The Seventh Ecumenical Council
called “‘Saracen-minded”’ Beser, a Christian apostate to Islam who, allegedly,
with Constantine bishop of Nacoleia, influenced Leo III to take measures
against the icons and their defenders.’ Theophanes called Leo, also, “‘Saracen-minded”
for his ideas and his edict against the icons (726).' (Daniel J. Sahas, John
of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" [Leiden:
Brill, 1972], 9-10)
YHWH, he is God; there is no other. So too Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9.
Because the affirmation “there is no other (beside him)” is so frequent in the
polemics of Second Isaiah (Isa 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9), Weinfeld sees
this as evidence for late (i.e., exilic) origin (1972, 212). But the use of
this phrase in the spontaneous outcry of the people at Mt. Carmel (cf. 1 Kgs 18:39)
suggests that it may have been a traditional creedal exclamation. (Mordechai
Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB
10; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 288)
In the Matthaean version of Luke
22:20, the words are added, “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). Carter
notes this is not a reference to forgiving personal or individual sins. The
term ἄφεσιν (“forgiveness” or “release”) is the same word as used in Leviticus
25 (LXX) where it is translated fourteen times as “a Jubilee” and “year of
Jubilee,” and refers to a “massive social and economic restructuring (return of
land; freeing of slaves . . . remission of debt, etc.).” Seen from this
perspective, Jesus’ impending death establishes a new covenant in which those
under sin (i.e., under a world ruled by the oppressors) will be set free in a
restructured world where God, not the elites, will rule. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive
Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination During the First
Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2013], 190)
The
Body
Jesus follows standard Passover
procedure by blessing, breaking, and distributing the unleavened bread, which
is called the “bread of affliction” in Deut 16:3. Jesus next departs from
tradition by connecting the bread with his person: “This is my body.” That he
speaks metaphorically is evident, since his actual body is reclining on the
couch. In this sense the verb “is” indicates representation, not
identification. Does Jesus see himself as taking the affliction which is meted
out by the forces of tyranny? In executing God’s eschatological spokesperson,
Roman and Jewish authorities stand opposed to God’s kingdom agenda.
Then Jesus adds the explicatory
words, “which is given for you.” Luke uses the term “given” (δίδωμι)
elsewhere to connote a sacrificial offering (Luke 2:24) and other writers use
it similarly (see Mark 10:45; John 6:51; 2 Cor 8:5; Gal 1:4). The phrase
“for you” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) likely means for your sake or on your behalf, and likely
has vicarious implications. Since this was not the ordinary meaning assigned to
unleavened bread at Passover, the new explanation must have caught the apostles
off guard. Although confused they may have associated it with the messianic
woes. Whatever the case, Jesus’ affliction would somehow work out to their
benefit. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper
Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications,
2013], 184, emphasis in bold added)
The
Flight of the Dove
For Luke’s readers, the descent
of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus “in bodily form” at his baptism would be seen as
an avian sign that God had chosen him to be Israel’s king, just as the gods
used the flight of birds to confirm their choice of the Roman emperor. As such,
this text should be viewed as a hidden transcript, containing a veiled message
directed to those within the Jesus movement.
This question remains: “In what
way was the baptism of Jesus antiimperial or antithetical to Roman
inauguration? The answer lies in the kind of bird that accompanied the baptism.
Jewish, Christian, and Greco- Roman literature extant in the first-century CE
identifies the dove as antithetical to the eagle. In the Hebrew Scriptures the
dove is associated with tranquility and tenderness (Gen 8:8–12; Cant 2:14; 5:2;
6:9; Nahum 2:7). Homer portrays the dove as powerless, serving as prey for
other birds, particularly the eagle. Plutarch saw the dove as a gentle
domesticated creature that loves and nurtures its own and refuses to harm other
living things, unlike an eagle that devours and destroys even its own. Greeks
and Romans associated the dove to the goddess of love, rather than the powerful
Zeus/Jupiter. Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, describes the dove (περιστερά, same
word used in gospels) as “the gentlest of those whose nature is tame and
gregarious.” Likewise, the Roman author and equestrian, Pliny the Elder also
contrasted the aggressive actions of the eagle with the gentle behavior of the
dove. Jesus admonished his disciples to be “as wise as serpents and harmless as
doves” (Matt 10:16).
Why would Luke want his audience
to know that God publicly confirmed Jesus to be king through the flight of a
dove, when the normative avian sign was the flight of an eagle? The dove
narrative likely functioned in the same manner as the account of Jesus riding
into Jerusalem on a donkey. Each depicts Jesus’ kingship in contradistinction
to imperial expectations. The flight of the dove is a confirming sign that
Jesus is God’s king, whose rule stands contrary to the Roman notion of power as
confirmed by an eagle. Throughout his gospel, Luke consistently portrays God’s
kingdom as the antithesis of the Roman Empire (Luke 6:20; 13:29– 30; 18:16;
22:25–27). Jesus is a different kind of king than Caesar. He is a king who
brings peace not at the expense and suffering of others but through his own
service and suffering. This is symbolized by the descent of a dove rather than
an eagle, the national emblem of Rome.
This anti-imperial understanding
of Jesus’ baptism based on the dove is strengthened when the accompanying voice
also quotes from Isa 42:1, “Behold my servant whom I uphold; my chosen
one in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit upon him, and he will bring
justice to the nations.” By combining Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1, the heavenly voice
creates an oxymoron—a king who serves. Kings do not serve, they rule. Others
serve them. Thus, Jesus is inaugurated to be a king of a different stripe—a
humble king. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s
Supper Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.:
Pickwick Publications, 2013], 119-20)
As background, “Beur HaMilot ('Lexical Definitions') is one of three sections of Ralbag's commentary on the Torah.” (source)
Ralbag Beur HaMilot on Torah,
Deuteronomy 17:17:1
ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור לבבו. מגיד שאם ירבה לו נשים יסור לבבו
מהשם יתעלה ומתורתו לרוב נטות מחשבתו על הנשים מצד רבויים הלא תראה כי שלמה שלא קם
כמהו במלכים ושרתה עליו רוח הקודש הטו נשים לבבו והנה המספר המותר למלך לקחת
מהנשים ואינו רבוי ביחס אל המלך י"ח שהרי מצאנו בדוד שהיו לו שש נשים ואמר לו
השם יתעלה ואם מעט ואוסיפה לך כהנה וכהנה ולא התיר לעצמו לקחת יותר ממה ששלח לו
הש"י עם הפלגשי' ושלקח ולזה כאשר הוצרך אל אבישג השונמית לחממו לא לקחה לאשה
ולא ידעה ולזה היה שואל אותה אדוניה בן חגית להיות לו לאשה כי לא לקחה דוד לו
לאשה: (source)
And he shall not multiply wives for himself, nor shall
his heart turn aside. It explains: if he multiplies wives for himself, his
heart will turn away from the Lord — may He be exalted — and from His Torah,
for his thoughts will be increasingly inclined toward the women because of
their number. Do you not see that Solomon — who had no equal among kings and
upon whom the Holy Spirit rested — had his heart turned by women? And behold,
the number permitted for a king to take of wives is not an undue excess in relation
to the king (י״ח). For we find regarding David that he had six wives, and the
Lord, may He be exalted, said to him, ‘If that is too few, I will add to you
such-and-such,’ and he did not permit himself to take more than what the LORD
allotted him along with the concubines he took. Therefore, when he needed
Abishag the Shunammite to warm him, she was not taken as a wife and he did not
‘know’ her; and for that reason Adonijah son of Haggith asked to make her his
wife, because David had not taken her as a wife.
Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 17:17:1
ולא ירבה לו נשים, “and he shall
not have too many wives.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 21) put the number of wives a
king may have at 18. They base this on the number of wives David had, six of
whom were mentioned by name (Samuel II 3,2-5). It says there: “if this is
insufficient, I will add for you כהנה וכהנה “twice more the same number,” i.e.
another 12 (Samuel II 12,8). The reason the Torah gives for this limitation is:
ולא יסור לבבו, “so his heart will not go astray.” It is assumed that a woman
may seduce a man to turn from being G’d-fearing, seeing that the original woman
Chavah had done exactly that when she seduced Adam into eating from the tree of
knowledge (Genesis 3,6). (source)
The title איש האלהים “man of God”
is frequently used in the Hebrew Bible, as Moses, Samuel, David, Elijah,
Elisha, Shemaiah, and some anonymous people are labelled with this epithet.
Among scholars there are conflicting opinions about the meaning of the
expression איש האלהים “man of God”.
. . .
However, the role of the איש האלהים
“man of God” is interchangeable with the prophet (nābî) in 1 Samuel 9:6-10, as well as in 1 Kings 13 in which
the anonymous personage, while on the one hand named man of God and working
miracles (vv. 4, 6), and the other hand has a prophetic role announcing the
word of God (vv. 1-3). In the same story, the prophet of Bethel will define the
man of God as a prophet like him (v. 18).
. . .
In 1 Kings, Elijah is in
Zarephath of Sidon, where he works wonders with a widow who has no more flour
and oil (1 Kgs 17:16). He then brings her son back to life (1 Kgs 17:22) and
the widow recognizes Elijah as איש האלהים “man of God” (1 Kgs 17:24)
In 2 Kings, Elijah is the foremost
prophet because he announces that the king will die because he has consulted
the god of Ekron (2 Kgs 1:6). Then, when the messengers of the king return to
him, Elijah is directly called איש האלהים “man of God” (2 Kgs 1:9). In this context,
Elijah איש האלהים “man of God” brings down fire form heaven against the
messengers of Aḥaziah (2 Kgs
1:11-14). In these events Elijah איש האלהים “man of God” appears as a charismatic
man endowed with supernatural forces and is also able to dispense happiness and
prosperity as well as curses. Furthermore, when Elijah performs wonders in the
name of God, he acts as a prophet (nābî)
and for that reason the roles seem confused. In the tale of 1 Kings 13:11-32,
the איש האלהים “man of God” and the prophet are put in parallel. IT seems to
show us the differences between them, because the איש האלהים “man of God” is a
man who announces prosperity, has supernatural force and accomplishes magic
rituals. Instead, the prophet appears as a passive man learning to announce the
word of God. In the case of Elijah, in the event with the prophets of Baal, as
the Lord made fire descend from heaven to consume the burnt offerings (1 Kgs
18:38), in the same way Elijah brought down fire from heaven against Aḥaziah (2 Kgs 1:11-4). Elijah acts
as איש האלהים “man of God”, but he also keeps the features of the prophet
because he announces the will of the Lord.
. . .
Even though there are many connections between Elijah and Elisha, scholars have contrasting opinions about them but I believe that Elijah really acts as איש האלהים “man of God” more than Elisha. Elijah has a particular relationship with God, he makes wonders only in the name of God and he also assumes a prophetic role and acts like a messenger. In short, the epithet איש האלהים “man of God” is not very clear. Surely the איש האלהים “man of God” is in intense communion with the divinity, inheriting His supernatural characteristics. These could define a prophet (nābî) because the title sometimes is applied to the same person (1 Sam 3:20; 9:6-8), or a messenger that is also able to predict the future and to foretell calamities. However, the epithet איש האלהים “man of God” shows some particular characteristics that define it in a specific way. (Scarso Teresa, “The Relationship Between Moses and Elijah in Ancient Judaism” [PhD Dissertation; University of Lausanne, 2021], 49, 50, 51)
3. Do you not realize that we
are to judge angels—not to mention affairs of everyday life? Lit. “everyday
life-matters,” i.e., matters of life in the present world. This rhetorical
question shifts to the 1st pers. plur., as Paul repeats his question of v. 2 in
a new form. The angeloi have to be
understood comprehensively of good and bad angels, because Paul means not only
human beings, but any higher order of God’s creatures (EDNT, 1:14). So august is his sense of the calling of God’s
dedicated people. See 1 Cor 4:9; 11:10; 13:1 for other references to angels;
also 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6 (sinful angels); in 2 Cor 12:7 Paul knows of an angel of
Satan. It is not easy to say where Paul has derived this idea of Christians
judging angels. The closest one comes to it is found in 1 Enoch 13–16, where Enoch is sent to judge the Watchers and other
evil spirits (4QEnochc 1 vi 14–15); or 91.15, where the judgment of
the Watchers is mentioned (4QEnochg 1 iv 22–23). Whatever the
meaning may be, Paul is using the judgment of angels only as an illustrative
example to contrast the eschatological destiny of Christians with their
preoccupation with petty legal matters, such as biōtika, “things needed for ordinary human life.” (Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary [AYB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 252)
מַתְנִי׳ ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ נָשִׁים״,
אֶלָּא שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מַרְבֶּה הוּא לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד
שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְסִירוֹת אֶת לִבּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת
וּמְסִירָה אֶת לִבּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר
״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ נָשִׁים״? דַּאֲפִילּוּ כַּאֲבִיגַיִל.
MISHNA: The king “shall
not add many wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only eighteen.
Rabbi Yehuda says: He may add many wives for himself, provided
that they are not like those who turn his heart away from reverence
for God. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he wants to marry only one
wife, if she turns his heart away, he should not marry her. If so, why is it
stated: “He shall not add many wives for himself”? This teaches that
even if his wives are like Abigail, who was righteous and prevented
David from sin (see I Samuel, chapter 25), it is prohibited for him to
have many wives. (source)
ולא ירבה לו נשים NEITHER SHALL HE
MULTIPLY WIVES TO HIMSELF only eighteen, for we find that David had six wives,
and it was announced to him (by Nathan the prophet): “[Thus saith the Lord … I
gave thy master’s wives into thy bosom] … and if that had been too little, I would
add unto thee such and such as these (i.e. twice as many)” (Sanhedrin 21a). (source)
ויאהב שלמה את ה'. עבדו מאהבה כלומר
אף על פי שלקח בת פרעה לא סר בעבורה מה' עד לעת זקנתו שהרבה נשים נכריות ובת פרעה והאחרות
הטו את לבבו מאהבת ה' ובאמת נראה שהשיב אותה לדת ישראל אף על פי כן היתה אסורה לו לפי
שהיתה מצרית ראשונה ומרבותינו ז"ל שאמרו כי מותרת היתה לו כי מה שאמר בנים אשר
ילדו להם דור שלישי בנים ולא בנות ואף על פי שלא נקבעה ההלכה כדברי זה החכם אף על פי
שאמר כי קבלה היתה בידו נראין דבריו כי לא ראינו בכתוב שחטא שלמה על שלקח בת פרעה אלא
על שהרבה נשים ודבק בהם באהבה עד שהסירו את לבבו והניח נשיו הנכריות לעבוד אלהים אחרים
והנה בשנה הרביעית למלכו לקח בת פרעה והכתוב מעיד ויאהב שלמה את ה' וגו' רק בבמות הוא
מזבח ומקטיר ולא אמר רק שלקח בת פרעה ועד עת זקנתו לא הטו את לבבו ואז זכר בת פרעה
לגנאי עם האחרות לפי שהסירו את לבבו כלם ואז בהרבות הנשים לא היה שומר להשיבם לדת ישראל
אלא היה לוקחן בגיותן לתאות לבו ומניחן לעשות כמשפטי הגוים וע"כ נענש עליהם:
(source)
That he multiplied foreign wives, including the
daughter of Pharaoh, and the others turned his heart away from loving the LORD.
In truth it appears that he did return her to the religion of Israel;
nevertheless she was forbidden to him because she was an Egyptian of the first
generation.
And our Rabbis of blessed memory who said that she was
permitted to him argued from the statement “the children whom they bear to them
— by the third generation [are] sons and not daughters.” Even though halacha
was not firmly decided according to that sage’s view, and even though it was
said that he had received a tradition, his words seem plausible.
