Episode 104: Jacob Vidrine on the Transfiguration of Brigham Young
Saturday, August 8, 2026
Friday, August 7, 2026
E. A. Speiser on Genesis 16:5
5. This outrage. Literally “my injustice” in objective construction:
the injustice done to me; the possessive is adequately reflected by “this,” as
happens so often in interchanging possessive and defined forms, cf. “the boys”:
“my men,” 14:24. For Heb. ḥāmās
“lawlessness, injustice,” cf. 6:11; it is a strictly legal term, which trad.
“violence” fails to show adequately. The same force is reflected in the Akk.
verb ḫabālum “to deprive someone of
his legal rights,” adjective ḫablum
“wronged.” The Code of Hammurabi states explicitly that a slave girl who was
elevated to the status of concubine must not claim equality with her mistress
(par. 146). Sarah is thus invoking her legal rights, and she holds her husband
responsible (literally “it is against you”) for the offense.
I myself put my maid in your lap. This is not just a fanciful
expression, but recognized legal phraseology. For the identical usage, cf. the
old Sum.-Akk. dictionary of legal expressions known as ana ittišu (B. Landsberger, MSL I, 1937): “he placed his daughter
in [the other’s] lap,” Tablet 3, column iv, line 34. (E. A. Speiser,
Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 1; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2008], 117-18)
Excerpts from Chapter 4, Reading 18 of Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names
522. Regarding the first, one
must know that angel translates as messenger.
Now [an angel] conformed to the divine
goodness is said to announce “the divine goodness” inasmuch as in angels “in a
secondary way” by “participation” there exists “that which” is enunciated about
God not by participation, but “by the cause”; just as if I were to say that illuminated
air announces the brightness of the sun, inasmuch as in a secondary way and
participatively [the brightness] is in the air, and in a primary way and
causally it is in the sun. And because that which something has participatively
and in a secondary way is an “image” of that which has in it a primary way and
causally, and the act of an image is to manifest that of which it is the image,
consequently he infers a certain definition of a good angel: the manifestation
of the divine “light” which is hidden from us on account of its excellence and
simplicity. (Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names, The Book of
Blessed Dionysius, Chapter 4, Reading 18 [trans. Michael Augros; Scholastic
Tradition in English Translation; Merrimack, N.H.: Thomas More College Press,
2021], 233)
527. Next, when he says [213] “But
are they . ..,” he excludes an objection; and first, he gives it: for someone might
say that “because” the angels “Punish” sinners, “they” are “evil.” And Matthew
13 [verses 41-42, 49-50] expressly says that they punish sinners, because they
will cast out all scandals from the kingdom. Therefore, there is a question: whether
they are evil in the fact that they punish.
Second, he shows that they cannot
be called evil on account of this, because by the same argument those who
chastise bad people by punishing them would be “evil,” such as judges and
teachers; “and” likewise it would follow that certain priests “who” exclude “the
unclean,” that is, a sinner, “from the divine mysteries,” by excommunicating
him, would be evil, which is against the Apostle, who commands this in 1
Corinthians 5:3-5.
But because to multiply its
awkward consequences is not to revolve [an objection], third, he resolves all
the foregoing matters. And he says that “to be punished” “is not evil” simply
and in itself, but it is in itself good, since it is just, but it is evil in
some respect, inasmuch as it removes something good from someone. “But to
become” a sinner, that is evil simply; and so he who punishes a sinner is not
evil, but he who sins is evil. For the same reason, it is not evil in itself to
be excluded “from holy things” “with” justice, but it is in itself evil that
someone be tarnished by sin and abandon sanctity and by his become “unworthy of”
divine things, which are in themselves “undefiled.” And he does not sin who
excommunicates, but he sins who does something from which he becomes deserving
of excommunication. (Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names, The
Book of Blessed Dionysius, Chapter 4, Reading 18 [trans. Michael Augros;
Scholastic Tradition in English Translation; Merrimack, N.H.: Thomas More
College Press, 2021], 235)
Charles A. Callis, “Book of Mormon Prophecies Fulfilled” (1945)
The Book of Mormon prophecies
were uttered centuries before the events occurred, and the events that
fulfilled the prophecies were of such a character that no human foresight or
judgment “unaided by divine inspiration or revelation could have foretold them.”
Let us begin by citing the
following prophecy uttered between 600 and 592 B.C.:
“Nevertheless, thou beholdest
that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up
by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is
choice above all other lands.” (I Nephi 13:30.)
