Does the Book of Mormon teach an incorporeal God?

On p. 226 of their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine argued that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with Latter-day Saint theology, citing Alma 22:10 and Alma 31:15:

And Aaron said unto him, Yea: he [God] is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? (Alma 22:10)

Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. (Alma 31:15)

According to Rhodes and Bodine, the Book of Mormon explicates an incorporeal God, in opposition to D&C 130:20 and defined Latter-day Saint theology. However, just as Rhodes and Bodine are guilty of eisegesis in their treatment of various biblical texts (search this blog for previous discussions of their work), they are also guilty of eisegesis of the Book of Mormon.

With respect to Alma 22:10, the use of the phrase, "Great Spirit" was Ammon's way of communicating the concept of God to someone who knew deity as "Great Spirit." Furthermore, the people mistook Ammon for the Great Spirit, notwithstanding the fact he was clearly corporeal (see Alma 18:2-5, 11)! Obviously, use of the phrase does not preclude God being corporeal.

With respect to Alma 31:15, such a verse is part of a prayer of an apostate group, the Zoramites, and is not a reflection of the theology of the Book of Mormon prophets themselves so to claim that the theology of the Book of Mormon is in conflict with Latter-day Saint theology about the nature of God is a non sequitur. It would be similar to arguing that the Gospel of John denies the virginal conception and birth of Christ as the Jewish opponents of Jesus believe Joseph to have been the biological father of Jesus (John 6:42)! Of course, that would be a nonsensical reading of the Gospel of John when read in context, just as the charge made by Rhodes and Bodine is nonsensical and reflective of an ignorance of the Book of Mormon text itself.

Does Alma 34:32-34 conflict with posthumous salvation?

I have recently been "tweeted" by a former LDS (and twitter troll) who stated that "Alma 34:33 completely negates baptisms for the dead etc." Of course, while this is a common claim, it represents how many critics have a shallow grasp of both Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture.

In their paper, "Do Not Procrastinate the Day of Your Repentance" by John Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, we read:

One of the more frequently quoted yet misunderstood passages of the Book of Mormon is found in Alma 34:32–34, where Amulek declares that this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. . . . Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.


Critics have suggested that these verses contradict the LDS belief in preaching the gospel to the dead, since Amulek says that “there can be no labor performed” after death. But his words were addressed to the Zoramites, who had dissented from the Nephite religion and had already “received so many witnesses” (Alma 34:30). Unlike those who die without having heard the gospel (see D&C 138:32–34), the Zoramites had heard and accepted the gospel but then had rejected it. Amulek was calling upon them to repent and return to the fold lest they die in their sins, thereby placing their souls in eternal jeopardy (see Mosiah 2:33; D&C 76:31–38).



Another misreading of the passage has led some people to believe that the “same spirit” (Alma 34:34) refers to a person’s own spirit, which they suppose cannot change after death. Occasionally, some have suggested that this means that a smoker, for example, will still have a craving for tobacco after he dies, but that his spirit will not be able to satisfy this craving. However, a careful reading of the next verse shows what Amulek meant. Speaking to these people who had already been members of the church, he declared:



[I]f ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. (Alma 34:35)



From this it is clear that the “same spirit” that possesses the wicked person and will continue to possess him in the hereafter is the devil, not the individual’s spirit. Those who do the devil’s will and refuse to repent will come under his power both in this world and the world to come. This is particularly true of those who have already entered into the covenant by being baptized.



King Benjamin taught this same principle to his people assembled at the temple in Zarahemla:



[I]f ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness. . . . Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, . . . mercy hath no claim on that man. (Mosiah 2:36–39)

It is not just the realm of biblical exegesis where critics of the LDS Church falter; it is also the exegesis of uniquely Latter-day Saint Scriptures, too.

