Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski on Jesus' Baptism and the Question about Jesus' Practice of Baptism of His Followers

  

JESUS’ BAPTISM AND THE QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS’ PRACTICE OF BAPTISM OF HIS FOLLOWERS

 

 

All four canonical Gospels explore different aspects of Jesus’ baptism. Mark (1.9-11) places it as the opening event in Jesus’ life as the confirmation of Jesus’ selection by God with a ‘voice’ which declares Jesus’ special status (Mk 1.11). Matthew (3.13-17) and Luke (3.21-22) expound the story with different theological agendas. Matthew points out the resistance of John the Baptist to baptize Jesus, while Luke omits the role of John, while reaffirming Markian tradition of the voice from heaven which declares Jesus’ unique status. The Gospel of John does not mention the baptism of Jesus, but its theological focus is on the identification of Jesus as ‘the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (Jn 1.29). John also highlights the mission of Jesus who will practise the true ‘baptism by the Holy Spirit’, not just ablution with water (Jn 1.33). The imminent question is: ‘why was Jesus baptised?’ and no doubt the Synoptic sources will give three different reasons: Matthew ‘to fulfil righteousness’, Mark and Luke to facilitate the appointment as God’s ‘beloved son’. This identification is especially important to Mark, as he does not have the nativity story, so we lack the Lukian report on the conversation between angel Gabriel and Mary (1.26-38). We may conclude, both historically and theologically, that Jesus encountered John the Baptist and that that encounter was a changing point in Jesus’ life.

 

Did Jesus continue John’s mission and baptize his followers? Unlike the Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel preserves some short but slightly confusing references to that kind of activity (Jn 3.22 and 26, then later 4.1-2). Let’s look more carefully. The first reference states:

 

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized. [. . .] They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him.’

 

The text, without any alternative readings, clearly states that Jesus was (the Greek uses here the imperfect tense) baptizing for some time. Brown suggests that this was a baptism similar to John the Baptist and not a later Christian ritual. Beasley-Murray argues for the historicity of Jesus’ role as the one who was baptizing and who authorized his followers to perform this act.1 This Scriptural testimony is later contradicted in Jn 4.1-2:

 

Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, ‘Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John’ – although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized.

 

Again, the manuscripts are unanimous about v 2 and the noticeable editorial intervention and explanation of the previous statement in Jn 3.22. Still, we see that the followers of Jesus practised some form of ablution as a possible sign of repentance and then acted as having become members of the earliest community around Jesus. It is clearer from the Acts of the Apostles (2.38- 42) that catechumens were introduced to Christian fellowship by baptism ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ (2.38). However, as we know from the note in the Acts of the Apostles, a certain Apollos from Alexandria ‘knew only the baptism of John’ (18.25). Similarly, in Paul’s teaching (1 Cor. 1.13 and 15), the ritual happened with different wording (‘in the name of . . .). Ferguson highlights that the baptism ‘in the name of Jesus’s’ was:

 

an expression of faith in him and in worship towards him.

 

Concluding the limited evidence from the emerging authority of the canonical Gospels and Pauline teaching, it is correct to say that baptism was an initiatory ritual offered to adults. It was seen in relation to John’s practice; however, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, Christians understood it as the fundamental relationship between the believer and Christ. That vital link was expressed by the idiom ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’. Baptism, as understood by the early followers of Jesus, brought forgiveness of previous sins, endowed the gifts of the Holy Spirit and led to salvation. Personal faith and commitment to a new way of life were crucial. Further, direct link with other members of the community expounds the social, not private or esoteric, character of baptism. (Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, “Community and Liturgy: Emerging of the Trinitarian formula baptism,” in T&T Clark Handbook of The Early Church, ed. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; John Anthony McGuckin; Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski [London: T&T Clark, 2022], 262-64)

 

 

Johannes Crell (1590-1633) offering a “Socinian” Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29

  

Of Baptism for the Dead

 

The superstitious rites of the latter kind are again twofold: for some have more of vanity and of superstition, others somewhat less. Of the former kind are the intercessions for the dead, even if you sever from them that which here occurs of the idolatrous (for so far these ceremonies belong to the former kind). Like unto these was the superstition of those of whom, not only in our own judgment but in that of many other most learned men also, Paul speaks 1 Cor. 15:29: who were baptized for the dead, that is, as the words themselves of themselves sound, for the good of the dead.

 

For, as some also of the Fathers, as they are called, assert, it appears that there were some even among the Corinthians themselves, otherwise of great name, who thought that if any had departed without baptism who nevertheless had embraced the Christian religion, then, because they had not professed the name of Christ in that manner which was at that time received in the Church, the omission of baptism would either altogether hinder them unto salvation, or might easily do them hurt. Therefore, lest those men should perchance perish, others were baptized in their stead and in their name, and they judged that this redounded to the good of those men.

 

For although many interpretations are brought forward by others, yet they cannot be fitted to the words, nor do they themselves bring forward any example of that signification of the words for the dead which they pretend; which stands against them in the place of a first argument. Secondly: if the Apostle were speaking of some matter common to all Christians and right and praiseworthy, he would not say, What shall they do are baptized for the dead?—speaking only of certain men and openly distinguishing himself and men like unto himself from them, whereas the Apostle himself also had been baptized with water. There may be added also that which Josephus Scaliger has noted: that the Apostle does not say simply υπερ νεκρων, as though he were speaking of the dead indefinitely, but υπερ των νεκρων, to signify that certain dead are denoted by him. Which agrees but little with the other interpretations, but with ours most exactly.

 

But as to what is objected—first, that it is absurd to set down that the Apostle drew an argument for so great a matter, namely for the resurrection, from a vain and superstitious rite; and secondly, that it does not seem likely that the Apostle would have omitted the reproof of this error—to the former it is to be answered that arguments, as Aristotle also delivers, are twofold. The one sort are called προς πργμα, to the manner; the others προς ανθρωπον, to the man. The former, since they are drawn from the truth of the thing itself, must always and with all men have place; but these latter not with all, but only with him with whom one has to do—whom we either slay with his own sword, when with one of his errors we confute another, or whom we press with the authority of those men to whom he attributes much—as when we urge the Papists with the authority of the Fathers and object to them those things also which we ourselves do not acknowledge all are wont to do who dispute with adversaries.

 

To this kind of arguments, from which the wisest and the most learned by no means shrink, since its force for persuading is very great, and sometimes even greater than that of arguments which are by their own nature most solid, this argument is to be referred. For it is likely that those men whom the Apostle marks had great authority among the Corinthians and the repute of wisdom. Besides, an argument προς πραγμα also may be deduced from a false opinion, as Aristotle very often does, and among other places in the first book of the Ethics, where he confirms his own opinion concerning blessedness out of the manifold and withal erroneous opinions of the philosophers. For it is not likely that they do it without all reason and cause and altogether rashly; and, as Aristotle says in the place named, it is not likely that they err the whole way, but rather that they attain the truth at least in one part, or in most parts. Therefore the cause and the ground of that error is to be dug out, which ground it is probable, and well-night necessary, is of itself true.

