Wednesday, September 30, 2026

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tuesday, September 29, 2026

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

 

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





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

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

  

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

 

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

 

Unbeliever: How can this be?

 

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

 

Unbeliever: That’s true.

 

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

 

Unbeliever: Indeed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Witnesses Of The Resurrection Compared to Book of Mormon Witnesses

 

Witnesses Of The Resurrection Compared to Book of Mormon Witnesses







Monday, September 28, 2026

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies


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

  

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

 

Sunday, September 27, 2026

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further Reading:

 

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

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

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

 

Angels Who Bring Heavenly Books

 

BYU professor Louis Midgley has states [sic],

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The Two Heavenly Figures of Gigantic Size

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Book of Revelations

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further Reading:


Listing of articles responding to "Breaking the Mormon Code"


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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Saturday, September 26, 2026

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

 

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








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

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


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







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

  

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

 

Friday, September 25, 2026

Notes on Esther 2:23 and Impalement/Crucifixion

  

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Thursday, September 24, 2026

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

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


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


Hangout Responding to Gavin Ortlund on Servetus




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


The Calvin Servetus Sourcebook:

Volume 1: Servetus Trial Documents and Exhibits


Volume 2: The Letters


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



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

  

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

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

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

  

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tuesday, September 22, 2026

Evagrius (Origenist) 345-399 Teaching Water Baptism as an Anointing for Christians in Kephalaia Gnostika

  

3.85. All those who are baptized in water receive a delightful perfume, whereas the One who baptizes, it is he who has the perfumed oil. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 193)

 

The One who baptizes is Christ, whose name, ܐܚܝܫܡ (the Syriac equivalent of Greek Χριστός, “the anointed one”), has the same root as ܐܚܫܡ, here employed for “oil” (cf. Greek χρῖσμα). This oil is perfumed, and from its perfume the baptized receive their own perfume. The oil is also referred to in KG 3.43. Origen too used the Christ-oil-anoint wordplay to indicate that all Christians are anointed by Christ with his perfumed oil. (Ibid., 193)

 

Mormonr/B H Roberts Foundation on "Book of Mormon Origins"

 New article from Mormonr/B H Roberts Foundation:


Book of Mormon Origins (click here for the primary sources)

The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star (May 29, 1858) on John Taylor's "Polygamy Denials" in France

  

Elder Taylor's Discussion in Boulogne took place in the year 1850, seven years after the Prophet Joseph had received the Revelation on Celestial Marriage, but two years before that revelation was published to the Church. Elder Taylor, therefore, had no authority to preach polygamy. He neither preached it, contradicted it, condemned it, nor publicly denied it. His controversial opponents adverted to certain absurd stories about seraglios of “spiritual wives,” and sisterhoods of the “white vail” and “black vail,” and other lying reports propagated by the apostate Bennett fraternity and republished by Caswell. Our objector, in making his extract from the Report, gives forth the notion that the speaker was “stoutly denying polygamy, and stigmatizing it” as “indelicate, obscene, and disgusting.” But where the said stout denial is to be found, we know not. His own words are—“We are accused here of polygamy,” (referring to accusations made even before the doctrine of polygamy was revealed, and which were false accusations), “and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.” The idea of his “stigmatizing” polygamy as “indelicate, obscene, and disgusting,” is an interpretation of his words which is altogether gratuitous on the objector's part. We do not so understand them. Such a meaning as that attached to them by the objector could certainly never have been intended by their author.

Elder Taylor, instead of entering into a formal refutation of the charges cited by his opponents, which he considered as “too outrageous to admit of belief,” contented himself with simply reading a passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants on the existing marriage-law of the Church. As regards the Church being there spoken of as “reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy,” we would ask, In what light could such false charges have been considered but in that of reproach? Polygamy was not then a revealed doctrine of the Church; and therefore the Saints, as a matter of course, adhered to the general monogamic law. If they had practised polygamy without “command” from God, their conduct would have been in that respect, as censurable as that of the ancient Nephites. It would have been a “crime” on their part. But polygamy in itself is not a crime; nor does the Book of Doctrine and Covenants intimate that it is.