Insights into John 20:23

Daniel McClellan (check out his blog!) has recently posted an article on Markan Christology, I particular, in response to some recent comments by Michael F. Bird. In his article, Daniel wrote:

In addition to the facts that the “person/being” distinction is utterly irrelevant to these texts and that the second concern is a difference of degrees, not kind, the passages Bird cites in the earlier quote are cases of interpolation (see here). They didn’t originally refer to the messenger as God. While it’s true the interpolated texts were later incorporated into a broader theology of presencing, this fact rather undermines Bird’s attempt to distance the conceptualization of the messenger of YHWH from the conceptualization of Jesus. The messenger became identified with God and God’s presence and authority in virtue of possessing God’s name, as we see in Exod 23:20–21:

Look, I’m sending a messenger before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to his voice. Do not rebel against him, because he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.

Christ’s possession of God’s name, in his own theophoric name as well as his repeated associated with “I am,” is conceptually identical. He has God’s name, therefore he presences God (reifies his presence) and exercises his authority. This notion of the “indwelling” of the name is found also in the Apocalypse of Abraham, where Yahoel is a name given to God, but also to an angel who meets with Abraham. The angel insists he exercises God’s power “in virtue of the ineffable name that is dwelling in me” (think also of the “place where my name will dwell”).

Interestingly enough, the Exodus 23 passage undermines one of the most common assertions that is made about Christ’s unique relationship with God in Mark. When Jesus forgives the man in Mark 2, the rhetorical bad guys wonder, “who can forgive sins but God only?” This is taken by some to be an accurate assertion of theological fact that means Jesus’ forgiveness of the man’s sins proves he is God, but a far more parsimonious reading has Jesus correct their misunderstanding by showing that he exercises that very power despite not being God. The objection that is usually lodged here is that there are no other examples anywhere of someone other than God having the prerogative to forgive sins. While this objection is an argument from silence, it’s also wrong. The messenger in Exodus 23, who’s presencing of God is likely a reflection of those earlier interpolated texts, exercises precisely that prerogative in virtue of having God’s name in him.

This is a pretty spot-on analysis about the concept of the agent (Shaliach) relationship between God and His messengers, including the relationship between the Father and the Son in the New Testament; such a theme is important in analysing the Christology of the Bible. On the agentival relationship between the Father and the Son, consider Heb 3:1:

Therefore, brothers and sisters, holy partners in a heavenly calling, consider that Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession. (NRSV)

As I wrote in a previous post on this verse and its Christological implications:

The Greek term translated as "apostle" is αποστολος, referring to a messenger or an emissary. It is the noun form of the verb αποστελλω, "to send out." The Hebrew equivalents of this noun and verb would be שׁליח and שׁלח, respectively. The use of this term for Jesus vis-a-vis His relationship with the Father is further biblical evidence for His subordination to the Father.

In the Bible, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent/apostle. For instance, note the description of John the Baptist:

There was a man sent (αποστελλω) from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

Obviously, John the Baptist is subordinate to God.

This verb is used of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship between the Son and the apostles:

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send (αποστελλω) me. (John 17:8)

As (καθος) thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me into the world, even so have I also sent (αποστελλω) them into the world. (John 17:18)

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me . . . O righteous father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me. (John 17:21, 23, 25).

Such usage underscores (1) the subordination of the apostles to Jesus and, by extension, (2) the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Such is shown, for instance, in the usage of the conjunction καθος in John 17:18 (quoted above) which means “just as,” showing the reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son with the Son and the apostles.

This concept is also part-and-parcel of Latter-day Saint Christology (e.g., the 1916 First Presidency Statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son has an entire section on divine investiture).

Another prime example would be the agentival relationship between Christ and His apostles, which mirrors that of the Father and the Son vis-à-vis the forgiveness of sins, as discussed by Daniel in his article.

In John 20:23, we read:

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. (NRSV)

A similar concept is found in uniquely Latter-day Saint Scripture; mirroring Matt 16:19 and John 20:23, we read the following in D&C 132:46:

And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

Some may object to any appeal to John 20:23 as evidence of commissioned apostles of Christ having a role to play in granting forgiveness of sins. Some critics have argued that, as the Greek of John 20:23 uses the perfect tense, some have argued that the apostles were not being commissioned by Christ to be agents in forgiving sins, but merely declaring that their sins have been forgiven.

There are a number of problems with this type of reasoning.

