Why Do Latter-day Saints Leave the Church? Dan Ellsworth Responds to Torn

 

Why Do Latter-day Saints Leave the Church? Dan Ellsworth Responds to Torn

Terry L. Johnson (Reformed): Paul is using David as an Example of a Justified Person in Romans 4:6-8 (cf. Psalm 32)

 Commenting on Rom 4:6-8 (cf. Psa 32):

 

The ‘blessed’ man is one ‘to whom God reckons righteousness’, and that ‘apart from works’. Notice the apostle’s point. It is not as though justification by faith alone were an article of faith taught in a single obscure place. He points to Abraham and David as examples of those in whom the addition and subtraction of justification have been experienced. Their sins were forgiven’, ‘covered’ and ‘not taken into account’, what we have termed the ‘subtraction’ of justification. They were also ‘recknon(ed) righteous’, what we have called the ‘addition’ of justification. All that has been done ‘apart from works’. These ‘case studies’ of Abraham and David are cited as examples of what is true throughout the whole Old Testament. (Terry L. Johnson, The Case for Traditional Protestantism: The Solas of the Reformation [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004], 89)

 

To see how this is a “self-own” as the kids would say, see the discussion of King David and his re-justification at:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

 

 

"Elias" as a "Forerunner" in the Revelations of Antonio A. Feliz (Restoration Church of Jesus Christ)

I am always interested in how other Restorationist groups use “Elias” to denote a forerunner, not simply OT Elijah (cf. “Elias” as a “forerunner” in LDS Scripture).

 

As background, Antonio A. Feliz served as president of "The Church of Jesus Christ of All Latter-day Saints," later renamed "Restoration Church of Jesus Christ." The following comes from The Book of the Little Flock, comp. Evan Sharley (2026)

 

"Hidden Treasures and Promises," Section 24:11 (May 15, 1986):

 

11. For, my son, thou art called with a call of Elias, yea, even to be my Messenger unto the saints of the latter-days that they may return unto Me and also that they may lift up their eyes from their downtrodden places and that they may reach up unto The Most High from beneath the shadow of their guilt. (p. 143)

 

"The Book of the First Presidents," Section 7: (February 13, 1987):

 

19. Even now, my Holy Spirit is moving upon the people of the earth in these things; for it is by my Holy Spirit that they know of the need to seek to begin their path of exaltation unto the Terrestrial. Be thou, therefore - together with those of my Holy Priesthood who will join with thee - as one with the spirit and calling of Elias - even my messenger - unto them. Even so, amen. (p. 218)

 

 

Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl: "the Holy Spirit does not quote the Scriptures, but gives Scripture"

 Commenting on D&C 59:5-6:

 

5-6. Our Lord has declared that these are the greatest commandments in the Law, because upon them “hang” all the Law and the Prophets. The Word of God presupposes and depends on love of God and fellowmen. If there is no such love, laws and instructions are of but little avail.

 

Heart, might, mind, and strength] “Heart” stands for “emotions,” “sentiment.” “Might” here stands for “soul,” the term used in Matthew 22:37, and means the spiritual faculties. “Mind” refers to the intellect, and “strength” to the physical attributes. This commandment enjoins on us to love our heavenly Father so that our entire beings—our emotions, our spiritual faculties, our mental and physical activities are all devoted to Him and His service.

 

In Deuteronomy 6:5, the great commandment reads “Heart,” “soul,” and “might”; Matthew has, “Heart,” “soul,” and “mind”; Mark has, “Heart,” “soul,” “mind,” and Luke, “Heart,” “soul,” “strength,” and “mind.” In the Doctrine and Covenants the text differs somewhat from all. When the Spirit of the Lord speaks through a human instrument, He acts independently, even when proclaiming truths formerly revealed. Strictly speaking, the Holy Spirit does not quote the Scriptures, but gives Scripture. (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, The Doctrine and Covenants: Containing Revelations Given to Joseph Smith Jr., the Prophet, with an Introduction and Exegetical Notes [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1945], 438-49, emphasis in bold added)

 

Kenneth Wilson (Protestant) vs. Common Proof-Texts for Believers Having Immediate Union with Christ At Death" (e.g., Hebrews 9:27)

  

“Immediate union with Christ occurs at death”

 

Protestants cite numerous scriptures claiming these teach immediate union with Christ upon death. These include Heb 9:27, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” (NASB) After death God judges people. Nothing infers when that judgment will occur. If I say, “I am going to eat ice cream after I arrive home,” that does not mean I will immediately open the freezer and eat ice cream. I may want to eat dinner prior to eating dessert tonight. I may want to spend time with my wife discussing her day. Claiming that this verse proves an immediate blissful abode with Christ cannot withstand scrutiny. Additionally, “after that the judgment” does not sound particularly blissful. Judgment comes prior to Christ’s embrace. How is that immediate union?

 

Another passage cited by Protestants is 2 Cor 5:6-8. “So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” (ESV) Many authors miss the context by neglecting the verses that follow: “So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” (2 Cor 5:9-10) Death inevitably produces a meeting with God, but again, no time frame is provided. Christ’s judgment seat does not appear to generate bravery unless you are pleasing the Lord by obeying him (1 John 2:28). Judgment precedes union. (The judgment seat of Christ may occur at each individual’s death rather than postponed until the Great White Throne judgment)

 

Phil 1:21-24 has also been used. “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if to live in the flesh,--if this shall bring fruit from my work, then what I shall choose I know not. But I am a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better: yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake.” (ASV) Paul’s desire to be with Christ after death in no way proves he is ushered directly into Christ’s arms upon dying. A judgment must precede it. This verse does not support immediate bliss with Christ after death.

 

In Rev 6:9-11, Christian martyrs plead with God for judgment upon their killers. “And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a great voice, saying, ‘How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?’” (DRA) This is one of the stronger arguments but still falls short. Scripture does not tell us anything about what transpired between death and the martyrs being under the altar. No immediacy exists. This does not imply soul sleep, although bodily sleep is evident elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor 11:29-30; 1 Thess 4:13-18).

 

Similarly, the saints who are martyred in the Great Tribulation indeed stand before God to serve Him. But the text does not state they went immediately to God’s Throne.

 

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes . . . So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation [της θλιψεως της μεγαλης], and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple.” (Rev 7:9-15, NKJV)

 

The words of Christ to the thief (Luke 23:34) could possibly limit a delay into Christ’s presence to a single day. “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!’ And He said to him, ‘I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise.’” (HCSB) This assumes that paradise was incorporated into “Heaven” after Christ’s resurrection. It cannot be proven. IT also assumes the thief experienced immediate bliss instead of a preceding judgment “today.” It is unlikely the thief entered Paradise bypassing Christ’s judgment of his works, since Scripture teaches judgment must occur. Therefore, no Scripture states that immediately upon death we are at peace with Christ. In fact, repeatedly in scripture, a judgment of our deeds occurs prior to that intimacy with Christ. (Kenneth Wilson, The Purgatory Principle for Protestants: How God’s Purifying Judgment and Mercy Answer Injustice [Montgomery, Tex.: Regula Fidei Press, 2023], 76-79)

 

What the Critics wont tell you about the Book of Abraham

What the Critics wont tell you about the Book of Abraham

 

Morgenstern and Segan on the Genesis Apocryphon Presenting Abraham as being a Prophet Who Receives Oracles Via Dreams

  

19:14. And I, Abram, dreamt a dream on the night that I entered the land of Egypt The addition of a dream, perceived in antiquity as a form of divine communication, offers a justification for Abram’s seemingly selfish behavior in the biblical story. Instead of presenting him as an opportunist who is willing to endanger his wife to save his own skin, this interpreter has now transformed Abram into a prophet who received a divine warning about this impending danger. Furthermore, according to the content of the dream, Sarai, represented by the palm tree, is the one who raises her concerns over possible harm to Abram, represented by the cedar tree, and not Abram himself. (Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segan, “The Genesis Apocryphon,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, 3 vols. [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013], 1:251)

 

John T. Townsend (1968) on 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead

  

The enigmatic words “οι βαπτιζόμενοι ύπέρ τών νεκρών" found in I Cor. 15:29 have been subject to various interpretations, but they have usually been understood to refer to some form of vicarious baptismal rite intended to benefit somehow those who have died. Such a rite would be meaningless if a man's fate had been fully determined during his lifetime; and in view of this difficulty some commentators have asserted that, although the Apostle tolerated the rite, he did not approve of it. Such a suggestion, however, appears somewhat forced, and a better explanation is that Paul had no reason to condemn the rite because he believed that the final opportunity for salvation would not precede the end of the age. (John T. Townsend, “1 Corinthians 3:15 and the School of Shammai,” Harvard Theological Review 61, no. 3 [July 1968]: 503)

 

