Tag: faith

MORMON POLYTHEISM REVISITED

The following is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 2: Like Father, Like Son: Jesus’ Divine Attributes, Chapter 9: Monotheism and the Divine Attributes, pp. 177-184.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.

LATTER-DAY SAINTS: MANY PERSONAGES WHO ARE GODS

The LDS Church teaches a doctrine of God that is at the other extreme from the position of progressive Christianity. Whereas progressive Christians deny that God is a personal being, Latter-day Saints believe in a plurality of divine beings who are “personages,” that is, anthropomorphic individuals. We gave a brief account earlier (pp. 56–57) of the development of LDS theology from Joseph Smith’s beginnings to the present. Joseph’s earliest revelations were in most respects monotheistic, but by the end of his life he was teaching explicitly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three Gods, that they progressed to become Gods, and that we are the Father’s literal spirit offspring with the potential to become divine beings like him. Although there are in the LDS doctrine of God many theological issues of interest and even relevance we could address, here we will focus on the LDS belief in a plurality of Gods and its distinction between “Elohim” the Father and “Jehovah” the Son as two different Gods in the Old Testament.

Plurality of Gods

In 1842, Joseph Smith published initial installments of the Book of Abraham, a supposedly inspired translation of a text that the Genesis patriarch Abraham had written on one of the Egyptian papyri that the LDS Church purchased in 1835. The papyri were authentically ancient Egyptian papyri (though two thousand, not four thousand, years old), but the Book of Abraham was not an authentic translation of the papyrus on which it was supposedly based. This fact became clear when fragments of the papyri resurfaced in the 1960s and were translated by both LDS and non-LDS scholars.³⁴ What interests us here is that Abraham 4–5 is a revision of Genesis 1–2. The base text of the revision is clearly the KJV, but the passage has been extensively edited to teach a polytheistic account of creation, as the following excerpts illustrate (emphases added):

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Gen. 1:1–3 KJV)

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. (Abr. 4:1–3)

The Book of Abraham changes “God” to “the Gods” not just in these verses but throughout Abraham 4–5. Notably, Genesis 1:26–27 is rewritten so that human beings are made in the image of the Gods: “So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them” (Abr. 4:27). In his final sermon, known as the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph attempted to prove this translation from the plural form of the Hebrew word ʾĕlōhîm.

I once asked a learned Jew, “If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?” He replied, “That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible.” He acknowledged I was right. . . . The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods.³⁵

The LDS Church has had for a long time a contingent of scholars who know this is nonsense. More than a century ago, LDS apostle James Talmage, one of the LDS Church’s most influential intellectuals, commented regarding the word ʾĕlōhîm: “In form the word is a Hebrew plural noun; but it connotes the plurality of excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number.”³⁶ Yet the LDS Church stands by Joseph’s interpretation of the word ʾĕlōhîm, at least in some of its literature. In its Old Testament curriculum manual, for instance, they assert that contrary to the view of “modern scholars,” Joseph “indicated the significance of the plural form,” quoting the Sermon in the Grove.³⁷ There are many reasons why we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that ʾĕlōhîm in Genesis 1 functions as a singular noun and should be translated “God.” For the sake of space, we will mention just three reasons.

1. Hebrew uses plural nouns for a variety of reasons other than to express a numerical plural. It does this, for example, with ʾādôn, the Hebrew word for “lord,” which often occurs in plural forms in reference to a king, such as David (1 Kings 1:43, 47), or in reference to Yahweh (e.g., Ps. 8:1, 9). Biblical scholars generally agree that the plural ʾĕlōhîm in reference to God is another example of this usage.

2. In virtually all cases where ʾĕlōhîm in context means “God,” the verbs, other nouns, pronouns, and adjectives used with it are singular in form, not plural.³⁸ The point here is easy to understand. If you read a sentence saying “Elohim is good,” you know that Elohim in this sentence must be singular because the verb is singular (“is”). The same thing applies to expressions like “Elohim our Father” or “Elohimsits on his throne.” We see this use of singular words in relation to ʾĕlōhîm right in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God [ʾĕlōhîm] created the heavens and the earth.” The verb “created” in this verse (bārāʾ) is singular, not plural. This pattern continues throughout Genesis 1–2 in the Hebrew text wherever the word ʾĕlōhîm occurs.

3. The Hebrew Bible refers to Yahweh numerous times as ʾĕlōhîm. Whenever it does so, the word ʾĕlōhîm must mean “God,” not “gods.” But this leads to the second problem in LDS theology we need to address.