Firstly, it makes the action of Christ nonsensical. If the person being told their sins were forgiven by the apostles already had their sins forgiven, such a declaration would not be required, as sins can only be forgiven once, and no man can usurp or trump God, making the declaration a moot point.

Secondly, one should note that the perfect tense in Koine Greek is used for a variety of purposes and cannot be translated adequately in all instances, nor can English properly express the idea of existing result which the Greek perfect conveys.

Thirdly, with respect to ἀφέωνται ("have been forgiven"), let us examine all other instances of this form (indicative perfect passive of αφιημι) in the Greek New Testament:

And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee. (Luke 5:20)

Whether it is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? (Luke 5:23)

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven (ἀφέωνται), for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) (Luke 7:47-48)

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) for his name's sake. (1 John 2:12)

In Luke 5:20 and 23, ἀφέωνται is used as a present tense, since the man’s sins were not forgiven prior to meeting with Jesus. The same applies for the adulterous woman in Luke 7:47-48--her sins, also, were not forgiven by Christ prior to her encounter with Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that the present tense "is forgiven" (ἀφίεται) is used in v. 47 alongside ἀφέωνται with respect to people's recognition of a then-present forgiveness of sins.

In light of this, John 20:23 supports the apostles being commissioned agents of Jesus to act in his stead (just as Christ acts, as supreme agent, in the stead of the Father) with respect to forgiving sins, as it would be contradictory for the apostles to be told to forgive sins if the sins have already been forgiven by God. The use of the perfect tense, far from diminishing the apostles' abilities to forgive sins, only heighten the reality thereof.

A parallel in modern English would be how a person, if in receipt of a command to do an action, would state something akin to "consider it done" before it has been done; the use of the perfect tense would be to show that one is determined to do the task, not necessarily that the task has already been completed.

As with the language Christ used in the Last Supper accounts, this is another piece of exegetical evidence for an ordained New Covenant Priesthood, as well as providing important insights into the concept of the agentival relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as that of the Son and his apostles.

Hebrews 9:27 and Posthumous Salvation

Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. (Heb 9:27 NIV)

This is perhaps the most commonly-cited "proof-text" against the Latter-day Saint belief in posthumous salvation. The argument is that one is judged at death and their eternal destiny is forever settled, so there is no opportunity, even for those who never heard the gospel in their mortal life, to accept or reject the gospel. Such an interpretation is problematic for a number of reasons. For instance, this passage never makes such a declaration, instead, it only states that judgment (read: final/eschatological) comes at some point after death. If man's final judgment took place at the moment of death, why would Peter say, "for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit?" (1 Pet 4:6; cf. 1 Pet 3:18-20)? Further, texts such as Rev 20:11-13 reveal that the final/eschatological judgment takes place at the time of the resurrection of mankind. One should also consider texts such has Matt 19:28 (cf. Luke 22:30) where the Twelve Apostles will play a role in the judgment of the Twelve Tribes, and 1 Cor 6:2-3 where Paul promises faithful Christians that they will judge the world/κοσμος as well as angels.

In 2014, Stephen Jonathan released a book entitled Grace Beyond the Grave: Is Salvation Possible in the Afterlife? (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock). This is a book I would recommend (I have not seen any LDS engagement with this rather solid volume). Many texts that are often cited as negating posthumous salvation are cogently answered therein. On pp. 89-90, Jonathan presents an answer to his fellow Evangelical Protestants who cite Heb 9:27 as biblical evidence against such a theology:

The context of Heb 9:27 is the unique sacrifice of Christ . . . Christ’s sacrifice was unlike the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament in that he did not need to offer himself again and again. Rather, he has “appeared once for all” (v. 26) to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Then the author then introduces verses 27-28 “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” The point of this verse is to illustrate the once-for-all aspect of the work of Christ, as opposed to the unfinished nature of the Old Testament sacrificial system, and is not a reference to personal eschatology . . . The writer of Hebrews uses this reference to show that human death is a once-for-all occurrence as a consequence of sin, so too Christ died once-for-all to take away the sins of many people. The phrase “and after that to face judgment” is often interpreted to mean immediately after death humans experience judgment, thereby ruling out the opportunity of post-mortem salvation. Boyd, however, contends that this “reads too much into the text.” He continues, “While this verse certainly rules out reincarnation, it does not rule out the possibility of intermediate events between death and judgment.” (Gregory A. Boyd and P.R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 188) He also reminds us that most evangelicals agree that there are other events between death and judgment, such as, Christ’s return and the bodily Resurrection, and the post-mortem view merely adds one more event or process, namely, the evangelization of the previously unevangelized. This passage offers no timescale as to how long after death that judgment comes, thereby failing to link death with loss opportunity, which is commonly taught in evangelical circles.