 

Our objector, in his extract given in “Mormonism Dissected,” makes a false quotation, which is an unfair act. The original is not “crimes of fornication and polygamy,” but “crime of fornication, and polygamy;” the word “crime” referring only to “fornication,” after which a comma is placed, but is left out by the objector in his extract. If, however, the plural word “crimes” was used, as the objector would have his readers believe, it would then refer, of course, to both “fornication” and “polygamy.” But it is not so. Nor, indeed, is the construction of the next sentence so favourable to the objector's purpose as he might wish. Even if the word “but” occurred before “one wife,” as it does before “one husband,” it would prove nothing against the principle of polygamy itself; for the Saints were then living under the monogamic law. The wording of the passage, however, is—“We believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband.” As far as punctuation is concerned, we may here observe that the commas after “polygamy,” in the Notice from the Times and Seasons and in Elder Taylor's remarks from the Report, and after “fornication,” in the passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, all prove adverse to the objector's argument. Although those commas are not really necessary, yet they aid in showing the import of the sentences where they are used. Their absence would neither be favourable to his position nor unfavourable to ours; but their presence is certainly fatal to his interpretation.

 

The extract from the Millennial Star Supplement of Dec. 31, 1853, taken from the Deseret News Extra of Sept. 14, 1852, simply shows that the Prophet Joseph, after having received the Revelation on Marriage, “had more wives than one.” This fact, we have neither inclination nor reason to deny. President Young, in making this statement, did not, of course, in any way “contradict and condemn” polygamy itself, nor “publicly deny” the fact of Joseph's having “believed and practised it.”

 

What, then, do our opponent's objections amount to? He invites “special attention” to the “facts” adduced, and pledges himself to “produce” the “books” quoted from, “when required.” We have given “special attention” to those “facts,” and have ourselves “produced” and made due reference to the “books” alluded to; and our conclusion is, that the objector's Dissection of “Mormonism,” instead of causing the honest observer or the Latter-day Saint to fear his knife, will cause him still more attentively to study the real “facts” of the case, as well as to more highly appreciate the value of the “books” which record them. (“Anti-Mormon Objections Answers,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 20, no. 22 [May 29, 1858]: 395-96)

 

 

Monday, September 21, 2026

Marcus A. Mininger (Reformed) Against the "False Convert" Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6

  

False convert

 

Other interpreters have sought to address the impossibility of repentance in Hebrews 6 by stating that those who fall away were not true Christians to begin with and so cannot return to repentance. Philip Hughes, for example, says: ‘the whole issue of this passage may be said to revolve around the question whether the internal reality, to which the external rite [of baptism] is designed to testify, is truly present or not.’ Accordingly, if a person truly apostatizes, then they must not have been truly regenerate to begin with and so cannot repent.

 

However, this ‘false convert’ interpretation, as it might be called, also has several problems. For one thing, it is not clear why, if an unregenerate person repented falsely before, it becomes impossible for him or her to return to Christ and repent truly afterwards.

 

. . .

 

In addition, it is important to note how the language of the passage focuses on the impossibility of a person being restored ‘again’ to repentance (6:6). In itself, this word ‘again’ implies that the second repentance under consideration in these verses (which the passage says is impossible) is actually of the same essential nature as the first repentance that the people in the passage had already experienced before. As Nicle puts it, the people being discussed in these verses had a first experience of repentance ‘which it would be essential to renew’ if they were to be saved. After all, ‘if the repentance that these apostates had experienced were not truly godly sorrow . . . it is hard to see why it would be desirable to renew it’ anyway. In principle, then, the issue at hand in the passage does not seem to lie in the deficiency of the first repentance as such (otherwise, why try to be renewed to it anyway?), but in the fact that, though the first repentance had great value and would in theory be desirable to repeat, it is nevertheless impossible under the circumstances described for that to happen. In other words, the key issue in these verses is not why repeating the same repentance as before is not even worthwhile since it was a false repentance anyway, but why repeating the same repentance as before, though desirable in theory, is still said to be impossible to do.

 

In addition, this critical weakness in the false-convert interpretation suggests that the problematic of Hebrews 6:4-6 are not adequately articulated through a controlling interpretive interest in theological topics such as divine election, inward regeneration, and true or false conversion, with which many scholars have been preoccupied. As important as those topics are in some biblical texts, it seems apparent that other interpretive categories need to be primary when reading this passage, given the details of its wording. More specifically, it is crucial for any interpretation of this passage to explain how a change in situation could come about for some people, from an original situation in which a repentance was experienced that was good and desirable in itself, to a new situation in which repentance of the same basic kind, while in theory still desirable, is also no longer possible or savingly efficacious. (Marcus A. Mininger, Impossible to be Restored? Temptation and Warning in the Epistle of Hebrews [New Studies in Biblical Theology 64; London: Apollos, 2025], 42-43, italics in original)

 

 

Evagrius (Origenist) 345-399: Teachings on the Neutrality of Infants in Kephalaia Gnostika

  

4.13. Those who have participated in flesh and blood are babies. Now, whoever is an infant is neither good nor evil. Therefore, it is well said that human beings are intermediaries between angels and demons. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 204)

