Sigurd Grindheim on Hebrews 2:17 and the Intercessory Work of Christ

  

There are good reasons to conclude [that] the averting of God’s anger is essential to the author’s use of the term hilaskomai. As high priest, Jesus ministers to God on behalf of the people and represents the people before God. He represents them in order to prevent the wrath of God from calling upon them. Because he is human, Jesus can serve as humankind’s representative and face God’s wrath, and because he is divine, he can offer an effective restitution.

 

If the author of Hebrews intends to communicate that God’s disposition towards humans has changed, it is striking that he does not use the verb hilaskomai (“propitiate”) with God as the object. . . . Reconciliation begins with God’s desire to be merciful and is effected by the sending of the Son and by the Holy Spirit’s work to unite him with humanity. It would be misleading, therefore, to present God as the object of propitiation.

 

One might add, as a supplementary point, that Christ’s sacrifice also affects the sinner, not only God. It provides cleansing from sin and ensures that one’s conscience is free from guilt (9:14; 10:22). Both propitiation and expiation are involved. (Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 194, 195)

 

Unlike his sacrifice, Jesus’s intercession is not described as a ministry that is completed once and for all. It occurs continually, as it is related to his living forever. To Chrysostom, this fact shows the humble nature of Jesus’s priesthood, as he constantly assumes the position of a supplicant (Homilies on Hebrews 13.6) (Ibid, 369)

 

Homilies on Hebrews 13.6 reads thusly:

 

6. Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them. You see that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when He [appears] as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, who also makes intercession for us Romans 8:34, he hints the same thing; the High Priest makes intercession. For He that raises the dead as He will, and quickens them, John 5:21, and that even as the Father [does], how [is it that] when there is need to save, He makes intercession? John 5:22 He that has all judgment, how [is it that] He makes intercession? He that sends His angels Matthew 13:41-42, that they may cast some into the furnace, and save others, how [is it that] He makes intercession? Wherefore (he says) He is able also to save. For this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as He ever lives, He has (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there [under the Law] indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was [High Priest] (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but He saves to the uttermost.

 

What is to the uttermost? He hints at some mystery. Not here only (he says) but there also He saves them that come unto God by Him. How does He save? In that He ever lives (he says) to make intercession for them. You see the humiliation? You see the manhood? For he says not, that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but continually, and whenever it may be needful to intercede for them.

 

To the uttermost. What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life. 'Does He then always need to pray? Yet how can [this] be reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimes accomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then is He throned with [the Father]?' You see that it is a condescension. The meaning is: Be not afraid, nor say, Yea, He loves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the Father, but He cannot live always. For He does live always.

 

Stephen R. Miller vs. claim Daniel Predicted a Messianic Age beginning at the end of Antiochus's Reign

  

If Daniel predicted that a messianic age would ensure at the end of Antiochus’s reign, which is the view of those who hold the Maccabean date of writing, how could later Jewish believers who observed that this event failed to materialize accept the book as divinely inspired? The Septuagint translators and Qumran scribes lived only decades after Daniel was supposedly written, and they considered Daniel canonical. Yet Antiochus had come and gone, and the messianic age had not arrived. The book’s pronouncement were proven to be fallacious. These Jewish scholars were certainly acquainted with Deut 18;22: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously.” If Daniel had predicated the arrival of the messianic age immediately after Antiochus’s death, the book would have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of Jewish believers. It would never have found its way into the canon but would have suffered the same fate as the other pseudoprophetic books of that period. (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 37)

 

Sigurd Grindheim on the Relationship between Hebrews and First Clement

  

First Clement

 

The earliest attested reception of Hebrews is found in a letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth. This letter is known as 1 Clement and traditionally dated toward the end of the first century, although some scholars are open to a date as late as 140 CE . . . First Clement echoes the Christology of Hebrews, affirming that Jesus Christ, “being the radiance of his majesty, is as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent (36.2).