For we do not see in the text that Solomon sinned
merely for taking the daughter of Pharaoh, but rather for having many wives and
cleaving to them in love until they turned away his heart, and he left his
foreign wives to serve other gods. And behold: in the fourth year of his reign
he took the daughter of Pharaoh, and the text testifies “and Solomon loved the
LORD….” Only with regard to the high places is there an altar and incense — it
does not say merely that he took the daughter of Pharaoh. Until the time of his
old age they had not yet turned his heart; then the daughter of Pharaoh is
remembered reproachfully along with the others because they all removed his
heart.
And by multiplying the women he did not take care to
bring them back to the religion of Israel; rather he took them in their
promiscuity to satisfy the desire of his heart and permitted them to follow the
practices of the nations. Therefore he was punished on account of them.
Note that, according to David Kimhi, Solomon being a
polygamist per se did not mean he had “many” wives (cf. Deut 17:17;
Jacob 1:15; 2:24; Mosiah 11:2; Ether 10:5); having “many” wives is something more
specific.
Solomon, as a Torah scholar,
converted Pharaoh’s daughter (as well as each of his subsequent foreign wives)
before he married her. However, since these foreign-born wives were not
converted with the prior consent of the Sanhedrin, Scripture censures Solomon
for marrying them. Moreover, in the end, the Sanhedrin’s fears proved valid
(see 11:1-10), as these wives never fully abandoned their idol worship (Rambam).
(The Artscroll English Tanach, Stone Edition: The Jewish Bible with Insights
from Classical Rabbinic Thought [New York: Artscroll Mesorah Publications,
Ltd., 2011], 511; “Rambam” refers to Moses Maimonides)
These two relatively long verses
are an unusual instance of the intervention of a Deuteronomistic editor in the
dialogue of the original David story that was composed perhaps nearly four
centuries before him. The language here is an uninterrupted chain of verbal
formulas distinctive of the Book of Deuteronomy and its satellite literature: keep
what the LORD your God enjoins, walk in His ways, keep His statutes, His
commands, and His dictates and admonitions, so that you may prosper in
everything you do and in everything to which you turn, walk before Me in truth
with their whole heart and with their whole being. The very mention of the
Teaching [torah] of Moses is a hallmark of the Deuteronomist, and as
phrase and concept did not yet have currency in the tenth century. The long
sentences loaded with synonyms are also uncharacteristic of the author of the
David story, and there is no one in that story—least of all, David himself—who speaks
in this high-minded, long-winded, didactic vein. Why did the Deuteronomistic
editor choose to intervene at this penultimate point of the David story? It
seems very likely that he was uneasy with David’s pronouncing to Solomon a last
will and testament worthy of a dying mafia capo: be strong and be a man, and
use your savvy to pay off all my old scores with my enemies. In fact, David’s
deathbed implacability, which the later editor tries to mitigate by first
placing noble sentiments in his mouth, is powerfully consistent with both the
characterization and the imagination of politics in the preceding narrative.
The all-too-human David on the brink of the grave is still smarting from the
grief and humiliation that Joab’s violent acts caused him and from the public
shame Shimei heaped on him, and he wants Solomon to do what he himself was
prevented from doing by fear in the one case and by an inhibiting vow in the
other. In practical political terms, moreover, either Joab, just recently a
supporter of the usurper Adonijah, or Shimei, the disaffected Benjaminite,
might threaten Solomon’s hold on power, and so both should be eliminated. (Robert
Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
2019], 2:441)
A common criticism of the various First Visions accounts centers around the age Joseph Smith was when he had the theophany. If it took place in the spring of 1820, he would have been 14 years of age (being born December 23, 1805). However, it is common for many to claim he originally taught he was 16 years of age. Consider the following from Kyle Beshears:
But some of the variations seem
at odds with his earliest account. Was he fourteen or sixteen when the vision occurred?
(Kyle Beshears, 40 Questions About Mormonism [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Kregel Academic, 2026], 66)
The problem is that the 1832 account does not state that Joseph was 16 years of age when he had the First Vision.
Firstly, the phrase “in the 16th year of my age” is an
interlinear insertion made by a scribe other than Joseph Smith. Here is the
image from History,
circa Summer 1832, p. 3:
Secondly, the interlinear insertion states the First Vision
took place in the 16th year of Joseph Smith’s “age.” 16 is a cardinal
number; 16th is an ordinal. If 1805 (Joseph Smith’s year of
birth) is his 1st year of life, 1820 would be his 16th,
so there is no inconsistency, even if one wishes to argue this insertion was
added at the behest of Joseph Smith. The spring of 1820 would represent when
Joseph Smith was 14 years of age, and at the same time, his 16th
year of age.
To be fair to Beshears, he also does note that:
It is unlikely Smith intentionally
revised his First Vision primarily to match his new ideas about God or to
secure power, as some critics have suggested. The
church’s explanation is more convincing, which suggests differences between
the accounts could be “read as evidence of [Smith’s] increasing insight, accumulating
over time, based on experience.” The explanation does not identify what, exactly,
the insight and experience were, but they were obviously collected over the
years Smith led the church. If this observation is true, then presumably the
church means to say he received revelatory insight in the years following 1832
that prompted him to modify his earliest account. In other words, as Smith grew
in his role as the church’s prophet, his memory of the First Vision did, too. (Kyle
Beshears, 40 Questions About Mormonism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel
Academic, 2026], 67)
Interestingly, Beshears was indeed aware that the phrase was
an insertion by someone other than Joseph Smith:
Yet, in his earliest account of
the event (1832), Smith places it “in the 16th year of my age,” or 1821—the phrase
was inserted by Smith’s scribe, Frederick G. Williams, JSP H:12. (Kyle Robert Beshears, “Wingfield Scott Watson and
His Struggle to Preserve The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
(Strangite) After the Death of Its Founder” [PhD Dissertation; The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, December 2021], 36 n. 33, emphasis in bold added)
A less charitable reader could argue that, when trying to be
more scholarly (in a PhD dissertation), Beshears will be more careful, but in a
book aimed at “boundary maintenance” (which this book is), Kyle will let these
things slide.
I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. One has to give some credit to Kyle Beshears in his recent book when he addressed the Latter-day Saint view of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
To be clear, Smith was never and
is not worshiped in the LDS Church; no orthodox Latter-day Saint would
even consider it. (Kyle Beshears, 40 Questions About Mormonism [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2026], 52)
But Smith is elevated to high
that he has become the subject of praise as the man who “commun’d with
Jehovah,” as the LDS hymn declares. “If you ever enter the Kingdom of God,”
claimed Brigham Young, “it is because Joseph Smith let you go there.” Perhaps
this high veneration, more than anything, prevents traditional Christians from
approaching his claims in the first place. (Kyle Beshears, 40 Questions
About Mormonism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2026], 52, emphasis in bold added)
However, the Bible (which, for Beshears, is formally sufficient) teaches a high, now a low, anthropology, even after the Fall, evidenced by the worship of the Davidic King in 1 Chron 29 and Psa 72, and praises being sung to oracles and other important figures. For a full discussion, see the following written in response to another Calvinist (Reformed Baptist):
14. The Fifth holy Ecumenical
Synod was held in Constantinople itself and was attended by 165 prelates. Its
distinguished leaders were Menas at first and then Eutychios, who succeeded the
former as patriarch of the imperial city. Vigilius, the bishop of Rome, was
present in the city but not at the synod. Even if he was reluctant to attend
the synod, he still confirmed the common faith of the Fathers in a small book.