 

Let us transfer this to the present place. They who were baptized for the dead had above all this ground and cause of their deed, that the dead should rise again; for unless they had held this for a thing most certain, they would have been the most inept of all men, who were willing to be baptized in the stead of those others, and so for the sake of their advantage and their salvation. Since therefore they held this for a thing most certain, and it is not likely that in so great a matter they erred, by reason of the excellent wisdom which was otherwise in them, or at least was believed to be in them, Paul rightly concludes that it is necessary that the resurrection be set down. And that Paul’s argument was of such a sort the very manner of speaking, in some measure indicates: “What shall they do which are baptized” and so forth—as if he should say: most ineptly would those men have acted, and rashly, and without any cause, whereas it is more than credible that they had at least some probable cause.

 

To the latter it is to be answered that it was not necessary in this place, where he would bring forward this deed as a proof of the resurrection, and that briefly and in passing, the Apostle should have reproved it expressly and openly, especially since the error itself was not of itself so pernicious. Yet meanwhile, by the very manner of speaking, while he removes the deed from himself and attributes it only to certain men, he seems tacitly to disapprove it; which in this place sufficed him. (Johannes Crell, Christian Ethics: An Explanation of the Virtues and Vices Which Holy Scripture Speaks [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 182-83)

 

 

John A. McGuckin on Early Patristic Views of Eschatology

  

EARLY PATRSITIC VIEWS OF THE ESCHATOLOGY

 

The insights of the late Pauline notion of the redemptive presence (Παρουςία) of the risen Christ were developed by the patristic writers as a way of bridging the tension between, on the one hand, the promise of Jesus that God’s vindication was to be fully realized when the Kingdom came in all its fullness, a time of final judgement when evil would be decisively ended and the righteous would enter into their reward; and on the other hand, that in his Resurrection Jesus had somehow or other transcended time and entered into a permanent presence for, and to, his church. The prayer Maranatha, or ‘Come Lord Jesus’ represents the first; the theology of the Fourth Gospel represents the second, where Jesus ‘corrects’ Martha’s future-related conceptions at the tomb of Lazarus and asks her to believe in a resurrection already present in himself.

 

By the end of the first century this disparate approach operative in the foundational texts had already started to be synthesized. Pope Clement is one of the first to speak of individual Christians (here Peter and Paul) having already entered into heaven (like the confessing thief ) as their reward for their martyrdom on earth: not for them the wait until the general resurrection of the dead and the final judgement. The idea of an immediate realization of vindication for all the martyrs was also strong in the early church. The elders of Smyrna confess that the martyred Polycarp has already received ‘the crown of immortality’. Hermas speaking about the destiny of the church in his book The Shepherd depicts it in the late first century as a tower almost nearing completion. When it is finished the end will come. In the early second century Barnabas thinks the last days are already upon the church. He takes clues from the six days of creation to argue that this is already late in the seventh age, and the eighth is the dawning of the ‘New Age’ of the Kingdom. From the symbolic Genesis chronology of ‘seven days’, several writers correlated that seven thousand years since the creation meant that the end of the first century would be the appointed end-time. This idea endured, in the West, even into the fourthcentury writer Lactantius, who adjusted it to fit Constantine’s Golden Age. However, apart from the special dispensation offered to martyrs, who gain a speedy entry to paradise, most of the early church envisaged the general resurrection taking place as the immediate prelude to the Second Coming. In the Didache this is not for all (ὀυ πάντων δέ) seemingly only for the righteous. But the more accepted view was that all human souls would resurrect in the flesh to face the universal judgement. Like much else related to Christian thinking about the church in the earliest centuries, the stance taken was collective more than individual.

 

By the middle to end of the second century this simpler form of the Christian eschatology, turning around the poles of resurrection of the flesh and universal judgement, had come in for a good deal of serious criticism both from the Hellenistic philosophers such as Kelsos, who mocked it as unbelievably crude compared with the Greek philosophical concept of the immortality of the soul, and from Christian Gnostics who used mythic schemes to advance similar ideas of the ascent of the purified soul. The temptation simply to replace biblical eschatology with Hellenistic metaphysics was resisted in the main. Justin Martyr, for example, is sure enough that the Platonic doctrine of immortality is incompatible with the Christian concept that God brought the soul into being by His word and will. Conditional immortality might be as far along that road as the fathers were willing to go. The general insistence of the Apologists (especially Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus) in their struggle with gnostic-type ‘spiritualisms’ (the flesh is evil or at best irrelevant in terms of salvation which must be solely a matter of spirit) is that God created matter as a holy thing and, through the Incarnation of the Logos, has willed salvation to be a bodily as well as a spiritual matter (as such unavoidably historical): involving the resurrection and judgement of the soul in its own flesh. Their core arguments are based primarily upon the testimony of the scriptures. (John A. McGuckin, “Eschatology in the early Christian thought-world,” in T&T Clark Handbook of The Early Church, ed. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; John Anthony McGuckin; Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski [London: T&T Clark, 2022], 148-50)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 57:8 (Hebrew: v. 9)

  

Awake, O lyre. The Masoretic Text reads kevodi (“my glory” or, perhaps, “my being”), but one manuscript as well as the Syriac reads kinori, “my lyre,” which seems more likely, yielding an incremental repetition of terms for stringed instruments in this verse. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:144)

 

Sophie Munroe, Letter to Huldah Salisbury (May 4, 1861) on the Outbreak of the U.S. Civil War and the Fulfillment of D&C 87

The following is a transcription of:

 

Sophia Munroe letter, Bandera, Texas to Huldah Salisbury, Church History Library, Call no.: MS 28609

 

This is important as it was penned just one month after the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War, and the author discusses the fulfillment of portions of D&C 87 as a result:

 

Bandera. May. 4th. 1861.

 

My Dear Mother, Brothers and Sisters one and all I have once more [opportunity?] of sending a letter to you, if I stopped on the way. we boarded a Young Man. this winter he was from the (City of New York) he will soon start for home. i shall ask him to take charge of this hoping it may reach you + our Mails will be uncertain if at all we will go to Catesvill for ours + our portion of the country is as quiet as any part of Texas. we are getting Rangers on the Frontier we think better protection the before but every thing is uncertain in these days. the Indians are worse then common. perhaps gathering up to come down [stronger?] + from what i can learn the North will overpower the South. but those that are in favor of the confederacy think otherwise. i feel willing to let things take there cours i hope to go to Mexico or California in the spring. there is many here that does not want to fight on either side. many have gone to California already we have an abundant rain and will have good harvest we may have war but not famine + Munroe is still got the Bandera Mills + he is putting in a flouring Mill now to grind wheat. there will be a grate deal raised in western Texas this year, corn never looks better. David breaks down some still he goes from morning till knight + and sleeps but little at knight. my health is poore able to be around most time taking Medicine all the time + sew [knitt?] keepe my own some more scrub wash or iron, except my caps + Beanie and family are well + the river is up soe we cannot cross it now fulls slow we have had so much rain [fields?] fair to have more. [Hermenid?] is as large as his Mothers Additional parenthetical notes near the bottom of the page: (Beannie named her baby for me) (his next youngest for Victor)

 

[written upside down:] my love to Huldah tell her she is not forgotten

 

