Friday, October 28, 2022

John A. Tvedtnes on Isaiah 2:14//2 Nephi 12:14

Isa 2:14 in the KJV reads:

 

And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up.

 

2 Nephi 12:14 reads:

 

And upon all the high mountains and upon all the hills, and upon all the nations which are lifted up and upon every people.

 

While noting that this addition is without version support, Tvedtnes adds that

 

it fits into the general pattern of parallelism found in this and adjacent verses. Here, "nations" parallels "people", just as, in vss. 13-15, we have the parallels: "cedars//oaks", "mountains//hills", and "tower/fenced wall". . . . This new parallelism apparently carries on the addition of "nations" to the "proud and lofty" and "lifted up" parallels in vs. 12. (Note that the mountains, hills, rivers, streams, towers of Isa. 30:25 compare well with vss. 14-15 of Chap. 2. Indeed, there are many other comparisons which could be made between Chapters 2 and 30.) It would have been easy for an MT scribe to have deleted the BM material, for each parallel begins with w-clkl . . . ("and upon every"). It is true that, from the point-of-view of MT, "lifted up" belongs in parallel to "high" with "hills". But the latter adjective is deleted in LXXh, the Old Latin, and one MT ms. (John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1981], 26)

 

John Chrysostom vs. the Formal Sufficiency of the Bible

 Taken from:

Joseph Gallegos, "Appendix 1: A Dossier of Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition," in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed., Robert A. Sungenis (2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013), 466-68

 

“‘That ye remember me in all things and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.’ It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason…” (On First Corinthians, Homily 26 [c. A.D. 392] NPNF I, XIII:149)

 

“Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, ‘whether by word or our Epistle’ (2 Thess. ii. 15), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, ‘Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.’” (On Second Timothy, Homily 3 [inter A.D. 393-397] NPNF I, XIII:484)

 

“We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themselves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they chiefly dwell is that which pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoken but little concerning His Godhead: it was mostly of the Manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension.” (On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1 [A.D. 388] NPNF I, XI:2)

 

“Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he (Peter) had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary. For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, ‘And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ (Luke xxii. 32)” (On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 3 [A.D. 388] NPNF I, IX:20)

Tertullian vs. the Formal Sufficiency of the Bible

 Taken from:

Joseph Gallegos, "Appendix 1: A Dossier of Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition," in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed., Robert A. Sungenis (2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013), 502-8

 

“You lay down a prescription that this faith has its solemnities ‘appointed’ by the Scriptures or the tradition of the ancestors; and that no further addition in the way of observance must be added, on account of the unlawfulness of innovation. Stand on that ground, if you can… Besides, throughout the provinces of Greece there are held in definite localities those councils gathered out of the universal Churches, by whose means not only all the deeper questions are handled for the common benefit, but the actual representation of the whole Christian name is celebrated with great veneration.” [203]

 

“After such a fashion as this, I suppose you have had, O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of the history) of Christ that His flesh may lose the proofs of its reality. But, prithee, on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority. If you are a prophet, foretell us a thing; if you are an apostle, open your message in public; if a follower of apostles, side with apostles in thought; if you are only a (private) Christian, believe what has been handed down to us: if, however, you are nothing of all this, then (as I have the best reason to say) cease to live…Now that which had been handed down was true, inasmuch as it had been transmitted by those whose duty it was to hand it down. Therefore, when rejecting that which had been handed down, you rejected that which was true. You had no authority for what you did.” [204]

 

“As for us, although we must still seek, and that always, yet where ought our search to be made? Amongst the heretics, where all things are foreign and opposed to our own verity, and to whom we are forbidden to draw near?... No man gets instruction from that which tends to destruction. No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our ‘seeking’, therefore be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own—that, and only that, which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.” [205]

 

“Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and under the name of God, was seen ‘in diverse manners’ by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics” [206]

 

“‘Thy faith,’ He says, ‘hath saved thee’ not observe your skill in the Scriptures. Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation. Skill, however, consists in curious art, having for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack. Let such curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let then either relinquish their noisiness, or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things.” [207]

 

“We are therefore come to (the gist of ) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed)—so that w may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.” [208]

 

“Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as ‘the sent.’ Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.” [209]

 

“Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church— ‘Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.’ [210]

 

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally Achaia is near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of the apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s!” [211]

 