Along with them were Apollinarios of Alexandria and Domnos of Antioch, both
illustrious patriarchs, as well as Didymos and Evagrios, who represented
Eustochios, the patriarch of Jerusalem. At that time Justinian, the mightiest
of Roman emperors, managed the concerns of the state and agreed with the
decisions of the Church. This holy ecumenical synod uprooted the dire offshoots
of Nestorios’ teachings along with the sower of these tares. It also condemned
Theodore and Diodoros, the one from Tarsus, the other from Mopsuestia. Even
before Nestorios they had given birth to this kind of heresy, but left no
record of their activity in siring strange and illegitimate embryos of their
illegitimate thought. It also condemned and anathematized Origen, Didymos, and
Evagrios, ancient plagues of the faithful, men who contentiously strove to
introduce Greek mythology into the Church of God. They babbled that souls
survive bodies and that the same soul enters many bodies in succession. A dire
and contemptible teaching, fit for their souls alone. They held, too, that
there would be an end of eternal punishment. This is another invitation to all
kinds of sin and destruction. They bestowed their ancient prestige upon the
evil angels, since they imagined that they would return to the glory of heaven,
from which they had fallen. They did not want bodies to join their souls in
resurrection, but they had the souls rise again, free from their bodies. |
don’t know what they mean by resurrection, since it involves what has fallen
and died, not what is everlasting and immortal, i.e., the soul. These wretches,
in their shamelessness, even accuse the Just Judge as they babble. What an
injustice! For how do they not bring the most extreme of charges against him
when in their blasphemy they contend that he deprives the bodies, which along
with their souls had endured sufferings in the pursuit of virtue, of their
common rewards, and leaves the bodies, which had shared the guilt and evil
deeds, free of all charges? Is it:not the ultimate injustice for him to set the
bodies aside and either exact a double punishment upon the souls or heap a
double reward upon them?
15. The holy assembly of the
Fathers not only condemned these men for their impiety, but a little earlier it
cut down and outlawed Anthimos of Trebizond, who cherished the thought of
Eutyches, as well as Severos, Peter of Apameia and Zoora, and that whole evil,
many-headed, and dispersed company. Agapetos of Rome took the lead in this
glorious affair, but the renowned prelates supported him with their votes and
their efforts. Among them the famous Ephraimios of Antioch and the holy Peter
of Jerusalem led the way. The sacred synod of prelates rejected and expelled
them all as it confirmed and consolidated the sacred teachings of the catholic
and apostolic Church. These were the concerns of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. (The
Patriarch and the Prince: The Letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to
Khan Boris of Bulgaria [trans. Despina Stratoudaki White and Joseph R.
Berrigan, Jr.; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982], 47-48)
30. Do not look down upon the
bearing, the appearance and the movements of your body as upon something of
secondary importance. For a very well ordered bearing and condition of these
things seems to be not a least part of practical wisdom; and such men as are
not most readily able to comprehend the power of the soul and its beauty,
because they are guided by outward appearances, become also the lovers and
praises of things that are invisible. [34] For this you must take care
of your face, your hair, and your dress, so as to appear worthy of respect. Do
not, however, take this care to the absurd extremes but do not neglect it
either. Both extremes are improper, contemptible, and unfavorable for leaders
of state. Even orderliness of gait, benefits the ruler who should neither
disgrace his movements to the point of being effeminate and weakly, nor seek
after new effects to the point of an awkward, irregular and uneven gait. All in
all, the whole motion of the body ought to be well-controlled.
31. One should pay attention to
the speed of his speech. Fast talking, when competing for a prize might not be
contemptible or impolite, but when speaking in the assembly, it is absurd and
dangerous. [35] For those who rule, especially the statesmen and
government officials, rapid speech makes them appear trivial and irresolute. [36]
More important than how you speak is how you expedite decisions. This
accomplishment, accompanied by orderly behavior, proves to be a divine and
wonderful gift for the possessor and a rare combination not often encountered.
When speech is moderate and in good order, noble and admirable, it is in the
best interest of the multitudes. Fast speech, delivered with disorder and
madness, is sometimes very difficult to correct; it is dangerous, on the other
hand, to be slow, indolent, disorderly and foolish, because when you err the
effect will be less significant and less damaging.
32. Boisterous laughter and
unseemly behavior violate the form and the stability of one’s character.
33. Let both ear and tongue be
free from all foul language. If one enjoys hearing such talk he will not be
ashamed to speak it. If one is not ashamed to speak shameful talk, he will
probably not be ashamed to do shameful deeds. [37] Be constantly aware,
however, of your tongue from slipping aside; for words can in a very short time
make a great difference and damage the life and fortunes of people. [38]
. . .
76. Do not manifestly trangress
any of those precepts that you have determined to enjoin upon others. If there
is falsehood in some things, it will make everything else appear false. Those
who have been deceived are not ashamed to reply inkind. Every man should avoid
lying, especially those who rule. [73] The lie of a common man may be
described as weakness. Rulers have no such escape: They will have to be judged
very severely. [74]
. . .
86. Never punish anyone even
justly, while you are angry. [76] Even if the guilty man is punished,
you would nonetheless be thought to have acted badly in the matter. This is why
one of the ancients declared to someone who had erred: ‘I would chastise you,
if I were not angry.”
. . .
94. Some have said that lovers
have their souls in others’ bodies. | think it is more reasonable to say that
they have lost their minds along with their souls in those other bodies. [83]
. . .
100. Verbal insolence to free men
is not much different from the insolence of blows and lashes. [87]
Therefore, one must guard against rashness in these matters; for though it does
not seem great, it produces great losses. [88] (The Patriarch and the
Prince: The Letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to Khan Boris of
Bulgaria [trans. Despina Stratoudaki White and Joseph R. Berrigan, Jr.;
Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982], 60-61, 70-71, 73, 74, 75)
Notes for the above (from ibid., 83-84, 86, 87, 88, 89)
[34] ‘“‘A man may be known
by his looks, and one that hath understanding by his countenance, when thou
meetest him,”’ Sirach 19.29.
[35] Proverbs 20.20: ‘‘Do
you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for
him.”” Also, Sirach 4.29: “Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds slack
and remiss.”’
[36] Cf. Isocrates, Isocrates:
to Demonicos, 15:12: “Be not fond of violent mirth, nor harbour presumption
of speech; for the one is folly, the other madness.’
[37] Cf. Basil, PG
107:37, maxim 33: ‘Don’t say the things which you are ashamed to do; and the
things which you are ashamed to say, don’t even think.’’ Cf. also Isocrates,
Isocrates: to Demonicos 15:12: ‘‘What ever is shameful to do you must not
consider it honorable even to mention.”
[38] See Sirach 20.18: ‘To
slip upon a pavement is better than to slip with the tongue: so the fall of the
wicked shall come speedily.” Similarly in Aeschylos, Prometheus Bound:
‘‘Keep a quick mind and use not over-vehemence of speech—knowest thou not,
being exceedingly wise, a wanton, idle tongue brings chastisement,” line 327, Great
Works of the Western World, ‘‘Aeschylos,”” ed. Mortimer Adler (Chicago,
1952), 5, p. 43. See also Hesiod’s Works and Days, tr. Hugh G. Evelyn
White (London, 1920) p. 54: line 708: ‘‘Do not make a friend equal to a brother
but if you do, do not wrong him first and do not lie to please the tongue.’’
Line 718: ‘‘The best treasure a man can have is a sparing tongue, and the greatest
pleasure, one that moves orderly: for if you speak evil, you yourself will soon
be worse spoken of.”’
. . .
[73] Basil, PG
107:36, maxim 29: “Always speak the truth and keep your word and teach others
to believe you. Thus you will be sure that you will not be suspected, and you
will always have the trust and the friendship of your people.”
[74] Sirach 5.28: “Strive
for the truth unto death and the Lord shall fight for thee.’’
. . .
[76] Cf. Sirach 8.16:
‘Strive not with an angry man and go not with him into a solitary place: for
blood is as nothing in his sight; and where there is no help, he will overthrow
thee.”’
. . .
[83] Cf. Sirach 9.6: ‘Give
not thy soul unto harlots, that thou lose not thine inheritance.”’ [RB: Note: there
is no note 83 in the main body of the text (it skips 83) but this paragraph fits
the context of the note]
. . .
[87] Cf. Plutarch’s
Lives, ‘‘Life of Timoleon,’’ tr. Bernadotte Perrin (London, 1914)
32.341: “So natural is it for most men to be more galled by bitter words than
hostile acts: since insolence is harder for them to bear than injury.’’