BDAG on εις in Acts 2:38

I have discussed the salvific efficacy of (water) baptism in many posts on my blog, including two posts dedicated to Acts 2:38:

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament, Part 2: Acts 2:38

Answering a Linguistic Argument against baptism being salvific in Acts 2:38

A lot of ink has been spilt by proponents of the purely symbolic view of baptism on the preposition εις (into/for/with a goal towards), arguing (falsely) that in Acts 2:38, it means that one is baptised as a result of having their sins remitted prior to baptism. I would recommend pursuing the two blog posts linked above that shows that there is no meaningful grammatical and exegetical basis for this contorted interpretation of the text.

That scholarly grammarians agree with the "traditional" rendering of the preposition in Acts 2:38 are numerous; in perhaps the most scholarly Koine Greek lexicon on the market (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [BDAG]), the following definition of εις is offered, with Acts 2:38 being an example of the preposition carrying the meaning with "into" or "with a goal towards" (within the context of Acts 2:38, one is baptised into/with a goal towards a remission of sins, supporting baptism being salvific, not merely symbolic [emphasis added]):

f. to denote purpose in order to, to (Appian, Liby. 101 §476 ἐς ἔκπληξιν=in order to frighten; Just., A I, 21, 4 εἰς προτροπήν ‘to spur on’) εἰς ἄγραν in order to catch someth. Lk 5:4. εἰς ἀπάντησιν, συνάντησιν, ὑπάντησίν τινι (s. these 3 entries) to meet someone, toward someone Mt 8:34; 25:1; J 12:13. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς as a witness, i.e. proof, to them Mt 8:4; 10:18; 24:14 al. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cp. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38. εἰς μνημόσυνόν τινος in memory of someone Mt 26:13; Mk 14:9; cp. Lk 22:19 al. (εἰς μνημόσυνον En 99:3). εἰς ὅ for which purpose (Hdt. 2, 103, 1) Col 1:29; otherw. 2 Th 1:11 with this in view; εἰς τί; why? (Wsd 4:17; Sir 39:16, 21) Mt 14:31; Mk 14:4; 15:34; Hm 2:5; D 1:5. εἰς τοῦτο for this reason or purpose Mk 1:38; Lk 4:43 v.l.; J 18:37; Ac 9:21; 26:16; Ro 9:17; 14:9; 2 Cor 2:9; 1J 3:8; Hs 1:9 (Just., A I, 13, 3). εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο for this very reason 2 Cor 5:5; Eph 6:22; Col 4:8. W. subst. inf. foll. (X., Ages. 9, 3, Mem. 3, 6, 2; Just., A I, 9, 5) in order to (oft. LXX; neg. μή in order not to; s. B-D-F §402, 2) Mt 20:19; 26:2; 27:31; Mk 14:55 and oft.—εἰς ὁδόν for the journey 6:8.

More on the "interpretive ειμι" and the Last Supper Accounts

In a previous post on Matt26:26/Mark 14:22/Luke 22:19/1 Cor 11:24 and the phrase, “this is my body” (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου in Matt 26:26) I argued that the term “is” (ειμι) is an interpretive ειμι, and cited some instances of this construction in the New Testament undercutting the Roman Catholic (and to a lesser degree, Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran) understanding of this phrase and its theological significance towards a theology of the Eucharist. As further evidence, I offer the following segment under the entry ειμι in Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (BDAG), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3d ed.):

c. in explanations:

α. to show how someth. is to be understood is a representation of, is the equivalent of; εἰμί here, too, serves as copula; we usually translate mean, so in the formula τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν this or that means, that is to say (Epict., Ench. 33, 10; Arrian, Tact. 29, 3; SIG 880, 50; PFlor 157, 4; PSI 298, 9; PMert 91, 9; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 16; ApcMos 19; Just., D. 56, 23; 78, 3 al.) Mk 7:2; Ac 19:4; Ro 7:18; 9:8; 10:6, 8; Phlm 12; Hb 7:5 al.; in the sense that is (when translated) (Polyaenus 8, 14, 1 Μάξιμος ἀνηγορεύθη· τοῦτο δ᾽ ἄν εἴη Μέγιστον) Mt 27:46; Ac 1:19. So also w. relative pron.: ὅ ἐστιν Mk 3:17; 7:11, 34; Hb 7:2. After verbs of asking, recognizing, knowing and not knowing (Antiphanes Com. 231, 1f τὸ ζῆν τί ἐστι;) μάθετε τί ἐστιν learn what (this) means Mt 9:13. εἰ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν 12:7; cp. Mk 1:27; 9:10; Lk 20:17; J 16:17f; Eph 4:9. W. an indir. question (Stephan. Byz. s.v. Ἀγύλλα: τὶς ἠρώτα τί ἂν εἴη τὸ ὄνομα) τί ἂν εἴη ταῦτα Lk 15:26; τί εἴη τοῦτο 18:36. τίνα θέλει ταῦτα εἶναι what this means Ac 17:20; cp. 2:12, where the question is not about the mng. of terms but the significance of what is happening.—Esp. in interpr. of the parables (Artem. 1, 51 p. 48, 26 ἄρουρα οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ γυνή=field means nothing else than woman) ὁ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος the field means the world Mt 13:38; cp. vss. 19f, 22f; Mk 4:15f, 18, 20; Lk 8:11ff (cp. Gen 41:26f; Ezk 37:11; Ath. 22, 4 [Stoic interpr. of myths]). On τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19 and its various interpretations, see lit. s.v. εὐχαριστία. Cp. Hipponax (VI BC) 45 Diehl αὕτη γάρ ἐστι συμφορή=this means misfortune.

For a related, more technical argument about the grammatical structure of Matt 26:28 and the claim Jesus taught that His blood was shed at the Last Supper, see my analysis and refutation, "Was Christ's Blood Shed at the Last Supper?"

[Saving] Faith Alone vs. Faith working through love

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all the mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Cor 13:2-3 NRSV)

Within the theological debates between Latter-day Saints and most Protestants, an important element of the theological divide concerns the issue of whether one is justified by faith alone (sola fide) and the role of works (done under the power of God’s grace and in a salvific/covenantal relationship with God [a la Covenantal Nomism]). Within Reformed soteriology, there is a distinction between a “so-called” faith that is merely intellectual assent, and a “true” or “saving” faith that appropriates the (alien) righteousness of Jesus Christ, and this is how most Reformed apologists answer the issue of Jas 2—in their view, the “faith alone” position condemned by James in his epistle is against this former type of faith (a non-saving, so-called faith), following the approach of Philip Melanchthon who proposed this interpretation to Martin Luther who had some concerns about James (Luther referred to this epistle in his early Reformation career as “an epistle of straw”). In this view, true saving faith produces good works, though such good works, while playing an important role in sanctification, do not play a role in justification, as in Reformed soteriology, justification is an external, forensic event where a person is legally declared righteous based on the alien imputed righteousness of Christ, while intrinsically remaining sinful (simul iustus et peccator).

There are many exegetical issues with the Reformed Protestant understanding of Jas 2 specifically, and the nature of justification more broadly, and I have dealt with some of them in this post blog on Jas 2:24. For instance, in Jas 2:24, we read:

You see then how by works a man is justified and not by faith only

The Greek phrase "not by faith alone" is οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον (lit. "not from faith alone/only"). The addition of this phrase introduces a specific element and direction to James' argument, for it clearly shows that his primary concern is to show that faith alone cannot justify a man, not merely to suggest Abraham was vindicated by works. If James' concern were to teach that works are added to faith only as a demonstration of a previous justification, there would be no reason to add "not by faith only," for "faith [alone/only]" is not demonstrating anything in order to be negated, and thus it would be unnecessary to eliminate it from the works that are being demonstrated.

Another problematic area of Reformed soteriology and exegesis is that the Hebrew צדק and Greek δικαι- word groups, while they can and do have a declarative meaning, they also have a transformative meaning, even in soteriological contexts.

That δικαιοω can and does have a transformative, not just a declarative, meaning, can be seen in many passages. For instance, notice Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13):

Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.

Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).

As Derek Flood, in his book, Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012), pp. 103-104 notes:

Even where dikaioo appears to mean “declare righteous” linguistically in Romans, I would argue that it nevertheless always includes the restorative sense of God making-righteous the unrighteous in Paul’s thought. We can see this connection explicitly drawn out in Romans 5 where Paul juxtaposes two parallel formulations:

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification (dikaoisis) and life for all people. (v.18)

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (v. 19)

Here we can see that, whatever Paul understands dikaioo to mean, he directly connotes that meaning with our being “made righteous” in this parallel verse. The NET renders the Greek dikaiosin zoes (literally “the making right of/from life”) as “righteousness leading to life” (v. 18). Justification is an act of God that results in life because it “makes righteous.”

When Paul says that “God justifies the ungodly,” he is not proposing [that] God is a participant in the kind of legal fiction that the Old Testament expressly condemns [Isa 5:23; Exo 23:7]. Indeed, one of Pau’s central points in Romans is to demonstrate that God was not unjust in showing mercy to sinners rather than punishing them. The way that God demonstrates justice is not by acquitting the unrighteous, but by making them good. It is a gospel of God’s act of restorative justice in us. God’s actions are life-giving and transforming.

Speaking of Christ and His glorious resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote:

Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory (1 Tim 3:16 NRSV)

The underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also have a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life, as well as being the recipient of a glorified, immortalised body the same promise given to all believers (cf. Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:44).

With respect to the passage from 1 Cor 13:2-3 that was quoted at the beginning of this article, this is another stake into the heart of Reformed theology. The “faith” Paul is speaking about is clearly not a “dead” or “so-called” faith, but a true/saving faith evidenced by its inclusion within a number of spiritual gifts in v. 2. Notwithstanding, for Paul, if he had “[saving] faith alone,” he would not οὐθέν εἰμι (v. 2 ["I am nothing"]), and in v. 3, would describe himself as οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι ("not profited"; alt.: “counts for nothing”). As Joseph Fitzmyer noted in his commentary on 1 Cor, “In other words, all such pneumatika amount to zero without the animating force of love” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians [AB 32; Garden City, Doubleday, 2008], 494), or in the words of Anthony C. Thiselton, “These wondrous gifts and triumphant victories all amount to nothing, unless love directs them, with its Christlike concern and regard or ‘the other’” ( The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000], 1045 [emphasis in original]).

Indeed, this concept is paralleled by Paul's words to the Galatians:

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Gal 5:6)

For Paul, one is saved by faith, but not faith alone, but a faith that works by/through love (δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη). For the apostle Paul, faith and love are coupled together in what seems to be an inseparable bond. In regard to justification, love is not portrayed as a mere appendage of faith but a necessary element and addition to faith. This is further developed in v. 14:

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

As one writer noted:

Even more important regarding the intimate bond Paul creates between faith and love is that he describes this bond as the only way to obtain salvation. This is more apparent in Galatians 5:2-3 as Paul contrasts “faith working in love” with “law” which cannot save. Paul is not only clarifying the negative by pitting faith against law, he is also bringing forth the positive which is faith working in love. Since Paul is concerned in this context with how one is justified, this places the bond between faith and love as indispensable to salvation. Faith is a superlative virtue, but it is not supreme, or is it alone in the salvation of man. It is no surprise, then, when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:2, 13: “. . . and if I have faith that can move mountains, but not love, I am nothing . . . of faith, hope, and love, the greatest of these is love.” (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997], 72 [emphasis in original]).

This is another area where Latter-day Saint soteriology and “biblical Christianity” converge, but the theology of our Evangelical opponents (yet again) faces many exegetical, theological, and linguistic problems.