“But what shall I say concerning the ministry of the word, since they make it their business not to convert the heathen, but to subvert our people? This is rather the glory which they catch at, to compass the fall of those who stand, not the raising of those who are down. Accordingly, since the very work which they purpose to themselves comes not from the building up of their own society, but from the demolition of the truth, they undermine our edifices, that they may erect their own. Only deprive them of the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the divinity of the Creator, and they have not another objection to talk about. The consequence is, that they more easily accomplish the ruin of standing houses than the erection of fallen ruins. It is only when they have such objects in view that they show themselves humble and bland and respectful. Otherwise they know no respect even for their own leaders. Hence, it is [supposed] that schisms seldom happen among heretics, because, even when they exist, they are not obvious. Their very unity, however, is schism. I am greatly in error if they do not amongst themselves swerve even from their own regulations, forasmuch as every man, just as it suits his own temper, modifies the traditions he has received after the same fashion as the man who handed them down did, when he moulded them according to his own will. The progress of the matter is an acknowledgement at once of its character and of the manner of its birth. That was allowable to the Valentinians which had been allowed to Valentinus; that was also fair for the Marcionites which had been done by Marcion—even to innovate on the faith, as was agreeable to their own pleasure. In short, all heresies, when thoroughly looked into, are detected harbouring dissent in many particulars even from their own founders. The majority of them have not even churches. Motherless, houseless, creedless, outcasts, they wander about in their own essential worthlessness.” [212]

 

“[S]o that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as reposes its Christian faith in the Creator. But if the churches shall prove to have been corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be amongst the adversaries of the Creator? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from an apostle, and you will have gained the day.” [213]

 

“[T]hat is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles… For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will rest on John as their author…” [214]

 

“An easy thing it is at once to demand where it is written that we should not be crowned. But is it written that we should be crowned? Indeed, in urgently demanding the warrant of Scripture in a different side from their own, men prejudge that the support of Scripture ought no less to appear on their part. For if it shall be said that it is lawful to be crowned on this ground, that Scripture does not forbid it, it will as validly be retorted that just on this ground is the crown unlawful, because the Scripture does not enjoin it. What shall discipline do? Shall it accept both things, as if neither were forbidden? Or shall it refuse both, as if neither were enjoined? But ‘the thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted’ should rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.” [215]

 

“In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads man indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceed from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—the being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to Heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person.” [216]

 

“But I must take some further pains to rebut their arguments, when they make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opinion, and refuse to consider the other points, which obviously maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the Godhead… But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer.” [217]

 

“[W]hether there is room for maintaining that the Paraclete has taught any such thing as can either be charged with novelty, in opposition to catholic tradition, or with burdensomeness, in opposition to the ‘light burden’ of the Lord. Now concerning each point the Lord Himself has pronounced. For in saying, ‘I still have many things to say unto you, but ye are not yet able to bear them: when the Holy Spirit shall be come, He will lead you into all truth,’ He sufficiently, of course, sets before us that He will bring such (teachings) as may be esteemed like a novel, as having never before been published, and finally burdensome, as if that were the reason why they were not published. ‘It follows,’ you say, ‘that by this line of argument, anything you please which is novel and burdensome may be ascribed to the Paraclete, even if it have come from the adversary spirit.’ No, of course. For the adversary spirit would be apparent from the diversity of his preaching, beginning by adulterating the rule of faith, and so (going on to) adulterating the order of discipline; because the corruption of that which holds the grist grade, (that is, of faith, which is prior to discipline,) comes first. A man must of necessity hold heretical views of God first, and then of His institution. But the Paraclete, having many things to teach fully which the Lord deferred till He came, (according to the pre-definition), will begin by bearing emphatic witness to Christ, (as being) such as we believe (Him to be), together with the whole order of God the Creator, and will glorify Him, and will ‘bring to remembrance’ concerning Him. And when He has thus been recognised (as the promised Comforter), on the ground of the cardinal rule, He will reveal those ‘many things’ which appertain to disciplines…” [218]

 

References for the Above:

 

203 Tertullian, On Fasting, 13 (c.A.D. 208) ANF IV:111.

 

204 Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 2 ANF III:522.

 

205 Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 12, ANF III:249.

 

206 Ibid., 13 ANF III:249.

 

207 Ibid., 14 ANF III:250.

 

208 Ibid., 15 ANF III:250.

 

209 Ibid., 20 ANF III:252.

 

210 Ibid., 29 ANF III:256-257.

 

211 Ibid., 36 ANF III:260.

 

212 Ibid., 42 ANF III:263-264.

 

213 Tertullian, Against Marcion, I:21 (inter A.D.207-212) ANF III:286.

 

214 Ibid., 4:5 ANF III:349-350.

 

215 Tertullian, The Chaplet, the Soldier’s Crown, 2 (A.D. 211) ANF III:94

 

216 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2 (post A.D. 213) ANF III:598.

