Monday, July 29, 2024

Jason A. Staples on Romans 9:22

 

The first problem is that the “endured with much patience” reading does not make sense in the context of the analogy; it is unclear that it would mean to “patiently endure” a vessel. Many commentators have expressed their confusion or frustration with how the metaphor seems to break down at this point, observing that Paul could have more clearly made his point about God’s right to arbitrarily predestine some to destruction. But he does not make that point clearly because that is not in fact what he argues at all. Once the precise terminology of the passage is better understood, it becomes clear that this verse sayings nothing of “enduring” vessels nor of predestination to destruction.

 

Specifically the verb φερω (here in the form ηνεγκεν), which appears nowhere else in the Pauline corpus, has been poorly understood in this passage, with most modern interpreters seeming to have derived its sense from the nearby word for “long-suffering” or “patience” (μακροθυμια). While φερω often does mean something like “carry” or “bear” and, by extension, to “endure” something, it can also mean something closer to “fetch” or even “produce.” As a rule of thumb, when Paul’s vocabulary or syntax seem especially obscure, it is often a signal that he is alluding to or borrowing scriptural language, so it should not be surprising that the phrase with which so many have struggled is lifted directly from Jer 27:25 LXX (50:25 MT), which says God “has brought out the instruments of his wrath” with which he will destroy the land of the Chaldeans (Table 5.1).

 

Table 5.1 Vessels of wrath in LXX Jeremiah 27:25 and Romans 9:22

Jer 27:25 LXX (50:25 MT)

κυριος . . . εξηνεγκεν . . . τα σκευη οργης αυτου

Lord . . . brought out his vessels of wrath

Rom 9:22

ο θεος . . . ηνεγκεν . . . σκευη οργης

God . . . produced . . . vessels of wrath

 

On the basis of this intertextual reference, one could understand Rom 9:22 as referring to God “carrying” or “conveying” the vessels, which would conform closely to the sense in the source passage. But Paul has altered Jeremiah’s “bring out” by removing the prefix from the verb, which facilitates another meaning of the verb φερω better suited to the context of the formation of clay vessels: “produced” or “formed.” This reading makes significantly more sense in the context of the metaphor, as it represents the potter showing “much patience” in the process of producing vessels of wrath. That is, rather than passively waiting and enduring the clay, the potter is actively and patiently involved in the process of trying to change the clay’s shape. An active reading of God’s patient formation of the clay also corresponds nicely with Paul’s arguments about God’s justice elsewhere in Romans, where he has already declared that God’s “patience” is intended to lead to repentance. (Rom 2:4).

 

This understanding of divine patience in the process of the formation of these vessels helps shed light on the nuance of the final part of that clause, the phrase typically translated “made/prepared (καταριζω) for destruction” and interpreted as though it “expresses a nuance of predestination (damnation).” But if Paul intended to communicate that the potter had planned all along to make these vessels for destruction, it is curious that he uses a word that does not carry a nuance of predestination or planning, especially since he does just that in the parallel clause in verse 23, where the “vessels of mercy” are “prepared beforehand” (προητοιμσσεν). In contrast to the προ-prefix in verse 23, which clearly establishes a prospective sense, the κατα-prefix of καταριζω denotes the “completion of the action of a verbal idea.” In keeping with this sense, καταριζω typically means something closer to “mend,” “repair,” or “make good,” including every other Pauline occurrence, which as his exhortation that those who are spiritual “restore” anyone caught in trespass (Gal 6:1) or his desire to “fix” what is lacking in the faith of the Thessalonians (1 Thess 3:10).

 

Elsewhere in the New Testament, καταριζω is the term used to denote the disciples “fixing” their nets (Mark 1:19), a disciple becoming “fully trained” (Luke 6:40), and the final work of God to “establish” those who have “suffered for a little while” (1 Pet 5:10) or “equip” believers to do his will (Heb 13:21). The same nuances of restoration or repair emerge in other Greek corpora, including in the Septuagint and later Christian writings, and the Latin translation of Rom 9:22 (aptata) carries the same nuance of adjustment or adaptation, suggesting the ancient translator understood the Greek term in this sense. In contrast to the “vessels of mercy,” which have been shaped in accord with that was planned beforehand, the “vessels of wrath" have been patiently “fixed.” One set of vessels is prepared, the other is repaired. (Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024], 194-97)



 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Jason A. Staples on Faith/Justice/Church