 

This kephalaion is closely connected with KG 3.76, in which Evagrius has traced the development of the human soul from a vegetative level in the womb to an animal level in babyhood (which in the present kephalaion is represented by Heb 2:14), to the rational level in adulthood. There, he warned that the gift of the logos can be used by human beings in two opposite ways, either for the Good, if one follows virtue, or for evil, if one follows evilness. The former conduct elevates the human being to the rank of angels, and the latter degrades it to that of demons, an idea that here is repeated. Here, human beings are assimilated to babies, who are neither good nor evil, in the sense that they are neither completely good, as angels are, nor so evil as demons are. If humans were completely good, they would be angels, and if they were much worse than they are, they would be demons (I do not say, “if they were completely evil,” because demons themselves are not completely evil, since they are creatures of God—if they were completely evil, they would cease to exist). At other times, indeed, Evagrius speaks of an assimilation of humans to angels or to demons over the aeons, depending on their moral choices. (Ibid., 204)

 

Symeon, Archbishop (EO) of Thessalonica (1380-1429) on the Energy-Essence Distinction and People "Seeing" God

  

We confess that the essence is entirely invisible and imparticipable, both to us and to all creation, as the Only-begotten said: No one has ever seen God (Jn 1:18), which is to say, as He is and at the level of His essence. Wherefore HE also said to Moses, No man shall see My face and live (Ex 33:20). Yet we believe that it is possible to see and to receive His glory, the brightness that is from the essence, and His grace and power. Of this order were the visions of the prophets, the revelations of light to the saints and the radiance within them, the ministries, and the working of miracles. For we all receive divine grace, not the essence. On the contrary, we believe that only that divine flesh that He assumed was hypostatically united to the Word, so that through it we might become communicants of the grace that is in that flesh that He assumed, since all the fullness of the Godhead is in Him bodily, since it dwells therein, as Paul says. In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9)—the Godhead and not the hypostasis of the Spirit. For the Word alone, who is one of the Trinity, was made flesh. And His humanity alone is a hypostasis of God and is identical to God, since it was supremely united to Him without division or confusion and became His own. Therefore we believe that we partake of the gift and grace of God that proceeds from Him and not of His essence, and the Messalians and impious Bogomils believe.

 

Witness to all this is the apostle who reclined on the divine breast, for which he received the abundant grace of theology. He by himself is a sufficient witness, since his testimony is true, and he knew that what he said is true, that we may believe, since he is a disciple of the Truth (Un 19:35). This disciple says concerning the divine essence that, No one has ever seen God (Jn 1:18). And he calls in as a witness the Lord, who says, The Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (Jn 1:18). On the other hand, he says concerning His grace, And we have seen His glory. And lest anyone should say that he spoke only about the Incarnation, he adds, Glory as the Only-begotten of the Father. And lest anyone should say that he meant the nature of the Godhead, he says again, full of grace and truth (Jn 1:14).

 

Do you see how the truth was clearly proclaimed by the Gospels? To show that the glory of God has been revealed to the saints, he himself, in the same Gospel, says about Isaiah, These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke concerning Him, that is, concerning Christ (Jn 12:41). The Savior Himself proclaimed the kingdom, power, and glory of the Father, which is common to the three Persons, since it belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as well. On the one hand, He says in His prayer, For Yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, unto the ages. Amen (Mt 6:13). On the other hand, the Church proclaims that the kingdom, power, and glory is common to the three hypostases when he says, For Yours is the kingdom, and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit. And it does not simply says this, but it has learned it from the divine Scriptures. For the grace, glory, power, operation, and kingdom and proclaimed to be common to the Trinity.

 

Wherefore the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 18:2). These were established by the Word of the Lord, and by the Spirit of His mouth they were imbued with power (Ps 32:6). Heaven and earth are full of the glory of the thrice-holy God, as the angels theologize (Isa 6:3). On this account let those who deny the grace and radiance of God be turned back (Ps 34:4; 128:5). We, however, who have received from His fullness, who have received light from light and grace for grace: let us give thanks to Him that has bestowed His grace on us, shone on us, and prepared an eternal kingdom for us from the foundation of the world—a kingdom that we hope to attain by His mercy. Even here below, let us seek to be made worthy of a partial foretaste of this kingdom. IF we are purified, this will be given to us. So let us hasten to draw near to Him that is most pure. For this is what David declares, saying, Come unto Him and be illumined, and your faces shall not be ashamed (Ps 33:5). (Symeon of Thessalonica, Dialogue in Christ Against All Heresies 32, in Against All Heresies [trans. Alexander Pino; Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024], 127-29)

 

