Comments on Luke 24:44 and Luke 11:50-51//Matthew 23:35

In his recent debate with Hayden Carroll (LDS), Daniel Ortner (ex-LDS now Protestant, and someone who makes Lionel Hutz seem intelligent) claimed that (1) Luke 24:44 and (2) Luke 11:50-51//Matt 23:35 were Old Testament canon markers. Such claims, though popular among pop-level Protestant apologists, only show that Ortner has never cracked open a book on the formation of the Old Testament canon.

Luke 24:44:

Luke 24:44 is the only NT reference to three parts in the Jewish Scriptures, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that it included other books that were later included in the collection of Writings in the Tanak. However, some of those later designated Writings are cited in the NT as “prophetic” scriptures, e.g., Matt 24:15 citing Dan 9:27 and Jesus’ citation of Dan 7:13 in Mark 14:62. However, Leiman, Beckwith, and Bruce contend that “psalms” in this passage refers to the first book of the Writings that is not representative of that whole collection of the Writings. There is, however, no NT evidence that supports that assertion and there is no evidence that a three-part canon existed in the NT era or that the later third part began with the Psalms. These scholars impose a later notion that emerges only in the rabbinic era, but it cannot be demonstrated earlier. The Psalms were important in their own right and could easily have been given their own place of prominence in any collection of Scriptures. After all, the Psalms were among the three most frequently cited Scriptures in the NT (Isaiah, Psalms, and Deuteronomy), as well as at Qumran, and in the early churches. Also, there were more copies of the Psalms scrolls (thirty-six or thirty-seven) discovered at Qumran than any other book of the HB. . . . had all of the books of the HB had been formed as a fixed collection of scriptures before the first century CE, it is remarkable that the Christians, who adopted the scriptures of their first-century CE Jewish siblings in the first century, also welcomed other books than those that were later included in the HB, as in the cases of the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Enoch, Sirach, and others. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:277, 285)

Scholars who argue for an earlier closure of the HB/OT often appeal to the prologue of Sirach, 2 Macc 2:13-15, Philo, 4QMMT, and Luke 24:44, but a careful analysis of these texts does not reflect a clear tripartite canon before or during the first century CE. Even if there was an emerging Jewish scriptural canon at the end of the first century CE (Josephus and the author of 4 Ezra), that is not a major focus of the majority of rabbinic sages until much later. The same can be said of the early church. For example, the author of Heb 1:1 begins with a reference to God having spoken “to our ancestors . . . by the prophets” and then throughout cites texts from the Pentateuch, the Prophets, Psalms, and Wisdom of Solomon without distinction (see Heb 1:3 citing Wisdom 7:25). All these works are cited as scripture and are introduced as “prophets.” There are no scriptural designations for these cited texts like “as the scripture says” or “it is written” throughout the book except in Heb 10:7, a quote from Ps 40:7. Apparently the only closed divisions of books that were widely accepted in the first century were Torah, or Pentateuch, and the Twelve (Minor Prophets). It is difficult to argue that there was a third division of Jewish scriptures in the first century CE since even the parameters of the second division, “Prophets,” is not yet clear. For the rabbinic Jews, the formation of the HB canon took centuries, and disagreements over its shape continued even later. For instance, the Karaite Jews (8th c. CE, Babylon) chided rabbinic Jews and their successors in the ninth to eleventh centuries because they recognized the Tanak scriptures instead of only the Torah (Pentateuch). Before the ninth century CE it is unlikely that Jews in Diaspora accepted the rabbinic traditions that were written only in Hebrew and Aramaic or only the books in the HB canon instead of the books in the LXX. The Diaspora Jews, who spoke only Greek or Latin until well into the ninth century CE, would have adopted the LXX books as their scriptures. (Lee Martin McDonald, “Recognizing Jewish Religious Texts as Scripture,” in Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy, ed. John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020], 68)

Luke 11:50-51//Matthew 23:35

  

