A Legacy of Humble Origins

"He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another obscure village, where He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never had a family or owned a home. He never set foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never wrote a book, or held an office. He did none of the things that usually accompany greatness. While He was still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends deserted Him. He was turned over to His enemies, and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had – His coat. When He was dead, He was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure for much of the human race. All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever sailed, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as this One Solitary Life."

James Allan Francis, published in “The Real Jesus and Other Sermons” (1926)

Was The Lord's Supper The First Catholic Mass?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Traditional Catholics often view the Last Supper as the first mass. They believe that during the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the eucharist, which is a central component of the mass in Catholic theology. This perspective is rooted in the belief that Jesus' actions during the Last Supper set the foundation for the liturgical celebration of the Mass.

          -"At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of His Death and Resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'' (Pope VI, Mysterium fidei, paragraph 4)

• Surveying Matthew's Presentation Of Christ Pronouncing Blessing On The Bread And Wine:

          -"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

            *Jesus' usage of "is" here is as much a Hebraism as that found in Matthew 13:20. In the latter text, the one who hears the word of God does not become the message that he embraces. Thus, the communion elements do not literally become Christ, but represent what He did for us on the cross.

            *Jesus said that the symbols which the communion elements point to will find their ultimate fulfillment at His second coming (Matthew 26:29). If His words are taken literally in this verse, that would detract from Him saying the bread and wine will no longer be necessary at His return. The communion elements clearly represent spiritual truths.

            *If we take Christ's words literally in Matthew 26:26-27, then should we conclude that the disciples will be eating and drinking an ever present supply of Christ's flesh and blood based on Matthew 26:29?

• Surveying Mark's Presentation Of Christ Pronouncing Blessing On The Bread And Wine:

          -"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." (Mark 14:22-24)

           *Mark 14:14 says that what the disciples ate was the Passover meal, not the flesh and blood of Christ. It was primarily a traditional meal rather than the institution of the eucharist.

            *The Synoptic Gospels make it clear that this event was indeed a Passover celebration. The meal itself was not meant to be the first mass, but rather Jesus reinterpreting the elements of the Passover meal.

            *If Jesus intended His words be understood literally, then why did the bread and wine not become His very body and blood right there and then?

            *What happened during the Lord's Supper was not a change in the nature of the bread and wine, but a change as to what they signified. The Passover ceremony looked backward, whereas the celebration of the Lord's Supper looks forward into the future.

• Surveying Luke's Presentation Of Christ Pronouncing Blessing On The Bread And Wine:

          -"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:19-20)

            *The Gospel of Luke emphasizes inclusivity and compassion, perhaps downplaying ritual formalism. While this passage is significant, it may be more about Jesus’ sacrifice than prescribing a detailed liturgical framework. The term "mass" itself, and its formalized structure, evolved much later within the early church.

            *Luke often frames Jesus' actions within a broader narrative. It sometimes departs from strict historical accounts to emphasize theological points. Therefore, Luke's recounting of the Last Supper might be more concerned with conveying theological truths than accurately documenting the first “Catholic Mass."

            *Luke’s focus on table fellowship and community inclusivity could suggest that he was portraying the eucharist more as a communal practice than a liturgical ritual, further distancing it from the idea of a formal Catholic mass. 

            *Look at the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10, where a meal symbolizes acceptance and salvation. Similarly, in Luke 24:30-31, the resurrected Jesus reveals himself in the breaking of bread with the disciples at Emmaus. These examples show Luke's emphasis on meals as pivotal moments of divine revelation and community building rather than just liturgical acts. They point to a broader theological significance of shared meals in Luke’s narrative.

• Surveying Paul's Presentation Of Christ Pronouncing Blessing On The Bread And Wine:

          -"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)

            *Luke would have shared much of Paul's theology. Not only did he accompany the apostle (2 Timothy 4:11), but also both shared a special emphasis on the doctrine of salvation. For example, he used the word "justify" in a Pauline sense in Luke 18:14.

            *Paul would have had a greater concern with a symbolic application of bread to enforce spiritual truths than with the substance itself. He described a god-centered life in terms of unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

             *Paul used a different verbal form for "is" when he said, "the rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4), yet He is never said to have gone through a process of petrification.

             *After Jesus' resurrection, He broke bread with the disciples without any mention of it becoming His body again (e.g., on the road to Emmaus). This consistency in practice suggests a symbolic rather than literal interpretation.

The Benefit Of Christ's Death

Let us run unto [Christ] with the feet of lively faith, and cast ourselves between his arms, [since] he allureth us so graciously, crying: "Come unto me, all you that labour and are heavy laden; and I will refresh you;" what comfort or what joy in this life can be comparable to this his saying there, when as a man, feeling himself oppressed with the intolerable weight of his sins, understandeth so sweet and amiable words of the Son of God, who promiseth so graciously to refresh and rid him of his great pains?...