Bradshaw, Bowen, and Thompson on Genesis 12:8 and “his” or “her” tent

  

pitched his tent. The consonantal text literally reads: “pitched her tent.” Rashi commented that this means that Abram pitched Sarai’s tent before his own. However, a similar puzzling syntactic construction occurs in the story of Noah in conjunction as part of what appears to be a description of worship within a sacred tent—a proto-temple.  Both there and here, the Zohar offers an explanation that takes the letter he of the Hebrew feminine possessive to mean “‘the tent of that vineyard,’ namely, the tent of Shekhinah.” Shekhinah is the Hebrew term for “the divine feminine” that was used to describe the presence of Yahweh in Israelite temples. The idea of Abraham putting up a sacred “tent of meeting” is consistent with the report in the same verse that he built an altar and “called upon the name of the Lord.” Indeed, in a variant of the same theme, some modern commentators take the letter he in the Hebrew text of Genesis as referring to Yahweh, hence reading the term as the “Tent of Yahweh,” the divine sanctuary. (Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen, and John S. Thompson, In God’s Image and Likeness 3: The Family of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar [Salt Lake City: Eborn Books; Orem, Utah: The Interpreter Foundation, 2025], 31)

 

Postmortem Purgation of Sins in Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16a, 16b-17a

  

Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16a:

 

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֶלֶךְ וְצִבּוּר — מֶלֶךְ נִכְנָס תְּחִלָּה לַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפַּט עַבְדּוֹ וּמִשְׁפַּט עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל״. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמֵיתַב מַלְכָּא אַבָּרַאי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיפּוֹשׁ חֲרוֹן אַף.

 

§ About this verse Rav Ḥisda said: When a king and a community are brought before God for judgment, the king is brought in for judgment first, as it is stated: “To make the judgment of His servant,” and afterward: “And the judgment of His people Israel.” What is the reason for this? If you wish, say that it is not proper conduct for the king to stand outside and wait for the trial of his subjects to come to an end. And if you wish, say instead that the king is brought in first so that he may be judged before God’s anger intensifies due to the sins of the community, and consequently he may be saved from overly harsh judgment.

 

 

Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a:

 

תַּנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שָׁלֹשׁ כִּתּוֹת הֵן לְיוֹם הַדִּין: אַחַת שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאַחַת שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין, וְאַחַת שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִיִּים. צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם, רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִין — נִכְתָּבִין וְנֶחְתָּמִין לְאַלְתַּר לְגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרַבִּים מִיְּשֵׁנֵי אַדְמַת עָפָר יָקִיצוּ אֵלֶּה לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְאֵלֶּה לַחֲרָפוֹת לְדִרְאוֹן עוֹלָם״, בֵּינוֹנִיִּים — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם,

 

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: There will be three groups of people on the great Day of Judgment at the end of days: One of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written and sealed for eternal life. Wholly wicked people will immediately be written and sealed for Gehenna, as it is stated: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Middling people will descend to Gehenna to be cleansed and to achieve atonement for their sins,

 

17a

 

וּמְצַפְצְפִין וְעוֹלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּאֵשׁ וּצְרַפְתִּים כִּצְרוֹף אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וּבְחַנְתִּים כִּבְחוֹן אֶת הַזָּהָב הוּא יִקְרָא בִשְׁמִי וַאֲנִי אֶעֱנֶה אוֹתוֹ״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמְרָה חַנָּה: ״ה׳ מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה מוֹרִיד שְׁאוֹל וַיָּעַל״.

 

and they will cry out in their pain and eventually ascend from there, as it is stated: “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; they shall call on My name, and I will answer them” (Zechariah 13:9). This is referring to the members of the third group, who require refinement and cleansing. And about them, Hannah said: “The Lord kills, and gives life; he brings down to the grave, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6).

 

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד. וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר דָּוִד: ״אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה׳ אֶת קוֹלִי״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמַר דָּוִד כׇּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ — ״דַּלּוֹתִי וְלִי יְהוֹשִׁיעַ״.

 

Beit Hillel say: He Who is “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) tilts the scales in favor of kindness, so that middling people should not have to pass through Gehenna. And about them, David said: “I love the Lord, Who hears my voice and my supplications” (Psalms 116:1). And about them, David said the entire passage: “I was brought low [daloti] and He saved me” (Psalms 116:6). Although they are poor [dalim] in mitzvot, God saves them.

 

Postmortem Purgation of Sins in Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13:3

  

13:3 A. The House of Shammai says, “There are three groups, one for eternal life, one for shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2)—these are those who are completely evil.

 

B. “An intermediate group go down Gehenna and scream and come up again and are healed,                                                                                                    

 

C. “as it is said, I will bring the third part through fire and will refine them as silver is refined and will test them as gold is tested, and they shall call on my name and I will be their God (Zech. 13:9).

 

D. “And concerning them did Hannah say, The Lord kills and brings to life, brings down to Sheol and brings up (1 Sam. 2:6).”

 

E. And the House of Hillel say, “Great in mercy (Ex. 34:6)—He inclines the decision toward mercy,

 

F. “and concerning them David said, I am happy that the Lord has heard the sound of my prayer (Ps. 116:1),

 

G. “and concerning them is said the entire passage.” (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13:3, in The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction, 2 vols. [trans. Jacob Neusner; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 2:1188-89)

 

Notes on Tithing in Early Christianity

  

Every true prophet that wishes to abide among you is worthy of his support. Likewise, a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of the wine-press and the threshing- floor, of oxen and of sheep, you will take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets. Didache (c. 80-140, E), 7.381.

 

The wealthy among us help the needy.... As for the persons who are prosperous and are willing, they give what each thinks fit. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.185, 186.

 

Instead of the Law commanding the giving of tithes, He taught us to share all our possessions with the poor. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.477.

 

The class of oblations in general has not been set aside. For there were both oblations there [among the Jews] and there are oblations here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the [Israelite] people; sacrifices there are, too, in the church. Only the outward form has been changed. For the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by free men..,. [The Jews] had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him. In contrast, those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord's purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.484, 485.

 

At the beginning, God accepted the gifts of Abel, because he offered with single-mindedness and righteousness. However, He had no respect for the offering of Cain, because his heart was divided with envy and malice. . . . For if anyone will endeavor to offer a sacrifice merely for outward appearances,. . . such an oblation will not profit him anything. . .. Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man. For God stands in no need of sacrifice. But it is the conscience of the person offering that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.485.

 

On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation—but only if it is his pleasure and only if he is able. For there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.46.

 

They used to sell houses and estates so that they might lay up for themselves treasures in heaven. They presented the proceeds from them to the apostles, to be distributed for the use of the poor. However, now, we do not even give the tenths from our patrimony! Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.429.

 

Let the bishop use as a man of God those tithes and first-fruits that are given according to the command of God. Let him also dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings that are brought in for the poor. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.408

 

Give to the priest those things that are due to him—the first-fruits of your [threshing] floor and of your wine-press. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.413.

 

 

C. Early Judaism and Christianity

 

In both early Jewish and early Christian exegesis of the scriptural references to tithes the Deuteronomic sacrificial meal is forgotten. Another characteristic common to both early Jews and early Christians is generalizing of the tithes. Whereas in the OT tithes apply to specific agricultural products, rabbinic and patristic exegesis tends to include all agricultural products and eventually all forms of income as subject to the tithe. In the Mishnaic tractate on tithes (Maʿaśerot) is the statement, “Whatsoever is used for food, and is kept watch over, and grows from the soil, is liable to Tithes” (1:1), not just grain, wine, and oil. Later extensive lists are drawn up of every agricultural product subject to the tithe, including even relatively insignificant herbs such as thyme and mustard. This generalizing tendency can already be seen in the 2d century b.c.e. in the book of Tobit: “Of all my produce I would give a tenth to the sons of Levi who ministered at Jerusalem; a second tenth I would sell, and I would go and spend the proceeds each year at Jerusalem, the third tenth I would give to those to whom it was my duty” (1:7–8). Very early in the history of Christianity tithes are extended to include money. This occurs for the first time in Didache 13:7 (late first or early 2d century c.e.), then in all subsequent Christian writing on tithes. Despite this generalizing tendency virtually all references in early Judaism and early Christianity are to tithes (plural) not to the tithe. Tithes do not become the tithe until much later in the history of Christianity.

 

Another widespread tendency of early Christianity is the identification of the OT Levites, the principal beneficiaries of the tithes, with Christian priests. Origen writes, “God orders the priest-Levite who possessed no land himself, to live together with an Israelite who possesses land. And the priest-Levite should receive those earthly things which he does not have from the Israelite; and the Israelite should correspondingly receive the heavenly and divine things from the priest-Levite. The priest should be completely free to devote himself exclusively to the service of God. He should be supported just as we provide oil for a lamp so that it can give light” (Homilies on Joshua 17:3, quoted in Vischer 1966: 27). The Apostolic Constitutions carry this tendency a step further by equating the OT priestly order with church order. The bishops are the equivalent of the high priest; the elders, of the priests; the deacons, of the Levites (ANF 7:410).

