Who Holds the Keys?
(Pope or Prophet)
Response to Steve Clifford's
Rebuttal
By Barry Bickmore - Representing the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'
position on the "Restored Gospel".
Introduction and Miscellaneous Refutations
The overarching principle governing Steve's approach to the problem
at hand seems to be that the earthly Church could not fail, so it
didn't. In this round I intend to show that according to the ancient Judaeo-Christian
worldview, the continuance of the earthly Church was NOT a given. In fact,
the institution of the Church and the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus
Christ were thought to be nothing more than a "restoration" of
the most ancient religion! Consistent with this, the restoration of the
Gospel and the return of the prophets in preparation for Christ's Second
Advent was foretold in scripture. Also, I intend to continue a theme I
touched on in the last round, namely, that many Latter-day Saint doctrines
were present in early Jewish Christianity, whereas the corresponding Catholic
doctrines are Hellenized versions of the same. Since the first form of
Christianity was Jewish, this is quite a significant phenomenon, and strongly
supports the LDS position on the apostasy. First, however, I need to address
a few of the points Steve brought up.
Missing the Point
To begin with I need to comment on Steve's lengthy tangent about my
inclusion of Anglicans, Orthodox, and Monophysites under the "Catholic"
umbrella. I only intended to point out that these groups call themselves
"Catholic" and claim to trace an unbroken episcopal succession
back to the Apostles, so about a third of Steve's rebuttal entirely misses
the point.
Evading the Issues
In some instances Steve's rebuttal completely evades the issues. For
example, Steve asserts that the office of Apostle was only a temporary
provision, and "when the criteria for being an 'apostle' could no
longer be met, no others were appointed to that position." What were
these criteria? Steve quotes Acts 1:20-22 to support his notion that all
"Apostles" must have accompanied the Lord from the baptism of
John onward, and must have been eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection. First,
the scripture never says that these were to be general requirements for
all future Apostles - only that these were the guidelines they chose to
use when selecting a replacement for Judas. Indeed, the Apostle
Paul failed the first test! Some have argued that the first Twelve Apostles
(not including Judas) were Apostles with a capital "A", while
others, like Paul, were only "apostles" in the sense that they
were sent out with the message of the Gospel. However, this is contradicted
by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus near the end of the second century, whom
I quoted reporting the tradition that Philip had become "one of the
twelve apostles."1 Furthermore, Steve ignored Paul's
statement that the FULL Church organization, including Apostles, prophets,
etc. should continue in the Church "till we all come in the unity
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth
be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they
lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians 4:11-14) Since none of these conditions
have been met, I must conclude that Apostles are a necessary part of the
Church.
Similarly, Steve evades the issue when he addresses my assertion that
the Papacy cut itself off from any legitimate priesthood it might have
retained in the Middle ages. In the face of fourth century Catholic canon
law, which states that any bishop who is appointed through political means
shall be cut off along with all those in communion with him, Steve simply
asserts that certainly "ALL the bishops throughout the world"
never cut themselves off in this way. However, I went to great pains to
show that there had been POPES who had thus cut themselves off. Therefore,
these POPES and all those who accepted their authority would have been
cut off by the standards of the early Church. If "ALL the bishops
throughout the whole world" accepted the authority of these POPES,
then "ALL the bishops throughout the whole world" were cut off
by this standard. Period.
Anachronistic Interpretation
The tendency to interpret texts anachronistically is nowhere more evident
than in Steve's argument against continuing public revelation. First Steve
asserts (without evidence) that there were no more prophets after John
the Baptist, but in the same breath admits that those who wrote the books
of the New Testament were prophets. He quotes the Didache, Deuteronomy
12:32, and Revelation 22:18-19 to the effect that "you shall keep
what you have received, adding nothing to it nor taking anything away",
and asserts that this precludes any further public revelation. However,
when Moses said, "See that you observe everything I command you: you
must not add anything to it, nor take anything away from it," (Deuteronomy
12:32 NEB) he said it in the context of delivering the Law of Moses to
the Israelites. What does this say about the Christian revelation, which
certainly added some things and took away others from the Law of Moses?
Should we throw it all out? What about the writings of Israelite prophets
after Moses? Clearly these passages are injunctions against any
who would tamper with the revelations of God. Men can't add or take away
anything from God's pronouncements, but God can.
Steve also quotes Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) to the effect that no more
revelation was needed after the Apostles. I could dwell on the fact that
Tertullian changed his mind a few years later when he became a Montanist,
but for now I'll simply note that of course he had to claim that,
since his church was no longer guided by revelation. Should we assume that
Tertullian's opinion was the same as that of earlier Christians? On the
contrary, Bishop Wand (Anglican) discloses that the canon was not closed
by divine decree, but out of the necessity to combat the Montanist heresy.
"The best defence set up by the Church against such conversions [as
Tertullian's] was to close the canon of scripture, and by so doing to deny
any authority to the Montanist prophecies." In this way "the
possibility of a new revelation was excluded...."2
But it never occurred to anyone to close the canon until nearly the
third century! Historian Willem Van Unnik writes that until that time the
Christians would have had no objection whatever to "someone... add[ing]
something to the word of the Gospel."3 The very existence
of a document such as theShepherd of Hermas shows that the possibility
of a new word of revelation was nothing to be wondered at. A number of
prominent early Christian writers, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Origen quoted the Shepherd as one of the books of Holy Scripture4,
and it hovered on the edge of the canon for centuries.5
However, it purports to be a series of revelations given toone other
than the apostles or their associates in the first half of the second
century. Indeed, included in the Shepherd is a series of mandates
which Hermas was commanded to write for the benefit of all who might read
them.
"Accordingly I wrote down the commandments and similitudes,
exactly as he had ordered me. If then, when you have heard these, ye keep
them and walk in them, and practise them with pure minds, you will receive
from the Lord all that He has promised to you. But if, after you have heard
them, ye do not repent, but continue to add to your sins, then shall ye
receive from the Lord the opposite things. All these words did the shepherd,
even the angel of repentance, command me to write." 6
[Note: This seems like a good place to note that Steve is still claiming
that Clement of Rome (ca. 96 AD) "talks about the authority as Bishop
of Rome and head of the Church," when in fact Clement claimed only
the authority of the Holy Spirit, and said not one word about the authority
of the bishop of Rome, as such. Clement claimed no more nor less than Hermas,
who was only the brother of a future bishop of Rome.]
Dispensations - a Gospel for All Ages
How could true Christianity have been lost? The possibility seems unthinkable
to Steve, and is undoubtedly so for many of our Catholic readers. Joseph
Smith taught that such a thing was no novelty, because it had happened
before. The Gospel has been preached on earth since the beginning, starting
with Adam and Eve. Thus, Adam could be termed the first Christian. (See
Moses 6:52-60) Whenever the Gospel has been preached, however, and the
priesthood given, sooner or later apostasy occurred and the authority and
truth of God was removed. Therefore, in periods of apostasy men were left
with as much or as little truth as they could cope with. "For behold,
the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to
teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should
have...." (Alma 29:8) But when a people is ready, "It is in the
order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation
into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood...."7
The dispensation inaugurated by the revelations and ordination of Joseph
Smith is the last dispensation before the Second Coming of Christ, and
is termed the "dispensation of the fulness of times" because
it will "bring to light the things that have been revealed in all
former dispensations; also other things that have not been before revealed."8
Non-Mormon scholar Heikke Raisanen wrote that the Prophet's doctrine
was to him a thing of "pure logic and downright beauty," and
he noted that similar concepts may be found in Clement of Rome's (ca. 96
AD) letter and in the Pseudepigrapha.9 Indeed, Joseph
Smith's doctrine agrees with many early Christian writings. Paul insisted
that the Lord had "preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying],
In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8) And Ignatius
of Antioch agreed that the prophets knew of and preached Christ: "For
the divinest prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. On this account
also they were persecuted, being inspired by grace to fully convince the
unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself
by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but essential."10
Compare this with a statement by the Book of Mormon prophet, Jacob: "Behold,
I say unto you that none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied,
save they have spoken concerning this Christ." (Jacob 7:11) Early
writers like Tatian (ca. 170 AD), Theophilus (ca. 181 AD), and Eusebius
(early fourth century) all agreed that the gospel was no recent invention,
but, in fact, very ancient. "Let us, then, institute a comparison
between them; and we shall find that our doctrines are older, not only
than those of the Greeks, but than the invention of letters."11
"These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed
collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and
the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our
tenets mythical and false, as some think, but very ancient and true."12
"If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony
of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians
in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth...."13
Jean Cardinal Danielou mentions some of these early authors and admits
that this was the position of "the earliest Christian theologians".14
What about those who do not receive the Gospel? Clement of Alexandria
and Eusebius agreed with the philosophy found in The Book of Mormon
that God gives as much wisdom and knowledge to a nation as it is capable
of receiving.15 And some readers might be interested
to know that Joseph Smith believed the Catholics had preserved more truth
than any Protestant sect. "The old Catholic church traditions are
worth more than all you have said.... The character of the old churches
have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began."16
[Note: This is an important concept for the Catholic reader to grasp.