Gallagher, however, has shown that this interpretation depends on Chronicles standing last in the HB manuscripts and that there is only one antecedent that supports that place in HB manuscripts before the twelfth century, namely the second-century CE baraita, the b. Baba Batra 14b text that has 2 Chronicles in the last place in the HB. However, there is no evidence that this was the order of the Jewish Scriptures in the first century and Gallagher contends that only after the HB was published in print, and I might add in a codex, was such a position possible. Codices L (Leningrad) and A (Aleppo), for instance, have Chronicles on the first place in the Writings, not the last. Gallagher concludes that “neither Jesus nor anyone else could assert the same [order or sequence] until the late fifteenth century” after the printing press was invented. He also draws attention to the lack of any church father drawing from Matt 23:35 or Luke 11:51 that Jesus had in mind the scope of the biblical canon. Jesus’ point rather was his focus on the heinous acts taken against pious Jews in antiquity. (Gallagher, “Blood from Abel to Zechariah) . . . No ancient discussion or interpretation of the identity of Zechariah in Luke or Matthew is without its problems, but it is important that no church father identified these two texts as references to the scope of the Jewish scriptures. Also, this passage referred to all the prophets that were executed from the time of Abel (who is not called a prophet in the HB/OT) to Zechariah, but identifying him as an Old Testament figure would be strange had Jesus intended to say to his current listeners that “this generation” was accountable for the death of Zechariah when he had been executed hundreds of years earlier. . . . Since it is unlikely that Mathew and Luke are referring to the Zechariah of 2 Chr 24, what other possibilities are there? Although some have suggested that Zechariah is a reference to the author of one of the latest books in the Minor Prophets, no one before the eighth century CE concluded that and no one today makes that suggestion. The first church father to suggest that Jesus referred to the Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20-22 was apparently Jerome in the late fourth century (Commentary on Matthew 23.35), but he never draw from this that Jesus was describing the boundaries of the OT canon. . . . Rather than Chronicles being the last book in the Hebrew biblical canon, Freedman argues convincingly that Chronicles stands in first place in the Writings, and he supports this with references to the major medieval manuscripts, including the standard Masoretic Aleppo and Leningrad Codices. Rather than Writings concluding with 1-2 Chronicles, he contends that they end with Ezra-Nehemiah. (Freedman, “Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible,” 95-96. The order of books in the Aleppo Codex is as follows: Genesis to Judges [same as usual], 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve [in the standard sequence], 1-2 Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. [Ezra includes Nehemiah. Freedman does not mention Song of Songs]) Freedman adds that since 2 Chr 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are almost identical, this suggests that the books were separated spatially since, had they been consecutive, and that order remained there, there would have been no need for the repetition. (Ibid., 96) By contrast, the primary historical books (Former Prophets, are consecutive (i.e., Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings) and have no repetitive texts connecting them. More importantly, Chronicles is in the last place only in the b. Baba Batra text before the tenth-century classical Tiberian codices of the Masoretic text of the HB (Codices Aleppo and Leningrad) that place Chronicles last in the Ketubim. Although the Talmud places Chronicles in the first place in the Ketubim, all Tanak Bibles in use today have Chronicles at the end of the Ketubim more out of habit and based on Codices A and L. . . . In conclusion, Luke 11:49-51 and Matt 23:34-35 do not reflect a fixed biblical canon in the first century CE and that conclusion is no longer as convincing as previously thought. The precise boundaries and contents of the Jewish scriptures cannot be discerned in the first century CE from these two texts. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:287-88, 288, 290, 292-93)

 

Much has been made over the completion and order of the HB canon, based on Luke’s and Matthew’s reference to the blood of Zechariah (Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51), but that argument has not been convincing. The argument goes thus: since Abel represents the first book of the HB canon (Genesis) and Zachariah the last (2 Chronicles), Jesus had the whole scriptural collection in view. They argue that Chronicles was the last book of the OT canon seen both by internal and external evidence, but this has been significantly challenged in both areas. While Chronicles is in the last place only in b. Baba Bathra 14b, it does not reappear in the last place in the HB canon until its place-place position in the tenth-century Aleppo and Leningrad codices. Other Jewish catalogs or manuscripts of the HB books generally conclude with Esther; none of the known Christian canon catalogs conclude the OT canon with Chronicles. The argument that the HB scriptures concluded with Chronicles, based on the Matthew and Luke references to Zachariah, is therefore unconvincing. While ending the HB with Chronicles conveniently ties the two collections of the church’s scriptures together, it is not found in the earliest canonical catalogs up through the medieval period, and concluding the OT canon with Malachi is rarely found in any Christian OT canon. Similarly, the identity of the Zachariah in Matthew and Luke is not easily made the same as the Zachariah in Chronicles, including the way that he died. Ancient interpretations of Luke 11:48-51 and Matt 23:35 never conclude that Jesus referred to the beginning and end of the OT. (Lee Martin McDonald, “Recognizing Jewish Religious Texts as Scripture,” in Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy, ed. John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020], 75-76)