 

Two different lines of interpretation of the OT commandments on tithing may be discerned in the writings of the Church Fathers. Many of the earlier fathers and especially the early monastic writers regarded the OT commandments on tithing as superseded by the teachings of Jesus. The Hebrews were to give a tenth, but Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had to give to the poor (Matt 19:21 = Mark 10:21 = Luke 18:22). Irenaeus writes that the Jews “had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him, but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely” (haer. 4:18 in ANF 1:485). Nonetheless Christians did not give all that they had; most did not even give a tithe. The sermons of fathers such as Cyprian and Chrysostom occasionally rebuke Christians by implying that those who do not tithe are inferior to the Jews. Chrysostom writes, “Someone told me with great amazement that so-and-so gives a tithe. How shameful it is that what was taken for granted among the Jews has now become an amazing thing among Christians. And if non-payment of the tithe puts a man in jeopardy with God then, consider how many are in such danger today” (Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 2; quoted in Vischer 1966: 16). A second line of patristic interpretation, more characteristic of the post-Nicene period, sees the OT tithes as an acceptable, though minimal, standard of giving for Christians. Augustine was the chief spokesperson for this viewpoint. (J. Christian Wilson, “Tithe,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 6:580)

 

 

Tithing in the Early Church. In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists the common words for tithing do not appear. Nevertheless, giving still continued to be an important part of early Christian worship. Justin Martyr observes that every Sunday “those who prosper and so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows and those who are in want … and those who are in bonds and the strangers who are sojourners among us” (I Apol. 67; cf. also Apost. Const. 2, 27). Irenaeus considered tithing to be a Jewish law not required of Christians for Christians had received “liberty” and should consequently give without external constraint (Haer. 4, 18, 2). Origen viewed tithes as something to be far exceeded by Christians in their giving (In Num. hom. 11). Hence, for the early Fathers of the Church, as for the writers of the NT, the tithe was a thing of the past; a new principle for giving was guiding them now and propelling them to share—the goodness of God and the inward compulsion of the Holy Spirit.

 

Note that in this primitive period of the church’s history, giving was still voluntary, was directly related to whether God had prospered a person or not and was chiefly for the aiding of the poor. Little or nothing is said about how the clergy and the church were sustained. Presumably they were kept going by the free will gifts of the people to whom they ministered. Later, however, tithing was reintroduced as a means of supporting the church. It was reintroduced first by instruction with the aid of such NT passages as Matt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7; 1 Cor. 9:3f., etc., and on a voluntary basis. Eventually, however, the power of civil law was required to effect what instruction failed to accomplish. The renowned decree of Charlemagne (A.D. 785) no longer gave the people an option—they were taxed for the support of the church whether they liked it or not. (G. F. Hawthrone, “Tithe,” in New Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986], 3:854-55)

 

M. L. Garfield Cook on D&C 87:2-3, 8

  

And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. . . . Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen. (D&C 87:2-3, 8)

 

Commenting on D&C 87:2-3, 8:

 

The gospel is the means of saving the house of Israel from the famine of which Amos spoke (Amos 8:11) and of judging the nations (2 Ne. 25:22-23). The Lord promised that all kindreds of the earth would be blessed with the blessings of the gospel through the seed of Abraham (1 Ne. 22:9; Abr. 2:11). This could not happen unless the Lord would make bare his arm in the eyes of all nations; therefore, the Lord God would do so in his due time (1 Ne. 22:10-11; Is. 52:10; Rev. 11:6-13; D&C 1:14; 45:44-48; 88:88-93; 90:9-10).

 

To date wars have served to open the doors of nations for the preaching of the gospel. World Wars I and II were in partial fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s 1832 prophecy on war. War began to be poured out upon all nations in World War I after Great Britain called upon other nations to defend itself against other nations. World War I began precisely 70 years after the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith. These 70 years reference the eventual reunification of Judah and Ephraim. Seventy years from Thursday, AD 27 Jume 1844, brings us to Sunday, AD 27 June 1914. The next day, on Monday, AD 28 June 1914, Ferdinand and Sophie, duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated while driving through the streets of Sarejevo. This event triggered World War I. This date was 2520 years from the time Daniel was taken captive into Babylon. Forty-two months (3.5 years or 1260 days) after the 1st World War was triggered Jerusalem was redeemed for the political return of the Jews (Rev. 13:5; cf. p. 105). (M. Garfield Cook, Cornerstones of the Restoration: A Message Extracted From a Genealogical Record [rev ed.; Salt Lake City: Hiller Book Binders, 1999], 94-95)

 

 

Joseph Smith prophesied that the wars leading up to the Second Coming began in South Carolina (D&C 87:1-2, 6-8). Civil War in the United States began on AD 12 April 1861. The Southern States called upon Great Britain to help defend themselves from the Northern States as prophesied. The Prophet said further that war would be poured out upon all nations when Great Britain called upon other nations to defend itself against other nations (D&C 87:3; cf. 1 Ne. 14:16). This occurred beginning in World War I. (M. Garfield Cook, Cornerstones of the Restoration: A Message Extracted From a Genealogical Record [rev ed.; Salt Lake City: Hiller Book Binders, 1999], 98)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Joseph S. Park on "Memorial" as a designation for the tomb

  

“Memorial” as a designation for the tomb

 

It is hardly surprising, given the function of the tomb as the primary occasion for the remembrance of the deceased, that the most common use of the idea of memory in our inscriptions occurs in the designation of the tomb as a “memorial.” Also, it is an indication of the high level of currency of the designation that several different Greek and Latin words are used in this way.

 

The most common Greek terms to be used in this way are μνημα and the closely related μνημιον, occurring, for example, several times in Palestine and Egypt. These seem to appear consistently at the beginning of the inscription, followed by the name of the owner of the tomb, or in some cases an entire area (BS ii 11, 106), in the genitive case. However, one striking deviation from this use of μνημα/μνημιον as part of an identification formula can be seen in the relatively much earlier fragmentary epitaph of Theon (JIGRE 114, 1st cent B.C.-1st cent. A.D.), which concludes with the very straightforward first-person statement ενθαδε μνημηω κειμαι αποφθιμενος, “I lie here dead in the tomb.”

 

The ”tomb of” identification formula can also be seen with the Latin memoria, which, judging from the presence of the Greek transliteration μημοριον, was perhaps even more widely known than μνημα. An interesting combination of this with another identification formula, “here lies,” can be seen in hic est memoria Isidora (JIWE i 187). A similar combination appears in the trilingual epitaph of Mellasa (JIWE i 183), in which the hic est memoria of the Latin text is translated into the Greek ωδε εστην μεμν[ι]ον. Here, the fact that both the Greek and Latin words are used as equivalent to the הקבר in the Hebrew text indicates that they simply mean “tomb,” without any reference to actual idea of remembrance. This is even more clearly the case in the epitaph of Aurelius Samuel (JIWE i 145), in which the deceased declares “I . . . bought the memorial for myself and my wife,” and warns “let no-one open the memorial and put someone else’s body on top of our bones.”

 

A strong contrast to this use of memorial strictly to mean “tomb” is observable in the statement dormition eius est memoria eius in the epitaph of Peon Geta (JIWE i 174). As Noy points out, the dormition here may also mean “tomb,” as is the case in the blessing sit pax super dormitorium eorum of JIWE i 121. There are, therefore, four possible combinations: “his sleep is his memorial,” “his sleep is his tomb,” “this tomb is his memorial,” and “his tomb is his tomb.” The second and last of these, however, are plainly to be ruled out as not being meaningful, so that in either case, memoria is not to used to mean “tomb,” but “memorial.” Of the two remaining options, the latter, perhaps to be interpreted “his tomb is that by means of which he shall be remembered,” is the most likely.

 

Finally, it is not surprising that this aspect of remembrance is also fresh in the occurrences of the term μνεια, “memory,” in the metaphorical sense of “memorial>” For example, in the epitaph of Ursus (JIWE ii 253), the words μνεια του μ<ε>λλονυμφιου, “memorial of the man about to marry,” neither appearing at the beginning of the epitaph nor containing the name of the deceased, presents a striking contrast with the use of other terms as part of an identification formula, above. Similarly, the words μνια αυτου (JIWE ii 167) and μνια σου (JIWE ii 354), occurring near the end of the epitaphs in which they occur, seem to express simply and deliberately that the tomb is meant to be the occasion for the remembrance of the deceased. IT is noteworthy that this seems to be the only memory-related word used in the Jewish inscriptions of Rome, and also that this word is not used in this way elsewhere. (Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 129-31)

 

 

The Greek formula

 

Although there are among the Jewish inscriptions of Rome no Hebrew occurrences of the present formula, there are three Greek equivalents. The LXX of Prov 10:7 seems to have been followed in the μνημη δικαιο[υ] σ[υ]ν ενκωμιω, “the memory of the just man with praise,” which honors an anonymous teacher of the law (JIWE ii 307) buried in the Randanini catacomb. The μνια δικαιου εις ευλογιαν in the Monteverde epitaph of Macedonius (JIWE ii 112), on the other hand, follows the Aquila version. Macedonius (JIWE ii 112), on the other hand, follows the Aquila version. Finally, the form μνημη δικαιου ις ευλογιαν ου αλητη τα ενκωμια appears on the epitaph of Amachius (JIWE ii 276), also from the Randanini catacomb. As van der Horst points out, this very interesting variant contains elements of both the LXX and Aquila versions.