O great unkindness! O thing abominable! that we, which profess ourselves Christians, and hear that the Son of God hath taken all our sins upon him, and washed them out with his precious blood, suffering himself to be fastened to the cross for our sakes, should nevertheless make as though we would justify ourselves, and purchase forgiveness of our sins by our own works; as who would say, that the deserts, righteousness, and bloodshed of Jesus Christ were not enough to do it, unless we came to put to our works and righteousness; which are altogether defiled and spotted with self-love, self-liking, self-profit, and a thousand other vanities, for which we have need to crave pardon at God's hand, rather than reward….

Now, if the seeking of righteousness and forgiveness of sins, by the keeping of the law which God gave upon mount Sinai, with so great glory and majesty, be the denying of Christ and of his grace [Galatians 5:4], what shall we say to those that will needs justify themselves before God by their own laws and observances? I would wish that such folks should a little compare the one with the other, and afterward give judgment themselves. God mindeth not to do that honour, not to give that glory to his own law; and yet they will have him to give it to men's laws and ordinances. But that honour is given only to his only-begotten Son, who alone, by the sacrifice of his death and passion, hath made full amends for all our sins, past, present, and to come…

let us give the whole glory of our justification unto God's mercy and to the merits of his Son; who by his own bloodshed hath set us free from the sovereignty of the law, and from the tyranny of sin and death, and hath brought us into the kingdom of God, to give us life and endless felicity….

for the love of his only begotten Son, [the Father] beholdeth [Christians] always with a gentle countenance, governing and defending them as his most dear children, and in the end giving them the heritage of the world, making them like-fashioned to the glorious image of Christ….

O happy is that man that shutteth his eyes from all other sights, and will neither hear nor see any other thing than Jesus Christ crucified; in whom are laid up and bestowed all the treasures of God's wisdom and divine knowledge! 

Benedetto Da Mantova, The Benefit of Christ's Death: or, the Glorious Riches of God's Free Grace, pages 15-16, 21-23, 26, 69, 93

Mormon Polygamy And Perceptions: Insights Into 19th Century Life Around The Great Salt Lake

I was unwilling to add to the number of those who had annoyed the Prophet by domestic allusions and therefore have no direct knowledge of the extent to which he carries polygamy. Some Gentiles allow him seventeen, others thirty-six, out of a household of seventy members; others, an indefinite number of wives scattered through the different settlements. Of these, doubtless many are but wives by name, such for instance as the widows of the late Prophet, and others are married more for the purpose of building up for themselves spiritual kingdoms than for the normal purpose of matrimony. When treating of Mormon polygamy, I shall attempt to show that the relation between the sexes as lately regulated by the Mormon faith necessitates polygamy. I should judge the Prophet’s progeny to be numerous from the following circumstance: On one occasion, when standing with him on the belvedere, my eye fell upon a new erection; it could be compared externally to nothing but an English gentleman’s hunting stables with their little clock tower, and I asked him what it was intended for. “A private school for my children,” he replied, directed by Brother E.B. Kelsey. The harem is said to have cost $30,000.

On the extreme west of this block, backed by a pound for estrays which is no longer used, lies the Tithing House and Deserét Store, a long, narrow, upper-storied building with cellars, storerooms, receiving rooms, pay rooms, and writing offices. At this time of the year, it chiefly contains linseed and rags for paper making; after the harvest, it is well stuffed with grains and cereals, which are taken instead of money payment. There is nothing more unpopular among the American Gentiles, or indeed more unintelligible to them, than these Mosaic tithes, which the English converts pay from habit without a murmur. They serve for scandalous insinuations, viz. that the chiefs are leeches that draw the people’s golden blood, that the imposts are compulsory, and that they are embezzled and peculated by the principal dignitaries. I have reason to believe that the contrary is the case. The tithes, which are paid into the Treasury of the Lord upon the property of a Saint on profession and afterward upon his annual income or his time or by substitute, are wholly voluntary. It sometimes happens that a man casts his all into the bosom of the Church; in this case, the all is not refused, but may I ask, by what Church body, Islamitic, Christian, or pagan, would it be? If the Prophet takes anything from the Tithing House, he pays for it like other men. The writers receive stipends like other writers and no more; of course, if any one clerk or lawyer wishes to do the business of the Church gratis, he is graciously permitted, and where, I repeat, would he not be? The Latter-Day Saints declare that if their first Presidency and Twelve Apostles, of whom some, by the by, are poor, grow rich, it is by due benevolence, not by force or fraud. Much like the primitive college and most unlike their successors in this modern day, each apostle must have some craft, and all live by handiwork, either in house, shop, or field, no drones being allowed in the social hive. The tithes are devoted in part to Church works, especially to building up temples or otherwise beautifying and adorning Zion as they may be directed from on high, and in part to the prosperity of the body politic, temporal and spiritual, by aiding faithful and needy emigrants and by supporting old and needy Saints. Perhaps the only true charge brought by the Gentiles against this, and indeed against all the public funds in the Mormon City, is that a large portion finds its way eastward and is expended in outside influence, or to speak plain English, bribes. It is believed by Mormons as well as Gentiles that Mr. Brigham Young has, in the States, newspaper spies and influential political friends who are attached to him not only by the ties of business and the natural respect felt for a wealthy man, but by the strong bond of a regular stipend. And such is their reliance upon this political dodgery, which, if it really exists, is by no means honorable to the public morality of the Gentiles, that they deride the idea of a combined movement from Washington ever being made against them. In 1860, Governor Cumming proposed to tax the tithing fund, but the Saints replied that as property is first taxed and then tithed, by such proceeding it would be twice taxed.