Jehovah and Elohim as Two Gods

There was a reason why James Talmage over a century ago pointed out that the Hebrew word ʾĕlōhîm was singular in meaning. By that time, the LDS Church had settled on the convention of using “Elohim” as a name for God the Father, while using “Jehovah” as a name for the Son Jesus Christ. Thus, Talmage immediately explained, “Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is Jehovah—the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.”³⁹ This was not merely a naming convention, however; in LDS theology, Elohim and Jehovah are two different Gods. Again, Joseph Smith explicitly taught that the Father and the Son are two different Gods (and that the Holy Ghost is a third God). His statement on the matter in his very last sermon continues to be quoted in LDS Church publications:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.⁴⁰

As we saw was the case with Joseph’s interpretation of the word ʾĕlōhîm, the LDS distinction between Elohim and Jehovah as two different Gods (which, as just mentioned, developed decades after Joseph’s death) has proved difficult for LDS scholars to correlate with the Bible. If Jehovah had a God over him who was his father, where in the Old Testament is this God who was superior to Yahweh? Joseph Fielding Smith, an influential apostle who led the LDS Church briefly toward the end of his life (1970–72), offered the following explanation that Latter-day Saints commonly accept to this day:

The trouble with this explanation is that if Jehovah really were a God lesser in rank and glory than his father Elohim, one would expect that in Jehovah’s revelations to the patriarchs and the prophets throughout the Old Testament he would have spoken frequently about that greater deity. Not only are there no such statements in the Old Testament, what we find instead is an astonishing wealth of statements to the contrary. In what follows, we will use “Jehovah” to represent the Hebrew YHWH (Yahweh, commonly translated “the Lord” in English Bibles) and “Elohim” to represent the Hebrew ʾĕlōhîm (commonly translated “God”).

First of all, the Hebrew Bible pervasively identifies Jehovah as Elohim. It does this in many ways. Most commonly, it does so by referring to “Jehovah your Elohim” well over four hundred times, as well as in related references with other pronouns (“our Elohim,” “my Elohim,” and so on). We also find the compound name “Jehovah Elohim” or “Jehovah the Elohim,” references to “Jehovah, Elohim of Israel,” “Jehovah, the Elohim of ” various human figures (Shem, the patriarchs, David, Elijah, etc.), “Jehovah, Elohim of hosts,” and “Jehovah, Elohim of heaven” (or “of heaven and earth”). Besides these references, there are at least ten statements explicitly stating that Jehovah is Elohim (Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:21, 37, 39 [bis]; 2 Kings 19:19, cf. 19:15; Ps. 100:3). Some of these texts even state that Jehovah alone is Elohim. Here we will quote from the ASV, which uses “Jehovah” for the divine name YHWH:

Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that Jehovah he is God [ʾĕlōhîm]; there is none else besides him…. Know therefore this day, and lay it to thy heart, that Jehovah he is God [ʾĕlōhîm] in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else. (Deut. 4:35, 39)…

that all the peoples of the earth may know that Jehovah, he is God; there is none else. (1 Kings 8:60)

O Jehovah, the God of Israel, that sittest above the cherubim, thou art the God [ʾĕlōhîm], even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. . . . Now therefore, O Jehovah our God, save thou us, I beseech thee, out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou Jehovah art God [ʾĕlōhîm] alone. (2 Kings 19:15, 19; cf. Isa. 37:16, 20)

We find additional statements to the same effect elsewhere (again, quoting the ASV):

Wherefore thou art great, O Jehovah God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God [ʾĕlōhîm] besides thee. (2 Sam. 7:22; also 1 Chron. 17:20). I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. (Isa. 45:5, cf. 45:14)

. . . who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God [ʾĕlōhîm] else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. (Isa. 45:21).

Conservatively, there are well over 850 statements in the Old Testament identifying Jehovah as Elohim in the various ways we have just catalogued, averaging almost one per chapter. Not only are there many such statements in the Hebrew Bible, but they are spread throughout it in thirty-four of its thirty-nine books. It would not at all be an overstatement to assert that the primary message of the Old Testament is that Jehovah is Elohim.

In the light of this evidence, the only recourse would seem to be to question the integrity of the Old Testament. Indeed, that is what some Latter-day Saints do. Here LDS apologists have found some help from a maverick Methodist scholar named Margaret Barker. According to Barker, in ancient Israelite religion during the period of the first Jerusalem temple (Solomon’s), “there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king.”⁴² The “High God” might be called El or Elohim (“God”) or El Elyon (“God Most High”), but he was a God superior to Yahweh. “The original temple tradition was that Yahweh, the Lord, was the Son of God Most High, and present on earth as the Messiah.”⁴³ Here we have a scholarly construction of the origins of Christology that apparently lines up with LDS theology: Elohim as the Most High God and as the father of a group of “sons” (whom Latter-day Saints claim were the preexistent spirits of human beings), one of whom was Jehovah, later known as Jesus Christ.

