Textual Criticism and Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; 24:35

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Isa 40:8)

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt 5:18)

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:35; cf. Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)

It is common for some Protestants, especially those from Fundamentalist camps, to reference such verses in favour of the perfect preservation of the Bible. Furthermore, some have used such texts in support for the formal sufficiency of the Bible (see my book, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura for more on this doctrine).

Perhaps it should be enough to note that, when Isaiah wrote his book, and when Jesus uttered those words in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus uttered those words, much of the Old and none of the New Testament had not yet been inscripturated so the "Bible"could not have been in view here. Secondly, The "word[s] [of God]" are not limited to the written word, and neither are other texts (e.g., Isa 40:8) or other similar. As a Reformed Protestant apologist writing in defense of Sola Scriptura admitted:

[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156)

Furthermore, absolutizing such texts in the way that many (not all, to be fair) Protestants are wont to do will result in one having to ignore textual criticism, as such an (eisegetical) interpretation would mean there would be no textual variations whatsoever. However, such is simply false. Commenting on some of the difficulties posed to texual criticism, and how this approach is detached from reality, three conservative Protestant scholars noted:

Even with all of this help [from textual criticism], Christians often ask two important questions or which there are no simple answers. First, why did God in his providence not insure that an inerrant, inspired original was also inerrantly preserved? Second, how do we as Christians deal with those portions of traditional translations (like the KJV) that modern discoveries have shown were not part of the original autographs? The first question takes on added significance in light of other religions that claim, however erroneously, that their sacred writings have been perfectly preserved (most notably the Book of Mormon and the Qur’an/Koran). To be sure, we do not know God’s hidden motives. Perhaps he did not want us to idolize a book but to worship the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Leaving the transmission of Scriptures to fallible human beings parallels leaving the proclamation of those Scriptures to sinful and potentially rebellious disciples. God does not choose to override free will in either case, and he reveals and inspires only at particular moments in human history. But there is a sense in which we can discern his providence in the amazing extent to which the texts have been preserved.

The second question becomes particularly acute with regard to the two longest passages (printed in most Bibles) that almost certainly did not appear in the original manuscripts: Mk 16:9-20 (an additional account of Jesus’ resurrection) and Jn 7:53-8:11 (the story of the woman caught in adultery). The necessary approach should be clear—whatever was most likely in the original texts should be accepted as inspired and normative; what was not in those texts should not be given equal status. But application proves more difficult. As noted elsewhere in this book, Jn 7:53-8:11 may be a true story, from which we can derive accurate information about Jesus’ view of the Law, even if it did not original form part of John’s Gospel. On the other hand, there is almost no evidence to support Jesus having said, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16), as if baptism were necessary for salvation, or for the promise that believers may pick up snakes, drink their venom, and yet not be harmed (Mk 16:18). One unnecessarily risks suicide by treating that text as normative! But in both Mark and John, the textual evidence is very strong for rejecting these passages as inspired Scripture.

Or what about verses in which the NT quotes the OT but follows the Septuagint, even though the meaning in the Greek translation does not accurately reflect the Hebrew of traditional OT manuscripts? These differences prove more difficult to assess. The traditional Hebrew versions, known as the Masoretic text (MT), date from no earlier than the A.D. 800-900s. The existing Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts go back an additional half a millennium or more. It is possible, therefore, that at times the LXX accurately translated a Hebrew original that later became corrupted. Portions of OT books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) from as long ago as 200 B.C. have suggested that occasionally though not often, this was exactly what happened. Compare, for example, Heb 1:6, which quotes a longer form of Deut 32:43 found only in the LXX and DSS.

Aramaic Targums, which combined free translation with occasional explanatory additions and commentary, may at times also reflect an older text. Interpreters, for example, have often wondered how to account for the end of Eph 4:8, “he gave gifts to men,” when the Hebrew of Psa 68:18 that Paul is quoting reads “you received gifts from men.” But at least one early Targum contains an Aramaic equivalent for Paul’s word, so it is possible than its author reflected the intent of the original Hebrew. (William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation [Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993], 72-3, comment in square bracket added, italics in original)

Do note that the Book of Mormon itself, nor informed Latter-day Saints, claim, as the authors errantly wrote in the above, claim that it is “perfectly preserved” as Muslims claim about the Qur’an. LDS have discussed in great detail textual changes in the manuscripts and printings of the text, such as Royal Skousen’s 6-volume Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, I do believe a good case can be made, in light of recent scholarship, that Mark 16:9-20 is original (see Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 [Pickwick, 2014]). Notwithstanding, the questions and cautions the authors raise should be taken by all Bible readers seriously (not just Evangelicals, but my fellow Latter-day Saints and others).