  

(2) “Fidelity” and “Trust”: I will also default to translating the Greek word πιστις (pistis) as “fidelity” rather than “faith” and the verbal form πιστευω (pisteuō) as “trust” rather than “believe” or “have faith.” Each of these options better approximates the relational nauances of Paul’s language than the more traditional English “faith” and “believe,” which over time have come to be read as little more than cognitive assent by modern English readers. That “fidelity” derives from Latin fides, a chief virtue familiar to Paul’s Roman audience is an additional benefit, as it nods to layers of nuance likely implicit in Paul’s use of pist-language as he attempts to represent covenantally based Jewish concepts for a Greek-speaking audience in the Roman Empire. (Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024], 29-30)

 

 

(3) Justice language is central throughout Romans, and many passages involve wordplay using multiple forms of dik- stems (e.g., δικαιοω, δικαιιος, δικαιωμα, δικαιοσυνη, αδικος) that is difficult or impossible to reproduce in English translations, which tend to render the verb with “justify” and the nouns with cognates of “righteous.” Others have tried to rectify this problem in various ways, perhaps most notably E. P. Sanders’ neologism “to righteous” as a verbal form in place of the traditional “to justify.” I have chosen to go the opposite direction, as I suspect modern English readers are more likely to interpret “righteous” as a term of religious piety rather than ethics, while I am persuaded that Paul’s dik-language is rooted in ethical and relational/covenantal contexts better represented by the English concept of “justice,” which involves doing what is right and performing one’s social relational, or customary obligations. The Yiddish word “mensch” also gets fairly close to the idea of a δικαιος person as used by Paul, and I must confess to being tempted to translate Paul’s dik-language with cognates of mensch, resulting in “menschify,” “menschification,” and “menschness.” But since there would be just as foreign to most English readers as the Greek terms themselves, I have resigned myself to using cognates of “justice” for words deriving from the dik-root in Greek.

 

I will therefore default to “justness” or “justice” rather than “righteous” for the term δικαιοσυνη (dikaiosunē) and “just” for the noun δικαιος (dikaios), though at times I will use the word pair “righteous/just.” For the verb δικαιοω (dikaioō), I will default to “justify,” which is like the Greek word in that it can represent being “made just,” “declared just,” or “vindicated.” The neuter noun δικαιωμα (dikaiōma), a word meaning “just things” or “things of justice” deserves special attention since this word frequently appears in the Septuagint as a way of referring to the “statues” or “ordinances” given to Israel by God, specifically the requirements of justice. Because of its specialized use and the distinctive way Pal uses this term to refer to the Torah’s love command(s), my translations of this term will be contextually driven, though I will call attention to where this specific term underlies my translation in those places. (Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024], 30-31)

 

(5) Ekklēsia (Greek εκκλησια): This word is typically translated “church” in most versions of the New Testament, misleadingly implying a specialized meaning distinct to Christian gatherings. But this word is widely used outside Christian contexts to mean “assembly,” and in the Septuagint (LXX; the Greek translation of the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible), it is the most common translation of the Hebrew קהל (qāhāl), referring to the assembled people of Israel. In that context, membership in all the “assembly of YHWH” (e.g., Deut 23:4, 9 [ET 3, 8]) amounts to something akin to citizenship within Israel. I will therefore leave ekklēsia untranslated as a reminder that for Paul this term refers not to a separate “gentile church” but rather to elect eschatological Israel united by the pneuma of Israel’s messiah and participating in the promised new covenant. (Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024], 32)

 

 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Romans 3:6-14 as a chiasmus and note on v. 12 (the turning point)

  

Fidelity: “Abraham trusted God, and it was credited to him as justness.” (3:6)

Blessing: “In you all the nations will be blessed.” (3:8-9)

Curse: “Cursed is everyone . . .” (3:10)

Justification: “No one justified by Torah” (3:11a)

Life: “The just one from fidelity will live” (3:11b)

Torah/Infidelity: “The Torah is not from fidelity, but . . .” (3:12a)

Life: “He who does these things will live by them” (3:12b)

Redemption: “Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the Torah” (3:13a)

Curse: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (3:13b)

Blessing: “So that the blessing of Abraham would come to the nations” (3:14a)

Fidelity: “So that we would receive the promise of the spirit through fidelity.” (3:14b)

 