The early Christians, Barker argues, drew on the First Temple traditions of the ancient Israelites in their view of Jesus, rather than on the monotheistic tradition that came to dominate Judaism in the Second Temple period. That monotheistic tradition was primarily the work of the “Deuteronomists,” Jewish scribes around the time of the Babylonian exile and thereafter who produced the passages in Deuteronomy and Isaiah that Christians commonly cite in support of monotheism.⁴⁴ Kevin Christensen, the main LDS apologist who has used Barker’s work to defend LDS theology, comments: “The same passages in Isaiah and Deuteronomy that are often used as proof texts for the strict monotheism of the Old Testament turn out to be for Barker evidence for a shift in Israelite theology during the exile.”⁴⁵

A full critique of Barker’s theory is beyond the scope of this book, but we can explain rather simply why it does not work as a support for LDS theology. First, the problems for the view cannot be limited to a few passages in Isaiah and Deuteronomy. Over 850 statements in thirty-four of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament explicitly identify Jehovah as Elohim, and several books assert that Jehovah is the only Elohim (recall the texts we quoted above from Kings and Chronicles as well as Deuteronomy and Isaiah). Genesis and the Psalms also explicitly identify Jehovah as God Most High (El Elyon), the deity that Barker claims was the father of Jehovah and the other spirit sons: “Thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High [ʿelyôn] over all the earth” (Ps. 83:18 ASV; see also Gen. 14:22; Pss. 7:17; 47:2; 97:9). All thirty-two occurrences of ʿelyôn in the Hebrew Bible as a title of deity are consistent with this identification of Jehovah as the God Most High. The one text that supposedly distinguishes Jehovah from Elohim or El Elyon is embedded, ironically, in Deuteronomy—in one of the most explicitly monotheistic passages in the Old Testament: When the Most High [ʿelyôn] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s [YHWH] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deut. 32:8–9)

When the Most High [ʿelyôn] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s [YHWH] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deut. 32:8–9)

This passage does not clearly distinguish Jehovah from Elyon; it makes perfect sense as saying, in Hebrew parallelism, that Jehovah the Most High allowed other nations to be dominated by “the gods” but reserved Israel (Jacob) for himself. In this same passage (the Song of Moses), Jehovah states:

“See now that I, even I, am he; And there is no god [ʾĕlōhîm] beside me.” (Deut. 32:39)

The theory that Elyon was a different deity than Jehovah entails that the “Deuteronomist” scribes skillfully edited out this idea from the entire Hebrew Bible, yet it somehow shows up in one statement in their signature book of Deuteronomy.46 Barker herself admits, “How such a ‘polytheistic’ piece came to be included in Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on monotheism, is a question we cannot answer.”⁴⁷

In effect, the LDS use of Barker’s theory turns the Old Testament upside down. The Old Testament consistently presents the monotheists as the good guys and the polytheists as the bad guys, the ones who corrupted Israel and who brought divine judgment on Israel. The LDS apologists claim that the polytheists were the good guys while the monotheists were the bad guys. Notice how different this theory is from Joseph Fielding Smith’s explanation for why it is so difficult to find a God above Yahweh in the Old Testament. Smith, assuming the general integrity of the Old Testament text, argued that after the fall Elohim the Father withdrew from contact with humanity and had his son Yahweh speak and act for him. Christensen claims that the Father was almost entirely erased from the Old Testament by apostate scribes. Neither theory holds up.

Finally, we should acknowledge the superficial appeal of the theory that Elohim and Jehovah are two different Gods for the LDS reading of the New Testament. As is well known, the New Testament authors most commonly use the title “God” (theos) for the Father and the title “Lord” (kyrios) for Jesus Christ. Since the Greek word theos is a common translation of the Hebrew ʾĕlōhîm while the Greek word kyrios is a common translation of YHWH, anyone who views the Father and the Son as two different deities will quite naturally infer that the Father is the deity called Elohim/God while Jesus Christ is the deity called Yahweh/Lord.

However, as we have seen, such an interpretation is at odds with the most fundamental teaching of the Old Testament, which is that Yahweh is Elohim. It is also at odds with the New Testament, which clearly accepts the identification of Yahweh as Elohim, at least in equivalent language in Greek. For example, Matthew, Mark, Luke–Acts, and Revelation all use the compound name “the Lord God” (Greek, kyrios ho theos) and related forms (“the Lord our God,” “the Lord your God”) as a designation of God (Matt. 4:7, 10; 22:37; Mark 12:29, 30; Luke 1:16, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37; Acts 2:39; 3:22; Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5, 6). This is a stock designation for God in the Septuagint, appearing over nine hundred times (translating both YHWH ʾĕlōhîm and ʾădōnāy YHWH). The New Testament also quotes Old Testament texts in which the titles kyrios (representing YHWH) and theos (representing ʾĕlōhîm) are used for the same referent. These include the famous Shema, the Old Testament affirmation of Jehovah as Elohim (Deut. 6:4) that became the Jewish “creed” (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:29, 30; Luke 10:27).

