John Nolland on the Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness (Luke 4:1-13)

  

At his baptism (3:21-22) Jesus is identified as Son by the voice from heaven and anointed by the Spirit to empower his coming ministry (4:18). Now before his ministry begins-his filial obedience is tested in the wilderness, separated from all human provision and support. Strengthened by the Spirit he faces the Satanic seductions. Echoes of the testing of God's son Adam (3:38) in the 'garden and of God's son Israel in the wilderness permeate the account. But it is with a greater Son that we here deal. Luke reports three temptations at the climax of the forty-day encounter with the Devil.

 

When Jesus is hungry the Devil suggests that such hunger does not befit his dignity as Son, that sonship should be treated as a privilege to be exploited. Jesus should see to his own needs. He has the power to make stone into bread; he should not neglect his opportunities. Jesus replies with words from Deut 8:36. The Israelites had pined for the bread of Egypt (Exod 16:3), but the attention of an obedient son should be on the kingdom (Luke 12:31), not on bread. God will provide, as he had with the manna. The desire for bread should not determine the Son's use of the possibilities and privileges that are his.

 

The Devil takes Jesus up and treats him to a dazzling display of his extensive influence in the kingdoms of the world: the Devil is a power broker who sees to the disposition of glory in the world. His influence is co-extensive with the influence of evil in the fabric of human affairs, and he works through every form of the desire for self-aggrandizement. The Devil entices Jesus to come over to his way: to gain glory for himself in this world by compromise with the demonic forces that control it. But Jesus has been appointed a kingdom as one who serves (22:24-29). He seeks not for himself but only for his God. He will worship God alone and not the idols of the nations (Deut 6:13). The third place of temptation is at the temple in Jerusalem, the central place of the divine presence and protection (1 Kgs 9: 3; 2 Chr 7: 16; Ps 61: 4-5; etc.). Here the Son of God is to insist upon the protection of God by throwing himself down from a great height. We must read this temptation in relation to the Lukan recognition of a divine timetable for Jesus' life (Luke 9:51; 13:32-33) which leads to a facing of death in Jerusalem. Jesus is tempted to force the issue of divine protection, to demand in this provocative way the divine protection of the godly man promised in Ps 91. By the Devil's logic there should be no martyrs. But the divine purpose for Jesus, as for certain others, is that they should he preserved through death, not from death (Luke 21:16 with vv 18-19; 22:39-46 contrasted with the Petrine denials vv 54-62). Jesus will not put God to the test (Deut 6: 16). He will believe that the faithful God will do well by his Son.

 

The Devil has tried every kind of temptation, but he will be back. Jesus' whole ministry is marked by temptations (trials; Luke 22:28), but particularly the passion period will be a time of special onslaught by Satan (22:3, 31, 53, 39-46) as Jesus' ultimate act of obedience (22:42) draws near. (John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 [Word Biblical Commentary 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989], 182-83)

 

Robert L. Millet: Jesus was not the Recipient of the Wrath of the Father

  

Christ truly descended below all things (see Ephesians 4:8-10, Doctrine and Covenants 88:6). The Redeemer has thus “trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:107; 88:106; 133:50; see also Isaiah 63:3).

 

It isn’t that God the Father is angry or disgusted or even frustrated with His Beloved Son. No, it is like Isaiah recorded when he spoke of the coming Messiah: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes [welts, bruises, scars] we are healed.”

 

A bit later Isaiah records that “it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he [God the Father] put him [Jesus Christ] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed” (Isaiah 53:4-5, 10; Mosiah 14:5-6, 10). “The chastisement of our peace was upon him” is rendered as follows in an alternate translation: “the punishment that brought us peace was brought upon him” (New International Version).

 

And what of the expression, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him”? It certainly wasn’t the case that Elohim found delight in His Only Begotten Son’s agonizing pain. Rather, our Heavenly Father was pleased that His perfect Son, indeed His perfectly obedient and dependable Son, had faithfully carried out the much-needed sufferings in our behalf. (Robert L. Millet, How Great Thou Art: Revealed Insights into God, Our Heavenly Father [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2026], 152)

 

Jeffrey R. Holland (May 2009) vs. Jesus Being Abandoned by the Father per the Use of Psalm 22:1

  

Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

 

The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour … is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”?

 

With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone. (Jeffrey R. Holland, “None Were with Him,” General Conference, May 2009)

 

Kirsopp Lake (1911) on Baptismal Regeneration in Early Chrisitanity and the Shepherd of Hermas

  

On baptismal regeneration being unanimous in early Christianity:

 

Whatever may have been the position of baptism in Palestine, it always held the central position in Christian doctrine and practice in the Graeco-Roman world. Christians regarded themselves as men who had accepted the Messiah, and had in some sense entered into his kingdom before his coming in power; they were "proleptic" members of the kingdom. The condition of their entry into it was acceptance of the Messiah, but the actual method of entry was baptism. In Christian baptism the convert was said to be born again to eternal life, to become a new creature, to be set free from evil spirits, and to be cleansed from sin. The importance of this doctrine for the propagation of Christianity in the second century can scarcely be overestimated. Baptism was the great "mystery" of Christianity, just as, for instance, the "taurobolium" was the great "mystery" of Mithraism. The oriental religions were all mystery-religions, or, as we now should say, sacramental: that is to say, they offered to their votaries participation in eternal life. The differences between them in this respect were formal rather than essential, as can be illustrated from the fact that the phrase "born again into eternity" (in aeternum renatus) is applied in an inscription to worshippers of Mithra as well as to Christians. Thus the Christian teachers had the great advantage, from a missionary point of view, that they were teaching not only in a language, but also in a form of thought, which was understood by their public.

 

It cannot be accidental that all the forms of religion which became popular at this time in Rome were sacramental, and the explanation is probably to be sought in psychology. In the lan- guage of William James, there were in the beginning of the second century a number of "sick souls," who found a remedy in a combination of faith and outward acts to which a specifically healing character was given, and it is worth noting that, whether we accept the sacramental theories of the second century or not, the actual psychiatric efficiency of the sacraments themselves is undoubted. The theory was that baptism admitted to the Messianic kingdom, and incidentally, because all evil was excluded from that kingdom, gave release from sin. The fact was that the sick soul who believed was healed,-whether it would equally well have been healed if it had believed in something else is a question which is exceedingly important in itself but not important for the pure historian. (Kirsopp Lake, “The Shepherd of Hermas and Christian Life in the Second Century,” The Harvard Theological Review 4, no. 1 [January 1911]: 27-28)

 

 

On the theology of water baptism in the Shepherd of Hermas:

 

That Hermas fully accepted this central position of baptism is clear from Vis. iii. In this he describes a great tower, built over a spring of water, and explains that the meaning is, "your life was saved, and shall be saved, by water," and adds that the tower (the church) is founded on "the word (ρημα) of the almighty and glorious Name." The reference to water and to the "Name" in baptism calls for no further comment. Or again in Sim. ix, 16 he says:

 

For before man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead, but when he receives the seal, he puts off mortality and receives life. The seal, then, is the water. They go down, then, into the water dead and come up alive.

 

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, taking place ex opere operato, could scarcely be more clearly expressed.