 

However, the author of 1 Clement does not appear to have internalized the emphasis on the abrogation of the old covenant that is found in Hebrews. To give authority to his instructions for church order, he appears to the law of Moses (40.1-41.4). Like the author of Hebrews, he quotes from Num 12:8 (cf. Heb 3:5), but his purpose is to elevate the authority of Moses’s legislation (43.1), not to show the superiority of Jesus. Like Hebrews, 1 Clement also calls Jesus not only “the Guardian and Helper of our weakness” (cf. Heb 2:18; 4:16) but also “High Priest” (36.1). Christ’s high priesthood is not associated with his unique sacrifice, however. Rather, he is ”the High Priest of our offerings” (36.1), the one through whom believers render their praise to God (61.3; cf. 64.1). Also like Hebrews, the author of 1 Clement quotes from Prov 3:12: “for whom the Lord loves his disciplines, and he punishes every son whom he accepts” (56.4). In contrast to Hebrews, he does not apply the quotation to the experience of persecution (cf. Heb 12:6) but to the need for accepting church discipline. (Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 47-48)

 

Mauro Gagliardi on Instances of Priests Ordaining Other Priests in the Past

 

Despite some historical cases to the contrary, it remains established that in the Church the only one who can celebrate the Sacrament of Holy Orders, in all three of its degrees, is the bishop, with no exceptions. (Mauro Gagliardi, Truth is a Synthesis: Catholic Dogmatic Theology [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2020], 710-11)

 

Note the following:

There were a few cases in which the Apostolic See authorized an abbot to ordain subdeacons, deacons, and priests for his own monastery. The question is to this day not completely clear: if such abbots were ordained bishops, there would be no dogmatic issue; it appears, however, that they were only presbyters. We can recall the following cases: Boniface IX, with the bull Sacrae Religionis (1400), authorized the abbot of Saint Osyth (near London) to carry out such ordinations, though it must be said that the permission was withdrawn very early, with the bull Apostolicae Sedis (1403). Martin V, with Gerentes ad Vos (1427), authorized the abbot of Altzelle in Saxony for five years. Innocent VIII, with Exposcit Tuae Dovotionis (1489), granted the abbot of Citeaux permission to ordain deacons and subdeacons. There has been no shortage of historians who considered these documents "surreptitious bulls," that is, indeed without the knowledge of the peoples. Beyond this, what counts most is that these cases were very few and that these privileges were more or less quickly withdrawn. This is an indication of the fact that the Church—except for a few oversights—does not contemplate in her practice the possibility that a presbyter may carry out sacramental Ordinations, even if (as for the abbots) he possesses the juridical power of an Ordinary and bears episcopal insignia. (Ibid., 710-11 n. 89)

 

Note: in Catholic sacramental theology, priests cannot validly ordain priests; not just because it is not licit, but it does not bestow the sacrament to the candidate; only a bishop can create new priests (and bishops).

Jack Cottrell: Baptism is a Work of God, not a Work of Man/"Work of the Law"

Note: the following is very useful at showing that baptismal regeneration is not a work that obligates God to reward us (something condemned in Romans 4, for e.g., ) and other like-arguments. The author shies away from the term “baptismal regeneration” for the belief that God, through the instrumentality of water baptism, remits our sins and justifies and regenerates us. However, this seems to be based on the belief that the term “baptismal regeneration” means one is simply baptized and, ipso facto, is regenerated. This is not even what Roman Catholicism, with its doctrine of ex opere operato teaches in light of the distinction between the material and formal reception of the grace of a sacrament.

 

PRINCIPLE NUMBER EIGHT: BAPTISM IS FUNDAMENTALLY A WORK OF GOD, NOT A WORK OF MAN.

 

The working of salvation that occurs in baptism includes two distinct acts. One is justification or forgiveness, in which the guilt and punishment for sin are canceled. The other is regeneration or new birth, in which the sinfulness that has invaded the soul begins to be healed. The point of this eighth principle is that GOD ALONE is the cause of both of these saving acts. Only God can bestow forgiveness (by the power of the blood of Christ) and heal our sinful nature (by the power of the Holy Spirit). See Colossians 2:12, “Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Note the emphasis on “the working of God.” We believe that God is working in baptism to raise us form spiritual death, just as surely as He raised Jesus from physical death.

