Does Christ's taking away our sins/illnesses necessitate Penal Substitution?

If the Johannine formula, “who takes away sin,” is understood as a reference to the “Servant of God,” it must be recalled that neither in vv. 4 nor 21 of Is 53 is the verb nāsā accompanied by the phrase, “upon himself,” in spite of the Greek translation in verse 4, tas hamartias hēmōn ferei, “he carries our sins.” When Matthew applies the statement of Is 53:4 to Christ, he wishes to say that he took away our illnesses, not that he took them upon himself. The same meaning is found in the Exultet of the Paschal liturgy: “he is the true Lamb who took away (absulit) the sins of the world,” and in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Thus Christ offered once for the taking-away of the sins of many, a second time—without sin—will be seen to those awaiting for salvation” [Heb 9:28]. (Stanislas Lyonnet and Léopold Sabourin, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study [Analetcta Biblica Investigationes Scientificae In Res Biblicas 48; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970], 40)

(Just a fyi to my fellow bibliophiles, this is one of the best books on the theology of the atonement one will come across, so I would recommend hunting down a copy)

Assessing an "argument" against LDS belief in the pre-existence

Paul Derengowski, author of Biblical Forgiveness versus Mormon Forgiveness, and proprietor of the Capro.info Website, recently tweeted the following:

Mormons love to talk about a "pre-existence." But stop and think about what it means to exist in a state of PRE-existence. (URL)

Paul is a Trinitarian and so affirms the eternal pre-existence of Jesus. He would have no consistent answer to a Socinian (e.g., Sir Anthony Buzzard) if they tweeted the following:

Trinitarians love to talk about a “pre-existence” of Jesus. But stop and think about what it means to exist in a state of PRE-existence.

The “existence” LDS use (and those who affirm the personal pre-existence of Jesus use for Christ) refers to mortal existence; it is not a state of existing and not existing simultaneously. That is how the term has been used in Christological circles for centuries. So, not only does Paul think personal incredulity is a meaningful response to LDS theology vis-à-vis universal pre-existence, but also could not be consistent in his critique of LDS theology while affirming the eternal pre-existence of Jesus (double-standards).

In reality, the Latter-day Saint affirmation of universal pre-existence is the only model that allows for the true humanity of Jesus while affirming his conscious pre-existence. As I explained in a previous thread interacting with Anthony Buzzard’s arguments against personal pre-existence:

If Sir Anthony’s (and the Trinitarian/Arian) a priori assumption is true (viz. it is not normative of humans to have a pre-mortal existence), then pre-existence severely undermines the true humanity of Jesus, something affirmed in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E., as well as Arian Christology. However, as personal, conscious pre-existence is normative in LDS theology (e.g. D&C 93:29), there is no issue.

Many Trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that one cannot speak of “Jesus pre-existing unless pre-existence is normative of what it means to be “human.” Much work has been done in recent years in what is called, “Spirit Christology,” focusing on what precedes “Jesus”—the Word in John 1—as God. What follows are two quotes from leading studies on this issue, and how only holding that all humans, not just Jesus, pre-existing can one speak of the “pre-existence of Jesus.”

The first comes from Bernard Byrne, "Christ's Pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology," Theological Studies, June 1997, 58/2:

By the same token, it is important to stress that in speaking of pre-existence, one is not speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus Christ did not personally pre-exist as Jesus. Hence one ought not to speak of a pre-existence of Jesus. Even to use the customary expression of the pre-existence of Christ can be misleading since the word "Christ" in its original meaning simply designates the Jewish Messiah, a figure never thought of as pre-existent in any personal sense. But in view of the Christian application of "Christ" to Jesus, virtually as a proper name and in a way going beyond his historical earthly existence, it is appropriate to discuss the issue in terms of the pre-existence of Christ, provided one intended thereby to designate simply the subject who came to historical human existence as Jesus, without any connotation that he pre-existed as a human being.