 

217 Ibid., 20 ANF III:615.

 

218 Tertullian, Monogamy, 2, ANF IV:59-60. Here Tertullian, a Montanist, argues against the traditional argument and for novelty.

 

Johann Pistorius: "Christus Est Lex" ("Christ is the Law")

 16th-century German Protestant theologian Johann Pistorius, in 1553, wrote that:

 



 

Lex est sapientia Dei; Christus est sapientia Dei; ergo Christus est lex (English: The Law is the Wisdom of God; Christ is the Wisdom of God; therefore, Christ is the Law)

 

Source: "Johannes Pistorius til Paul Noviomagus, Wittenberg, 27 June 1553," in A. Andersen, comp., Quattuor Centuriae Epistolarum: Provst Johannes Pistorius' Brevsamling 1541-1605 (1614) (Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, 1971), 50


I have added this to


3 Nephi 15:9 and Jesus saying "I am the Law"

Thursday, October 27, 2022

3 Nephi 15:9 and Jesus saying "I am the Law"

  

Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15:9)

 

There has recently been a controversy online due to this verse in the Book of Mormon as Jesus says “I am the Law of Moses” in The Chosen, and this has triggered a number of Protestants. According to some, this is evidence of the Law of Moses, in the theology of the Book of Mormon, being salvific and/or not being abrogated with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, this is false for many reasons.

 

Even during Old Testament times, when they were under the Law of Moses, the Book of Mormon prophets were explicit that the Law of Moses was not salvific. For instance, Abinadi stated that:

 

And now ye [the critics of Abinadi] have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses. And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. (Mosiah 13:27-28)

 

Speaking of converted Lamanites who would join the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, we read that

 

Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them. Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come. (Alma 25:15-16)

 

Nephi, writing centuries earlier, understood that salvation came through Christ and not the Law of Moses, notwithstanding the people having to keep the Law of Moses as they were still under the Old Covenant. On this, as well as the meaning of “after all we can do,” see my friend James Stutz’s article, “After All We Can Do” as a reference to the Law of Moses.

 

With respect to 3 Nephi 15:9, let us read the verses prior to such for context:

 

And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and said unto them: Behold, ye have heard the things which I taught before I ascended to my Father; therefore, whoso remembereth these sayings of mine and doeth them, him will I raise up at the last day. And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end. Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled. And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come. For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me. (3 Nephi 15:1-8)

 

Brant Gardner offered the following commentary:

 

[vv. 3-5]:

 

The old things (the law of Moses) have “passed away”—not by being removed or torn down but by being fulfilled or completed. Indeed, it might be more accurate to say that they have been transformed. They are still the law but are transformed into something new: the law of the gospel.

 

Yahweh-Messiah explains that, since he is the lawgiver, he has the right and power to fulfill and transform it. Of course, much of the Nephite understanding of God already presaged this change, so little in the gospel would have been surprising to them. The change would more likely affect ritual practices than individual religious understanding or devotion.

 

[vv. 6-7]

 

Jesus echoes the language of 3 Nephi 13:17 where he had also indicated that he had come to fulfill, not destroy, the law. He now links that promise to the concept that old things have passed away—a transformation rather than a destruction. Jesus explains that he is fulfilling and transforming that which had been “spoken concerning things which are to come.” Living the law of Moses affected how a person would face God at the end. That ultimate judgment has not changed. Indeed, the Messiah’s gospel exchanges our ability to stand transformed, or fulfilled, before God at that last day.

 

[vv. 8-9]

 

Jesus explains verse 7 more explicitly in the connection between these two statements. The law of Moses is fulfilled; and in Jesus-as-fulfillment, we may eventually have eternal life. Thus, while changes in practice may occur, the goal does not. Indeed, the gospel improves our ability to reach the ultimate goal of eternal life. Believers would no longer attempt to achieve eternal life by observing the law of Moses but rather by living the gospel and enduring to the end or persisting until the process is complete. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 5:474-75, comments in square brackets added for clarification)

 

Interestingly, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “the prince of preachers,” used similar language to describe Jesus. In a sermon "Jehovah Tsidkenu-The Lord Our Righteousness" he taught that

 

the text speaks about righteousness too—"Jehovah our righteousness." And he is so. Christ in his life was so righteous, that we may say of the life, taken as a vehicle, that it is righteousness itself. Christ is the law incarnate Understand me. He lived out the law of God to the very full, and while you see God's precepts written in fire on Sinai's brow, you see them written in flesh in the person of Christ.