Symeon, Archbishop (EO) of Thessalonica (1380-1429) on Baptismal Regeneration in "Against All Heresies"

  

The power and operation of God are in us, by His mercy, even here. For how is it that we are baptized? What did we receive in baptism? It was rebirth. Unless you are born again, it says (cf. Jn 3:5). We have put on Christ. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). But how have we put Him on, hypostatically or by grace? Obviously by grace! That is why He says, Both I and the Father will come and make our abode with him (cf. Jn 14:23). Yet the Father was not made flesh. Therefore He dwells in us by grace. The Son, however, was made flesh. Yet even if we commune of His flesh, we do not partake of the essence of the Godhead, but its grace. For we have received from the fullness of the Godhead of Him who is in the flesh. Similarly, we have received the gift of the Holy Spirit (and here I refer to those who have been ordained). He who is appointed to read is sealed, and, when he has received the grace, he attains the rank of a reader. For he is not able to perform the duties of a subdeacon. Likewise a deacon is not able to perform the duties of a presbyter, nor a presbyter, as we have said, those of the episcopal rank. (Symeon of Thessalonica, Dialogue in Christ Against All Heresies 32, in Against All Heresies [trans. Alexander Pino; Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024], 129)

 

Augustine on the Different Meanings of "Father" (e.g., Matthew 23:9; 1 Corinthians 4:15) During the Council of Carthage (411)

  

242. Augustine, bishop of the Catholic Church, said: “I have a source, but it is Christ, whose apostle I hear speaking: All are yours, but you are of Christ, Christ truly of God [1 Cor 3.22-23]. For even when the apostle said that he was a father, in order that we should not believe human infirmity to be the foundation, as it were, of his actual paternity, he added: I bore you through the Gospel [1 Cor 4.15]. The seed, therefore, and the nature of my seed is drawn from the Gospel. For the sake of doing them honour we call those who have preceded us either in time or in merits ‘fathers’. It is an entirely different matter when we ask whom we have as a father in faith, whom we have as a father for eternal salvation, and whom we have as a father for the purpose of preserving the Church and obtaining the promises of God. It is a mark of honour that we say every day ‘father ‘ to older men; daily we say ‘brother’ even to some who are not with us in the one Church nor established in the same sacraments. Lot even called the residents of Sodom ‘brothers’, certainly to appease their enmity, not as a recognized brotherhood and a community of, as it were, a single inheritance. Let all of this, therefore, be put aside, let us instead distinguish between names which are due to men on the basis of honour and the name which we need for salvation. For eternal salvation, I would say by permission of the apostle, or rather, indeed, I would say the apostle’s command: The apostle is not my father for eternal salvation who says to me: I planted, Apollo watered, but God gave increase. And neither is he anything who plants, nor he who waters, but he who gives increase, God [1 Cor 3.6-7]. About this the Lord said: Do not call anyone on earth your father [Mt 23.9]. Just as he knew that the apostle would say: I bore you through the Gospel [1 Cor 4.15]. Nor indeed would it contradict the Lord’s words, Do not call anyone on earth your father when the apostle said, you do not have many fathers, I bore you through the Gospel [1 Cor 4.15]. But because he drew a distinction between the purpose for which the Lord established a father for us, and the mark of honour by which we could accept the apostle as a father, for that reason he spoke in this manner, so his words would not be contrary to the Lord’s truth. In sum, whatever fathers I recognize on earth, I recognize them for the sake of doing them honour. I do not have any father for my own salvation except God, about whom the Lord said to me: Do not call anyone on earth your father, and to whom we daily prayer: Our father, who is in heaven [Mt 6.9].” (“Transcript of the 411 Conference: Day 3” (June 8, 411), in The Conference of Carthage in 411 [trans. Erika Hermanowicz and Neil McLynn; Translated Texts for Historians 90; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2025], 279-80)

 

Conference of Carthage (411) Interpreting the "Psalms" in Luke 24:44 as a Reference to the Psalter, not the Entirty of the "Writings"

  

With these and many further attestations of the law and the prophets proving that the Church is spread throughout the whole world, the divine psalms also concur as follows: The Lord said to me: You are my son, today I bore you; ask it of me and I shall give to you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession [Ps 2.7-8]. Again in another psalm about Christ the Lord invoking Solomon figuratively: He will be Lord from sea to sea, and from the water all the way up to the borders of the ends of the earth. The Ethiopians will fall before him, and his enemies will eat the dust. The kings of Tharsis and their islands will offer presents, the kings of Arabia and Saba [Sheba and Seba] will bring gifts. And all the kings of the earth will adore him. All nations will serve him [Ps 71/72.8-11]. Again, in another psalm: God, the Lord of the gods, has spoken and called it earth from the rising of the sun all the way to its setting; out F Zion the appearance of her beauty [Ps 49/50.1-2].