On the extreme west of this block, backed by a pound for estrays which is no longer used, lies the Tithing House and Deserét Store, a long, narrow, upper-storied building with cellars, storerooms, receiving rooms, pay rooms, and writing offices. At this time of the year, it chiefly contains linseed and rags for paper making; after the harvest, it is well stuffed with grains and cereals, which are taken instead of money payment. There is nothing more unpopular among the American Gentiles, or indeed more unintelligible to them, than these Mosaic tithes, which the English converts pay from habit without a murmur. They serve for scandalous insinuations, viz. that the chiefs are leeches that draw the people’s golden blood, that the imposts are compulsory, and that they are embezzled and peculated by the principal dignitaries. I have reason to believe that the contrary is the case. The tithes, which are paid into the Treasury of the Lord upon the property of a Saint on profession and afterward upon his annual income or his time or by substitute, are wholly voluntary. It sometimes happens that a man casts his all into the bosom of the Church; in this case, the all is not refused, but may I ask, by what Church body, Islamitic, Christian, or pagan, would it be? If the Prophet takes anything from the Tithing House, he pays for it like other men. The writers receive stipends like other writers and no more; of course, if any one clerk or lawyer wishes to do the business of the Church gratis, he is graciously permitted, and where, I repeat, would he not be? The Latter-Day Saints declare that if their first Presidency and Twelve Apostles, of whom some, by the by, are poor, grow rich, it is by due benevolence, not by force or fraud. Much like the primitive college and most unlike their successors in this modern day, each apostle must have some craft, and all live by handiwork, either in house, shop, or field, no drones being allowed in the social hive. The tithes are devoted in part to Church works, especially to building up temples.

This people, a term reiterated at Great Salt Lake City usque ad nauseam, declares its belief in being subject to kings, queens, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. They are not backward in open acts of loyalty—I beg America’s pardon—of adhesion to the Union, such as supplying stones for the Washington Monument and soldiers for the Mexican War. But they make scant pretension of patriotism. They regard the States pretty much as the States regarded England after the War of Independence and hate them as the Mexican Criollo does the Gachupin, very much also for the same reason. Theirs is a deep and abiding resentment which time will strengthen, not efface; the deeds of Missouri and Illinois will bear fruit for many and many a generation. The federal government, they say, has so far from protecting their lives and property, left them to be burned out and driven away by the hands of a mob far more cruel than the red-coated minions of poor King George; that Generals Harney and Johnston were only seeking the opportunity to act Burgoyne and Cornwallis. But more galling still to human nature, whether of saint or sinner, they are despised, treated in fact as nobodies, and that last of insults, who can bear? Their petitions to become a sovereign state have been unanswered and ignored. They have been served with small-fry politicians and one-horse officials; hitherto the phrase has been, “Anything is good enough for Utah.” They return the treatment in kind.

The Old Independence, the glorious 4th of July ‘76, is treated with silent contempt; its honors are transferred to the 24th of July, the local Independence Day of their annus mirabilis 1847, when the weary pioneers, preceding a multitude which, like the Pilgrim Fathers of New England, left country and home for conscience’ sake, and led by Captain John Brown, whose unerring rifle saved them from starvation when the Indians had stampeded their horses, arrived in the wild waste of valley. Their form of government, which I can describe only as a democratic despotism with a leaven of the true Mosaic theocracy, enables them to despise a political system in which, they say, quoting Hamilton, that every vital interest of the state is merged in the all-absorbing question of who shall be the next president. There is only one Yankee gridiron in the town, and that is a private concern. I do not remember ever seeing a liberty pole, that emblem of a tyrant majority, which has been bowed to from New York to the Rhine. A favorite toast on public occasions is, “We can rock the cradle of Liberty without Uncle Sam to help us,” and so forth. These sentiments show how the wind sets. In two generations hence, perhaps New Zion has a prophet making air; the Mormons, in their present position, will, on their own ground, be more than a match for the Atlantic and, combined with the Chinese, will be dangerous to the Pacific States.