 

Such teaching was probably typical of all the mystery-religions, and it is plain that in the use of such modes of thought the danger of an absolutely unethical development was considerable. Theoretically, indeed, there is no room in such a view for a moral or ethical element. The baptized Christian was ipso facto a member of the Messianic kingdom, had obtained eternal life, and was free from sin. (Kirsopp Lake, “The Shepherd of Hermas and Christian Life in the Second Century,” The Harvard Theological Review 4, no. 1 [January 1911]: 28-29)

 

Excerpts from Robert M. Royalty, Jr., The Origin of Heresy: A History of Discourse in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (2013)

  

THE RHETORIC OF HERESY

 

Heresiology is a discourse that negotiates difference within religious communities by seeking ideological hegemony. It can be expressed in a variety of tropes and figures for political functions in communities socially connected by religious ideologies. In this genealogy of heresy in Christianity, I am tracing the development of a cluster of rhetorical forms.

 

1 Membership (Salvation) Depends on Belief or Ideas

 

The notion of heresy inscribes by implication an ontology of belief. While religious identity in the ancient world was shaped primarily through custom and practice, Christian orthodoxy centered on belief; as Foucault writes, an “obligation to hold as true a set of propositions which constitutes a dogma.” I will trace the origins of doctrine or dogma (doxa) as determinative for inclusion in the soteriological community. The notion of dogmatic salvation has roots in sectarian writings of the Qumran community, in which halakhic positions define fissures between Second Temple Jewish groups. We will see how this rhetoric is employed and ideologically populated in first-century texts.

 

2 The Eschatological Idea That Disagreement Was Satanic or Demonic

 

The origins of religious difference must be theorized in the notion of heresy. The position on ideological difference that was systematized by the second century heresiologists has its origins in the dualistic worldview of Second Temple Jewish apocalypticism that explained religious difference via satanic tropes. This is the religious matrix for the Essenes at Qumran, the religious reform movements of John and Jesus in Galilee, and the formative religious and theological context for the early Christian communities that produced the first-century texts. This apocalyptic eschatological worldview drives confrontations with opponents.

 

3 The Importance of Received Tradition

 

The ideology of orthodoxy relies on tradition as a warrant. Received tradition, developed from Pharisaic as well as philosophical discourse, is related to the notion of dogma. As belief proper becomes the ideological center of first-century Christian orthodoxy, tradition gains power. Late first-century texts construct “tradition” as an ideological bulwark against opposing communities that embraced apocalyptic revelation and philosophical speculation. We will see this rhetorical-ideological move in the post-Pauline and Gospel texts.

 

4 The Doxography of Opposing Beliefs

 

As Christian orthodoxy centers increasingly on belief in received dogma to define its identity, classic heresiology of the second century and following includes a doxography of the views of the opposing teachers. I will trace this pattern from Qumran to late first-century texts. For philosophers, doxography functions to record and analyze different positions in order to transmit philosophical knowledge. Within early Christian heresiology, however, the function of heresiological doxography is ideological condemnation of different points of view by means of sarcasm, reduction, or other figures diminishing the intellectual quality of the opposing teachers.

 

5 The Universalized Web of Opposition

 

The genealogy of heresy constructs a historiography of error, from its origins to contemporary opposing teachers or prophets, united against the true church. The origins of this familiar rhetoric of “us” and “them” in Christian orthodoxy are inscribed in theories of difference from Second Temple Jewish literature, most notably apocalyptic eschatology. The political function of this rhetoric, however, contextualizes the binary divisions as more than expressions of structuralist theories of identity. Within orthodox Christian discourse, all other religious groups and communities, whether Christian, Jewish, or Hellenistic, are elided within and with the oikoumenē as “other.” And yet domination of this same oikoumenē is a political goal of orthodox Christians. (Robert M. Royalty, Jr., The Origin of Heresy: A History of Discourse in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity [Routledge Studies in Religion 18; New York: Routledge, 2013], 26-27)

 

 

<at the end of the book after surveying ‘heresy’ in 2TJ and EC>

 

Thus I repeat here as summary and conclusion, in modified form, the outlines of the rhetoric of heresiology presented in Chapter 1 and demonstrated in this book:

 

1 Membership (salvation) Depends on Belief or Ideas

 

The notion of heresy inscribes by implication an ontology of belief. While religious identity in the ancient world was shaped primarily through custom and practice, Christian orthodoxy centered on belief or dogma (doxa) as determinative for inclusion in the soteriological community.

 

2 The Eschatological Notion That Disagreement Was Satanic

 

The origins of religious difference must be theorized in the notion of heresy. The position on ideological difference that was systematized by the second-century heresiologists explained religious difference via eschatological and satanic tropes. This apocalyptic, eschatological worldview drives ideological confrontation with opponents, in contrast to other Christianities’ responses to difference.

 

3 The Doxography of Opposing Beliefs

 

For philosophers, doxography functions to record and analyze different positions in order to transmit philosophical knowledge. Within early Christian heresiology the function of heresiological doxography is ideological condemnation of different points of view by means of sarcasm, reduction, or other figures diminishing the intellectual quality of the opposing teachers.

 

4 The Importance of Received Tradition

 

The ideology of orthodoxy relies on tradition as a warrant. As belief proper becomes the ideological center of first-century Christian orthodoxy, tradition gains power. Late first-century texts construct “tradition” as a bulwark against opposing communities that embraced apocalyptic revelation and philosophical speculation. Orthodox Christians claim an “original” truth and label difference as deviance rather than innovation.

 

5 The Universalized Web of Opposition

 

The genealogy of heresy constructs a historiography of error, from its origins to contemporary opposing teachers or prophets, united against the true church. Within orthodox Christian discourse, all other religious groups and communities, whether Christian, Jewish, or Hellenistic, are elided within and with the oikoumenē as “other.” (Robert M. Royalty, Jr., The Origin of Heresy: A History of Discourse in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity [Routledge Studies in Religion 18; New York: Routledge, 2013], 174-75)

 

 

 

Mary Jane Woodger on D&C 93 and the Eternal Nature of Intelligences

  

Intelligence was not created by God but has existed independently throughout all eternity. (Mary Jane Woodger, The Essential Doctrine and Covenants Companion: Key Insights to your Gospel Study [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2012], 184)

 

Mary Jane Woodger on D&C 76 and the meaning of “redemption”

  

Redemption is not synonymous with exaltation; instead, it means to be released from Satan’s grasp. All but the sons of perdition will be redeemed from Satan’s power. (Mary Jane Woodger, The Essential Doctrine and Covenants Companion: Key Insights to your Gospel Study [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2012], 148)

 

Metzudat David and Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12

  

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:1

בגללכם. בעבור עוונותיכם: 

 

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:2

שדה תחרש. האויב יחריבה ותהיה נחרשת כשדה: 

 

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:3

עיין תהיה. תהיה מלאה מגלי אבנים מהמפלת הבניינים: 

 

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:4

לבמות יער. יהיה דומה לבמות יער ר״ל הרבה גלים ודגורין ימצא שם כמספר הבמות המצויות ביער והם תחתית האילנות שעל השרשים הנשארים אחר קציצת האילנות והמה דומות בגבהן לבמות:

 

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:1

בגללכם. בעבורכם וכן בגלל יוסף (בראשית לט): 

 

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:2

שדה. כשדה: 

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:3

עיין. כמו עיים במ״ם וכן לקץ הימין (דניאל יב) ועיים הוא גלי אבנים וכן לעיי השדה (לעיל א): 

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:4

לבמות. מל׳ במה: (source)

 

 

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:1
“Because of you—on account of your sins.”

 

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:2
“A field shall be plowed—the enemy will destroy it, and it will become plowed like a field.”

 

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:3
“You shall become ruins—it shall be filled with heaps of stones from the collapse of the buildings.”