 

While one disagrees with Spurgeon attempting to support imputed righteousness in his sermon (see Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness), I don’t think anyone in their right mind would charge Spurgeon with the charge of believing the Law of Moses was not abrogated with the death and resurrection of Jesus, that the Law of Moses is salvific, etc.


This is not a novelty among Protestants and others. 16th-century German Protestant theologian Johann Pistorius, in 1553, wrote that:

 



 

Lex est sapientia Dei; Christus est sapientia Dei; ergo Christus est lex (English: The Law is the Wisdom of God; Christ is the Wisdom of God; therefore, Christ is the Law)

 

Source: "Johannes Pistorius til Paul Noviomagus, Wittenberg, 27 June 1553," in A. Andersen, comp., Quattuor Centuriae Epistolarum: Provst Johannes Pistorius' Brevsamling 1541-1605 (1614) (Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, 1971), 50

 

Same Protestants who are triggered by this:

 



 

say “Amen” to the following:

 



Update: Dan Lioy on Jesus as the Torah in the Gospel of John


The following is taken from:

 

Dan Lioy, Jesus as Torah in John 1-12 (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 6-10

 

Recognizing Jesus as Torah in the Fourth Gospel

 

In the previous section, the Lord Jesus was referred to as the divine, incarnate Torah. Casselli helps establish the rationale for this designation noting that in the Fourth Gospel, the Evangelist presented the Messiah “in a way that is consistent with the Judaisms of his day.” The depiction one encounters is “profoundly Torah centered.” (Casselli, “Jesus as eschatological Torah,” 16) Furthermore, in keeping with the Evangelist’s end-time theological perspective, he portrayed the Son as the “eschatological Torah itself.” In point of fact, the entire “scope of Jewish theology” is re-read “through the lens” of the Savior’s “death, resurrection, and ascension.” (Casselli, Jesus as eschatological Torah,” 17) Likewise, the “interpretive traditions” that form the historical and cultural backdrop of the Fourth Gospel must be viewed through the Torah-fulfillment prism of Jesus’ redemptive mission. (Casselli, “Jesus as eschatological Torah,” 18)

 

According to Keener, Jesus as the perfection of the gift of the Torah is a recurrent theme first introduced in John 1:1-18 and reiterated throughout the Fourth Gospel. [23] While there are other conceptions of God—including those of Wisdom [24] and the Word [25]—none of these eclipses that of Torah to convey the “thought of one who was divine yet distinct from the Father.” [26]

 

With the advent of the Son, the Father did not just break His “prophetic silence” and speak again. More importantly, the incarnation of the divine torah “means that all God had already spoken was contained in Jesus, the ultimate embodiment of all God’s Word.” (Keener, John, 1:361) In short, Jesus as Torah functions as dominant leitmotif (together with Logos) to conceptualize the totality of the person and work of the Son. Moreover, it is a powerful Christological symbol that illumines all the other major themes appearing in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus as Torah is the center from which the divine plan of redemption, as conveyed in John’s Gospel, is fulfilled.

 

Notes for the Above

 

[23] Keener, John, 1:278. He explains that the “prologue presents Jesus as Torah, greater than Moses” (1:51). Also, the role the Son plays in the Fourth Gospel mirrors that of the Torah “in contemporary Judaism” (1;361). With respect to the latter, Jaffee (“Torah,” 13:9231) states that “in Judaism,” the word tôrâ was “the quintessential symbol.” In like manner, Sanders (“Torah and Christ,” 381) notes that by the first century of the common era, the “Torah was . . . the symbol par excellence, incomparable, indestructible, and incorruptible, of Judaism.” Indeed, the Torah “meant Judaism’s identity and way of life” (cf. Sir 45:5; John 5:39; Rom 7:10; Gal 3:21). Marshall (“Johannine theology,” 2:1085) adds that “rabbinic Judaism” spoke of the Torah “in personal terms,” declared it to be “preexistent and an agent in creation,” and referred to the Torah as “the giver of light and life” to humanity. In the view of Davies (Torah, 93), the Fourth Gospel epitomizes Jesus as “the personalized Torah” of Judaism.