 

It is for that reason the Lord Jesus himself also, who had spoken before through the mouths of the prophets, after he had risen from the dead, now promised the Church through his own mouth in these terms: It was necessary, he said, that all things which were written in the law, both the prophets and the psalms, be fulfilled through me. At that moment he awakened their perception, so they might understand the Scriptures, and he said to them: that it was written thus and therefore it was necessary for Christ to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and penance and remission of sins for all the nations was to be preached in his name, with them beginning from Jerusalem, [Lk 24.44-47], just as if he was putting into different words that testimony of the psalm which we presented directly above. For what was put there: and he called it earth from the rising all the way to the setting of the sun [Ps 49/50.1] the Lord said here: through all the nations [Lk 24.27]. For who does not know that Zion and Jerusalem are one and the same city, where the passion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ began to be preached by a most dazzling proclamation across the world for cleansing and saving peoples? (“Transcript of the 411 Conference: Day 1” (June 1, 411), in The Conference of Carthage in 411 [trans. Erika Hermanowicz and Neil McLynn; Translated Texts for Historians 90; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2025], 89-90)

 

Symeon, Archbishop (EO) of Thessalonica (1380-1429) Against Roman Catholic Iconography and Statuary and Canons 82 and 100 of Quinisext

  

23. That We Should Depict the Things of God with Reverence and Piety and in Accordance with the Received Custom

 

What other innovations have been introduced by the Latins contrary to ecclesiastical tradition?

 

The holy and venerable icons were piously handed down for the honor of the divine prototypes and the relative worship of their holy images by the faithful, since they make the truth visible through representations. For icons portray the Word who was incarnate for our sakes, as well as the divine works that He accomplished for us: His Passion, miracles, and mysteries. They also portray the all-holy form of His holy ever-Virgin Mother, and of His saints, and all things whatsoever the Gospel account and the rest of the divine Scriptures speak about. Icons portray these things as with another kind of letters: teaching representationally, through the application of pigments and other materials.

 

Yet the Latins innovate in all these things, as we have said, and they often paint the sacred icons in another style, contrary to what has been established by the Church. In place of images and clothes and hair, they adorn their icons with human hair and real garments. This, however, is not an icon of hair and clothes but the hair and clothes of some random person, and thus it is not an icon and figure of the prototypes. They also paint their icons and adorn them in a manner that is outside the bounds of reverence, which actually contradicts what it means to be a holy icon, as the canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council prescribes. For it states that one should not paint things that are not beneficial for the more simple; and what is contrary to the order of the Church is not permitted. (See Canons 82 and 100 of the Quinisext Council) Nor do the Fathers accept this. What is more, they also depict certain things in theatrical performances, contrary to the divine ordinances. For they act out, as it were, the events of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the crucifixion of the Savior, and all the rest, stationing men at the crossroads and in public squares contrary to the order of the Church. One man plays the Virgin, and they call this fellow ‘Mary.’ Another is called ‘angel’ and yet another ‘Ancient of Days.’ On this one they affix white hairs to his chin, since they do not have beards. For the Latins shave these off, like women and contrary to the ordinances of nature. Therefore, they put on someone else’s beard, thereby exposing the incongruity of their actions. For if the prophets saw that God is represented with a beard, then certainly when we have a beard it brings honor to our nature and is in accordance with God’s will. Thus those who shave act contrary to the will of God and dishonour nature, especially priests and monks, who are forbidden from indulging the flesh.

 

And they make the Ancient of Days hold a dove (an actual bird) in place of the divine Spirit, once again exposing the incongruity of their thinking thereby. For if they think that the Spirit is ‘also from the Son,’ they why do they not sit the Son beside the Ancient of Days, so that they can both send forth the dove? Rather, they should send the Son, too, to the fellow they call Mary. For it was not the Spirit who was incarnate, even if He did overshadow the Virgin (Lk 1:35). Nevertheless, all these things are absurd and alien to the tradition of the Church. Indeed, they are an outrage against the mysteries and Christian piety.

 

And what about the things they portray concerning the Crucifixion of Christ? Bringing in the blood of irrational animals in the bowels of animals, in place of the Lord’s blood, they make it appear to flow from the hands, feet, and side of some man who pretends to be crucified. Who, then, is this crucified man? And what is this blood? Is it the reality or is it an icon? If it is an icon, how is there a man and blood? For a man is not an icon. And if the man and blood are the reality, it is not an icon. And who, by the way, is this man? And what is that blood? One must ask: whose is it! Is it the Savior’s or is it some common blood? Oh the absurdity of it all! These things are contrary to the sacred icons and to the Gospels—indeed, to the dread mysteries of Christ!