 

Metzudat David on Micah 3:12:4
“Like the heights of a forest—it will be like the heights of a forest, meaning there will be many heaps and mounds there, like the high places found in a forest, which are the bases of the trees on the roots remaining after the trees are cut down, and which are similar in height to high places.”

 

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:1
“Because of you—because of you, as in ‘because of Joseph’ (Genesis 39).”

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:2
“A field—like a field.”

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:3
“Ruins—like iyyim with a mem, and similarly ‘to the end of the days’ (Daniel 12); and iyyim means heaps of stones, as in ‘the ruins of the field’ (above 1).”

 

Metzudat Zion on Micah 3:12:4
“To the heights—from the word bamah (‘height’).”

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Micah 3:12

  

Radak on Micah 3:12:1

לכן בגללכם. פי' בעבור עונותיכם שרבו ולא יפנה אל כבודו ואל ביתו כאשר אמרתם וציון שבניתם בדמים שדה תחרש כלומר כשדה תחרש שלא ישאר בה בנין ותהיה כמו השדה הנחרש וירושלם שבניתם בעולה עיין תהיה גלי אבנים שיהרסו האויבים ויתנו אבן על אבן ויהיו אבני הבנין לגלים וכן אמר שמו את ירושלם לעיים וכת"י ליגרין ותרגום והיתה בבל לגלים ליגרין לעי השדה ליגרי חקלא: 

 

 

Radak on Micah 3:12:2

עיין תהיה. בנו"ן כמו במ"ם וכן לקץ הימין והדומים להם: 

 

 

Radak on Micah 3:12:3

והר הבית לבמות יער. והר הבית ששם בית המקדש יהיה לבמות יער כלומר יהיה ליער בעבור היותו חרב יצמחו בו עשבים ועצים ומה שאמר לבמות לשון רבים לפי שהיו שני הרים סמוכים הר הבית והר הזתים או קרא גלי האבנים במות ויונתן תרגם לחישת חורשא: (source)

 

 

Radak on Micah 3:12:1
“Therefore, because of you—the meaning is, because your sins have multiplied, He will not regard His honor or His house, as you said. And Zion, which you built with bloodshed, shall be plowed as a field; כלומר, it shall be plowed like a field, so that no building will remain in it, and it shall be like a plowed field. And Jerusalem, which you built with wrongdoing, shall become ruins—heaps of stones, which the enemy will tear down and stone upon stone; thus the stones of the building will become heaps. And so it says, ‘They made Jerusalem into ruins,’ and in the Targum, ligrin; and the Targum of ‘and Babylon shall become heaps’ is ligrin, and of ‘the ruins of the field’ is ligrei ḥakla.”

 

Radak on Micah 3:12:2
“Shall become ruins—written with a nun rather than a mem, and similarly ‘to the end of the days,’ and the like.”

 

Radak on Micah 3:12:3
“And the mountain of the House shall be like the heights of a forest—that is, the mountain where the Temple stood shall become like the heights of a forest; כלומר, it shall become a forest, because it is desolate, and grass and trees will grow in it. And he said ‘heights’ in the plural because there were two adjacent mountains, Mount the House and the Mount of Olives. Or he called the heaps of stones ‘heights.’ And Jonathan translated, ‘the thicket of the forest.’”

 

Metzudat David and Metzudat Zion on Jeremiah 26:19 (cf. Micah 3:12)

  

Metzudat David on Jeremiah 26:19:1

ההמת. וכי המית אותו חזקיה וכו׳ בעבור שנבא כזאת: 

 

Metzudat David on Jeremiah 26:19:2

הלא ירא. הלא המלך חזקיהו היה ירא את ה׳ והתפלל לפניו לבטל הגזירה ואז נחם ה׳ על הרעה וכו׳: 

 

Metzudat David on Jeremiah 26:19:3

ואנחנו. אבל אנחנו כשנמית אותו נעשה עוד רעה גדולה על נפשותינו ולא די שלא ינחם על הרעה אלא שיוסיף עוד על הרעה:

 

 

Metzudat Zion on Jeremiah 26:19:1

ויחל. ענין תפלה כמו ויחל משה (שמות לב): (source)

 

 

Metzudat David on Jeremiah 26:19:1
“Did he kill him? Did Hezekiah kill him, etc., because he prophesied such a thing?”

 

Metzudat David on Jeremiah 26:19:2
“Did he not fear the LORD? King Hezekiah feared the LORD and prayed before Him to annul the decree, and then the LORD relented concerning the evil, etc.”

 

Metzudat David on Jeremiah 26:19:3
“But we—if we kill him, we will bring a far greater evil upon ourselves; and not only will He not relent of the evil, but He will add still more evil.”

 

Metzudat Zion on Jeremiah 26:19:1
“And he entreated: this refers to prayer, as in ‘and Moses entreated’ (Exodus 32).”

 

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (1937-2020) on Jeremiah 26:19 (cf. Micah 3:12)

  

Did Hizkiyahu king of Judah and all Judah execute him? Prophecies of this kind have been heard before, several generations previously. Then, too, people were not overjoyed to hear those statements, but they did not harm the prophet. Rather, didn’t he, King Hizkiyahu, fear the Lord and plead before the Lord in this very Temple? And the Lord reconsidered the evil that He spoke against them. And if we act differently, we are performing great evil against our souls, all the more so if we actively harm the prophet. (source)

 

Robert Alter on Jeremiah 23:33 and 23:39

 

Jer 23:33:

 

You are the burden. The Masoretic Text reads ʾet-mah-masa’, which yields something unintelligibile: accusative-particle-what-burden. A simple redistribution of consonants produces ʾatem hamasa’, “you are the burden,” and this reading is confirmed by the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The question about the burden of prophecy, then, in the mouths of the followers of false prophets is turned back against them in a response that stigmatizes them as the real burden. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:940)

 

 

Jer 23:39:

 

I will surely lift you as a burden. The Masoretic Text has nashiti nasho’, which would mean “I will surely forget you.” But some Hebrew manuscripts as well as two versions of the Septuagint and the Vulgate read nasa’ti naso’, “I will surely lift you.” It is definitely in accord with Jeremiah’s style to insist on this already repeated verbal stem inscribed in the word for “burden,” here turning it into an expression of measure-formeasure justice. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:941)

 

Robert Alter on Jeremiah 22:10

  

Do not keen for the dead. The Masoretic Text shows “a dead [man],” but that vocalization is almost universally corrected to yield “the dead.” The particular dead person here, according to long-standing scholarly consensus, is Josiah, who was killed by Pharaoh Neco at Megiddo in 609 B.C.E. One should not keen for him because his fate of death is not so dire as the fate of his son Shallum (more commonly called Jehoahaz, who was placed on the throne by Neco after his father’s death, reigned only scant months, and then was sent down to Egypt as a prisoner). Thus Shallum-Jehoahaz is the one “who goes,” never again to see the land of his birth. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:932)

 

Joe Heschmeyer Continues to Deceive on the Immaculate Conception and Personal Sinlessness of Mary and the Development of Catholic Teaching

On Catholic Answers live (June 20, 2026) Joe Heschmeyer again tried to (deceptively) defend the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the doctrine of the personal sinlessness of Mary:

 

Did the Early Church Teach That Mary Sinned? AMA Catholicism @shamelesspopery

 

 

 He again tries to argue for such via Justin et al., using Mary as the New/Second Eve (while admitting at least some early Christians believed Mary was guilty of personal sin). He also claimed that such authors were “outliers” (actually, they were the mainstream). Furthermore, keep in mind that the substance of such teachers were supposedly revealed in the first century and have always been part of the Deposit of Faith. I discussed such issues at:

 

Answering Joe Heschmeyer's Deceptive Abuse of Mary Being the New Eve to Support Roman Catholic Mariology

BTW, concerning Augustine seemingly exempting Mary from personal (not original) sin, consider the following which you will not get from Heschmeyer et al:

 

During the first phase of his controversy Pelagius argumentatively presented Augustine with the case of the Virgin “whom it is necessary to recognize as sinless.” Until then no one had expressed Mary’s holiness in such a clear-cut formula. In such heated argumentation there could have easily arisen the temptation to discuss the heretic’s thesis. Saint Augustine resolved the difficulty from the beginning with a genial touch. He granted the opponent’s statement, but gave it a wholly different meaning: this sanctity of hers was an exception, having God’s grace as its principle, and not free will alone. (René Laurentin, A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary [6^th ed.; trans. Charles Neumann; Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022], 69)

 

 

The question of her sinlessness arose in the course of his debate with Pelagius, who had cited the Blessed Virgin as an example of a human being who had remained wholly untouched by sin by her own free will. Augustine denied the possibility for all other men (the saints themselves would have been the first to avow their sinfulness), but agreed that Mary was the unique exception; she had been kept sinless, however, not by the effort of her own will, but as a result of a grace given her in view of the incarnation. On the other hand, he did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine’s rejoinder [Opus imperf. c. Iul. 4, 122: cf. enarr. in ps. 34] was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects ‘by the grace of rebirth’. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, [5th ed.; London: Bloomsbury, 1977], 497, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

For Augustine, it was greater for Mary to be a disciple and a person of faith than to be the mother of Christ: “Mary is more blessed for grasping faith in Christ than for conceding his flesh; the maternal relationship would not have profited Mary had she not borne Christ in her heart more happily than in her womb” (Sanct. Virg. 3.3 [PL 40:398]) (Eugene LaVerdiere, “Mary,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson ([d ed.; New York: Routledge, 1999], 744)

 

 

Augustine on John 2:4 being a rebuke of Mary by Jesus:

 

Tract. In Ioannem VIII.9—“His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, ‘That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when the same weakness shall hang upon the cross.’ This indeed is the meaning of ‘Mine hour is not yet come.’”

 

Tractate CXIX.1—“At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts [at Cana], He replied, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of his [human] infirmity.”

 

 

There seems no doubt that Augustine considered Mary’s exemption from sin to be a great grace. But what sins did he mean? Undoubtedly he excludes any personal sin from Mary. It is possible to hypothesize that Augustine also intended to exclude original sin? Some scholars think so and make him a forerunner to the Immaculate Conception. A full treatment of the question would call for al lengthy discussion. To us it seems safer to adopt the contrary position, which is held by many experts and appears more in accord with numerous Augustinian texts. (Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 226; emphasis added)

 

 

With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, conditions favorable to the consistent development of speculative theology so deteriorated that the question of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was not often mentioned in the West until the end of the eleventh century with St. Anselm. One or another writer such as Paschasius Radbert asserted it; but others, such as St. Anselm clearly denied it on the basis of the transmission of original sin via intercourse infected by concupiscence. On the other hand, Anselm clearly asserted a purity of Mary greater than which none can be conceived under God. (Fehlner, "The Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her Immaculate Conception," in Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, ed. Mark I. Miravalle [Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 2007], 249);

 

"[Augustine’s] reply to the specific point does not say that Mary is stainless at conception; rather he leaves the door open to a ‘liberative sanctification’ in the womb. He wrote: ‘We do not deliver Mary to the Devil by the condition of her birth; for this reason, that her very condition finds a solution in the grace of rebirth” (Ibid., p. 248; square brackets added for clarification)

 

 

Augustine understands Mary’s holiness in terms of her faith and radical obedience to the Word of God. She first conceived Christ in her mind and heart before conceiving him in her womb: “Fides in mente, Christus in ventre” (s. 196.1; also see s. 215; 245.4). She is a model of faith for all Christian believers. The bishop never questions Mary’s holiness and immunity from sin, even though he is unable to explain how it is so. His position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old Testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question: “Let us then leave aside the holy Virgin Mary; on account of the honor due to the Lord, I do not want to raise any questions here about her when we are dealing with sins” (nat. et gr. 36.42). Since medieval times this passage has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it. Julian of Eclanum had accused him of being worse than Jovinian in consigning Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth (conditio nascendi). Augustine, in Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 4.1.22, replies that Mary was spared this by the grace of her rebirth (“ipsa condition solvitur gratia renascendi”), implying her baptism. His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He further specifies in the following chapter (5.15.52) that the body of Mary, “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.” (Daniel E. Doyle, "Mary, Mother of God," in Allan D. Fitzgerald, ed. Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 544)

 

 

Again, I am reiterating my challenge to Joe to have a moderated debate on the following thesis:

 

“The Immaculate Conception and Personal Sinlessness of Mary are Apostolic in Origin”

 

Robert Boylan

ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Sola Scriptura Debate: Is The Protestant 66 Book Bible The Ultimate Rule Of Faith? (June 9)

On June 9 at 5:30pm Irish time (10:30am MST), I will be participating in a debate against Kelly Powers (Baptist). It will be on the topic of Sola Scriptura. It will be hosted and moderated by Jacob Hansen:

Sola Scriptura Debate: Is The Protestant 66 Book Bible The Ultimate Rule Of Faith?

Arnold Potter (“Potter Christ”) (1804-1872) Identifying Himself with the First and Last Adam and the Ancient of Days

  

I, Potter, received the title of Christ, on the 15th day of August, 1856, on my outward bound voyage to Australia, sent there by the Mormon authorities, to preach the Gospel.

 

. . .

 

I now return to the subject of my immortal change. Suffice it to say, I lost every drop of my mortal blood, yet I did not die—my Resurection [sic] Angel (Christ) entered my body as fast as my mortal blood left. This angel is the spirit called in Scripture the Holy Ghost; the same spirit that quickened Jesus body, [1 Peter, III, 18]. This spirit was what made Jesus the Christ, by quickening him. This spirit also done the same by me, So this quickening revealed to me that I was [5] the very person Paul calls the last Adam, [I Coe- XV, 45-49]. Then, being the last Adam—q quickening spirit—I traced my spirit lineage back through TWENTY-TWO mortal bodies, to the first Adam, in Eden’s Garden. Then I saw plainly, according to Paul, I held the title Christ, the Lord from Heaven—being a quickened spirit.

 

. . .

 

Then comes the celebrated Marriage of the Lamb. The Bride, the Lambs wife, the Two Hundred and Eighty-eight Thousand are then clothed in white robes and crowned with Celestial Crowns. Each crowned head is then planted in His Kingdom or State, Jesus Abraham being here with us long enough to give us all useful Instructions, then he goes back to the great White Throne of his Father. Adam, or Michael the Arch-Angel, at the Marriage of the Lamb, Jesus Abraham, then gives the Kingdom under the whole heaven to Potter Christ, the Ancient of Days, as says Dan. VII, 13, 14. I, Potter Christ, now hold this title by virtue of my spiritual lineage and quickening change, being now the first Adam and the last Adam. This is why I go to the Grand Council of Heaven, to receive the Keys of Power. (Potter Christ, “The Titles Potter Christ has by Scripture” (April 1870), in Kirk Watson, Potter Christ: The Life, Death, and Doctrine of a Mormon Messiah [2026], 110, 111, 118)

 

 

Arnold Potter (“Potter Christ”) (1804-1872) Identifying the "Son of Man" with the "Ancient of Days"

  

If I mistake not in the number, there are six millions more saints in the South that the little horn has waged war against ever since 1861, and has just as Daniel says, prevailed against them more or less all the time and will continue to prevail more or less until the Ancient of days come to their deliverance.