We conclude that the New Testament is just as “monotheistic” as the Old Testament. The distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord cannot be explained biblically as a distinction between two of several or many different gods. The traditional Christian doctrine that there is one God who made the world and who is unique in his divine attributes (affirmed also in Judaism and Islam) is therefore securely grounded in the teachings of Scripture. There is no one like God—a point made over and over in the Old Testament (Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 1 Kings 8:23; 1 Chron. 17:20; Ps. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25; 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6–7; Mic. 7:18). And yet, as we will see, the New Testament claims that Christ possesses the fullness of that unique divine nature (Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3; see also John 14:7–10; 2 Cor. 4:4).

34. The LDS Church made no official statement on the translation problem until almost fifty years later, in a 2014 article on its website entitled “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham,” at ChurchofJesusChrist.org (where one can also find the text of the Book of Abraham). The literature on the Book of Abraham, especially from LDS authors, is enormous. A representative introduction by a Latter-day Saint scholar is John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret, 2017). The best critical study is Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition. P. JS 1–4 and the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq, with contributions by Marc Coenen, H. Michael Marquardt, and Christopher Woods (Salt Lake City: SmithPettit Foundation, 2011). Ritner, an Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, also wrote “‘Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham’—A Response,” The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 2014, answering the LDS Church’s website article. Ritner’s article is conveniently available along with other resources on the subject at https://mit.irr.org/category/book-of-abraham.

35. Smith, History of the Church, 6:475, 476.

36. James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 6th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1922 [orig. 1915]), 38. The book is currently on the LDS Church’s official website.

37. “Enrichment Section: Who Is the God of the Old Testament?” in Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis—2 Samuel: Religion 301, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), accessed online at ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

38. Genesis 20:13 (“And when God caused me to wander [hithʿû, plural verb]”) may be a rare exception (see also Gen. 35:7, “revealed”; 2 Sam. 7:23, “went”). The fact that these occurrences are rare and in theologically inauspicious contexts means one cannot use them to read a doctrine of plurality of Gods into the Bible.

39. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 38; see also Joseph F. Smith et al., “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” Ensign, April 2002, reprinted from Improvement Era, August 1916, 934–42.

40. Smith, History of the Church, 6:474; quoted, e.g., in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 41–42; Chapter 47, “Doctrine and Covenants 121:11–46,” in Doctrine and Covenants: Student Manual: Religion 324 and 325 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2017).

41. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 1:27. LDS Church publications frequently quote this statement, e.g., “Moses 1:1–11,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Student Manual: Religion 327 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2017). It is also quoted in Robert L. Millet, “The Ministry of the Father and the Son,” in The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, ed. Paul R. Cheesman (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1988), 44–72, accessed online at rsc.byu.edu.

42. Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 3, emphasis in original.

43. Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” BYU Studies Quarterly 44, no. 4 (2005): 79.

44. E.g., Barker, Great Angel, 28.

45. Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 16, no. 2 (June 2004): 69.

46. On Deuteronomy 32:8–9, see Michael S. Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8–9 and Psalm 82?” Hiphil 3 (2006); “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82,” FARMS Review 19, no. 1 (2007): 233–37.

47. Barker, Great Angel, 6.

FURTHER READING

YHWH: THE ONLY TRUE ELOHIM

MORMON GOD VERSUS THE TRUE GOD

WHO IS THE ELOHIM OF MORMONISM?, PT. 2

THE MORMON SATAN & PREMORTALITY

THE BIBLICAL GOD VERSUS THE MORMON GODS, PT. 2, PT. 2B

JOSEPH SMITH THE FALSE PROPHET DEBATE

NOTES FOR MORMON DEBATE

Daniel’s Son of Man: YHWH’s Angel? Pt. 3

Matt. 28:19 – Baptism In Whose Name?

Matthew 28:19 – Baptism In Whose Name?

James E. Snapp

“This is perhaps a case of late interpolation.” That was liberal scholar Rudolph Bultmann’s opinion of the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19.

Earlier, in 1902, Frederick C. Conybeare – who might be considered the Bart Ehrman of his day – claimed in a detailed essay in The Hibbert Journal (and in 1901 in Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentlich Wissenschaft, pp. 275-288) that he had found patristic evidence against the genuineness of this phrase “so weighty that in [the] future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all.”

At this very moment, there are some in the Oneness Pentecostal denomination who similarly regard the threefold formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as an early scribal corruption. The theological impetus for this position is not hard to find: throughout the book of Acts, Luke reports that the early Christians baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38), or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16), or “in the name of the Lord” (10:48); the use of a threefold declaration at baptism is never mentioned by Luke.

