Joseph Ratzinger on the Dynamic Relationship Between God's Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

While reading his interview with Peter Seewald, Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, answered a question about human free-will and God’s foreknowledge which I am sure many Latter-day Saints will appreciate as well as his affirmation of the “fortunate fall” (felix culpa) (why yes, I am feeling very ecumenical today . . . ;-) )

God has created true freedom and allows his own plans to be confounded (even if he does so in such a way that he can then make something new out of them). History shows this. First the sin of Adam upsets God’s plan. And God answers this by giving himself more powerfully, by giving himself in Christ.

That is, so to say, the one great example. There are many other lesser ones. Let’s take the people of Israel. They were supposed to live in a theocracy, an arrangement whereby there were no human rulers, but only judges who applied the divine Law. But the Israelites wanted a king. They wanted to be like other people. And they wrecked the plan. God gave way. He gave them Saul, then David, and from that point he built the road to Christ again, to the King who overthrew all monarchy by dying on the Cross.

We have here models by which Scripture would have us understand that God fully accepts freedom, on the one hand—and, on the other, is greater than we and is able to make a new beginning out of failure, out of destruction, a new beginning that in some way improves on the original and appears greater and better. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald [trans. Henry Taylor; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002], 58-59)

A. Keith Thompson on the Rebuttal of the dualism of God in the Jerusalem Talmud

In his interesting book on the origins of monotheism, A. Keith Thompson (a Latter-day Saint scholar) wrote the following about the Jerusalem Talmud’s attempt to explain away some texts that would indicate a theology other than strict unitary monotheism:

Rebuttal of the dualism of God in the Jerusalem Talmud

The issue of the possible dualism of God is introduced in the Jerusalem Talmud by a question put to the Rabbi Samlaï (Jerusalem Talmud, 44) by “some bad men.” His interlocutor asks – ‘How many Gods created the universe” (Ibid., 150) which the context confirms is a reference to the use of the plural “us” in the standard translation of Genesis 1:26 into English as – “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Ibid., 151), and to Joshua 22:22 where God is referred to as “The Lord God of gods”.

Rabbi Samlaï responds with references to Deuteronomy 4:32 and Genesis 1:1 though with clarifications from the questioners’ references and some others. His answers are avowedly monotheistic. The references to God in Genesis 1:1 and Deuteronomy 4:32 to God as creator are both in the singular and the verb used confirms the fact. Similarly, he explains that in Genesis 1:26 the fact that God is singular is confirmed in the following verse 27 where the creation of man by God in the singular is confirmed by the use of the personal pronouns “He” and “his” when the plan or creation is carried into effect. The same answer is given in relation to Joshua 22:22 – the verb used in the original language text denotes God in the singular and the Rabbi Samlaï puts the matter to bed by saying the confusion has arisen because God has multiple names, just as their emperor has three names – “Caesar, Augustus or Emperor” (Ibid.) The discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud continues with the Rabbi Isaac explaining that the confusing plural had been used “to show that several degrees of holiness are meant” (Ibid.) (A. Keith Thompson, Trinity and Monotheism: A historical and theological review of the origins and substance of the doctrine [Redland Bay, Australia: Modotti Press, 2019], 40-41)

Robert Haddard's "Response" to Why Jesus Did Not Know the Date of the Parousia/Second Coming

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)

Robert Haddard, an Australian Catholic apologist, addressed the question of how Jesus could not know the time of his second coming. His response (which, to be fair, he admits he himself does not find totally satisfactory) is basically, (1) as Jesus knows what would happen, this must mean he knew (intellectually) when it would happen and that (2) when Jesus stated he did not "know" the time of the second coming, this simply means that he was not allowed to reveal the timing thereof:

Why would Jesus not know the time of his second coming?

To be fair to Haddard (he seems like a smart fellow from the videos I have watched where he has defended Roman Catholic theology), "utter nonsense" is the most polite way to sum up his pathetic argument, though it is en par with the more common response of "Jesus [who is one person] did not know with respect to his human nature but did know with respect to his divine nature" (which essentially splits Jesus into two persons, a la Nestorianism, a 4th century heresy condemned at Ephesus in 431, as well as Chalcedon's affirmation that, notwithstanding having two distinct natures, Jesus is a single person in 451).

For more, see the discussion about the Hypostatic Union ("The Hypostatic Union Examined") in my article:

Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Affirmation of Sub-divisions in the Celestial Kingdom in 1847

In the Millennial Star vol. 9, no 2 (15 January 1847), p. 23, we find the following diagram of the Kingdom of God from the editor:

The following is the description attached thereto:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the father. He is one with the Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father's and becomes part of it.

The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. He that has been faithful over a few things, will be made ruler over many things; he that has been faithful over ten talents shall have dominion over ten cities, and he that has been faithful over five talents, shall have dominion over five cities, and to every man will be given a kingdom and a dominion, according to his merit, powers, and abilities to govern and control. It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms [RB: in light of the diagram, the author means sub-kingdoms]. These have received their washings and anointings in the temple of God on this earth; they have been chosen, ordained and anointed kings and priests, to reign as such in the resurrection of the just. Such as have not received the fulness of the priesthood, (for the fulness of the priesthood includes the authority of both king and priest) and have not been anointed and ordained in the temple of the Most High, may obtain salvation in the celestial kingdom, but not a celestial crown. Many are called to enjoy a celestial glory, yet few are chosen to wear a celestial crown, or rather, to be rulers in the celestial kingdom.

While this portion of eternity that we now live in, called time, continues, and while the other portions of eternity that we may hereafter dwell in, continue, those lines in the foregoing diagram, representing kingdoms, will continue to extend and be lengthened out; and thus, the increase of our kingdoms will increase the kingdom of our God, even as Daniel hath said: "Of the increase of his kingdom and government there shall be no end." All these kingdoms are one kingdom, and there is a King over kings and a Lord over lords. There are Lords many, and Gods many, for they are called Gods to whom the word of God comes, and the word of God comes to all these kings and priests. But to our branch and f the kingdom there is but one God, to whom we all owe the most perfect submission and loyalty; yet our God is just as subject to still higher intelligences, as we should be to him.

The great fault of all nations has been, that they would worship more Gods than one. They well knew that there are more sovereigns than one over the kingdoms of this world, but would it not be folly in the extreme for an Englishman to attempt to serve other kings and rulers, while a subject of her Majesty, and living within her dominions? Most certainly it would: his Queen would be jealous of him, but if there was no other power to serve, she never would be jealous; there would be no room for fear or suspicion. If there was only one man on earth, that one man would never be jealous of his wife. Our God says that he is a jealous God; but how could he be jealous if he were the only God? These kingdoms, which are one kingdom, are designed to extend till they not only embrace this world, but every other planet that rolls in the blue vault of heaven. Thus will all things be gathered in one during the dispensation of the fulness of times, and the Saints will not only possess the earth, but all things else, for, says Paul, "All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (Ibid., 23-24, emphasis added, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Here we see an early (1847) affirmation of there being sub-kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom, per the common modern interpretation of D&C 131.

Joseph Smith and Baptismal Regeneration

Some point to a comment by Joseph Smith wherein he stated that baptism by water is but half a baptism in an effort to downplay the salvific efficacy of water baptism. In his diary, as recorded by Willard Richards on 9 July 1843, we read:

Holy Ghost by laying on of hands. Evidence. Peter on days of Pentecost. might as well be baptize a bag of sand as a man if not done in view of the getting of the Holy Ghost.--baptism by water is but 1/2 a baptism--& is good for nothing with the other, the Holy Ghost. (The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, eds. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1991], 230)

In a previous post (Does Acts 19:3-6 teach "rebaptism"?), I reproduced comments from Joseph Smith explicitly asserting baptismal regeneration and even using John 3:3-5 and Acts 2:38 in support thereof, so clearly this is a case of letting the totality of Joseph Smith's teachings speak for themselves: water baptism brings about the remission of sins, but must be complemented with the receipt of the Holy Ghost to allow a believer to have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit and to grow in righteousness and holiness. Furthermore, water baptism does not act as a guarantee of salvation--one can have their past and then-present sins remitted and yet can fall away; the gift of the Holy Ghost greatly aids one to persevere. I will let interested readers pursue the aforementioned blog post and examine the references from Joseph affirming baptismal regeneration.

Where does repentance prior to baptism come into this? Yes, we are to be repentant, but that repentance itself does not result in our initial remission of sins--it is a repentant faith coupled with water baptism (e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Alma 5:62). As Moroni 8:11 puts it: "baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins." Furthermore, in our theology, even if one is not truly repentant for whatever reason (e.g., a child "born into the covenant" being baptised who is simply doing it to appease his parents) still receives this remission of sins, so the concept of ex opere operato comes into play here (after all, if this child suddenly become a true-believing member, we would not expect him to be rebaptised, showing that we do believe, for baptism, such a concept exists).

Furthermore, if one reads the comments before this statement, Joseph affirms baptismal regeneration, so this interpretation is the correct way to harmonise this lone statement with all of Joseph Smith's other teachings on the topic:

"Do you believe in the baptism of infants"? says the Presbyterians.--No.--"Why. because it is no where written in the book. communion is not Baptism. Baptism is for the remission of sins, children have no sins.--He Jesus blessed them--do what you have seen me do--all made alive in christ. (Ibid., 229-30)

It should be noted that early Latter-day Saints who knew Joseph did not understand him to downplay the salvific efficacy of water baptism. Indeed, many assumed baptismal regeneration. One example can be seen with how early LDS answered the question of how Joseph could receive a remission of sins in the First Vision prior to his water baptism—they argued, not that water baptism brought about a remission of sins, but instead, such was God allowing for an exception to the ordinary means of one receiving an initial remission of sins. In the minutes for the Salt Lake School of the Prophets for December 9, 1872, this was addressed thusly:

Elder Orson Pratt made a few opening remarks, and enquired if the members of the school had any special subject on their minds, they wished investigated, if not, he proposed the reading of Revelations, as suggested by Prest. Brigham Young. Section 2nd. Paragraph 1st [of the Doctrine and Covenants]. Several interesting remarks were made by Elders Orson Pratt & John Taylor on Chronology. The time of the organization of the Church was, according to the Vulgar [common calendar] or Incorrect Era—1830 years [and four months] since the birth of Christ. But according to the true Era it was exactly 1830 years.

Paragraph 2nd. The Prophet Joseph [Smith’]s sins were remitted before baptism—and the enemies of this kingdom sometimes uses that fact against the doctrine of Baptism for the remission of sins, but God has a right when he sees fit, to depart from any fixed rule or order, but this does not invalidate the general doctrine as taught in the Testament & Book of Mormon that Man is required to observe water baptism as the only means of securing of a forgiveness ^remission^ of sins. (Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 1867-1883 [ed. Devery S. Anderson; Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018], 321-22)

Heber C. Kimball, another friend and associate of Joseph Smith, affirmed baptismal regeneration in a sermon from 1857:

Can you change these ordinances? No. They are eternal; they always were and always will be; and no man or woman upon earth can be saved without them. You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest. There is but one way, and that is to be buried in water, buried with Christ by baptizing in water, that your sins may be blotted out by one having authority, or else it will do you no good. (JOD 5:90| July 26 1857)

Erastus Snow and Benjamin Winchester, in "An address to the citizens of Salem (Mass.) and the Vicinity," wrote the following in The Times and Seasons when Joseph Smith was still alive and involved in the publication of this newspaper, about baptism and its efficacy:

The human family in their sins, are foreigners and strangers to God; consequently they must be adopted in order to become citizens of his kingdom. Baptism of course then is the ordinance of adoption. Christ said, "Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This birth is a transition from our sinful state into the kingdom of God. To be baptized, is to follow Christ in the work of the regeneration, hence Cornelius, notwithstanding all his good works and piety, was commanded to be baptized, as being necessary that he might obtain salvation. (see Acts, x. chap.) Now that baptism is for the remission of sins, is evident from what Peter said to those who were convicted on the day of Pentecost. "Repent every one of you, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." &c. Ananias, said to Paul, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts xxii, 16.) The above is the doctrine the apostles taught to sinners the principles of it, that Christ commanded the apostles to preach in all the world. "Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (see Matt. xxviii. 24.) Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned," &c. (See Mark, xvi, 16.) Not that there is virtue in water to remit sins; but by obeying the command, we have a right to claim the promise. The apostles introduced the ordinance of baptism on every occasion where they preached the gospel: for instance, Peter on the day of Pentecost, as before mentioned, (See Acts, ii, 38.) Philip to the Samaritans, and also to the Eunuch, (See Acts, viii. chap.) Ananias to Saul. (See Acts, xxii. 16) Peter to Cornelius and his household, (See Acts, x. chap.) Paul to the Jailor and Lydia, and their households, (See Acts, x, chapter)Paul to the Corinthians (See Acts, xviii. 8.) Paul to the disciples of John at Ephesus, (See Acts, xix. chap.) Some one of the disciples to the Romans, (See Rom. vi 4.) The several passages of scripture above referred to show the importance of this ordinance, and certainly the ancients esteemed it as a commandment of God not to be justly rejected. (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 578-79 [15 November, 1841])

In a catechism for Latter-day Saint children from 1877, under chapter XI (Baptism), we find the following question and answer on the relationship between water baptism and our adoption as (covenant) sons and daughters of God, an important facet of baptism in Latter-day Saint theology:

13. Q. What is baptism sometimes called?

A. The law of adoption, or the door of the kingdom of God.

14. Q. Why is baptism so called?

A. Because mankind having become, through sin, strangers and aliens to God, they, by obeying the ordinance of baptism, become his adopted children, and members of his kingdom. (Elder John Jaques, Catechism for Children Exhibiting the Prominent Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: 1877; repr., Mormon Heritage Publishers, 1976], 38)

Echoing this teaching, John A. Widtsoe wrote:

Every act has its results. The first and glorious effect of baptism is the remission of sins. Those who are baptized are, as it were, washed clean of their past mistakes. That may not mean that no price is to be paid for evil acts that have been committed; but it does mean, that the past will not stand as a hindrance to future progress. Coming out of the waters of baptism, all will have an equal start on the eternal, progressive journey that constitutes the basis of life in the Church of Christ. (“Baptism” in John A. Widtsoe, Man and the Dragon and Other Essays [Salt Lake City: The Bookcraft Company, 1945], 147)

Modern leaders of the Church affirm this, too. As one example, take the following from Boyd K Packer (1924-2015):

You Can become Clean

I am sure that within the sound of my voice there is more than one young person who already has fallen into transgression. Some of you young people, I am sure, almost innocent of any intent but persuaded by the enticements and the temptations, already have misused this power.

Know then, my young friends, that there is a great cleansing power. And know that you can be clean.

If you are outside the Church the covenant of baptism itself represents, among other things, a washing and a cleansing. (Boyd K. Packer, “Why Stay Morally Clean” in “That All May Be Edified”: Talks, Sermons and commentary by Boyd K. Packer [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998], 183)

Furthermore, the Scriptures, both biblical and uniquely LDS, teach that water baptism brings about a remission of sins and then, after such, one receives the Holy Spirit.  

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins; and whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church. (D&C 49:13-14)

In this text, one is baptised, has their sins remitted, and only after such, receives the gift of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, this text in the Doctrine and Covenants is dependent upon Acts 2:38-39, a text that explicitly teaches baptismal regeneration, as explained in my article:

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

In the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, speaking of Adam’s baptism, we read the following:

And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man. (Moses 6:65)

In this one verse, we have one of, if not the, most explicit witness to baptismal regeneration in uniquely Latter-day Saint works—here, in this passage, through the instrumentality of water baptism, the Holy Spirit quickens (makes alive) the inner man, and thus one is “born of the Spirit” (i.e., regenerated).

The Book of Mormon is a great witness to the truth of this doctrine. In the following, we read of how, at baptism, one is infused with God’s grace (and therefore, serving, not just as a witness of baptismal regeneration, but also of the transformative [not merely declarative] nature of justification):

And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God. (Mosiah 18:16)

One final text we will look at is D&C 55:1:

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant William, yea, even the Lord of the whole earth, thou art called and chosen; and after thou hast been baptized by water, which if you do with an eye single to my glory, you shall have a remission of your sins and a reception of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands

Here we see that it is water baptism that brings about a forgiveness of one's past and then-present sins in Latter-day Saint scripture and theology.

 So, did Joseph Smith deny the salvific efficacy of water baptism? Clearly, he did not and none of his contemporaries understood him to teach anything but baptismal regeneration.

Brian Hales' Response to D. Michael Quinn on Joseph Smith's Polygamy

I have been making my way through the following lengthy article (with a lengthy title[!]) by Brian Hales; I am sure there are those who follow this blog who will find it interesting, too:

Brian Hales’ Final Response to D. Michael Quinn's “Evidence for the Sexual Side of Joseph Smith's Polygamy,” His Final Response to Hales’ 2012 MHA Presentation: “Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes: On Closer Inspection, What Do We Find?”

"Follow the Prophet" being taught in the Bible

Some critics often portray Latter-day Saints as cultists who are not allowed to question our leadership ever, and that “when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done” for members of the Church (notwithstanding such a notion was condemned as false by then-president of the Church, George Albert Smith). I discussed this in my response to Mike Thomas of Reachout Trust at:

Latter-day Saints and the Bible (cf. On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine and Having faith "in" Prophets and Objects, not just God)

To be sure, Latter-day Saints are to give due honour and respect to our leaders, both local and global. Interestingly, a “follow the brethren”-like attitude is commanded in the pages of the Bible, and such a high view of Church leadership (even if one wishes to limit it to the local church merely) is at odds with a lot of the ecclesiologies of our critics.

2 Chron 20:20

They rose early in the morning and went out to the wilderness of Tekoa; and when they went out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, "listen to me, O Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, put your trust in the Lord your God and you will be established. Put your trust in His prophets and succeed." (2 Chron 20:20 NASB)

In her scholarly commentary on Chronicles, Sara Japhet wrote:

Jehoshaphat acts out Jahaziel's prophecy to the letter. His instructions were 'tomorrow go out', and here, indeed, we read 'they rose . . . and went out'. The king in fact goes beyond literal obedience: 'he rose in the morning'. This is not only an authentic way to act in desert conditions (cf. Gen. 19.2; Josh. 6.15; Judg. 7.1; 1 Sam. 29.10, etc.), but also a literary sign of his vigilance (cf. Ge. 22.3). Jehoshaphat's words of encouragement, to the army are also beyond what the prophet counselled; they are a firm declaration of trust, and attest to the profound transformation wrought in Jehoshaphat as a result of the Lord's intervention. The fearful and bewildered victim of circumstances has become a decisive leader.

It has been recognized that the king's exhortation is based on the words of Isaiah to Ahaz in Isa. 7.9: 'If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.' And yet there are several differences between the two utterances. Isaiah's demand for complete faith is phrased as a warning with a negative condition: 'If you will not believe . . . '. Here, there is a positive admonition: 'Believe . . . and you will be established.' Isaiah's brief statement is elaborated into a two-colon parallel passage, in which the play on the root 'mn is continued in 'believe in (NEB) his prophets', and climaxes with 'you will succeed'. Most important of all is this addition of faith in the prophets to trust in God; while strictly related to the context, it nevertheless reflects a major tenet of the Chronicler's attitude towards prophecy: the prophets themselves are objects of faith. (Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993], locations 19769 to 19788 of 26645 in Kindle version, emphasis added)

In a footnote in his commentary to Jonah 3:5 and the people of Nineveh believing “in” God, John Calvin wrote (emphasis in bold added):

Myhlab wnymayw, "And they believed in God. The verb Nma in Hiphil is ever followed by b or l, except in one instance by ta in Jdg 11:20. When followed by b it seems to mean, to give credit to what is said, to believe one’s testimony, or the truth of what is referred to. To believe then in God is to believe the truth of what he declares, to believe his word. Hence in 2Ch 20:20, Jehosophat said to the people, "Believe in the Lord your God," Mkyhla hwhyb wnymah; and he adds, "Believe in his Prophets," wyaybnb wnymah. It is the word of God, and the word of the Prophets, which was the same, or the truth or veracity of God and of his Prophets, that they For I have believed in thy commandments," Kytwumb, that is, in the truth of thy commandments. —When the verb in Hiphil is followed by l, the idea of reliance or dependance is more especially conveyed, though in many instances there is hardly a difference to be recognized, except the context be minutely observed.

Heb 13:7, 17

Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith . . . Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with oy and not with sighing--for that would be harmful to you. (Heb 13:7, 17 NRSV)

Paul Ellingworth (Protestant) wrote the following about Heb 13:17:

13:17. The leaders and the led

The reference to the ἡγούμενοι forms an inclusion with v. 7; but now the writer is concerned with the living, not the dead, leaders of the community. Insistence on the readers’ submission to these leaders is probably related to the writer’s fear of false teaching (v. 9), possibly on dietary matters, but it is difficult to be more specific. The juxtaposition of references to the leaders (v. 17) and to the writer himself (v. 18) strengthens the view that the writer considered himself a leader of the community to which he writes; there is no indication that he claimed a more general, for example, apostolic, authority. The opposite is suggested by the fact that the writer does not balance his instructions to church members with instructions to the leaders themselves (as in Jas. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2f.). This verse does, however, refer implicitly to the leaders’ responsibility before God. Laub 1980–81.187f. sees in 1 Clement (especially 1:3; 21:6), but not in Hebrews, assimilation of Christian to secular ἡγούμενοι.

Πείθω, “obey” (Jas. 3:3 of horses; 4 Macc. 10:13; 15:10; 18:1; 2 Clem. 17:5; Ep. Diog. 5:10; Ign. Rom. 7:2 bis; Bauer 3b; R. Bultmann in TDNT 6.3f.; BD §187.6). Πείθεσθε suggests continuous action. Paul develops the theme of submission within the Christian community, and to himself, by the use of ὑπακούω and cognates (Phil. 2:12; 1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Thes. 5:12f.; 2 Thes. 3:14; 1 Tim. 5:17), used in Hebrews of the obedience of Christ and of Christians alike (→ 5:8f.; cf. 11:8); also ὑποτάσσω, 12:9, of obedience to God. The theme of obedience to human leaders within the believing community goes back to the OT (Gn. 41:40; Ex. 16:20; Jos. 1:18; cf. 1 Macc. 14:43; Jos. Ant. 13.201; AP.2.194) and Judaism (S-B 1.909f.); soon after Hebrews, it was strongly emphasized in the Christian community (Ign. Rom. 7:2; 2 Clem. 17:5; cf. 1 Clem. 1:3; 57:1; Ign. Eph. 2:2; 20:2; Mag. 2; 13:2; Pol. 5:3). In Hebrews, the sole priesthood of Christ does not obviate the need for pastoral leadership in the community; but it is exercised by a group (cf. Phil. 1:1), not by a single individual.

Πείθεσθε is reinforced by the rarer and perhaps stronger ὑπείκετε: 4 Macc. 6:35***, of reasoning, not yielding to pleasures; here of due deference to the leaders by the led.

The deference is due because of the benefits which the leaders provide for the led. Αὐτοί may be emphatic, to distinguish the true leaders from the false teachers (v. 9); or αὐτοί may mean “the [leaders] just mentioned” (BD §288).

Ἀγρυπνέω: first literally, then as here metaphorically “keep watch” (Eph. 6:18; Ep. Diog. 5:2; Barn. 20:2; MM; Bauer 2). The image of a shepherd is implied, thus indirectly in v. 20 their subordination to Jesus, the great or chief shepherd. As very widely in the biblical tradition, rule and caring are joined (Vanhoye 1980.256–259; Laub 1981–82).

Ψυχή: → 4:12; plural 12:3, in a context of stronger warning than the present verse. No separation of soul and body is implied, but the author’s concern is clearly the spiritual good of the community. There is no overt reference to individuals in the community, any more than in v. 9.

Ὡς: not a comparison, but introducing something which is entailed by the very fact of leadership; alternatively, ὡς may express motive: “with the thought that they must” (MHT 3.158).

Λόγον ἀποδώσοντες: “give account,” here absolutely, by implication to God, as explicitly in Mt. 12:36; 1 Pet. 4:5. The future participle may imply “with the thought that” they will have to render their account to God (BD §425[3]; cf. MHT 3.87; so TEV “they must give God an account of their service”; similarly NIV, NJB, REB; NRSV more weakly “and will give an account.” Lane sees here a survival of classical usage in which ὡς + future participle conveys strong intention).

The result of the readers’ submission is described in two contrasting expressions: the leaders will exercise their caring function μετὰ χαρᾶς (→ 10:34, where joy is also related to effort), and μὴ στενάζοντες. The first is related to “keeping watch,” not to “rendering account.”

Στενάζω*, “sigh, groan,” is used of a wide variety of painful emotions and situations, including Job’s physical suffering (9:27; 23:2 A; cf. 30:25; 4 Macc. 9:21); frustration (Sir. 30:20); longing (2 Cor. 5:2, 4); lamentation (Ezk. 26:16; 28:19); dying (Is. 59:11); mourning (1 Macc. 1:26); the oppression of enemies (Is. 21:2; La. 1:21; Ezk. 21:11f.); and shame (Je. 38:19; La. 1:8). The contrast with joy in the present verse may suggest general sadness (as in Tob. 3:1 א); but the context also allows to be understood of the leaders’ shame if they have to render a negative account.

Ἀλυσιτελές***, “of no advantage,” is an understatement, perhaps enhanced by the use of an uncommon expression, for “unprofitable, harmful,” the second referring to the leaders’ doing their work in a negative spirit. The metaphor is commercial (J. A. T. Robinson 1976.212). Cf. λυσιτελεῖ** Lk. 17:2, where the meaning is defined by the parallels καλόν, Mk. 9:42, and συμφέρει, Mt. 18:6. Hebrews’ mild form of expression may cover a deeper fear for the readers’ well-being. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 722-24)

Calvin in his commentary to Heb 13:17 wrote (emphasis in bold in original):

17. Obey them,  etc. I doubt not but that he speaks of pastors and other rulers of the Church, for there were then no Christian magistrates; and what follows, for they watch for your souls,  properly belongs to spiritual government. He commands first obedience and then honor to be rendered to them. These two things are necessarily required, so that the people might have confidence in their pastors, and also reverence for them. But it ought at the same time to be noticed that the Apostle speaks only of those who faithfully performed their office; for they who have nothing but the title, nay, who use the title of pastors for the purpose of destroying the Church, deserve but little reverence and still less confidence. And this also is what the Apostle plainly sets forth when he says, that they watched for their souls, —a duty which is not performed but by those who are faithful rulers, and are really what they are called.

In his The Small Catechism, Luther wrote:

What the Hearers Owe to Their Pastors.

Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. 1 Cor. 9:14. Let him that is taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Gal. 6:6. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the laborer is worthy of his reward. 1 Tim. 5:17-18. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you. Heb. 13:17.]

In the Westminster Larger Catechism, we read the following:

127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to their superiors?

Answer: The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels, due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defence, and maintenance of their persons and authority according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honour to them and to their government.

So we see that both historical and modern Protestant authors will agree that a “follow the church leadership”-like attitude is part-and-parcel of biblical theology. This will leave the Evangelical anti-Mormon critic in a bind: either reject the explicit teaching of the Bible on this score by contradicting it in their modern ecclesiology (and thus, reject the formal sufficiency of the Bible [see Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura]) or, heaven forbid, be consistent and intellectual honest about the truth of both Latter-day Saint and biblical teachings on this point.

Furthermore, we see that the Bible is not a “Protestant” book—the only faith that is consistent with “biblical Christianity” is that of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.