The second comes from Roger Haight, "The Case for Spirit Christology," Theological Studies, June 1992, 53/2 (emphasis added)

And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a pre-existence of Jesus . . . But one cannot think in terms of the pre-existence of Jesus; what is pre-existent to Jesus is God, and the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot pre-exist creation. One may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict pre-existence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubtantiality with us, unless we too were pre-existent.

LDS theology, which holds that personal, conscious pre-existence is normative of the human condition, can engage in a Spirit Christology more than other Christologies that have developed since New Testament times, such as various Arian and Trinitarian Christologies, as a result of this notion, and so, "Jesus" as a personal being and a chosen Messiah could pre-exist both as man and as the second member of the Godhead.

Of course, this is tied into the area of Latter-day Saint Christology and how it is LDS Christology, not Trinitarianism, that presents the true biblical Jesus. Hopefully as one has seen, the critic’s personal incredulity and poorly-thought out “argument” backfires against him on many levels.

Exegetical Notes on John 6:54

Between John 6:53 and 54, there is a shift in the verb used for “to eat”; up until v. 53, the Greek verb used in the discourse was εσθιω, and in John 6:54 onwards, the verb is τρωγω. As noted here, some Catholic apologists have incorrectly latched onto this as definitive evidence of Transubstantiation.

However, an important question has to be addressed—why the shift in verb?

As Udo Schnelle correctly notes, the entire Gospel of John presents a strongly anti-docetic Christology, and much of the language and themes contained therein was used by the author to off-set the Docetic Christology that was permeating certain segments of early Christianity (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). This shift in verb is also anti-docetic:

The drastic τρωγειν must be understood in the sense of “gnaw,” and it clearly has an antidocetic accent: it is not a symbolic “eating” of the bread of heaven or a spirit-filled “eating” of the Son of man that gives eternal life, but only the real eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Thus τρωγειν “offset[s] any Docetic tendencies to ‘spiritualize’ the concept’ (BAGD, 829), in that it unmistakably emphasizes the reality of incarnation and crucifixion that are present in the Eucharist. The expression καγω αναστησω αυτον τη εσχατη ημερα [and I will raise him/her up on the last day in v. 54b is like a refrain (cf. vv. 39, 40, 44): it is the work of the evangelist. Here also we may suspect an anti-docetic tendency: John, with a view to the raising of the dead at the last day protects the inaccessibility of salvation to human control from the Docetists, who believed exclusively in the fullness of salvation in the present (see also v. 57: ζησει εις τον αιωνα). (Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990], 204-5)

In a recent scholarly commentary on the Gospel of John, one scholar wrote the following on the theological importance of pericope:

Jesus’ flesh, both his life and death, is “true food” and his blood “true drink” in that it accomplishes the ends of food and drink: it gives life (6:54-55). Those who do not eat do not have life within them (en hautois, 6:53). This phrasing echoes earlier statements where Jesus claims that “as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted the Son to have life in himself” (en heautō, 5;26). Here is a parallel between Jesus and believers: the living Father has life in himself, which he grants to the Son, who may in turn give life to believers (4:14; 7:37). Those who eat the bread of life have taken life into themselves, but they do not become the source of life for others. (Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary [New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.:Westminster/John Knox Press, 2015], 155-56)

Here is the entry for τρωγω as it appears in BDAG  (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [3d ed.]):