The Mormons, if they are anything in secular politics, are Democrats. It has not been judged advisable to cast off the last rags of popular government, but as will presently appear, theocracy is not much disguised by them. Although not of the black or extreme category, they instinctively feel that polygamy and slavery are sister institutions, claiming that sort of kindness which arises from fellow feeling, and that Congress cannot attack one without infringing upon the other. Here, perhaps, they may be mistaken, for nations, like individuals, however warmly and affectionately they love their own peculiar follies and prejudices, sins and crimes, are not the less—indeed, perhaps they are rather more—disposed to abominate the follies and prejudices, the sins and crimes of others. The establishment of slavery, however, though here it serves a humanitarian rather than a private end, necessarily draws the Mormons and the Southern States together. Yet the Saints preferred as President the late Mr. Senator Douglas, a Northern Democrat, to his Southern rival, Mr. Breckinridge. They looked with apprehension at the rise to power of the Republican party, which, had not a weightier matter fallen into their hands, was pledged to do them harm. I cannot but think that absolute independence is, and will be until attained, the principal end and aim of Mormon haute politique, and when the disruption of the Great Republic shall have become a fait accompli, that Deseret will arise a free, sovereign, and independent state.

Should this event ever happen, it will make the regions about Great Salt Lake as exclusive as Northern China or Eastern Tibet. The obsolete rigors of the sanguinary Mosaic code will be renewed in the middle of the nineteenth century, while the statute crime bigamy and unlimited polygamy will be legalized. Stripes or, at best, fine and imprisonment will punish fornication, and the penalty of adultery will be death by lapidation or beheading. As it is, even under the shadow of the federal laws, the self-convicted breaker of the seventh commandment will, it is said, offer up his life in expiation of his crime to the Prophet, who under present circumstances dismisses him with a penance that may end in the death which he has legally incurred. The offenses against chastity, morality, and decency are exceptionally severe.

The penalty attached to betting of any kind is a fine not exceeding $300 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. The importation of spirituous liquors is already burdened with an octroi of half its price, raising cognac and whisky to $12 and $8 per gallon. If the state could make her own laws, she would banish poteen, hunt down the stills, and impose a prohibitory duty upon everything stronger than lager beer.

On the saddest day of the year for the bird which has lost so much good fame by condescending to appear at table aux choux, I proceeded with my fidus Achates, save the self-comparison to pious Æneas, on a visit to Mr. W.W., alias Judge Phelps, alias the Devil. He received me with great civility and entered without reserve upon his hobbies. His house, which lies west of Temple Block, bears on the weathercock Job xxxviii 35: Adsumus (Here we are). Besides Hebrew and other linguistic studies, the judge is a meteorologist and has been engaged for some years in observations upon the climate of the Territory. An old editor at Independence, he now superintends the Utah Almanac and gave me a copy for the year 1860, being the 31st year of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is a small duodecimo, creditably printed by Mr. J.M. Knight, Utah, and contains thirty-two pages. The contents are the usual tables of days, sunrises, sunsets, eclipses, etc., with advertisements on the alternate pages, and it ends with the denominations and value of gold and silver coins, original poetry, scientific notes concerning the morning and evening stars, a list of the United States officers at Utah, the number of the planets and asteroids, diarrhoea and moral poetry, and an explanation of the word almanac, concluding with the following observation:

“A person without an almanac is somewhat like a ship at sea with a compass; he never knows what to do nor when to do it.”

“So Mormon, other sects, and Quaker, Buy Almanacs and pay the maker.” - K.J.

The only signs of sanctity are in the events appended to the days of the week. They naturally record the dates of local interest and the births and deaths of prophets, patriarchs, presidents, and apostles. Under the head of “Time,” however, some novel information is provided for the benefit of the benighted chronologist.

TIME. There is a great mystery about time as recorded in the Bible. Authors differ as to what length of time this world has occupied since it came into being. Add 4004 to 1860, and we have 5864 years.

Again, some authors allow before the birth of the Savior 5509 years, which added to 1860 gives 7369 years since the beginning.

The book of Abraham, as translated by Joseph Smith, gives 7000 years for the creation by the gods, one day of the Lord being a thousand years of man’s time, or a day in Kolob. This important revelation of 7000 years at first shows 5960 years since the transgression of Adam and Eve and 40 years to the next day of rest if the year 1900 commences the return of the ten tribes and the first resurrection, or 13,000 years since the gods said, “Let there be light,” and there was light, so that the fourteen thousandth year will be the second Sabbath since creation.

A day of the Moon is nearly thirty of our days, or more than ten thousand of Earth’s time. Verily, verily:

“Man knows but little, Nor knows that little right.”

The judge then showed me an instrument upon which he had expended the thought and labor of years. It was that grand desideratum, a magnetic compass, which, pointing with a second needle to the true north, would indicate variation so correctly as to show longitude by inspection. The article, which was as rough-looking as it could be, was placed upon the table, but it would not, as the inventor explained, point to the true north unless in a particular position. I refrain from recording my hundred doubts as to the feasibility of the operation and my own suspicions concerning the composition of the instrument. I presently took leave of Judge Phelps, pleased with his quaint kindness but somehow suspecting him of being a little tête montée on certain subjects.