My Friends know that i embraced the or believed the Latter day Saint religion + still believe the first principles as strong as ever the Prophet was killed in prison, his son must succede him or else we have no leader his son has taken his place at the head of a branch of the church, still we cannot gather there now, it is not know[n] where we shal gather yet, i think the time not far distant when we shal know. i want to be gathered with the Church with a Prophet at head i do not believe in the Salt lake Mormons no not I. while the Church was in Missouri the Prophet had a revelation, and it is printed + in a Book of many revelations, the Booke is in Town now, it was printed more then 21 years ago concerning the wars that would begin at South Carolina saying the— [word or words crossed out] north will be divided against the South. and the South will call on Great Britton, and other Nations, to helpe him and it will come to pass that the Slaves will be armed to fight against there Masters. and it shal come to pass that warre shall be poured out on all Nations, this is the sum [briefly?] of the revelation though many more plagues spoken of that will be poured out up on the earth to warn the nations. what i have written on this side of paper may not interest you but if you were to [keep?] track of me it might be som[e] comfort to you that i was gone to a place of Safety. i need not pledge myself to write; if i have opportunity you know i will [write]. And i hope you will [do the same]. this from your affectionate Daughter and Sister

 

Sophia Munroe

 

Brothers and Sisters

Huldah Salisbury

 

Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

David Kimhi (“Radak”; 1160-1235) on Psalm 51:6 (Hebrew: v. 7)

  

Radak on Psalms 51:7:1

הן. אדוני אבי ז"ל פי' כי אמר דבר זה כדי לסלק מעליו העון ואמר כי מדרך זה העון שעשיתי נבראתי והיא טיפת הזרע וממנה:

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:2

יחמתני אמי. כאד' שזורע גרעיני מרה האילן והפרי מרים בטבע וכל הדברים ילכו אחר תולדותם והאדם נעשה מטפת זרע בשעת תשמיש ואע"פ שיש בזה מותר ואיסור אם יטעה אדם באותו הדרך טבעו הוא וממנו הוא נוצר ואיננו דבר גדול אם יתקפהו יצרו לעבור על דבר זה וכל חטא אחר אינו מוטבע באדם על כן חייב יותר אם יעשה אותן, והאדם הצדיק המושל בתאותו בדרך תשמיש אם יתקפהו יצרו דבר גדול הוא יותר מאשר ימשול ברוחו מלעבור עבירה אחרת כי זה טבעו וזה אינו טבעו:

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:3

יחמתני. יחמה אותי כי מהתחממות הנקבה עם הזכר תצא טפת זרע שהולד נוצר ממנה:

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:4

אמי כי היא סיבת הזכר יותר מן האיש כמו שאמרו אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר:

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:5

בעוון. מלא ויש בו דרש רבי אחא אומר בעון מלא אפילו חסיד שבחסידים א"א שלא יהא לו צד עון: (source)

 

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:1
“‘Behold’ — my father, of blessed memory, explained that he said this in order to remove the guilt from himself, and that the meaning is that because of this sin that I committed, I was created, namely, from the drop of semen from which I came.”

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:2
“‘My mother conceived me.’ It is like someone who plants bitter seeds in a tree, and the fruit is bitter by nature; and all things follow their origin. Human beings are formed from a drop of semen at the time of intercourse, and although there is both permissibility and prohibition in this matter, if a person errs in that way, it is his nature, and he is formed from it. It is therefore not such a great matter if his inclination overpowers him in regard to violating this matter. But any other sin is not innate in a person, and so he is under greater obligation if he commits those sins. A righteous person who masters his desire in matters of intercourse: if his inclination overpowers him, it is a greater matter than if he controls his spirit and refrains from some other transgression, for this is his nature, whereas that is not his nature.”

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:3
“‘My mother conceived me.’ She conceived me, for from the warming of the female with the male comes forth the drop of semen from which the embryo is formed.”

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:4
“‘My mother’ — for she is more the cause than the man, as they אמרו, ‘A woman conceives first and gives birth to a male.’”

 

Radak on Psalms 51:7:5
“‘In iniquity’ — with a full spelling. And there is a midrash: Rabbi Aḥa says, ‘“In iniquity” with a full spelling’ means that even the most pious of the pious cannot avoid having some side of iniquity.”

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 51:6 (Hebrew: v. 7)

  

in transgression was I conceived, / and in offense my mother spawned me. Christian interpreters through the ages have understood this verse as a prime expression of the doctrine of Original Sin. Some of the early rabbis register a similar notion—as they put it, David’s father, Jesse, did not have relations with his wife to fulfill a higher obligation but rather out of sheer lust. Such a reading may be encouraged by the fact that the verb attached to the mother, yaḥam, is typically associated with animals in heat. It may, however, be unwarranted to construct a general theology of sinful human nature from this verse. The speaker of this poem certainly feels permeated with sinfulness. He may indeed trace it back to the sexual act through which he was conceived, but there is not much here to support the idea that this is the case of every human born. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:133, emphasis in bold added)

 

Jacob Ryder on Isaiah 43:10

My friend Jacob Ryder has a great new video on Isa 43:10:

The Isaiah Verse Christians Think Refutes Mormonism — What It Actually Means

Aaron Shafovaloff Continues to Deceive Concerning Romans 4, King David, and Related Topics

 The most recent issue of the Pro Pastor Journal published an article that was long refuted before it went to press:

 

Aaron Shafovaloff, “Using David to Talk to Mormons about Grace,” Pro Pastor: A Journal of Grace Bible Theological Seminary 5, no. 1 (Fall 2026): 35-41

 

Don’t take my word for it; to see how Shafovaloff was refuted (and, as a result, did a lousy job in the article), see:

 

Why Reformed Protestant Appeals to King David Refute, Not Support, Their Soteriology

 

And for a fuller discussion of Rom 4:4-8, the concept of “imputation,” and other topics:

 

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

 

Again, this only shows that Aaron (1) cannot engage in meaningful exegesis to save his life and (2) is not just deceived, but a deceiver.

Ibn Ezra on Psalm 51:6 (Hebrew: v. 7)

  

הן - בעבור התאוה הנטועה בלב אדם כאילו בעון חוללתי. והטעם: כי בשעת הלידה היצר הרע נטוע בלב. 

 

ומלת יחמתני – זרה כאילו יחמה ממני על דרך: ליחמנה. ויש אומרים: כי זה רמז לחוה שלא ילדה רק אחר שחטאה. (source)

 

“Behold — because of the desire implanted in a human being’s heart, as though I were conceived in iniquity. The meaning is: at the time of birth, the evil inclination is implanted in the heart.

 

And the word yeḥamtani is unusual, as though it were from yeḥammah from me, in the manner of: liḥammenah. And some say that this is a reference to Eve, who did not give birth until after she sinned.”

 

Discussion on Soteriology with Shiloh Lofgran

 

Trying to stump Robert Boylan!