Robert J. Miller on "Mary, Ever Virgin"

Commenting on the development of (1) (a) the perpetual sexual virginity of Mary; (1) (b) the perpetual physical virginity of Mary; the (2) personal sinless of Mary and its relationship to salvation and (3) the development of an anti-biblical view of sexual intercourse within marriage, Robert J. Miller wrote:

[One] reason why ancient Christians took such an interest in Mary’s virginity was that they had come to construe it as a prerequisite for their own salvation. Within the framework of orthodox theology, human salvation depended on the atoning death of Jesus. Only a sinless savior could atone for humanity’s sin. And Jesus could be sinless, it was assumed, only if he was born to a virgin. It was Augustine in this fifth century who articulated the theological rationale for this understanding. According to Augustine, the sin of Adam and Eve involved their “fall” into sexuality. This “original sin” is inherited by all is transmitted to children because they are conceived in an act of sexual passion. Jesus could be free from original sin, therefore, only if he were conceived without sex:

Jesus was begotten and conceived, then, without any indulgence of carnal lust, and therefore brought with him no original sin. (Handbook 41)

Augustine’s reasoning involves three inferences:

·       The efficacy of the atonement depends on Jesus’ being sinless;

·       Jesus’ sinlessness depends on his birth to a sinless mother

·       His mother’s sinlessness depends on her virginity.

In this way, Mary’s virginity became crucial to the theology of atonement and was therefore considered a necessary part of God’s plan of salvation. To this way of thinking, Jesus’ death could not have atoned for sins if Mary had not been a virgin when she conceived him.

Augustine regarded all sexual behavior as sinful, even within marriage. While husbands and wives were expected to have sex—how else would there be children?—it nevertheless counted as a “venial” (as opposed to a “mortal,” or deadly) sin. Married couples were thus doomed to sin—one reason why celibacy was considered spiritually superior to marriage That is also why Mary had to be a life-long virgin if she was to maintain the sinlessness proper to the Mother of God. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century gives a clear example of this mindset:

Because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual intercourse, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain and without violation of her virginal integrity. (Summa Theologica Q. 35, art. 6, part 3)

Aquinas was sure that Mary had a painless delivery, not because the Bible says anything about this, but because it seemed to follow logically from her sinless conception of Jesus. Labor pain was considered to be a woman’s punishment for the sin of Eve (Gen 3:15), a punishment from which the sinless Mary was exempt. It was also theologically appropriate that Mary’s “virginal integrity” be miraculously preserved, for why should the Mother of God be deprived, though no fault of her own, of the physical sign of her sinlessness? (Robert J. Miller, Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God [Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 2003], 245-46)

While this should not be seen as an endorsement of everything Miller (who is way to my left on the question of New Testament reliability), his comments about the development of perpetual virginity and related topics is pretty accurate.

Some might appeal to Mary’s question to Gabriel in Luke 1:34, something Augustine himself took as evidence Mary, prior to the angelic appearance, took a vow of perpetual virginity! However, as Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, correctly noted:

From the question which Mary puts to the Angel, Luke, 1:34: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” it is inferred that she had taken the resolve of constant virginity on the ground of a special Divine enlightenment. In the light of this text St. Augustine and many Fathers and theologians believed that Mary made a formal vow of virginity. However, the subsequent espousals can hardly be reconciled with this. (The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 207)

For those who wish to read more on the perpetual virginity of Mary and related issues, see my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (if one is a Roman Catholic, I will happily send you a PDF for free—one can contact me at IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom and I will send you a copy, no strings attached [though I would like if you read it!]).

Mary as Mediatrix of (All) Graces

I have said time and time again, the single greatest disproof of Rome’s claims to be the true Church of Christ is what it teaches officially about the person and work of Mary. I have documented the overwhelming biblical and historical problems with the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and Bodily Assumption, as well as accepted beliefs, including the so-called “fifth Marian Doctrine”—Mary as co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate in my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology. Indeed, Sections 967-970 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly teaches Mary is co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix of all graces, so it is a teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium. 

In recent years, there has been a large movement, spear-headed by Mark Miravalle that has petitioned the Church to elevate this doctrine to a position of a defined dogma. EWTN has a very useful listing of recent statements from the Catholic Church and the Papacy affirming in very explicit terms this role of Mary in the economy of salvation

Fr. William Most (comp.), Church Teaching on Mary as Mediatrix of (All) Graces

1) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Supremi Apostolatus officio. Sept 1, 1883. ASS 16, 1883. 1113.