We do see the creeds of Christendom as an "abomination", as Steve
noted, because the creeds add the philosophies of men to the revelations
of God. However, there is still much truth there. Steve quotes a Book of
Mormon reference to "the great and abominable church" (1 Nephi
13:25-29) and applies it exclusively to Catholicism, but Nephi applies
this term to "all that fight against Zion" (1 Nephi 22:14) and
"all churches which are built up to get gain, and... to get power...,
and... to become popular in the eyes of the world,... and... seek the lusts
of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity...."
(1 Nephi 22:23) This is not any particular earthly organization, but "the
kingdom of the devil". (1 Nephi 22:22) To whatever extent Catholics,
Protestants, Hindus, or even Latter-day Saints fit the bill, they are part
of the "great and abominable church". Even during the apostasy,
when the wheat and tares were growing all together, there was still some
wheat (Matthew 13:24-30; cf. Matthew 13:47-50), and "All who have
died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if
they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom
of God." (D&C 137:7) Steve goes on and on about Christ "abandoning"
His Church, but Latter-day Saints see the removal of Priesthood authority
in response to apostasy as the act of a loving God. Since conditions were
not right for the continuation of the Church in its purity, God removed
it for a time but now is gathering the wheat (both living and dead) from
the tares in preparation for the Second Advent. This is exactly the scenario
alluded to in the parables Steve quotes - the wheat is not gathered in
till the end times.]
This same principle governed the institution of the lesser law - the
Law of Moses. Paul preached that the Law of Moses was a lesser or preparatory
law, designed to lead Israel to Christ, added because of their transgression.
"Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained
by angels in the hand of a mediator." (Galatians 3:19) But Paul also
insisted that the Gospel was preached to the Israelites. "For unto
us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached
did not profit them, not being mixed with faith." (Hebrews 4:2)
Joseph Smith not only accepted Paul's teachings on these matters17,
he added a striking twist. According to a revelation the Prophet received
as an inspired addition to the Bible, Moses was given the full Gospel law
on the first set of stone tablets, but then received the lower law on the
next set after he broke the first when he saw the Children of Israel had
reverted to idolatry.
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of
stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words
of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which
thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take
away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the
ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not
go up in their midst, lest I destroy them. But I will give unto them the
law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment."
(JST Exodus 34:1-2)
Consider the similarity of the preceding passage with this next one
from the second-century Epistle of Barnabas, a thoroughly "orthodox"
Jewish Christian work:
"Yes [it is even so]; but let us inquire if the Lord has really
given that testament which He swore to the fathers that He would give to
the people. He did give it; but they were not worthy to receive it, on
account of their sins. For the prophet declares, 'And Moses was fasting
forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai, that he might receive the testament
of the Lord for the people.' And he received from the Lord two tables,
written in the spirit by the finger of the hand of the Lord. And Moses
having received them, carried them down to give to the people. And the
Lord said to Moses, 'Moses, Moses, go down quickly; for thy people hath
sinned, whom thou didst bring out of the land of Egypt.' And Moses understood
that they had again made molten images; and he threw the tables out of
his hands, and the tables of the testament of the Lord were broken. Moses
then received it, but they proved themselves unworthy. Learn how we have
received it. Moses, as a servant, received it; but the Lord himself, having
suffered in our behalf, hath given it to us, that we should be the people
of inheritance." 18
At first the question of why Christianity abandoned this enlightening
doctrine might seem baffling, considering how widespread it was in the
first few centuries after Christ. However, since the doctrine of dispensations
opened up the disconcerting possibility that the gospel may have been lost
once again through all their innovations, it is understandable why later
churchmen would reject it in favor of the theory of a "once for all"
revelation in Christ, which affirmed their authority.19
Predictions of a Restoration
We have seen that the concept of a "restoration" of the true
faith was part and parcel of the ancient Christian worldview. Indeed, while
Jesus' mission to work the Atonement was unique in history, Christ's teaching
mission was a restoration of the full Gospel message, which had
been taught from the beginning, but lost by the Jews. Consistent with this,
it was predicted by the ancient Christians that a restoration of the Gospel,
and a return of the prophets, would occur in the period just prior to the
Second Advent of Jesus Christ.
The Restoration of All Things
While speaking to the crowd on the day of Pentecost, Peter predicted
that the heavens must receive Jesus "until the times of restitution
of all things." (Acts 3:20-21) Was this merely a reference to the
Millennial reign of Christ, or was it also an oblique reference to the
fact that the Gospel would have to be restored in preparation for that
reign? Peter gives us a clue in his first general letter, where he announced
that "the end of all things is at hand", (1 Peter 4:7) and later
warned the saints of the "fiery trial" which was coming to them,
for "judgment must begin at the house of God". (1 Peter 4:12,
17) "All things" was here a reference to the pure Gospel teaching.
"According to his divine power hath given unto us all things
that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of God, and
of Jesus our Lord." (2 Peter 1:3, italics mine) Therefore, unless
Peter was greatly mistaken about the timing of the Lord's second advent
- and Peter's second letter makes it clear that he had no such starry-eyed
expectations (see 2 Peter 3:8) - what was the "end of all things"
but the loss of the pure Gospel message through apostasy? And what could
a "restitution of all things" be but the restoration of the Gospel?
This point is supported by the Latter-day Saint and early Christian
doctrine of Elias. "Elias" is the Greek form of the Hebrew
name "Elijah". In the last verses of the Old Testament the promise
is made: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming
of the great and dreadful day of the Lord...." (Malachi 4:5) After
Elijah himself appeared before Jesus, Peter, James, and John on the Mount
of Transfiguration, Jesus told his disciples to tell no one of the vision
until after His resurrection from the dead. But then the Apostles asked:
"Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus
answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore
all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew
him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that
he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:3-13)
What did Jesus mean when He said John the Baptist was Elias, even though
Elijah and Moses had just appeared? The angel Gabriel told John's father
that he would "go before him in the spirit and power of Elias...."
(Luke 1:17) Therefore, it must be that anyone who is called of God to be
a forerunner of the Kingdom, as John was, acts in the "spirit and
power of Elias".