C. Kavin Rowe on the True Humanity of Jesus in Romans 5:12-21 and Humans being "Adams remade"

  

Jesus Is the Human

 

Romans 5:12-21

 

In what is arguably one of the strongest thoughts in Paul’s thinking—at least in terms of its organizing or gravitational power relative to other thoughts— Paul sets Jesus Christ in typological relation to Adam, the first human. “Sin came into the world through one ἄνθρωπος and thus death to all humans because all sinned” (v. 12). Though all sinned, Adam was unique in that he was the fountainhead of the human problem and was thus “a τύπος of the one to come” (vv. 13–14). Paul then compares Adam and Jesus, the two ἄνθρωποι that reach all humans, in order to show the dramatically lopsided nature of the sin/grace and death/life relation: sin and death are defeated by the greater abundance of grace and life. “Thus, just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all humans, so also one man’s righteous act led to the acquittal of life for all humans” (v. 18). At first glance, it may seem that the only comparison here is that of “headship”: Adam stands at the head of a period of history, as does Jesus, only more so (into eternity). But the point of the typology actually runs much deeper. What it is to be ἄνθρωπος, Paul suggests, is signified in Adam. And what it is to have the ἄνθρωπος remade is signified in Jesus Christ. We all stand in Christ Jesus. The Human and the Human Remade—or, to put it only slightly differently, the damaged human made all over again into the human it was intended to be, the reestablishing of God’s image in the midst of time. Human beings are thus, according to the thought of Rom 5, Adams remade and given life in Jesus Christ. To see an Adam is to see one who stands in Jesus Christ. (C. Kavin Rowe, “Christianity’s Surprise: New Testament Foundations of the Human,” in A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven: Essays on Christology and Ethics in Honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. David M. Moffitt and Isaac Augustine Morales [Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2021], 177, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

The uptake of this standing in the life of Adam is the living out of “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). The defeat of death part is, as Paul puts it in his argument about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, this: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (v. 22). (Ibid., 191 n. 7)

 

 

συνέδριον in Ignatius, To the Trallians 3:1 as a Reference to the Council of God, not the Jewish Sanhedrin

  

3.1 Having exhorted the deacons to please everyone, Ignatius then goes on to state the corollary (such is the force of the word “similarly” here) in calling on everyone to respect the deacons. The remark is unusual in that it compares the deacons with Jesus Christ (see on Mag. 6.1). There is no compelling reason to reject the line on textual grounds, and thus it properly serves to underscore the tentative character of all such comparisons in Ignatius (especially since it comes so soon after the comparison between the bishop and Christ in Tr. 2.1). The choice of language here was probably determined by the immediate context. Ignatius expresses himself more forcefully than usual to offset any possible negative impressions left by his preceding comments on the deacons of Tralles.

 

At this point Ignatius is driven to add to the remark about the deacons another about the bishop and elders. Having effected the addition by means of the conjunction ὡς (“as”), that word is no longer available to him in making the comparison between the bishop and the Father. Instead, Ignatius resorts to speaking of the bishop as the τύπος (“type,” “image,” “copy”) of the Father. Since both Barnabas (19.7) and the Didache (4.11) speak of the master as “a type of God” to the slave, the meaning of the comparison does not go beyond what we have set out above in our discussion of Eph. 6.1, Mag. 3.1 and 6.1. Authority is enhanced by such comparisons but not divinized.

 

The comparison involving the presbyters is more complex than usual. They are likened to the council of God and the band of apostles. Elsewhere the two expressions are collapsed into one—the council of the apostles (Mag. 6.1). The double formula makes more explicit the hierarchical relation involved. “God” in the expression “council of God” must correspond to the bishop (note that we hear of the “council” of the bishop in Phd. 8.1). Evidently Ignatius wants not only to compare the presbyters to the council of apostles but also to compare the relation between God and the apostles to that between the bishop and the presbyters. We have found other examples of such comparisons within comparisons (see on Mag. 6.1).

 

However subordinate to the bishop Ignatius makes the presbyters and deacons, here he is explicit in recognizing no church without the existence of all three. He must have found them in place wherever he went to make this statement in the matter-of-fact way that he does. It is only his exaltation of the role of the bishop that sometimes strikes us as going beyond what was commonly accepted. (William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 141-42)

 

Schoedel rendered To the Trallians 3:1 as:

 

Similarly let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, as also the bishop who is a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and as the band of the apostles. Nothing can be called a church without these (Ibid., 140)

 

Here is the entry under “συνέδριον” in Lampe’s patristic lexicon (emphasis added):

 

συνέδριον, τό, A. council; 1. prob. of Jewish sanhedrin, Pss.Sal.4:1; 2. of college of presbyters as bishop’s council τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τύπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων Ign.Magn.6.1; τοὺς … πρεσβυτέρους ὡς σ. θεοῦ id.Trall.3.1; ἐὰν μετανοήσωμεν εἰς ἑνότητα θεοῦ καὶ σ. τοῦ ἐπισκόπου id.Philad.8.1; ὁ καθεζόμενος ἐν πρεσβυτερίῳ συνειδότι μεμιασμένος … τὸ Χριστοῦ μολύνων σ. Or.fr.50 in Jer.36:21(p.223.23; M.13.580a); Const.App.2.28.4 cit. s. βουλή; 3. σ. ἐπισκόπων council, synod ὅτι δ ἂν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις τῶν ἐπισκόπων σ. πράττηται, τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν θείαν βούλησιν ἔχει τὴν ἀναφοράν Const.ap.Eus.v.C.3.20(p.87.11; M.20.1080a); Jo.Ant.ep.pop.CP(p.129.9; M.83.1449b); cf. τοῦ ἀρχιερατικοῦ σ. Thdt.ep.42(4.1100); abs. ποία … σύνοδος ἐπισκόπων ἦν τότε; ποῖον σ. ἀληθείας ἐχόμενον; CAlex.ep.ap.Ath.apol.sec.8(p.94.5; M.25.261c); Ath.syn.1(p.231.9; M.26.681a); Pall.v.Chrys.3(p.16.10; M.47.12); Philost.h.e.2.7,11(M.65.472a,473b); σ. ποιέω, Gr.Naz.or.27.9(p.16.5; M.36.24a); σ. συγκροτέω, Pall.v.Chrys.7(p.38.11; M.47.23); σ. καθίζω Philost.h.e.8.4(M.65.560a); of a council lacking proper eccl. authority τῷ τῆς ἀποστασίας σ. CEph.(431)can.1,2; hence a. session, meeting of a council τὸ σ. τῆς συνόδου συνεκροτεῖτο CArim.ep.Const.1 ap.Ath.syn.10(p.237.23,35; M.26.697a,b); Acac.Mel.hom.(p.90.9; M.77.1468a); b. council-chamber ἵνʼ … αὐθαίρετος εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὸ σ. Pall.v.Chrys.4(p.22.20; M.47.15); ib.8(p..45.24,46.12,15; M.47.27); Thdt.haer.4.2(4.353).