 

And from whence they did receive these things? Which of the saints handed down such things to them? The truth is that they themselves invented all of them. And they perform them at crossroads, and in public squares, stationing actors there in contravention of all order. They put on plays about the wondrous things that are beyond description, of which it is not lawful to speak. They call a dove—a bird—the Holy Spirit. They call out and respond with the details of the feast. The fictitious Mary receives an irrational dove in place of the Spirit. Once again, as we have already said, some man is crucified, and they call him Christ. The Crucifixion is not real, and yet the blood of some animal is seen to flow, mocking the blood shed by God.

 

But it was not in this way that the Lord commanded us to commemorate the mysteries, but rather as He Himself handed down. For in the latter He Himself is also operative, and consecrates the mysteries. It is His body and bloody that are consecrated.

 

Are these things that they do not fraught with error—exceedingly fraught? IF you wish, O man, to depict these things and to teach them to other people, celebrate the Liturgy as the Lord handed down. Compose writings. Paint icons with pigments, as it has been handed down. For this is true representation, like the Scripture in books whose inner grace is divine, since they, too, are holy things made visible. Yet the Latins, having once gone astray, hasten to those things that must be avoided.

 

If, however, they should censure us concerning the ritual of the furnace of the three youths, they will not come away happy at all. For we do not light a furnace, but only candles with lights, and we offer incense to God as is customary. And we depict an angel; we do not send forth a man. We bring forward to sing only youths who are pure, as the three youths were, to chant the Ode of the three youths according to tradition. All youths who have been sealed with chrism and consecrated represent these three youths. Among the clergy each represents his own rank. The primate represents Christ, and the bishops represent the chief apostles, since they also possess their grace. The priests in turn represent the Seventy, and the deacons the Levites. The subdeacons and the remaining orders represent the order of the prophets.

 

Seen from another angel, the primate represents the incarnate God the Word. The priests represent the higher orders of angels, and the deacons the lower orders of ministering powers. The rest of the clergy represent the final orders together with the Orthodox laity. All of these have their successive rank, as well as the grace that corresponds to it. Therefore, it is not inappropriate for youths to portray the three youths since it is also possible for them to possess their grace. To portray the Lord in His crucifixion, however, to pretend at being slain, and to pour out blood, is to perform something that is neither real nor in accordance with divine tradition. Likewise, to portray the Mother of God, by means of a man or a woman, and to have her receive a bird in place of the Spirit is exceedingly inappropriate. And to portray the figures of the saints and adorn them with someone else’s hair and clothes, contrary to piety, is not something that was handed on by the Fathers. To put it simply, to perform the things of God on a stage and in theatrical performances is not Orthodox, is not traditional, and is not proper for Christians.

 

If, on the other hand, someone should assert that those who carry these things out are priests, and that, in this capacity, it is possible for them to depict the Lord and His Virgin Mother, it should be known that it is not proper for them to do it in this way. For priests represent the Lord in those things that are needful: in baptizing, in liturgizing, in washing the feet of others, and everything else the Lord spoke about, which He handed down to hierarchs and priests to perform. Likewise the chanters and those who have been sealed in order to read represent the Lord when they read and chant. There is no fictitious crucifixion and shedding of blood, let alone the blood of an animal, unless someone should choose to really shed his own blood in martyrdom, or undertake ascetical struggle in crucifying the flesh with its passions and desires, as Paul says (Gal 5:24). He also said that, The world is crucified to Me, and I to the world, admonishing everyone to seek after this (Gal 6:14).

 

No one, however, is able to replicate the Virgin Theotokos, neither in her purity nor in the way she conceived the Lord by the Spirit and gave birth to Him in the flesh, for this was absolutely unique and was accomplished to her alone. Yet one may imitate her by living chastely and embracing virginity, thereby showing himself to be worthy of receiving her grace to the extent that this is possible. In these ways, then, it is desirable for everyone to replace the Mother of God, as much as one can.