This must apply to other prophets as well as John, for Jesus not only
said that "Elias has come already," but also that "Elias
truly shall first come, and restore all things." Thus, a restoration
would still be needed in the future, just as the Latter-day Saints have
proclaimed. Noting the many persons the revelations of Joseph Smith identify
as "Elias", modern Apostle Bruce R. McConkie summarized the LDS
doctrine: "... Elias is a composite personage. The expression must
be understood to be a name and a title for those whose mission it was to
commit keys and powers to men in this final dispensation."20
And as with the Lord's first advent, Latter-day Saints believe that Elijah
himself was one of the heavenly visitors who appeared to Joseph Smith (as
well as Oliver Cowdery) to restore "keys and powers." (See D&C
110)
Certainly Joseph Smith could have at least partially gotten this doctrine
from the Bible, but then I am aware of no other group besides the Mormons
who have any developed concept of a similar dogma. Here again, Joseph struck
upon a prominent doctrine of the early Church that had been lost. For example,
Hippolytus (ca. 200 A.D.) indicated that various forerunners would appear
to prepare the way for the second advent of the Savior:
"[The Savior] is to be manifested again at the end of the world
as Judge. It is a matter of course that His forerunners must appear first,
as He says by Malachi and the angel, [Malachi 4:5-6]. These, then, shall
come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven;
and they shall also perform signs and wonders, in order that men may be
put to shame and turned to repentance for their surpassing wickedness and
impiety." 21
Justin Martyr explained the doctrine of Elias in similar terms to Trypho
the Jew, asking, "shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed
that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that
is, of His second advent?..."22 According to John
Chrysostom, John was to be the forerunner of Christ's First Advent, and
Elias would be the forerunner of the Second: "John is Elias, and Elias
John. For both of them received one ministry, and both of them became forerunners."23
Similarly, Victorinus, Methodius, Cyprian, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine,
and Theophylact all expressed the belief that Elijah would come to "restore
all things" before the Second Coming of the Lord.24
The Renewal of the Apostolic Commission
Another prediction of the Restoration occurs in Revelation 14:6. In
this verse John spoke of an angel who was to appear before the second coming
of Christ, "having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that
dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people."
In other words, the angel was to renew the Apostolic commission in Matthew
28:18-20. But as was noted above, the Gospel restored by angelic messengers
through Joseph Smith was to encompass all the knowledge and powers of past
dispensations, but also "things that have not been before revealed".25
Similarly, the third-century theologian Origen interpreted the verse as
a reference to the preaching of a Gospel that was even greater than the
one had by the Christianity of his day. More than a century after Origen
wrote, Jerome gave this summary of Origen's teaching which was condemned
by the Church of his time: "[Origen says] that according to the apocalypse
of John 'the everlasting gospel' which shall be revealed in heaven as much
surpasses our gospel as Christ's preaching does the sacraments of the ancient
law...."26 Therefore, the restoration of the Gospel
was not onlynecessary and expected, but Joseph Smith correctly
promised an expansion of the principles formerly revealed.
The Restoration of Ancient Christian Doctrines
In the last round of the debate I showed that the Christian concept
of God changed as it was adapted to the God of the philosophers. This point
is not really in dispute, since anyone who has studied the history of early
Christian doctrines readily recognizes this fact. For instance, when summarizing
Cardinal Newman's theory of doctrinal "development", Catholic
author Michael M. Winter notes, "This progress was brought about by
influences such as the interplay of revelation and philosophy...."27
Newman claimed that this interplay was all part of the Divine plan, but
I tend to doubt this, because the Apostles consistently warned against
the adoption of the worldly philosophies current in their day. "Be
on your guard; do not let your minds be captured by hollow and delusive
speculations, based on the traditions of man-made teaching... and not on
Christ." (Colossians 2:8 NEB) Paul also wrote, "As God in his
wisdom ordained, the world failed to find him by its wisdom, and he chose
to save those who have faith by the folly of the Gospel," and he called
the Gospel "folly to Greeks". (1 Corinthians 1:21-23 NEB) James
Shiel of the University of Sussex agrees that "Saint Paul's letters
[contain] a severe warning against Greek philosophy as a dangerous deception"28
Jean Cardinal Danielou writes that "If we now examine the forms of
thought and philosophical systems current at the time when Christianity
first made its appearance in the world, it is clear that they were by no
means ready to assimilate this Christian conception: on the contrary, they
were wholly antagonistic thereto."29 However, Shiel
notes that a few generations after the Apostles, one "comes upon a
reversed situation. The religious message is now framed in philosopher's
language, reminiscent at every turn of Heraclitus or Plato or Aristotle
or Cleanthes or Epictetus. Indeed, the Christian religion is now occasionally
called a philosophy and its founder described as a philosopher."30
The question we must examine here, then, is whether the Hellenistic
Catholic version of the Gospel replaced something else - something similar
to the LDS message. In the last round I simply assumed that the Hellenized
version replaced a Jewish version. This was a valid assumption, since J.N.D.
Kelly of Oxford University notes that the first form of Christian theology
"was taking shape in predominantly Judaistic moulds..."31,
and Cardinal Danielou states that "there was a first form of Christian
theology expressed in Jewish-Semitic terms."32
Danielou33 describes a host of Jewish Christian heretical
sects in post-Apostolic Christianity, including the Ebionites, Elkesaites,
and others. These ranged from strictly Jewish groups who merely believed
in Jesus as the greatest of the prophets, to Gnostic speculations that
drew heavily on the apocalyptic tradition of Israel for their beliefs.
Apart from these were more moderate strains of Jewish Christianity, originally
accepted as "orthodox", known to us from their apocryphal literature,
as well as such writings as Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas,
and miscellaneous traditions scattered throughout the writings of more
Hellenized Christians. Gradually, these groups lost their vitality and
were melded into the Hellenized congregations.34
In fact, Mormonism has significant ties to this first form of Christianity.
W.D. Davies of Duke University observes that "Mormonism is the Jewish-Christian
tradition in an American key.... What it did was to re-Judaize a Christianity
that had been too much Hellenized."35 However, Kelly
notes that "conditions [in the early centuries of Christianity] were
favorable to the coexistence of a wide variety of opinions even on issues
of prime importance,"36 and this is true not only
of the myriad of Jewish Christian sects, but also of the Hellenized Church
Fathers Catholics tend to quote. Therefore, it isn't possible to historically
pinpoint exactly what the original Church believed on many issues, but
it is possible for us to inquire whether Latter-day Saint doctrines can
be found in ancient Jewish Christianity. Therefore, my thesis for this
section is that Latter-day Saint doctrines can be found within ancient
Jewish Christianity, while the corresponding Catholic doctrines can be
shown to have been Hellenized. We don't necessarily expect to findall
of our doctrines there, since very few Jewish Christian documents have
survived and Joseph Smith claimed to reveal some points that had never
before been revealed, but we clearly can expect to find quite a few.
[Note: At several points in this discussion I will be referring to Cardinal
Danielou's series, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the
Council of Nicaea, especially volumes 1 and 2, The Theology of Jewish
Christianity and Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Also
his The Lord of History, where he rationalizes the historical data
into a theology of history. I will refer to Danielou so frequently because
not only was he an excellent historian who specialized in early Christian
doctrine, but a Catholic Cardinal, so I expect his judgments will carry
some weight with our readers.]
Creatio Ex Nihilo?
One distinctive doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is that "God
had materials to organize the world out of chaos - chaotic matter, which
is element.... Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure
principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they
may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning,
and can have no end."37 On the other hand, a tract
entitled "Creation
Out of Nothing" from Karl Keating's "Catholic
Answers" organization asserts against Mormonism that, "From
the very beginning of Christian history - in fact, from before the time
of Christ in faithful Judaism - the people of God have held to the divinely
revealed principle that God made everything that exists... and that he
created everything out of nothing."38 Which is the
true ancient Jewish and Jewish Christian belief?