Old Testament scholar, Gary Knoppers, in his commentary on 1 Chron 1-9 in the Anchor Bible Commentary series, wrote the following which calls into question the medieval Jewish practice of having Chronicles as the final book of the Old Testament; instead, he argues, as does David Noel Freedman and others, Ezra-Nehemiah (which was treated as one scroll/book) takes that honour:

Linked to but separate from Ezra-Nehemiah, the book of Chronicles could precede Ezra-Nehemiah, follow Ezra-Nehemiah, or take on a life of its own.

In the LXX, Chronicles usually precedes Ezra and Nehemiah and follows other historical books (Joshua through 2 Kings). Its title, Paraleipomena (“the things left out”), provides a vital clue about its interpretation. Chronicles complements and supplements the primary history, that is, Genesis through 2 Kings (Freedman 1992:95-97, 105-6). Both works are profoundly concerned with the land—how Israel emerges in, consolidates its control over, and is finally expelled from the territory Yhwh gave it. The primary history ends with Judah’s exile from the land, but the Chronistic History supplements this earlier work by announcing the people’s return.

Whereas in the LXX Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah normally find their place among the Historical books, in the Hebrew Bible, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah find their place among the Writings (Kethuvim), the third and final section of Tanakh. But the placement of Chronicles within the Writings is not consistent. Within important medieval codices (the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex 19^A), Chronicles occurs first among the Writings. Ezra-Nehemiah appear last. In another Hebrew tradition, represented by the Babylonian Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b), Ezra-Nehemiah precedes Chronicles. Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are the last two books of the Kethuvim. The assertion of the Masoretic authors of Adat Devarim (1207 C.E.) that these differences in sequence reflect the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions, respectively, is disputed (Curtis and Madsen 1910:2; cf. Japhet 1993a:2). Scholars debate which order is original, but each sequence evinces its own logic.

The placement of Chronicles at the beginning of the Writings calls attention to the links between the Chronicler’s exemplary David and the David of the Writings. Even before one reads about David’s associations with Temple music and the Jerusalem cult in the Psalm superscriptions, one reads detailed descriptions of these activities in Chronicles (s. Driver 1914:369-70; Childs 1979:514-15; Freedman 1993:78-85). The very positive depiction of Solomon in the Writings also coheres with the presentation of Chronicles. To be sure, the Chronicler’s description of Solomonic wisdom is directly inherited from the presentation in Kings. But the Chronicler’s Solomon also differs from the Deuteronomist’s Solomon. In describing the United Monarchy, Kings does not refrain from pointing out major failings of David and Solomon (e.g., 1 Samuel 11-12; 1 Kings 11:1-40). Such sins do not occur in Chronicles. The appearance of Chronicles before Proverbs, Qohelth (Ecclesiastes), and Song of Songs elucidates the celebrated position Solomon enjoys in those works.

The location of Chronicles at the beginning of Ezra-Nehemiah at the end of the Writings is meaningful for another reason. Chronicles begins with the first human, depicts the totality of Israel in genealogical form, presents the story of Israelite occupation of the land during the monarchy, and concludes with the decree of Cyrus ending the Babylonian Exile. In this manner, Chronicles contains and reverses the tremendous tragedy of the Babylonian destructions and deportations soberly depicted in 2 Kgs 24-25 (Meade 1987:44-71). Since Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the decree of Cyrus and continues with the resettlement of Yehud, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah form an inclusio around the Writings (Freedman 1993:27). As a frame to the Writings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah cover practically the entire historical span of the Hebrew Scriptures. (Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 [AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2003], 135-37, emphasis in bold added)