The point of verse 12 is that although the Torah did not arise from fidelity, it yet (αλλα) promises life to “the one who does these things”—that is, “the just one” already mentioned in the quotation of Heb 2:4 in the previous verse. The function of citing Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 together is therefore not that the fidelity spoken of by Habakkuk invalidates the Torah’s promise of life to the doer, nor that, as some have suggested Paul understands “doing” as incompatible with “faith.” Instead, as is also the case in Rom 10, the argument is about the source of justification and deliverance from the Torah’s curse. Rather than citing Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 as a scriptural contradiction, Paul cites them as concurring witnesses to the messiah to whom life is promised. Together they provide the witness of the Torah and Prophets to the resurrection of “the just one,” whose fidelity enabled him to “do these things” and receive (resurrection) life, resulting in the dispensation of the spirit to all of God’s people. (Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024], 260-61)


 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Andrei A. Orlov, "The Attribute of the Divine Seat"

 

 

Attribute of the Divine Seat

 

As one may recall in the passage from Hagiga Bavli, Metatron’s possession of the seat in heaven served as a pivotal point in the story, as it became the main stumbling block for the infamous visionary. The angel’s sitting there, without a doubt, is read as the crucial attribute of the deity that would grant Metatron a divine status. Such an attribution, in its turn, rests on the ancient theophanic tradition rooted in biblical accounts, in which the deity was repeatedly depicted as the one who possesses the seat in heaven. Already in prophetic literature, this portrayal of the besited Glory of God constituted the conceptual center of the ocularcentric ideology.

 

In Metatron lore, this portentous theophanic marker of the Kavod ideology might even be “embedded” in the angel’s name, which some scholars derive from the Greek word for “throne” (θρόnος,). Thus, reflecting on various etymologies of the name “Metatron,” Daniel Boyarin notices that “what is decisive ... is the strong association of the figure with a throne, the throne, or a second throne, on which he sits, either alongside of YHWH or even as his appointed regent in place of YHWH ... This strong and crucial association of the figure with the throne and the frightening heresy of Two Powers in Heaven as associated with sitting on the throne makes the otherwise philologically plausible derivation from μετά and θρόnος, entirely likely, if not quite provable.”

 

Boyarin’s suggestion here is not entirely novel, but rather an affirmation of one of the most popular etymological options. For a long time the scholarly community has entertained the possibility that the name of the angel may represent the merging of the two Greek words, μετά and θρόnος, which in combination, μεταθρόnος, can be understood to mean “one who serves behind the throne,” or “one who occupies the throne next to the throne of Glory.” This hypothesis has been supported by a number of scholars, but was rejected by Scholem, who argued that “there is no such word as Metathronios in Greek and it is extremely unlikely that Jews should have produced or invented such a Greek phrase.” He noted that in the Talmudic literature the word θρόnος is never used in place of its Hebrew equivalent, and therefore an etymology based on the combination of the Greek μετά and θρόnος has no merit. Yet, other scholars suggested that the name may be derived from the Greek word, σύnθροnος, in the sense of “co-occupant of the divine throne.” Hugo Odeberg criticizes this etymology, arguing that “there is not a single instance in any known Jewish source of Metatron being represented as the co-occupant of the divine throne.” Saul Lieberman, however, in his reexamination of the etymologies of the name, provides some new reasons for accepting this option. Peter Schafer, following Lieberman’s insights, affirms the plausibility of the derivation of the great angel’s name from the Greek word for “throne.” He observes that “most probable is the etymology of Lieberman: Metatron = Greek metatronos = metathronos = synthronos; i. e. the small ‘minor god,’ whose throne is beside that of the great ‘main God.’” (Andrei A. Orlov, Yahoel and Metatron: Aural Apocalypticism and the origins of Early Jewish Mysticism [Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], 164-65)

 

  

Another important feature that the “Lesser YHWH” shares with the deity is the attribute of the celestial seat, an important symbol of authority. The Aramaic incantation bowl labels Metatron as איסרא רבא דכורסיה – the Great Prince of God’s throne. (C. Gordon, “Aramaic Magical Bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museums,” Archiv Orientalni 6 (1934) 319–334 at 328.) He is the one who is allowed to sit in heaven, a privilege denied to angels. In the Aher story this attribute becomes the main feature that signals to the infamous visionary Metatron’s “divine” status. (Ibid., 159)

 


 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Andrei A. Orlov on Yahoel as Remover of Human Sins

 

 

Yahoel as Remover of Human Sins

 

It has already been mentioned in our study that, in Exod 23:21, the Angel of the Lord may be depicted as the one who can forgive sins. While in this passage from Exodus, such function does not have clear sacerdotal significance, in later biblical materials it often acquires such meaning.