 

[24] Reed (“How Semitic was John”), based on his study of the Old Testament Apocrypha, concludes that an “amalgamation evolved between the Greek sophia (wisdom) and the Greek logos (word)” in which the two terms were viewed as “synonymous” (716; cf. Wis 9:1-2; 2 Enoch 3:8). Over time, “the rabbis parted with wisdom and settled for Torah, or law” (719). Correspondingly, Glasson’s examination of the rabbinic writings from the Second Temple period of Judaism suggests that Wisdom was believed to have its source in the Torah (cf. Sir 15:1; 19:20; 39:1). In addition, Wisdom was so identified with the Torah that there was a transference to the Torah of what had been ascribed to Wisdom (Moses, 87-88; cf. Bar 3:29-4:1; Gab Rab. 17;5; 31:5; 44:17; Lev Rab 11:3; 19:1; 4 Macc 1:16-17; Sir 24:1, 23-24; 34:8; Wis 18:15). Carson (John, 1:354) proposes that the Evangelist favored “Logos because ‘Word’ had broader OT connotations more apt to conjure up the image of Torah,” yet “without excluding the common nuances his readers would have associated with Wisdom.” Also cf. Beyler, Torah, 127-30; Coloe, God dwells with us, 62, 214; Epp, “Wisdom, Torah, Word,” 132-33, 135; Evans, Word and glory, 130; Heschel, Heavenly Torah, 681-82; Lincoln, John, 96; McGrath, John’s apologetic Christology, 151-52, 154, 177; Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 34; Thompson, God of the Gospel of John, 130-133; Whitacre, John.

 

[25] Reed (“How Semitic was John”) points out that “several times the LXX uses logos (word) to refer to the Torah either literally or in an abstract form” (cf. Exod 35:1; Deut 1;1; Ps 119:105). He suggests that “some Jewish writers and translators had no qualms about replacing logos with nomos.” In effect, the “two terms became synonymous in Jewish thought” (718). In like manner, Casselli (“Jesus as eschatological Torah”) argues that when the Evangelist employed the Greek noun logos (cf. John 1:1, 14), he was thinking of the Old Testament phrase rendered “the word of the Lord” (25). In light of the connections between the Fourth Gospel and the “Pentateuchal tradition,” it is quite probable that the Evangelist considered logos to be “basically interchangeable with Torah” (26). This supposition is confirmed by the Septuagint referenced to the Ten Commandments (which the Lord gave to Moses on Mount Sinai) as tous deka logous or the “ten words” (Exod 34:28; Deut 10:4; cf. Exod 24:3; Deut 32:47). Further confirmation is found when the Septuagint version of the following Old Testament verses are considered: Isaiah h1:10, in which logon kyriou (“word of the Lord”) and nomon theou (“law of God”) are used in synonymous parallelism; Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2, in which nomos (“law”) and logos kyriou (“word of the Lord”) are used in synonymus parallelism; Isaiah 5:24, in which nomos kyriou (“law of the Lord”) and logion (“word”) are used in synonymous parallelism; and Jeremiah 6:19, in which logion (“words”) and nomon (“law”) are used in synonymous parallelism; and Jeremiah 6:19, in which logon (“words”) and nomon (“law”) are used in synonymous parallelism; cf. Beyler, Torah, 121-22. There is enough precedent to conclude that both logos and nomos denote “the “independent personified expression of God” (Danker, Greek-English lexicon, 610).

 

[26] Keener, John, 1:281. He proposes that the Evangelist addressed a “community of predominately Jewish Christians” who, due to their “faith in Jesus,” had been “rejected by most of their non-Christian Jewish communities.” One can imagine the religious elite of the day making the following claims: (1) Judaism is a “religion of Torah”; and 92) the “prophetic, messianic Jesus movement has departed from proper observance of God’s Word (particularly from orthodox monotheism)” (1:364). The Evangelist responded in the Fourth Gospel with these counterclaims: (1) the Messiah is the “full embodiment of Torah” and completes “what was partial (but actually present) I Torah”; (2) the Son “embodies the hope of Judaism” (1:417); (3) the decision to become a follower of the savior “entails true observance of Torah”; and 94) because “Jesus himself is God’s Word,” no person is able to “genuinely observe Torah without following Jesus” (1:364). Keener’s proposal helps us explain why, as Whitacre (Johannine polemic, 29) observes, “every explicit dispute in John makes reference to Moses and/or the Law” (cf. 1:17, 45; 2:22; 5:39, 45-47; 6:32; 7:19, 22-28; 8:17; 9:28-29; 10:34-35; 12:34; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36-37; 20:9). Also, cf. Ellis, Genius of John, 4-6; Evans, Word and glory, 184-86; Lincoln, John, 77-78; Whitacre, Johannine polemic, 1-2, 5-6, 10-11.

