quote is from Louis Midley’s persona book review of By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion by Terryl L. Givens on Amazon website; www.amazon.com. [viewed Jan. 10, 2006])

 

Despite the false claims of Mormon scholars, the Book of Mormon is not the only book that has come from heaven. Besides the Qur’an, another holy book came from heaven to the Elkesites. According to Hippolytus (AD 170-236), the Elkesites arrived in Rome with a book Alcibiades from Apameia from Syria who was an evil man. He brought this book of modern revelations to have come from Elkesai, the founder of the group. It was recorded that the book had fallen from the sky. (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006], 232)

 

Firstly, it should be obvious that Louis Midgley (whom I know personally) was speaking about the acceptance of additional books of revelation as authentic revelation by 19^th century and modern Christians. Of course, Louis knows about the Qur’an and other works (including the book of Revelation, which was revealed, by Jesus, via an angel, to John). Furthermore, Paulson’s presentation of (1) Elkesite beliefs concerning the origins of their holy book and (2) Hippolytus’ understanding in “Refutation of all Heresies” is, to put it nicely, inadequate.

 

The best monograph in English on the topic is that of:

 

G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985)

 

The following are key excerpts dealing with the above two topics:

 

(1) On Elkesite understandings of the origin of their holy book:

 

 

The Two Heavenly Figures of Gigantic Size

 

Most likely, the interest of the book was more in the male angel than in his female companion. This is apparent from the passage (the opening passage?) in which the two figures were introduced. As can be inferred from the four parallel accounts of this passage, the male figure was mentioned first, subsequently his enormous measurements were recorded; only then reference was made to his companion, the Holy Spirit, a female being of equally great size. Note further that in his speaking of the revelatory character of the book, Alcibiades made explicit reference only to the male angel: “it (the book) had been revealed by an angel whose height was 24 schoeni . . .” (Hippolytus, Ref IX 13,2). Cf. 13,4a: “he” had proclaimed a new remission of sins.

 

If we may rely on the above two passages of Hippolytus, Ref IX 13, the message of the book was said to have been revealed particularly by the male figure. This quite possibly implies that the words, “I bear witness to you (plur.) on the Day of the Great Judgment”, were presented as a declaration made by this angelic being. It would seem, in other words, that in the Aramaic book it was the great male angel himself who declared that on the Great Judgment-day he would assist the hearers of his revelation.

 

The gigantic (or rather cosmic?) dimensions of the angel and his being accompanied by the Holy Spirit indicate that he was thought to be a heavenly figure of high rank and position. Perhaps some kind of esoteric speculation underlies the detailed calculation of their measurements.

 

A few features of the manlike angel may be elucidated by comparing them with ideas about such celestial figures as the archangel Michael, the heavenly Melchizedek, and the Son of Man in 1 Enoch.

 

As we have seen above, pp. 181f and 186f, there are reasons to assume that the angel was called hyl(’) ksy(’), “Hidden Power”. It is attractive to explain this name in the light of the concept of the hidden Son of Man as it occurs in the Similitudes of Enoch. According to 1 Enoch 62,7, the Son of Man was hidden from the beginning and preserved in God’s presence; but now God had revealed him to the elect (cf. 48,6f), and before long he would manifest himself in order to save the righteous and to punish and destroy the sinners, the kings and the mighty (1 Enoch 46,4–6; 48,8f; 55,4; 62,3–10). The Son of Man was clearly regarded as an eschatological Saviour figure; his hiddenness was therefore just temporary. In the near future he would be revealed to the whole world. I think that the enormous male angel of the book was called “Hidden Power” for a similar reason: as yet he was hidden with God but in the imminent universal war he was believed to manifest himself and to intervene in behalf of the faithful.

 

Likewise the designation “Great King” (Epiphanius, Pan 19,3,4; cf. Hippolytus, Ref IX 15,1) suggests that the manlike angel was expected to protect and defend the faithful. It is not improbable that some of the eschatological duties of the guardian angel of Israel, Michael, “the Great Prince”, were transferred to this huge angelic being. The identification of a supreme heavenly being with Michael, the head of the heavenly host, is not an isolated instance: there are strong indications that also the Son of Man, the heavenly “king” Melchizedek (in 11 Qumran Melchizedek), and, in Christian texts, Jesus Christ were identified with Michael.