“The Lord God will raise up a
mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land.” (I
Nephi 22:7.)
This was spoken between 588 and
570 B.C.
The Nephite prophet in vision,
saw by an excellent spirit that the United States would be founded by the
Almighty and become a mighty nation of acknowledged preeminence in the world.
The Lord has not in modern times
forgotten the prophecies of His servants, nor His own promises concerning this
mighty nation. True to its inspired destiny the mission our unconquerable republic
is battling mightily to preserve “government of the people, by the people, for
the people.”
. . .
The Nephite prophet, speaking
some time between 559 and 545 B.C. said:
“For after the book of which I
have spoken shall come forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, and sealed up
against unto the Lord, there shall be many which shall believe the words which
are written.” (II Nephi 30:3.)
Since the organization of the
Church in 1830, countless thousands have, with joy and gladness of heart,
obeyed the Gospel; they have sincerely and earnestly avowed a belief in the
divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and accepted it as one of the
authoritative guides in faith and doctrine.
“And it shall come to pass that
the Jews which are scattered also shall begin to believe in Christ.” (II Nephi
30:7.)
This prophecy was uttered six
hundred years before the birth of the Savior.
It is estimated by careful
statisticians that upwards of 224,000 Jews during the nineteenth century
entered the Christian churches of Europe and America.
. . .
It has been the ardent hope and
faith of the prophets of God that the Jews, not only by degrees, but as a
nation, shall accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Redeemer.
We are justified in laying stress
upon the fact that what the prophets foretold has to the present time been
fulfilled.
“And the blood of the saints
shall cry from the ground against them.” (II Nephi 28:10. This was said between
B.C. 559 and 545.)
From the day that the blood of
righteous Abel was shed, many men and women who have thought differently from
their neighbors concerning religious belief have had to lay down their lives as
proof of the sincerity of their convictions.
The innocent blood of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, and that of his brother, Hyrum Smith, testifies to the
fulfillment of this prophecy. They sealed their testimony with their blood.
In the path of expulsion from
homes, milestones changed into headstones. The great souls who were victims of
unlawful and cruel deeds died for the word of God. They could not bend their
conscience. Their blood cries from the ground up to heaven “through every blue
gate of the sky.” Yes, this prophecy has been fulfilled in blood and tears.
. . .
“And because my words shall hiss
forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible,
and there cannot be any more Bible.” (II Nephi 29:3. Between B.C. 559 and 545.)
Every missionary can bear
testimony to the fulfillment of this prophecy made upwards of five centuries
before Christ. To those who opposed the Book of Mormon it was the last word.
But the claims of the Book of Mormon cannot be dismissed so lightly. (Charles
A. Callis, “Book of Mormon Prophecies Fulfilled,” in Fundamentals of Religion:
A Series of Radio Addresses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1945], 102-103,
107, 108-10)
Further Reading:
Charles A. Callis (1865-1947) on Isaiah 2 Being a Prophecy Concerning the Two Future Capitals in the Kindom of God
Jesus Christ will rule the earth
in truth and love. He will sanctify it and prepare it for celestial glory.
Throughout the Millennium there will be two capitals in the kingdom of
God,--Jerusalem in Palestine and Zion in America.
Then the words of the prophet
shall be fulfilled. “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the
Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:2.) (Charles A. Callis, Fundamentals of Religion:
A Series of Radio Addresses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1945], 49)
A. H. C. Van Eijk (1971) on Clement of Alexandria's Eucharistic Theology
We have to face, however, another
problem concerning the interpretation of these texts. Catholic scholars have
seized upon them to make Clement a witness of the doctrine of the Real Presence
and transubstantiation, whereas their protestant colleagues claimed them as
supporting their conception of a symbolic or spiritualistic presence. The
latter view undoubtedly finds a strong support in Clement's own terminology. It
could be, however, that this is asking the wrong question; it does not take
into account, or rather it ignores, the context of Clement's language. His
preoccupation is not with the precise nature of the Lord's presence in the
Eucharist, as seems to be that of his interpreters; if this were so, Clement's
terminology would urge us to admit a similar (real or symbolic) presence of the
Logos in milk (e.g. 49,3) or honey (51,1). In fact, what he wants to show is
that one and the same Logos is in many ways allegorically described (πολλαχῶς ἀλληγορεῖται
ὁ λόγος, 47,2). He is more interested in the communion with the Logos, i.e. the
res sacramenti, than in the visible, sacramental means by which this happens.