A cursory examination of the early evidence yields initially confusing
results. For instance, The creation account in Genesis indicates creation
from a watery chaos: "In the beginning of creation... the earth was
without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a
mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2
NEB) Also, the Wisdom of Solomon teaches that God "created the world
out of formless matter." (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 NEB) But
2 Maccabees asserts that "God made [the sky and the earth] out of
nothing, and... man comes into being in the same way." (2 Maccabees
7:28 NEB) Paul seems to imply creation out of nothing: "God... summons
things that are not yet in existence as if they already were." (Romans
4:17 NEB) And yet Peter's language seems to recall the Genesis account
of creation from a watery chaos: "In taking this view they lose sight
of the fact that there were heavens and earth long ago, created by God's
word out of water and with water...." (2 Peter 3:5 NEB) Indeed, in
the very same verse Paul writes that God "fashioned" (Greek katertisthai
= "adjusted, put in order again, restored, repaired") the universe,
but in such a way that "the visible came forth from the invisible."
(Hebrews 11:3 NEB) The second-century Pastor of Hermas asserts that
God "made out of nothing the things that exist,"39
but in another passage clearly presupposes creation from a watery chaos:
"By His strong word [He] has fixed the heavens and laid the foundations
of the earth upon the waters...."40 Similarly, Frances
Young writes that Philo the Jew, who lived at the time of Christ, spoke
of things being "created from nothing" in some passages in his
writings, but clearly took for granted the concept of creation from chaos.41
What gives?
Frances Young, David Winston, Gerhard May, and many other scholars have
shown that before the second century, the concept of creation "ex
nihilo" was foreign to both Judaism and Christianity (and everyone
else, for that matter). Peter Hayman indicates that there is only one recognized
scholar who has recently worked on the problem of its origin, Jonathan
Goldstein, who still maintains that the doctrine originated within Judaism,
and even he admits his case is weak.42 What did the earlier
writers mean when they said God created things "out of nothing"?
Frances Young explains their seemingly contradictory language thus: "God
could conceivably bring into existence 'things' which do not exist before,
without such language excluding pre-existent 'stuff'."43
Indeed, Tertullian (ca. 200 AD), who argued for the doctrine of creation
out of nothing against Marcion, had to take this type of usage into account.
"The Creator's works... spring indeed out of nothing. And even if
they were made out of some (previous) matter, as some will have it, they
are even thus out of nothing, because they were not what they are."44
So where did the doctrine of creation "ex nihilo" originate?
Edwin Hatch, in his groundbreaking study of the influence of Greek ideas
on Christianity, wrote that the theory originated with the second-century
Gnostic philosopher, Basilides, and was quickly adopted into the Christian
Church starting with Tatian (ca. 170 AD).45 Frances Young
agrees with this judgment, and notes that the theory is a "radicalising"
of the Greek notion of matter as a lower form of reality.46
David Winston argues that Christian thinkers readily adopted creation exnihilo
because it provided a good argument against the extreme Gnostic position
that matter is not just a lower reality, but actually evil.47
"The Offspring of God"
Some readers might think that the issue of whether God created out of
"nothing" or "something" is merely academic. Does it
really matter (pun intended)? It turns out that the adoption of the doctrine
of creation "ex nihilo" had the most profound implications for
later Christian theology. For example, Frances Young concludes his study
with the observation that "underlying the most crucial episode in
the emergence of the Christian doctrine of God, namely the reply to Arianism
[culminating in the Nicene Council], was affirmation of creation out of
nothing."48 How does the concept of God taught in
the Nicene Creed depend on this innovative doctrine? Creation out of nothing
puts everything in two categories - "God", who is self-existent
and immaterial, and "everything else", which is created from
nothing. The Arians contended that since the "Divine Substance"
(adopted by the Christians from the Greek philosophers to describe God)
is totally unique and indivisible, the Son must be created out of nothing
(so as not to create a division in God). The aim of the creeds adopted
in councils over the 50 years or so after the Council of Nicea was to exclude
the Arians from "orthodoxy" by asserting and sometimes explaining
how the Son can be a different person than the Father, but still be fully
God without dividing the indivisible.
Consider how different the whole mindset of these councils was from
that of the Latter-day Saints. For us, God is a perfect being with all
knowledge and all power, but He is not "totally other". He didn't
create the universe out of nothing, and while humans, angels, and other
gods fall short of His glory and/or perfection in varying degrees, they
are not fundamentally different from Him. It is certain that the
concepts set out in the creeds are governed by Hellenistic assumptions,
and as Edwin Hatch points out, would have been unintelligible to Christ
and the Apostles.49 But how does the Latter-day Saint
concept of the relatedness of God and men compare to the theology of ancient
Judaism and Jewish Christianity?
While discussing the doctrine of God in the last round I noted that
the LDS doctrine that the Father has a body in human shape was believed
by the Jews and many Jewish Christians as late as the third century. For
instance, Christopher Stead of the Cambridge Divinity School notes that,
"The Hebrews... pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a
body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour
of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care
for his creatures."50 Indeed, one of the few surviving
post-Apostolic Jewish Christian documents, the Clementine Homilies
(third or fourth century, but based on a second century source document),
preaches the same thing: "And Simon said: 'I should like to know,
Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after
the shape of God.' And Peter said: 'I am really quite certain, Simon, that
this is the case.... It is the shape of the just God.'"51
A Catholic might object to LDS and early Christian anthropomorphism
by quoting John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time...."
How could anyone know what shape the Father has, if no one has ever seen
Him? And what of Joseph Smith's claim to have seen the Father? The LDS
explanation is that a man in his natural state cannot endure the
presence of God. It is only possible to see the face of God if one is transfigured
by the "glory of the Lord". (See Moses 1:2, 13-14) Peter, in
the Homilies, offers a similar explanation: "For I maintain
that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father
or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light.... For he who
sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him
who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the
nature of light, so that it can see light."52
The same document has the following to say about the relationship between
God and man:
"Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which
have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God,
they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are
gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died,
and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods.
But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods,
what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has
only what all have." 53
Several points need to be taken from this quotation. First, while men
obviously are not "gods" at this time, they are "of the
same substance" as God. J.N.D. Kelly notes that before the council
of Nicea the term "of one substance" (Greek homoousios)
simply meant "the same kind of being".54 Second,
the "one God" is the Father here, as I discussed in the last
round. Third, Christ is also the same kind of being as other men, because
"he has only what all have". (Note: this does not imply that
Christ is not unique among men, for He was God from the eternity before
the creation, and He was born of a virgin.) Fourth, the first sentence
strongly implies the pre-mortal existence of the soul, and indeed this
doctrine is explicitly taught in the Clementine Recognitions, which
are based on the same source document.55 The main point
one should take away from this, however, is that in ancient Jewish Christianity
the great gulf separating God and man was simply not there. As Paul told
the Athenians, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;
as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."
(Acts 17:28)
"God is Spirit"
In response to my assertion that God has a body, I expect Steve will
appeal to Jesus' statement that "God is Spirit". (John 4:24 NEB)
(This verse can be translated either "Spirit" or "a Spirit",
but most modern translations choose the former to be consistent with some
of John's other statements.) But John undoubtedly meant this statement
in the same sense that he also said, "God is light" (1 John 1:5)
and "God is love" (1 John 4:8). These do not characterize God's
"being", but rather His actions and relationship with men. "God
is light" because "in him there is no darkness at all",
and "if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, then we
share together a common life...." (1 John 1:5-7 NEB) "God is
love" because of "the love he showed to us in sending his Son...."
(1 John 4:8-10 NEB) "God is Spirit" because He enlightens men
through His Holy Spirit, and "those who worship him must worship in
spirit and in truth." (John 4:24 NEB) Catholic readers may also be
surprised to learn that anciently this passage was used by many Christians
to prove that God is a corporeal being! The Christian Platonist Origen
complained about these less Hellenized Christians:
"I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to
the declarations of our own Scriptures, God is a body, because in the writings
of Moses they find it said, that "our God is a consuming fire;"
and in the Gospel according to John, that "God is a Spirit, and they
who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." Fire and
spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a body."