We judge nothing more powerful and better for this purpose than by religion and devotion to deserve well of the great Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, who is the treasurer [sequestra] of our peace with God, and the mediatrix [administra] of graces....

2) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Superiore anno, August 30, 1884. ASS 17, 1884. 49.

... may He hear the prayers of those who beseech through her, whom He Himself willed to be the mediatrix [administram] of graces.

3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.

... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us--for 'grace and truth came through Jesus Christ' [Jn 1.17]--nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.

4) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Iucunda semper, Sept 8, 1984. ASS 27, 1894. 179.

... when He [the Father] has been invoked with excellent prayers, our humble voice turns to Mary; in accordance with no other law than that law of conciliation and petition which was expressed as follows by St. Bernardine of Siena : 'Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.' [Internal quote from S. Bernardine, Sermon on Nativity of B. V. M. n. 6.]

5) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Adiutricem populi, Sept 5, 1895, ASS 28, 1895, 130.

For thereupon, by divine plan, she so began to watch over the Church, so to be near and to favor us as a Mother, that she who had been the minister [administra] of the mystery of human redemption, was equally the minister [administra] of the grace to be given from it for all time, practically immeasurable power being given to her.

6) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Diuturni temporis spatium, Sept 5, 1898, ASS 31, 1898, 146.

For from her, as in a must abundant conduit, the drafts of heavenly graces are given: '... in her hands are the treasures of the mercies of the Lord'; for 'God wills that she be the principle of all good things.' [Internal quotes are from St. John Damascene, Series I De Nativitate Virginis and St. Irenaeus, Against Valentinus III. 33.].

7) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Diuturni temporis spatium, Sept 5, 1898, ASS 31, 1898, 147.

'God wills her to be the principle of all good things.' [Citing St. John Damascene, Series I De nativitate Virginis.]

8) Leo XIII, Parta humano generi, Apostolic Letter, Sept 8, 1901, ASS 34, 1901, 195.

So may the most powerful Virgin Mother, who once 'cooperated in love that the faithful might be born in the Church', be even now the means and mediatrix of our salvation. [Citing St. Augustine, De sancta Virginitate 6.]

9) St. Pius X, Encyclical, Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904, AAS 36, 1904. 453-54.

Hence that never dissociated manner of life and labors of the Mother and the Son... . there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, not merely occupied in looking at the dreadful sight, but even rejoicing that 'her only Son was being offered for the salvation of the human race; and so did she suffer, with Him, that if it had been possible, she would have much more gladly suffered herself all the torments that her Son underwent' [St. Bonaventure I. Sent. d, 48, ad Litt. dub. 4]. Now from this common sharing of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she 'merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world' [Eadmer, De Excellentia Virginis Mariae, 9] and therefore Dispensatrix of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His Death and by His Blood.... But Mary as St. Bernard fittingly remarks [De Aquaeductu 4] is the 'channel' or, even, the neck, through which the body is joined to the head, and likewise through which the head exerts its power and strength on the body. 'For she is the neck of our Head, by which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Mystical Body.' [St. Bernardine of Siena, Quadrag. De Evangelio aeterno, Sermo X, a. 3. c. 3.]

10) St. Pius X, Litterae Apostolicae, August 27, 1910, AAS 2, 1910, 901.

We, to whom nothing is dearer than that the devotion of the faithful towards the Virgin of Lourdes, the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces, be more and more increased, think we should gladly assent to these wishes.

11) Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182.

... the fact that she was with Him crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother's rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. But if for this reason, every kind of grace we receive from the treasury of the redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same Sorrowful Virgin, everyone can see that a holy death should be expected from her, since it is precisely by this gift that the work of the Redemption is effectively and permanently completed in each one ... further, there is a most constant belief among the faithful, proved by long experience, that as many as employ the same Virgin as Patron, will not at all perish forever.

12) Benedict XV, Encyclical, Fausto appetente die, June 29, 1921, AAS 13, 1921, 334.

For he [St. Dominic] knew well that Mary ... has such influence with her divine Son, that He confers whatever of graces He confers on humans, does so always with her as minister and decision-maker [administra et arbitra].

13) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Galliam, Ecclesiae filiam, March 2, 1922, AAS 14, 1922 186.

She, the Virgin Mother, [is] the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God.

14) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Exstat in civitate, Feb. 1, 1924, AAS 16 1924, 152.