 

B. of non-legislative assemblies; 1. any public gathering, concourse, Clem.paed.3.11(p.278.27; M.8.656a); 2. assembly, congregation; a. as signifying whole body of Jews or Christians καταλέλοιπε … ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ Ἰουδαίων σ. καὶ ἄλλο σ. καὶ ἐκκλησίαν ἑαυτῷ πεποίηκε τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν Or.hom.14.15 in Jer.(p.122.1; M.13.423c); ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ σ. τοῦ λοιμικοῦ, καὶ περιέτυχε τῇ σωτηρίῳ πηγῇ Chrys.hom.59.1 in Jo.(8.344d); ἐξεβάλλετο … τοῦ κοινοῦ σ. id.hom.5.2 in 1Tim.(11.576f); b. local assembly or congregation ἄνδρες οἱ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὸ σ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θέλοντες εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν πιστεῦσαι A.Thom.A 37(p.154.19); of gatherings of Ophites, Or.Cels.6.28(p.98.19; M.11.1336b); of other heretics οἴκους, ἐν οἷς τὰ σ. ταῦτα πληροῦτε Const.ap.Eus.v.C.3.65(p.112.12; M.20.1141a); c. of the building, whether church ὅπως ἁγίων ἀνθρώπων ἄξιον σ. ἀποδειχθῇ Const.ib.3.53(p.100.27; 1116a); or conventicle τὰ τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας ὑμῶν σ. Const.ib.3.65(p.112.28; 1141c). (“συνέδριον,” in A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe [Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 1961], 1314-15)

 

 

David Winston on Wisdom of Solomon 16:7 and the Brazen Serpent

  

For the one who turned toward it [the brazen serpent] was saved, not by the thing that was beheld, but by you, the Savior of all. (Wisdom of Solomon 16:7 NRSV)

 

 

7. was saved not by the sight beheld. The author seeks to replace the principle of homeopathic magic which appears to be operative in Num 21:8–9 with a spiritual conception. (See B. A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord [Leiden, 1974]:85–86.) We find a similar interpretation in M. Rosh Hashanah 3.8: “But could the serpent kill or could the serpent keep alive? But rather, whenever Israel looked on high and subjected their heart to their Father in heaven were they healed, but if not, they perished.” It may be noted that the rabbis explained the punishment of the Israelites by means of serpents on the talion principle, a conceit to which, as we have already seen, both they and the author of Wisd were equally attached. See Tanḥ. Ḥukat 45: “Let the serpent who began with slander come and exact punishment from those who utter slander.… Let the serpent who eats all kinds of food and yet enjoys only one taste (cf. BT Yoma 75a), come and exact punishment from those who eat only one kind of food and yet enjoy the taste of many kinds.” Cf. Targ.Yerush. and Ps-Jonathan on Num 21:6: “And the bath-kol fell from the high heaven and thus spoke: I made manna come down for them from heaven, yet now they turn and murmur against me. Yet, behold, the serpent whom, in the days of the beginning of the world, I doomed to have dust for his food, hath not murmured against me. Now shall the serpents who have not complained of their food come and bite the people who complain.” (David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, [AYB 43; New York: Doubleday, 1979], 295)

 

 

J. Ross Wagner on the Use of Psalm 40:6 (LXX: 39:7; Hebrew: 40:7) in Hebrews 10:5

  

As with Ps 8, so here also the story of Jesus provides the template for the preacher’s explication of the psalm. In this case, however, a distinctive reading in the OG version of Ps 39(40):7—unattested in Hebrew manuscripts or in other ancient witnesses to the Hebrew text—proves indispensable to the homilist’s interpretation. In the second half of Ps 39(40):7a, the Masoretic text offers a striking image: אָזנְיַםִ כּ רִָית לִּי “ears you have hollowed out for me.” Most English translations have followed the KJV in understanding the expression to mean that God has “opened” the psalmist’s ears to hear and obey. The OG translator, however, appears to have taken this as an instance of synecdoche—ear for body—and discovered thereby a reference to God’s fashioning of the human being out of the dust of the ground. Seeking to clarify the figure for his readers, then, the translator will have chosen a more prosaic rendering of the Hebrew: “A body you have fashioned for me” (σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι).

 

. . .

 

Jesus’s body is the medium of his obedience to God. “In the days of his flesh,” the preacher recounts, Jesus offered up impassioned prayers and petitions, trusting God to save him from the power of death; and he was heard because of his godly fear (Heb 5:7). In his body, “he learned obedience through what he suffered,” and in this way he was made perfect for his high-priestly vocation (Heb 5:8–9). As high priest, Jesus offered himself up to God once for all. Raised bodily from the dead, he has entered heaven itself, there to present himself a living sacrifice for the sins of the people (Heb 9:12, 14, 26). What is more, the blood and flesh of the embodied Jesus now open the way for his brothers and sisters to enter the heavenly sanctuary themselves (Heb 10:19–22). Through the power of his indestructible life, this great high priest ever lives to make intercession for his people (7:25), granting them freedom of access to the very throne of God, where they can obtain mercy and find grace to help them in their time of need (4:14–16). (J. Ross Wagner, “Performing the Psalms with Jesus: Christ and Community in the Letters to the Hebrews,” in A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven: Essays on Christology and Ethics in Honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. David M. Moffitt and Isaac Augustine Morales [Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2021], 160-61)

 

Excerpts from Rodney Turner, "The Blood of the Lamb" (November 13, 1986)

  

The spiritual benefits of the atonement were in force before this earth existed—the Lamb was figuratively slain in eternity. Therefore, original sin or guilt was never inflicted on mankind. The baptism of infants is, as Mormon taught, “solemn mockery before God” (Moron. 8:9). Every child is born whole and innocent regardless of the circumstances of its conception. The Redeemer told Mormon: “The curse of Adam is taken from them in me”. (Moron. 8:8). Thanks to the atonement, original sin or guilt is a theological fossil.

 

. . .

 

Unlike the rest of mankind, Jesus was not conceived in sin, meaning in imperfection (Moses 6:55). When the young virgin asked Gabriel how she was to conceive, he answered: “Of the Holy Ghost, and the power of the Highest. Therefore, that holy child that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (JST Luke 1:35; see 1 Ne. 11:18-2; Alma 7:10; emphasis added). When Mary conceived Jesus her humanity was, for that moment, bathed in the Father’s divinity.

 

Jesus (not Mary) had an “immaculate conception.” It occurred when “the mother of the Son of God . . . was carried away in the Spirit” (1 Ne. 11:18-19; see JST Luke 1:35). The Lamb of God had a heavenly, not an earthly, conception. For this reason, Jesus spoke of himself as the one “whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world” (John 10:36; emphasis added). The Only Begotten in the flesh was the holy child of a holy Father and a sanctified Mother (Moro. 8:3). (Rodney Turner, “The Blood of the Lamb,” Religious Educational Annual Lecture, November 13, 1986, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, pp.12, 22-23, Church History Library, Call no.: M231.23 T951b 1986)

 

 

 

IF NO ATONEMENT

 

But what if that "good news" never came? Had such been the case, mercy would be powerless. Justice would reign supreme...and alone. And there would be no free agency; we would have no say as to our eternal destiny. All mankind would be predestined to perdition. The fall resulted in the entire human race, including newborn infants, becoming lost to God (1 Ne. 10:6; 2 Ne. 2:21; Jacob 7:12; Mosiah 3:16; 16:4). Every man, woman, and child--however virtuous--would be doomed to endless physical and spiritual death, bondage to Satan, and moral devolution, becoming devils themselves (2 Ne. 9:7-9).