Some Oneness Pentecostals have attempted to resolve this apparent discrepancy by taking a theological step that is not far from – and perhaps indistinguishable from – the early heresy of modalism: they baptize without such a threefold formula, and insist that the name “Jesus” is the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit. Others, while theologically greatly distanced from Bultmann and Conybeare, share with them a rejection of the authority of Matthew 28:19 on the grounds that the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is not authentic. Some Islamic groups similarly reject the genuineness of this phrase.

Usually when a reading has the support of every Greek manuscript in existence in which a passage is extant – as is the case here at the end of Matthew – there is no text-critical issue and it is accepted as genuine, as a matter of course. Even Bart Ehrman – who has proposed (like Gordon Fee before him) that First Corinthians 14:34-35, despite having enormous manuscript support, contains a lengthy interpolation – recently wrote, “It is usually thought that Matt. 28:19-20 is referring to the practice in Matthew’s own community, some 50 years after Jesus’ death, not to the words Jesus himself actually spoke.” (Readers of such comments should understand that when Ehrman employs phrases such as “It is usually thought,” he means, “It is usually thought among my colleagues who deny supernatural events in general.”) Regarding those who, instead, claim to reject the phrase on text-critical grounds: what are their grounds?

Their go-to source is Eusebius of Caesarea, the influential and not-entirely-orthodox historian of the early 300s, best-known for his composition Ecclesiastical History. As Conybeare documented, Eusebius utilized Matthew 28:19 seventeen times in ways that indicate that his text of the verse read πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, that is, “As you go, make disciples of all nations in My name.” Part of Conybeare’s argument that this reading should be given exceptional weight is that Eusebius was stationed in Caesarea, where in the previous generation Origen had enlarged the library with his own manuscripts; thus, it may be reasonably thought that among the manuscripts accessible to Eusebius in the early 300s were some copies from the early 200s, earlier than any existing copies of Matthew 28:19.

Conybeare’s quotations from Eusebius may have initially appeared to justify his confident assertions, but he was quickly answered by J. R. Wilkinson in The Hibbert Journal in 1902, in the second part of an article titled, Mr. Conybeare’s Textual Theories (beginning on p. 96 of the journal issued in October of 1902, and on p. 571 of the digitally archived copy). Wilkinson granted that Eusebius used a text in which “in My name” was in the first part of Matthew 28:19, referring to disciple-making, but he reasoned that this does not imply that “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” was absent from the second part of the verse, referring to baptism. The textual critic Frederick Chase also wrote a response against Conybeare’s approach in 1905 in the Journal of Theological Studies (beginning on p. 481).

A comprehensive, and decisive, answer against Conybeare’s proposal appeared in 1923 in Bernard Henry Cuneo’s published dissertation, The Lord’s Command to Baptise: An Historico-Critical Investigation With Special Reference to the Works of Eusebius of Caesarea. Cuneo systematically scrutinized Conybeare’s quotations from Eusebius, one by one, along with other quotations, and showed that Eusebius, like some other patristic writers, tended to limit his quotations to the segments of Scripture that were relevant to the topic that he was discussing at a given point.

For example, Cuneo examples Eusebius’ statement in Ecclesiastical History 3:5 and considers the development of Eusebius’ argument in which the quotation occurs: Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19a, not to say something about baptism, but to confirm a parenthetical point; in the course of describing the Roman siege of Jerusalem, he writes:

“. . . because the Jews continued to persecute His disciples, by stoning Stephen, beheading James the brother of John, and putting to death James the bishop of Jerusalem; and because they afflicted the other apostles so severely that they fled from Palestine and began to preach the Gospel to all the nations – imbued with the power of Christ who had said to them, “Going, make disciples of all the nations in my name” – and when all the Christians had left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, then the divine vengeance visited upon Jerusalem the crimes of which that city had been guilty against Christ and his disciples.”

In Demonstration of the Gospel 1:6, Eusebius wrote, “Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His resurrection, ‘Go and make disciples of all the nations,’ and added, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’” Here we do not see the middle of verse 19 because it is not pertinent to Eusebius’ present subject, whereas the beginning and end are pertinent.

Although this frugality may seem strange nowadays – that is, modern readers may understandably ask, “Why not just quote the whole verse?” – we ought to remember that nobody quoted from the New Testament in terms of chapter-and-verse divisions as we know them until the mid-1500s. Quoting only what needed to be quoted in order to support a particular point was common in ancient times; Eusebius shows the same tendency toward brevity in his quotations of Matthew 11:27, 16:18, etc.

Cuneo’s cumulative case is so effective that I recommend it to everyone who might encounter echoes of Conybeare’s argument; The Lord’s Command to Baptise is available online as a free download at Google Books. Archive.org also has a copy. Cuneo reminds readers about other patristic evidence in favor of the inclusion of the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” For example:

● Didache, chapter 7 (early 100s): “Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first rehearsed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water three times on the head ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.’”

● Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, part 17 (c. 180): concluding a series of proof-texts supporting his contention that it was not a Christ-persona, but the Holy Spirit, who descended upon Jesus: “He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

● Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch. 13 (c. 200): “The law of baptism was enjoined and its ritual prescribed. ‘Go,’ He says, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’ The addition to this law of the regulation: ‘Except one be born again of water and spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ bound faith to the necessity of baptism. Consequently from that time all believers were baptized.”

● Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum ch. 20 (c. 200): “He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.”

● Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, ch. 14 (early 200s): “The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (i.e., disposition) and the will of the Father, that is, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in no other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ And by this He showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly.”

● Acts of Thomas 9:4 (early 200s): “And the apostle, having taken oil, and poured it over their head, and salved and anointed them, began to say, ‘Come, holy name of Christ, which is above every name; come, power of the Most High . . . come, Holy Spirit, and purify their reins and heart, and seal them in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.’”

● Participants at the Seventh Council of Carthage (257), which was focused on the subject of baptism, included

Lucius of Castra Galbae, who quoted Christ’s words from Matthew 28:18-19, including “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Munnulus of Girba, who stated, “our Lord says, “Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Euchratius of Thence, who said that Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, “has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying, “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Vincentius of Thibaris, who, in addition to alluding to Mark 16:15-18, said that the Lord said, in another place, “Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Cuneo also spent several pages showing that Eusebius of Caesarea was indeed the author of Against Marcellus (336/337) and A Letter to the Caesareans Concerning the Council of Nicea. In the second composition, Eusebius introduces and repeats his own creed, which, he says, was read at the Council of Nicea in the presence of Emperor Constantine:

“As we have received from the bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisms, and when we received the holy laver [i.e., at baptism], and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:

“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost.”

This is followed by an addition affirmation:

“Believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held previously, and we maintain this faith unto the death, condemning every godless heresy.”

In another composition, the rarely cited Syriac Theophania, Eusebius of Caesarea made a full quotation of Matthew 28:17-20 in Book IV, chapter 8: “After His resurrection from the dead, all of them [i.e., the eleven apostles], being together as they had been commanded, went to Galilee, as He had said to them. But, when they saw Him, some worshipped Him, but others doubted. But He drew near to them, spoke with them, and said, ‘All power in heaven and earth, is given to me of my Father. Go ye and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold! I am with you always even to the end of the world.’ Observe now, in these things, the consideration and caution evinced by the disciples . . . .”

(In the same composition, which its translator, Samuel Lee, translated from a Syriac manuscript which had been obtained by Henry Tattam at the Monastery of the Blessed Virgin in the Nitrian Desert – a manuscript which Lee assigned to a period no later than the 400s – Eusebius explicitly quotes Matthew 28:19a with “in My name” as part of the text, saying in Book 5 chapter 46, “It was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make disciples of all nations, but with this excellent addition which He delivered, specifically, ‘in My name.’”)

            In addition to demolishing Conybeare’s case against the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Cuneo offered an explanation for the presence of the words “in My name” in Eusebius’ text of Matthew 28:19a:  it is a simple harmonization drawn from Luke 24:47.
            This introduces a fresh subject:  the abundance of alterations, harmonistic or otherwise, that are clustered in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.  These passages were among the most-used parts of the Gospels in early church-services, and were thus especially vulnerable to early liturgical influence.  Here are a few examples:
            ● In the Peshitta version of Matthew, Matthew 28:18 features an insertion drawn from John 20:21; after the usual words of the verse, the Peshitta adds, “As the Father sent Me, so also I send you.” (Codex Θ also has this feature.)

● In the Alexandrian text of Luke 24:42, there is no mention of honeycomb. The words και απο μελσσίου κηριου could have been accidentally skipped due to early scribal inattentiveness; και follows κηριου in the next sentence. But another possibility is that these words – supported by Tertullian, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, the Vulgate, the Armenian version, etc. – were removed intentionally to avoid incorporating honey into annual Easter-time worship-services.

● In Luke 24:43, after the usual statement that Jesus “took and ate in their presence,” several significant manuscripts – including K, Θ, Π*, and members of f¹³, as well as the Vulgate and, according to Tregelles, the Curetonian Syriac and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, also say, “and gave the rest to them.” (Θ does not include “and.”) This phrase may have been added when and where the passage had been interpreted somewhat mystically – the fish in the narrative being seen as congruent to the presence of Christ, ΙΧΘΥΣ – and when this point was reached in the Scripture-reading in the worship-service, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper commenced.

● In Luke 24:36, after Jesus’ appearance in the midst of the disciples, He says to them, “Peace to you!” In a small number of Greek manuscripts (including uncials G and P), and in the Vulgate, Jesus says a bit more; He goes on to say, “It is I; do not be afraid.” These extra words – drawn from John 6:20 – are supported, according to the UBS apparatus, by the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and by Ambrose and Augustine (in Contra Felicem Manichaeum). In addition, in Codex W, “It is I; do not be afraid” appears before “Peace to you.”