 

It is not difficult to relate our interpretation of the huge manlike figure as a guardian angel and a heavenly representative of the faithful to the book’s announcement of a war among the impious angels (Hippolytus, Ref IX 16,4). It will be recalled that the future war was said to have repercussions in all impious kingdoms. This feature suggests that the godless angels were thought to be the protagonists of these kingdoms. We may assume that it was part of the revelation granted by the “Hidden Power” to assure his addressees that he would protect them during the imminent final war and that he was about to destroy the godless angels and their protégés upon earth.

 

There are reasons to surmise, in conclusion, that the manlike angel of the book was more than a revealer angel: the idea seems to have been that the eschatological Saviour himself had appeared to the author. It will be clear that this hypothesis enables us to explain why in later Christian traditions the angel is called “Son of God” (Hippolytus, Ref IX 13,3) and “Christ” (Epiphanius, Pan 19,3,4; 19,4,1; etc.).

 

The eschatological functions of this angel and those of his female companion, the Holy Spirit, were left unmentioned in the introductory description of these heavenly figures. Apparently, the purpose of this passage of the book was only to describe their appearance. It is noteworthy that according to the book, the huge male angel was accompanied by an equally tall female figure.

 

I think that the second angel, the Holy Spirit, was conceived as a female being merely because in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages the word for “spirit” is grammatically feminine (cf. above, n. 19). In any case, the belief in the existence of two supreme angels seems to me more fundamental than their being regarded as male and female. Are we dealing with a representation of the two chief manifestations of God according to the Hebrew Bible through an Angel of the Lord and through the Spirit of the Lord (who in Ps. 51:13 and Isa. 63:10 and in later Jewish texts is called “Holy Spirit”)? (G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists [Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985], 196-99)

 

(2) On Hippolytus’s presentation of the origins of the Elkesite holy book in “Refutation of all Heresies”:

 

The Book of Revelations

 

Finally, we present the data in the Refutation relating to the content and the message of the book (ἡ βίβλος, cf. IX 13,1.4; 15,1f.3.5; X 29,1).

 

Evidently, Hippolytus had no direct knowledge of this book. Information about the book is found exclusively in his reports of words and views of Alcibiades.

 

I do not aim at distinguishing clearly between quotations and other references to the book. For, firstly, it is not always easy to decide where we are dealing with a citation, and where not, and, secondly, the other references to the book are not a priori less valuable for our knowledge of the book than literal quotations.

 

a. The book contained the description of a vision of two celestial figures of enormous dimensions who had appeared to the anonymous author of the book.

 

Ref IX 13,2f.: “(Alcibiades said that the book) had been revealed by an angel whose height was 24 schoeni — that is 96 miles — and whose girth was 4 schoeni; from shoulder to shoulder he was 6 schoeni; the tracks of his feet were three and a half schoeni long — that is fourteen miles —, the breath being one and a half and the height half a schoenus. With him was a female whose dimensions, he said, accorded with those mentioned, the male being the Son of God and the female was called ‘Holy Spirit’.”

 

From a comparison between IX 13,3 and 15,1 it appears that the male angel was also designated as “the Great King”.

 

b. It was foretold in the book that within three years a war among the impious angels of the North would break out. Presumably this war was thought of as the opening act of an apocalyptic drama.

 

Ref IX 16,3: “Honour also the Sabbath, since it is one of these days. But beware of undertaking anything on the third day of the week too, for, when again three years of Emperor Trajan are completed, from the time he reduced the Parthians to his own sway, when three years have been completed, the war among the impious angels of the North breaks out. Thereby all impious kingdoms are troubled.”

 

c. The book seems to have stipulated how men should act if they wished to be sure of “peace and a share with the just” (cf. IX 15,3).

 

Ref IX 13,4: “(Alcibiades said) that he (the male angel) had proclaimed a new remission of sins ‘as good news to men in the third year of Trajan’s reign.’”