It is clear that many Roman Pontiffs ... have stirred up devotion among the nations to the most clement Mother, the Virgin Mary, the Consoler of the afflicted, and the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God.

15) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Cognitum sane, Jan 14, 1926, AAS 18, 1926, 213.

We, to whom nothing is dearer than that the devotion of the Christian people be aroused more and more towards the Virgin who is the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God, think we should grant these wishes.

16) Pius XI, Encyclical, Ingravescentibus malis, Sept 29, 1937, AAS 29, 1927, 380.

... we know also that all things are imparted to us from God the Greatest and Best, through the hands of the Mother of God.

17) Pius XII, Encyclical, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, AAS 35, 1943, 248.

May she, then, the most holy Mother of all the members of Christ, to whose Immaculate Heart we have confidently consecrated all people ... ask earnestly that most abundant streams of graces from the lofty Head may flow down on all the members of the Mystical body without interruption.

18) Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima, Bendito seia, May 13, 1946, AAS 38, 19465, 266.

... having been associated, as Mother and Minister, with the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption, she is always associated, with a practically measureless power, in the distribution of the graces that derive from the Redemption.... And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.

19) John XXIII, Epistle to Cardinal Agaganian, Legate to Marian Congress in Saigon, Jan 31, 1959, AAS 51, 1959, 88.

For the faithful can do nothing more fruitful and salutary than to win for themselves the most powerful patronage of the Immaculate Virgin, so that by this most sweet Mother, there may be opened to them, all the treasures of the divine Redemption, and so they may have life, and have it more abundantly. Did not the Lord will that we have everything through Mary?"

Discorsi II, 66.

"From her hands hope for all graces.

20) Vatican II, Lumen gentium ## 61-62.

... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace. This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer....

COMMENT: Although Vatican II did not add the words "of all graces," it added a note on the above passage, in which it refers us to the texts of Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, and Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima. Leo XIII in that text spoke of her, as we saw above, as having "practically limitless power." St. Pius X said she was the "dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the "neck" connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck. Pius XII said "Her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.

D&C 88:131, 135 and "Remembrance"

Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant . . . And he that cometh in and is faithful before me, and is a brother, or if they be brethren, they shall salute the president or teacher with uplifted hands to heaven, with this same prayer and covenant, or by saying Amen, in token of the same. (D&C 88:131, 135)

While reading D&C 88 today, it struck me that these verses use “remembrance,” not merely in the sense of physiological remembrance, but in the same sense of the Greek term used for the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11 and Luke 22, αναμνησις, which carries with itself the sense of a “placard” (cf. Gal 3:1; cf. Fritz Chenderlin, “Do This as My Memorial”: The Semantic and Conceptual Background and Value of ‘Αναμνησις in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982])

See this article for a fuller discussion of “remembrance” and its relationship to the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.

Catholic Apologists, the Greek Language, and "Until" in Matthew 1:25

In my post, Pop Catholic Apologists and the Greek Language, I discuss some blunders John Salza made with the language. In an article I recently encountered, The Grave of the Wicked Witch is Sealed Forever by Robert Sungenis and Jacob Michael, there are a couple of major blunders about the Greek texts they appeal to. As I am well-read in the works of Sungenis (e.g., Not By Bread Alone [on the Mass]), and know that he is familiar with the Greek language, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the mistakes with Greek are due to over-enthusiasm and/or from Jacob Michael.

The article tries to answer the arguments of Eric Svendsen and the meaning of εως ου “until” in Matt 1:25. In the article, we read:

In fact, this is the same way heos hou continues the action of a number of instances in the LXX. For example, in Genesis 8:5 it states:

The water decreased steadily UNTIL [heos hou] the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

Obviously, heos hou does not intend to cease the action of the main clause (“the water decreased steadily”), rather it allows that the water continued to decrease even after the tenth month. Otherwise, the earth would still be flooded.

Another example is 2 Samuel 6:23:

Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL [heos hou] the day of her death.

Obviously, heos hou does not intend to say that Michal had children after her death, and thus we describe such cases as heos hou continuing the action of the main clause (“Michal...had no child”).

Wrong on both counts.

Gen 8:5 reads in the LXX as follows:

τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ πορευόμενον ἠλαττονοῦτο ἕως τοῦ δεκάτου μηνός ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ μηνί τῇ πρώτῃ τοῦ μηνός ὤφθησαν αἱ κεφαλαὶ τῶν ὀρέων

Now the water, as it was proceeding, was diminishing until the tenth month; then in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. (NETS)

The verse does not use εως ου but only the bare term εως.