Continuing, Knoppers offers this suggestion as to why 1-2 Chronicles would be placed at the end of the Hebrew Bible in the so-called “Babylonian” canon:

The decree of Cyrus is also a unifying feature of the book order of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles in the Tanakh. That Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the decree of Cyrus and Chronicles ends with the same underscores the importance of the return (Freedman 1993:76). When seen in historical perspective, the placement of Chronicles at the end of the “Babylonian” canon is quite interesting. The first and last books of Tanakh begin with the creation. Because the history depicted by Chronicles covers the same period as that of Genesis through Kings, Chronicles beings a sense of closure to the canon (Japhet 1993a:2; Steins 1995:507-17; Koorevaar 1997). But one can argue that the agenda of Chronicles, and therefore that of the Hebrew Bible, is incomplete in 2 Chron 26:22-23. The decree of Cyrus authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple and allowing the exiles to return home, ends with a summons, “Whoever among you from his [Yhwh’s] people, may Yhwh be with him and let him go up (wěyā^cal).” At first, the notion that the Hebrew Scriptures should end in midsentence is puzzling. But when one considers the events in the first centuries C.E., the rationale underlying this order becomes clear. The First Jewish Revolt (66-73 C.E.) witnessed the devastation of Jerusalem and the burning of the Second Temple. The destruction of the Temple, never supposed to happen again (Ezekiel) did. This catastrophe constituted a profound crisis in the history of Judaism, but the rabbis, drawing upon the traditions of Pharisaic Judaism, responded to the challenge. Indeed, the Judaism that emerges from the two Jewish wars is formative, hence classical, for medieval and modern Judaism (S. Cohen 1987; Neusner 1988). The ending of Tanakh becomes understandable in the context of the emergence of rabbinic Judaism. Even though Jerusalem is deprived of its Temple (66-73 C.E.) and its people (132-35 C.E.), the ending of Chronicles bears witness to hope for restoration. Transformations occur, but the ties binding God, people, land, and city together endure. The final verses of one of the “sources of Judaism” announces the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple and beckons the people to return home. (Ibid., 137)

Therefore, the tradition of placing Chronicles as the final book of the Hebrew Bible is a practice that post-dates Jesus. To read that back into Luke 11:50-51//Matt 23:35 is eisegesis. Indeed, on these texts, Knoppers writes (p. 136 n. 190):

The claim that Matt 23:35 and Luke 11:51 assumes that Chronicles is the final book in the canon cannot be proved (pace de Wette 1850:17; Japhet 1993a:2). Matt 23:35 clearly draws upon both Zech 1:1 and 2 Chr 24:20-22 (Gundry 1982:470-72). But whether Jesus’ saying “from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berachiah” alludes to the OT canon or to the OT period is uncertain (Eissfeldt 1965:567-68; Harris 1990:77-80).

With respect to to the identity of the "Zechariah" in the Luke 11:50-51/Matthew 23:35 texts, Catholic Gary MIchuta wrote the following:

There was an understanding in the Church that Zechariah died a martyr's death. When Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees that "all the righteous bloodshed upon the earth [will come upon you], from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar," (Matthew 23:35) some early fathers believed Jesus was speaking about John the Baptist's father, Zechariah. Seeing that no other person mentioned in Scripture perfectly fits the description of this Zechariah, John's father is certainly a possible candidate.

Apocryphal writings that contain accounts about Zechariah's martyrdom in the temple area also circulated in the early Church. In fact, one of them, the Protoevangelium of James, was written sometime in the first quarter of the second Christian century, which is quite early since it is traditionally believed that St. John the Apostle died only a few decades earlier. According to this apocryphal writing, King Herod was searching for John the Baptist and sent guards to Zechariah to find out where he was. Zechariah replied that he is always in the temple area serving God and had no idea where John could be. When threatened with death, Zechariah is said to reply: "I am God's martyr, if you shed my blood; for the Lord will receive my spirit, because you shed innocent blood at the vestibule of the temple of the Lord." (Protoevangelium of James, 23). According to this story, the guards killed him and his body was found later on . . . It's also possible that Jesus was referring to an otherwise unknown Zechariah who had recently been murdered. After all, this would be no different than the other times Jesus mentions contemporary events that are not otherwise recorded in Scripture, such as the 18 people being killed by the falling tower of Siloam (Luke 13:4). Maybe Jesus is doing the same here? In any case, identifying Jesus' Zechariah is not as easy as it seems. But even if Jesus did refer to the Zechariah in Second Chronicles, was Chronicles always the last book in the Jewish Bible?