7469  τρώγω

• τρώγω (Hom. et al.; TestJob 12:2; SIG 1171, 9; PGM 7, 177; Sb 5730, 5. Not found in LXX, EpArist, Philo or Joseph. B-D-F §101 s.v. ἐσθίειν; 169, 2; Rob. 351; JHaussleiter, Archiv für lat. Lexikographie 9, 1896, 300-302; GKilpatrick in: Studies and Documents 29, ’67, 153) to bite or chew food, eat (audibly), of animals (Hom. et al. ‘chew, nibble, munch’) B 10:3.—Of human beings (Hdt. et al. and so in Mod. Gk.) τὶ someth. (Hdt. 1, 71, 3 σῦκα; Aristoph., Equ. 1077) B 7:8. ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον as a symbol of close comradeship (Polyb. 31, 23, 9 δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί) J 13:18 (s. Ps 40:10 ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου, which is the basis for this pass.). W. gen. (Athen. 8, 334b τῶν σύκων) Hs 5, 3, 7. Abs. B 10:2. W. πίνειν (Demosth. 19, 197; Plut., Mor. 613b; 716e) Mt 24:38. J uses it to offset any tendencies to ‘spiritualize’ the concept so that nothing physical remains in it, in what many hold to be the language of the Lord’s Supper ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον 6:58. ὁ τρώγων με vs. 57. ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα (w. πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα) vss. 54, 56.—B. 327. DELG. M-M. TW.

Richard Packham's review of Book of Mormon Book of Lies

While I disagree with him on many issues, ex-Mormon atheist Richard Packham has a pretty good review of the book, Book of Mormon Book of Lies by Meredith and Kendal Sheets (2012), a volume arguing that Joseph Smith plagiarised from the accounts of Marco Polo's travels. One can find the entire review here. The following are some highlights thereof:

Readers anxious to find any criticism of the LDS church or its sacred founding scripture, however far-fetched, will grab this book. But even the most ardent "anti-Mormons" should ask some fundamental questions about the authors' claims . . . Another obvious omission is the authors' apparent ignorance about a major event in the coming forth of the BoM: the loss of the first 116 pages of the manuscript by Martin Harris. Most scholars, Mormon and non-Mormon, who have examined the textual and historical evidence, say that the present first part of the BoM (replacing the lost pages) was written only after the last part had been completed. This fact alone would raise serious problems with the Sheets theory, which is based on the assumption that the BoM manuscript was started on page one and continued steadily onward.

Another part of the Sheets theory that seems unwarranted is that something appearing on page 266 of the 1830 BoM (that is, 266/588th of the way into the book) could be a copy of something 266/588th of the way into the Travels of Marco Polo. Such an assumption would require that the supposed plagiarists were being so methodical that they knew beforehand that their own manuscript would be 588 pages long, and they were measuring their own writing alongside the Polo book. Sorry, but that is quite unlikely. And plagiarists don't work that way . . .Many examples of parallels between BoM civilizations and Polo's accounts of customs among the Tartars of eastern Asia are given. The authors explain this by citing one pre-1830 writer who theorized that the American Indians are descended from Tartar invaders who were blown off course during an attempt to invade Japan (a historical event) and landed in America. This justified the Smiths in putting features of Tartar civilization into the BoM, as they would be "authentic." The authors do not explain how this alleged idea of the Smiths would fit in with their premise in the BoM that the American Indians are descended from Israelites, not from Tartars.

Several other questions arise that put the basic premises of the authors in doubt. They must assume that the Smiths actually had access to these many travel books over a course of several years. This implies that they owned the books. All our evidence of the Smith family situation during that time is that they were rather poor. They lost their farm for failure to make payments. They fell behind even in their subscription to the local newspaper. How could they afford to accumulate a small library of esoteric books? The authors suggest that they could have traveled to larger cities to bookstores, or that a relative who made trips to London could get them. And then one must ask what eventually became of this library of travel books? They seem to have disappeared, like the golden plates and the 116 pages of manuscript.