 

. . .

 

I will now pass on to verse xxv, “And he (the little horn) shall speak great words against the Most High and think to change times and laws, and the (the saints) shall be given unto his (Lincoln’s hand) until a time of times and the division of time.” The words “Most High” here, means our most sacred Laws and Constitution, which were framed and given by inspiration, to our forefathers, . . .

 

. . .

 

Now, to prove my position, that the person Daniel calls the “Ancient of Days,” will close this bloody struggle. I will explain the words of Jesus Christ, to be found in Math. chap. xxiv. Verse xxiv: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the Sun be darkened and the Moon shall not give her light, the Stars shall fall and the powers of Heaven shall be shaken.” Verse xxx. speaks of the coming of the son of man. This person called the “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days,” is one and the same person.

 

. . .

 

Four seals—three bloody ones were opened when the war commenced, and now the three remaining seals, which are seals of peace, or to bring peace, will be opened by the “Son of Man” or the “Ancient of Days,” all in one day . . . The day of the 6th Seal is opened puts an end to the war in a moment and reveals the “Son of Man,” not Jesus; but Father Adam, the “Ancient of Days.” He comes to make his abode with us and sit on His Throne as Daniel describes him, in chap. xii. verses ix.-x. (Arnold Potter, Letter to the Editors of The Council Bluffs Weekly Bugle, February 8, 1865, in Kirk Watson, Potter Christ: The Life, Death, and Doctrine of a Mormon Messiah [2026], 89, 94-95, 96)

 

Transcription of Abraham P. Dowdle, Letter to C. C. Rich, April 23, 1857

The following is a transcription of Abraham P. Dowdle, Letter to C. C. Rich, April 23, 1857 (CHL call no.: MS 829). This is the main body of the letter:

 

 

Sydney April 23d 1857

 

President C. C. Rich

 

With feelings of pleasure at this time I attempt to occupy a few Moments in writing to you once More which will be the last while in this lands.

 

I am now posting up My books So as to leave the business of the Mission in Shape So that My Successor May have a knowledge of the business as it [really] is. I intend leaving a full and true account of all Moneys that I have Received and the amount expended and when I leave I intend Bringing a full and true account So that when I get with you I Can Show an account of My Steward Ship. I have long Since found it to be very necessary that a full account Should be Kept of all moneys donated for the work and Als what was done with the Same- as there is a jealousy Existing towards those who are placed to Receive and use the Money So in this Country than any place I ever was in before- in Settling up the business I have Some little difficulty by not having the account of President Hyrumham in Consequence thereof I Can not go any further back with the General Mission account that to the time when I Meved the business back to that time I can leave with the bretherin an account of My Steward Ship which I have no doubt will be quite Satisfactory to them. If I had have had the general account left with Me I Could have left it More full but under Circumstances that exist I will do the best that I Can I Can go back with My books and Shew from the time that I began to Receive donations at Adelaide up to the time I left there and by Whom it was given - and what it was laid out for this I feel Glad and willing to do and I Consider it nothing More than right- then if I have not done as I Should have done let Me bare the blame of Squandering the Money- I will here Say that I beleive take the people of Australia throats that they ar the Most Jealous people in the world- Every Man Seams to be frightened of his Neighbor- in pine it is a hard Country and insted of Geting beter it is Growing wors Continually

 

I am now Making up a company to Start from Sydney the first of June I am not at present prepared to Stat the number of Saints there will be in the Company I Epect it will be Small there is Many that would be glad to Get out but they ar Generely pore and not able to pay there way Consequently they will have to Remain till longer and wate the lands time to open the way before them there is Some Good Saints in Australia that is trying to live there religion on the other hand there is Some that have the Means and will not Gather- nor Yet help thoes that would Gather and thus as it wer stand in the dore and Keep thoes from Entering or Gatherning whos desire is to Gather and Serve the lord but So it is—

 

Since Elders Hannham & Fleming left there has not bein a gre many Baptized- Since the Elders Came to Australia we have bein able to Send Mission in to Various places of this and the adjacent Coloneys. the Elders have went forth and have laboured faithfull for the Spred of truth and the lord has blessed them in there labours they have Stired up the Minds of the people in Many places and the prospects ar that Mutch good will be the Result- Elder Stewart when first he Came here was a pointd a Mission to New Zealand in Company with Elder Peter but in Consequence of the Soverity is of Means to Send them forth they was a pointd a Mission in this Coloney they traveled together for Sum time- when Elder Clark was a pointd to travel with Elder Stewart Elder Sailed with Peter- Elders Stewart and Clark Continued traveling until the April Conferenc when Elder Stewart Received an Appointment with Elder Wall to the Sydney district Elders Clark and peter was then a pointd to travel together in the Same Mission that Elder Stewart had bein called from Elders Chaffin & Said weer a pointd A Mission to the Maitland and Wolumby districts- the other Elders weer Sustained in former appointments- Elder Stewart was taken in to the presidenc of the Mission As Elder William Baxter one of My Council has Retired from the Presidency and Mission with the privilege of Making his way to Zion I feeld hopy of having the privilege of Saying that as far as I no the Bretherin ar and have bein doing all that they Can for the Spred of truth Since they landed in this Country- Whil Elders Stewart & Clarke wer traveling together they Maid a travel of Some hundred & thirty Miles out from Sydney in there travels they Rept as having found many people whos harts felt worme to the truth and whos them warm Reception they think that Mutch Good May be done in that Part of the Country it is Semde with the others of the bretherin Elders Wall and Stewart Conritute my Council they take hold of the work with Energy they have bein a Grat help to Me in Geting along with My buiriness it Requires Men in this Country who has a pretty Good nerve and with it ambition Elder Wall has had wery bad helth Most of the time Since he Came in to this Climet and unless his helth improves from what it is at the present I Epect he will Return home with the first Company

 

I Shal if the Lord will Cume with the June Company for I paked and have felt for years back a desire to get home I fully Expected to have bin with Elders Hannham & Fleming but it turned other-wise and I maid up my mind to be Content therwith and feeld that all was right Since there departure I have bein doing the best that I Could have I have Some pretty hard times but I feeld that the blessings of the lord his bin with Me for which I feeld Gratefull Taylor and Johnson has Returned to Australia they have don all that they Could to Make trouble for Me but as Yet I have got a long with them Middling Quiet- they ar Boath Cut off from the Church- Taylor is a Worthless being Since he has Return he has Given his Mother and Sisters A dreadful Bad name I Supose that Sister Taylor thought that to Save his property She would put it in to the hands of his Sun She has Saved it There is much to Save that I Epect it will do her Good when She Gets any of it- Johnson has done all that he Could against the Church Since his Return to Sydney- he has Seen his Race and left Sydney Whether he will again Return I Can not tell- I have Given up Sister Taylors papers to her Sun and have got a full Keept so She May Sleep Sound when She Gets to See this Please to Remember Me to all- My Respects to you Elders Wall and Stewart Join me in Sending their Respect to You- Your fellow laborer

 

Abraham P. Dowdle

 

 

This was the additional material attached to the letter:

 

