Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in America

This post is related to my post Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in Utah (HERE), but now I'm expanding it to the whole American continent. If you've read the Utah post linked above, we can use that same principle to see what is fundamentally wrong with the Mormon mindset when it comes to Salvation History. That's what we will cover in this post.

One cornerstone of the Mormon religion is that a small group of Israelites back at the time of the Books of Kings were told by God to leave Jerusalem before the Babylonian exile and have this small group of Israelites sail on a ship to arrive somewhere near Mexico. Here's what the LDS "Guide to the Scriptures" (HERE) says about the prophet Lehi:

In the Book of Mormon, a Hebrew prophet [Lehi] who led his family and followers from Jerusalem to a promised land in the western hemisphere about 600 B.C. Lehi was the first prophet among his people in the Book of Mormon. Lehi fled Jerusalem with his family at the command of the Lord (1 Ne. 2:1–4). He was a descendant of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Ne. 5:14). The Lord gave him a vision of the tree of life (1 Ne. 8:2–35). Lehi and his sons built a boat and sailed to the western hemisphere (1 Ne. 17–18). He and his descendants became established in a new land (1 Ne. 18:23–25).

Recall that the ancient Israelite mindset was such that there is only one Promise Land, which was promised to Abraham originally, and which Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to attain it, where the Twelve Tribes would finally settle down, where David's throne was established and the Temple was built. The land of Israel was the only Promise Land they ever envisioned. Now notice from the above quote how this is framed, Lehi "fled" Jerusalem due to the incoming Babylonian exile and was sent to establish himself and his descendants in "a" new Promise Land. This is the Mormon view and it fits perfectly with the American pioneer-fronteer mindset, but it is flatly against the Biblical theme of having one home and being temporarily removed from it due to punishment. So the accepted Mormon notion of just leaving Jerusalem to come to America for good, with no intention to return, runs completely contrary to the Biblical narrative. 

Moreover, the Israelites were in a covenant with God to keep the Mosaic Law, which means Lehi and his descendants would be required to keep the Mosaic Law. But how do you keep the Mosaic Law when you're nowhere near Jerusalem, without the Levitical Priesthood, no Temple, etc? How do you celebrate the Jewish holy days? You can't, which again runs completely against the grain of Scripture but which Mormon/Protestant views of Scripture completely miss.

Equally problematic is the Biblical theme wherein the "Ten Lost Tribes" were originally chastised for separating from Judah's authority, yet somehow Lehi separating from Judah's authority (even establishing a kingdom in America) is suddenly a good thing? And from an Old Testament prophetic perspective, you are being sent into exile for sin on a national level, even if you're relatively innocent as an individual like Daniel, and yet Lehi is instead told to "flee" instead of getting chastised with the rest of the Israelites? Or what about the great theme of "Returning Home" after the Babylonian Exile, how does that fit with a narrative where you just leave with no intention or yearning for home? Again, this Mormon-Protestant mindset is completely inconsistent with the Biblical narrative.

I understand that what I'm saying above will fall on deaf ears for many Mormons, because they either don't get it or have cognitive dissonance, but to those of us who have eyes to see, the Mormon narrative is plainly an American pioneer/pilgrim mindset, which is completely at odds with the Biblical narrative of the Israelite history. Realizing this debunks Mormonism on a "meta-narrative" level, which is essential to better direct your apologetics energy with Mormons, rather than the typical approach which implicitly concedes their foundational (erroneous) presuppositions.

Is Christian worship a "non-essential"? (Romans 14:5)

Many modern day "Evangelical" Protestants consider Romans 14:5 as the chief proof text for the notion there can be "non-essential" doctrines within Christianity. While there are practices throughout Christian history that can be considered "non-essentials," it is more problematic to apply this to the category of "doctrine," since doctrine implies essential teaching. The logic that certain Protestants use typically reduces down to making almost nothing an "essential" and thus stripping Christianity of anything solid that gives it shape. But when read carefully, we see here that Paul was speaking in a relatively narrow range of 'liberty' in Christian disciplines, especially as these were tied to one's former life and thus they had a certain sensitivity to them, not merely a personal preference. In fact, Paul refers to these people who need special care as those who are "weak in faith," but didn't mean it as an insult, just that they were not mature enough to thrive, which all Christians are called to aspire to.

Let's look at the passage of Chapter 14 of Romans:

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions [Greek: "scruples" / "doubts"]. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. ... 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

The verse "one person esteems one day better than another" is commonly taken to mean that when it comes to the day of worship, that is a "non-essential" doctrine, and that it is really the freedom of each individual Christian to decide whether they want to worship alone or with a community, or on Sunday or on Saturday, etc. With this mindset, these Protestants "conclude" that a true Christian could just sleep in on Sunday and not have to worship in any formal sense at all. These Protestants claim that 14:5 proves that the Church, clergy, etc, cannot even set rules/standards such as how to worship, nor set rules on fasting, etc. But was Paul really giving each Christian such "liberty"? Only a surface level and non-contextual reading could lead to such an "interpretation," while careful look at Paul's language will see he's speaking very carefully and pastorally.