 

The general meaning conveyed by these three Greek adaptations of Prov 10:7 in a this-worldly remembrance and praise of the deceased, Unlike the Hebrew formula examined above, the fact that these are all different from each other seems to indicate that the authors probably reflected upon and made references to their respective version of the Greek bible rather than imitate a set a formula. This is somewhat in contrast to the ε.ε.η.κ.α. formula, which comes after each of them.

 

There is, in addition, a similar Greek formula in the epitaph CIJ 731c, 4th-5th cent.), from Crete: μνημη δικεας ις εωνα, “the memory of the righteous forever.” Although the lack of the word “blessing” or “praise” in this formula makes it unlike any of those found in Rome, the first two words are sufficiently recognizable for it to be considered as based on Prov 10:7. It is possible to take this formula as simply declaring or wishing that the deceased is never to be forgotten. However, the meaning of the words εις αιωνα does not seem to be exhausted by a merely this-worldly remembrance. (Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 142)

 

Sola Scriptura Debate: Robert Boylan (Latter-day Saint) vs. Kelly Powers (Protestant)

 

Sola Scriptura Debate: Robert Boylan (Latter-day Saint) vs. Kelly Powers (Protestant)

Material for Today's Debate against Kelly Powers on Sola Scriptura

The following represents my notes for today’s debate against Kelly Powers on the topic of Sola Scriptura:

 

Opening Statement:

PPTX

PDF

 

Rebuttal Slides (on Acts 17 and issues about the “fact” of the canon and inspiration of books):

PPTX

PDF

 

Sola Scriptura Spare Slides (300+ slides on a wide variety of topics)

PPTX

PDF

 

LDS Leaders and the Bible:

PDF

 

Against the Patristics Kelly often appeals to in support of Sola Scriptura:

PDF

 

Wisdom 7 in Early Christianity:

PDF

 

Text of Amos 9 (LXX) and Acts 15:

PDF

If you know of any debate reviews (whether from fellow LDS, RCs, EOs, Protestants, etc), do let me know via email. If/when I do a review of the debate, I hope to incorporate such into said review.

Examples of Patristic Authors Viewing Nicea as Being Inspired and Directed by the Holy Spirit

  

Basil to Cyriacus, Epistle 114 (Migne, PG 32:528-29)

 

“Ὅσον ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εἰρήνης ἀγαθόν, τί χρὴ λέγειν πρὸς ἄνδρας υἱοὺς τῆς εἰρήνης; Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ μέγα τοῦτο, καὶ θαυμαστόν, καὶ πᾶσι περισπούδαστον τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν Κύριον, κινδυνεύει λοιπὸν εἰς ὄνομα ψιλὸν περιτῆναι, διὰ τὸ πληθυνθῆναι τὴν ἀνομίαν, ψυγεῖσης λοιπὸν ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς (87) τῆς ἀγάπης, οἶμαι προσήκειν μίαν ταύτην εἶναι σπουδήν τοῖς γνησίως καὶ ἀληθινῶς δουλεύουσι τῷ Κυρίῳ, τὸ ἐπαναγαγεῖν πρὸς ἕνωσιν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, τὰς πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων διασπαρείσας. Ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπιχειρῶν ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως πολυπράγμων αἰτίαν λάβοιμι. Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως ἴδιον ἐστὶ Χριστιανοῦ, ὡς τὸ εἰρηνοποιεῖν· διὸ καὶ τὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ μισθὸν μέγιστον ἡμῖν ὁ Κύριος ἐπηγγείλατο. Συντυχὼν τοίνυν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, καὶ θεασάμενος αὐτῶν πολὺ μὲν τὸ φιλάδελφον καὶ τὸ περὶ ὑμᾶς ἀγαπητικόν, πολὺ δὲ ἔτι πλέον τὸ φιλόχριστον καὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἀκριβές τε καὶ εὔτονον· καὶ ὅτι πολλὴ ἀμφοτέρων ποιοῦνται σπουδήν, τῆς τε ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης μὴ χωρίζεσθαι, καὶ τὴν ὑγιαίνουσαν πίστιν μὴ κατακροδοῦναι· ἀποδεξάμενος αὐτῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν προαίρεσιν, ἐπιστέλλω τῇ σεμνότητι ὑμῶν, παρακαλῶν πάσῃ ἀγάπῃ ἔχειν αὐτοὺς ἡνωμένους γνησίως, καὶ πάσης ἐκκλησιαστικῆς φροντίδος κοινωνούς· εἰγγυγνόμενος καὶ αὐτοῖς τὴν ὑμετέραν ὀρθότητα, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτι τῷ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας ζήλῳ πρὸς πάντα ἐστὲ παρατεταγμένοι, ὥσπερ ἂν δέῃ (88) παθεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἀληθείας. Ἔστι δὲ, ὡς ἐμαυτὸν πείθω, τὰ οὔτε ὑμῖν ὑπεναντία, καὶ τοῖς προειρημένοις τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτάρκη πρὸς πληροφορίαν, ταῦτα, ὁμολογεῖν ὑμᾶς τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐκτεθεῖσαν Πίστιν τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ ποτὲ συνελθόντων, καὶ μηδεμίαν τῶν ἐκεῖ λέξεων ἀθετεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰδέναι, ὅτι τριακόσιοι δέκα καὶ ὀκτώ, ἀφιλονεικῶς συνιδόντες, οὐκ ἄνευ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐνεργείας ἐφθέγξαντο προσθεῖναι δὲ τῇ Πίστει ἐκείνῃ καὶ τὸ μὴ χρήναι λέγειν κτίσμα τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, μὴ μέντοι μηδὲ τοῖς λέγουσι κοινωνεῖν, ἵνα καθαρὰ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ Ἐκκλησία, μηδὲν ζιζάνιον ἑαυτῇ παραμεμιγμένον ἔχουσα. Ταύτης αὐτοῖς τῆς πληροφορίας παρὰ τῆς εὐσπλαγχνίας ὑμῶν προσεθείσης, καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν πρέπουσαν ὑμῖν ὑποταγὴν ἕτοιμοι εἰσι παρασχεῖν. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγγυῶμαι τὸ μέρος τῶν ἀδελφῶν, ὡς εἰς οὐδὲν ἀντεροῦσιν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν ὑμῖν ἐπιδείξονται εὐταξίας ὑπερβολήν, ἑνὸς τούτου αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἐπιζητουμένου παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τῆς ὑμετέρας τελειότητος ἑτοίμως παρασχεθέντος.”

 

 

“How great the good of peace is, what need is there to say to men who are sons of peace? Since then this great, wonderful, and for all who love the Lord most eagerly desired thing is now in danger of becoming merely a name, because lawlessness has multiplied and the love of the many has grown cold, I think that the one task fitting for those who genuinely and truly serve the Lord is to restore to the unity of the Church those things which have been scattered apart from one another in many ways and in many forms. And in attempting to do this myself, I should not justly be accused of meddling. For nothing is so characteristic of a Christian as to make peace; and therefore the Lord promised us the greatest reward for it.

 

So, having met the brethren and seen among them much brotherly affection and goodwill toward you, and even more than that a spirit of devotion to Christ and exactness and zeal concerning the faith, and seeing that they are greatly concerned for both things—to remain not separated from your charity and not to compromise the sound faith—I have, after receiving their good disposition, written to your reverence, urging you to hold them in sincere unity of love and as partners in every ecclesiastical care. I also assure them of your uprightness, since they too, by the grace of God, are set in every way with zeal for the truth, as though one must suffer for the word of truth.

 

And, as I am persuaded, what I have said is not contrary to you, and is sufficient for the aforesaid brethren as confirmation: namely, that you confess the Faith laid down by our Fathers, those once assembled at Nicaea, and that you reject none of the words set forth there; but that you know that the three hundred and eighteen, having reached agreement without dispute, spoke not without the working of the Holy Spirit, and that in that Faith it is also right not to call the Holy Spirit a creature, nor, indeed, to have communion with those who say so, so that the Church of God may be pure, with no tares mixed in with it. If this assurance is added to them by your kindness, they too are ready to offer you the obedience that is fitting. For I myself guarantee on behalf of the brethren that they will oppose nothing, but will show you every evidence of order and discipline, if only this one thing which they seek from your perfection is readily granted to them.”