 

Consequently, the Father's work and glory, the immortality and eternal life of his children, would be an impossible dream. We fully understood this possibility in our first estate and accepted the risk involved in coming to earth. Why? Because we knew the danger was only theoretical. It would never really happen because our Father would not allow it to happen.

 

To preclude so diabolical a catastrophe, God himself, agreed to meet the just demands of divine law, demands stemming from the Father's gift of free agency to us. This gift cost us nothing, but it came at a fearful price to the Father and his Only Begotten Son.

 

The Father's gracious work required the Only Begotten's gracious atonement. The atonement was the only way the Father could satisfy the just demands of violated law resulting from Adam's transgression and mankind's myriad sins. Sin is the negative use of moral agency. The plan of salvation took into account the inevitable misuse of agency by mankind in its fallen, corrupt state. As Paul wrote: "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). The disease would prove pandemic; the cure had to be universal.

 

Therefore, said Joseph Smith, "At the first organization in heaven we were all present, and saw the Savior chosen and appointed and the plan of salvation made, and we sanctioned it" (TPJS, p. 181). It is a poignant fact that we exercised our agency to sustain the one who died to make it possible. The atonement was an act of law as well as an act of love. (Rodney Turner, “The Blood of the Lamb,” Religious Educational Annual Lecture, November 13, 1986, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, pp. 13-15, Church History Library, Call no.: M231.23 T951b 1986)

 

 

 

WHY THE FATHER COULD NOT ATONE

 

By the same token, the Father could not atone for the sins of his own children. The act of reconciliation required the shedding of blood; it required the death of "the testator" (Heb. 2:17; 9:16-17). Only flesh and blood could atone for flesh and blood. The Father was a resurrected, glorified man of flesh and bone; he had no blood to shed (D&C 130:22). Nor could he die. He was a spiritual being; his spirit and body were "inseparably connected" (D&C 93:33; 88:27; Alma 11:45).

 

Consequently, the Father endowed his Only Begotten with his own nature, attributes and powers. I believe that the Father sent his Beloved Son because he was unable to come himself. He sacrificed his Only Begotten because he could not sacrifice himself.

 

As we have seen, God had to atone. Thus the Only Begotten became the Father's surrogate, possessing, as Paul wrote, "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9; compare D&C 93:14-17).

 

From this perspective, Christ's atonement appears to be a vicarious ordinance performed in behalf of both the Father and his children. The Son glorified the Father by bringing his work--the immortality and eternal life of man--to fruition (Moses 1:39; John 12:28; 13:31-32). The Father and his Beloved Son closely collaborated in working out the salvation of the human family. All this in accordance with the plan of redemption as formulated by the Gods eons before the foundations of this earth were laid. (Rodney Turner, “The Blood of the Lamb,” Religious Educational Annual Lecture, November 13, 1986, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, pp. 26-27, Church History Library, Call no.: M231.23 T951b 1986)

 

 

GETHSEMANE

 

During the Last Supper Jesus told the Twelve: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Yet Jesus did more than lay down his physical life, he sacrificed his very being, spirit and flesh, for friend and enemy alike.

 

Although the Redeemer's torment of soul reached its climax in Gethsemane, his spiritual pains continued up to the moment he died upon the cross. Luke writes that before Jesus' ordeal began "there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him" (Luke 22:43). Was that angel the Father? Although the Holy Ghost had been the Savior's constant companion throughout his ministry (John 1:33; 3:34), the Spirit was obliged to withdraw. Jesus will yet testify: "I have trodden the winepress alone, and none were with me" (D&C 133:50; see 76:107; 88:106).

 

. . .

 

THE CROSS

 

Jesus' unspeakable sufferings on the cross are a tangible reminder of his even more excruciating pains in Gethsemane. When all was done, he said: "It is finished" (John 19:30). "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46). He was free at last.

 

The death of Jesus Christ fulfilled the law of Moses with its associated feasts (Alma 34:13-14; 3 Ne. 15:5). According to John's gospel, Jesus and his apostles were the last to eat a lawful passover meal. At the very hour the Jews were killing their paschal lambs (about 3 P.M.), Jesus died on the cross. The shadow (the paschal lamb) and its substance (the Lamb of God) died at the same time.

 

Although Jesus was already dead, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water" (John 19:34). Was this significant? I believe so. We sing: "Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in thee; Let the water and the blood, from thy wounded side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Save from wrath and make me pure." I believe his blood symbolized the atonement, and the water, baptism. Together they establish the new and everlasting covenant founded upon Christ, the "Rock of Ages."

 

The ordeal finished, the Son of God assumed the fulness of his former glory (John 13:31-32). He had descended into hell, but he did not remain there. Nor will any soul who repents whether in life or in death. (Rodney Turner, “The Blood of the Lamb,” Religious Educational Annual Lecture, November 13, 1986, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, pp. 30-31, 35-36, Church History Library, Call no.: M231.23 T951b 1986)

 

 

(This should not be confused with the mistaken belief that mankind is in bondage to Satan and must be “ransomed” from him. Christ did not ransom us from the devil, but from the demands of justice (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6). Only those who never repent become those sons of Perdition (the “filthy still”) who will be sealed to the devil in the second death following the last judgment (Alma 34:35; D&C 29:41; 63:17; 76:37; 88:35). (Rodney Turner, “The Blood of the Lamb,” Religious Educational Annual Lecture, November 13, 1986, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, p.33, Church History Library, Call no.: M231.23 T951b 1986)

 

 

QUALIFICATIONS FOR MERCY

 

In meeting the demands of justice, the Savior gave life to mercy and she "claimeth all which is her own" (Alma 42:15, 22-23). But for mercy to temper justice, the requirements of divine law must be met by both the the Savior and the saved. The law that required a qualified Redeemer, also requires qualified beneficiaries of his redemptive act. All mankind will be resurrected by pure grace. To that extent, all are saved by pure grace.

 

However, only those who enter into a valid baptismal covenant "with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent" (2 Ne. 31:13) qualify for a fullness of the spiritual blessings of the atonement. The prophet Lehi taught: "Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered" (2 Ne. 2:7; see Alma 42:24).

 

The fully repentant will be found "spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day" (Morm. 9:6; see Alma 13:11; 34:36; Rev. 7:14; 12:11). In the resurrection they will be "clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness" (2 Ne. 9:14). (Rodney Turner, “The Blood of the Lamb,” Religious Educational Annual Lecture, November 13, 1986, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, pp. 40-41, Church History Library, Call no.: M231.23 T951b 1986)

 

Hyrum P. Jones (1947) and H. Bartley Heiner (1946): Baptism is Both a Symbol and Instrument of the Remission of Our Sins

People often take an “either-or” approach to baptism (it is either a symbol or regeneration); however, in 1947, Hyrum P. Jones pulled the ¿Por qué no los dos? card:

 

. . . baptism is a perfect symbol of the death, burial, and the resurrection of Christ. Paul explains this symbolism in his letter to the Romans (Ch. 6:1-6). Christ died, his body was buried in the tomb, then he took it up again. He was resurrected and came forth from the grave to a new kind of life, His body had been changed, cleansed and purified.