The lost 116 pages raises another question. Clearly, from all accounts, Joseph Jr. was devastated when Harris confessed to having lost the manuscript. Why? If Sr. and Jr. had been working on the project since 1811, they had a manuscript already, which was written in their own handwriting. The 116 lost pages were not in the Smiths' handwriting, but had been written by scribes. Why were the Smiths so concerned? If, as the Sheets suggest, the Smiths had written the whole thing, without scribes, why didn't they simply go through the dictation process again, for the lost pages? And then we must also ask, where is the real original manuscript, in the Smiths' handwriting? . . .the majority of the similarities which the authors see as proof of plagiarism are just coincidences, and nothing more. It does not prove plagiarism if the description of a ruler's residence in two different works includes words such as "palace," "magnificent," "gold," "throne," etc. Coincidences are common, and prove nothing.

Actually, is it not quite a coincidence that there are so many similarities between the story of the production of the book under review and the authors' scenario about the production of the BoM?

·       Both books were written by a father and son team;

·       Both were originally the idea of the father;

·       Both took decades to put together;

·       Both were self-published;

·       Both books were claimed by their authors that they would "alter the course of global religion," but did not;

·       Both books claimed to be new and unique, but were not;

·       Both books are the same length (Sheets: 590, BoM: 588);

·       The son took on the major role of promoting both books: Smith Jr. founded a church and sent missionaries out; Kendal Sheets does the promoting for his book, making frequent public appearances to promote it and has hired a public relations firm (DeHart & Company) for that purpose.

Concluding this rather negative review, Packham writes:

In summary, there are too many problems with this book to recommend it, even to the BoM's most fervent critics.

One has to give credit where credit is due to Packham for writing a rather negative review of a book that, at the time, was pretty popular in the world of online anti-Mormonism.

Interestingly, one former LDS who, while portraying himself as an expert on Mormonism (when in fact he lacks even basic intellectual integrity) wrote a rather favourable review of the book, with this hilarious conclusion:

Their work, over 25 years no less, is clearly extensive and painstaking offering such an abundance of evidence one wonders how on earth the Mormon Church is going to have anything to say about this.

In the comments section, he wrote:

I suggest you take off your blinkers, examine the real world evidence, and weigh up Mormon claims against that.

Physician, heal thyself! Perhaps he should take up his own advice before writing pieces like this!

In reality, the methodology of the authors in their book (which I own/have read, fwiw) is "parallelomania." For a good discussion of this issue, I would recommend the works of Benjamin McGuire, such as this paper, "Parallelomania Criticism of the Textual Parallels Theories."

Furthermore, this novel (and whacky) thesis does not explain the evidences for the verisimilitude and historicity of the Book of Mormon, including the use of a pre-exilic source of the David-Goliath narrative; the Arabian Peninsula geography of the Book of Mormon; the onomasticon of the Book of Mormon, and many other elements that belie the thesis that it was fabricated by Joseph Smith.

Hallelujah--An Easter Message about Jesus Christ

In light of the forthcoming Easter season, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has produced a short but powerful video on the importance of the life of the Saviour Jesus Christ:

Who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, "For your stake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:33-39 NRSV)

Quick thoughts on positive "boasting" in Scripture

In Gospel Doctrine class today, the question of whether being "prideful" (or "boastful") in all its forms is sinful (e.g., being proud of one's kids). Perhaps with the concept of "anger," there is righteous anger (against sin, for instance) and "sinful" anger (due to our fallen nature). I was reminded of something one finds in the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Chron 29:13, we read the following:

Now, therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.

In the Hebrew and the LXX, the name of God is actually viewed as a name one  "boasts in," if you will (Heb:הלל ;Greek: καύχησις both mean "to be boastful"). Compare the LXX translation provided by the NETS:

And now, Lord, we acknowledge you and praise the name of your boasting.