 

Yet if anyone says that all these things are the same as the divine icons that are painted, their sentiments are senseless. For what we see in a depiction is truly an icon: a painted icon of Christ, the depiction of blood, the Mother of God in icon form, or an angel, an apostle, a hierarch, a martyr, or the Spirit in the form of a dove. Everything is an icon, since they are images and depictions of divine things, worthy of veneration and reverence. Yet for people to act the things out is not appropriate. (Symeon of Thessalonica, Dialogue in Christ Against All Heresies 23, in Against All Heresies [trans. Alexander Pino; Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024], 82-86)

 

Here is the English and Greek of canons 82 and 100 of the Quinisext council (692 AD) and the interpretation thereof in The Rudder:

 

English

Greek

CANON LXXXII

 

In some of the paintings of the venerable icons, a lamb is inscribed as being shown or pointed at by the Precursor’s finger, which was taken to be a type of grace, suggesting beforehand through the law the true lamb to us Christ our God. Therefore, eagerly embracing the old types and the shadows as symbols of the truth and preindications handed down to the Church, we prefer the grace, and accept it as the truth in fulfillment of the Law. Since, therefore, that which is perfect even though it be but painted is imprinted in the faces of all, the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world Christ our God, with respect to His human character, we decree that henceforth He shall be inscribed even in the icons instead of the ancient lamb: through Him being enabled to comprehend the reason for the humiliation of the God Logos, and in memory of His life in the flesh and of His passion and of His soterial death being led by the hand, as it were, and of the redemption of the world which thence accrues.

 

Interpretation

 

Since some painters paint Christ as a sheep and lamb, with the Forerunner pointing his finger at him and saying, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that hereafter in the future this shall not be done, but instead Christ Himself shall be painted a full-grown man, with respect to His human character, in order that by means of the human aspect we may be enabled to recall to memory His life in the flesh and His passion and His death, and the salvation of the world resulting therefrom. For, as regarding those old types of the Law, we honor and value them, out of consideration for the fact that they prefigured the truth of the Gospel and of grace, among which one was that of the lamb slaughtered on the occasion of the Passover (or Easter), taken in the image of Christ, the true Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. But now that this truth and the realities themselves have come, we prefer it and accept it rather than the types.

 

ΚΑΝΩΝ ΠΒʹ

 

Ἔν τισι τῶν σεπτῶν εἰκόνων γραφαῖς, ἀμνὸς δακτύλῳ τοῦ Προδρόμου δεικνύμενος ἐγχαράττεται, ὃς εἰς τύπον παρελήφθη τῆς χάριτος, τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἡμῖν διὰ νόμου προϋποφαίνων ἀμνὸν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν. Τοὺς οὖν παλαιοὺς τύπους, καὶ τὰς σκιὰς. ὡς τῆς ἀληθείας σύμβολά τε, καὶ προχαράγματα, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδεδομένους κατασπαζόμενοι, τὴν χάριν προτιμῶμεν, καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς πλήρωμα νόμου, ταύτην ὑποδεξάμενοι. Ὡς ἂν οὖν τὸ τέλειον κᾂν ταῖς χρωματουργίαις, ἐν ταῖς ἁπάντων ὄψεσιν ὑπογράφηται, τὸν τοῦ αἴροντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου ἀμνοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, χαρακτῆρα, καὶ ἐν ταῖς εἰκόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ ἀμνοῦ, ἀναστηλοῦσθαι ὁρίζομεν. Διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς ταπεινώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατανοοῦντες, καὶ πρὸς μνήμην τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ πολιτείας, τοῦ τε πάθους αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου θανάτου, χειραγωγούμενοι, καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν γενομένης τῷ Κόσμῳ ἀπολυτρώσεως.

 

Ἑρμηνεία

 

Ἐπειδὴ μερικοὶ ζωγραφίζουσι, τὸν μὲν Χριστὸν, ὡς πρόβατον καὶ Ἀμνὸν, τὸν δὲ Πρόδρομον δεικνύοντα αὐτὸν μὲ τὸν δάκτυλόν του καὶ λέγοντα· «Ἴδε ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ Κόσμου.» [Ἰωάν. ά. 29.] Διὰ τοῦτο προστάζει ὁ παρὼν Κανὼν, τὸ τοιοῦτον εἰς τὸ ἐξῆς νὰ μὴ γίνεται, ἀλλὰ νὰ ζωγραφίζεται ὁ Χριστὸς, ὡς ἄνθρωπος τέλειος, κατὰ τὸν ἀνθρωπινον χαρακτῆρα. Ἴνα διὰ τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου εἴδους ἐρχόμεθα εἰς ἐνθύμησιν τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ πολιτείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοῦ πάθους καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, καὶ τῆς διὰ τούτων γενομένης σωτηρίας τοῦ Κόσμου. Διότι, τοὺς μὲν παλαιοὺς ἐκείνους τοῦ νόμου τύπους τιμῶμεν, καθʼ ὅ ἐπροεικόνιζαν τὴν ἄλήθειαν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῆς χάριτος, ἀπὸ τοὺς ὁποίους ἔνας ἦτο καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ Πάσχᾳ σφαγιαζόμενος Ἀμνὸς, εἰς εἰκόνα Χριστοῦ παραλαμβανόμενος, τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ Ἀμνοῦ, τοῦ αἴροντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ Κόσμου. Τώρα δὲ ὁποῦ ἦλθεν ἡ ἀλήθεια αὐτὴ καὶ τὰ πράγματα, μᾶλλον τῶν τύπων προτιμῶμεν αὐτὴν καὶ ὑποδεχόμεθα.