This point is [speculative]. There is only one Jewish list in all of antiquity that places Chronicles at the end of the Hebrew Bible (b. Baba Bathra, 14b). Every early Church fathers who attempted to reproduce the contents of the Jewish Bible, ended his list with either Esther or Ezra-Nehemiah. One of them put Chronicles last. Even the oldest complete Hebrew Bibles (the Aleppo and Leningrad codices) place Chronicles first among the Writings, not last. The earliest evidence of any Jewish writing putting Chronicles last, outside of b. Baba Bathra 14b, is from the 13th century! (Gary Michuta, Behind the Bible: What the Bible Assumes you Already Know [Livonia, Mich.: Nikaria Press, 2017], 108-9, 147-48)

It should be obvious that Luke 24:44 is not teaching a tri-partite canon division at the time of Jesus nor does Luke 11:50-51//Matt 23:35 teach a cessation of revelation at the time of Jesus and/or the "Protestant" Old Testament canon being endorsed by Jesus, etc.

Daniel Ortner is a liar and an idiot. He is clueless about the Bible which he believes to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian faith. Ortner is also a cautionary tale: be careful who you marry. It is a well known fact that his wife left the Church sometime before Daniel did, and pressured (hen-pecked) him into banding the Restored Gospel for the blasphemous nonsense that is Evangelical Protestantism and, sadly, also taking their kids into such a stupid religious system (spiritual child abuse is the greatest form of child abuse, including yes, that). As an example of why Ortner is now a conscious fraud who is fighting against his conscience that is convicting him of the error of his way can be seen in the fact that, as LDS, he recognized LDS soteriology not to be Pelagian or works-based. Comapre the following from pre-apostasy Ornter and the nonsense he spews to self-justify his actions (well, his wife's actions, ultimately) today:

 

The more he read, Ortner says he was struck by some of the doctrines of the church, especially what the church believed about Jesus Christ.

 

"The idea that those who died not knowing about God, not knowing about Jesus Christ, not knowing about God's plan would still have a chance after this life to accept it. Immediately I kind of latched onto that and knew it was true," Ortner says.

 

Ortner had found an answer to a question that had plagued him growing up: What happens to people in the afterlife who don't believe in Jesus?

 

He decided he wanted to join the church, but he says it's a choice his father resisted.

 

. . .

 

"Why would you not save your life? Why would you sacrifice ... yourself for a belief?," Ortner asks. "And it was only after I went out as a missionary and I dedicated two years of my life to everyday getting up and serving — serving God, serving others — that I really came to understand how belief and faith can motivate and change your life."

 

"I really came to appreciate, you know, religious believers of all faiths, how they live their life according to divine principles they embrace and how it pushes them to be a better person every day." (Sophia Alvarez Boyd, "I'm Converting: How One Man's Missionary Trip Reconnected Him To His Family's Past," NPR, August 25, 2019)

 

Robert Sungenis (RC) on Hebrews 7:18-24 and Supersessionism

  

Hebrews 7:18-24

 

¹⁸ On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, ¹⁹ for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God. ²⁰ And to the degree that this happened not without the taking of an oath—for others became priests without an oath, ²¹ but he with an oath, through the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: ‘You are a priest forever’”—²² to that same degree has Jesus (also) become the guarantee of an (even) better covenant. ²³ Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, ²⁴ but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away.

 

The Hebrew writer refers to “the commandment” or “the law” as “annulled.” Some claim that the “commandment” in Hebrews 7:18 is set aside, not the Covenant, and that the “commandment” concerns the priesthood. But the word “commandment” is a metonymy for the Mosaic law in the next verse, Hb 7:19: “For the law made nothing perfect,” hence the Mosaic law is said to be “annulled,” which is the Greek αθετησις, which the lexicons define as: “abolish” (THR); “as a legal technical term, annulment, setting aside as being no longer in force (Heb 7.18)” (FRB).