All these witnesses may echo early Easter-time liturgical arrangements of the blended-together Gospel-accounts. An early attempt to remove the intruding words appears to have gone too far; in several Old Latin manuscripts and in Codex Bezae, the entire phrase – “and said to them, “Peace to you” – is missing. (This is one of the “Western Non-interpolations” which appear in Luke 24.) Another possibility is that the phrase was skipped by accident.

The worship-services of the early churches had a detectable impact upon the text of the New Testament. But the impact of the text of the New Testament upon the early churches was far greater. As far as the use of the words, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” are concerned, there was one reason for the early Christians to use these words: they were attributed to Christ in every copy of the Gospel of Matthew.

FURTHER READING

Matthew 28:19: A Text Critical Investigation

Eusebius and the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

The authenticity and implications of the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19

Matthew 28:19

Is Jesus the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

IGNATIUS ON THE EUCHARIST

In this post I will cite the words of the blessed martyr and disciple of the holy Apostles, St. Ignatius in regards to the Eucharist. He was the bishop of the church in Antioch, the place where believers were first called Christians (Cf. Acts 11:26). His views on the Eucharist are vitally important seeing that he was directly taught by the very Apostles of the risen Christ. All emphasis is mine.

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (Epistle to the Smyrnæans)

Chapter 7. Reason of desiring to die

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. (Epistle to the Romans)

Chapter 20. Promise of another letter

If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially [will I do this ] if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ. (Epistle to the Ephesians)

In case a Protestant wishes to explain away Ignatius’s clear belief in the Eucharist being the actual flesh and blood of our risen Lord Jesus Christ, I will cite what two renowned Protestant scholars and historians have written in respect to this holy martyr’s eucharistic views. All emphasis is mine:

This leads us to consider the significance attached to the elements themselves in this period. From the Didache⁴ we gather that the bread and wine are ‘holy’; they are spiritual food and drink communicating immortal life. Ignatius roundly declares that ‘the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised’. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood.⁶ Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes⁷ it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. Because the eucharist brings Christians into union with their Lord, it is the great bond between them;⁸ and since it mediates communion with Christ, it is a medicine which procures immortality (pharmakon athanasius), an antidote against death which enables us to live in the Lord forever.¹ Justin actually refers to the change. ‘We do not receive these’, he writes,² ‘as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the word of prayer from Him (that food which by process of assimilation nourishes our flesh and blood) is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.’ So Irenaeus teaches³ that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a change, for he remarks:⁴ ‘Just as the bread, which comes from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but eucharist, being composed of two elements, a terrestrial one and a celestial, so our bodies are no longer commonplace when they receive the eucharist, since they have the hope of resurrection to eternity’. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Adam & Charles Black, London, Fourth Edition 1968], pp. 197-198)

And:

1. The Eucharist as a Sacrament.

The Didache of the Apostles contains eucharistic prayers, but no theory of the eucharist. Ignatius speaks of this sacrament in two passages, only by way of allusion, but in very strong, mystical terms, calling it the flesh of our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, and the consecrated bread a medicine of immortality and an antidote of spiritual death.⁴¹²¹² This view, closely connected with his high-churchly tendency in general, no doubt involves belief in the real presence, and ascribes to the holy Supper an effect on spirit and body at once, with reference to the future resurrection, but is still somewhat obscure, and rather an expression of elevated feeling than a logical definition.

The same may be said of Justin Martyr, when he compares the descent of Christ into the consecrated elements to his incarnation for our redemption. ⁴¹³¹³

Irenaeus says repeatedly, in combating the Gnostic Docetism,⁴¹⁴¹⁴ that bread and wine in the sacrament become, by the presence of the Word of God, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Christ and that the receiving of there strengthens soul and body (the germ of the resurrection body) unto eternal life. Yet this would hardly warrant our ascribing either transubstantiation or consubstantiation to Irenaeus. For in another place he calls the bread and wine, after consecration, “antitypes,” implying the continued distinction of their substance from the body and blood of Christ.⁴¹⁵¹⁵ This expression in itself, indeed, might be understood as merely contrasting here the upper, as the substance, with the Old Testament passover, its type; as Peter calls baptism the antitype of the saving water of the flood.⁴¹⁶¹⁶ But the connection, and the usus loquendi of the earlier Greek fathers, require us to take the term antitype, a the sense of type, or, more precisely, as the antithesis of archetype. The bread and wine represent and exhibit the body and blood of Christ as the archetype, and correspond to them, as a copy to the original. In exactly the same sense it is said in Heb. 9:24—comp. 8:5—that the earthly sanctuary is the antitype, that is the copy, of the heavenly archetype. Other Greek fathers also, down to the fifth century, and especially the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, call the consecrated elements “antitypes” (sometimes, like Theodoretus, “types”) of the body and blood of Christ.⁴¹⁷¹⁷…