 

Thus, for example, in the Book of Zechariah, the prophet receives a vision of the following eschatological scene, in which the Angel of the Lord removes the garment of human sins in a very peculiar cultic setting. Zech 3:1–10 unveils the following tradition:

 

Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” And to him he said, “See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua, saying “Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day. On that day, says the Lord of hosts, you shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig tree.”

 

Here the familiar biblical mediator of the divine Name removes the unclean garment from a priestly figure, the attire that here symbolizes human transgressions, and then clothes the priest with festal apparel. Here, the removal of human sins is cast in a distinctive sacerdotal context, which some scholars argue is reminiscent of the Yom Kippur ritual. The choice of the ritual is not coincidental, since it was the most significant event in ancient Judaism associated with both the transference and removal of impurity caused by human transgressions. An important detail that points to the presence of the Yom Kippur tradition in Zech 3 is the high priestly garment, which is changed during the course of the story. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer points out that “the Torah legislates that the high priest should change garments on two occasions: at his inauguration and at the Day of Atonement.” She argues that there is support for identifying the ceremony in Zech 3 with the Day of Atonement as it is described in Lev 16 rather than with the ceremony of inauguration, as it is described in Exod 28–29 and Lev 9. Further reflecting on Joshua’s investiture, Tiemeyer points out that “the cleansing of Joshua and his symbolic change of clothes (Zech 3:3–5) are ... the vital preparations for celebration of the Day of Atonement and its resulting removal of sin from the land (3:9).”

 

Another possible link with the Yom Kippur ritual includes the expression, “I (God) will remove the guilt of this land in a single day ( ביום אחד ),” found in Zech 3:9. Scholars previously have noted that this statement “is important for the understanding of the Sitz-im-Leben of Zech 3 as a whole.” Tiemeyer argues that “the expression ביום אחד = ‘in one day’ points to a ceremony which takes place in one day. Based on this definition, the only day known in the OT when God removes the sins of His people is the annual Day of Atonement.” She further suggests, “assuming that this feast was known to the people at the time of Zechariah, it seems likely that the original audience of this material associated ביום אחד with this festival.” Tiemeyer adds that “the עון in verse 9 is naturally connected with Joshua’s עון in verse 4, pointing to a link between the removal of Joshua’s guilt and of that of the land.” She also suggests that “Joshua’s impurity represents his own guilt, something which must have rendered him unable to carry the guilt of the people on the Day of Atonement. Thus, Joshua’s cleansing prepares the way for the Day of Atonement and the cleansing of the land.”

 

As we can see, the prophetic account offers not just one, but several possible cultic allusions that point to the atoning rite. Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra concisely summarizes these important details that have previously been noted by a number of scholars. He suggests that the

 

protagonist is a high priest. He stands at a special place where only he, God, a defending angel and the accusing Satan are present. The right of access to this place is dependent on observance of certain regulations and amoral code. This evokes the holy of holies. The central act is a symbolic change of vestments. The soiled high priest’s vestments symbolize his sins. Exchanging these soiled clothes for clean ones signifies atonement. The “single day” of purification of the land evokes Yom Kippur and gives it an eschatological ring. The cultic scene alluded to could be the picture of a high priest who changes his linen vestments, which have become stained from sprinkling the blood on Yom Kippur.

 

His summative assessment is as follows: “regarding the number of corresponding

elements, a connection to Yom Kippur is probable.”

 

The scene from Zech 3, wherein the Angel of the divine Name removes the load of human transgressions from a human recipient, is consequential for our study of similar functions of Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham. As one remembers, in the Slavonic pseudepigraphon, the angel of the Name similarly removes the vestment of human sins from the patriarch Abraham.

Apoc. Ab. 13:7–14 narrates the following interaction between the heavenly high priest, Yahoel, and the celestial scapegoat, Azazel:

 

Reproach is on you, Azazel! Since Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth,  since you have chosen it and desired it to be the dwelling place of your impurity. Therefore the Eternal Lord, the Mighty One, has made you a dweller on earth. And because of you [there is] the wholly-evil spirit of the lie, and because of you [there are] wrath and trials on the generations of impious men. Since the Eternal Mighty God did not send the righteous, in their bodies, to be in your hand, in order to affirm through them the righteous life and the destruction of impiety. ... Hear, adviser! Be shamed by me, since you have been appointed to tempt not all the righteous! Depart from this man! You cannot deceive him, because he is the enemy of you and of those who follow you and who love what you desire. For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.