 

 

Isidor of Pelusium, Epistle 99 (before AD 435) (Migne, PG 78:1164-65)

 

Περὶ τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδου.

 

Ἐπεὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὡς γέγραπται, οἱ μὲν μὴ εἶναι τὸ θεῖον φασιν, οὗτοις τὰ ἐπ᾽ ἀσεβεῖᾳ νικητήρια ἥρπασαν (22)· οἱ δὲ εἶναι μὲν, μὴ προνοεῖν δὲ· ἄλλοι δὲ προνοεῖν μὲν, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐπουρανίων·ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐπιγείων μὲν, οὐ πάντων δὲ· ἀλλὰ καὶ βασιλέων (23) καὶ ἀρχόντων· ἄλλοι δὲ πάντων (24) μὲν (καὶ γὰρ καὶ μέχρι μυρμήκων τὴν πρόνοιαν αὐτοῦ διήκειν), οὐ μὴν Τριάδα ὁμοούσιον προσκυνεῖν· καὶ οἱ μὲν αὐτοματισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἱμαρμένην εἶναι ὁρίζονται· καὶ οἱ μὲν διὰ Μωυσέως μόνον τὸ θεῖον νομοθετηκέναι οἴονται, οἱ δὲ ἐναντίαν δύναμιν· καὶ οἱ μὲν μὴ ἐπιδεδημηκέναι τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ φύντα Λόγον, οἱ δὲ κατὰ φαντασίαν ἐπιδεδημηκέναι·καὶ οἱ μὲν σύγχυσιν καὶ κρᾶσιν καὶ ἀρνητισμὸν τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐδογμάτισαν· οἱ δὲ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ γεγονῆσθαι·καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐλάττονα τοῦ Πατρός, οἱ δὲ κτίσμα ὡρίσαντο· καὶ οἱ μὲν τὸ θεῖον Πνεῦμα οὐ Θεῷ ὁμολογοῦσιν· οἱ δὲ λειτουργικὸν καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν ὠνόμαζουσιν· οὐ χρὴ ταῖς τῶν νοσούντων ἐπεσθαι ψήφοις (25)· ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ὑγιανόντων κρίσεως λαμβάνειν τὰς ἀποδείξεις· καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ τῇ συγκροτηθείσῃ κατὰ Νικαίαν ἀκολουθεῖν, μήτε προστιθέντας, μήτε ἀφαιροῦντας. Ἐκείνη γὰρ θεόθενἐμπνευσθεῖσα, τἀληθὲς ἐδογμάτισεν.

 

 

On the Council at Nicaea.

 

Since among human beings, as it is written, some say that the divine does not exist, and these have seized the prizes of impiety; others say that it exists, but does not exercise providence; others that it exercises providence, but only for heavenly things; others even for earthly things, but not for all of them, only for kings and rulers; others for all things, even down to the tiniest ants, yet do not worship the consubstantial Trinity; and some define things as arising by automatism, others by fate; some think that God legislated only through Moses, others through an opposing power; some think that the Word born from God did not come among us, others that he came only in appearance; some have dogmatized confusion, mixture, and denial of the substances; others that he became incarnate in a man; some have declared him less than the Father, others a creature; and some do not confess the Holy Spirit to be God, while others call him ministering and sanctifying. One must not follow the votes of the sick, but take the proofs from the judgment of the healthy, and follow the holy council assembled at Nicaea, neither adding to nor taking away from it. For that council, inspired by God, defined the truth.

 

 

Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21.14 (Migne PG 35:1096-97)

 

Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρῶτον μὲν ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιαν ἀρχῇ (87) ταύτῃ συνόδῳ, καὶ τῷ τῶν τριακοσίων ὀκτὼ καὶ δέκα ἀριθμῷ ἀνδρῶν λογάδων (88), οὓς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ἓν ἤγαγε (89), ὅσον ἦν ἐαυτῷ, τὴν νόσον ἔστησεν· οὕτω μὲν τεταγμένος ἐν ἐπισκόποις, τὰ πρῶτα δὲ (90) τεταγμένος τῶν συνεληλυθότων· καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἀρετῆς οὐκ ἧττον ἡ βαθμῶν ἡ προτίμησις. Ἔπειτα τοῦ κακοῦ μισθηθέντος ἤδη ταῖς αὔραις τοῦ πονηροῦ, καὶ τὸ πλεῖον ἐπιλαμβάνοντος (ἐνταῦθα μοι καὶ τὰ δράματα, ὧν πᾶσα μικροῦ πλήρης γῇ τε καὶ θάλασσα), πολὺς μὲν περὶ αὐτὸν ὁ πόλεμος, ὡς γενναῖον προστάτην τοῦ λόγου· (πρὸς γὰρ τὸ ἀντιτεῖνον μάλιστα ἡ παράταξις, καὶ ἄλλοθεν ἄλλο τι τῶν δεινῶν περιφέρον (91): εὑρέτης (92) γὰρ κακῶν ἡ ἀσέλγεια, καὶ λίαν τολμηρὰ εἰς ἐγχείρησιν· πῶς δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἔμελλον φείδεσθαι, οἱ θεότητος μὴ φεισάμενοι;) μία δὲ προσβολῶν καὶ (93) χαλεπωτάτη. Συνεσφέρω τι καὶ αὐτὸς τῷ δράματι· ἀλλὰ μοι παρητήθη (94) τὸ φίλον ἔδαφος ἡ πατρίς· οὐ γὰρ τῆς ἐνεργούσης, ἀλλὰ τῶν προειρημένων (95) ἡ πονηρία. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἱερὰ τε καὶ πίστιν ἐπ᾽ εὐσεβείᾳ γνώριμος· οἱ δὲ ἀνάξιοι τῆς τεκούσης αὐτοὺς Ἐκκλησίας. Φύεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἀμπέλῳ (96) βάτον ἠκούσατε· καὶ Ἰούδας, τῶν μαθητῶν εἷς, ὁ προδότης.

 

 

“And for this reason, first, in the holy council at Nicaea, and among the number of the three hundred and eighteen distinguished men, whom the Holy Spirit brought together as one, he put a stop, so far as it was possible, to the disease. He was thus ranked among the bishops, and first among those assembled; for the preference of rank is no less than that of virtue. Then, when evil had already been stirred up by the breezes of the wicked one, and was taking greater hold of things—here too I am reminded of the dramas, with land and sea all but full of them—there was much warfare against him, as against a noble champion of the word. For the battle is especially against whatever stands opposed, and from elsewhere one dreadful thing after another is brought forward; for wantonness is an inventor of evils and very bold in undertaking them. How, then, were they to spare human beings, who had not spared divinity? But one attack was the most grievous of all. I too contributed something to the drama; but the pleasant ground of my native land was denied me, for the wickedness was not that of the acting party, but of those already mentioned. For the sacred and the faithful are known through piety; but those men are unworthy of the Church that gave them birth. And you have heard that even a bramble grows in a vineyard, and Judas, one of the disciples, was the traitor.”

 

Walter M. Wolfe (February 7, 1906) on His Understanding of the Manifesto of 1890

  

The CHAIRMAN. What was said to you, if anything, in addition to what you say Smith declared to you, by anyone else in relation to the effect of the manifesto?

 

Mr. WOLFE. I can not quite any definite statements. I can simply give the prevailing sentiment among the people. I believe the opinion is that the manifesto does absolutely apply to the State of Utah, but that outside of the United States, or in States where there is no law against polygamy, the manifesto is inapplicable. That is my understanding of the interpretation of it, from conversations. (Testimony of Walter M. Wolfe, February 7, 1906, repr. Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, A Senator from the State of Utah to Hold His Seat, 4 vols. [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906], 4:14)

 

Arie W. Zwiep on John 20:17

  

Jn 20:17 The command μή μου άπτου ('don't cling to me') seems to imply that Mary had seized Jesus' feet (cf. Mt 28:9 αί δέ προσελθούσαι έκράτησαν αύτου τους πόδας and the interpretative gloss και προσέδραμεν άψασθαι αυτου in the present verse) or was about to do so'. The point is not that Jesus did not allow Mary to touch him (for whatever reason) or that he regarded an act of proskynesis inappropriate for someone who failed to grasp the meaning of the new relationship that he had entered into through the resurrection. Nor is a contrast in view with Jesus' invitation to Thomas to examine the wounds caused by the nails and the spear-thrust (v.27). The issue is that Mary should not 'cling' to Jesus, not 'hold on' to him. The phrase μή μου άπτου can best be connected with πορεύου δέ πρός τους άδελφούς μου κλτ., 'don't cling to me ... but (δε) go to my disciples'. Mary seems to misunderstand the present occasion as the fulfilment of Jesus' promise of his abiding presence and does not realise that Jesus would be present through the Spirit (Jn 14:15-31; 16:5- 33). This could only be realised after his άνάβασις (= Jesus' return to the Father through passion-resurrection-ascension = his glorification/exaltation) had come to completion (7:39; 16:7). If we take the larger Johannine context into consideration (the connection ascension-giving of the Spirit) and follow the Johannine understanding of Jesus' άνάβασις as a description of Jesus' entire passage to the Father through passion, death, resurrection and ascension, Jn 20:17 seems to make good sense. Jesus motivates his appeal not to hold on to him by stating that he has not yet ascended: ούπω γάρ άναβέβηκα (as in 3:13 perfect tense!) πρός τον πατέρα, that is, his άνάβασις has not yet reached completion, for the Spirit has not yet been given. But this will not take long: άναβαίνω (present tense, expressing imminence) πρός τον πατέρα κτλ.