 

The equivalence of “commandment” and “law” with the Mosaic covenant is certainly implied, especially by the clause in verse 22: “Jesus also became the guarantee of a better covenant.” Obviously, if Jesus brings a “better covenant” then it must be “better” than a previous covenant, otherwise it would be out of place to make a comparison between covenants. The contrast is obviously between a “better covenant” and an imperfect and temporary covenant. The imperfect covenant necessarily includes the “former commandment” and “the law,” neither of which “brought anything to perfection.”

 

To recap, Hebrews 7 places “commandment” (vr. 18) alongside “law” (vr. 19) and “covenant” (vr. 22) because they are all referring to the same thing. In fact, since vr. 22 says that the covenant in Christ is a “better covenant,” and that contrast necessarily means that the “commandment” and “law” were an inferior covenant. The writer can’t build a contrast between two covenants unless he has two covenants to contrast. Thus tone cannot claim that the ”commandment in particular is about the priesthood” since the Levitical priesthood came from the Mosaic law. The Levitical priesthood cannot be abolished without abolishing the Mosaic law. How could the priesthood be annulled without also annulling the Mosaic covenant? One cannot arbitrarily rip out parts of a covenant and yet pretend it is the same covenant. (Robert Sungenis, Supersessionism is Irrevocable: Facing the Ambiguities, Compromises, and Heresies in Recent Catholic Documents Regarding the “Old Covenant” [State Lina, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2024], 428-30)

 

D. Charles Pyle on Moroni 10:32

  

I must confess that this is the first time I ever have seen a concern raised by any Evangelicals about Moroni 10:32. I've never given it much thought before as to why it might cause someone a problem.

 

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

(Moroni 10:32)

 

What I read out of that seems in agreement with the teachings of the Bible taken as a whole. But perhaps it might help to clarify some of the wording. Let's do that here, with the meaning set in plainer English, thus:

 

Yes, come to Christ, and be perfected by means of him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if you shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, so that by his grace you may be made perfect by means of Christ; and if by the grace of God you are perfect in Christ, you can in nowise deny the power of God.

 

That is how I read the meaning of the passage. Remember that repentance is key. By repentance, one is denying oneself of all ungodliness. Even the Bible states in various places that one should give up one's ungodliness and change one's state of mind. But then the Bible also is clear that we must love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. How can one be saved indeed and be and feel otherwise than to love God with all one's heart? How can one have grace be sufficient if we don't even love God with all our heart? But the perfection comes by effort with Christ doing the perfecting as we let him. And of course, when one is perfected in Christ, there is no way to deny the power of God! Why? Because it is the power of God by which we are perfected in Christ. I really don't see the issue with this verse. Perhaps one of your new Evangelical friends can clarify specifically why they find the verse problematic. (D. Charles Pyle, Email to Bob Durocher et al., June 21, 2023)

 

Baptismal Regeneration in Frank M. Gibson, "One Church, One Faith, One Lord"

  

He taught me Faith, Repentance,
That Baptism was the rule.
To have my sins remitted,
Immersed me in a pool.
Confirmed the Spirit witness,
Said works I too must do,
Obedience was the watchword,
That path was plain to view. (Frank M. Gibson, “One Church, One Faith, One Lord,” in C. Hampton Price, Concerning God [1938], 5)

 

Floyd V. Filson on Hebrews 13:8

  

This verse is notably studied to serve as a true guidepost to the viewpoint of Hebrews. In particular, the word ‘yesterday’, properly understood, summarizes and points to the distinctive viewpoint and message of the author. It points to the view that lies behind and finds frequent expression in chapters 1-12.