If we consider the Logos as food (a common idea in Clement, and, indeed, in
Alexandrian theology, since Philo), it does not really matter, whether this
food is described as bread, wine, or milk, and honey. It is the communion with
the divine Logos on which Clement's concern seems to turn. This also accounts
for the allusive character of his exegesis of John 6,53 in 42,2–43,3, which
must be particularly disconcerting for the advocates of a “massive” realism. We
should by no means say, therefore, that 42,4–43,3 gives only an allegorical
interpretation of John 6,53 (the real one being the eucharistic), or that his
exegesis has no bearing on the Eucharist, but only on “doctrine” (Batifol's
opinion). That this does no justice to Clement's theology, is particularly
evident from a passage in which he comments Mk. 14,25:
“‘Take, drink, this is my blood’.
He allegorically calls (ἀλληγορεῖ) the blood of the vine (cf. Ped. 2,19,3) the
Word, ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’, a holy stream of gladness.” (Ped.
2,32,2)
The “holy stream of gladness” (εὐφροσύνης)
undoubtedly refers to the Eucharist, εὐφροσύνη being often used in this
context. We see, then, that Clement uses also the word ἀλληγορεῖν when speaking
of the Eucharist. Moreover, we notice that he replaces αἷμα by λόγος as subject
of ἐκχεόμενον: here again, the Logos seems all-important. A better
understanding of the allegory as theological method would keep us from making
such statements as the above; it would appear, that Clement ignores the
distinction between allegory, and typology or symbolism. All such terms as ἀλληγορία,
τύπος, εἰκών, παραβολή, αἴνιγμα, σύμβολον are equivalent. A more detailed study
of this method would show, that it has its reason in the hidden character of
the Truth, which is only accessible to those who are initiated. This
hidden-ness is an essential characteristic of the whole revelation.
To conclude, in this (6th)
chapter of the first Book of Clement's Pedagogue (esp. from 33 onwards),
many allegories or symbols are used to signify one and the same res,
i.e. the Logos; milk, or honey are as much a symbol of the Logos as bread, or
wine. So it has no sense here to ask questions about the real presence in bread
and wine; these questions prove themselves inadequate.
At the end of this discussion of Ped.
1,25–52 let us list the points on which some passages of this section can be
usefully compared with some sayings of Ev.Phil.:
(1) The elements of the Eucharist
are in both writings bread and the mixed cup.
(2) Though these elements are not
explicitly mentioned, Ev.Phil. 23 and Ped. 1,42,3–43,3 refer in a
rather allusive way to the Eucharist. In both passages John 6,53 is quoted,
though more literally in Ev.Phil.; for both Clement and the author of Ev.Phil.
the ultimate reality “behind” the images of flesh and blood are Logos and
Pneuma; but whereas the former speaks of a κρᾶσις of Logos and Pneuma in the
Lord, and of a κρᾶσις of these both with man, the latter expresses this
“communion” in terms of Valentinian mythology; according to this myth Soter and
Sophia (or Achamoth), i.e. in Ménard's interpretation Logos and Pneuma from
say. 23, are united in a συζυγία, of which the συζυγία of the pneumatic man and
his angel is a part. Ped. 1,39,1 shows that John 6,51 ff was also used
by the gnostics fought by Clement.
(3) If we take Ev.Phil. 23
(104,31–105,3) as a description of the effect of the Eucharist, it seems that
both here and in Ped. 1,43,1 this effect is seen as a stripping off the
flesh and as a putting on Christ, i.e. Logos and Pneuma.
(4) Neither Clement nor the
author of Ev.Phil. excludes the body from the salutary effect of the
Eucharist.
(5) Finally, the resemblance
between the two writings is not only verbal, there is also a similarity of
thought-pattern which becomes particularly evident in the exegesis of John
6,53. For both Clement and Ev.Phil. words or names, and all (other)
symbols refer to a deeper, or rather, the ultimate reality “behind” them. For
both the words of the Scripture and the sacramental liturgy of the Church give
access to the eschatological reality, this is only disclosed (in these symbols)
for one who has γνῶσις. Both seem more interested in this eschatological
reality itself (what we have called the res sacramenti), than in the
symbols because of the provisory, and according to Ev.Phil., even
deceiving, character of the latter. Both agree, that “Truth”, “Pleroma”, “God”
can only be known and only reveal themselves by means of symbols, images and
allegories, and that only the gnostic succeeds in reaching the eschatological res.