 

In line with the Johannine use of the word, Jesus' άνάβασις cannot be equated with the ascension event in Acts 15 and it would be futile to look for a gap in Jn 20 where the Lukan ascension story would fit in. It is, of course, assumed that somewhere in the process of ‘going to the Father’ Jesus will depart from the earth, but the theological outlook of the Fourth Evangelist makes it impossible to make a sharp differentiation between death, resurrection, exaltation, and so on. The entire course of events constitutes the ‘house’ of the Son of Man; the entire sequence of events starting from the crucifixion is Jesus’ αναβασις to the Father. (Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 137-38)

 

Arie W. Zwiep on John 3:13

  

The only other time that the perfect tense of αναβαινω is used in the NT writings is in Jn 20:17 (‘I have not yet ascended’!), so that it is reasonable to assume a connection. Since the katabasis-anabasis pattern is typical of the Fourth Gospel )on our verse the descent seems to precede the ascent as well), we are to explain the verse from the perspective of the Evangelist, in other words, we have here a description from a post-Easter viewpoint, when Jesus’s αναβασις (= his return to the Father through passion-resurrection-ascension) had already become a fait accompli. (Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 135)

 

Mormonism & Freemasonry feat. Eirik Scoville

 

Mormonism & Freemasonry feat. Eirik Scoville | May 2026 Gospel Scholar Zoom Conference

Tertullian on the Female Interpretation of Genesis 3:15 and Likening it to Christian Women

  

Sed et lapillos istos, qui cum auro superbiam jungunt, quid aliud interpretor quam lapillos et calculos, ejusdem terræ minutalia; nec tamen aut fundamentis demandandis, aut parietibus moliendis, aut fastigiis sustinendis, aut tectis densaudis necessaria? Solum hunc mulierum stuporem ædificare noverunt, quia tarde teruntur, ut niteant, et subdole substruuntur, ut floreant, et anxie forantur, ut pendeant, et auro lenocinium mutuum præstant. Sed si quid de mari Britannico aut Indico ambitu piscatur, conchæ genus est, non dico conchylii aut ostreo, sed nec peloride gratius de sapore. Ad hoc enim conchas noverim maris poma. Quod si concha illa aliquid intrinsecus pustulat, vitium ejus magis debet esse, quam gloriæ. Et licet margaritum vocetur, non aliud tamen intelligendum, quam conchæ illius aliqua dura et rotunda verruca. Aiunt et de frontibus draconum gemmas erui, sicut et in piscium cerebris lapidositas quædam est. Hoc quoque deerit christianæ, ut de serpente cultior fiat. Sic calcabit diaboli caput, dum de capite ejus, cervicibus suis aut ipsi capiti ornamenta struit? (Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 1.6 [Migne, PL 1:1310-11])

 

Here is an English translation:

 

(1) But how shall I explain those precious little stones which share their glory with gold, other than to say that they are only little stones and pebbles and tiny little bits of the selfsame earth? They certainly are not required for laying foundations or for building up walls or supporting pediments or giving compactness to roofs; the only building they seem to erect is this silly admiration of women. They are cautiously cut that they may shine, they are cunningly set that they may glitter, they are carefully pierced so as to hang properly and render to gold a meretricious service in return. (2) Moreover, whatever love of display fishes up from the seas around Britain or India is merely a kind of shellfish, and its taste is no better than that of the giant mussel. Now, there is no reason why I should not approve of shellfish as the fruit of the sea. If, however, this shellfish produces some sort of growth inside of it, this should be considered a fault rather than a cause for glory. And even though we call this thing a pearl, it certainly must be seen to be nothing else but a hard and round lump inside a shellfish.

 

There is a tradition that gems also come from the foreheads of dragons, just as we sometimes find a certain stony substance in the brains of fish. (3) This would indeed crown it all: the Christian woman in need of something from the serpent to add to her grace. It is probably in this way that she is going to tread upon the serpent’s head while around her neck or even on top of her own head she carries ornaments that come from the head of the Devil! (Tertullian, Disciplinary, Moral, and Ascetical Works [trans. Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A. Quain; The Fathers of the Church 40; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959], 124-25)

 

Tertullian follows the feminine interpretation of Gen 3:15, applying it to Christian women (christianae, a feminine plural).

John Bergsma and Brant Pitre on Genesis 3:15

  

Who Will Crush the Serpent’s Head?

 

Most modern English translations of Genesis 3:15 read, “He shall crush your head”, referring to the “seed of the Woman”, understood to be Jesus Christ. However, the Douay-Rheims and Vulgate read, “She shall crush your head”, which has always been understood as a reference to the Blessed Virgin. This has often been depicted in iconography. The difficulty probably lies in the fact that the Hebrew male and female pronouns are written similarly and easily confused: St. Jerome’s Hebrew text evidently had a feminine pronoun in this place. The stronger linguistic case, however, can be made for an original masculine pronoun. Theologically, there is no difficulty, since it is true that both the seed (Jesus Christ) and the woman (the Virgin Mary) crush the head of the serpent: the woman crushes the head by means of her seed. (John Bergsma and Brant Pitre, A Catholic Introduction to the Bible, 2 vols. [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2018], 1:107, emphasis in bold added)

 

Bede (d. 735) Following the Ipsa ("She") Reading of Genesis 3:15

  

Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et insidiaberis calcaneo eius. Mulier conterit caput serpentis, cum Ecclesia sancta insidias diaboli et suasiones venenosas in ipso mox initio deprehensas abigit, et quasi conculcans ad nihilum deducit. Conterit caput serpentis, cum superbiae, per quam Eva decepta est, saepe sub potenti manu Dei humiliando resistit: initium enim omnis peccati superbia. Et serpens insidiatur calcaneo mulieris, quia circuiens Ecclesiam diabolus velut leo rugiens quaerit quem devoret, quomodo gressus bonae nostrae actionis evertat. Insidiatur calcaneo, cum in fine vitae praesentis nos rapere satagit. Calcaneo namque qui finis est corporis, non immerito finis vitae nostrae designatur, quod utrumque ipsa quoque serpentis conditio figurate denuntiat, qui conteri solet ab omnibus qui possunt, et ipse ferientis hominum vestigiis insidiari non desinit. (Bede, Hexaemeron on Genesis, Book I [Migne, PL 91:58])

 

She shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” The woman crushes the serpent’s head when the holy Church drives away the devil’s snares and poisonous suggestions, detected right at the outset, and, as it were trampling them down, reduces them to nothing. She crushes the serpent’s head when she resists pride—the pride by which Eve was deceived—often humbling herself beneath the mighty hand of God; for pride is the beginning of all sin. And the serpent lies in wait for the woman’s heel, because the devil, going around the Church like a roaring lion, seeks whom he may devour and how he may overthrow the steps of our good conduct. He lies in wait for the heel when he strives to seize us at the end of this present life. For since the heel is the end of the body, it not unfittingly signifies the end of our life; and this is figuratively declared by the very condition of the serpent itself, which is commonly crushed by all who can do so, yet does not cease to lurk among the footprints of those who strike it.

