Christological and Anthropological Implications of Hebrews 2:11

For both he that sanctifieth [Jesus] and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren. (Heb 2:11)

This passage is yet another instance of a problematic passage for Trinitarian Christology from Hebrews. The underlying Greek of the phrase, "all of one" is ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες, meaning "all from one [source]," with the source being the Father. Notice that the author of Hebrews is not discussing the human nature of Jesus per the Hypostatic Union; instead, as with Heb 1:3, the totality of the (exalted/post-ascension) Jesus is in view, and Jesus, as with humanity, are said to have the same source. This fits LDS Christology and anthropology, as we are all the spirit sons and daughters of God (cf. my discussion refuting the charge of Arianism and also Job 1:6 and its implications for LDS theology), Christ Himself included, and we are all dependent upon the singular person of the Father for life, again including Christ (per John 5:26), showing that the Father alone is autotheos. Furthermore, it supports LDS theology that we are all the spiritual sons and daughters of God (the Father), Jesus Himself included, showing a propriety to Latter-day Saints calling the Lord Jesus Christ our "[elder] brother."

As with many theological issues, it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that reflects true "Biblical Christianity," in this instance, the true Biblical Jesus.

Multi-volume works on Christian History

There are many important multi-volume series on the history of Christianity and the development of theology; here is a listing of some of my favourite works on the issue:

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition (5 vols)

Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma (7 vols)

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (8 vols)

Idem. Creeds of Christendom (3 vols)

Karl Josef von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (5 vols)

Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity (2 vols)

Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christianity (2 vols)

Philip Hughes, A History of the Church (2 vols)

M. Russell Ballard on the importance of using LDS scholarship and inoculation

Here is the Ballard fireside to Seminary/Institute teachers that features a big emphasis on scholarship and inoculation (e.g., emphasising that teachers should use LDS scholarship in their classes and know the Gospel Topics essays like the back of their hands)  and to truly deal with "difficult" issues instead of the whole "don't worry about it" or "just bear your testimony." As an LDS apologist, I welcome this movement away from a strongly anti-intellectual approach to dealing with questions people have about their faith.

As a friend wrote:

[Ballard] seems to be addressing the all-too-often use of a testimony as a trump card, which is really just a mild (or possibly potent) form of spiritual and emotional manipulation. It is also hard to take seriously a testimony that doesn't seem to be based on much, especially if it is being used to deflect questions or information.

BTW: The main page of the Gospel Topics essays that gets mentioned can be found here.

(talk begins at 21:55 mark)

Priestly Sacrificial Language in 1 Clement

Chapters 40-44 of 1 Clement (written at the end of the first century) draws many parallels between the Levitical Priesthood and the offices of bishops and deacons in the New Covenant. In 44:4, we read:

For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gift of the bishop's office unblamably and holily. (J.P. Lightfoot translation)

The portion highlighted in bold translates the Greek προσενεγκόντας τὰ δῶρα. προσφερω is the verb meaning "to offer," and it often used in sacrificial contexts, as it the term δωρον, which means a gift, often in a form of a sacrifice. Instances where προσφερω is used alongside δωρον in sacrificial contexts in the LXX and Greek NT include Lev 1:2-3, 14; 2:1, 4, 12, 13; 3:6; 4:23, 32; 6:13; 7:13, 29, 38; 9:15; 17:4; 21:6, 8, 17, 21; 22:18, 25; 23:14; 27:9, 11; Num 5;15; 7:10, 11, 12, 13, 19; 9:7, 13; 15:4; 28:2; 31:50; Matt 5:23-24; 8:4; Heb 5:1; 8:3-4; 9:9; 11:4.

Similar to the priestly sacrificial language used in the Last Supper accounts in the New Testament, this is strong implicit evidence of an ordained, ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant; for more detail, see my paper here.

Commenting on the early Christian use of sacrificial language, Adolf von Harnack wrote:

The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice, is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all, in Justin (I. 65f.) But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44.4) προσφερειν τα δωρα. This is not the place to inquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi i. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14.3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as a sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of institution τουτο ποιειτε, contained a command with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more, that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand ποιειν in the sense of θυειν. In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the "agapae" connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as προσφοραι for the purpose of a sacrifice? Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the θυσια a proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117). The elements are only δωρα προσφοραι, which obtain their value from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called ευχαριστια (Justin, Apol. I. 66: η τροφη αυτη χαλειται παρ’ ‘ημιν ευχαριστια). Didache, 9. 1: Ignat., because it is τροφη ευχαριστηθεσια. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the object of ποιειν, and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only in the ευχαριστιαν ποιειν, whereby κοινος αρτιος becomes the αρτος της ευχαριστιας The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (See Apol. I. 14, 65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-118). (Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, Volume 1, pp. 267-8, n. 288)

Refuting the "all you need for salvation is the Bible" argument

Often, one hears the claim by some proponents of sola scriptura that "the Bible is all you need for salvation!" However, is this biblical? The answer is no.