We have, therefore, among the ante-Nicene fathers, three different views, an Oriental, a North-African, and an Alexandrian. The first view, that of Ignatius and Irenaeus, agrees most nearly with the mystical character of the celebration of the eucharist, and with the catholicizing features of the age. (Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume II)

In the previous period we distinguish three views: the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In the present the first view, which best answered the mystic and superstitious tendency of the time, preponderated, but the second also was represented by considerable authorities.¹⁰⁰⁰…

¹⁰²⁶ “Spiritualis alimonia.” This expression, however, as the connection of the passage in Serm. lix. 2 clearly shows, by no means excludes an operation of the sacrament on the body; for “spiritual” is often equivalent to “supernatural.” Even Ignatius called the bread of the Supper “a medicine of immortality, and all antidote of death” (φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ ζῇν ἐν Χριστῷ διὰ παντός́̈Ad Ephes. c. 20; though this passage is wanting in the shorter Syriac recension. (Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume III)

FURTHER READING

EARLY CHURCH ON THE REAL PRESENCE

EARLY CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

EARLY CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

The following excerpts are taken from Justin Martyr’s First Apology. All emphasis will be mine.

Chapter 58. And raise up heretics

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines, and of devils. For they who are called devils attempt nothing else than to seduce men from God who made them, and from Christ His first-begotten; and those who are unable to raise themselves above the earth they have riveted, and do now rivet, to things earthly, and to the works of their own hands; but those who devote themselves to the contemplation of things divine, they secretly beat back; and if they have not a wise sober-mindedness, and a pure and passionless life, they drive them into godlessness.

Chapter 59. Plato’s obligation to Moses

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers — we mean the account given through the prophets— that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spoke thus: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so. So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses. Deuteronomy 32:22

Chapter 60. Plato’s doctrine of the cross

And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, He placed him crosswise in the universe, he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, If you look to this figure, and believe, you shall be saved thereby. Numbers 21:8 And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death. Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, And the third around the third. And hear how the Spirit of prophecy signified through Moses that there should be a conflagration. He spoke thus: Everlasting fire shall descend, and shall devour to the pit beneath. Deuteronomy 32:22 It is not, then, that we hold the same opinions as others, but that all speak in imitation of ours. Among us these things can be heard and learned from persons who do not even know the forms of the letters, who are uneducated and barbarous in speech, though wise and believing in mind; some, indeed, even maimed and deprived of eyesight; so that you may understand that these things are not the effect of human wisdom, but are uttered by the power of God.

Chapter 61. Christian baptism

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. Isaiah 1:16-20

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Chapter 62. Its imitation by demons

And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves; and they cause them also to wash themselves entirely, as they depart [from the sacrifice], before they enter into the shrines in which their images are set. And the command, too, given by the priests to those who enter and worship in the temples, that they take off their shoes, the devils, learning what happened to the above-mentioned prophet Moses, have given in imitation of these things. For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites who were there, and while he was tending the flocks of his maternal uncle in the land of Arabia, our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush, and said, Put off your shoes, and draw near and hear. And he, when he had put off his shoes and drawn near, heard that he was to go down into Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites there; and he received mighty power from Christ, who spoke to him in the appearance of fire, and went down and led out the people, having done great and marvellous things; which, if you desire to know, you will learn them accurately from his writings.

Chapter 63. How God appeared to Moses

And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spoke to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel does not know Me, and My people do not understand. Isaiah 1:3 And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, No one knows the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son reveals Him. Matthew 11:27 Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, He that hears Me, hears Him that sent Me. Luke 10:16 From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, And the Angel of God spoke to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of your fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people. Exodus 3:6 And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, Israel does not know Me, my people have not understood Me. Isaiah 1:3 And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, No one knows the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him. Matthew 11:27 The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spoke to Moses, though He who spoke to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers, Exodus 3:6 this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote.

Chapter 64. Further misrepresentations of the truth

From what has been already said, you can understand how the devils, in imitation of what was said by Moses, asserted that Proserpine was the daughter of Jupiter, and instigated the people to set up an image of her under the name of Kore [Cora, i.e., the maiden or daughter] at the spring-heads. For, as we wrote above, Moses said, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and unfurnished: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. In imitation, therefore, of what is here said of the Spirit of God moving on the waters, they said that Proserpine [or Cora] was the daughter of Jupiter. And in like manner also they craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter, not by sexual union, but, knowing that God conceived and made the world by the Word, they say that Minerva is the first conception [ἔννοια]; which we consider to be very absurd, bringing forward the form of the conception in a female shape. And in like manner the actions of those others who are called sons of Jupiter sufficiently condemn them.

Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.