 

What a striking symbol is baptism! After repenting one goes down into the watery grave, completely covered or buried in the water. He is then raised up out of the water, in the likeness of Christ coming forth from the tomb, to walk in newness of life, cleansed and purified from sin.

 

Truly baptism is an appropriate and suitable ordinance. It is the door by which we enter the Church and Kingdom of God, and is required of all. It promotes righteousness and is rich in meaning and symbolism. It is for the remission of sins and is in force through all periods of one’s life, past, present, and future. To realize its greatest blessings one should remember his baptism often and think upon it much. Jesus has given us help in going just this by giving us another ordinance, The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It is by baptism that we take upon us the name of Christ and the obligations of citizenship in his Kingdom. In partaking of the Sacrament we are reminded of Christ’s great gift to us, and of our covenants to always remember him, to keep his commandments which he has given us, that we may always have his spirit to be with us. (Hyrum P. Jones, “Vitalizing Young People’s Participation in the Ordinance of Baptism,” Address given in BYU Faculty Study Group, January 23, 1947, pp. 3-4, Church History Library, Call no.: M266.04 A327 item 23, copy in my possession)

 

 Earlier, a colleague of his went even further. While teaching baptism is a symbol, it also affected, not just our past, but, through repentance, our then-future post-baptismal sins(!):

 

A boy, approached by his teacher because he was disobeying moral laws, feels that he is defeated in life. He has lost hope that God will forgive him for his immoral conduct. He assumes the attitude, "I have the name, I might as well have the game"; and so he continues his practice feeling that all is lost.

 

I would like to say to this young man that we all make mistakes; that we are all sinners. It even says in the scriptures that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." God knew that man would sin when good and Evil came into this world; and so in His mercy He provided a way in which all men might be saved from their sins and lifted out of this hopeless pit in which they have found themselves. Jesus came to show mankind that all could be saved by repentance, by a complete change of life; that is, a change so complete that it might be likened to a rebirth. To Nicodemus He said, "A man must be born again."

 

Jesus' life was spent in trying to bring about this rebirth in men and to convince them of the mercy and forgiveness of God. He offered to the woman at the well a fuller life if she would but drink the living waters of the eternal fountain. He said to the woman taken in adultery, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go thy way and sin no more." Could your sin be so great that God would not forgive you when He offered forgiveness to such as these? And when Jesus was on the cross pleading for those who were responsible for His death, saying, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Would He not have included you in His mercy and forgiveness? It is not God that is unforgiving. It is always man who is unforgiving. The Scriptures are filled with illustrations of the forgiveness of God.

 

He even established baptism as a symbol that our sins will be forgiven. If baptism were only for the remission of those sins we committed before we were baptized then there would not be much hope, as most of us were baptized when we were eight years of age. However, baptism is for the remission of those sins we commit and repent of after we are baptized, and it is a rebirth to a new way of life to such an extent it functions for righteousness in our lives that the remorse for our sins and repentance which follows keeps us on the road to the mercy and forgiveness of God.

 

The Old Testament Prophet Ezekiel taught the forgiveness of God. He said, "If the wicked man will turn from all the sins which he has committed, and will keep all my statutes, and do what is lawful and right, he shall surely live, and not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live............

 

"Repent, then, and turn from all your transgressions; lest your iniquity bring you to ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions, which you have committed against me; and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. (rebirth) Why should you die?........For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who di.....Turn, then, and live!" (Ezekiel 18:21-22, 30,31,32.)(American Translation) (H. Bartley Heiner, “Mercy and Forgiveness,” Address given in BYU Faculty Study Group, October 11, 1946, p. 1, Church History Library, Call no.: M266.04 A327 item 14, copy in my possession)

 

Further Reading:

Baptism Does Cleanse Us from Our Sins

The Trinity, The Great Apostasy, and "New" Mormonism | Blake Ostler

 

The Trinity, The Great Apostasy, and "New" Mormonism | Blake Ostler

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 112: Craig Foster on John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

 

Episode 112: Craig Foster on John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

J. Ross Wagner on 1 Corinthians 4:6

  

Building on the insights of Hooker and others, the present study argues that Paul's enigmatic phrase μη υπερ α γεγραπται is best understood in the context of 1 Corinthians 1—4 as a reference to a particular Scriptural admonition — one he has already cited (1.31) and to which he has subsequently alluded (3.21) — namely, 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.' Of the passages quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-3, it is this citation that best fits the context of 4.6. As a positive command, it is liable to transgression, and so the exhortation not to 'go beyond' the command makes sense. Moreover, the reference to 'boasting' in 1.31 closely connects it with the second ινα clause of 4.6, 'that no one may become puffed up . . .' Finally, as L. L. Welborn observes, only this quotation 'would seem apposite to Paul's warning against factions' in 4.6. (J. Ross Wagner, “’Not Beyond the Things which are Written’: A Call to Boast Only in the Lord (1 Cor 4.6),” New Testament Studies 44, no. 2 [April 1998]: 280)

 

Richard B. Hays on 1 Corinthians 4:6

  

The phrase “what is written” in Paul always refers to Scripture, and the present sentence is no exception. Paul has prominently spotlighted six Scripture quotations in the first three chapters of the letter (1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20). In the case of the first two and the last two, the application of the texts is explicitly spelled out: No boasting in human beings. First Corinthians 3:21a links the two quotations in chapter 3 back to the quotations in chapter 1. As we have seen, the wider Old Testament context of each of these quotations reinforces the theme of divine reversal: God confounds the wise, the strong, and the prosperous and raises up the simple, the weak, and the poor. Furthermore, the two quotations in chapter 2, though they are not explicit admonitions against boasting, reinforce the same theme by juxtaposing God’s gracious ways to all human understanding. The cumulative force of these citations is unmistakable: the witness of Scripture places a strict limit on human pride and calls for trust in God alone. What would it mean to go “beyond” (hyper) this witness of Scripture? It would mean, quite simply, to boast in human wisdom by supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God. (Cf. Rom. 12:3: “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly [hyperphronein] than you ought to think.”) The last clause of 1 Corinthians 4:6 confirms this interpretation. (Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians [Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997], 69)

 

Oliver B. Huntington, Letter (April 12, 1861) and D&C 87 and the Secession of South Carolina

 The following is a transcription of:

 

Letters to Oliver B. Huntington, 1846-1879, Church History Library, Call no.: MS 15664

 

It is a letter dated April 12, 1861, with a continuation dated April 14.