 

Most Christians believe that God performs these works of salvation. The main question we disagree on is: WHEN does God do this? Colossians 2:12 says specifically, “in baptism.” (And let’s not forget that Ephesians 4:5 says there is only ONE baptism.) It was God’s sovereign choice to specify that baptism is the time when the saving works are accomplished.

 

We must emphasize that the saving activity that occurs in baptism is not accomplished by the water, nor by the act itself, nor by the baptizer. It is accomplished only by God. This means that there is no such thing as “baptismal regeneration.” This would be true only if there were some power inherent in baptism itself that accomplishes its saving purpose. But this is not the case. The fact that regeneration takes place IN baptism (as Colossians 2:12 says) does not mean that it takes place BY MEAN OF baptism. IT takes place through the working of God. (Jack Cottrell, One Baptism Into Christ [The Collected Works of Jack Cottrell 5; Mason, Ohio: The Christian Restoration Association, 2018], 15, emphasis in original)

 

 

First we will ask the question: is baptism a work? Of course it is, in the sense of “something you do.” But John 6:28-29 shows that a work in this generic sense of “something you do” is quite consistent with grace. And so are repentance and confession “things we do.” But the alleged contradiction between grace and baptism is based solely on the writings of Paul, and we have seen that Paul is not using this generic definition of works. Just because baptism is a work in the sense of “something we do” does not disqualify it from being a condition for salvation. (This shows that we are not limited to Luther’s response to this unfounded Zwinglian objection to baptism as a saving event.)

 

Second, we will ask whether baptism is an external, overt work? Again, of course it is, but Romans 10:9-10 shows that even an external work (confession) may be parallel to faith and thus quite consistent with salvation by grace. This shows that such a definition of “works” (cf. Geisler) is arbitrary and has no basis in Scripture.

 

This leads to the crucial question: is baptism a “work of law,” i.e., a work in the Pauline sense? Only if this were the case would the Zwinglian objection stand as valid. But the answer to this question is a solid NO. We must remember the difference between the Creator’s law commands to us as creatures, not as sinners, to show us how to live holy lives, and the Redeemer’s grace commands given to us as sinners to show us how to receive salvation. How does the New Testament depict baptism? An honest analysis will show that everything it says about Christian baptism falls into the latter category, i.e., not works of law but obedience to the gospel. This is especially true of Paul. While Paul excludes works of law from the salvation event, he speaks consistency of baptism in salvation terms.

 

Never in the New Testament is baptism an imperative given to Christians or to those already saved. It is consistently spoken of as something done by a sinner in order to receive salvation. This is true from the very beginning of the New Covenant and establishment of the church on the day of Pentecost. It is appropriate to cite Acts 2:38 as summing up the whole meaning of baptism from that point on. After Peter completed the preaching of the very first gospel sermon (Acts 2:14-36), the audience of serious Jews came under strong conviction of their sins (“they were pierced to the heart,” v. 370 and cried out to the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (v. 37). Peter’s inspired instructions to them were not addressed to people who were already Christians, telling them how to live their Christian lives. Rather, he addressed them as sinners who needed and wanted to know how to be saved from their sins! And he gave them gospel commands: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). From that point on in the New Testament, every reference to Christian baptism is consistent with Peter’s presentation of it as a gospel command, and has none of the marks of a law command.

 

The separation of baptism from the category of law commands is supported by Jesus’s own words in the Great Commission, which he specifically mentions the requirement to baptize sinners as something distinct from “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20).