56
Like the Latter-day Saints, these Christians believed "spirit"
to be corporeal. With respect to the ancient Hebrew concept of God, Christopher
Stead notes, "By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that
he has no body...."57 Where did Christianity learn
otherwise? Speaking of the Neoplatonists, historian and former Anglican
bishop of London, J.W.C. Wand, writes:
"It is easy to see what influence this school of thought must
have had upon Christian leaders. It was from it that they learnt what was
involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also
helped... to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian
believe that God had a material body." 58
The Everlasting God
Time after time we see that in early Jewish Christianity, God was not
so far away from humanity. Edwin Hatch notes, "From the earliest Christian
teaching, indeed, the conception of the transcendence of God is absent....
The conception which underlies the earliest expression of the belief of
a Christian community is the simple conception of children...."59
But just the opposite was true in the Hellenistic world. "One of the
most important themes of late Hellenistic intellectualism is that of the
transcendency of the supreme God, who is regarded as utterly remote from
this universe and as completely incomprehensible to the mind of man."60
Given the Hellenistic mindset they have adopted, it is sometimes difficult
for Catholics to fathom certain LDS beliefs about God.
For example, a tract entitled "Mormonism's
Double-Think" from Karl Keating's Catholic
Answers organization accuses the Latter-day Saints of accepting contradictory
statements as true. The prime example of this is Joseph Smith's revelation
that "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and
sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"61 In the same
discourse Joseph Smith stated that just as God is our Father, He has a
Father Himself. And yet, the Book of Mormon states, "I know that God
is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable
from all eternity to all eternity...." (Moroni 8:18) Does one need
to be sucked into some Orwellian nightmare-cult to consider both statements
true? We have seen that early Jewish Christians saw God as much closer
in nature to His children than the Greek philosophers, but isn't the idea
that God was once a man a little too close for comfort?
In order to understand the LDS view, our readers will have to step into
an ancient Hebrew mindset for a moment. The ancient Greeks were absolutely
enamored with metaphysics - with "being", "essence",
"eternity", etc. The Greek philosophers pondered incessantly
about how the material world relates to the true reality, whereas for the
Hebrews the material world was reality. When they wrote about God,
they didn't obsess about his "being" or "essence",
but rather focused on His relationship to men and the world. Likewise,
when they spoke of God's nature and eternity, they used relative
terms - relative, that is, to them. For example, many of the Biblical
passages which speak of God's immutability do so in terms of His honesty,
justice, mercy, and constancy. (See Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel
15:29; Hebrews 6:18; Genesis 18:25; Ezekiel 18:14-32; Isaiah 46:10-11;
Mark 13:31; Matt. 24:35; Luke 1:20; James 1:17; Daniel 6:26: Hebrews 6:18-19)
Christopher Stead explains, "The Old Testament writers sometimes speak
of God as unchanging.... In Christian writers influenced by Greek philosophy
this doctrine is developed in an absolute metaphysical sense. Hebrew writers
are more concrete, and their thinking includes two main points: (1) God
has the dignity appropriate to old age, but without its disabilities...;
and (2) God is faithful to his covenant promises, even though men break
theirs...."62 (Cf. Isaiah 40:28; Exodus 34:9-10)
When God is described as "From everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm
41:13 NEB), the word translated as "everlasting" is the Hebrew
olam, which means "(practically) eternity" or "time
out of mind".63 Another Psalm (104:5 NASB) says
that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will
not totter forever and ever." And yet Isaiah (24:20 NEB) saw a future
time when "the earth reels to and fro like a drunken man...."
To the Hebrew mind these passages were not contradictory, because terms
like "everlasting" and "forever" were relative terms,
and they had no conception of "eternity" and "infinity"
as modern people see them.
The same principle applies to the question of God's origin. Are there
other Gods beside the Father? Paul asserts that there is only one God,
but adds a qualification. "For though there be that are called gods,
whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things,
and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and
we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) There are other gods, but
there is one God to us. It is often objected that Paul was referring
to false gods, but Paul did not limit his comments to such. He specifically
said that there are other gods, both in heaven and on earth.
We have already seen that some (actually a very large number) of early
Christian writers spoke of the possibility of men becoming gods, so it
is interesting to see how one of them, Origen (third century), interpreted
these verses.
"Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said
representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings
besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They
may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered
to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction
between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other
gods the minister of their divinity.... As, then, there are many gods,
but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there
is one Lord, Jesus Christ...." 64
So it is with the Latter-day Saints. We see such scriptural statements
about the "everlasting" and "unchanging" God as an
indication of God's perfect and unchanging moral character, as well as
God's eternity relative to men. God is spoken of as the "only
true God", because in relation to us this is perfectly true.
Given this Hebrew mindset, it is easy to see how Latter-day Saints can
accept the biblical statements about God and also believe that God was
once a man, having a Father Himself. And as it turns out, some early Christians
may have believed the same type of doctrine. Consider the reasoning of
Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 180 AD) while arguing against the Gnostic belief
that the Creator was only a secondary God.65 Irenaeus
pounded home the fact that the true God is the Creator, but what
about the possibility that there is a God above God? And what was God doing
before the creation of the world? Irenaeus cited Matthew 24:36, where Christ
indicates that only the Father knows the time of the Second Advent, and
asserted that since even Jesus doesn't know everything, we ought to leave
such unrevealed questions to God.
"If, for instance, any one asks, 'What was God doing before
He made the world?' we reply that the answer to such a question lies with
God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a
beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to
us what God was employed about before this event.... The Father, therefore,
has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this
reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things
in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have
been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to
investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting
the question whether there is another God above God."
Certainly Irenaeus believed no such thing, though he came as close as
possible to this view, given his own Greek conception of God (which he
quoted almost verbatim from the philosopher Xenophanes).66
Irenaeus taught that though at first we are "merely men", we
can become "at length gods...."67 He also wrote,
"...our Lord Jesus Christ, who did... become what we are, that He
might bring us to be even what He is Himself."68
However, for him God was the "uncreated One" of the philosophers,
and everything else was created from nothing, so "inasmuch as they
are not uncreated, for this very reason do they come short of the perfect."
Men who become gods will "receive a faculty of the Uncreated",
and God "shall overcome the substance of created nature" by bestowing
eternal life. Progress toward godhood will result in "approximating
to the uncreated One" and bring one "nigh unto God", but
in the final analysis men will still be contingent beings.69
Irenaeus was not shy at all about labeling the Gnostic heresies as damnable
and ridiculous falsehoods, yet in this case his language was strangely
subdued. I have no idea whether this particular doctrine had been revealed
to the early Christians, but I believe the Hebrew conception of God had
not died out in all quarters of the Church, and in this mindset these "speculations"
could be seen as a distinct possibility. There were some Christians - "orthodox"
Christians - who were "speculating" about these things, or Irenaeus
would have said things differently.
Three Degrees of Glory
The Bible makes clear that all mankind will be "judged... according
to their works." (Revelation 20:12) And if so, won't everyone's rewards
be different one from another? Jesus insisted that in His "Father's
house are many mansions," (John 14:2) and Paul wrote that he had seen
a vision of "the third heaven". (2 Corinthians 12:2) Therefore,
one might logically conclude from these passages that recipients of salvation
will be allotted varying rewards within at least three different "heavens"
or "degrees of glory".
While pondering the significance of certain of the aforementioned passages
in the Bible, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were given a most striking
vision of the fate of mankind after the general resurrection and judgment,
which included a description of the three principal kingdoms of glory.