 

Watertown April 12, 1861

 

My Dear Brother:

 

Your kind favor of Feb. 24 & 26 was duly received, the 1st day of April, & as you anticipated, you probably received mine of the 2 of March about the same time, There has nothing of particular interest transpired since my last. I am glad to hear so favorable a report of all the friends, & particularly of W. D. & yourself. You express some fear of a failure of the postal arrangements of the country. And I suppose the "Saints" expect that the Nations, who do not accept the New Covenant,--the Testimony of the Prophet & Seer, Joseph Smith, --& now that of the Church of the Latterday Saints are considered "Gentilez", the "World" and the "Wicked",--& the "Children of the Devil", fit subjects of the "wrath of God", --& that the judgments of God are about to be poured out upon the world & the earth cleansed of wickedness, --And the Church also believe, that they are the True Church, chosen of God--A peculiar people. His chosen people, & now, the real Israel of God, That Mormonism is the work of God,--is True, & that it will increase & spread till it covers the whole earth,--that God has seen their wrongs and said, "it is enough",--that He will be their Avenger & their Father, Is it not so? Tell me if I am mistaken. I think I have heard it taught by the Mormons for 31 years! & nearly the same doctrine taught by the Presbyterians & the Methodists for about 42 years. Very well, Oliver, that is Bible doctrine, I own it, --& the old Jews have the same doctrine, namely, all through the old Testament, that is where the Christians get it.. As we get truth only by investigation, study, research & comparison--it may not injure us to "compare notes" upon these matters. I like to hear your opinions, ideas & belief--as well as those of many others upon all matters, So I will continue to try to give you some of my crude notions upon these and other matters. I hope you will correct my mistakes, for I want to get the truth without regard to any preconceived notions. It is my opinion that such selfish ideas in relation to religion & Theology is but the natural outfroth of a universal feeling implanted in the human constitution & its normal and legitimate use is necessary for the preservation of the race & the development of each individual. --a selfish feeling --a desire to benefit self--to preserve self & then to benefit our friends & as our knowledge & mental capacity increases & expands a desire to benefit our nation & our race--the whole human family. & when the mind is more fully developed--more enlarged & less selfish, as it naturally will be, we shall have larger views--more comprehensive,--more universal.

 

We can then see that every science appears to be based upon universal principles. Every law or principle in physical science appears, to all scholars, to be universal, & no one doubts that all laws & principles in relation to Animals are universal, & no person in this country thinks that God is partial to any race of animals, or has any favorites among them. And is not man as much an animal as a horse or a Monkey or an Aurangoutang! Man is brought into the world in the same manner as animals, He is subject to dissolution--death, in the same manner as the lower animals. These things prove a universal relation between all men and their Creator. God is not an enemy to some men & a friend to others. He is a friend to All.--that is my belief. You will say there is a vast difference between a moral & an immoral man.--very true, & there is a vast difference between a lion & a lamb,--to us,--But will God condemn one to a life of misery & the other to a life happiness because he has given them different constitutions & passions? Because some persons cannot believe in the divinity of the Christian religion, or the Mormon religion or any other religion, will it be just for God to condemn him to endless torment? I consider human moral actions limited to human comprehension or the sphere of human conditions & human reason, Can you conceive of an immoral action performed by any being below man? In this world, does God deal better with the moral man than with the immoral man, except in the mind or soul of each individual? Has God dealt better with or shown any favor or mercy to the Jews? more than their neighboring nations? Has He shown the Mormons or the Christians any particular favor more than any other persons with equal mental & physical constitutions? I have yet to learn that the believers in Christ, or in Joseph Smith, or John Calvin receive any more favors at the hand of their Creator than those who reject them all.

 

I am happy in the belief that when God talks with anyone man He will talk with All, & that He now communicates with all, alike. While all exist in God, I cannot understand how any one can get out side of Him to hear him talk,--or even "see his hinder parts", Am I blame worthy for firmly believing that all revealed religions are but a humbug? Why is it that I feel that I know it is so? Do I not know whether I am honest or not in my desires to know the Truth? Such, are some of my broken ideas. You say that "according to our belief we have been looking a long time for S. Carolina to secede," & also that "Joseph Smith's pointed prediction upon that point . You doubtless know that the same things were talked of before Joseph Smith said or knew anything about it, by hundreds of people, & I know that it was all talked about by the people here at the time he made his prophecy. without involving his predictions.

 

Now why do the Mormons attach so much importance to his prediction?

 

Sunday Apl. 14, Since beginning to write to you I have received a letter from Dimick,--says they are all well but C.A's wife, no news, Last evening Lyman came home from the village and brot the news that "war had begun", You will get the news by the papers before you will this. You may be a little surprised to hear me say that I am glad of it! It is the best news I have heard for a long time° My feelings are up to the fighting point! I hate tyrants, & dispise Tyranny & oppression, as well as, Traitors & robbers. I say "give us freedom or give us death"! This war, this dissolution has long been feared & long been expected, not only the people of this country, but by other nations. The grasp of the Oppressor is never loosed but by the force of power of the oppressed! Let it come! This rebellion of the South, --their Treason, their robberies by Millium, their mobs. Their inhuman treatment to people of the free States & their proscription of the common liberties of free men in a Republic is but the natural outgrowth of the institution of Slavery. You wished my opinion upon this subject & I hope you have not become so contaminated with illiberal principles as to think I have not a right to express my feelings, let them be what they may. I like to hear it from others, that is, I like to hear all express their opinions & feelings, & give their reasons, & when a subject has been well discussed, on all sides truth generally prevails. Those who know their cause is just usually have a stimulus to action & perseverance that others have not. When a difference between parties exist, & the difference is of vast importance & they cannot be reconciled by reason & argument, then they must appeal to Might, & God will certainly help those who best help themselves. I have great confidence in the final triumph of right & justice.

 

I think the Union is dissolved & will not be reunited in our day. The more powerful & popular a government becomes the more liable it is to become corrupt. The great corruption of the last Administration has precipitated the dissolution,--let it go. We shall be in no danger of getting a worse one. You say's is not our nation in an apparent fearful & awful condition?" Certainly it is --but is it in any worse condition, apparently than the Mormons have been? You have come out of your & we shall out of ours. We all have as firm a trust in ourGod as you have in yours. But I am foolish enough to think that mine ie one God over all, and that He is just as friendly to you as me, & as much so to the pagan as to either, I rank myself with the Christians here in this respect,--but I am no more a believer in Christianity than you are in Presbyterianism.

 

Well, Oliver, I have not half answered your, but must close. There has been but little excitement in the Northern States, very little, but thes will be more soon if the war increases so as to call for volunteers.

 

I think you will find that the present administration is not so hostile to Mormons as the last. The main object in sending the army to Utah was to have an excuse for sending an Army to Kansas & give fat jobs to political friends, increasing the patronage & powers of the Administration, That crusade was started by a few political aspirants who wanted to get their names before the public as great sticklers for popular religious opinions. The "times" are good here yet. There is & has been some pressure in the large cities, there has been a great cry, Hay & grain are very plenty. The prospects are, now, favorable for an early spring.

 

O. B. Huntington

 

Affectionately yours

 

Love to all,

 

C. D. H.

 

As to John, he is in good health & his family usually well. He does not save money very fast, but dresses as well any gentleman need to,--makes a good appearance, lives fast, He cares little for corresponding with his Mormon friends. Thinks the leaders are a very wicked set of rascals,--he knows they were when he was with them. --he has no religious belief. Please write as often as you can,--I will try to answer all. Tell W. D. that I wish he would write to me,--I should like to be one his regular correspondents. Good bye., Chauncy

 

(Chauncy D. Huntington)

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies