Matthew Henry on Acts 23:11

Matthew Henry (1662-1714), a Reformed commentator who is still popular among Calvinists today, wrote the following about Acts 23:11, affirming that Jesus did physically (not in a mere vision or dream) descend from heaven to comfort Paul:

The Lord stood by him, came to his bed-side, though perhaps it was but a bed of straw, to show him that he was all the day long with him really as sure as he was in the night with him visibly. Note, Whoever is against us, we need not fear if the Lord stand by us; if he undertake our protection, we may set those that seek our ruin at defiance. The Lord is with those that uphold my soul, and then nothing can come amiss. 1. Christ bids him have a good heart upon it: "Be of good cheer, Paul; be not discouraged; let not what has happened sadden thee, nor let what may yet be before thee frighten thee." Note, It is the will of Christ that his servants who are faithful should be always cheerful. Perhaps Paul, in the reflection, began to be jealous of himself whether he had done well in what he said to the council the day before; but Christ, by his word, satisfies him that God approved of his conduct. Or, perhaps, it troubled him that his friends did not come to him; but Christ's visit did itself speak, though he had not said, Be of good cheer, Paul. 2. It is a strange argument which he makes use of to encourage him: As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. One would think this was but cold comfort: "As thou hast undergone a great deal of trouble for me so thou must undergo a great deal more;" and yet this was designed to encourage him; for hereby he is given to understand, (1.) That he had been serving Christ as a witness for him in what he had hitherto endured. It was for no fault that he was buffeted, and it was not his former persecuting of the church that was now remembered against him, however he might remember it against himself, but he was still going on with his work.

Henry clearly did not believe that Acts 3:19-21 disallows Jesus from ever descending from heaven until the eschaton. See Acts 3:19-21 and the Book of Mormon.

Walter Elliott on Jesus' Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane

It is not secret that Latter-day Saints place a strong emphasis on Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane. Notwithstanding, it is not totally unique to us. Many other groups place a great importance on Gethsemane, even if they do not believe it to have been part of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

Walter Elliott, a Catholic priest wrote the following about Jesus’ agony in the Garden:

As He crossed the road it seemed as if He had suddenly entered hell, so unspeakably bitter was the torture which immediately seized His spirit. And indeed it was His purpose to suffer the torments of the damned in order that men might escape them. Here, then, the human soul of Jesus was made to appreciate as never before what sin is, to realize the offended majesty of God, and, in conjunction with that, the awful calamity of being a lost soul. To use a feeble comparison, He was like an innocent man who had contrived y means of a disguise to take his guilty brother’s place in the prisoner’s dock, and in his stead to be tried for an atrocious crime, condemned and executed. Infinite holiness disguises itself as pride and sensuality and becomes the victim of the sinner’s wickedness. The whole shame and degradation of sin, the entire agony of punishment for sin, entered into the thoughts and feelings of Jesus as poison would have entered His blood had. He drunk a cup of it: hence, “let this cup pass from me” was the prayer that sprang to His lips in the horror of His first moments alone.

The coup of blessing (I. Cor. x. 16), which He had given us a short while before, is now recompensed by the cup of malediction thrust upon Him by our vices. It agnonizes Him to that degree that His human heart craves relief. “O My Father! if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.” His prayer, thrice repeated, is refused, and His submission is true, absolute, and universal: “Not My will but Thine be done,” submission without exception or qualification, total and irrevocable, mere obedience, the displacement of His own will by that of the Father.

He was made to know all sins, in themselves and in their circumstances and surroundings, the wilfulness of sin and its folly, the aggravating accompaniments, the countless repetition of sins, the relapses after pardon; all this, with a perfect knowledge and a vivid imagination, did its work upon His sensitive soul, plunging Him into a condition of agony which appalled even so lofty a courage as His. It was from this ordeal that He shrank; He was horrified to find Himself feeling guilty of every sin, realizing the remorse, the shame, the eternal despair of sin, becoming, as it were, responsible for every sin in all respects except personal guilt; such was the Saviour’s doom. He instinctively recoiled from it. “He fell flat on the ground, and He prayed that if it might be, the hour might pass from Him. And He said: Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee; remove this chalice from Me; but not what I will, but what Thou wilt.”

Here, then, began the crisis of our atonement. “The High-Priest of the law,” says St. Francis de Sales, “wore upon his back and upon his breast the names of the children of Israel engraven on precious stones! Ah! behold Jesus, our chief bishop, and see how the instant of His conception He bore us, upon His shoulders, undertaking the charge of redeeming us by His death, even the death of the Cross. O Theotimus, Theotiumus, this soul of our Saviour knew us all by name and by surname; but above all in the day of His Passion, when He offered His tears, His prayers, His blood and His life for all, He breathed in particular for all, He breathed in particular for thee these thoughts of love: Ah, My eternal Father, I take to myself and charge Myself with all poor Theotimus’s sins, to undergo torments and death that he may be freed from them, and that he may not perish but live. Let Me die so that he may not perish but live. Let Me die so that he may live; let Me be crucified so he may be glorified. O sovereign love of the heart of Jesus, what heart can ever bless Thee as devotedly as it ought?” (The Love of God, Book XII. chap. 12). This explains the meaning of His saying, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” It was all the death that an immortal soul could suffer. The forces of a spirit cannot be dissolved, the faculties of thought and love cannot rot and perish like flesh and blood . . . He outstayed the period of the Father’s allotment of bitterness. All that thought and affection, gratitude and appreciation, could suffer from insult and contempt; all that is meant by disappointment, chagrin, failure; all that hell could do to an innocent soul, all this Jesus suffered that we might escape it. At length the end approached. The Father had not, indeed, relaxes His justice; the soul of Jesus had been crucified. But the paternal love sent a messenger of consolation. “And there appeared to Him an angel from heaven strengthening Him.” . . . when He arose and wiped the sweat from His face He found blood mingled with it; it was oozing out from every pore. “And His sweat became as drops of blood ticking down upon the ground.” The spasms of His heart had driven the blood of the Saviour with such force as to cause it to overflow its channels.

If Jesus had suffered an indescribable agony in the Garden, He also had gathered an increase of courage from His fortitude and His prayers. For when He realized that His hour was at hand He arose, wiped the blood-stained seat from His face, and calling to His Apostles to follow Him, calmly advanced towards His enemies to give Himself up to them. There shall be no further sign of fear in Him, or of other emotion, till “all things are accomplished.” (Walter Elliott, The Life of Christ: Embracing The Entire Gospel Narrative [The Paulist Press, 1939], 649-52, 654, 655)

Stanley Porter: The Author of John ch. 21 is the same as the author of chs. 1-20

While some scholars who postulate John 21 to be a later insertion to the gospel by a person/group of people other than the author of chs. 1-20, there are some scholars who, while believing to be an insertion, was inserted (1) a very short time after the completion of chs. 1-20 and (2) was inserted by the author of the gospel itself.

Stanley E. Porter, in an essay defending this thesis, stated that:

There have been a number of more recent scholars—Lee McDonald included—who have argued that this chapter was not a part of the original Gospel. It has been argued fairly frequently, for example, that John 21 was not original, but was written by the author of the Gospel and appended later, quite possibly soon after . . . I am not sure when John 21 was included in the Gospel, but I believe there is no substantive evidence for doubting that it was written by the same author as wrote the rest of the Gospel and that it was attached to the Gospel very early—so early as to leave no substantive (only suppositional and speculative) evidence of it being later. (Stanley E. Porter, “The Ending of John’s Gospel” in William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans, eds. From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald [Macon, Ga.: Mercier University Press, 2007], 55-73, here, pp. 56, 73)

While the entirety of Porter’s essay should be read to understand his arguments against the author of ch. 21 being the same author of chs. 1-20, one of the topics that Porter addresses is that of the vocabulary of ch. 21:

There are two kinds of vocabulary items to note. First is a list of a number of vocabulary items that are unique to John 21, as compared to the rest of the Gospel. These including (according to Bultmann’s and Barrett’s lists): αιγαλος (“beach,” John 21:4), αλιευειν (“fish,” John 21:3), αποβαινειν (“get out,” John 21:9), αρισταν (“eat,” John 21:12), αρνιον (“lamb,” John 21:15), βοσκειν(“feed,” John 21:15), γηρασκειν (“age,” John 21:18), γυμνος (“naked,” John 21:7), δικτυον (“fishing net,” John 21:6, 8), εκτεινειν (“stretch out,” John 21:18), εξεταζειν(“ask,” John 21:12), επενδυτης (“outer garment,” John 21:7), επισρεφειν (“turn around,” John 21:20), ζωννυναι (“fasten,” John 21:18), ισχυειν (“be able,” John 21:6), ιχθυς (“fish,” John 21:6, 8, 11), μακραν (“far,” John 21:8), νεωτερος (“younger,” John 21:18), οιεσθαι (“think,” John 21:25), πηχυς (“cubit,” John 21:8), ποιμαινειν (“tend sheep,” John 21:16), προβατιον (“sheep,” John 21:16), προσφαγιον (“accompaniment/fish,” John 21:8), τρωια (“early,” John 21:4), ουρειν (“drag,” John 21:8), τολμαν, (“dare,” John 21:12) τριτον (“third,” John 21:1, 14, 17).

Some of these examples are quickly dismissed such as επιστρεφειν, where the lexeme is simply the prefixed form of a verb that appears elsewhere in the Gospel (John 1:38; 12:40; 20:14, 16), or τολμαν, which is used no more frequently in John 21 than it is in any of the other Gospels (Matthew 1x, Mark 2x, Luke 1x). What is worth noting is that, of the 28 words, seventeen of them occur in the episode of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples while they are fishing (John 21:1-14), with many of the words being related to fishing (e.g., “beach,” “fish,” “get out,” “naked,” “fishing,” “eat,” “cubit”). As this is the only fishing episode in John’s Gospel, these results are perhaps not too surprising and the data not telling. Another seven words occur in the next episode between Jesus and Peter (John 21:15-19), and reflect a high concentration of vocabulary particular to their discussion of sheep (e.g., “lamb,” “feed,” “tend sheep,” “sheep”). As Bultmann himself realizes, much of this material is “accidental and conditions by the material” (Bultmann, John, 700).

The second list if of those words that are used in unusual ways. Bultmann notes that αδελφοι (“brothers”) is used only in John 21:23 as a designation for Christians, the disciples are addressed by Jesus as παιδια (“children,” John 21:5), the preposition απο (“from”) is used causatively on John 21:6 and partitively in v. 10 (rather than εκ), the preposition επι (“upon”) is used differently in John 21:1 than elsewhere in John’s Gospel, the verb φανερουν is used differently in John 21:1 than elsewhere, and πλεον (John 21:15) is used instead of μαλλον (John 3:19; 12:43).

This type of evidence is somewhat more difficult to evaluate, as there are a greater number of factors to consider. These include style, content and even significance of a variants as opposed to the regular pattern. As a result, there have been detailed responses to some of these suggestions (including responses to the first list as well). Ruckstuhl, for example, says of the use of αδελφοι (John 21:23) for “Christian” that the concept of Christian as a member of the community had not appeared in John’s Gospel previously (Literarische Einheit, 143). He further contends that the use of εξεταζειν (purportedly for ερωταν, John 21:12) is in the sense, not of ask but of “test” or “interrogate,” an example in which the use defines the sense of the word (Ibid., 143). Ruckstuhl finds a parallel to the use of παιδια (John 21:5) in the use of τεκνια, which appears only in John 13:33. Further, Ruckstuhl disputes the judgments regarding causal and partitive απο. He does not think that there was a likely alternative for the former (21:6), and defends the sense in 21:10 of the use (Ibid., 144). Concerning the supposedly unusual use of επι in John 21:1, Ruckstuhl contends that the sense in 21:1 is not that of “upon the sea” as in 6:19, but “of “on the edge of the sea.” In that sense it is closer to the use of 6:21: επι της γης (“on the ground”). Ruckstuhl also disputes that the use of φανεροω I John 21:1 is different, as the reflexive use is also found in John 7:4 (Ibid., 144).

A survey of the vocabularly evidence must conclude . .. that the case for a distinction between John 21 and the rest of the Gospel clearly remains unmade. (Porter, "The Ending of John's Gospel," 60-62)

James D.G. Dunn on New Testament Local Congregations and Ecclesiology

New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn cautioned readers of Paul and his epistles that, vis-à-vis his ecclesiology, that

because Paul used the term ekklēsia for individual churches, he saw them as independent and autonomous. It is true that the concept of the church as the universal body of Christ does not emerge in the Pauline corpus till the later letters, and may indeed be an elaboration rather than an articulation of his own thoughts (Colossians [Col 1:18] and Ephesians [1:22-23] are widely regarded as post-Pauline). But he certainly did not think of them as independent and autonomous from each other. They each represented Christ, were Christ’s body in their place of residence (1 Cor 12:27); they had a common identity. Not only so, but Paul’s churches had been founded by him; whoever else might have claim to be their apostle, he certainly was their apostle. He was their father in Christ. And he fully expected them to share a family likeness. The gospel which he had preached to them was what all the apostles preached in founding churches (1 Cor 15:11). His repeated appeal in his Corinthian letters to what was true for “all the churches” implied that same shared identity. And that identity included the sense of shared indebtedness to the mother church of Jerusalem, equivalent to the identity expressed in the diaspora Jewish synagogues in their payment of the annual temple tax. Paul did not make much use of the idea of the new groups of believers as “the people of God” (Rom 9:25, 26; 11:1-2; 2 Cor 6:16), but his conviction that they as the called of God (Rom 9:24) had been grated into the one olive tree of Israel (11:17-24) implied a belief in the corporate identity of the believers, Jews with Gentiles, on which the later Pauline letters could build . . . his churches were not isolated communities, each evolving separately like the giant turtles and finches of the Galapagos Islands. They belonged to a network, and the connecting links and strands were maintained and strengthened by frequent comings and goings. Within that context it is highly likely that copies of Paul’s letters became a regular part of that traffic between churches. (James D. G. Dunn, “How the New Testament Canon Began” in William H. Brackney and Craig A. Evans, eds. From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald [Macon, Ga.: Mercier University Press, 2007], 122-37, here, pp. 135-36)

Such flies in the face of some ecclesiologies one encounters from Protestant critics of the Church.