 

Scholars previously noted that this depiction is reminiscent of the scapegoat ritual in which the infamous goat carried Israel’s sins into the uninhabitable realm after they had been transposed onto the creature’s head. Quite literally, through the laying on of hands and the high priest’s confession, the communal sins of Israel were heaped upon the scapegoat.

 

A number of Yahoel’s actions in the Apocalypse of Abraham are reminiscent of the familiar actions of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. In light of the sacerdotal affiliations of Yahoel that we have already explored, it is likely that his actions against Azazel in this chapter also take on cultic significance. Most relevant for our purposes is that Yahoel’s address is reminiscent of the curses that are bestowed on the scapegoat during the atoning rite. In the passage that is quoted above, the transference of Abraham’s sin onto the celestial scapegoat conspicuously coincides with the departure command. This is quite similar to a description found in m. Yoma 6:4. There, members of the community harassed the scapegoat physically and verbally by pulling the animal’s hair and shouting, “Bear [our sins] and be gone! Bear [our sins] and be gone!” The similarity with the Apocalypse of Abraham has not gone unnoticed by scholars. Here, the mishnaic passage includes two explicit cultic elements: first, there is a bestowal of sins (“bear [our sins]”) and, second, there is a command of departure (“be gone”). We find nearly identical elements in the Apocalypse of Abraham. The transference of sins onto Azazel is contained in the phrase “the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.” This eschatological transference appears simultaneously with the departure element, which is indicated by the phrase “depart from this man.”

 

Yahoel’s power to remove sins from God’s creatures is further underlined when he strips from the celestial antagonist his angelic garment. This demonstrates that Yahoel is not simply a sacerdotal servant who heaps sins upon the eschatological scapegoat, but an agent who makes decisions regarding the final outcomes of such purgatorial actions. (Andrei A. Orlov, Yahoel and Metatron: Aural Apocalypticism and the origins of Early Jewish Mysticism [Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], 126-30)

 

  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Neal A. Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses An Exercise in Mature Historical Thinking"

 The following article will be the final nail in the coffin for critics who appeal to the Stephen Burnett letter (e.g., Dan Vogel):


Neal A. Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses An Exercise in Mature Historical Thinking," Religious Educator 25, no. 2 (2024): 27-64


  

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

William Clayton and Eliza R. Snow on Joseph Smith's Polygamy and Addressing Purported Polygamy Denials from Joseph and John Taylor

  

Inasmuch as it may be interesting to future generations of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to learn something of the first teachings of the principle of plural marriage by President Joseph Smith, the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and Translator of said Church, I will give a short relation of facts which occurred within my personal knowledge, and also matters related to me by President Joseph Smith.

 

I was employed as a clerk in President Joseph Smith's office, under Elder Willard Richards, and commenced to labor in the office on the 10th day of February, 1842. I continued to labor with Elder Richards until he went east to fetch his wife to Nauvoo.

 

After Elder Richards started East I was necessarily thrown constantly into the company of President Smith, having to attend to his public and private business, receiving and recording tithings and donations, attending to land and other matters of business. During this period I necessarily became well acquainted with Emma Smith, the wife of the Prophet Joseph, and also with the children—Julia M. (an adopted daughter), Joseph, Frederick and Alexander, very much of the business being transacted at the residence of the Prophet.

 

On the 7th of October, 1842, in the presence of Bishop Newel K. Whitney and his wife Elizabeth Ann, President Joseph Smith appointed me Temple Recorder, and also his private clerk, placing all records, books, papers, etc., in my care, and requiring me to take charge of and preserve them his closing words being, "When I have any Revelations to write, you are the one to write them."