Appreciating the "traditions of men" that Jesus condemned

In the infamous passages of Matthew 15:1-11 and Mark 7:1-22, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for teaching "traditions of men," which Protestants claim rules out "Catholic oral tradition". The Catholic response to this Protestant accusation is understandable, but also unfortunately surface level. When texts are misunderstood in the first place but never corrected, then what typically happens is that these texts turn into 'surface level apologetic' passages that never get studied at all. In this specific situation, Protestants would allege that the Pharisees randomly began taking on all sorts of random teachings and inventing a new religion, instead of simply following the Bible alone for their theology. Such a shallow reading of the text would warrant us to take a step back and see what was really being said here.  

Before looking at the verses itself, the first surface level rookie mistake Protestants make is to think that Jesus was teaching that any doctrine not written on paper is automatically not from God and cannot carry any authority. That Protestant claim is obviously wrong by the simple fact Jesus never wrote anything down and that Jesus taught 'orally' throughout His ministry. Many periods of Salvation History involved teaching being passed down orally, such as the command to circumcise given to Abraham and not written down for hundreds of years later until Moses. With that out of the way, we can now approach the passage with a different mindset.

Here is St Mark's account of the situation, which I trim down for brevity:

One mediator between God and men - Does 1st Timothy 2:5 teach Sola Mediatora?

The main goal of this blog is to help improve our understanding of what the Bible is teaching, and not merely to 'refute' opposing claims. For example, one major theme of this blog is to address the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone" by delving into what Paul is actually saying in the exact same texts Protestants bring up, rather than running elsewhere to other verses (e.g. James 2:24). It doesn't do us much spiritual good if our only use of the Bible as Catholics is to dodge the Biblcal verses which Protestants (or other groups) bring up "against" us. In this post we will look at the common case of Protestants attempting to refute the Catholic doctrine of "intercession of the saints" by their citing of 1 Timothy 2:5 where Paul speaks of Jesus as the "one mediator" between God and mankind.

The standard Catholic "response" to this shallow "Sola Mediatora" argument basically reduces down to the Catholic saying: "Isn't asking someone to pray for you also a form of mediation? So logically not all mediation is excluded." While this 'logic argument' response is not wrong for amateurish level of discussion, it is technically wrong on the deeper level of us not attempting to study the text to understand what Paul is actually saying.

Our goal when looking at Scripture is "exegesis," that is to understand what the text is saying, and be less concerned with how we can rescue our theology. We shouldn't fear what the Bible has to actually say, and in most of my study of Scripture, when you really understand what Paul is saying (especially in Romans), then the Bible 'comes alive' within your own life and spiritual growth. How often is the Bible basically ignored by Catholics who are secretly afraid that Paul could be teaching Protestant doctrine? We need to correct this mentality, and the best way is to seek to study the Bible on a deeper level than merely surface level reading of half sentences the way Protestants typically approach the Bible. In this instance, we will see that the Protestant approach to 1 Tim 2:5 is actually completely ignoring not only the context, but the full sentence itself. Thankfully, in doing some research to this post, I have found other Catholics also refusing to be satisfied with the standard "we ask others to pray for us" response.

Synagogues aren't Temples - kind of a big deal Pt.2

From my recent post (here) discussing the plain distinction between the synagogue versus the Temple, it has let me to look into the "Biblical details" more of each institution, including the key passages which were already cited. This study is important because if the Bible does use worship type language in regards to the synagogue, then it would mean the prior post would have to be significantly retracted or modified. However, if the Bible does not use worship type language with regards to the synagogue, then the prior post is more firmly established.

To begin, the Greek word "worship" appears about 60 times in the NT, and it is largely used to refer to people "bowing down" in reverence. That said, "worship" is clearly tied to Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple, is clear from Luke 2:37; John 4:20-21; 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Heb 9:1;  Rev 11:1 (1 Cor 14:23-25; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 15:4-5). Worship is associated with "religion" and "altar" (Acts 17:22-23). Worship is "regulated" by "covenant" and holy places (Heb 9:1-2).

I did not see the synagogue mentioned in any of these verses, implying "worship" (in the Biblical sense) does not take place in the synagogue. So far this data fits with the Catholic thesis that I wrote about in the prior article. Now onto the next word to look at.

The synagogue is not the Temple - kind of a big deal

The New Testament speaks often of Jesus and the Apostles visiting various synagogues, but the synagogue is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Isn't that strange that a major facet of Jewish life in the New Testament doesn't get any (clear) mention in the Old Testament? This got me thinking about the origins and meaning of the Synagogue.

The various encyclopedias that I've come across say the synagogue originated around the time of the Babylonian Exile (600BC). Thus, while the term "synagogue" (and "church") literally means a gathering or assembly, the term synagogue referring to a "house of worship" (as we now think of it) didn't come around until 800 years after the Israelites left Egypt (1400BC). The Catholic Encyclopedia says on Synagogue:

It was probably during the Babylonian captivity that the synagogue became a national feature of Hebrew worship. Afar from their Temple, the exiled Jews gathered into local meeting-houses for public worship. Sacrifice was denied them; prayer in common was not. The longer their exile from the national altar of sacrifice, the greater became their need of houses of prayer; this need was met by an ever-increasing number of synagogues, scattered throughout the land of exile. From Babylonia this national system of synagogue worship was brought to Jerusalem. That the synagogue dates many generations earlier than Apostolic times, is clear from the authority of St. James: "For Moses [the Torah] has been proclaimed in every city since ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21).

The consensus of most sources is that since the Israelites were removed from the Promise Land and their Temple destroyed during the Babylonian exile (600-530BC), they obviously could no longer worship as they once did, and thus they needed to improvise. During the Babylonian exile, they were allowed to gather somewhat, read Scripture somewhat, have sermons, pray, etc, and so this became a new standard feature of Jewish life. Since many Israelites/Jews were scattered abroad and never returned home, the synagogue system became especially necessary to carry on their faith. 

The Mosaic Law foresaw the Israelites worshiping through a Sacrificial Priesthood, which after arriving in the Promise Land became centered in Jerusalem at the Temple (Jn 4:19-21; Jn 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Rev 11:1). Sacrifices are a prominent theme from the earliest pages of Genesis, and sacrificing to God was a central theme in letting the Israelites go free from Egypt (Ex 8:25-29 - 1400BC). Even coming back from the Babylonian Exile (530BC) had prioritized getting the Temple back up and running as soon as possible, and the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) was about re-consecrating the Temple just 150 years prior to Jesus. So to just stop sacrificing is not really optional, and in fact it is a serious deformation of the Israelite religion to not have sacrifices going on (e.g. the book of Leviticus is dedicated to priestly sacrifices). Since the synagogue system was never about sacrifices this would strongly suggest it is not an actual (nor approved) replacement of sorts for the Temple sacrifices. The fact that during the ministry of Jesus the Temple sacrifices were going on at the same time as synagogue attendance even more strongly indicates they are not the same in the (ancient) Jewish mind (John 18:20; Acts 24:12). This realization, namely the the Synagogue is clearly distinct from the Temple, has serious ramifications for how we as Catholics (and Orthodox) view both the Jews and Protestants. 

By a single offering he has perfected them - Does Hebrews 10:14 refute Catholicism?

I was reading an article where a Protestant pastor cited Hebrews 10:14 as his primary proof text against the doctrine of Purgatory. The verse says: "For by a single offering he [Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." The pastor's interpretation was something along the lines of: by that one single sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus has perfectly saved us, leaving nothing unfinished, and thus there is no room nor need for us needing forgiveness later on (e.g. such as in Purgatory). This reading is understandable, and quite common for Protestants to make against Catholics. So I think it's a good idea to take a look at how to address this claim.

The first thing I would point out is that Christians can still fall into sin and still need to repent of any new sins (e.g. forgive us our tresspasses), as we see throughout the Bible. The congregations in Corinth and Galatia had fallen into sin and needed to repent (2 Cor 12:21). Jesus even sends John to warn the 'seven churches' of Revelation ch2-ch3 of repenting of their bad behavior. So it is a well-established fact that forgiveness is not something that takes place only once in a Christian's life. Thus, we have good reason to not interpret the "by one offering he perfected" of Heb 10:14 to mean your sins are perfectly forgiven the moment you first accept the Gospel. On top of that, even Protestants admit that our growing in inward holiness is a 'work in progress', since each day we must strive to uproot sin and become more holy, which is a very slow process, meaning Christians are far from perfect. And without the Cross, we would be unable to make any steps towards holiness at all. But then we must admit "the one offering" did not perfect our sanctification, and thus we see a second reason why the Protestant interpretation cannot work against Purgatory. With the Protestant interpretation largely discredited, that opens up the door for us to explore alternative interpretations of what Paul is saying, because it seems like a very big deal to say that the Cross perfects us.

The next reasonable step in our study is to consider the possible meanings of the words that 10:14 uses, because often times we incorrectly assume the modern day English meaning of a Biblical word. The key word of this passage is "perfected," which Greek term is found 24x in the New Testament (here), and has a range of meaning along the lines of "to complete, accomplish, finish, bring to the end goal". If you look at the verses, this Greek term "perfect" is not used in any of these verses to mean nor suggest "without sin, flawless," such that a Christian is absolutely perfect now. Consider that Jesus told his Apostles that He was 'not yet perfect' (Lk 13:32; Heb 5:9; 7:28), which obviously cannot mean Jesus was not yet sinless, but rather that Jesus had yet to attain His final goal (Cross & Resurrection). And Paul says he as a Christian has not attained perfection yet (Phil 3:12), which obviously contradicts Heb 10:14 unless we admit "perfect" can have a range of meaning. So at this point, we can safely say that Heb 10:14 means that Christians have been brought to some goal or accomplishment stage, but that is not a state of sinless perfection.

Was Abraham wicked in Genesis 15:6? (Another look at Rom 4:5)

Continuing on the same Romans 4:5 "justifies the ungodly" theme, since this verse is seen as a Protestant stronghold for Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, I want to present multiple reasons why the Protestant reading is untenable. Just as a reminder, the Protestant side insists that "justifies the ungodly" means that Abraham was a wicked ungodly unregenerate vile man at the time of Genesis 15:6, and thus had no good works of any kind to justify himself, and thus the only way God was able to justify Abraham is by imputing the Righteousness of Christ to Abraham. But if Romans 4:5 is not actually saying Abraham was wicked (such that he had no righteousness within or righteous behavior), then the Reformed reading of Genesis 15:6 fails, and thus so does Romans 4:3-5, their chief proof text for Justification by Faith Alone and Imputation. 

To prove that I'm not making this Protestant 'interpretation' up, consider the words of some respected Protestant scholars:

• Dr R. Scott Clark (12/2018 on his blog):
  

  There have been times when the church has given the impression to her members and to others that only the perfect are welcome. She did that in the Middle Ages when many of their theologians concluded that we are right with God (justified) only to the degree we are holy (sanctified). In the Protestant Reformation the story was clarified to a great degree. Martin Luther (1483–1546) helped us see that Scripture teaches that all believers are at the same time sinful and declared righteous (simul iustus et peccator) by God, that, as Paul says, Christ justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5).”
  

• Dr Sam Waldron (Spring 2021 in a Reformed academic journal):
  

  The word “ungodly” implies that Abraham himself was not justified because he was the paradigm of obedience. Instead, he was the ungodly person justified by faith. . . . It is a significant mistake for Hays, who follows Sanders and others, to bring the concept of the merits of the patriarchs to the discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. He says, “Abraham’s faithfulness was reckoned by God to the benefit not only of Israel (as in the rabbinic exegetical tradition) but also of the Gentiles.” To speak of “the vicarious effects of Abraham’s faithfulness” is to obscure or miss the whole point. Abraham is the ungodly man - not the faithful man - in Romans 4. He is not a Christ-figure with a treasury of merit, but a sinner with no merit in need of justification. His faith is not admirable faithfulness, but empty-handed reliance on the promise of God. . . . The tension between Abraham the obedient (James 2:21–23) and Abraham the ungodly (Rom 4:3–5) must be considered. . . . But what of the assertion that Paul in Romans 4:5 refers to Abraham as ungodly in Genesis 15:6? The plain record of Abraham’s grievous failures after his calling are relevant to the question at hand. These grievous manifestations of remaining sin are a reminder of what Abraham had been, what he was by nature, and that his standing before God was not grounded on the very imperfect obedience which grew out of his faith in God’s promises. Thus, for the purposes of being justified by God, Abraham was (from the standpoint of the stringent requirements of God’s law) ungodly not only before his call, but afterwards.

• Dr John Fesko (Essay on Imputation):
  

  Abraham’s righteousness was not native to him; in fact, Paul says he was “ungodly.” So how did God consider him righteous? Because Abraham laid hold of Christ’s righteousness by faith. God therefore imputed Christ’s righteousness to Abraham. . . . This scriptural teaching stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that God justifies sinners on the basis of inherent, rather than imputed, righteousness. In other words, a person must actually be holy in order to receive the verdict of righteous before the divine bar. Yet, such an opinion conflicts with Paul’s testimony that God justifies the “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5).
  

• Dr DA Carson (The Vindication of Imputation pdf):
  

  More importantly, it does not bear in mind Paul’s own powerful conclusion: it is the wicked person to whom the Lord imputes righteousness. In the context, that label is applied to Abraham no less than to anyone else. In Paul’s understanding, then, God’s imputation of Abraham’s faith to Abraham as righteousness cannot be grounded in the assumption that that faith is itself intrinsically righteous. If God is counting faith to Abraham as righteousness, he is counting him righteous — not because Abraham is righteous in some inherent way (How can he be? He is asebes / ungodly), but simply because Abraham trusts God and his gracious promise.

• Dr Charles Hodge (Essay on Justification):
  

  As this righteousness is not our own, as we are sinners, ungodly, without works, it must be the righteousness of another, even of Him who is our righteousness.

• Dr Joel Beeke (The relation of Faith to Justification):
  

  In the final analysis, if we base our justification on our faith, our works, or anything else of our own, the very foundations of justification must crumble. Inevitably the agonizing, perplexing, and hopeless questions of having "enough" would surface; Is my faith strong enough? Are the fruits of grace in my life fruitful enough? Are my experiences deep enough, clear enough, persistent enough? Every detected inadequacy in my faith is going to shake the very foundations of my spiritual life. My best believing is always defective. I am always too ungodly even in my faith.
  

These quotes are representative of mainstream conservative Protestant scholarship. These Protestant scholars are well aware of challenges to their interpretation of Romans 4:5, but the Protestant side is so stuck and has bet everything on Romans 4:5 in order to uphold Imputation that they cannot afford to budge. I can confidently say that the highest academic levels of conservative Protestant scholarship has no other hope than their desperate reading of Romans 4:5.

Here are some reasons I have gathered as to why “ungodly” in the case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 refers merely to Gentile (i.e. uncircumcised) status and does not likely refer to something more severe or “morally corrupt” in Romans 4:5. These reasons are not mutually exclusive, but can overlap:

Augustine's insights on Genesis 15 - Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness - Part 5

Since my radical reevaluation of Genesis 15 last year, which I have in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series (Here), I have recently come across a fabulous commentary by St Augustine on this situation which I feel further vindicates my position. I truly believe this will change the way most informed folks read and comment upon Genesis 15 and Romans 4. Let's jump right into it, with this passage from St Augustine's masterpiece, City of God (Book 16; Section 26):

After these things in Gen 16, Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham might think that in Ishmael was fulfilled what God had promised him in Gen 15, after Abraham originally wished to adopt his home-born servant Eliezer (Gen 15:2), to which God said "This servant shall not be your heir; but he that shall come forth from your own loins, he shall be your heir." (Gen 15:4) Therefore, lest Abraham should think that what was promised in Genesis 15:4 was fulfilled in Ishmael the handmaid's son in Genesis 16, God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17 to promise the birth of Isaac, and said "I am God; be well-pleasing in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will make my covenant between me and you, and will fill you exceedingly."

Here in Genesis 17 there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman [Rom 4:19]. For although God effects even the natural course of procreation, yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised of Sarah. For what else does circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is, after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are changed [Gen 17:5; Rom 4:17]: all these details proclaim newness, and the new covenant is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the old?

Wow, if only this passage of St Augustine was more well-known, it might have changed the course of Catholic & Protestant dialog a long time ago and completely changed the way we read Romans 4. This passage confirms a lot of what my own 'regenerated' understanding of Romans 4 seems to be about as I've explained in my Revisiting series. As a summary: I do not see Romans 4 as about Abraham converting in Genesis 15, nor about him getting justified a second time after Genesis 12. I do not necessarily even see circumcision as portrayed as a "work" (more on this in an upcoming post). Rather, I think the only feasible reading of Rom 4:2 "if Abraham was justified by works" can refer to is bringing about the Promised Heir of Gen 15:4 by natural human means, namely Abraham sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, right after the Covenant was established in Genesis 15. It makes little to no sense contextually or logically for "works" of Abraham in Rom 4 to be sins, good deeds, or even circumcision itself, much less the ceremonial works of Moses. If you do a simple substitution of any of those meanings of "works", the train of thought for Paul makes no sense. It is possible that Paul is saying Abraham's "work" of sleeping with Hagar was a "type" for the merely natural "works of the Mosaic Law" which lacked grace. Abraham truly Believed God's promise in Genesis 12 that his offspring would be great and bless the whole world, but his natural, earthly, human "Reason" was unable to see how this was to actually be. Perhaps it was Eliezer, Abraham's distant relative would be the heir. So God showed up go clarify in Genesis 15 that it was not Eliezer, but rather someone "from his own loins" (15:4b). Perhaps then it was Ishmael, Abraham's actual biological child. So God showed up again to clarify in Genesis 17 that it wasn't Ishmael, but rather a miraculous birth, made possible by regenerative circumcision. In all this, we see types/shadows/images of the insufficiency of the Old Covenant and the need to make way for the New Covenant. Paul is far more concerned with Divine Revelation unfolding, seeing Genesis with the Glasses of Faith, that he is with some silly, shallow Protestant debate on faith "versus" deeds. 

Was Abraham kosher before God? (Modern Judaism)

I recently met someone who had come back to the Church after having been fallen away for about 20 years, and he was given the icon pictured here by someone at his Confirmation earlier this year. He wasn't sure what this icon was about, so he asked me. I immediately recognized the "three angels" from a more famous version of the icon that you've probably seen (here), but I hadn't seen this 'version' with the two people in the background. I turned to the passage in Genesis 18, known as "The Hospitality of Abraham," where this event took place and I showed him the story:

(Genesis 18:1-21) 1 The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth 3 and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, 5 while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.”6 And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quick! Three cups of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes.” 7 And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. 8 Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.

9 They said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said, “She is in the tent.” 10 The Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” 13 The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.”

16 Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way. 17 The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” 20 Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” ²² So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.

A surface level reading of this passage is pretty straightforward, but the more you know about the OT and Salvation History, you cannot help but struggle to get through it, since you feel like you must stop and ponder each of the many mysterious "details". For example, who are these "three men"? Are they angels? Are they, at least symbolically, the Three Persons of the Trinity? Or is one of them the Pre-Incarnate Son (as I've noted in an earlier post here)? There are various opinions on this matter, but under my limited meditation, personally I think the "three men" can on a 'symbolic' level refer to the Trinity, while on the 'exegetical' level refers to the Pre-Incarnate Son and two angels. The main reasons for my conclusion is that: (1) it certainly seems God Himself is talking to Abraham from among these three men, without the three men being mere accessory individuals; (2) we see chapter 19:1 begin by speaking of "the two angels" arriving in Sodom, suggesting the "third man" was someone more than an angel, thus God the Son; and (3) I recall St Justin martyr pointing out Gen 19:24 speaks of 'two Yahwehs', or two LORD's, one on earth and one in heaven, raining down fire upon Sodom, which at least hints at the idea of Father and Son. You can read St Justin's thoughts on using Genesis 18 as prooftext in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, ch56 (here). Also, this passage is speaking about a miraculous conception of a promised son who will bring about promised blessings, which I discuss in detail on my Romans 4 article (here in the comments box).

The righteous shall live by (God's) faithfulness - Part 3 (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38)

One benefit of discussing your theological reflections with others (both Catholic and Protestant) is that, through their feedback, you can often further refine your original conclusions. In the case of Paul's mysterious appeal to the obscure text of Habakkuk 2:4 in key junctures of Romans and Galatians, I have come to write this unexpected Part 3 of this The Righteous Shall Life By Faith series (Part 2 is HERE). This time, I will try to bring the truths of the prior reflections together to form a fully cohesive understanding of why Paul appealed to such an obscure OT text if his goal was to make a convincing argument to his audience, both friend and foe.

First, let us recall that in Galatians 3:11, Paul says: "It is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”" I'll be honest, there is nothing obvious about how this brief phrase from Habakkuk evidently proves faith justifies while the law does not justify. I'm sure that if other folks were honest, they would admit this phrase is more mysterious than it is clear. Most commentaries that I have come across take the very simplistic approach of saying something akin to "Habakkuk says faith gives life, so that's all there is to salvation." Sorry, but I think that's an immature approach to the text, and is full of problems. For one, we already noted in Part 2 that "faith" in Hab 2:4 is more accurately translated/understood as "faithfulness," and nothing in the text or context suggest a person is incapable of doing good works or that everyone is unrighteous (e.g. God did not consider Habakkuk as unrighteous). And the way Hab2:4 is quoted in Hebrews 10:32-39, "you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised," there is nothing in Paul's lesson here that in any way suggests faith alone or "once saved always saved". (Protestants have shamefully and intentionally avoided the rule of "Scriptures interprets Scripture" by refusing to take Hebrews 10:38 into consideration when interpreting Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11.)

On top of that, there are many texts in the Bible that link having life, righteousness, etc, to obeying God's commandments, e.g., Proverbs 4:4; 7:2; 11:19; Eze 18:22; as well as very relevant passages similar in nature to Habakkuk, such as Ezekiel 14:12-14,

And the word of the Lord came to me: “When a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break it, and send famine, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God.

The plain logic here is that when the bulk of the people turn to evil for a sustained time, then even the most righteous saints in OT history wouldn't be able to intervene, and rather such saints would only spare their own life by their righteous behavior. So do we really think that Paul was so intellectually weak that Paul simply mined the OT until he found a text that sounded good to him? Any Jew would laugh at pulling out such an obscure OT text such as Hab 2:4, and they would easily throw a number of OT texts against Paul. Surely we cannot mock Paul's intelligence and gift of the Spirit by thinking he couldn't make a convincing argument! So we are forced to do some reflection and thus discover why Paul's appeal to Habakkuk 2 is actually a pretty solid argument.

To begin finding a satisfying answer, I think we should consider the key phrases which Paul uses when he appeals to Hab 2:4. First, as noted above in Galatians 3:11, Paul says Hab 2:4 somehow demonstrates that 'works of the law do not justify'. Second, in Romans 1:17, Paul says Hab 2:4 somehow demonstrates that 'the righteousness of God is revealed'. I think the answer that addresses both is a proof text along the lines of showing the Mosaic Law was broken and thus put the Israelites in a hopeless condition, yet which nonetheless God promises to rescue/save His people. The book Habakkuk was written to address the national punishment coming upon Judah for its unfaithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant, which did not contain any provision for atonement of major sins. Yet, despite providing no means of un-breaking the Mosaic Law, somehow throughout the OT prophets we are told God promises to rescue His people. This can only mean the Works of the Law do not justify (in the sense of saving a person from their sins and giving them spiritual life or even heaven). It also means that God's Righteousness, that is His promises to correct the issue of sin and bring about salvation, is promised in the prophets to come about in His due time by some other basis than the Law. Thus, when Paul brings up Habakkuk 2:4 to his Jewish opponents, they are reminded of their national disobedience to the Mosaic Law, requiring punishment since the Law does not allow them a second chance, while at the same time promising them a second chance at living through some other merciful provision apart from the Works of the Law. This "other merciful provision" is only revealed at the time of the Apostles, wherein Jesus arrives to deal with sin, and this message is known simply as the Gospel.

This would also explain why in both contexts, Romans 1:16-18 and Galatians 3:10-13, Paul quotes Habakukk right in the middle of talking about God's "wrath" due to disobedient behavior and "curses" for breaking the Law. Habakkuk, and the OT prophets as a whole, are precisely about God's wrath due to breaking the Law. But within Habakkuk and the OT prophets as a whole, there are also prophecies about how God will still have mercy and save. 

It is also possible that Paul was saying that Habakkuk was speaking of a time when it wasn't even possible to practice the Mosaic Law since the Israelites were now in exile and thus couldn't even live out the works of the Law due to living under pagans. Both then and in 70AD, the Temple was destroyed, meaning the Israelites couldn't even carry out their routine Levitical duties regarding sacrifices, purification, holidays, etc. Thus, they must live some other way than by the Law if they want to continue their religion and relationship with God, and that way must be common to both Gentiles and Jews (e.g. not restricted to the geographic land of Jerusalem). Within the context of Christianity, we are also living among the pagans, namely those outside forces that are constantly trying to persecute us, which we must suffer for now and persevere in faithfulness to God.  

 

Next to reflect upon what Habakkuk meant by "live," we should be able to at least assume this "life" was something more than just earthly comfort, since at the time of exile there was no comfy life on the horizon. If Habakkuk himself was going to suffer exile, he certainly wasn't "living" in any satisfying manner. Thus, his "faith(fulness)" had to be leading to some other kind of life, such as life in heavenly paradise. Just as the Jew was for the foreseen future going to endure life in a fallen world (i.e. Babylonian exile), so too Christians for the foreseen future are going to live life in a fallen world, and thus our faithfulness during this time must be looking to something more than earthly comfort.

One final point to consider is that, as with other posts on this blog, we see in Habakkuk 2:4 that the Greek OT (LXX) text contains inspired elaborations upon the Hebrew OT text. Consider the two OT texts of Habakkuk 2:3-4 and how they differ:

Greek Habakkuk: (3a) For the vision is yet for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: (3b) though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry. (4a) If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: (4b) but the just shall live by my faith.

Hebrew Habakkuk: (3a) For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end, it will not lie. (3b) If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay. (4a) Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, (4b) but the righteous shall live by his faith.

For both texts, verse 3a is pretty similar, Habakkuk is given an prophecy of the future by God. In verse 3b, is not immediately clear if this is the return from Babylonian exile or if it is a prophecy of the arrival of Jesus, or perhaps both. The Greek rendering of "he" will come sounds a lot life the arrival of Jesus, either first or second coming, though "it" can mean the same thing, as in 'this prophecy will come to fulfillment'. In 4a, there is a remarkable difference in texts, though I maintain we should always assume differences in texts are merely difference in wording rather than in essential meaning (especially since the Hebrew terms can often be more broad in meaning). In this case of 4a in both, it seems certain that the prideful person whose soul is puffed up in the Hebrew text is to be understood as the one who draws back and has God's favor removed in the Greek. And given that, it means the (already) righteous individual of 4b is going to live by faithfulness. If there is any question as to whose faithfulness, you could read it either as God's Faithfulness, and thus more accurately God's Righteousness, or as man's faithfulness to God's commands. But even here, perhaps both God and man's faithfulness is in view. Thankfully, we have the New Testament book of Hebrews, chapter 10, that gives a better look at this:

Hebrews 10: 19 We have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37 For [as Habakkuk says],

“Yet a little while, and the Coming One will come and will not delay;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”

39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. ² For by it the people of old received their commendation.

Within this text, we see Paul touch upon many of the themes we've already discussed. We see Paul talking about God's Judgment that is coming, and the reward for those who are obedient. We see that the Mosaic dispensation did not provide for forgiveness, and thus when it was broken there was only wrath to look forward to, while the New Covenant has more opportunities for mercy and greater rewards...though also greater punishments as well. We see that Hebrews definitely is looking to the Greek Habakkuk, showing that what was in mind was "the Coming One," that is He Who Is Coming, which can only be God, in Jesus Christ.

Paul was thus quoting Habakkuk as a prophecy of Jesus' Second Coming (or at least the judgment in AD70, or both), while we are in a time of exile, and the Mosaic Law has expired, leaving us to live by new Covenant rules and regulations. This applies to the Jew and Gentile alike, and thus "from faith to faith" means there is an analogy of our conditions found in the lesson of the OT conditions of Habakkuk and the Babylonian Exile. To me, this is a far more satisfying explanation of Paul's proof text than a mere surface level reading of a few words.

St Jerome's fascinating insights on the famous verse "The righteous man shall live by faith"

In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul famously says: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" The "as it is written" verse Paul is citing here in his thesis statement is from the relatively obscure book of the prophet Habakkuk, chapter 2:4. I have always been fascinated by this verse, especially considering Paul quotes it multiple places (e.g. Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38), and thus I've been highly suspicious of the general lack of Protestant commentary on the context and meaning of Habakkuk 2:4. I think too often Protestants have glossed over this verse, thinking merely that Habakkuk is saying "a man is justified by faith". But this surface level reading does not seem to fit the actual wording of the verse nor the context. In this post, I want to consider a fascinating commentary on this verse, which I had not considered, which I stumbled upon in St Jerome's Commentary on Galatians.

St Jerome, commenting on Galatians 3:11-12, says:

We should note that he did not say that just any man lives by faith, lest he provide an excuse for the devaluation of virtuous deeds. Rather, he said that the righteous man lives by faith. This means that before having faith and the intention to live by it, one must already be righteous and must by the purity of his life have claimed certain steps that lead to faith. It is therefore possible for someone to be righteous without yet living by faith in Christ. If this is troublesome to the reader, let him consider what Paul says about himself [Phil 3:6]: "As for righteousness according to the Law, I was faultless." At the time, Paul was righteous in terms of keeping the Law, but he was not yet able to live by faith because he did not have Christ

This is astonishing, because with this explanation, Paul is basically undermining the very erroneous Protestant idea which teaches that our own sinfulness prevents our works from saving us. In Jerome's explanation, a person who is already righteous still needs faith. This fits perfectly with what I've written about numerous times (e.g. Here and Here) against the Protestant heresy of Salvation By Good Works Alone, contrasted to the Catholic teaching of St Paul which is Salvation by Faith.

This lead me to another discovery, noticing the context in which Paul quotes Habakkuk within his Galatians 3:10-12 argument:

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

By citing Habakkuk 2:4 within the context of the "works of the law," per Jerome's insights this means that Paul has in mind particularly the Jew-Gentile controversy, and is thus saying even if a Jew were following the Mosaic Law, and thus were 'righteous per the Law', such is not enough. Faith would still be needed. Jerome further elaborates that Paul mentions "live" in two instances here: faith causes life and keeping the law causes life. Since both cannot be true in the same sense must mean that the "life" that the Law gives is a temporal living, such as long life and earthly blessings, as well as avoiding the death penalty that the Law holds over a person for grave violations of the Mosaic Covenant. Meanwhile, the "life" that faith in Christ brings is eternal life.   

UPDATE: Now there is a PART 2 of this series HERE.

"Not all who are of Israel are Israel!" - A further look at Romans 9

This post builds on a recent post I did, Romans 9 like you've never heard it before. 

Thinking about Romans 9 some more, it seems there's one further detail that ties things together even more: Within the famous Patriarchal trifecta of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," it seems in this passage that Paul only gave examples of the sons of Abraham (9:7-9) and Isaac (9:10-13), but Paul did not seem to mention the sons of Jacob. Or did he? Actually, it seems Paul does mention Jacob, but we probably missed it. 

In the famous (and slightly mysterious) thesis verse of Romans 9:6, Paul says: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." The standard interpretation of this second sentence is that not all who are biologically Jews belong to "Spiritual Israel". And that makes sense. Calvinists go one step further, and in an erroneous way, and interpret this as basically saying there is a "visible church" and an "invisible church," such that you can be a member of the "visible church" but not actually saved. In this post, I want to consider what I think is a more satisfying interpretation of 9:6.