[88] Sirach 10.13: “Honour
and shame is in talk; and the tongue of man is his fall.’”
17. The Seventh holy and
Ecumenical Synod was held in Nicaea, the capital of Bithynia. Of old it had
determined the truth of doctrines; now it provided a touchstone of piety. Some
368 men of God were in attendance. The leaders and principal figures of this
great and sacred assembly included Tarasios, renowned among the bishops of God;
he was a pious and altogether excellent man, worthy, if any other man ever was,
to direct the patriarchal affairs of the imperial city. There was also the most
prudent Peter, the first priest of the holy Roman Church, and another Peter,
also a priest, the abbot of the monastery of St. Sabbas there in Rome. They
were allotted the place of the apostolic see, since they represented Pope
Adrian. Along with them there were John and Thomas, men illustrious for their
monastic life, and those who shone with episcopal glory, those who represented
the entire area of Anatolia, rich in apostolic sees, and those who embodied the
dignity of patriarchs.I mean Apollinarios, Theodoretos, and Elias, the one of
Alexandria, the second of Antioch, the last of Jerusalem. Each ruled his see
wisely and well. At that time Constantine and Irene, crowned with the chaplet
of the true faith, were garbed in the imperial purple of Roman majesty. This
great and holy synod considered the recent and barbarous heresy, introduced by
impious and dreadful men. The synod condemned it with a divine and unanimous
decision and placed its contrivers and champions under the same judgment. These
wretches did not dare to blaspheme Christ, our true God, with their words, but
by their deeds they contrived all manner of outrages, blasphemies, and
impieties. They did not dare to defame him directly and without any disguise,
but through His sacred image they fulfilled the whole desire of those who war
against Christ. They condemned the sacred image of Christ (O the discordance of
a daring and godless mind and tongue!) as an idol, that image by which the
error of idols is routed. They subjected it to all kinds of indignity;
through the streets and squares they kicked it with their feet, they ridiculed
it, they threw it into the fire. A pitiful sight for Christians and fit only
for those pagans who were at war with Christ. They did the same sort of thing
to the other sacred images as, swift to shed blood, they mistreated them with
their feet, with their murderous hands, and their profane lips, nor were these
accursed men ever satisfied with this wild madness. In their hatred for the
sacred symbols and images of Christians, they felt a loathing for them that was
not less, but in fact more than their loathing for the idols of the Greeks
[pagans]. Thereby they declared an unquenchable war against Christ and his
saints; the fight was bitter and all-out. For everyone sees that the honor paid
to images produces honor to those who are imaged forth, even as dishonor to the
former affects those who are imaged forth. But these men, freshly spring
from the Jews who warred with Christ, as they insulted the sacred image of
Christ and his saints, made good the deficiency of their ancestors; they
tried to outdo the Jews, their progenitors, in the excess of their zeal. But
since, in the presence of Christians, they did not dare to deny Christ with
their lips, right there they proved that they had tempered the Jewish zeal of
their ancestors; they showed that their imitation was a spurious thing, and
they kept no one position. But as though they had their heads bowed with
evil, they called themselves Christians, but were insolent towards Christ.
They did not call themselves Jews, but they rivaled their combat against Christ
in their iconoclasm; in fact they surpassed them. Not only that, but shunning
the very name of idolatry, they made charges against Christians and the holy
and undefiled mysteries of Christianity that were no more tolerable than those
made by idolators. Therefore, as many of them as were unwilling to flee the
meanness of this adultery, of this luxuriant and well- kneaded belief, were
condemned by this sacred ecumenical synod as illegitimate, as foreign to the
genuine character of believers; it subjected them to the unbreakable bonds of
anathema. But the image of Christ, who is truly our God, in accordance with
traditions handed down from the Apostles and Fathers as well as by divine
revelation, should be reverenced and honored out of respect and veneration for
the person who is imaged forth: this was the unanimous decision ratified by the
synod. Such respect and veneration should be paid in the same manner in which
we do reverence to the other sacred images and symbols of our most holy
religion. We do not fix our respect and veneration on them nor do we limit our
respect and veneration to them, nor are we divided into different and diverse
ends. Through the palpably different and divided service and veneration we
pay them we are led aloft, in a sacred and indivisible manner, to that
undivided, simple, and unifying deity.
18. Thus we venerate the holy
cross, upon which our Lord’s body was stretched, from which his blood,
as an expiation for the universe, gushed forth. The nature of that wood was
watered by those streams and bloomed with eternal life rather than death. Thus
we reverence the image of the cross, by which legions of devils are routed and
strange maladies cured. Grace and power were infused once and for all in that
first cross and continue to be active in all other crosses. Each of them,
then, I mean the image of Christ, the cross itself, and the representation of
the cross, we judge worthy of honor and veneration, but we do not limit or
prescribe the reverence and honor given to them. Rather we refer and elevate
this veneration to the One who became man for us out of his ineffable, abundant
love for man and willingly endured a most shameful death on our behalf. So
we reverence in faith the churches of the saints, their graves, and their
relics, which produce cures for the faithful, as we glorify and extol Christ
our God, who honored them. And if there is something similar to them in our
sacred mysteries, e.g., their active grace and good works, we acknowledge and
acclaim the source as responsible. Therefore that divine and sacred assemblage
of blessed and holy men confirmed through its decisions that not only should
the image of Christ be honored and reverenced, as we have said, but also that
of our spotless and ever-virgin lady, the Mother of God, and those of all the
saints in keeping with the abundant holiness of their prototypes. By them
we are brought to a simple and unifying contemplation. These were wise and
inspired decrees, which drove out that whole heretical disease and all the
ugliness of that rational herd. The Church was shown resuming her proper beauty
and raiment. Like a bride, not bedecked with golden ornaments, but with sacred
images, she was placed on the right of her bridegroom Christ, a sight for happy
and joyful eyes, a delight for the entire body of believers. (The Patriarch
and the Prince: The Letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to Khan Boris
of Bulgaria [trans. Despina Stratoudaki White and Joseph R. Berrigan, Jr.;
Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982], 50-53, emphasis in bold
added)
Further Reading:
16. The Sixth holy Ecumenical
Synod met in Constantinople, which became the theater of mystical visions of
the truth and demonstrated to the 170 prelates who were involved in the contest
the brilliant triumph of piety. The leaders of this synod and those who were
chosen to preside included Georgios, to whom the patriarchate of the imperial
city had been entrusted, as well as Theodore and Georgios, both of whom were
priests, and Deacon John, who were included among the prelates representing
Agathon, who was then the most blessed pope of Rome. Peter the Monk represented
the patriarchal see of Alexandria, as did Georgios the Monk, that of Jerusalem.
Along with the other holy and blessed Fathers these prelates condemned Sergios,
Pyrrhos, and Paul, all patriarchs of Constantinople, Honorius of Rome, Kyros of
Alexandria, and Theodore of Pharan and snapped the cords of deceit, woven by
others. They likewise passed judgment upon Makarios of Antioch, Stephen the
teacher of this heresy, and a wretched old man by the name of Polychronios, all
of whom were involved with the others and dared to defend their impiety. Their
rash teaching, couched in impious and irrational language, was that here is one
will and one operation in Christ, our true God, possessed of two natures. The
dolts did not take this point into consideration, an easy one and quickly
grasped— that is not the same operation to straighten with a word of power the
limbs of a cripple and to endure the toil of a journey; that it is not the same
operation to give sight to the blind and to use the fingers to mix spittle and
dirt, to make a paste, and to apply it to the eyes; that it is not the same
operation to ask that the chalice of death pass by and then again to call it a
glory and to choose what had not been willed. But how did they not realize that
they were thereby denying the difference between his natures? For every nature
is the source of its operation; and natural wills are apportioned to different
operations. And so, if in line with their error there is one operation and one
will, then there is but one nature from which these derive. If there are two
natures (and they never fell into the madness [of monophysitism] , since they
had before their eyes the dispersion and destruction of its proponents), how
will each nature not produce its own operation and will? They cared not for
their private bad reputation and were placed under an eternal anathema along
with it. The assembly of Fathers, bearing God in their hearts, proclaimed that
there are two natural wills and two operations in the one Christ our God and
they urged the churches everywhere to confess and declare the Orthodox
position: as there are two natures, so are there two wills and two operations.