 

During this "period the Prophet Joseph frequently visited my house in my company, and became well acquainted with my wife Ruth, to whom I had been married five years. One day in the month of February, 1843, date not remembered, the Prophet invited me to walk with him. During our walk, he said he had learned that there was a sister in England, to whom I was very much attached. I replied, there was nothing further than an attachment, such as a brother and sister in the Church might rightfully entertain for each other. He then said: "Why don't you send for her?" I replied, "In the first place, I have no authority to send for her, and if I had, I have not the means to pay expenses." To this he answered, "I give you authority to send for her, and I will furnish you the means," which he did. This was the first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me on the subject of plural marriage. He informed me that the doctrine and principle was right in the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that it was a doctrine which pertained to Celestial order and glory. After giving me lengthy instructions and information concerning the doctrine of celestial or plural marriage, he concluded his remarks by the words, "It is your privilege to have all the wives you want." After this introduction, our conversations on the subject of plural marriage were very frequent, and he appeared to take particular pains to inform and instruct me in respect to the principle. He also informed me that he had other wives living besides his wife Emma, and in particular, gave me to understand that Eliza R. Snow, Louisa Beman, Desdamona C. Fullmer and others, were his lawful wives in the sight of Heaven.

 

On the 27th of April, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith married to me Margaret Moon, for time and eternity, at the residence of Elder Heber C> Kimball; and on the 22d of July, 1843, he married to me, according to the other of the Church, my first wife Ruth.

 

On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own residence. During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other wives. Amongst the number I well remember Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of some, if not all of these being his wives, and she generally treated them very kindly.

 

On the morning of the 12th of July, 1832, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," in the bank of the Mississippi river. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on Celestial Marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity and heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

 

Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on Celestial Marriage and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. HE then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present.

 

Hyrum then took the Revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger.

 

Joseph quietly remarked, "I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did." Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office.

 

The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objection to taking a copy of the Revelation; Joseph replied that he had not, and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the Revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her with in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the Revelation perfectly and could rewrite it at any time if necessary.

 

The copy made by Joseph C. Kingsbury is a true and correct copy of the original in every respect. The copy was carefully preserved by Bishop Whitney, and but few knew of its existence until the temporary location of the Camp of Israel at Winter Quarters, on the Missouri River, in 1846.

 

After the Revelation on on celestial marriage was written Joseph continued his instructions privately, on the doctrine to myself and others, and during the last year of his life we were scarcely ever together, alone, but he was talking on the subject, and explaining that doctrine and principles connected with it. He appeared to enjoy great liberty and freedom in his teachings, but also to find great relief in having af ew to whom he could unbosom his feelings on that great and glorious subject.

 

From him, I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can never attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory.

 

(Signed) WILLIAM CLAYTON.

Salt Lake City, February 16th, 1876. (Wiliam Clayton, Affidavit in “Joseph Smith and Celestial Marriage,” Deseret Evening News 19, no. 151 [May 20, 1886]: 2)

 

 

The communication from President Joseph Smith, with the accompanying affidavit of William Clayton, which we publish in this issue, will be interesting to a large number of our readers. It will tend to clear up in the minds of those who are not familiar with the details of the manifestations to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the subject of celestial marriage, some apparent discrepancies which are perfectly harmonious which correctly understood.

 

The revelation on celestial marriage published in the Doctrine and Covenants, which was given July 12th, 1843. The principles it contains, with further intelligence on the same subject, were revealed to the Prophet many years before but not formulated in writing for the Church. Acting under instructions from the Lord, the Prophet had several wives sealed to him before the date of that revelation, and they are referred to in verse 52. There are other matters spoken of in the revelation that pertained to the time when it was written, showing that the statement in the heading, as it appears in the book, is correct; namely, that the revelation was given on that date, although the doctrines it contains were made known and had been acted upon under special instructions previous to that date.

 

These opponents of plural marriage who deny that it was taught and practised by the Prophet Joseph, in fact of testimony enough to establish any fact beyond the possibility of rational contradiction, frequently refer to the utterances of the leaders of the Church in Nauvoo against the teachings of certain persons on polygamy; and also the denials and affidavits of several ladies concerning polygamy and spiritual wifeism. These statements are cited as evidence that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were opposed to plural marriage, and that it was denied by some of the leaders who afterwards avowed their own marriage to the Prophet or to his brother Hyrum.

 

But examination of the history and the facts will disclose that there is no real contradiction between the alleged conflicting statements, nor between the actions of Joseph and Hyrum in regard to polygamy and the doctrines laid down in the revelation of July 12, 1843. Polygamy, in the ordinary and Asiatic sense of the term, never was and is not now a tenet of the Latter-day Saints. That which Joseph and Hyrum denounced and for preaching which without authority an Elder was cut off the Church in Nauvoo, was altogether different to the order of celestial marriage including a plurality of wives, which forms the subject of the revelation.