 

This view has at times been missed, particular by interpreters who have been misled by a wrong use of the words ‘the same’. Under the influence of this phrase, it has sometimes been thought that 13.8 is emphasizing the unchanging nature of Jesus Christ. . . . But 13.8 does not embody a basically Platonic point of view. The key word that points away from an essentially Platonic, basically timeless manner of thought is ‘yesterday’. To be sure, if as has been suggested we were to take this word to refer to all previous time and so to mean ‘from all eternity’, the ideas of time and change would not be dominant. But ‘yesterday’ does not mean ‘from all eternity’ or ‘throughout all the vast vistas of preceding time’. It points to Jesus Christ as one who just recently became what he now is and what he always will be in all the endless succession of future ages.

 

This does not imply that quite recently Jesus Christ became completely other than what he had been before. He was and is and will remain the divine Son. But he was not until recently the qualified high priest who could make the once-for-all and fully effective sacrifice.

 

This may seem to be a shocking statement, but it is basic to a true understanding of Hebrews, whose author asserts it with unmistakable clarity: Christ ‘learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him’ (5.8-9). To offer the perfect sacrifice he had to be the perfect high priest. To be the qualified perfect high priest he had to learn obedience through suffering in his earthly life. To achieve this he necessarily ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ (2.9) and ‘had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of his people’ (2.17-18).

 

Amazin as this idea may seem to men, God had to ‘make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering’ (2.10). To enter the true and heavenly sanctuary, to offer there the one perfect sacrifice on our behalf (9.11-14), and to intercede there for his people (7.25), Jesus had to become qualified, to be perfected, to learn obedience through what he suffered, to present his own blood as the perfect sacrifice, and then to reign with God (1.3) and continue his high priestly ministry by his intercession for his people (7.25).

 

All this, the author attests, has taken place. It has taken place ‘in these last days’ (1.2), and while the author is conscious of belonging to at least the second generation of Christians (2.3; 13.7), this does not prevent him, as he sees the coming and work of Christ in the long sweep of God’s dealings with Israel, from speaking of these decisive events as having occurred ‘yesterday’.

 

In this drama of redemption time is real; it is the setting for the saving work of Christ. And specific unique events are decisive. It was in crucial divine acts of God that salvation was won and made available. This gospel has to be stated in terms of time, in terms of one decisive network of historical events.

 

Nothing like it—except by way of a type or foreshadowing of that unique and fully effective climatic working of God in Christ—had been seen or done before. Nothing to rival it can ever be expected again, for the work of Christ is complete and fully adequate and will never need to be done again. No new change in Jesus Christ will be expected or needed, for he has been ‘made perfect’ (5.9). So Jesus Christ is ‘the same’ ‘today’ as he became ‘yesterday’, and will remain ‘the same’ on into the endless ages to come, ‘for ever’.

 

This sense of the decisive and permanent effect of a unique recent historical event the author expresses by the use of two synonymous adverbs, ‘once’ (απαξ) and ‘once for all’ (εφαπαξ). Jesus offered a fully effective sacrifice for the sins of his people ‘once for all when he offered up himself’ (7.27). ‘He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ (9.26). ‘He entered once for all into the Holy Place, . . . thus securing an eternal redemption’ (9.12). ‘We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (10.10).

 

It is essentially to this radical once-only action to deal with human sin that the author refers when he speaks of ‘yesterday’ with its continuing effects. It was an action which deeply affected Christ, in a way that had lasting results, so that he can now be described as ‘the same yesterday and today and for ever’. Thus a time sense, the sense of a unique recent decisive event, runs through the discussion of Hebrews and what 13.8 says is a compact reference to what chapters 1-12 presents in much greater detail.

 

To many Christians this entire discussion may seem theologically disturbing. It may seem to question the solid everlasting faithfulness and dependability of God. And it can be pointed out that Hebrews itself clearly indicates that the work of Jesus Christ continued, climaxed, and perfected what God had already spoken and done in Israel. A providential line connects the Old Testament history with the work of God in Christ (even though the author’s concern for interpreting the Old Testament Scriptures, mainly the Levitical law, looms larger than his interest in the sequence of historical events in the Old Testament story). But to the author of Hebrews that history was a real history and God was at work in it. When this fact is faced and frankly considered, we must say that time is real to the author of Hebrews, and indeed we must go a step further and say that in his view time was real to God. He knew God by what God had done and said in successive events. He saw God in the ongoing time sequence, and supremely in what God had done in Jesus Christ ‘yesterday’. (Floyd V. Filson, ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 [Studies in Biblical Theology Second Series 4; Naperville, Illin.: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1967], 31, 32-35)