 

We must conclude, then, that baptism is part of “obedience to the gospel,” which is required for salvation. Baptism thus is NOT “the first act of obedience” done by a Christian; it is rather the LAST act of “obedience to the gospel” done by an unsaved sinner as a condition for the initial reception of saving grace. (Ibid., 59-61, emphasis in original)

 

We in the Restoration Movement take care not to represent faith, repentance, confession, and baptism as human works in the Pauline sense (e.g., as in Romans 3:28 or Ephesians 2:8-10), lest we give Calvinists grounds for accusing us of being synergists. Fatih itself is indeed a “work” in the simple senses that it is “something we do” (see John 6:28-29), but this is not the connotation of “works” in the context of discussing how grace is received. The works which Paul excludes from salvation (“works of law”) are our creaturely obedience to the laws of the Creator that govern our everyday morality, piety, and worship. As Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8-10 (e.g. ) show, such works are not conditions for salvation. But faith, repentance, confession, and salvation are not works in this sense, i.e., they are not “works of law.” Rather, they are “obedience to the gospel” (Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8), i.e., the sinner’s response to the Redeemer’s instructions on how to receive the gift of grace.

 

It is especially important to understand and to explain that baptism is not a work in the sense that it is a saving act of man. Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), but not because of any saving power on the part of man. The only saving work being done in baptism is the working of God (Colossians 2:12). Calvinists and other Zwinglians seriously err when they think that baptism is simply an “act of obedience” comparable to all the other acts of obedience we do as Christians. See Matthew 28:19-29, where Jesus separates baptism (God’s work) from obeying the commandments of our law code (i.e., works of law). (Jack Cottrell, The Bible Versus Calvinism [The Collected Works of Jack Cottrell 4; Mason, Ohio: The Christian Restoration Association, 2018], 157)

 

Joseph Smith (April 2, 1843): The Then-Future U.S. Civil War would only be "the first outbreak of general bloodshed"

Summarizing Joseph Smith’s teaching delivered on April 2, 1843, William Claton recorded that:

 

Once when pres^t. Joseph was praying earnestly to know concerning the wars which are to preceed the coming of the son of man, he heard a voice proclaim that the first outbreak of general bloodshed would commence at South Carolina— see Revelation (Instruction, April 2, 1843, as Reported by William Clayton, emphasis added)

 

This indicates that Joseph Smith did not believe that the fulfillment of his prophecy, received December 15, 1832 (canonized now as D&C 87) would be exhausted by the then-future U.S. Civil War; instead, it would be “the first outbreak of general bloodshed.”

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Jerry D. Grover on Alma 24:19

 

 

Burial of weapons occurs in the Book of Mormon’s post-Jaredite narratives of Nephite-Lamanite warfare. But the ritual burial of weapons is first found among the Olmec. At the Olmec site of El Manatí, some of the first excavations unearthed a knife and a celt as part of a ritual offering, with 353 greenstone celts being eventually unearthed (Grove 2014, 120, 172) and some additional knives. A celt is a prehistoric stone or metal implement with a beveled cutting edge, probably used as a tool or weapon. The El Manatí site is dated from 1700 BC to 1200 BC.

This practice is not only found in the Olmec heartland. At the site of Chiapa de Corzo, Mexico, also known as the city of Sidom under the Sorenson model, various votive offerings involving large numbers of axes similar to Olmec patterns have been excavated. Some axe offerings were found in tombs of what would be interpreted as royal (elite leaders) tombs (Bachand and Lowe 2012; Bachand and Lowe 2011; Bachand et al. 2008).

Some are very crudely formed “pseudo-axes” that were not finely crafted, but others were finely polished. The axes were carefully placed in axe clusters similar to other Middle Formative ritual axe clusters found at San Isidro, La Merced, El Manatí, and La Venta. Only 10 percent of the axes showed any damage or use.

The Book of Mormon recounts various episodes of enemies surrendering by laying down their weapons of war (Alma 44:6, 8, 14, 15; 52:25, 36–39; 55:23). With these peaceful occurrences, the record recounts associated covenants of peace related to the laying down of weapons of war (Alma 23:7, 13; 62:16; Helaman 5:51; Mormon 7:4).