 

CANON C

 

“Let thine eyes look aright, and keep thy heart with all diligence” (Prov. 4:25 and 23), wisdom bids us. For the sensation of the body can easily foist their influence upon the soul. We therefore command that henceforth in no way whatever shall any pictures be drawn, painted, or otherwise wrought, whether in frames or otherwise hung up, that appeal to the eye fascinatingly, and corrupt the mind, and excite inflammatory urgings to the enjoyment of shameful pleasures. If anyone should attempt to do this, let him be excommunicated.

 

(No interpretation of this Canon is in the Greek edition.)

 

Concord

 

Inasmuch as some men were wont to paint or draw on walls and boards lascivious pictures, such as women stark naked or bathing or being kissed by men, and other such shameful scenes, which deceive the eyes of beholders and excite the mind and heart to carnal desires, therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that no such pictures shall by any means whatsoever be painted or drawn or sketched. If anyone should make any such pictures, let him be excommunicated, since all the five senses of the body, and especially the first and royalest one, the eyesight, is easily led to impress the pictures of those things which it sees into the soul. That is why Solomon recommends that our eyes look aright at things that are fine and good and beautiful, and that everyone of us keep his mind and heart away from the shameful objects of the senses.

 

ΚΑΝΩΝ Ρʹ

 

«Οἱ ὁφθαλμοί σου ὁρθὰ βλεπέτωσαν, καὶ πάσῃ φυλακῇ τήρει σὴν καρδίαν,» [Παροιμ, δʹ. 23. 25.] ἡ σοφία διακελεύεται. Ῥᾳδίως γὰρ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχὴν αἰ τοῦ σώματος αἰσθήσεις εἰσκρίνουσι. Τὰς οὖν τῂν ὅρασιν καταγοητευούσας γραφὰς, εἴτε ἑν πίναξιν, εἵτε ἄλλως πως ἀνατεθειμένας, καὶ τὸν νοῦν διαφθειρούσας, καὶ κινούσας πρὸς τὰς τῶν αἰσχρῶν ἡδονῶν ὑπεκκαύσεις, οὑδαμῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οἱῳδήποτε τρόπῳ προστάσσομεν ἐγχαράττεσθαι, εἱ δέ τις τοῦτο πράττειν ἐπιχειρήσοι, ἀφοριζέσθω.

 

Συμφωνία

 

Ἐπειδὴ μερικοὶ ἐζωγράφιζον εἰς τοίχους καὶ σανίδας ζωγραφίας τινὰς ἀσέμνους, οἶον, γυναῖκας γυμνὰς, ἢ λουομένας, ἢ ὑπὸ ἀνδρῶν φιλουμένας, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα αἰσχρὰ, τὰ ὁποῖα ἀπατῶσι τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῶν ὁρώντων, καὶ κινοῦσι τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν πρὸς ἐπιθυμίας σαρκικὰς, διὰ τοῦτο προστάζει ὁ παρὼν κανὼν, αἱ τοιαῦται εἰκόνες μὲ κᾀνένα τρόπον νὰ μὴ ζωγραφίζωνται, εἰ δέ τις ἤθελε τἁς ζωγραφίσῃ, νὰ ἀφορίζεται, ἐπειδὴ ὅλαι αἱ πέντε αἰσθήσεις τοῦ σώματος, καὶ μάλιστα ἡ πρώτη καὶ βασιλικωτάτη ὅρασις μὲ εὐκολίαν ἐμβάζει τὰς εἰκόνας ἐκείνων ὁποῦ βλέπει μέσα εἰς τὴν ψυχήν. Διʼ ὃ καὶ ὁ Σολομὼν συμβουλεύει νὰ βλέπουσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τοῦ καθʼ ἑνὸς ὀρθὰ καὶ καλὰ πράγματα, καὶ καθʼ ἔνας νὰ φυλάττῃ μὲ κάθε φύλαξιν τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν του ἀπὸ τὰ αἰσχρὰ ἀντικείμενα τῶν αἰσθήσεων.

 

 

 Further Reading:


Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons


 

Blog Archive