 

If it should be suggested that the above argument puts too much of a load on one word, it must be replied that it is precisely the word that sums up the message of Hebrews that ‘in these last days’ God has acted decisively with everlasting effect, and that he has so acted in Christ, who only in this quite recently time, these recent ‘days of his flesh’ (5.7), ‘learned obedience, was ‘made perfect’ (5.8-9), and ‘offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins’ (10.12). After those decisive recent developments he was, is now, and always will be ‘the same’. (Ibid., 35 n. 11)

 

The Dumbest Man in Protestantism Award Goes To . . .

 Christopher Rice!

(Source)

I think James White (you know, one of the leading defenders of sola Scriptura today, and someone who has actually read a few books and articles on the topic, unlike Rice) would like a word:

Or, you know, any good Latin-English dictionary:

Keep in mind: Rice has trolled various facebook groups claiming I do not know what Sola Scriptura is, has questioned my credentials, etc. when in reality he has proven himself time and time again to be an idiot. On this private facebook group (only members  can see it, alas), you can see Rice get humiliated by Allen Hansen, and shown to be the unrepentant liar and uneducated oaf he truly is. A friend put it very well: "If he were any more inbred, he’d be a sandwich."

Robert Sungenis on Jesus as the Deliverer in Romans 11:26-29 (cf. Isaiah 59:20)

  

Only God is called a “deliverer” in Scripture (e.g., 2Sm 22:2; Ps 18:3; 40:18; 70:6; 144:2; Dn 6:28; Ws 19:9). The one exception is Moses, who is called such by Stephen since Moses was called to deliver Israel from Egypt (Ac 7:35). For Rom 11:26 the NAB has: “The deliverer will come out of Zion.” The phrase, “out of Zion” (εκ Σιων), which is quoted from Isaiah 59:20, is adjusted by Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to conform to the “mystery” (Rom 11:25) that was revealed to him but not to Isaiah. The Hebrew of Isaiah 59:20 is: ובא לציון גואל (“and comes to Zion the Redeemer”), while the LXX has, ενεκεν Σιων (“for the sake of Zion”). Paul makes a critical interpolation of the two and settles for “from Zion,” specifying that the Deliverer comes from the nation of Zion, as opposed to out of heaven or out of some other nations. Since Christ is the only גואל (Goël, redeemer, deliverer) that comes “from Zion” Paul must be referring to Christ’s First coming (cf. Dt 18:15, 18; Ps 14:7; 53:6; 110:2; Is 2:3; Mi 5:2), which excludes a future descent from heaven for Christ to save the Jews or occupy a millennial kingdom on earth. As for Rom 11:27, Paul quotes from Isaiah 27:9 but adjusts it as he did for Isaiah 59:20. The first half of the literal Hebrew in Is 27:9 says, “then by this will be covered the iniquity of Jacob” (‎לכן בזאת יכפר עון־יעקב). But Paul takes the “when” from the second half of Is 27:9 (‎בשׂומו כל־אבני —“when he makes all the stones . . .”) and puts it at the beginning, in place of “then” (לכן) in the first half of Isa 27:9, so that Paul’s Greek for Rom 11:27 reads “οταν αφελωμαι τας αμαρτιας αυτων” (“when I take away the sins of them”). As such, “when” does not refer to a future time but to the precise time the Deliverer came out of Zion, which according to the New Testament came at the beginning of the first century AD. Although Is 27:9 does not have the word “covenant,” it appears in Paul’s second quote, Is 59:21: “ . . . this is my covenant with them, says the Lord,” and thus Paul, under inspiration, coordinates them (cf. Is 42;6; 49:8; 55:3; 61:8; Jr 31:31-33; Hb 10:16-18). (Robert Sungenis, Supersessionism is Irrevocable: Facing the Ambiguities, Compromises, and Heresies in Recent Catholic Documents Regarding the “Old Covenant” [State Lina, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2024], 444 n. 269)