As it was newspaper day, we passed by the Mountaineer office and bought a copy. The press is ably and extensively represented in Great Salt Lake City as in any other of its Western coevals. Mormonism, so far from despising the powers of pica, has a more than ordinary respect for them. Until lately, there were three weekly newspapers. The Valley Tan, however, during the last winter, expired after a slow and lingering dysthesis induced by overindulgence in Gentile tendencies. It was established in 1858. The proprietor was Mr. J. Hartnett, the late federal secretary. The editor was Mr. Kirk Anderson, followed by Mr. De Wolf and others. The issue was hebdomadal, and the subscription high, $10 per annum. The recognized official organ of the religion, which first appeared on the 15th of June 1850, is the Deserét News, whose motto is “Truth and Liberty” under a hive over which is a single circumradiated eye in disagreeable proximity to the little busy bee. It has often changed its size and is now printed in a small folio of eight pages, each containing four columns of close type. Sometimes articles are clothed in the Mormon alphabet. It had reached, in 1860, its tenth volume. It appears every Wednesday, costs $6 per annum in Utah, £1 13s 8d per annum in advance in England, and a single number 9d. It is superintended by Mr. Brigham Young. It is edited by Mr. Elias Smith, also a Probate judge. He is assisted by Mr. M. Knight, formerly the editor of a paper in the United States and now the author of the important horticultural, agricultural, and other georgic articles in the Deserét News. This Moniteur also contains corrected reports of the sermons spoken at the Tabernacle. An account of a number may not be uninteresting.

No. 28, Vol. X begins with a hymn of seven stanzas by C.W. Bryant. Following are remarks by President Brigham Young at Provo and in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City. The three sermons, which occupy four and a half columns, are separated by “Modern Germany II” by Alexander Ott. There is an article from the New York Sun entitled “The Great Eastern in Court.” It is followed by nearly half a page of clippings, those little recognized piracies which make the American papers as amusing as magazines. Then come advertisements, estray notices, and others which nearly fill the third and sixth pages, and the column at the eighth, which is the conclusion. I subjoin terms for advertising. The fourth page contains “News by Eastern Mail,” “Doings of the Probate Court,” “Special Term of the Probate Court,” “Another Excusable Homicide,” “The Season,” “Imprisoning Convicts Without Labor,” “Discharge of the City Police,” “Swiss Saints Lately Arrived,” “Arrival of Missionaries at Liverpool,” “Drowned: Joseph Vest,” etc. “Deserét Agriculturing and Manufacturing Society,” “Information Wanted,” and “Humboldt’s Opinion of the United States,” comparing it to a Cartesian vortex, liberty a dead machinery in the hands of Utilitarianism, etc. The fifth and sixth pages detail news from Europe, the Sicilies, Damascus, and India, proceedings of a missionary meeting in the Bowery, and tidings from Juab and Iron County, with a few stopgaps such as an explanation of the word “Zouave” and the part conversion of the fallen Boston elm into a Mayor’s seat. The seventh page is agricultural and opens with “The American Autumn” by Fanny Kemble, four stanzas. Then comes “Sheep Husbandry No. III,” treating of change of pasture, separation of the flock, and fall management. The other morceaux are “Training the Peach Tree,” “Stick to the Farm,” an article concluding with “We shall always sign speed the plow; we shall always regard the American farmer dressed for his employment and tilling his grounds as belonging to the order of real noblemen, the less aristocratic Englander would limit himself to Nature’s gentleman. Why pork shrinks in the pot and wheat straw its value as fodder. The eighth and last page opens with correspondence and a letter signed Joseph Hall, headed “More Results of Civilization” and dated Ogden City, Sept. 8, 1860. It contains an account of occurrences resulting in the death of one John Cornwell, a discharged government teamster, and as is often the case with those Christians who are sent to civilize the Mormons of these mountains, a corrupt, profane, and quarrelsome individual who doted on belonging to the bully tribe. Then follows more news from San Pete County, “A Test of Love,” that capital story out of C.R. Leslie’s autobiography, “Siege of Magdeburg,” a hard-shell sermon preached at Oxford, England, a scrap illustrating the marvelous growth of Quincy, Illinois, and the legend of the origin of the pianoforte. The latter is followed by a valuable abstract containing a summary of meteorological observations, barometric and thermometric, for the month of August 1860 at Great Salt Lake City, Utah, by W.W. Phelps, and concluding with a monthly journal. Then follow the deaths, six in number, and after one of them is inserted “Millennial Star copy.” There are no marriages, and the Western papers, like those of the East, are still bégueules enough to consider advertising the birth of a child indelicate; at least that was the reason given to me. The last column contains the terms for advertising and the fill-up advertisements.