2 Sam 6:23 in the LXX reads:

καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν

And to Melchol daughter of Saoul there was no child to the day of her death. (NETS)

Again, the LXX does not use εως ου but εως, contra Sungenis and Michael.

The moral of the story is that one should be cautious when someone else is flexing their muscles with the original languages of the Bible (and yes, I include fellow LDS in that, too). As the saying goes, “A little Greek is a dangerous thing.”

For more on issues relating to the perpetual virginity, see chapter 4, “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” (pp. 83-138) of my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology.

Elder Von G. Keetch (1960-2018)

The Deseret News has reported on the recent passing of Elder Von G. Keetch. He was 57.

Elder Von G. Keetch, LDS Church leader, dies at age 57

In the October 2015 General Conference he gave a wonderful talk:

Blessed and Happy Are Those Who Keep the Commandments of God

David Grandy on Infinity and Inexhaustible Giving

On the concept of “infinity,” David Grandy, a former professor of philosophy at BYU Provo and Hawaii, wrote the following which one found interesting:

Inexhaustible Giving

To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ.—Paul, Ephesians 3:8 (NASB)

Coming back down to  Aleph null or ground-level infinity, we find rich theological insight. Bessy points out that infinity, as understood mathematically, makes plausible the scriptural promise contained in Doctrine and Covenants 84:38: “And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that may Father hath shall be given unto him.” Normally it is not possible to give all the one possesses without suffering loss, or to give all that one possesses more than once. But the scriptural implication is that this giving can happen numberless times, and always without diminution of God’s kingdom. So does “give in this case just mean to share without actually giving, or is there a deeper manner of giving, based on an economy of infinity that enables transfer of one’s entire kingdom without loss?

Suppose, says Bessy, that you have an infinite number of gold coins which you wish to give to an infinite number of people while retaining an infinite number yourself. Is this possible, and, if so, by what arrangement? Thanks to Galileo and later mathematicians, it is easy to see that you could, without loss, divide your wealth infinitely among a finite number of people. Assigning a positive integer to each coin, you could give all the even-numbered coins to another person, thereby splitting the original infinity into the same-size infinities—one or yourself and one for the other person. Or you might give every first coin to one individual, every second to another individual, and keep every third coin for yourself. But doing this, or something like it, would not allow you to realize your wish of optimizing the potential largesse of an infinity of gold coins.

The solution, according to Bessy, inheres in the following arrangement:

You keep 1 3 6 10 15 21 . . .

You give 2 5 9 14 20 . . .

You give 4 8 13 19 . . .

You give 7 12 18 . . .

And so on. The key lies in successively increasing by one the interval between the coins you keep, thereby bringing another person into the embrace of your giving, ad infinitum, without shrinking in the least your own possession.

Even such a modest infinity as the countable integers enables infinite or endless giving. Who knows what awaits us as we learn the mysteries of the uncountable infinities, the first of which are the irrational numbers. In retrospect we may regard them as breathing holes in the neatly-ordered, tightly sealed vision of reality once entertained by the Pythagoreans. The most famous of all irrational numbers is pi (π), the relation of a circle (its circumference) to its diameter, approximately 3.14. Though pi’s decimal expansion has been calculated to billions of digits, the “sequence of digits . . . looks like gibberish,” says Gregory Chudnovsky, a mathematician who, along with his brother David, has spent years exploring pi. But looks are deceiving, adds Chudnovsky: “Pi is a damned good fake of a random number. I just wish it were not as good a fake.” There may be an order, a beauty, to its mind-boggling complexity. In fact, like other irrational numbers, pi may be “a powerful random-number generator” (Preston, “Mountains of Pi,” p. 64), an algorithm for keeping the quest for pattern and meaning alive. If so, we have much to look forward to.

Leaving aside the metaphysical question of what pi is all about, however, we can say this much about the larger infinity of which it is a member. Difference is the primordial intrigue of irrational numbers because it is the engine that prevents each one from suffering from the fate of terminal exactitude, which is precisely which keeps rational numbers in their finite, potentially redundant place. Irrational numbers have no end because they do not lend themselves to closure; they stay alive, as it were, by generating irreducible difference with each new digit. Contemporary culture likes to put things in their place, permanently so, but irrational numbers suggest a larger world in which things forever unfold in new and surprising ways. Hence there is no redundancy in this larger world, and no prospect of finality. (David Grandy, Worlds Without Numbers: An LDS Perspective on Infinity [2018], 96-99)