At this time Constantine, the heir of Heraklios, had assumed the ancestral rule
of the empire. In other matters he co-operated with the synod and honored the
true teaching of the Church. This was the business of the Sixth [Ecumenical]
Synod. (The Patriarch and the Prince: The Letter of Patriarch Photios of
Constantinople to Khan Boris of Bulgaria [trans. Despina Stratoudaki White
and Joseph R. Berrigan, Jr.; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press,
1982], 48-50)
Could it be that some of the
Fathers accepted the concept of restoration [αποκαταστασιν] from this point onward, saying that sinners are
punished only up to this time, but thereafter no longer, as if they have been
purified by the punishment? But what should be done regarding the many others
among the Fathers, and the approved Scriptures, which speak of the punishments
of those who were then being punished as eternal? What then might one say, or
how should one regulate the parts? One must blend the opinions of both sides. I
say this as in a kind of exercise, and not as a definitive statement; for I add
to the doctrine of the Church that which wishes the punishments in the future
to be eternal, since even this was said by the Lord in the Gospel according to
Matthew, saying, “And these will go away into eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46);
and Isaiah said, “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.”
(Isa. 66:24) As in an exercise, therefore, this must be said: a middle portion
of each part of the path is to be marked out, because until a certain time—five
months, as the present Revelation, having employed a certain secret number,
has said—the sinners will be severely tormented as if stung by a scorpion;
but after his, gradually, although we will not be entirely free from punishment,
it will be to such an extent that we will seek death and not find it. For
who would have a need to seek death for those who are not punished at all? Death,
he says, will flee from them, for they share in punishment eternally. (Commentary
on Revelation by Oecumenius [trans. John Litteral; 2026], 112-13)
When commenting on Rev 7:14:
And it says that they washed
their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; indeed, it was
more fitting for the robes dyed in blood to become crimson rather than white.
How then have they become white? Because baptism, which is accomplished through
the death of the Lord, as it seems to the most wise Paul (Rom. 6:3), acts as a
cleanser of all impurity arising from sin, rendering those who are baptized in
it white and pure. (Commentary
on Revelation by Oecumenius [trans. John Litteral; 2026], 97)
The closing and sealing of the
little scroll, which contains the names of the people written in it, signifies that
it is unalterable and that their mouths are shut from any justification before
God, according to what has been previously stated (Rev. 5:1). Therefore, the
gradual removal of the seals signifies the gradual repetition of the boldness
and intimacy toward God, which the only begotten One, having become incarnate,
has made possible for us by correcting our shortcomings through His own deeds.
It must be understood that the breaking of each seal signifies one of
the acts performed by the Lord for our salvation, and also those carried out by
Him against the spiritual enemies of our souls. For the Lord’s providence
toward us involves the overthrow of those powers.
Let no one be amazed at those
things that will happen, that the Only Begotten existed before becoming
incarnate; for the works and deeds before His coming to us are shown to the
divine evangelist through vision. Yet, He appears as a Lamb in the revelation,
as if slain.
For it is customary that what is
seen by the prophets serves as a pre-announcement of things to come. Therefore,
a man long ago contended with Jacob (Gen. 32:24), a type of Christ; thus Isaiah
saw the prophetess conceiving in her womb and bearing a son, whose name is also
called, “Despoil Quickly, Plunder Rapidly.” (Isa. 8:3) Thus Daniel saw the Son
of Man, still without flesh, God, the Word coming to the Ancient of Days. (Dan.
7:13)
Therefore, the first blessing,
which pertains to our race through our Savior Christ, is the one that opened
the first seal of the little scroll and established the beginning of
leading us back to where we came from, out of the transgression in Adam, and to
recover for us the lost relationship with God and to transfer our previously
forbidden access into boldness. This is the bodily birth established by the
Lord, which sanctified our birth so that we are no longer conceived in
lawlessness and carried in sins by our mothers, but we have a holy birth of
Christ through our own birth, by which the human birth is blessed. And a
witness to such a mobile ambition toward humanity is the divine apostle, who
writes: “since your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” (1 Cor. 7:14)
(Commentary on Revelation by Oecumenius [trans. John Litteral; 2026], 76-77)
In his commentary on Rev 2:28, we read:
And I will give him the
morning star, says the prophet concerning the Assyrian or Satan, “How
you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!” (Isa. 14:12) He
is still called the morning star; therefore, he says, I will give Satan
into the hand of my servants. Similar to what is said by the apostle: “God will
soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Rom. 16:20) And, “on an asp and a basilisk
you will tread, and you will trample a lion and a dragon.” (Ps. 90:13) (Commentary
on Revelation by Oecumenius [trans. John Litteral; 2026], 43, emphasis in
bold added)
3. judge angels. The
background for this idea is the Jewish apocalyptic notion that some angels
rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven along with Satan. There is no
suggestion in the Old Testament that human beings will judge these angels. Jude
6 refers to the angels, but God seems to be their judge. Paul elevates the
saints to a position that is of almost the same dignity as that of Christ,
undoubtedly because the church is the habitation of the Spirit. The community
of believers is therefore no mere human society. (William F.
Orr and James Arthur Walther, I
Corinthians: A New Translation, Introduction, with a Study of the Life of Paul,
Notes, and Commentary, [AYB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976],
194)
In his chapter “Question 6: What is the Great Apostasy,” Kyle Beshears wrote the following:
Traditional Christians are right
to ask, did the Great Apostasy occur? While we can agree that apostasy occurs,
it does not—and cannot—rise to a level at which the gospel, with its full power
and authority to save, was or ever will be muted. (Kyle Beshears, 40
Questions About Mormonism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2026], 60)
The problem for Beshears is that he is a Reformed Baptist.
In spite of proof-texting (such
as the abuse of a passage in 1 Clement), there is no meaningful evidence
for the historic Protestant understanding of justification until the second millennium
(let alone the development of nominalism that was necessary for Luther’s
understanding of justification).
While some may appeal to positive uses of “sola fide” in the
patristics, such would represent a word-concept fallacy. Pelagius himself used sola
fide positively, and no one would ever argue that Pelagius held to the
later Protestant understanding of justification (e.g., his
commentary on Romans). Furthermore, Ambrosiaster et al., held to
transformative justification, baptismal
regeneration, rejected eternal security, and so forth. The same applies to Marius
Victorinus in his commentary on Galatians, another popular “proof-text” by
some online apologists.
That the Protestant understanding of justification is a
theological novelty is admitted by both their scholars and apologists. Scholar
Alister McGrath, himself a Protestant, wrote that:
The fundamental theological
question which is thus raised is the following: can the teachings of the
churches of the Reformation be regarded as truly catholic? In view of the
centrality of the doctrine of justification to both the initium theologiae
Lutheri and the initium Reformationis, this question becomes acutely
pressing concerning the doctrine of justification itself. If it can be shown
that the central teaching of the Lutheran Reformation, the fulcrum about which
the early Reformation turned, the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae,
constituted a theological novelty, unknown within the previous fifteen
centuries of catholic thought, the Reformers’ claim to catholicity would be
seriously prejudiced, if not totally discredited. (Alister McGrath, Iustitia
Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification [3d ed.;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 211)
In an interview on Hank Hanegraaff's conversion to Eastern
Orthodoxy, Rob Bowman discussed whether one holding to EO (and RC) soteriology
instead of the classical Protestant formulation means one is not a true
Christian, Bowman said the following:
First of all, it leads to what I
think ought to be for most of us [Protestants] a rather unsettling conclusion,
which is that there were no Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation.
Because, you will not be able to find, except perhaps a statement here or there
out of context, you will not be able to find any Christian theologians,
teachers, writers, in the first 14/15 centuries of Christianity clearly
articulating what we would call "justification by faith alone," or as
some people would like to call it, "forensic justification." The idea
that justification is, at its core, is a legal act in which God pardons sinners
of all their sins, past, present, and future, solely on the basis of Christ's
atoning work, created simply by faith . . .(44:32 mark, "Episode 46:
Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy")
Of course, it is not just the patristics and later medieval
authors, but I would also argue that many doctrines that Beshears rejects
(e.g., baptismal regeneration) can be demonstrated using the
historical-grammatical method of exegesis, while some of the doctrines
underlying his soteriology (e.g., imputed righteousness) are not based on
meaningful exegesis. See, for e.g.:
Refuting
Jeff McCullough ("Hello Saints") on Baptismal Regeneration
Response
to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
After giving a brief overview of various theories about Book of Mormon origins (e.g., the Spalding theory):
In any case, it’s unlikely that Smith
wrote the Book of Mormon. Examples of his writings contemporary to the creation
of the Book of Mormon betray Smith’s poor literacy, and he seems to have grown
more familiar with the text over time, which is peculiar if he made it up. Despite
its cumbersomeness, the Book of Mormon boasts a complicated narrative involving
some two hundred named characters in many distinct places across the span of
two thousand years. A complex matrix of stories and sermons with plots and
themes is colored with biblically inspired content that reveals an impressive
awareness and comprehension of the Old and New Testaments. It also addresses
pressing theological debates of nineteenth-century American Protestantism,
suggesting whoever wrote it was keenly attuned to the religious Zeitgeist of
the day. If Smith and ancient authors are both excluded from possibilities,
then its authorship remains a mystery. Clues in the text, however, point to an
author (or authors and editors) with an American Protestant background and
immense creativity, capable literary, and theological acumen. From this
perspective, the Book of Mormon is American pseudepigrapha, and the most influential
of its kind ever written. (Kyle Beshears, 40 Questions About Mormonism [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2026], 112-13)
When defining “traditional Christianity,” Kyle Beshears (Reformed Baptist) links it intimately with the belief in the Bible being unique as “inspired scripture.” Consider the following:
Along the way, I’ve encountered surprises
that challenged my preconceptions. I’ve found areas of common ground I never expected,
and I’ve gained a deeper appreciation for Latter-day Saint culture. At the same
time, I’ve come to recognize our real differences more clearly, free from the
fog of misunderstanding and caricature—differences that are serious, and, in
some instances, utterly irreconcilable. (p. 11)
By “traditional Christianity,” I
mean the faith that holds to four things:
1. the Holy Bible alone as
inspired scripture (i.e., not the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, nor
Pearl of Great Price);
2. the ecumenical creeds (e.g.,
Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed);
. . .
The first point rallies around
the common authority, the Word of God inspired by him. . . . Confessing the
ecumenical creeds further differentiates the two traditions. (Kyle Beshears, 40
Questions About Mormonism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2026], 15)
It should be noted that Beshears, as a Reformed Baptist,
cannot hold to (1) the canons of Nicene and other ecumenical councils
(which teaches an ordained, sacerdotal priesthood, viaticum, and baptismal
regeneration, and other beliefs that are erroneous, if not heretical in his
view). The same for Nicea and its ecclesiology and sacramental theology not
being “Calvinistic” (such as its explication of baptismal regeneration). One
can read the canons of Nicea (325) here.
Furthermore, Beshears tends to read into the biblical texts
(1) cessation of public revelation at the end of the New Testament and (2) formal
sufficiency of the Bible into passages without providing any meaningful
exegesis of the texts. In the book, it is assumed, but never exegetically
proven. Consider the following elsewhere in his book:
[In early LDS history, the Bible]
was foundational as an authority and necessary as a source of revelation, but
it was not final. (Ibid., 97, comment in square brackets added for
clarification)
The Inspiration of the Bible
God delights to reveal himself in
the handiwork of his creation (see Ps 19:1-6) and in the “divers manners” (Heb
1:1) he communicates. Theologians call these general and special revelation,
respectively. It is general because God reveals himself generally through
creation to all people across time and every culture, and special because
he also reveals himself in more comprehensive, concrete, and clear ways than
natural forms of revelation. At the core of God’s divine revelation is Jesus
Christ, the Word of God incarnate (see John 1:1, 14; Heb 1:1-3). All generation
revelation was “created by him, and for him” (Col 1:16), and all special revelation
readies, reveals, and reminds us of him (see Luke 24:25-27, 44-49; John 5:39).
Throughout centuries, Christians recognized this message in the special
revelation of the Bible—the word of God proclaimed by his Spirit, penned by
inspired writers, and providentially preserved by him who illuminates faithful
reading in the hearts of all saints.
The Bible is a library of books
collectively testifying of God’s work to bring about redemption for his glory.
The New Testament declares “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2
Tim 3:16) and every passage has the quality of being inspired, or God-breathed.
The Old Testament is often self-consciously aware of its inspiration as a
record of the very voice of God (e.g., “Thus saith the Lord”), recognizing prophecy
did not come “by the will of man: but the holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet 1:21). The NT frequently draws upon the OT
while recognizing its own content being among “the other scriptures” (2 Pet
3:16). (p. 98)
Under the heading “The
Sufficiency of the Bible”:
It’s better to call the canon
set, not closed, to recognize how Christians still believed God spoke, though
he had chosen to do so through inspired texts about the Lord Jesus (see Heb
1:1-3). The living God does still speak—his gospel proclaims Christ’s
redemption, his Spirit testifies of Christ, and God whispers in his still,
small voice to his saints in prayer. The Bible trains Christians how to recognize
God’s active voice. (Ibid., 99)
Under the heading of “The Authority of the Bible in Mormonism”:
Ultimately, the most significant
difference between traditional Christian and LDS views on the Bible orbits its
nature. Is the Bible a sufficient source of special revelation, or does it need
supplementing by an extended canon? Of course, Latter-day Saints have long
believed in the need for additional scripture. However, many traditional
Christians view supplemental scripture with suspicion. For conservative Protestants,
the denial of the Bible’s sufficiency is tantamount to rejecting sola
scriptura because the “authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired [if]
total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.” (Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy, introduction). Worse yet, to tamper with the word of God
is to jeopardize the gospel. (Ibid., 102)
Summary
The Bible is foundational to
Mormonism, but as an authority it is not final. The difference between
Christians and Latter-day Saints concerning the Bible isn’t whether it is
important but why it is important. Mormonism denies the sufficiency of
the Bible because it suffered corruption in its manuscript history, and God
continues to speak through prophets today. This point is especially amplified
on the nature of salvation. While Christians believe the Bible contains all
things necessary for salvation, Mormonism includes other texts, like the Book
of Mormon. (Ibid., 102-3)
Was [Joseph Smith] a true prophet
or a false one, and how could we tell? Was he even a prophet at all, if “in
these last days” (Heb. 1:2) God has spoken finally by his only begotten Son,
the Word of God (see John 1:1), and not a mere man? (Ibid., 40, comment in
square brackets added for clarification)
Apart from reading many of the essential “building blocks”
of Sola Scriptura into the Bible, Beshears shoots himself in the foot with
respect to his comments on Heb 1:2. After all, absolutizing the passage, it
means that public revelation ceased at the ascension, which means none of the
New Testament books are “God-breathed,” instead, only useful historical witnesses
en par with the Didache and 1 Clement. Furthermore, after the ascension, God continued
to reveal public revelation to “mere m[e]n,” i.e., all the New Testament authors.
To see why Heb 1:2, 2 Tim 3:16-17, and other texts do not
support Sola Scriptura, see:
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
(The following poem,
Appreciation,” was written by President Lee and was read at his home to celebrate
the 38th anniversary of his birth. The poem was copied by his father, and was
later found among his genealogical works. The latter part of the poem was
written at a later date.)
To my mother who gave me birth
And as God’s anent to superintend
My entrance to this earth,
“I give you thanks.”
For your work to train my feet
To walk life’s difficult path of right
And honor the name “Bingham Lee”
“Accept my praise”
When tongues of slander would blight my life
And would discourage and dishearten me,
You stood faithfully day and night
“My loyal friend.”
I have seen you, Dad,
Stand through the heart of day,
Our Provider—Protector—Head,
Bearing burdens without complaint.
“My gratitude to you.”
For fern, the first great love of my life
Whose selfless devotion and humility
Inspire me to live from “dawn of day to dark of night£
A better man.
“I worship at your shrine.”
For bearing me two lovely girls
Who think their dad can do no wrong,
Who bear the impress of your hand,
“Words can’t express.”
And so on this, my natal day,
I am not what I seem to be;
Life, strength, and immortality
I have today
“Because of these, my loved ones.”
As life moved on with rapid pace
My lovely Joan to me;
So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity
“O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee.” (“President Harold B. Lee 1899-1973,” Deseret
News 1974 Church Almanac: Historical Facts, Brief Biographies, Statistics and
Information Review of 1973 [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1974], 17)
I know what you are thinking:
Ignatius does not speak of the
Spirit with the same regularity with which he discusses the activity and
identity of the Son, however. The bishop of Antioch sometimes draws together
the work of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as in Eph. 9.1, where readers
are imaged as “stones of a temple, prepared for the building of God the Father,
lifted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross,
using as a rope the Holy Spirit.” And the Spirit is involved in Jesus’ birth (Eph.
18.2), in teaching the prophets (Magn. 9.2), in establishing the bishop,
presbyters, and deacons (Phld. Inscr.), in exposing things hidden (Phld.
7.1), and in empowering Ignatius’s prophetic speech (Phld. 7.2). (David
J. Downs, “The Pauline Concept of Union with Christ in Ignatius of Antioch,” in
The Apostolic Fathers and Paul, ed. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite
[Paulin and Patristic Scholars in Debate 2; London: T&T Clark, 2017], 150)
Further Reading:
William
R. Schoedel in Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians 7:1-2
Marriage and the “Age of the
Paraclete”
One of Tertullian’s most
obviously New Prophecy-infuenced books is his De monogamia (On
Marriage), written ca. 210/11. Earlier, Tertullian merely preferred his
wife to remain unmarried after his death (Ad. ux. 1.7.4) but permitted
remarriage—as long as it was “in the Lord” (Ad ux. 2.1.2–4; 2.2.3–5; cf.
1 Cor 7:28–29). Following his involvement with the New Prophecy
movement, however, he came to take a strong position against remarriage. This
more stringent view was based on the logia of Montanus, Maximilla, and
Priscilla on the topic (De iei. 1.3; Adv. Marc. 1.29.4; cf. Fr.
Ecst., ap. Praedestinatus, De haer. 1.26; Fr.,
Apollonius, ap. Eusebius, H.E. 5.18.2). These “sayings,” in the
opinion of Tertullian, conveyed the latest revelation of the Holy Spirit
(Paraclete) on the subject.
Through the New Prophecy, the
“Montanists” believed, a new “era” or “dispensation” had been inaugurated (De
virg. vel. 1.3–7). The “age of the Paraclete” superseded that of “the
Father” and even that “of the Son,” clarifying, once and for all, what God’s
will was on matters such as permanent monogamy. During earlier eras, God had
been prepared to be more lax, allowing polygamy among the Hebrew patriarchs and
remarriage (under certain conditions) for Christians. None of this, however,
was what God had intended for humanity in the beginning (Gen. 2:24). In the
present era, the Paraclete had come to restore the ethical precepts to their
original intention, even if this appeared to be a change in what had been
allowed previously.
Tertullian’s very first
extant explicit reference to his own acceptance of the New Prophecy and the
Montanist view of the role of the Paraclete is made in the context of his
discussion of marriage and remarriage in book 1 of the final edition of the Adversus
Marcionem:
Now if at this present time a
limit of marrying is being imposed, as for example, among us, a
spiritual reckoning decreed by the Paraclete is defended, prescribing a
single matrimony in the faith, it will be his to tighten the limit who had
formerly loosened it. (Adv. Marc. 1.29.4)
The kind of monogamy mandated by
the discipline revealed by the Paraclete for Christians living in the present
age is not merely the opposite of bigamy or polygamy. It is also the opposite
of digamy. Remarriage, even if allowed legally after the death of one’s
spouse, is forbidden by the Paraclete’s new method of spiritual counting.
Whether a person had multiple spouses concurrently or successively is
irrelevant. The number is wrong because it is more than one! Remarriage is
“adultery-in-series” (De mon. 4.3; cf. De exh. cast. 4.5–6); it
is a “species of fornication” (De exh. cast. 9.1).
“The World to Come”
In making his Montanist-influenced
case against remarriage after the death of one’s spouse, Tertullian makes some
interesting observations in the De monogamia concerning life in the
world to come. He reiterates his earlier view that there will be no resumption
of sexual relations between husband and wife in the afterlife (De mon. 10.7,
cf. Ad ux. 1.1.2–6). This, however, is no reason, argues Tertullian, for
people not to remain bound to their departed spouses. In fact, because of their
belief in the resurrection of the dead, they should pray that the souls of
their beloved departed may have refreshment in their intermediate state and
look forward to their future reunion (De mon. 10.5–8).
Tertullian has no doubt that, in
the world to come, husbands and wives will recognize each other, have a
spiritual (rather than physical) relationship, and have their memories intact (De
mon. 10.8). Being in the presence of God does not exclude being in the
presence of each other. Husbands and wives will not be separated by God in the
world to come, just as God (as recently revealed by the Paraclete) demands that
they not be separated during their life on earth (De mon. 10.9). The
kind of “mansion” received in the afterlife (cf. John 14:2) depends upon the “wages”
earned in this life (10.9). (William Tabbernee, “The World to Come: Tertullian’s
Christian Eschatology,” in Tertullian & Paul, ed. Todd D. Still and
David E. Wilhite [Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate 1; New York:
Bloomsbury, 2013], 270-71)
The “throne of glory” may mean the throne of God on which the Son of
Man will sit. Together with the Son of Man the twelve apostles will “judge”
Israel on their thrones. That κρίνω could mean “to rule” is a philological fiction that is clearly false,
even though it has enjoyed near-universal acceptance since H. Grotius,71
who may have been the first to suggest it. That the evangelist is not
interested in the concept of judgment in any detail is clear from the fact that
in 25:31 he can recall our verse even though there it is not the twelve
apostles but the “least of the brothers” who are present at the judgment of the
Son of Man, and it is not the twelve tribes of Israel but “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) who are judged. Our context is not
interested in what may have been a polemical element in earlier stages of the
tradition—viz., that it is Israel and not the Gentiles that the twelve judge.
In the Matthean context the logion is simply a word of promise. In view of what
they have to give up in the present, the twelve are promised an incredible
exaltation that is out of all proportion to their present sacrifice. The
“hundredfold” of v. 29 is but a natural extension of this promise. (Ulrich
Luz, Matthew 8-20: A Commentary on Matthew 8-20 [Hermeneia—a
Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2001],
517)
The narrative of the two unfaithful women, which is first told to the
prophet (son of man) as a personal communication from Yahweh, without any
command to preach, begins as in ch. 16 with a prologue, which tells their
previous history. In terse sentences this hurries on to the mention of the
marriage between Yahweh and the women (ותהיינה לי
23:4 corresponds to ותהיי לי 16:8) and registers the birth of sons and
daughters by which the marriage receives its confirmatory seal. Whereas 16:9–14
describes in some detail the honor that it means to belong to Yahweh, to which
the mention of the beginnings in Egypt might have given rise (cf. Hos 11:1;
13:4), any such description of Yahweh’s gracious gift is completely lacking
here. (Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel:
A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 2 vols. [trans. Ronald E. Clements; Hermeneia—a
Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979],
1:483)