Jeffrey R. Holland on "Lord" (Yahweh/Jehovah) being Applied to the Father, not just the Son

When discussing the use of “LORD” (Yahweh/Jehovah), Jeffrey R. Holland wrote the following:

Lord

This is one of the most frequently used titles for Jesus in the scriptures, especially when referencing Jehovah in the Old Testament. Its most common synonym is Master, suggesting governance and authority over possessions, property, and people, such as a medieval "lord of the manor" or "master of the house." Fortunately, in the case of Christ, His lordly role is characterized by benign, loving governance and authority.

It should be noted that, as with the title such as God, Lord is often applied to the Father, thus making it sometimes problematic in determining which of these two Deities is being referenced. Obvious examples appear in the Psalms, where David's cries are virtual prayers directed toward the Lord He to whom prayers are directed has traditionally been the Father, not the Son. However, inasmuch as Jehovah serves under the Father in the Old Testament and as such is the God of those people, it is sometimes unclear to whom prayers are being directed in that era. (Jeffrey R. Holland, Witness for His Names [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019], 101, emphasis in bold added)

I was pleased to read this as too many Latter-day Saints have the naïve view that all instances of Yahweh has Jesus as its referent only, notwithstanding the Father being called “Jehovah” in uniquely LDS Scripture (D&C 109: 34, 42, 56, 68). Furthermore, there are passages in the Old Testament where Yahweh is the Father, such as Psa 2:7; 110:1; Isa 53:10. For a discussion, see:

Keith H. Meservy, LORD = Jehovah in Ensign 32, no. 6 (June 2002): 29

The June 1916 First Presidency Statement:

The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve

Longevity of Enos and Jarom in the Book of Mormon

In Enos 1:25 etc. Longevity of Nephite Scribes the late John A. Tvedtnes addressed the following criticism:

In the Book of Mormon, Enos wrote that 179 years had passed away from the time that his grandfather, Lehi, left Jerusalem (Enos 1:25). Later, Enos’s son Jarom says 238 years had passed away (Jarom 1:13). It is unreasonable to expect that three generations (Lehi’s son Jacob, his son Enos, and his son Jarom) could have lived so long.

Interestingly, there are modern examples of such. In the following video from 2014, two children (at the time of recording, ages 92 and 93) of participants in the US Civil War (1861-1865) talk about their fathers, showing that such longevity of some Book of Mormon peoples is not unusual:

Children of U.S. Civil War Vets Reminisce About Fathers | National Geographic  (*)

(*) my thanks to Jared Riddick for making me aware of this video

Another interesting video is how US President John Tyler (born 1790; died 1862) still has two living grandsons:

How President Tyler, born in 1790, still has two living grandsons

Update: My friend Bruce Webster shared with me something he wrote back in 2009 on this issue:

The Enos problem in the Book of Mormon

Moroni's Reworking of Malachi 4:5-6

When Moroni appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith in 1823, he quoted, among other texts, Malachi 4:5-6. Notwithstanding, he made alterations thereto, not as part of a “textual restoration” of the original Malachi (such “expansions” do not appear in 3 Nephi 25:5-6), but to bring out more explicitly what would happen vis-à-vis the future-coming of Elijah. As a result, it would be beneficial to some to read them side-by-side:

Malachi 4:5-6 (KJV)	D&C 2
Behold, I will send you the Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord	Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers;	And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.
lest I come and smite the earth with a curse	If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

The change that stood out to me is the use of “plant” (Heb:‎יסד ; LXX: θεμελιοω) instead of “turn”—the term “plant” is the language of creation. One is reminded of Isa 51:15-16 where God is speaking to an elevated human figure who will be the agent of the New Creation (see The High view of "Mere Men" in Sirach, Isaiah, and the Sibylline Oracles for a fuller discussion). I read this as God, as a result of Elijah’s coming (see D&C 110) “planting” into the hearts of people a desire to turn to their fathers (such would explain the explosion of genealogical research post-1836).

On the issue of the Latter-day Saint belief that Elijah would come in a time just before the Second Coming and that Mal 4:5-6 was not fulfilled (at least exhaustively) by John the Baptist, see:

Refuting the Tanners on the LDS Interpretation of Malachi 4:5-6