(D&C 76) They found that the first kingdom, called the Celestial, will
be inhabited by those who have overcome by faith in Jesus Christ (D&C
76:50-70, 92-96), including children who have died and those who would
have accepted the gospel in this life, but were not given the chance until
they reached the spirit world. (D&C 137:1-10) The second kingdom, called
the Terrestrial, will be inhabited by good people who were just and kind,
but were not valiant in their testimony of Jesus. Those who rejected the
Gospel in this life, but afterwards received it will be given a reward
in this kingdom, as well. (D&C 76:71-80, 91, 97) The third, or Telestial,
kingdom will be given to the generally wicked masses of the earth who spent
their entire residence in the Spirit World in Hell, and so were not worthy
of any higher glory. (D&C 76:81-90, 98-112) Another distinction between
these kingdoms is that those who receive Celestial glory will reside in
the presence of the Father Himself, while those in the Terrestrial kingdom
will receive the presence of the Son, and those in the Telestial will have
the Holy Ghost to minister to them. (D&C 76:62, 77, 86)
It happens that this was a very popular early Christian doctrine, taught
by such luminaries as Origen70, Irenaeus, Papias71,
Clement of Alexandria, and others. For example, Clement of Alexandria expressed
belief in the three degrees, and echoed the Lord's revelation to Joseph
Smith that those in the highest degree "are gods, even the sons of
God." (D&C 76:58) He also preached that the three gradations of
glory are procured by virtue of three types of actions:
"Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according
to the worth of those who have believed.... These chosen abodes, which
are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel--the thirty, the
sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain
to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord.... To
the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the
friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought;
if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught."
72
"[Clement of Alexandria] reckons three kinds of actions, the
first of which is... right or perfect action, which is characteristic of
the perfect man.... The second is the class of... medium, or intermediate
actions, which are done by less perfect believers, and procure a lower
grade of glory. In the third place he reckons sinful actions, which are
done by those who fall away from salvation." 73
In addition, Clement (following Hermas) taught that those righteous
souls who had not had the chance to accept the Gospel in this life would
be preached to and redeemed in Hades (i.e. the spirit world).
"And it has been shown also..., that the apostles, following
the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades.... For it was suitable
to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in
righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their
transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of
the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according
to his individual knowledge.... If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for
no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either
to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to
all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles,
on making their profession there...." 74 (cf.
1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6)
When Irenaeus (quoting Papias) described the three degrees, he associated
them with the Father, Son, and Spirit, respectively. "The presbyters,
the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement
of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature;
also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son
to the Father...."75
Where did this doctrine come from? Cardinal Danielou shows that the
three heavens scheme originated in the oldest form of Jewish apocalyptic,
and was a standard feature of Jewish Christianity. Other schemes, such
as that of seven heavens, derived from "oriental, Irano-Babylonian
influences", and were originally spin-offs of the three heavens arrangement.76
As Christianity fell away from its Jewish roots, however, the original
doctrine was lost.
Celestial Marriage
Those who are married in Latter-day Saint temples are "sealed"
so that the union lasts beyond the Resurrection and into eternity, provided
the participants reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. (D&C
132:15-17) This is often considered one of the most bizarre LDS beliefs,
especially given a certain statement by Jesus:
"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there
is no resurrection, and asked him... Now there were with us seven brethren:
and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue,
left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third,
unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the
resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are
given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew
22:23-30)
A variation of Jesus' answer is given in Luke, where Jesus says "The
children of this world marry, and are given in marriage", etc. (Luke
20:34-36)
One must realize that Jesus would never have cast this, his most precious
pearl, before the Sadducee swine, who did not even believe in a resurrection
and were only trying to trap Jesus in his words. Given that, what was Jesus
talking about? The "children of this world", not the children
of God, are the ones who remain separate in the resurrection. And indeed,
the seven brothers in question were "children of this world",
for they were apostate Sadducees ("there were with us seven
brethren"). Jesus was merely warning the Sadducees of their ultimate
fate without revealing His most sacred mystery. Those who fail to participate
in this sacred rite in this world, whether in person or by proxy, "neither
marry, nor are given in marriage," because all such contracts have
already been finalized. Interpreted in this way, the passage is not at
all contradictory to LDS belief.77
Some readers might find it hard to believe that Jesus would be secretive
about such an important belief, but the fact is that early Christianity,
as well as various Jewish apocalyptic sects, had a rich esoteric tradition
of both doctrine and ritual.78 Indeed, R.M. Grant notes
that "In Ephesians 5:22-33 the prophecy of Genesis 2:24 ['the two
shall become one flesh.'] is described as 'a great mystery' and is referred
not only to Christ and the church but also to Christian marriage in general."79
While answering certain unknown questions the Corinthians had posed
to Paul, he advised against marriage. "Now concerning the things whereof
ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.... I say therefore
to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as
I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry
than to burn." (1 Corinthians 7:1, 9) And yet, later in the chapter
Paul made clear that this was not a general principle, but special counsel
in unusual circumstances (persecution? apostasy?): "I suppose therefore
that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for
a man so to be." (1 Corinthians 7:26) Paul expounded the general principle
later in his letter when he said, "neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Corinthians
11:11)
I can imagine the eye-rolling that is going on among Catholic readers
at this point, but the fact is that many early Jewish Christians interpreted
the scriptures in a similar manner! In the early third century Origen complained
about certain Jewish Christians, apparently considered orthodox, who believed
in marriage after the resurrection.
"Certain persons... are of the opinion that the fulfillment
of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and
luxury.... And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there
will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves
that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt.... Such are the views
of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures
in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine
promises." 80
Can you believe the temerity of these people - interpreting Jewish scriptures
in a "Jewish sense"?!81 Cardinal Danielou infers
a similar interpretation from an enigmatic passage in the Didache,
a first-century(!) Jewish Christian work. "And every prophet, proved
true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching
others to do what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you, for
with God he hath his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets."82
Danielou links this mystery to the type of "spiritual marriages"
some Gnostic groups practiced:
"The expression 'cosmic mystery of the Church' seems to stand
in opposition to a 'heavenly mystery of the church'. This heavenly mystery
is the celestial marriage of Christ to the Church, which also finds its
expression in this world. The allusion in this passage would therefore
seem to be to those spiritual unions which existed in Jewish Christianity
between prophet-apostles and a sister... The relation of these unions to
their heavenly ideal is explicitly stated by the Gnostics: 'Some of them
prepare a nuptial couch and perform a sort of mystic rite (mystagogia)...
affirming that what is performed by them is a spiritual marriage after
the likeness of the unions... above' (Adv. haer. I, 21:3)." 83
As with so many other doctrines, Catholicism has rejected the Judaeo-Christian
outlook in favor of Hellenistic ideals. Robert Markus observes, "The
ideal of the philosophic life was among the most important of the sources
which nourished Christian monasticism.... In contrast with Judaism... the
whole Hellenistic and Roman philosophical tradition offered a rich store-house
of commonplaces extolling the ascetic life."84
Bread and Wine (Water?) as Body and Blood
In his opening statement Steve made the claim that Ignatius of Antioch
(ca. 110 AD) taught the doctrine of the "Real Presence" in the
Eucharist (i.e. the Sacrament for LDS readers). This is usually interpreted
to mean that since Jesus said "this is my body" and "this
is my blood", He meant that the actual substance of the bread and
wine are transformed ("transubstantiation") into the literal
body and blood of Christ. In point of fact Ignatius was not any more explicit
about it than the New Testament writers, so bringing him up sort of begs
the question. However, why such strong language about what the eucharist
is ? J.G. Davies explains how the Hebrew mind would have assimilated
such statements:
"The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things
in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned
with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final
reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore
does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that
is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: 'This is
my body.' The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it
is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through
his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension." 85
Thus, the eucharist is a symbol, but not "just a symbol".
Latter-day Saints and Catholics can join together to proclaim to our Protestant
brethren (who tend to pooh-pooh the necessity of physical ordinances) the
fact that the eucharist is the very instrument of Christ's grace
to believers, but we must disagree about "transubstantiation".