For instance, in 2 Tim 3:15, we read:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through which is in Christ Jesus.

In this verse, Paul writes that Timothy knew the holy scriptures ([τα] ιερα γραμματα) since infancy, writings which were able (δυναμαι) to make him wise and lead to salvation. However, the Scriptures discussed in this verse are not Scripture in general (as in v.16), but the Old Testament texts (we will ignore the debate about the contents thereof; that is a debate for another day!). We could ask our Evangelical friends who raise the question posed at the beginning of this post, "If the Bible [read: both Old and New Testaments] are all that is required for salvation, was Paul wrong? Or maybe all we need for salvation is the Old Testament--it was enough for Timothy, after all!"

God uses many instrumental means to bring about salvation and to instruct us to maintain and grow in our relationship with him, not just the Bible (as important as that is); indeed, our Evangelical friends would agree that God can bring about salvation through the instrumentality of a one-page gospel tract that discusses John 3:16, or a good spiritual book, or simply a preached sermon, and that one continues to grow in their spiritual life through the instrumentality of the Church and other means too.

Additionally, there are many important issues any Christian faces that are not explicitly dealt with authoritatively in the Bible, including contraception, abortion in the case of incest or rape, artificial insemination, test-tube fertilisation, genetic engineering, surrogate motherhood, sterilisation, masturbation, sex education, eugenics, cloning, cremation, labour strikes, Christians and the military, etc. As the Bible does not cover these areas explicitly (and in many, not even implicitly), and without the guidance of an authoritative Church and modern revelation, how does a Christian know through their private exegesis of the Bible and conclusions on these topics they are truly glorifying God?

Fortunately, God has given us an authoritative Church and has gifted us with additional Scripture and revelation, and that Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Brian Hales, The CES Letter: A Closer Look

Brian Hales (author of the 3-volume Joseph Smith's Polygamy [2013] and other excellent volumes) has a youtube page interacting with, and critiquing Jeremy Runnells' CES Letter. One can access (and subscribe to) the page here.

Te-Li Lau on the Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit

The work of the Spirit in enabling us to hear Scripture as God’s word can be seen in two parts: illumination and demonstration. First, the Holy Spirit illumines or opens our mind to behold the divine excellence that is contained in Scripture. He regenerates our noetic faculties such that we are able to hear the words of Scripture as God’s personal message to us. IN essence, the Spirit as the divine author of the text opens the text to us. Second, the Holy Spirit demonstrates or testifies to the truth of Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 2:4-14 and 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Paul attributes the persuasive and convicting power of the gospel to the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Spirit then provides us with the certainty that Scripture is indeed the word of God. Calvin remarks:

If we desire to provide in the best way of our consciences—that they may not be perpetually beset by the instability of doubt or vacillation, and that they may not also boggle at the smallest quibbles—we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons, judgments, or conjectures, that is, in the secret testimony of the Spirit. (Institutes, 1.7.4.)

The certainty afforded by the Holy Spirit is not a formal certainty: it is not self-evident or incorrigible in the sense that 1+1=2. Rather, it is a moral certainty that gives one cognitive rest or peace regarding the divine authority of Scripture.

Scripture is self-authenticating: it attests to its own divinity. But we need the Spirit to illumine that self-attestation, and we need the Spirit to testify and assure us that self-authentication is valid and true. In so doing, the Spirit does not provide new evidences, but testifies to the truth that is objectively inherent in the text. The Spirit then is not the reason for faith, but the cause of faith. The reason for faith would be Scripture’s self-attestation as seen in the explicit and implicit claims of Scripture to be the word of God as mentioned earlier in this essay. The Spirit is the cause of faith because he illumines our minds and furnishes us with the assurance that the claims of Scripture are true, making us perceive and accept the authoritative status of Scripture as the word of God. This does not mean that Scripture lacks intrinsic authority before the work of the Spirit. Scripture has objective authority in and of itself, as it is the inspired word of God. The Spirit, however, works existentially within an individual and establishes the subjective authority of Scripture with respect to that individual. (Te-Ti Lau, “Knowing the Bible Is the Word of God Despite Competing Claims” in D.A. Carson, ed. The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 989-11012, here, pp. 1007-8)