 

Ref IX 15,3: “. . . also to you there will be peace and a share with the just, as soon as you have heard this book (and have been baptized a second time with your garments on).”

 

Ref IX 15,2f.: “Let him call to witness the seven witnesses written in this book: ‘Lo, I call to witness the heaven and the water and the holy spirits and the angels of prayer and the oil and the salt and the earth. I call to witness these seven witnesses that I shall sin no more, I shall not commit adultery, I shall not steal, I shall not do injustice, I shall not be greedy, I shall not hate, I shall not break faith, nor shall I take pleasure in any evil deeds.’”

 

d. The prescription, “honour the Sabbath” (IX 16,3), indicates that we are dealing with a Jewish book. More questionable is whether the author was familiar with Christian ideas. Alcibiades’ designation of the male angel as the Son of God seems to be a reference to (Jesus) Christ, but we are not warranted to say that this title and its possible application to Jesus Christ stem from the text of the book. The references to Parthia, the Parthians, and in particular to Emperor Trajan and his victory over the Parthians (IX 13,1.4, and 16,4 according to Roepper’s emendation) give a clue to the historical situation in which the book was written. (G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists [Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985], 87-88)

 

Further Reading:

Listing of articles responding to "Breaking the Mormon Code"

David J. A. Clines (1993) Interpeting Haman's Fate in the Book of Esther as Impalement, not Hanging

  

The second dimension is of course the more momentous: it continues to fuel the progress of the story well beyond the time when the conflict of Haman and Mordecai has ceased, with Haman impaled on the pole prepared for Mordecai (7.10). (David J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of a Story [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 12)

 

Haman is the only enemy the Jews have. Even his family are not portrayed as anti-Jewish, just anti-Mordecai. Zeresh his wife indeed recommends that Haman should arrange for Mordecai to be impaled on a 75-foot pole in their courtyard (5.14), but this advice seems more to humour her husband who confesses that every honour does him no good, 'so long as I see Mordecai sitting at the king's gate' (5.13), rather than out of any settled hatred of the Jewish people as such. (Ibid., 43)

 

But the important point, which the commentators miss, is that Haman's associates evince no indelible anti-Jewish sentiment but capitulate to the Jewish side as soon as Haman suffers no more than a symbolic rejection. They were eager enough to have Mordecai impaled when Mordecai's continued tenure of office was taking the edge off Haman's delight in hobnobbing with the royals (5.13f.), but the moment Haman tells them of the rather farcical charade in which he—still 'one of the king's most noble princes' according to his own job description (6.9)—has paraded Mordecai through the streets they meekly accept that their patron has no chance before the unstoppable Jewish people. Haman is out in the cold, where he has always really been, the enemy of the Jews, their one and only. (Ibid., 44)

 

In the narrative, unlike the summary, the king did not give orders 'in writing' for the execution of Haman or the impalement of Haman and his sons. . . . Of lesser significance is the fact that the summary gives the impression that Haman and his sons were impaled at the same time, whereas in the narrative some months have intervened between the two events. The compression of the two events is understandable in a summary. (Ibid., 53)

 

The plot-element of the threat to Mordecai has been essentially located within the court: it has been the king's servants at the king's gate who in the first place noticed his insubordination to Haman (3.3), and it has been only at home with his wife and confidants that the fate of Mordecai has been discussed. An eunuch in attendance on the king has discovered that the pole in Haman's courtyard has been prepared for the impalement of Mordecai (7.9). (Ibid., 64)

 

In MT, of course, the Jews slay the sons of Haman in the course of the massacre they carry out on Adar 13; and there Esther's request to the king is only that—after their death—Haman's sons should be impaled, and so, presumably, meet the same fate as their father already has. (Ibid., 80)

 

The king's command to hang/impale Haman on his own gallows/stake (AT 8.13; MT 7.10) is now followed by a report: 'So they impaled Haman on the pole which he had prepared for Mordecai'. (Ibid., 99)

 

The second half of ch. 5 (vv. 9-14) must belong to the Mordecai source since it depicts Raman's wrath against Mordecai, and puts forward the idea that Mordecai should be impaled by Haman; and these verses are necessarily preceded by some account of a banquet given by Esther. (Ibid., 120)

 

I have earlier (section II above) voiced the suspicion that at MT 7.8 the Esther source gave some account of Haman's end—which has now been supplanted by the much more fitting punishment of impalement on the very pole that he had destined for Mordecai. The MT of 7.8 is far from clear, but the AT does give a hint of a more explicit account of Haman's end. After exclaiming 'Does he also rape my wife before my eyes?', in the AT (8.1 If.) the king commands, 'Let Haman be taken away, and let him not seek (? mercy)' (απαχθητω Αμαν και μη ζητω)—to which is added, 'And so he was led away' (και ουτως απηγετο). (Ibid., 129)

 

A eunuch reveals to the king that Haman has been preparing to impale Mordecai on a pole in his courtyard.3 Such a crime against the man who 'spoke good concerning the king' (AT 8.12) can only be correctly punished by the principle of talion. So Haman is impaled, and Mordecai is installed in Haman's place (AT 8.15; MT 8.2); perhaps also some more formal installation of Mordecai as vizier, such as we have in MT 8.15, concluded the tale, but the notice of such an event as we have it in AT 8.39-40 does not appear to be original to the AT but dependent on the MT shape of the story. (Ibid., 142)

 

In the LXX of Esther also, at two critical junctures, we read that 'God changed the spirit of the king to gentleness' (καί μετέβαλεν ό θεός τό πνεύμα τού βασιλέως είς πραύτητα) when Esther entered his presence (D8 = 15.8); and that on the crucial night before the planned impalement of Mordecai, 'the Lord kept sleep from the king' (ό δέ κύριος άπέστησεν τόν ύπνον άπό τού βασιλέως, 6.1). (Ibid., 170)

 

In this particular AT 8.37 agrees with Addition E (AT 8.28 = LXX 16.18); but the relationship between this element of AT and Addition E is not very clear. It may be added that Addition E contradicts the MT and LXX on another aspect of this episode: according to MT, Haman was impaled on the twenty-third of the third month (8.9), but his sons were not impaled until the fourteenth of the twelfth month (9.13). (Ibid., 189 n. 28)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 109: Kirk Watson on 2 Nephi 3 and the Indian Prophet Traditions

 

Episode 109: Kirk Watson on 2 Nephi 3 and the Indian Prophet Traditions

2 Catholics Vs 2 Mormons: Who Has the Correct Authority From God?

Here, Blake and Jacob destroy two Roman Catholics (including Voice of Reason; I hope neither shook hands with him . . . )

2 Catholics Vs 2 Mormons: Who Has the Correct Authority From God?

George Van Kooten: Athenagoras and Justin Martyr Believed in Creation Ex Materia, Not Ex nihilo

  

Many of the early Christians who adopted Plato’s explanation in their interpretations of the creation account in Genesis 1 agreed with the former, literal Platonic interpretation that the cosmos was created in time; with Plato’s Timaeus, they believed that this was not a creation from nothing, but a creation from pre-existing, disorderly matter which was put in order. These early Christians include Justin and Athenagoras. Interestingly, their interpretation of the account in Genesis 1 as an explanation how chaotic, disorderly, pre-existing matter was organized in creation has been vindicated by many modern exegetes of Genesis 1, who are of the opinion that Genesis 1 does not reflect the notion of a creation from nothing, but that the depiction of how “the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep” (Gen 1:2) describes the preliminary situation, which is changed by the creation that is already announced in the opening line of the book of Genesis (Gen 1:1) and subsequently described in what follows the description of preliminary chaos. (George Van Kooten, “’Mind the (Ontological) Gap!’: The Collateral Loss of the Pauline-Stoic Creation ‘From God’ in the Joint Attack of the Arian-Nicene Creation ‘From Nothing’ on the platonic Creation ‘From Disorderly Matter,’” in From Protology to Eschatology: Competing Views on the Origin and the End of the Cosmos in Platonism and Christian Thought, ed. Joseph Verheyden, Geert Roskam, and Gerd Van Riel [Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022], 168-69)

 

Notes on Esther 2:23 and Impalement/Crucifixion

  

impaled on stakes. The Hebrew appears to say “were hanged on a tree,” but the historical evidence points to impalement, not hanging, as the customary form of execution in the ancient Near East. In many instances, the condemned person was put to death in some other fashion and his impaled body was then displayed as a form of humiliation. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:723)

 

 

Gallows are a structure made from upright posts and a crossbeam from which a person was hanged with a rope, or he was nailed to the crossbeam. The Hebrew is literally “hanged on a tree [or, wood],” but the exact meaning of this phrase is not entirely clear. It can refer to hanging, but alternatively it can mean “impaled on a stake” (see Ezra 6:11), and historical evidence indicates that the Persians did use that form of punishment. This second interpretation is followed by njv, “the two were impaled on stakes.”

 

Also possible is the view that crucifixion is meant; but because of the height of the structure built by Haman in 5:14, many interpreters think that the references to hanging in Esther 2:23; 5:14; 6:4; 7:9, 10; 8:7; 9:13, 14, 25 all refer to gallows, that is, to strangulation by hanging from a rope that is tied around the neck (so tev and nearly all translations).

 

Where structures for hanging are not known, it may be necessary to use a descriptive phrase; for instance, “a wooden structure for hanging [or, killing].” (Roger L. Omanson and Philip A. Noss, A Handbook on the Book of Esther: The Hebrew and Greek Texts [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1997], 85)

 

 

The Heb. word typically translated “gallows” here literally means “tree,” or simply “wooden object.” There is no evidence in antiquity for execution by hanging someone with a noose around their neck and allowing them to strangle. More likely, the text refers to the common practice of impaling victims on wooden stakes. This barbaric practice could be used either as an actual method of execution, or—more often—it could be used to display the bodies of people who were executed by other means. As a method of execution, impalement would have been very painful; the real purpose of the practice, however, was not so much torture as to make a public display of the malefactors. Another possibility, though less likely, is that the text was referring to crucifixion, which the Persians also practiced (Hist. 7.33, 194; see also Clines, 292–93). (Anthony Tomasino, Esther [Evangelical Exegetical Commentary; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], 206)

 

 

Ezra 6:11 may imply that the Persians continued to use impalement as a method of execution. The references to “hanging” in Esther (2:23; 5:14) probably refer to either impalement or crucifixion. The “hangman’s noose” was not commonly used in Persia during the biblical period. The word translated as “gallows” in the NKJV refers not to a scaffold for hanging with a rope, but a pole or stake for impaling.

 

Crucifixion on a stake or cross was practiced by the Greeks, notably Alexander the Great, who hung 2,000 people on crosses when the city of Tyre was destroyed. During the period between Greek and Roman control of Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified 800 Pharisees who opposed him at Bethome. But these executions were condemned as detestable and abnormal by decent-minded people of Jannaeus’s day as well as by the later Jewish historian, Josephus. (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Christopher Fisher's Response to Gavin Ortlund on Servetus (and Fisher's "The Calvin Servetus Sourcebook")

Whenever Calvinists try to defend John Calvin and his role in the execution of Servetus (October 1553), they usually take the same approach as SA apologists: "yeah, Jenny being gang SA'd was wrong, but she was a jerk in 5th grade and also, she wore a short skirt: kinnda asking for it."

Here is one response by Christopher Fisher (vs. Gavin Ortlund):

Hangout Responding to Gavin Ortlund on Servetus

Fisher has produced three volumes reproducing the relevant writings from Calvin, Servetus, et al. on his trial, execution, and aftermath (two more volumes are forthcoming).

The Calvin Servetus Sourcebook:

Volume 1: Servetus Trial Documents and Exhibits

Volume 2: The Letters

Volume 3: Beza’s The Life of Calvin and Bolsec’s Life of Calvin

John Chrysostom on Matthew 26:13//Mark 14:9

  

Who then proclaimed it, and caused it to be spread abroad? It was the power of Him who is speaking these words. And while of countless kings and generals the noble exploits even of those whose memorials remain have sunk into silence; and having overthrown cities, and encompassed them with walls, and set up trophies, and enslaved many nations, they are not known so much as by hearsay, nor by name, though they have both set up statues, and established laws; yet that a woman who was a harlot poured out oil in the house of some leper, in the presence of ten men, this all men celebrate throughout the world; and so great a time has passed, and yet the memory of that which was done hath not faded away, but alike Persians and Indians, Scythians and Thracians, and Sarmatians, and the race of the Moors, and they that dwell in the British Islands, spread abroad that which was done secretly in a house by a woman that had been a harlot. (John Chrysostom, The Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 80.2)

 

Evagrius (Origenist) 345-399: Discussion of “Altars” in Kephalaia Gnostika

  

2.57. We have learned that there are three altars of the heights: the third is simple, whereas the two (others) are composed. And that wisdom which is about the second altar reveals the wisdom of the third, whereas that which is about the first altar comes first vis-à-vis that which is in the second one. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 123)

 

This is another kephalaion that focuses on a gnoseological hierarchy, here delineated in three steps. The imagery of the “altars” alludes to various degrees in the progression of the gnosis. However, terminology must be paid attention to: here it is a matter not of “contemplation” (theōria) or “knowledge” proper but of “wisdom,” ܐܬܡܟܚ, corresponding to Greek σοφία. Evagrius describes wisdom as follows: “wisdom [σοφία] is knowledge [γνῶσις] of corporeal and incorporeal realities and the contemplation in them of judgment and providence” (scholium 3 on Prov 1:2). Wisdom is the main epinoia of Christ, together with that of Logos. Knowledge is connected with the Logos-epinoia of Christ; Wisdom with his Wisdom-epinoia. These are the two main epinoiai of Christ; according to Origen, Wisdom is the very first epinoia of Christ, even anterior to “Logos,” because the Logos itself was from eternity in Wisdom. As Origen remarked in his Commentary on John, commenting on John 1:1 (“in the beginning was the Logos,” ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος), the Logos “has its hypostasis, or individual substance, in Wisdom, who is the Beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ τῇ Σοφίᾳ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχων). See Ramelli, “Origen, Greek Philosophy.” (Ibid., 123-24)

 

 

2.58. Those who now live in breadth have been given the three altars, whereas those who live in length and depth will be given them in the world/aeon to come. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 124)

 

Evagrius goes on to speak of the three altars and the wisdom that concerns them, of which he has already spoken in KG 2.57. The distinction that he draws in the present kephalaion seems to be between rational creatures who live in a diastematic condition, and thus in space and time in this world—that is, human beings during the present life—and rational creatures that are free from διαστήματα—in particular, he seems to be thinking of angels. Humans will attain the three “altars,” or the three grades of wisdom, like angels, when they are in the other world. Breadth suggests the stay and wandering in the present aeon, while depth and length suggest a vertical ascent toward God, throughout the aeons. The scriptural reference underlying this kephalaion is Eph 3:18–19: “I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge.” In a scholium on Prov 3:19–20 Evagrius comments precisely on this passage: “That which here [the author of Proverbs] has called ‘earth,’ Saint Paul denominates ‘breadth’ [πλάτος], and what are here called ‘heavens’ Paul in his letter to the Ephesians calls ‘height’ [ὕψος], and that which he allegorically calls ‘abysses’ (Paul) denominates ‘depth’ [βάθος], and the ‘clouds dropping water’ he calls ‘length’ [μῆκος]. All these symbolize the rational creatures distributed in orders/arrangements [κόσμοις] and bodies [σώμασιν] according to their state.” This confirms the association I proposed of the dimensions mentioned by Evagrius with different orders of rational creatures. (Ibid., 124-25)

 

 

4.88. Among the three altars of knowledge, there are two that have a circle, whereas one is seen without a circle. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 243)

 

The idea conveyed by this kephalaion may be that two kinds of knowledge are circumscribed and limited, whereas the third is unlimited. The two limited kinds of knowledge seem to be the knowledge of corporeal realities and that of incorporeal creatures, those that Evagrius calls secondary and primary; the third kind of knowledge is that of the Trinity, which is unlimited just as the Trinity is, which is “essential knowledge” (see above, KG 4.77 and 4.87, with the relevant commentaries). The infinity of God is a trait that characterizes Gregory of Nyssa and goes back to Origen. On the three altars, see KG 2.57–58 above and the relevant commentaries. (Ibid., 243)