 

Elsewhere (ibid, 199), we read the following about the use of Zech 9:9 in John 12:14:


As the “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6), the Messiah will one day bring peace and manifest God’s glory throughout creation—even to the heights of heaven (cf. Luke 19:38). This truth mirrors that the shepherds heard on the night of the Savior’s birth. They were greeted by a chorus of angels who gave glory to God and announced peace for all who received the Lord’s favor (cf. 2:14). John 12:14 quotes Zechariah 9:9 to reinforce the providential way in which Jesus as Torah was the realization of all that the Hebrew sacred writings foretold concerning the divine plan of redemption. John 12:16 notes that at first Jesus’ disciples did not grasp the deeper meaning of the incidents connected with the Redeemer’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Like the exuberant crowd, the disciples thought that Jesus was the Messiah; but also like them, they did not comprehend the true nature of His mission. After Jesus was raised into His glory, however, His disciples came to realize that the Old Testament messianic prophecies were about the Savior. They also began to recognize what they themselves had done for their Lord. (Dan Lioy, Jesus as Torah in John 1-12 [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2007], 199, emphasis in bold added)





Wednesday, October 26, 2022

Sophronius of Jerusalem vs. Themistius on Jesus' Knowledge of the Second Coming in his Synodical Letters

  

Themistius, the father and the begetter and most lawless sower of ignorance, who babbled that Christ, our true God, did not know the day of judgement, statements which he himself, driven mad by God, made in ignorance, not knowing that he uttered in his mistaken thinking. For if he did not know the force of his own words, he would not have given birth to the destructive ignorance and hotly defended the pollution of ignorance, belching forth from his senseless brain the statement that, not in so far as he was God eternal but in so far as he had in truth become a human being, as Christ ignorant of the day of consummation and judgement, and making him a mere human being. (Sophronius, Synodical Letters, 2.6.1, in Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letters and Other Documents [trans. Pauline Allen; Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009], 143)

 

Sergius in his Letters to Cyrus understanding God (θεος) in Titus 2:13 as a Reference to Jesus, not the Father

  

We shall declare, then, that in the holy and great ecumenical synods this issue was not raised, nor it is possible to find any definition on this question in any of the orthodox councils. We know that several of the approved Fathers, and particularly the most holy Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, spoke in some of their writings of one life-giving activity of Christ our true God (Χριστου του αληθινου θεου ημων). Moreover, Means, too, [now] among the saints, archbishop of this God-protected and imperial city, composed a document addressed to Vigilius, who was then the most holy pope of Older Rome, in which he too in the same way define that the will of our great God and Saviour (Titus 2:13) (του <μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημωνΙησου> Χριστου) Jesus Christ is one and also that there is one life-giving activity. (Sergius, First Letter to Cyrus, in Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letters and Other Documents [trans. Pauline Allen; Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009], 165)

 

We have received the sacred letter of Your God-honoured Holiness, proclaiming how, by the grace of the all-holy Spirit and the zeal pleasing to God of our God-protected and victorious emperor, and with the godly admonition, filled with all orthodoxy, of Your All-sacredness, a union has been effected throughout the Christ-loving great city of Alexandria and all her districts, of those formerly called Theodosians with the catholic and apostolic orthodox church. On account of this, we are filled with spiritual and ineffable joy (1 Pet. 1:8) and have offered up wholeheartedly hymns of thanksgiving to our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13) (τω μεγαλω θεω και σωτηρι ημωνΙησου Χριστω), because the late in the day, with the assistance of God, the dividing wall of discord (cf. Eph. 3:6) has gone from our midst, through which the common enemy of human beings formerly divided brothers from brothers, and all have appeared and become fellows of the same body and fellow heirs (Eph. 3:6). As one mouth and one tongue, they make both the fitting confession and the doxology, as is pleasing, to the glorified, life-giving Trinity, and one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:4) is proclaimed by all with one voice (και κηρυσσεται παρα παντων ομοφωνως εις κυριος, μια πιστις, εν βαπτισμα). (Sergius, Second Letter to Cyrus, in Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letters and Other Documents [trans. Pauline Allen; Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009], 177)

 

Blog Archive