 

Saint Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. 450) on Mary’s Role in Redemption

  

Πηγήν ἐσφραγισμένην, ὅτι ποταμὸς ζωῆς ἐκ σοῦ προελθὼν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐπλήρωσεν. Ἀλλὰ κλάδος γαμικὸς τὴν σὴν ἀγνὴν οὐκ ἤντλησε. Περὶ σοῦ Δαβὶδ ἐκ σοῦ κιθαρῶν οὐ παύεται· Ἀνάστηθι, Κύριε, εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου, σὺ καὶ ἡ κιβωτὸς τοῦ ἁγιάσματός σου. Ἀνάστηθι, πόθεν; Ἐκ τῶν κόλπων τοῦ Πατρός, οὐ χωρισθῇς τοῦ Πατρός (τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ θέμις ἡμᾶς λέγεσθαι), ἵνα δὲ τὴν οἰκονομίαν πράξῃς, ἣ ἄνωθέν σοι πρὸ αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ τῶν γενεῶν τὸ ὥριστο. Ἀνάστηθι, ἵνα τοὺς πεσόντας ἐγείρῃς, τοὺς κεκλισθέντας ὀρθώσῃς, ἵνα τὸ σὸν ἀναλάβῃ κτῆμα, παρὰ τοῦ ἐχθροῦ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν τυραννούμενον. Ἀνάστηθι, Κύριε, εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου, τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὥρισας, καὶ εἰς τὴν Βηθλεὲμ ἔσεας σπήλαιον καὶ τὴν φάτνην καὶ τὰ σπάργανα· ἐν οὐρανοῖς γὰρ οὐ χρῄζεις ἀναπαύσεως. Αὐτὸς δὲ ἀνάπαυσις ὑπάρχεις ὅλης τῆς κτίσεως. Ἐπὶ γῆς δὲ ἡμᾶς τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς πάσχεις. Ἡ γὰρ οὐχὶ καὶ πείνην καὶ δίψην, ἣν ἔσχου. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ πεινῶν ἄρτος ὑπάρχεις ζωῆς, καὶ διψῶν αὐτὸς εἶ τῶν διψώντων παράκλησις. Ποταμὸν γὰρ ἀφθαρσίας καθέστηκας, καὶ κοπιῶν τοῖς περιπάτοις τῆς ξηρᾶς, πορεύεις χωρὶς τῆς θαλάσσης τὰ κύματα. Ἀνάστηθι, Κύριε, εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου, σὺ καὶ ἡ κιβωτὸς τοῦ ἁγιάσματός σου, ἡ Παρθένος, ἡ Θεοτόκος, εἴη. Εἰ γὰρ σὺ μαργαρίτης, εἰκότως ἐκείνη κιβωτός· ἐπειδὴ σὺ τυγχάνεις Ἥλιος, οὐρανὸς ἀναγκαίως ἡ Παρθένος κληθήσεται· ἐπειδὴ σὺ ἄνθος ἀμάραντον, ἄρα ἡ Παρθένος ἀφθαρσίας φυτόν, ἀθανασίας παράδεισος.

 

Εἰς ἣν Ἡσαΐας ταῦτα θεῶν ἀρτίως προανεφώνησε λέγων· Ἰδοὺ, ἡ Παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ. Ἰδοὺ ἡ Παρθένος· ποία; Ἡ τῶν γυναικῶν ἔγκριτος, ἡ τῶν παρθένων ἐξαίρετος, τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως ἐγκαλλώπισμα, τὸ τοῦ πηλοῦ ἡμετέρου καύχημα, ἡ τῆς αἰσχύνης τὴν Εὕαν, καὶ τῆς ἀπειλῆς τὸν Ἀδὰμ ἀπαλλάξασα, ἡ τὴν παῤῥησίαν ἀποτεμοῦσα τοῦ δράκοντος· ἧς καπνὸς ἐπιθυμίας οὐχ ἥψατο, οὐδὲ σκώληξ αὐτὴν ἡδυπαθείας ἔθλαψεν. Ἰδοὺ ἡ Παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται· πόθεν, ὦ προφῆτα; Οὐ λέγω, φησί. Τοῦτο γὰρ τῷ Γαβριὴλ πεφύλακται. Πολλοὶ τῆς Θεοτόκου διαιροῦνται τὰ θαύματα, πολλὰ δὲ ὅμως καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν παραλέλειπται· πλὴν ἐγὼ τὸν τόπον τῆς Ἀειπαρθένου πεπίστευμαι· Μιχαίας, τὸν χώρον ἐν ᾧ τὸ θαῦμα πέπρακται· Δαβίδ, τὸν καιρόν. Αὐτὸς γὰρ τὸ, Ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε, τῇ τῶν ψαλμῶν προφητείᾳ ἐνέθηκεν. Γαβριὴλ τοίνυν ἐρεῖ τὸ, πόθεν. Ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατέρχεται· ἐκεῖνος ἀπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τὴν Παρθένον πέμπεται· ἐκεῖνος ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ τόκου παραγίνεται, καὶ τοῦ τόκου τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἀναγκαίως ἑρμηνεῦσαι πιστεύεται. Εἰ δὲ καὶ παρ’ ἐμοῦ μανθάνειν θέλεις, τὰ ἑξῆς τῆς προφητείας ἔπελθε· Καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ. Τί δέ ἐστιν Ἐμμανουήλ; Μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός. Μὴ τοίνυν Θεὸς ἀπὸ γάμου καὶ φθορᾶς συλλαμβάνεται, καὶ ἐξ ἀνδρὸς καὶ κοίτης τεχθῆναι ἢ σαρκωθῆναι δύναται; Οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἐνεργείας Θεοῦ, ἐξ ἐπιφυτεύσεως Ὑψίστου, … (Sermon 4; Migne [PG 93:1464-65])

 

 

A sealed fountain, for the river of life, having flowed forth from you, filled the world. But no marital branch drew from your pure womb. David does not cease singing of you: “Arise, O Lord, into your rest, you and the ark of your holiness.” “Arise”—from where? From the bosom of the Father, so that you may not be separated from the Father (for it is not lawful for us to say that), but so that you may accomplish the economy ordained for you from before the ages and generations. “Arise,” so that you may raise the fallen, straighten the bent, and recover your own possession, which has until now been tyrannized by the enemy. “Arise, O Lord, into your rest” upon the earth which you appointed, and in Bethlehem a cave, a manger, and swaddling clothes; for in heaven you have no need of rest. Yet you yourself are the rest of all creation. On earth you undergo the things of the flesh for our sake. You did indeed experience hunger and thirst. But though hungry, you are the bread of life; and though thirsty, you yourself are the refreshment of those who thirst. For you have become a river of incorruption, and though weary upon the paths of the dry land, you traverse the waves without the sea. “Arise, O Lord, into your rest, you and the ark of your holiness,” namely the Virgin, the Theotokos. For if you are a pearl, then rightly she is the casket; since you are the sun, the Virgin must be called heaven; since you are an unfading flower, then the Virgin is a plant of incorruption, a paradise of immortality.

 

Isaiah, divinely inspired, foretold these things when he said: “Behold, the Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” “Behold the Virgin”—which Virgin? The most distinguished among women, the noblest among virgins, the adornment of our nature, the boast of our clay, she who freed Eve from shame and Adam from the sentence, she who cut off the dragon’s boldness; the smoke of desire never touched her, nor did the worm of pleasure wound her. “Behold, the Virgin shall conceive in the womb.” From where, O prophet? “I do not say,” he says. That is reserved for Gabriel. Many divide the miracles of the Theotokos, and many things are omitted from them; but I have been entrusted with the place of the Ever-Virgin: Micah, the place where the miracle took place; David, the time. For he placed in the prophecy of the Psalms the words, “From the womb before the morning star I begot you.” Gabriel, then, will say the “from where.” For he comes down from heaven; he is sent for this very purpose to the Virgin; he arrives at the time of the birth, and is believed to explain the nature of the birth. And if you also want to learn from me, go on to the rest of the prophecy: “And she shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” What, then, is Emmanuel? “God with us.” Therefore God is not conceived from marriage and corruption, and can he be born or embodied from a man and a bed? By no means; but from the power of God, from the planting of the Most High, …

 

The Latin reads:

 

Mulierum egregia, e virginibus electa, præclarum naturæ notræ ornamentum, gloria luti nostri, quæ Evam pudore, et Adamum comminatione liberavit, audaciam draconis abscidit: quam concupiscentiæ fumus non attigit, neque vermis voluptatis eam læsit. (PG 93:1466)

 

“The most distinguished among women, chosen from among virgins, the splendid adornment of our nature, the glory of our clay, who freed Eve from shame and Adam from the threat, cut off the dragon’s boldness: whom the smoke of desire did not touch, nor did the worm of pleasure wound her.

 

Instead of being a quotation of Gen 3:15 (neither the Greek or Latin reads such), instead, it shows that, as with Irenaeus et al., in his Mariology, Mary was the New/Second Eve whose “fiat” was used to bring Jesus into the world and, in that sense, crushed the serpent’s head.

Brigham Young (September 17, 1876) Not Being Dogmatic About How Literal One Needs to Take the Creation Accounts

  

All your philosophy, even every iota of it which is true, belongs to the religion of the Latter-day Saints; and I say to all such, if you believe the truth, you believe just as the Latter-day Saints believe. It is said in this book (the Bible) that God made the earth in six days. This is a mere term, but it matters not whether it took six days, six months, six years, or six thousand years. The creation occupied certain periods of time. We are not authorized to say what the duration of these days was, whether Moses penned these words as we have them, or whether the translators of the Bible have given the words their intended meaning. However, God created the world. If I were a sectarian I would say, according to their philosophy, as I have heard many of them say hundreds of times, "God created all things out of nothing; in six days he created the world out of nothing." You may be assured the Latter-day Saints do not believe any such thing. They believe God brought forth material out of which he formed this little terra firma upon which we roam. How long had this material been in existence? Forever and forever, in some shape, in some condition. We need not refer at all to those who were with God, and who assisted him in this work. The elements form and develop, and continue to do so until they mature, and then they commence to decay and become disorganized. The mountains around us were formed in this way. By and by, when they shall have reached their maturity, the work of disintegration and decay will commence. It has been so from all eternity, and will continue to he so until they are made celestial.