 

So with that spiritual wife doctrine which lustful men attempted to promulgate at that period. Joseph the Prophet was just as much opposed to that false doctrine as any one could be. IT was a counterfeit. The true and divine order is another thing. The errors which those ladies who signed the affidavits declared were not known to them as doctrines of the Church were not, are not, and never will be part of the creed of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were conscientious in their statements. Joseph and Hyrum were consistent in their action against the false doctrines of polygamy and spiritual wifeism, instigated by the devil and advocated by men who did not comprehend sound doctrine nor the purity of the celestial marriage which God revealed for the holiest of purposes.

 

It has been frequently asserted by the enemies of the Church that President John Taylor, in France, publicly denied that the Church entertained the doctrine of plural marriage. Investigation for the purpose of learning facts will show that he did no such thing. Directly he denied nothing; indirectly he disputed the assertion that polygamy and certain infamous doings were part of the creed of the Church. In answer to the charges he simply read a section of the Doctrine and Covenants relating to the subject of marriage.

 

Until the open enunciation of the doctrine of celestial marriage by the publication of the revelation of the subject in 1852, no Elder was authorized to announce it to the world. The Almighty has revealed things on many occasions which were for His servants and not for the world. Jesus enjoined His disciples on several occasions to keep to themselves principles that he made known to them. And his injunction, "Cast not your pearl before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you," has become as familiar as a common proverb. In the rise of the Church the Lord had occasion to admonish his servants in regard to revelations that were afterwards permitted to be published:

 

"I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning this matter."

 

"And now I say unto you, keep these things from going abroad into the world until it is expedient in me."

 

"But a commandment I give unto them that they shall not boast themselves of these things, neither speak of them before the world, for these things are given unto you for your profit and your salvation."—(Doc. & Cov.)

 

Under these instructions Elders had no right to promulgate anything but that which they were authorized to teach. And when assailed by their enemies and accused of practising things which were really not countenanced in the Church, they were justified in denying those imputations and at the same time avoiding the avowal of such doctrines as were not yet intended for the world. This course which they have taken when necessary, by commandment, is all the ground which their accusers have for charging them with falsehood.

 

The doctrine of celestial marriage including the plurality of wives, was revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet by the same power and from the same source as all the other revelations contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and they stand or fall together. The Church was commanded at its inception to receive the revelations and percepts which God would manifest through him and this is one of them, to the truth of which the heavens have borne witness at least as much as to the divinity of any others. That Joseph practiced what he taught and was himself the husband of several wives in the holy order of celestial marriage, has been thoroughly authenticated, and the affidavit of William Clayton forms one more strong and important link in a chain of evidence that is so complete and convincing as to leave no room for reasonable controversy.

 

The world may not receive the glorious doctrine of eternal matrimony by which husbands and wives are made one forever, nor the principle of plural marriage, which is an essential part of that doctrine. But those who have come out of darkness into light, and have learned now to know the voice of the Good Shepherd, will see the beauty and divinity of that comprehensive revelation and hearken to the spirit which leads in the way to the continuation of the lives, wherein are exaltation and dominion and power in the presence of God and His Christ throughout the eternal ages. ("Joseph Smith and Celestial Marriage," Deseret News 35, no. 20 [June 2, 1886]: 6)

 

 

Br. Joseph:

 

On looking over the pamphlet it seems perfectly easy to disprove the statenebts which refer to the article over the brehtren's and the sister's signatures, by proving what J. C. Bennett's secret wife sister really was.

 

At the time the sisters of the Relief Society signed our article, I was married to the prophet. We made no allusion to any other system of marriage than Bennett’s. His was prostitutioh, and it was truly his, and he succeeded in pandering his course on the credulity of the unsuspecting by making them believe that he was thus authorized by the Prophet. In those articles there is no reference to divine plural marriage. We aimed to put down its opposite.

 

Yours respectfully,

 

E. R. Snow (Eliza R. Snow, Letter to Joseph F. Smith, undated, Joseph F. Smith Papers, MS 1325, Church History Library)

 

Further Reading:


Brian C. Hales, "'Denying the Undeniable': Examining Early Mormon Polygamy Renunciations," Journal of Mormon History 44, no. 3 (July 2018): 23-44

   

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Blog Archive