The Mountaineer, whose motto is “Do what is right, let the consequence follow,” is considered rather a secular paper. It appears on Saturdays, and the terms of subscription are $6 per annum. The occasional supplement is issued gratis. It formerly belonged to three lawyers, Messrs. Stout, Blair, and Ferguson. It has now passed into the hands of the two latter. Mr. Hosea Stout distinguished himself during the Nauvoo troubles; he was the captain of forty policemen who watched over the safety of Mr. Joseph Smith and afterward went on missions to India and China. Major S.M. Blair served under General Sam Houston in the Texan War of Independence and was a distinguished lawyer in the Southern States. A description of the Deserét News will apply to the Mountaineer. I notice in the issue of September 15, 1860, that a correspondent, quoting an extract from the New York Tribune, the great Republican organ and therefore no favorite with the Mormons, says outspokenly enough to please any amount of John Bull: “The author of the above is a most consummate liar; so far, so good; and a contemptible, dastardly poltroon,” which is invidious.

I passed the morning of the ensuing Sunday in a painful but appropriate exercise, reading the Books of Mormon and of Moroni the Prophet. Some writers tell me that it is the best extant imitation of the Old Testament; to me, it seems composed only to emulate the sprightliness of some parts of Leviticus. Others declare that it is founded upon a romance composed by a Rev. Mr. Spaulding. If so, Mr. Spaulding must have been like Prince Pückler-Muskau of traveling notoriety, a romancer utterly without romance. Surely there never was a book so thoroughly dull and heavy; it is monotonous as a sage prairie. Though not liable to be terrified by dry or hard reading, I was, it is only fair to own, unable to turn over more than a few chapters at a time, and my conviction is that very few are so highly gifted that they have been able to read it through at a heat. In Mormonism, it now holds the same locus as the Bible in the more ignorant Roman Catholic countries, where religious reading is chiefly restricted to the Breviary, to tales of miracles, and to legends of Saints Ursula and Bridget. It is strictly proper, does not contain a word about materialism and polygamy; in fact, more than one wife is strictly forbidden even in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants. The Mormon Bible, therefore, is laid aside for later and lighter reading. In one point, it has done something: America, like Africa, is a continent of the future; the Book of Mormon has created for it a historical and miraculous past.

At 9:45 AM, we entered the Bowery. It is advisable to go if seats within hearing are required. The place was a kind of hangar about a hundred feet long by the same breadth, with roofing of bushes and boughs supported by rough posts, and for ventilation on the sides. It can contain about 3,000 souls. The congregation is accommodated upon long rows of benches. The dais, rostrum, platform, or tribune, which looked like a long lane of boarding, was open to the north where it faced the audience and entered by steps from the east. Between the people and the platform was a place not unlike a Methodist pen at a meeting. This was allotted to the orchestra: a violin, a bass, women, and four men performers who sang the sweet songs of Zion tolerably well—decidedly well after a moment’s reflection as to latitude and longitude and after reminiscences of country and town chapels in that land where it is said, had the Psalmist heard his own psalms,

“In furious mood he would have tore 'em.”

Richard F. Burton, The City of the Saints: Among the Mormons and Across the Rocky Mountains to California, p. 249-259

Is the Roman Catholic Eucharist A Divine Mystery To Be Embraced By Christians?

• Discussion:

           -This article aims to deal with a few exegetical and philosophical issues centering around the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. It is an attempt to reveal metaphysical problems with this teaching as well as a lack of biblical foundation to support it. The excerpts cited in this article were originally taken from here and here.

          "Jesus explained the parables to His disciples. That is the norm. In this case [John 6:51-56], Jesus let even His disciples go without explanation of the purported parable. Therefore, this is not a parable. This is the literal truth."

          The negligence of clarifying does not inherently suggest a lack of metaphor. That is an entirely made up argument for which there is no contextual or exegetical necessity. Further, Jesus often spoke in parables—not just to mystify, but to invite deeper reflection. Did He mean to imply that we were all to become cannibals in a literal sense? Could a scientist not conduct tests to confirm that the elements are still bread and wine after consecration?

          "You see, we put Jesus in a category all by himself. We believe he is God and man. And since we believe he is God, when he says, “My flesh is real food (John 6:55)”, we believe it."

          That does not even begin to translate into a robust defense of transubstantiation. Rest assured, early listeners were not pulling out their forks and knives at the sound of “This is my body.” They were likely thinking, “Wow, did he just compare himself to bread?” Honestly, who would not appreciate a good metaphor over an actual feast of human flesh?

          "...Jesus Christ is our Passover sacrifice. The reason He is called the Lamb of God is because we must eat His flesh just as the Passover lamb had to be consumed to fulfill the Passover requirement...I said there are metaphorical elements. And some literal. Both are true."

           The foundation of this argument rests heavily on the astonishing claim that Jesus spoke literally about eating flesh and drinking blood. It is intriguing that people see this as straightforward, considering the historical context. The gospels, especially John, are rich with symbolism, much like a good piece of modern art is open to interpretation. For instance, when Jesus says, “I am the vine,” does a person immediately rush out to find the nearest grapevine, thinking he is literally going to become part of a fruit salad? Surely, such a literal approach leads to unnecessary confusion. Christ is called the Lamb of God because He died to save us from our sins, not that we must eat His flesh or drink His blood. This is a horrible abuse of typology.