This is a strictly Hellenistic interpretation, and Edwin Hatch asserts
that "it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time
an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and
blood of Christ."86
LDS indifference to the actual "substance" of the eucharist
has made possible an interesting variation in sacramental practice. Initially
because of the threat of poisoning by persecutors (see D&C 27:2), but
later because of our health code which forbids alcohol (see D&C 89),
Latter-day Saints began using water in place of wine. The ancient Jewish
Christians did not have the same health code, but many of them took Nazarite
vows, which forbade the use of alcohol, and so substituted water for wine
in the eucharist. One of the very early (perhaps first century) Odes
of Solomon refers to this practice. The hymn asserts, "Blessed
then are the ministers of that draught who are entrusted with that water
of His...." 87 Commenting on this passage,
Carl Jung points out that the use of water shows that, like the Mormons,
"The fact that the Eucharist was also celebrated with water shows
that the early Christians were mainly interested in the symbolism of the
mysteries and not in the literal observance of the sacrament."88
The Jewish Christian Acts of Thomas also describes the apostle Thomas
as one who drank only water89, so when one Mygdonia brought
him some bread and wine for the sacrament, he refused it and "He brake
bread and took a cup of water...."90 Indeed, Hegesippus
(late second century) asserts that "James, the brother of the Lord,...
drank no wine nor strong drink...."91
Conclusions
I expect that Catholic readers exposed to this sort of information for
the first time might be somewhat taken aback. In a postscript to his translation
of one of Cardinal Danielou's volumes on early Christian doctrine, John
Austin Baker related, "One reaction - and a not unnatural one - to
the material surveyed in the first volume of the present series, [Father]
Danielou's Theology of Jewish Christianity, was compounded of sheer
astonishment at the bizarre character of the ideas and imagery used by
the writers and relief that their works had, for the most part, sunk into
oblivion."92 But this is what the Cardinal called
the "first form of Christian theology"! Time and time again we
see that the sort of theology adopted by Catholic Christianity from the
late second century on is adapted from the Greek philosophical schools,
while LDS theology consistently falls within the milieu of ancient Jewish
Christianity. I could have used any number of doctrines to make my point,
but I deliberately chose a few examples that illustrate the fact that this
is the case even where the thought forms and interpretations involved seem
totally bizarre and foreign to Catholics.
Certainly this supports LDS claims about the apostasy and restoration,
but how can Catholics rationalize this data? One way is Cardinal Newman's
theory of "development" - i.e. the Greek philosophers prepared
the way for a deeper understanding of the Christian revelation, in accordance
with the Divine plan. On the other hand Cardinal Danielou theorizes that
the Hellenization of Christianity was a necessary step in the process of
persuading Hellenistic culture to accept the Christian revelation. At the
end of The Theology of Jewish Christianity he lists a few "essentials"
(all of which the LDS would agree with) that had been passed on from Jewish
Christianity.93 However, it would be inconsistent to
think this sort of cultural translation was allowed in the case of Hellenistic
culture, but then all further progress was arrested there. "The revelation
was in any case first bestowed upon a people of semitic origin and language....
The preaching of the Gospel to the Greco-Roman world represented a first
translation of the Word of God into terms of another civilization. Today
we need another translation."94 As Catholics ponder
attempts to Christianize Eastern nations they must ask themselves just
which parts of their thoroughly Hellenized traditions and creeds are merely
cultural adaptations. And in the context of this debate two more questions
need to be asked. That is, how can LDS beliefs be proclaimed heretical
when they fall within the scope of "the first form of Christian theology",
while the corresponding Catholic beliefs decidedly do not? Second,
how in the world did Joseph Smith get ahold of all these ancient Jewish
Christian traditions? Food for thought, at least.
References
1 Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, in Grant, R.M., Second
Century Christianity, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1946,)p. 82.
2 Wand, J.W.C., A History of the Early Church to
A.D. 500, (London: Methuen & Co., 1937,) p.59. "The New Testament,
though not all at once, put an end to the composition of works which claimed
an authority binding on Christendom (inspiration); but it first made possible
the production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme
dangers attendant on writings of this kind." (Harnack, A. von, History
of Dogma, 7 vols., New York: Dover, 1961, 2:62.) Harnack also gives
the following unflattering description of the motives of those who closed
the canon: "Men, however, conceal from themselves their own defects,
by placing the representatives of the past on an unattainable height, and
forming such an estimate of their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible
for those of the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort,
to compare themselves with them." (Harnack, History of Dogma,
2:53.)
3 Van Unnik, Willem Cornelis, "De la Regle mete
prostheinai mete aphelein dans l'histoire du canon," Vigiliae
Christianae 3 (1949): 1-2, quoted in Nibley, H., The World and the
Prophets, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1987,) p. 202.
4 Quasten, J., Patrology, (Westminster, MD: Christian
Classics, Inc., 1983-1986,) 1:103; cf. Origen, De Principiis 2:1:5,
in Roberts, A., and Donaldson, J., eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
10 vols., (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885-1896,)
4:270. (Hereafter cited as ANF.)
5 Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, Revised
ed., (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978,) p. 60.
6 Pastor of Hermas, Vision 5, in ANF 2:19.
7 Joseph Smith, in Smith, J.F., ed., Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976,) p.
375. (Hereafter cited as TPJS.)
8 Joseph Smith, in TPJS p. 193.
9 Haroldson, E., "Good and Evil Spoken of,"
Ensign, vol. 25, no. 8 (August 1995), p. 10. See Raisanen, "Joseph
Smith und die Bibel: Die Leistung des mormonischen Propheten in neuer Beleuchtung",
Theologische Literaturzeitung, Feb. 1984, pp. 83-92.
10 Ignatius, Magnesians 8, in ANF 1:62.
11 Tatian, Address to the Greeks 31, in ANF
2:77.
12 Theophilus, Theophilus to Autolycus 3:29,
in ANF 2:120.
13 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:4:6-10,
in Schaff, P., and Wace, H., eds., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Series 2, 14 vols., (New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Company,
1890-1900,) 1:87-88. (Hereafter cited as NPNF Series 2.)
14 Danielou, J., The Lord of History: Reflections
on the Inner Meaning of History, tr. Abercrombie, N., (Chicago: Henry
Regnery, 1958,) p. 2. Curiously, the Cardinal ascribes this doctrine to
the "Greek idea of perfection as something which has always been the
same." However, the fact that Jewish Christian writings like Barnabas
and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha teach it refutes this interpretation.
15 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:2, in ANF
2:524; Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 4:8.
16 Joseph Smith, in TPJS p. 375.
17 Joseph Smith, in TPJS p. 60.
18 Barnabas 14, in ANF 1:146; cf. Barnabas
4, in ANF 1:138-139.
19 Paul did say that "we are sanctified through
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10),
but that does not mean the world can't reject His message, as it has done
so many times before. Similarly, some translations of Jude 3 speak of "the
faith once for all delivered to the saints", but the word translated
as "once for all" is the Greek hapax, which can also mean
"once". Indeed, two verses later Jude writes, "I will therefore
put you in remembrance, though ye once (hapax) knew this...."
(Jude 1:5) Clearly it is preferable to translate hapax as "once"
in this case, and thus it is also clear that Jude was warning the saints
to cling desperately to the faith that had once been delivered to them,
but which was already being forgotten.
20 McConkie, B.R., Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Ed.,
(Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966,) p. 221.
21 Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ
44-46, in ANF 5:214.
22 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 49, in
ANF 1:219.
23 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew
37:4, in NPNF Series 1, 10:245.
24 Seiss, J.A., The Apocalypse, 3 vols., (New
York: Charles C. Cook, 1901,) 2:192-193.
25 Joseph Smith, in TPJS p. 345.
26 Jerome (quoting Origen), Letter 124:13, in
NPNF 2, 6:243; see also Origen, De Principiis 4:1:25, in ANF 4:375.
27 Winter, M. M. Saint Peter and the Popes,
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1960,) pp. 15-116.
28 Shiel, J., Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity,
(London: Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd., 1968,) p. 1.
29 Danielou, The Lord of History: Reflections on
the Inner Meaning of History, p. 1.
30 Shiel, Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity,
p. 1.
31 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 6; See
also, Harnack, History of Dogma, 1:287.
32 Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity,
p. 10.
33 Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity,
pp. 55-85.
34 Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity,
p. 8.
35 Davies, W.D., "Israel, the Mormons and the
Land", in Madsen, T.G., ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian
Parallels, (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University,
1978,) p. 91.
36 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 4.
37 Joseph Smith, in TPJS pp. 350-352.
38 "Creation out of Nothing", (Catholic Answers,
Inc., 1996).
39 Pastor of Hermas, Vision 1:1, in ANF
2:9. Origen mistakenly interpreted this passage from Hermas, as well as
a similar one from one of the Books of the Maccabees in this way: "But
that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the
case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs
exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says,
`I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all
things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all
these things when they did not exist.' In the book of the Shepherd also,
in the first commandment, he speaks as follows: `First of all believe that
there is one God who created and arranged all things, and made all things
to come into existence, and out of a state of nothingness.'" (Origen,
De Principiis 2:1:5, in ANF 4:270.)
40 Pastor of Hermas, Vision 1:3, in ANF 2:10.
41 Young, F., 1991, "'Creatio ex Nihilo': A Context
for the Emergence of the Christian Doctrine of Creation", Scottish
Journal of Theology, vol. 44, p. 141.
42 Hayman, P., "Monotheism - A Misused Word in
Jewish Studies?", Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring (1991),
p. 3. See also Goldstein, J., "The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation
Ex Nihilo", Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984), pp. 127-135,
and Goldstein, J., "Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantations and Restatements",
Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987), pp. 187-194. For David Winston's
reply see Winston, D., "Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan
Goldstein", Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. 37 (1986), pp.
88-91.
43 Young, "'Creatio ex Nihilo': A Context for
the Emergence of the Christian Doctrine of Creation", p. 144.
44 Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:5, in ANF 3:301.
45 Hatch, Edwin, The Influence of Greek Ideas and
Usages Upon the Christian Church, (London: Williams and Norgate, 1914,)
pp. 195-196.
46 Young, 'Creatio ex Nihilo': A Context for the Emergence
of the Christian Doctrine of Creation, pp. 139-151.
47 Winston, "Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply
to Jonathan Goldstein", p. 89.
48 Young, "'Creatio ex Nihilo': A Context for
the Emergence of the Christian Doctrine of Creation", pp. 139-151.
49 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages
upon the Christian Church, p. 1.
50 Stead, C., Philosophy in Christian Antiquity,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994,) p. 120.
51 Clementine Homilies 16:19, in ANF 8:316.
The Clementine Recognitions also seem to imply that God is cognizable
only through the senses: "Then said Peter: `Give us then, as I have
often said, as being yourself a new God, or as having .yourself come down
from him, some new sense, by means of which we may know that new God of
whom you speak; for those five senses, which God our Creator has given
us, keep faith to their own Creator, and do not perceive that there is
any other God, for so their nature necessitates them.'" (Peter, in
Clementine Recognitions 2:60, in ANF 8:114.)
52 Clementine Homilies 17:16, in ANF 8:322-323.
Here "incorporeal" undoubtedly means "spiritual". Paul
called the resurrection body "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 15:44,
but Jesus' resurrected body is anything but "incorporeal".
(Luke 24:39)
53 Peter , in Clementine Homilies 16:16, in
ANF 8:316.
54 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 234-235.
55 Clementine Recognitions 1:28, in ANF 8:85.
56 Origen, De Principiis 1:1:1, in ANF 4:242;
cf. De Principiis 2:8:5, in ANF 4:289. "It is evident from
this remark that one very natural interpretation of the word pneuma
to the reader of the New Testament in Origen's time might not have been
'incorporeal' but the very opposite." (Jantzen, G., God's World,
God's Body, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984, pp. 22-23.)
57 Stead, C., Philosophy in Christian Antiquity,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994,) p. 98.
58 Wand, J.W.C., A History of the Early Church to
A.D. 500, p. 140.
59 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages
upon the Christian Church, pp. 251-254.
60 Whittaker, John, "Plutarch, Platonism, and
Christianity", in Blumenthal, H.J., and Markus, R.A., eds., Neoplatonism
and Early Christian Thought, (London: Variorum Publications Ltd., 1981,)
p. 50
61 Joseph Smith, in TPJS p. 345.
62 Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity,
p. 102.
63 Strong, J., The New Strong's Complete Dictionary
of Bible Words, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996,) p. 470.
64 Origen, Commentary on John 2:3, in ANF 10:323.
65 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:1-9, in ANF
1:399-402.
66 Stead, C., Divine Substance, (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1977,) pp. 187-188.
67 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF
1:522.
68 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:Preface, in
ANF 1:526.
69 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:1-4, in ANF
1:521-522.
70 Origen, Commentary on John 2:3, in ANF 10:324-325;
cf. Origen, De Principiis 2:10:2, in ANF 4:294. Origen also includes
a fourth degree, but this is consistent with the LDS belief in "outer
darkness" or hell, in addition to the degrees of glory.
71 Irenaeus (quoting Papias), Against Heresies
5:36:1-2, in ANF 1:567.
72 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14, in
ANF 2:506.
73 ANF 2:506.
74 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:6, in ANF
2:490.
75 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:36:1-2, in ANF
1:567.
76 Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity,
p. 179.
77 LDS scholar John Tvedtnes offers a novel explanation
for Jesus' statement: "... in the Apocrypha... we read of a young
woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each
of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit
6:10-8:9), Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit,
who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase
the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact
that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent
to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed
to him "from the beginning" (Tobit 6:17). This implies
that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would
explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus
explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming
that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal
marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would
explain why Jesus told them, 'Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God'" (Tvedtnes, J., "A Much-Needed Book That
Needs Much", FARMS Review of Books, vol. 9, no. 1, 1997, p.
41.)
78 See Stroumsa, G. G., Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric
Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism, (New York: E.J. Brill,
1996); also Cardinal Danielou's The Theology of Jewish Christianity.
79 Grant, R.M., After the New Testament, (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1967,) p. 184.
80 Origen, De Principiis 2:11:2, in ANF 4:297.
81 A Jewish account of the same doctrine occurs in
Falasha 5 Baruch. Baruch is being conducted through the heavens
by an angel. At the highest level the following conversation occurs: "I
asked the angel who conducted me and said to him: 'Who enters through this
gate?' He who guided me answered and said to me: 'Blessed are those who
enter through this gate. (Here) the husband remains with his wife and the
wife remains with her husband.'" (Leslau, W., Falasha Anthology,
New Haven: Yale, 1951, p. 65.)
82 Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.
83 Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity,
p. 351.
84 Markus, R.A., The End of Ancient Christianity,
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990,) p. 73.
85 Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church,
(New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.
86 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages
Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.
87 Odes of Solomon 6, in Platt, R.H., Jr., ed.,
The Forgotten Books of Eden, (New York: Random House, 1980,) p.
122.
88 Jung, C. G., "Transformation Symbolism in the
Mass", in Campbell, J., ed., The Mysteries, (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1955,) pp. 280-281.
89 Acts of Thomas, in ANF 8:539.
90 Acts of Thomas 121, quoted in Danielou, The
Theology of Jewish Christianity, p. 371.
91 Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History 2:23, in NPNF Series 2, 1:125.
92 Baker, J.A., "The Permanent Significance of
the Fathers of the Second and Third Centuries", in Danielou, J., Gospel
Message and Hellenistic Culture, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1973,) p. 501.
93 Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity,
pp. 407-408.
94 Danielou, The Lord of History, p. 36.
Back to the Index
|