C.H. Dodd, Origen, and Raymond Brown on John 4:24

Commenting on John 4:24, New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:

It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)

On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:

Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).

Note: Origen in this passage understood it unwise to appeal to John 4:24 "at face value" to support God not being embodied, notwithstanding his use of such a verse in On First Principles to support God not having a body. Origen is not a witness for divine embodiment, but only a witness that early Christians, including those who would use John 4:24 as evidence that the Father does not have a body, would not go "beyond what is written" about this text (Origen is, sadly, very complex, in comparison to other early Christian authors).

This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:

[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)

Is Isaiah 44:24 in conflict with Latter-day Saint Theology?

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. (Isa 44:24)

This verse has been used by a number of critics of Latter-day Saint theology, arguing that God, and God alone, was involved in creation, contrary to the Book of Abraham that has “the gods,” under the jurisdiction of the Father, involved in creation (see chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham). However, there are problems for our Trinitarian opponents who sometimes use this verse against Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture.

Firstly, one should compare Isa 44:24 with Heb 1:1-2:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the world.

In this pericope, it is the singular person of the Father who is the creator, with Jesus as an intermediary (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6). Absolutising both these passages, the Isaiah text forces us to conclude that the person of the Father alone was the creator, which, of course, is antithetical to Trinitarian sensibilities.

[God] alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. (Job 9:8)

In this passage, it is Yahweh alone who “trampled upon the waves of the sea” (NRSV). Interestingly, however, there is a difference between the Masoretic Text and the LXX. The LXX renders this portion of the verse as καὶ περιπατῶν ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἐδάφους ἐπὶ θαλάσσης, which Brenton renders in his translation as "and walks on the sea as on firm ground." Therefore, the LXX states that Yahweh alone has the authority to walk upon the seas. One should compare the LXX rendition of Job 9:8 with Matt 14:29:

[Jesus] said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus.

Absolutising LXX Job 9:8 in the way that critics of LDS theology absolutise Isa 44:24, one must conclude that Yahweh alone can walk on the water, and taking it to its “logical” conclusion, Peter is Yahweh(!) Of course, that is eisegesis, just as it is eisegesis (not to mention anachronistic!) to claim that Isa 44:24 is a strictly “Trinitarian” text.

Ultimately, Isa 44:24 is better understood that the authority and source of creation derives from God (the Father) and all those who played a role in creation were under His jurisdiction, including the person of Jesus (see 1 Cor 8:4-6, as an example). This was the interpretation of the earliest Christian commentators, including Origen (185-254):

Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also [John 1:3], through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He [the Father]. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John [Ante-Nicene Fathers 9:328]; comments in square brackets added for clarification)

We can further substantiate this by examining another text from the book of Isaiah:

I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no saviour. (Isa 43:11)

In this verse, God is said to be there only מושׁיע (“Saviour”). Notwithstanding, there are other figures who are referred to as being a מושׁיע:

And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer (מושׁיע) to the children of Israel, who delivered them, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. (Judg 3:9)

And the Lord gave Israel a saviour (מושׁיע), so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as before time. (2 Kgs 13:5)

In these verses, Isa 43:11 notwithstanding, Yahweh Himself commissions other “saviours” (מושׁיע). Absolutising Isa 43:11 in the way that our Trinitarian critics absolutise Isa 44:24, one would have to conclude that it is explicitly contradicted by the two aforementioned texts. However, if one understands that Yahweh is the ultimate source of being a saviour but can commission others to be “saviours” such as Othniel, there is no issue.

Ultimately, Isa 44:24 is properly understood, not speaking as the “number” of persons involved in the creation, but that the Father alone is the source of its causality and does not preclude other divinities having had a role as an intermediary in the creation, as one finds in the Book of Abraham and Latter-day Saint theology.

The Chair of Moses versus Sola Scriptura

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matt 23:1-3)

Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, has an excellent paper critiquing the arguments by James White's desperate attempt to downplay the potency of Matt 23:1-3 against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The paper is entitled, "Chair of Moses: Refuting James White's Claims of Sola Scriptura."

Did Jesus Believe that Scripture is Inerrant?

Kyle Roberts has an interesting article in response to Robert Bowman entitled, "Did Jesus Believe that Scripture is Inerrant?" It discusses key texts such as Matt 5:17-18, showing that the Evangelical case for their understanding of "inerrancy" (á la The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) to be based on eisegesis. The article can be found here.

Further Examples of Craig Ledbetter’s Lack of Intellectual Integrity

In a series on the topic of “cults,” Craig Ledbetter, pastor of Ballincollig Baptist Church, produced two lectures and documents on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As with his (pathetic) attempts to support sola scriptura (see here and here), Ledbetter shows his lack of intellectual integrity and honesty all throughout. It appears he spent the best part of an evening googling “anti-Mormonism” and copying-and-pasting information without checking sources. Regardless, here are just three claims he makes which reflect his lack of knowledge on “Mormonism” (at least he is consistent—he is just as grossly ignorant of the Bible as he is of the Latter-day Saint faith) found in this document:

Not one city has ever been found, not one river or sea, not one artefact

False. The River of Laman and its Valley of Lemuel, the burial site Nahom, and the garden spot Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula have all been found and verified. These are all non-biblical sites, and in the case of the River of Laman and Bountiful, continue to be mocked as impossible by many critics of the Book of Mormon. In the case of Nahom, altars have been found attesting to its name pre-dating the Book of Mormon (it is referenced in the passive voice in 1 Nephi 16:34) as well as its function as a burial spot. Furthermore, the seal of Mulek, the son of Zedekiah has been recently discovered, too. While Ledbetter is clearly unaware of such, the evidence for Book of Mormon historicity continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As for the New World, readers should pick up a copy of John L’ Sorenson’s volume, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Books (Deseret and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2013) and Brant Gardner’s book examining the text as history, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Greg Kofford Books, 2015). A good summary of the evidences from various aspects of the book can be seen in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Parry et al (FARMS, 2002). This also refutes the lie by Ledbetter than Mormon scholars are “admitting” that the Book of Mormon is not historical.

Joseph Smith’s murder while he was in jail at the time is referred to as the proof that HE had saved the world, like Jesus – BY HIS OWN BLOOD!

This is a lie. Latter-day Saints attach no salvific importance to the (1) blood and/or (2) death of the prophet Joseph Smith. I openly challenge Ledbetter to support this false claim.

In 1828, eight years after he says he had been told by God himself to join no church, Joseph Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church.

This only shows Ledbetter’s lack of intellectual abilities and research skills. Joseph Smith never joined the Methodist faith in 1828, so this is another non sequitur. Joseph did join a debating club hosted by the Methodists, but membership of the Methodist faith was not a pre-requisite to joining the club.

Anti-Mormons such as the Tanners are forced to rely on an article penned by Joshua McKune in a newspaper called the Amboy journal from April 30, 1879, 35(!) years after the death of Joseph Smith and 51(!) years after the purported events! A later issue of the same publication is dated June 11, 1879, from Michael Morse, a brother-in-law and critic of Joseph Smith's. To say that this is utter hearsay is to put it nicely, especially as this was during the height of anti-Mormon sentiment over the polygamy issue. There is no credible evidence (e.g., primary historical sources) supporting this claim.

These are just representative examples of the lies Ledbetter told his congregants against the LDS faith (others would include the claim LDS theology teaches God had sex with Mary and his yellow journalism about Jesus and Satan being “brothers”). Such a lack of honesty and intellectual integrity is to be found among the members of Ledbetter's church (see here for my exchange with Barry Keating, one of his congregants).

Craig Ledbetter had the opportunity to accurately portray the theology, history, and Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and offer an informed critique thereof. He failed on all counts. Furthermore, he failed miserably to support his own epistemology (sola scriptura) and other theological presuppositions in his presentations without resorting to eisegesis.The man heretical theology is as bogus as his false claims against the Latter-day Saint faith, and falls under the condemnations of  Gal 1:6-9 and Rev 21:8.

Samson and the contingent nature of prophecy

[M]any of the prophecies in the Bible are, either implicitly or explicitly, contingent upon other circumstances. Furthermore, applying the all-or-nothing hermeneutic of Kramer, one will have to dismiss, not just Micah, but other prophets and even angels of God! For instance, in one biblical account we read:

There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. His wife was barren, having borne no children. And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, ‘Although you are barren, having borne no children, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, or to eat anything unclean, for you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor is to come on his head, for the boy shall be a nazirite to God from birth. It is he who shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines.’ Then the woman came and told her husband, ‘A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like that of an angel* of God, most awe-inspiring; I did not ask him where he came from, and he did not tell me his name; but he said to me, ‘You shall conceive and bear a son. So then drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for the boy shall be a nazirite to God from birth to the day of his death’” (Judges 13:2-7, New Revised Standard Version).

Notice how the angel of the Lord prophecies, without any conditions attached, that Samson would be a Nazarite, free his people from bondage, and would refrain from alcoholic beverages and unclean foods. And yet not a single one of these were fulfilled, as we read subsequently in the Book of Judges. What are we to make of this? Obviously prophecies are, by their nature, contingent upon historical events and individuals [as discussed in the article]

Patristic Authors on the Father alone being Autotheos

This document, produced by a Reformed Protestant, is a collection of 20 early Patristic authors who affirmed that only the person of the Father was "autotheos" (God in-and-of-Himself, basically), spanning the entire Patristic era, such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, and John of Damascus. This is of great importance for studying the development of Trinitarian theologies and other theological areas, such as the Filioque clause.

What is also significant is that this mirrors LDS theology, wherein the Son and Spirit derive their divinity from their mutual participation with the person of the Father (see D&C 93, for example), as well as New Testament (e.g., Heb 1:3).

Update:

The URL no longer works; for that reason, I have saved the document here:

https://sites.google.com/site/irishlds87/autotheos_patristics