 

Source: Brigham Young, “Personal Revelation the Basis of Personal Knowledge—Philosophic View of Creation—Apostacy Involves Disorganization and Return to Primitive Element—One Man Power,” September 17, 1876, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: Joseph F. Smith, 1877), 18:231-32

Radak (David Kimhi) on Ezekiel 37:16

  

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:1

ואתה, ולבני ישראל חברו. שבט בנימין שהיה עם שבט יהודה לעולם גם לאחר שנחלקה המלכות: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:2

חברו. כן כתיב לפי שהיה בשבט אחד: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:3

ליוסף עץ אפרים. לפי שבעת שנחלקה המלכות היה מלך ירבעם שהיה משבט אפרים נקראו עשרת השבטים על שם אפרים: 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:4

וכל בית ישראל חברו. חברו כתיב על דרך כלל כמו שאמר בית יעקב: (source)

 

 

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:1
“And for the children of Israel associated with him” — that is the tribe of Benjamin, which remained with the tribe of Judah תמיד, even after the kingdom was divided.

 

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:2
“Associated with him” — so it is written, because it was counted as one tribe.

 

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:3
“For Joseph, the wood of Ephraim” — because when the kingdom was divided, Jeroboam, who was from the tribe of Ephraim, was king, and therefore the ten tribes were called by the name Ephraim.

 

Radak on Ezekiel 37:16:4
“And for all the house of Israel associated with him” — it is written “associated with him” in a general sense, as in “the house of Jacob.”

 

 

Siddur Edot HaMizrach, Nissan and its use of Ezekiel 37:16

  

Siddur Edot HaMizrach, Nissan, Learning of the Day 11

וַיְהִ֥י דְבַר־יְהֹוָ֖ה אֵלַ֥י לֵאמֹֽר׃ וְאַתָּ֣ה בֶן־אָדָ֗ם קַח־לְךָ֙ עֵ֣ץ אֶחָ֔ד וּכְתֹ֤ב עָלָיו֙ לִֽיהוּדָ֔ה וְלִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֲבֵרָ֑ו וּלְקַח֙ עֵ֣ץ אֶחָ֔ד וּכְת֣וֹב עָלָ֗יו לְיוֹסֵף֙ עֵ֣ץ אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְכׇל־בֵּ֥ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֲבֵרָֽו׃ וְקָרַ֨ב אֹתָ֜ם אֶחָ֧ד אֶל־אֶחָ֛ד לְךָ֖ לְעֵ֣ץ אֶחָ֑ד וְהָי֥וּ לַאֲחָדִ֖ים בְּיָדֶֽךָ׃ וְכַֽאֲשֶׁר֙ יֹאמְר֣וּ אֵלֶ֔יךָ בְּנֵ֥י עַמְּךָ֖ לֵאמֹ֑ר הֲלֽוֹא־תַגִּ֥יד לָ֖נוּ מָה־אֵ֥לֶּה לָּֽךְ׃ דַּבֵּ֣ר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם כֹּה־אָמַר֮ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִה֒ הִנֵּה֩ אֲנִ֨י לֹקֵ֜חַ אֶת־עֵ֤ץ יוֹסֵף֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּיַד־אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְשִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֲבֵרָ֑ו וְנָתַתִּי֩ אוֹתָ֨ם עָלָ֜יו אֶת־עֵ֣ץ יְהוּדָ֗ה וַֽעֲשִׂיתִם֙ לְעֵ֣ץ אֶחָ֔ד וְהָי֥וּ אֶחָ֖ד בְּיָדִֽי׃ וְהָי֨וּ הָעֵצִ֜ים אֲֽשֶׁר־תִּכְתֹּ֧ב עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם בְּיָדְךָ֖ לְעֵינֵיהֶֽם׃ וְדַבֵּ֣ר אֲלֵיהֶ֗ם כֹּה־אָמַר֮ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִה֒ הִנֵּ֨ה אֲנִ֤י לֹקֵ֙חַ֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִבֵּ֥ין הַגּוֹיִ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר הָֽלְכוּ־שָׁ֑ם וְקִבַּצְתִּ֤י אֹתָם֙ מִסָּבִ֔יב וְהֵבֵאתִ֥י אוֹתָ֖ם אֶל־אַדְמָתָֽם׃ וְעָשִׂ֣יתִי אֹ֠תָ֠ם לְג֨וֹי אֶחָ֤ד בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙ בְּהָרֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּמֶ֧לֶךְ אֶחָ֛ד יִהְיֶ֥ה לְכֻלָּ֖ם לְמֶ֑לֶךְ וְלֹ֤א יהיה [יִֽהְיוּ]־עוֹד֙ לִשְׁנֵ֣י גוֹיִ֔ם וְלֹ֨א יֵחָ֥צוּ ע֛וֹד לִשְׁתֵּ֥י מַמְלָכ֖וֹת עֽוֹד׃ וְלֹ֧א יִֽטַּמְּא֣וּ ע֗וֹד בְּגִלּֽוּלֵיהֶם֙ וּבְשִׁקּ֣וּצֵיהֶ֔ם וּבְכֹ֖ל פִּשְׁעֵיהֶ֑ם וְהוֹשַׁעְתִּ֣י אֹתָ֗ם מִכֹּ֤ל מוֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיהֶם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטְא֣וּ בָהֶ֔ם וְטִהַרְתִּ֤י אוֹתָם֙ וְהָיוּ־לִ֣י לְעָ֔ם וַאֲנִ֕י אֶהְיֶ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִֽים׃ וְעַבְדִּ֤י דָוִד֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם וְרוֹעֶ֥ה אֶחָ֖ד יִהְיֶ֣ה לְכֻלָּ֑ם וּבְמִשְׁפָּטַ֣י יֵלֵ֔כוּ וְחֻקּוֹתַ֥י יִשְׁמְר֖וּ וְעָשׂ֥וּ אוֹתָֽם׃ וְיָשְׁב֣וּ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נָתַ֙תִּי֙ לְעַבְדִּ֣י לְיַֽעֲקֹ֔ב אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָֽשְׁבוּ־בָ֖הּ אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם וְיָשְׁב֣וּ עָלֶ֡יהָ הֵ֠מָּה וּבְנֵיהֶ֞ם וּבְנֵ֤י בְנֵיהֶם֙ עַד־עוֹלָ֔ם וְדָוִ֣ד עַבְדִּ֔י נָשִׂ֥יא לָהֶ֖ם לְעוֹלָֽם׃ וְכָרַתִּ֤י לָהֶם֙ בְּרִ֣ית שָׁל֔וֹם בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָ֖ם יִהְיֶ֣ה אוֹתָ֑ם וּנְתַתִּים֙ וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֣י אוֹתָ֔ם וְנָתַתִּ֧י אֶת־מִקְדָּשִׁ֛י בְּתוֹכָ֖ם לְעוֹלָֽם׃ וְהָיָ֤ה מִשְׁכָּנִי֙ עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם וְהָיִ֥יתִי לָהֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִ֑ים וְהֵ֖מָּה יִהְיוּ־לִ֥י לְעָֽם׃ וְיָֽדְעוּ֙ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם כִּ֚י אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה מְקַדֵּ֖שׁ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל בִּהְי֧וֹת מִקְדָּשִׁ֛י בְּתוֹכָ֖ם לְעוֹלָֽם׃ (source)

 

 

The word of the LORD came to me, saying: “And you, son of man, take for yourself one piece of wood and write upon it, ‘For Judah and for the children of Israel associated with him’; then take another piece of wood and write upon it, ‘For Joseph, the wood of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel associated with him.’ Then bring them close to one another, one to the other, so that they become one piece of wood in your hand. And when your people say to you, saying, ‘Will you not tell us what these are to you?’ speak to them: Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am taking the wood of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel associated with him, and I will place them upon it, the wood of Judah, and make them one piece of wood; and they shall be one in My hand. And the pieces of wood upon which you write shall be in your hand before their eyes. Then speak to them: Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am taking the children of Israel from among the nations to which they have gone, and I will gather them from all around and bring them to their land. I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor be divided into two kingdoms again. They shall no longer defile themselves with their idols, with their abominations, or with any of their transgressions; I will save them from all the places where they have sinned, and I will cleanse them. They shall be My people, and I will be their God.

 

“My servant David shall be king over them, and there shall be one shepherd for them all. They shall walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and do them. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, where your fathers dwelt; they shall dwell in it, they and their children and their children’s children forever, and My servant David shall be prince over them forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them. I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling shall be over them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Then the nations shall know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, כאשר My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”