This should be compared with the words of Ammon in the Book of Mormon:

And it came to pass that when Ammon had said these words, his brother Aaron rebuked him, sahing: Ammon, I fear that thy joy doth carry thee away unto boasting. But Ammon said unto him: I do not boast in my own strength, nor in my own wisdom; but behold, my joy is full yea, my heart is brm with joy, and I will rejoice in my God. Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; thereore, I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I an do all things; yea, behold many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever. (Alma 26:10-12)

Refuting the "Barking Dog" Argument in favour of Faith Alone Soteriology

The “Barking Dog Syndrome”

Notwithstanding their inability to demonstrate that salvation has occurred following a profession of dead faith, the idea that works merely prove one’s salvation is a concept that has stuck like peanut butter on the roof of one’s mouth. In teaching this extra-biblical concept, anti-Mormons resort to some interesting analogies that are almost comical in their failure to demonstrate anything. Principle among these is the example we call the “barking dog syndrome:”

A dog does not bark in order to become a dog. He barks because he already is a dog. His barking helps demonstrate the fact. Just so, we do not do good works to become Christians (be saved). We do good works after we are saved (become Christians) to demonstrate the fact that we have been saved. (Illusion, 8)

Notice here that McElveen has presented his definition of what a Christian really is: to be saved here and now. Doing what Christ says does not count. And forget what the rest of the Bible says. Being “saved now” is it.

This dog analogy is commonly encountered in conversations with anti-Mormons. Ed Decker, in To Moroni with Love, also uses this analogy on page 16. Thus, anti-Mormons must feel it has strong merit for their beliefs. It certainly demonstrates their adherence to the “natural outgrowth” doctrine of works. McElveen drifts a few times from dogs to pigs and sheep (see Illusion, 12, for an example), but these are all part of the same analogy.

This analogy, however, raises some important questions. Since a dog always barks, does that mean a saved person always obeys (1 John 1:8)? Also, a dog was always a dog. Does this mean a saved person was always saved? If so, what need do the anti-Mormons have for Christ? If, to correct this defect, the analogy were modified so that the dog changed into a dog from some other animal, will the anti-Mormons allow that the “saved” dog might occasionally go back to his previous “oinking” or whatever “sinning” noises he made as a different animal? If he was once a different animal, is it possible the “saved” dog might revert entirely to his previous animal character?

The Bible tells us Christ and the Apostles had to warn believers to do righteous works (Matthew 3:10, 7:19-21, 10:42, 25:29-46; Luke 12:47-48; John 3:20-21, 14:15; Acts 10:35, 26:20; Philippians 2:12; Titus 3:8; and 1 John 3:22 are just a tiny drop of the ocean of examples available). If we look at some specific cases in the New Testament, such as the ones Jude wrote about (those who misunderstood God’s grace as guaranteeing permanent salvation no matter what they did), we see an entire pack of “oinking” dogs. The obvious suddenly turns to the ridiculous. No obedience “comes naturally” for believers, otherwise there would be no need for exhortation to do good works. There would be no need for the Word of God to give us guidelines for obedience. There is a need for these things, as the scriptures clearly attest, but there is no need to teach a dog to bark. Obviously, this analogy is deeply flawed and proves nothing about the relationship of works to faith (other than, perhaps, an extreme form of Calvinism). This “natural outgrowth” business is a false idea completely foreign to the Word of God and should be rejected by true believers in Christ. If a “saved” dog returns to his previous habit of “oinking,” it only means he has once again become an unsaved pig. And according to Revelation 3:15-16, “oinking dogs” will have no place with God either.

To truly understand biblical salvation we must get rid of the anti-Mormon pick-and-choose approach to the scriptures. We must stop over-emphasizing a single passage (like Ephesians 2:8-9) and start making the rest of the scriptures (including verse 10) something more than mere ancillary decorations. We must discard the idea of doctrines such as “works are proof of salvation,” “natural works,” and “faith alone” since they are not taken from the Bible as anti-Mormons profess. Adhering to these false ideas leads them to read the Bible with invisible stickers, and to harmonize the scriptures according to their personal, extra-biblical ideas. (Alan Denison and D.L. Barksdale, Guess Who Wants to Have you for Lunch? A Missionary Guide to Anti-Mormon Tactics & Strategies and How to Deal with those Who Have Been Influenced by Them [Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, 2002], 67-70)