Arnold peter Whoo Came here with Elder Said has Carried in high hand against the Church and the authorities of the Same before he was put in to the Asylum he did considerable We Called on him to Stay his hand and humble himself before god and do right but our Entreaties were all in vane he affirmed that he would not subject him self to be controlled by any of the Mormons no not Even Brigham Consequently he was not fellow- shiped here- after he was Released from the Asylum he was far more delusive than before he has done all that he possibly Could to Revile the Character of president B. Young & also attempted to disclose the principle of the Enduement this he has done not only privetely but in a Publick Capacity in the open aire on publick [Square] in the presence of a large Concorse of people giving out that. he was Caleed of god to Make known the Abominations in Salt Lake this things wee Submit to your Consideration { A. P. Dowdle As he has left her Sum time Since for home { W. Cb. Hall { Andrew J Stewart

 

 

Robert M. Royalty, Jr. on 1 Kings 13 and the Unnamed Prophet

  

Man of God and Old Prophet in Bethel (1 Kings 13:11–32)

 

My first example of prophetic conflict is from 1 Kings, part of the so-called Deuteronomic History. The death of Solomon (ca. 922 BCE) and the subsequent struggle for succession, a struggle that rekindles divisions between Judah and the northern tribes of Israel, are the backdrop for one of the earliest stories about prophets in the Hebrew Bible. This particular disagreement between prophets results in the death of one of them. Religious cult sites are at the center of this conflict. Solomon had centralized the cult in Jerusalem, along with other political and military functions. His taxation and labor policies aggravated tensions between Judah and the northern tribes; his son, Rehoboam, adopts an even harder-line policy (1 Kings 12:1–15). Jeroboam, who was in political exile in Egypt, returned to lead the northern tribes against Rehoboam. But prophets had already acted as agents in these political conflicts. Ahijah, a prophet of the northern Israelite cult site of Shiloh, urged Jeroboam, then an official overseeing the corvée for Solomon’s kingdom, to break off the northern tribes as punishment for Solomon’s religious practices, which could be characterized as polytheistic or not exclusively Yahwistic (1 Kings 11:26–40). Jeroboam then re-established shrines in Bethel and Dan as part of separating the northern kingdom of Israel from the hegemony claimed by Judah (1 Kings 12:25–33).

 

The conflict between north and south plays out in the narrative of 1 Kings 13 as conflict between northern and southern prophets. While Jeroboam was offering incense at the altar in Bethel, a “man of God” (ʼîš ʼĕlōhîm) from Judah proclaimed against the altar “by the word of YHWH” (bîdĕbar YHWH). Jeroboam answers the threat by trying to seize the Judean, but the king’s hand is withered and the altar is destroyed. Jeroboam entreats the southerner’s favor; the “man of God” heals the withered hand but has taken a vow not to eat or drink until he has returned to Judah and attempts to leave Bethel. This ironically foreshadows the next scene, in which an old prophet (nābî zāqēn) in Bethel tricks the “man of God” into eating and drinking with him:

 

Then the other said to him: “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD: Bring him back with you into your house so that he may eat food and drink water.” But he was deceiving him. (1 Kings 13:18)

 

As soon as the “man of God” sits and eats at Bethel, the “word of the LORD” comes to the northern prophet again, who condemns the Judean to die away from his ancestral home. The Bethel prophet and his sons send the “man of God” back south on a donkey, where he is killed by a lion, confirming the prophecy of the northern prophet as well as the original commandment to the “man of God” not to honor the Bethel cult by eating or drinking outside of Judah.

 

Both prophets cite the “word of the LORD,” the same Hebrew phrase in 1 Kings 13:9 and 13:18, to explain why the “man of God” should or should not eat in Bethel. The northern prophet utters what turns out to be false prophecy that ensnares the man from Judah to stay and eat, while the prophecy and vow of the man from Judah, a vow that kills him, turn out to be true. The division between the prophets is harsh; the old prophet of Bethel effectively assassinates the southern “man of God” by deceiving him with “the word of the LORD.” But this conflict also shows the ideology of prophetic unity in Israel. While the old prophet of Bethel ostensibly supports the independence of the northern kingdom and the legitimacy of its cult, his deception of the “man of God” from Judah confirms the prophecy originally given to the Judean (1 Kings 13:9) and thus de-legitimates the Samarian cult site. The scene of reconciliation in 1 Kings 13:26–32 then subverts the division between the prophets as well as the authority of the northern prophet. He saddles his donkey to recover the body of the man of God, laments the death of his “brother,” (ʼāhî) and asks to be buried next to him, confirming that the “man of God” spoke the actual word of God against the shrine of Bethel and Jeroboam’s kingdom. The two prophets were not enemies but brothers after all. The conflict ends in reconciliation.

 

The ideology of Judean hegemony over all Israel underlies this story. The conflict centers on the altar of Bethel, a cult site that challenged the power of Jerusalem, a power we might label both religious and political in contemporary terms but which was unified in ancient Israel. The theological question of where to worship, and what to worship—since Jeroboam had labeled the golden calves the “gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28)—is a political conflict between north and south; “prophet” is a synecdoche for the kingdom. The story includes a second layer of political discourse. The “man of God” invokes the future king Josiah, inscribing the reforms of this later Davidic king onto these divisions between ancient Israel and Judah. Read at this level, the story of prophetic conflict and reconciliation expresses the ideology of a unified “Israel” under Judean control. (Robert M. Royalty, Jr., The Origin of Heresy: A History of Discourse in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity [Routledge Studies in Religion 18; New York: Routledge, 2013], 31-32)

 

Rom Garrison on Almsgiving in the Septuagint

  

The Septuagint and the Apocrypha

 

The translation of the Hebrew Scripture into Greek, the so-called Septuagint (LXX) version, was carried out during the third and second centuries BCE. More precise dates are not known. Particularly because of the widespread effects of Hellenism, the influence of the Septuagint was enormous. To a large degree it was the Septuagint which was to become the version of the scriptures preferred in the early church. Thus any developments of the doctrine of redemptive almsgiving in the Greek Bible would have had a clear impact on early Christianity.

 

The translation of Dan. 4.27 (MT, 4.24) is of considerable significance. The LXX version reads,

 

O king, let my counsel please you. Redeem your sins by ‘almsgiving’ (τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν σου... ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι) and your iniquities by compassion on the poor. It may be that God will be long-suffering of your trespasses.

 

The Greek translation of Daniel renders the original reference to ‘righteousness’ as ἐλεημοσύνη. This identification is found elsewhere in the LXX (and underlies rabbinic thought). Such word association may be present in early Christianity. The Daniel passage can be taken to mean that the form of righteousness that will provide a ransom (λύτρον) for sins is almsgiving, the financial outpouring of compassion on the poor.

 

The Greek translation of Proverbs perhaps reveals further development of the doctrine of redemptive ἐλεημοσύνη. While the Hebrew form of 16.6 reads, ‘By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for’, the LXX (= 15.27a) states, ‘By ἐλεημοσύνη and faithfulness sins are purged away’. Similarly, Prov. 20.28 in the Hebrew claims, ‘Loyalty and faithfulness preserve the king and his throne is upheld by loyalty’, yet the LXX translates the verse, ‘ἐλεημοσύνη and truth are a guard to the king and will surround his throne with righteousness’. It is possible that Prov. 15.27a and 20.28 in the LXX could largely explain the Greek translation (and interpretation) of Dan. 4.24/27. These passages from Proverbs clearly teach that ἐλεημοσύνη serves to redeem sin and to preserve a king’s dominion. For the Greek editor of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar would provide the specific example in which to promote the emerging doctrine. Even if it were to be argued that Prov. 15.27a and 20.28 (again, LXX) had no influence on the Greek version of Dan. 4.24/27, it is undeniable that the term ṣĕdāqā’, ‘righteousness’, has been rendered by ἐλεημοσύνη. Righteousness is identified with the term that comes to mean almsgiving, and this theme certainly emerges in Proverbs (LXX).

 

Ch. 21 of Proverbs (LXX) introduces some significant ideas that shape the developing doctrine of redemptive almsgiving. Verses 3 and 21 read, ‘To do justly and truthfully is more pleasing to God than the blood of sacrifices...The way of righteousness and ἐλεημοσύνης will find life and glory’. These two verses, in their Hebrew form, are both cited in rabbinic discussions of redemptive almsgiving where ṣĕdāqā’ (‘righteousness’) is interpreted as the giving of alms.

 

It is striking that here in the LXX translation, ἐλεημοσύνη is used to render not ṣĕdāqā’ but hesed. Throughout the Greek Old Testament, ἐλεημοσύνη and δικαιοσύνη both are used to translate the two Hebrew terms. This ‘overlapping is indeed a curious linguistic phenomenon’. It may well point to the evolution of the belief that almsgiving is both an act of kindness and mercy, and that it is a righteousness that redeems from sin and death, a righteousness more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. Sirach and Tobit provide considerable evidence of this stage of the doctrine.

 

The pseudonymous author of Tobit claims to have lived with many of his fellow Jews in Nineveh before its destruction. He boasts of his goodness, insisting that he ‘walked in the ways of truth and righteousness (δικαιοσύνης)’ his whole life and frequently practised ἐλεημοσύνας among his countrymen (1.3). Tobit’s charity included feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and providing for the burial of the dead (1.16-17; cf. 4.16). The author clearly advocates a belief in redemptive ἐλεημοσύνη.

 

Give alms (ἐλεημοσύνη) from your possessions to all who live uprightly, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from any poor man, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. For almsgiving rescues from death (ἐλεημοσύνη ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται) and keeps you from entering the darkness; and for all who practice it almsgiving (ἐλεημοσύνη) is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High (4.7-11).

 

Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms (ποιῆσαι ἐλεημοσύνην) than to treasure up gold. For almsgiving rescues from death and it will purge away every sin (ἀποκαθαριεῖ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν). Those who give alms and do righteousness will have fulness of life... (12.8-9).

 

Tobit virtually identifies ‘almsgiving’ with ‘righteousness’ and apparently interpreted Prov. 10.2 and 11.4 in light of his belief in the redemptive power of almsgiving. The passages from Proverbs claim that ‘righteousness’ rescues from death.¹ Tobit has made the significant step of regarding almsgiving as the manifestation of righteousness.² This is also borne out in the parallelism: ‘A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing [cf. Prov. 16.8]. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold’. Finally, Tobit agrees with Proverbs (LXX) that ἐλεημοσύνη purges sin.

 

Sirach, which strongly denounces greed and a perverse interest in wealth,⁴ advances the doctrine of redemptive almsgiving. While it is certainly possible for a rich man to be righteous (cf. 31.8), the wealthy must consistently give alms (31.11). The Greek translator of Sirach clearly treated ‘almsgiving’ as an appropriate meaning for the Hebrew ṣĕdāqā. He has made this translation/interpretation in at least six passages (3.14, 30; 7.10; 12.3; 40.17, 24).

 

Sirach’s understanding of the power of almsgiving is stated succinctly in 3.30, ‘Water extinguishes a blazing fire: so almsgiving atones for sin’. Thus the author admonishes his reader to assist the needy, to provide for the poor, to care for orphans and widows. The reward is tremendous: ‘You will then be like a son of the Most High and he will love you more than does your mother’ (4.1-10).

 

Dishonest wealth cannot protect a man from trouble (5.8), but compassion to the poor will earn a blessing (7.32; cf. 7.10). The uncharitable will not be blessed but the man who wisely gives alms will be repaid by the Lord himself (12.2-7). A man’s almsgiving is like a signet with the Most High (17.22).

 

Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High, and it will profit you more than gold. Store up almsgiving in your treasury and it will rescue you from all affliction; more than a mighty shield and more than a heavy spear, it will fight on your behalf against your enemy (29.11-13; cf. 40.24).

 

Sirach implies that providing for the poor is more important than ritual sacrifices or sin offerings. In any event, the offerings of those who abuse the needy are meaningless (34.18-22). Almsgiving, by contrast, is a sacrifice of praise (35.2). Finally, the Hebrew phrase, ‘righteousness endures forever’, is rendered in the Greek Sirach as ‘almsgiving endures forever’ (40.17). This may well have been an interpretation of the description of the generous man in Ps. 112.1-9.

 

The Greek Scriptures, particularly Daniel, Proverbs, Tobit and Sirach, move beyond the Hebrew Old Testament in specifically identifying righteousness and almsgiving³ and in explicitly claiming that ἐλεημοσύνη has the power to purge sin, to atone for and redeem iniquities. Almsgiving rescues from death. (Roman Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity [Library of New Testament Studies 77; Sheffield: JSTO Press, 1993], 52-55)

 

Dustin R. Smith on Luke 4:6-7

  

Since Jesus does not dispute Satan’s reign claim and chooses only to refuse to offer worship, we can confidently discern that Satan has indeed been handed all the kingdoms of the world, presumably by God. (Dustin R. Smith, A Systematic Theology of the Early Church, ed. J. Jeffrey Fletcher and Scott A. Deane [Boise, Idaho: Integrity Syndicate, 2025], 190)

 

Roman Garrison on Paul Teaching Baptismal Regeneration in the Epistle to the Romans

  

Paul's letter to the Romans also introduces the rigorous view that baptism is a spiritual line of demarcation. When the believer is baptized, he is set free from sin and should never again submit to its power.

 

Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death. We were buried therefore with him by baptism, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life ...

 

We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin ...

 

So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (6.1-15)

 

Paul himself is largely responsible for the widespread belief that through baptism the believer is liberated from the power and effects of sin. Early Christianity (and certainly the church at Rome) embraced the promise that baptism served as the ‘method of entry’ to eternal life, to becoming a ‘new creature’, gaining release from evil spirits and being washed of one’s sins. (Roman Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity [Library of New Testament Studies 77; Sheffield: JSTO Press, 1993], 137-38, emphasis in bold added)

 

Roman Garrison Affirming that Justin Martry Taught Baptismal Regeneration

  

In the mid-second century, Justin maintained the optimistic doctrine that baptism not only brought the forgiveness of former sins but guaranteed the ‘regeneration’ of those who entered the water; they are born again. (Apology, chs. 61, 66) Justin’s claims reflect the attitude (and hope) of the New Testament. (Roman Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity [Library of New Testament Studies 77; Sheffield: JSTO Press, 1993], 130)

 

Marvin Pope on Job 38:4-11

  

4a. Eliphaz had asked Job similar ironic questions, 15:7–8, as had Elihu in 37:18.

 

4b. Literally “Tell, if you know understanding.” The Qumran Targum reads ḥkmh, “wisdom,” for MT bînāh, “understanding.” Dahood (Psalms III, Note ad loc.), on the basis of the personification of Wisdom and Understanding in Prov 8, personified tĕbûnāh in Ps 136:5 and bînāh in the present instance rendered, “Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell if you are acquainted with Understanding.” The questions, according to Dahood, imply that Understanding was present with God when the earth was created.

 

5a. Surely. Here, as noted by Dahood (Psalms III, second Note on Ps 128:2), the emphatic kî with postposition of the verb is employed as in Ugaritic. The Qumran Targum reads hn, “if,” for MT ky: hn tndʿ, “if you know.” The text is perfectly preserved here and the translation is quite precise:

 

mn šm mšḥth hn tndʿ

mn ngd ʿlyh ḥwṭʾ

 

Who set its measure(s), if you know?

Who stretched over it the line?

 

6a. Cf. 26:7; Ps 24:2.

 

4–6. The earth was conceived as a building set on foundations, 4a (cf. Pss 24:2, 89:12, 102:26, 104:5; Prov 3:19; Isa 48:13, 51:13, 16; Zech 12:1), built according to plans and specifications, 5a (cf. Ezek 40:3–43:17; Zech 1:16), with use of the measuring line, 5b (cf. Isa 34:11; Jer 31:39), with its pillars set in sockets.

 

6b. Cf. Isa 28:16; Jer 51:26; Ps 118:22. The cornerstone may refer either to a foundation stone or the capstone.

 

7. The laying of the foundation, Ezra 3:10–11, or the capstone of a building, Zech 4:7, was an occasion for rejoicing and music. The song of the morning stars is not merely a poetic figure. The stars were mighty gods in the pagan cults (cf. 2 Kings 17:16, 21:3; Deut 4:19), but were relegated to subservience in the celestial army of Yahweh (cf. Isa 40:26). The ancient pagan conception of the king of the gods enthroned with his court ranged around him, as in the Ugaritic myths, is reflected in 1 Kings 22:19. The celestial army also functioned as a choir to hymn the praises of the king, Pss 19:2, 29:2, 148:2–3. The morning stars certainly include the planet Venus, the brilliant morning and evening “star”; cf. Isa 14:12; 2 Pet 1:19. The Ugaritic poem “The Birth of the Beautiful and Gracious Gods” celebrates the birth of the astral deities Dawn and Dusk, perhaps the Venus star regarded, as among the Romans, as the morning star (Lucifer) and the evening star (Hesperus).

 

This famous verse is almost completely preserved in the Qumran Targum which reads:

 

bmzhr kḥdʾ kwkby ṣpr

wyzʿq[w]n kḥdʾ kl mlʾky ʾlhʾ

 

When the morning stars shone together,

And all the angels of God shouted together.

 

The editors of the Qumran Targum suggest that the change of the verb rnn, “sing, jubilate,” to zhr, “shine,” was motivated by the desire to avoid saying that the stars, inanimate beings created by God but worshiped by the pagans, “jubilate.” (LXX and Syr. apparently read brʾ, “create,” for MT brn, “when sang.”) For a similar reason, MT’s “sons of God” was changed to “angels of God.”

 

7b. gods. Cf. Note on 1:6.

 

8a. Who shut. Vulg. quis conclusit, LXX ephraxa de, “and I shut,” reflects a reading wʾsk. Blommerde read wayyussaḵ (from nsk, “pour”) for MT wayyāseḵ and translated: “When the sea poured out of the two doors, when it went forth, erupting from the womb.” The reference of 8a, however, is to the containment of the sea, while 8b gives the temporal setting. Driver-Gray proposed to read instead of MT bdltym, “with (two) doors,” bĕhulledeṯ yām, “when the sea was born,” and remarked that “it is less easy to recover the beginning of the line, which should contain a question.”

 

The Qumran Targum reads htswg bdšyn ymʾ, with the interrogative particle before the second person verbal form, “Did you shut the Sea within doors?”

 

8–11. Cf. 7:12, 9:13, 26:12. In the Mesopotamian Creation Epic, Marduk, after slaying the sea dragon Tiamat, created therefrom the primeval seas and placed a bar and guard to keep back the waters (cf. ANET, p. 67, lines 139–40). In the Ugaritic myth relating Baal’s defeat of the sea-god Yamm we cannot tell what the victorious Baal did to his fallen opponent for the text breaks off, but there is mention of making him captive (cf. ANET, p. 131, line 30). The present allusion presents an otherwise unknown motif, the birth of the sea-god and the use of swaddling bands to restrain the violent infant. In the Ugaritic Text BH (75 i 18–19) there is mention of swaddling-bands in the birth of the bovine monsters called Eaters and Devourers; cf. 40:15a.

 

The Qumran Targum preserves most of vss. 8–11:

 

(8)        htswg bdšyn ymʾ

b[hn]gḥwth mn rḥm thwmʾ lmpq

(9)        bšwyt ʿnnyn [lbw]šh

wʿrplyn ḥwtlwhy

(10)      wtšwh lh tḥwmyn wdt

[…]yn w[         ]

(11)      wʾmrt ʿd tnʾ wlʾ twsp

[                    g]ll[yk]

 

Did you shut the Sea within doors?

When it gushed from the womb of the deep, to come out

When I made the clouds its garment

The dark clouds its swaddling-bands

Did you set him a limit and a law?

And I said, “Up to here and you will not exceed

… [your wa]ves.”

The womb from which the Sea emerged is here identified as the cosmic abyss.

 

10a. put. Various emendations have been offered for the verb ʾešbōr. Dhorme transposed the two verbs, “I shattered” and “I imposed.” F. Perles (Analekten) postulated the meaning “trace, mark out” for šbr and similarly Gaster (Thespis, p. 456), connecting it with Ar. sbr, “prescribe boundaries.” Guillaume related the word to Ar. šabara, “spanned,” and averred that “The view that Hebrew Shin must equal Arabic Sin and vice versa is antiquated and untenable.” The Qumran Targum reads wtšwh lh tḥwmyn wdt[ ], “and you set for it bounds and law [ ].” It is not clear from this rendering exactly what the original wording was, but it is possible that šwy tḥwmyn, “set bounds,” translates the verb šbr in the sense postulated by Perles and Gaster. Unfortunately, the verb of the second colon is not preserved in the Qumran Targum.

 

bounds. Dahood (Psalms I, second Note on Ps 16:6) construed the suffix of ḥuqqî as third singular and rendered thus: “And I traced out its limits, and set bars and two doors.”

 

11b. halt. The versions, as Dhorme remarked, have been embarrassed by yšyt bgʾwn. LXX apparently took bgʾwn as b-gw-k, “in your midst,” and rendered, “but your waves will be confined within you.” Vulg., et hic confringes tumentes fluctus tuos, may reflect the verb šbr. Targ. reads tšwy, “you will put,” and Syr. tktr, “you will remain.” The Qumran Targum does not preserve the verb of this hemistich. Blommerde proposed to read yišatab for MT yāšîṯ b- and construed the verb thus concocted as an infixed -t- form of a root šbb, Ugar. ṯbb which he would find in 1 Aqht 108, 123 (yṯb) and in Gen 49:24 (wtšb); Hos 8:6 (šbbym); Lam 1:7d (mšbth); Ps 89:45 (hšbt), meaning “to break.” The existence of such a root in Ugaritic or Hebrew is doubtful. Arabic has a root ṯbb, “sit firm, be completed,” but that meaning is unsuitable here. Overlooked by Blommerde is the interesting fact that in the myth of Baal’s defeat of Prince Sea, at the very point that the coup de grâce is administered, one of the verbs is identical in consonantism to the problematic verb of the present verse (68:27): yqṯ bʿl wyšt ym, “Baal cut down and—Sea,” ykly ṯpṭ nhr, “He annihilated Chief River.” There are several possible etymologies for the Ugaritic wyšt, e.g. štt and šty which in Arabic mean “scatter, disperse,” and šty, “drink.” Whatever the meaning of wyšt in the Ugaritic passage cited, it should be taken as a warning against emendation of the MT yš(y)t in the present line. (Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 15; New Haven Yale University Press, 2008), 291-94)