The Book of Mormon ritual that directly relates to the documented Mesoamerican votive offerings of weapons occurs among a group of Lamanites called the Anti-Nephi-Lehites (later called the people of Ammon), who, together with their new king (who took the name of the people), “took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth” (Alma 24:15–17). An oath was made in conjunction with the ritual burial, stating “if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved.”

Brant Gardner (2015) has an excellent discussion regarding this votive offering and the corresponding oath and its setting in Mesoamerica (303–308). Extending Gardner’s discussion, there are some additional items that that were left unaddressed.

Ritual burials of this sort are referred to as votive burials. At the Olmec site of La Venta, burial of celts (also known as “pseudo-axes”) was extremely common in both burials and offerings. They were typically purposefully oriented in various ways, sometimes creating specific designs. It is unclear whether these artifacts were actually used in any practical way or if their meaning is ritualistic or symbolic. Most are smooth, but quite a few are decorated with what has been interpreted as representing religious symbolism. Such celts and other jade artifacts were offered to deities during ceremonies at La Venta and the belief in supernatural beings is evidenced in Olmec artifacts. However, it is difficult to tell which important figures remaining on the stone monuments and artifacts are gods and which are human leaders. In fact, there might have been little difference between the divine and the Olmec king in their ideology (Diehl 2004).

Based on later discussions in the Book of Mormon of the children who did not take the oath, Gardner noted that all of the members of the group made the oath, except the very young, which would be those that were too young to voice an oath. An item unaddressed is whether the very young, or others who did not typically possess weapons, could have participated in the votive offering itself. Noting the relative simplicity of many of the pseudo-axe offerings at Chiapa de Corzo (some were just river rock and pebbles) and noting that only 10 percent appeared to be weapons that were actually used, these votive offerings seem to be community-type offerings in which all persons would have been able to participate, not just the warrior class who possessed actual weapons. The participation of all members of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites is consistent with the weapon offerings tendered in Chiapa de Corzo.

 

Further, the Anti-Nephi-Lehi votive weapons offering is described that “they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace” (Alma 24:19). Smith (2017) argues that this phrase is an example of an improvisational error in the Book of Mormon, meaning that a mistake was engraved into the plates, and the correct verbiage is then restated and engraved by the author (72). Smith’s argument here is in error. With a removal of a comma (remembering there was no original punctuation in the Book of Mormon), the phrase reads “they buried their weapons of peace or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.” Given the fact that in the Chiapa de Corzo example there were two types of weapons buried, pseudo weapons (weapons of peace) and also actual weapons (weapons of war), this phrase makes perfect sense in a Mesoamerican votive offering context and is not an improvisational error.

Countering those asserting that the Anti-Nephi-Lehi offering was the cultural source of all Mesoamerican offerings, Gardner accurately argues that this type of votive offering predates and is more widespread. Extending Gardner’s argument further, this sort of offering is never noted among the Nephites. The practice is, however, noted again among the Lamanites some 70 or so years later (Helaman 15:9). This is further evidence that it was a practice derived from local traditions incorporated by the Lamanites.

At Chiapa de Corzo some of the votive weapons offerings were done in conjunction with burials of important persons. Gardner indicates that this burial practice occurred at other places in Mesoamerica. While the Book of Mormon doesn’t explicitly state this, it does state that the old Lamanite king (king Lamoni’s father), who was the one who precipitated the conversion and change in heart of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s, conferred the kingdom to his son and died in that same year, which was also the year that the Lamanites were preparing for war (Alma 24:3–4). Immediately afterward in the text is the pronouncement of the new king and the taking of the oath and votive weapons offering. The Book of Mormon votive weapons offering event looks to be entirely consistent with Mesoamerican practice because the votive weapons offering was made in conjunction with the burial of the old king.

Finally, the understanding of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites that the burial of their weapons would keep them “bright” indicates that weapons in the Book of Mormon were not made of metal, since metal is subject to corrosion upon burial. (Jerry D. Grover, Jr., The Swords of Shule: Jaredite Land Northward Chronology, Geography, and Culture in Mesoamerica [Provo, Utah: Challex Scientific Publishing, 2018], 283-86)