In short, Clement shares with Ev.Phil., the same pattern of symbolic,
even sacramental thinking. The main difference seems to lie in the fact that
for Ev.Phil. the sacraments are the mirror by means of which the gnostic
(re-)discovers his true self. (A. H. C. Van Eijk, “The Gospel of Philip and
Clement of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurrection and
the Eucharist,” Vigiliae Christianae 25 [1971]: 116-19)
Peter-Ben Smit (2011) on Baptismal Being Regenerative and Producing the Mark of Divine Sonship on the Soul in the Theology of Irenaeus
Baptism as Regeneration
(Including the Forgiveness of Sins)
Irenaeus can describe the effect
of baptism also as the forgiveness of sins and regeneration to new life and, together with a description of baptism as
a ‘seal’, these are also the main designations he uses. The latter of the two effects of baptism
appears to be the overarching one, as the forgiveness of sins is part of the
regeneration to a new life, as becomes clear, for example, from fragment 34 of
the lost works of Irenaeus, where Naaman’s ‘baptism’ in the Jordan is
interpreted along these lines. The new life or new birth received at baptism
can be seen as the counterpart to the ‘Adamic birth,’ made possible through
Christ, the new Adam. Irenaeus
understands this rebirth in terms of becoming a child of God (see D 3) and
considers it to be the work of the creative Word of God: the Son of God makes human
beings into children of God. 32 In its fullness, however, baptismal regeneration
consists of being born into (εἰς) the Father, through (διά) the Son in (ἐν) the
Holy Spirit (D 7), as part of a Trinitarian economy of salvation. 33 In this
way, the faithful once more come to occupy their place as creatures of God,
regaining the image of God.
In fact, it can well be said that
Irenaeus integrates his view of baptism fully into his soteriological paradigm
of the recapitulation (see e.g. AH 4.33:4, 5.1:3, D 33), which
encompasses both the past as well as the future destination of humankind/creation.
The forgiveness of sins is not only an integral part of Christ’s salvific work
as such, but it also becomes a reality for the individual believer through the
gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism, which is in itself the beginning of the
‘re-creation’ of a person (see AH 3.17:1-2, 5.12:2). The rebirth of the
faithful at baptism gives them back both the imago and the similitudo
Dei, which had been lost because of the fall (see AH 5.6:1, cf. 3.23:1-5,
3.18:2). (Peter-Ben Smit, “The Reception of the Truth at Baptism and the Church
as Epistemological Principle in the Work of Irenaeus of Lyons,” Ecclesiology
7 [2011]: 362-63)
Being Marked with the Image of
Christ
As has just been shown, for
Irenaeus baptism with water and baptism in the Spirit are the two components of
the process of regeneration taking place at baptism as a whole. Of these
components, one particular aspect of the Spirit’s work in baptism needs some
further attention at this point, as the way in which the Spirit’s action is
described may well have a bearing on the way Irenaeus views the reception of
the rule of truth at baptism. In AH 3.17:3, Irenaeus describes the effect of
the baptism by the Spirit as follows:
Quapropter necessarius nobis est
ros Dei ut non comburamur neque infructuosi effi ciamur, et ubi accusatorem
habemus illic habeamus et Paraclitum, commendante domino Spiritui sancto suum
hominem qui inciderat in latrones, cui misertus est et ligavit vulnera eius,
dans duo denaria regalia ut, per Spiritum ‘imaginem et inscriptionem’ patris et
fi lii accipientes, fructifi cemus creditum nobis denarium, multiplicatum
domino adnumerantes. (AH 3.17:3)
Whereas Houssiau is right in
pointing out that this imagery is not the same as that of the sealing with the
Spirit (the notion of the seal is simply absent here), the reference to receiving by the Spirit the
image and the superscription of the Son (i.e. as if on a coin), certainly bears
some resemblance to the concept of being sealed with the faith (see D 3, 100,
cf. 25). The ways in which both images are used both involve reception, change
in ‘image,’ and in both cases the same three items are involved in either the
sealing or the giving of the coin: the three main points of the faith, Father,
Son and Spirit. It is therefore plausible to suggest that receiving the seal of
faith or the image and superscription of Father and Son as if on a coin should
be seen as referring to the reception of the rule of truth/the faith as
outlined above: being illuminated by receiving the true ‘first principles’ or
‘hypothesis’, and thus being restored to the image of Christ. (Peter-Ben Smit, “The
Reception of the Truth at Baptism and the Church as Epistemological Principle
in the Work of Irenaeus of Lyons,” Ecclesiology 7 [2011]: 366-67)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)