 

 

5.53. The spiritual sacrifice is a pure conscience, that which is laid (offered) on the state of the intellect as on an altar. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 297)

 

Persius Flaccus, the Roman Stoic who wrote philosophical satires, also identified the pureness of one’s thoughts and the honesty of one’s heart as the true and best sacrifice, besides which no further sacrifice is needed (Satire 2.71–75). See Ramelli, Stoici romani minori, 1361–515, also with the review by Gretchen Reydams-Schils in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, October 2009, http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-10-10.html. A parallel concept is found in Paul’s “rational cult,” or λογικὴ λατρεία; moreover, in Paul the notion of “conscience,” or συνείδησις, is paramount (see Philip Bosman, Conscience in Philo and Paul [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003]), and from him it was picked up by Christian authors. See Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Conscience. IV. Christianity,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (ed. Hans-Joseph Klauck et al.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 3:650–52. It is a Christian, Theophilus, who attests (To Autolycus 2.4) that in Stoicism each one’s conscience is so important as to be divine; indeed, especially the Roman Stoics and authors who were strongly influenced by them, such as Seneca and Juvenal, emphasized the role of conscience (see Ramelli, Stoici romani minori, 2599–626, s.v. “coscienza,” and passim in the essays and commentaries therein). Juvenal, Satire 13, observes that conscience produces remorse for one’s sins and works as the divinity’s principal instrument to punish human sins. Paul was probably acquainted with the Stoic conception of conscience, and Evagrius was surely acquainted with Paul’s notion. (Ibid., 297-98)

 

 

5.84. The intelligible temple is the pure intellect, that in which now there is the Wisdom of God, “full of varieties/modalities.” Indeed, God’s temple is the one who is a seer of the holy Unity, and God’s altar is the contemplation of the Holy Trinity. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 311)

 

Evagrius continues his series of interpretations of elements related to buildings and the city (5.74, 77, 80, 82). If, as I suggested, the city he has in mind is the holy city of the Apocalypse (Rev 21–22), this would perfectly fit his present interpretation of the temple as the bare/pure intellect, since the temple of the Apocalypse is explicitly identified, not with a temple of stones, but with God and Christ (Rev 21:22). Likewise the stones that make up the holy city are identified by Origen with rational creatures (On First Principles 2.11.2–3; see above, the commentary on KG 4.30), and John himself in the Apocalypse says that the victor in the battle against evil will be a pillar in the temple of God, which will never go out (Rev 3:12, a passage that was dear to Origen). Moreover, mentions of the temple and temple imagery are scattered throughout the Apocalypse. See Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Jesus, James the Just, a Gate, and an Epigraph,” in Kein Jota und kein Häkchen des Gesetzes werden vergehen (vgl. Q 16,17): Das Gesetzesverständnis der Logienquelle auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Theologie (ed. Markus Tiwald; BWANT 200; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013), 203–29.

 

The definition of God’s Wisdom, who is Christ, as “full of varieties/ modalities” comes from Eph 3:10. This biblical quotation is a favorite of Evagrius’s, who uses it also in KG 1.43; 2.2, 21; 3.11; and 4.7 (see above, the relevant commentaries). Origen elaborated on it for his image of Christ- Logos-Wisdom bearing the paradigmatic Ideas or logoi of all beings on his surface, notably the same image that was used by Bardaisan of Edessa. See Ramelli, Bardaisan of Edessa, 107–24, and new remarks in Ramelli, “Preexistence of Souls,” the section on Bardaisan. See also above, the commentary on KG 2.2.

 

The altar too is often mentioned in the Apocalypse (Rev 6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). In this kephalaion the temple and the altar as symbols of the contemplation (θεωρία) of the divine Unity and Trinity remind readers of the mystery of God as one nature in three hypostases. Evagrius in this respect was in perfect continuity with the Cappadocians, who had inherited this theological point from Origen. See Ilaria Ramelli, “Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line,” VC 65 (2011): 21–49; idem, “Origen, Greek Philosophy.” (Ibid., 311-12)