          "You may indeed say by faith alone in this case. It is by faith alone that we discern the body of Christ in the holy eucharist.”

          There is that beloved concept of “mystery.” It is ironic how it is used both as an explanation and as an evasion. If God is fundamentally rational and desires a relationship with mankind, would it not stand to reason that He would leave some breadcrumbs of clarity along the way? Mysteries are indeed a part of faith, but allowing unexamined doctrines to reign supreme does a disservice to the intellectual pursuit of theology. After all, is not faith about grappling with understanding, not blindly accepting?

          "This is another Protestant teaching which disagrees with scripture. Scripture tells us to follow the faith of those who went before us…scripture does not tell us to make it up as we go along."

           It is asserted that "Protestant teaching" is comprised of “made up doctrines." However, it is realized that all interpretations of Scripture, including Roman Catholic ones, stem from human understanding. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Protestants may seek to engage with the text differently, but that diversity of thought and interpretation is what fosters a rich theological landscape rather than a stifling dogma.

          "In John 6, he [Jesus] did not set the disciples down and say that he was speaking metaphorically (i.e. in parables). He repeated what he said, forcefully. Each time emphasizing more that which he had previously said."

          The claim that the “forceful” repetition of Jesus' words necessitates a literal understanding of them is a reductionist approach. Language, especially in a spiritual context, thrives on nuance. Jesus Christ was a master of layering meaning. It is ridiculous to insist that Jesus actually wanted people to eat His flesh and to drink His blood. That is actually a pagan concept, known as theophagy. Given the emphasis among the Jews at this time on purity in the worship of God, and Jesus Himself being a Jew, it is not likely that He would integrate a syncretistic message here.

          The culture of Jesus' audience was well-versed in the symbolism of bread and sacrifice. The use of bread as a life-sustaining symbol is nothing groundbreaking. In fact, it goes back to the Passover and the Manna in the desert. It would be more appropriate to argue that His words represent sustenance, the nourishing of the human soul, as opposed to some contrived interpretation that tries to both force a hyper-literal reading of the text and allows for symbolic elements. That approach only further obscures the teaching of Jesus rather than helping or clarifying matters.

          "It is Protestants who have an either/or mentality. They, as you, seem to think that it must be one way or the other but not both. I don’t know what you do with the fact that Jesus is both God and man."

          This is a false analogy. The doctrine of the hypostatic union is not illogical, even though it is something that we do not fully understand. It does not violate scientific laws, laws of logic, or rules of inference, as does transubstantiation. This is also a red herring in that it leads readers away from the original arguments being made.

          "It makes quite a bit of sense to us and it has made sense since the time of the apostles. First, Christ says it is his blood. Second, he is making a literal, not metaphorical connection, between his blood in the cup and the blood he shed on the cross.”

           Jesus’ Last Supper is framed as a Passover meal, rich with tradition and symbolism, where the bread and wine hark back to significant historical events. Are we really to believe that He was fundamentally altering the course of that symbolically deep tradition simply to serve up some heavenly body and blood?

           "Wait, you’re a Protestant, perhaps you don’t believe those things which you can’t explain. You folks aren’t comfortable in the mystical range. But we are."

           Oh, absolutely. Nothing says "mystical" more than rejecting centuries of scientific progress.

           "It is the same offering. What’s that word again? Oh, yeah, “mystery”. It’s a mystery. I know, you don’t like mysteries. But, c’est la vie. Christ offered himself once for all on the cross. And that same offering, he offers continually in the heavenly liturgy and on the earthly altars in the earthly liturgy. Once for all."

            If something is “once for all,” how can it also be “re-presented” in an ongoing cycle? It creates a contradiction that muddles the clarity of the dual nature of Christ and the finality of His death on the cross. Offering something again is in conflict with the original claim of His atonement being a singular act.

           "Communion means sharing or participation in. And therefore, we are participating in the blood of Christ and in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). Not mere symbols thereof."

           That does evoke the specter of cannibalism in its most visceral form. This Catholic practice borders on the bizarre by most standards. In the Old Testament, sacrifices often involved bread and wine (e.g., the offerings in Leviticus), which represent communion with God rather than a physical consumption of divine essence. This establishes a precedent for understanding similar symbols in the New Testament.

           "In the same way, my heart goes out to you. You have been fooled by the reformers. They make up doctrines in contradiction of the word of God and of each other. And they multiply these errors continually. God is not the author of confusion. But the reformers continue to be so."

           The bold claims regarding the worldview of Protestants as lacking in appreciating mystery is as curious as the conviction that dismissing complex theological concepts means one does not have a lively faith. The Protestant Reformation was born out of a desire to question authority and to slice through layers of dogma. Just because one might prioritize personal faith over institutional tradition does not render all exploration of theology fruitless. The heartbeat of reformed thought beats in its skepticism toward an inherited set of beliefs—not so much a denial of mystery as it is an invitation to explore its myriad dimensions.

Commentary On Psalm 119:17-18

We are here taught, 1. That we owe our lives to God's mercy. David prays, Deal bountifully with me, that I may live. It was God's bounty that gave us life, that gave us this life; and the same bounty that gave it continues it, and gives all the supports and comforts of it; if these be withheld, we die, or, which is equivalent, our lives are embittered and we become weary of them. If God deals in strict justice with us, we die, we perish, we all perish; if these forfeited lives be preserved and prolonged, it is because God deals bountifully with us, according to his mercy, not according to our deserts. The continuance of the most useful life is owing to God's bounty, and on that we must have a continual dependence. 2. That therefore we ought to spend our lives in God's service. Life is therefore a choice mercy, because it is an opportunity of obeying God in this world, where there are so few that do glorify him; and this David had in his eye: "Not that I may live and grow rich, live and be merry, but that I may live and keep thy word, may observe it myself and transmit it to those that shall come after, which the longer I live the better I shall do."

Observe here, 1. That there are wondrous things in God's law, which we are all concerned, and should covet, to behold, not only strange things, which are very surprising and unexpected, but excellent things, which are to be highly esteemed and valued, and things which were long hidden from the wise and prudent, but are now revealed unto babes. If there were wonders in the law, much more in the gospel, where Christ is all in all, whose name is Wonderful. Well may we, who are so nearly interested, desire to behold these wondrous things, when the angels themselves reach to look into them, 1 Pt. 1:12. Those that would see the wondrous things of God's law and gospel must beg of him to open their eyes and to give them an understanding. We are by nature blind to the things of God, till his grace cause the scales to fall from our eyes; and even those in whose hearts God has said, Let there be light, have yet need to be further enlightened, and must still pray to God to open their eyes yet more and more, that those who at first saw men as trees walking may come to see all things clearly; and the more God opens our eyes the more wonders we see in the word of God, which we saw not before.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

Thy Work Alone, O Christ

Not what my hands have done can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers, and sighs and tears can bear my awful load.

Thy work alone, O Christ, can ease this weight of sin
Thy blood alone O Lamb of God, can give me peace within.
Thy love to me O God, not mine, 

O Lord, to Thee can rid me of this dark unrest, and set my spirit free!

Thy grace alone, O God, to me can pardon speak;
Thy power alone O Son of God, can this sore bondage break.
No other work, save Thine, no other blood will do,
No strength save that, which is divine, can bear me safely through.

I bless the Christ of God; I rest on love divine;
And with unfaltering lip and heart, I call this Savior mine.
His cross dispels each doubt, I bury in His tomb
My unbelief, and all my fear, each lingering shade of gloom.

I praise the God of grace, I trust His truth and might
He calls me His, I call Him mine, My God, my joy, my light
Tis He Who saveth me, and freely pardon gives
I love because He loveth me, I live because He lives!

Not What My Hands Have Done, Horatius Bonar

Theological Contradictions Within The Logic Of Transubstantiation

        "I am the bread of life...But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (John 6:48; 50-51)

        If Jesus Christ is the bread of life who descended from heaven, then this raises complex implications about His presence in relation to the physical substance of bread. Specifically, if we accept the premise that Christ is truly present wherever the Eucharistic bread exists, we must confront a theological dilemma: the assertion of Christ’s real presence suggests an omnipresence that conflicts with the understanding of singular, historical events in salvation history. By equating Christ with bread, we risk diluting the uniqueness of His incarnation and sacrificial crucifixion, implying that His presence could be as readily accessible as bread on the altar.

        Moreover, the fundamental doctrine of transubstantiation posits that the bread's substance is wholly transformed into the body of Christ. If the bread ceases to exist as bread, it follows logically that the presence of Christ, who is identified with that bread, would also cease to exist in the way traditionally understood. This outcome raises profound existential concerns: What does it mean for the faithful if the very basis of their ritualistic communion vanishes? Therein lies a contradiction: if transubstantiation is to be believed, the bread's identity is entirely replaced, thus eliminating its ability to serve as a reliable and meaningful sign of Christ’s presence.

          The dilemma extends further when we consider that if Christ's body is made present in our tangible world only through the consumption of the transformed bread, it raises questions surrounding the nature of that miracle. If we posit that the Mass is a perpetual miracle, how can something that we can touch, taste, and see (the bread) turn into something infinite and transcendent (Christ’s body)? This inquiry delves into the metaphysical realm and challenges our understanding of existence and reality within Catholic theology. It navigates the complexities of substance and essence, prompting questions about how a finite element can encapsulate the infinite nature of divinity and still maintain its physicality.

          Additionally, the notion of an ongoing miracle implies that the original act of Christ's sacrifice is being perpetually replayed, leading to potential theological implications that could undermine the historical significance of the crucifixion. If one considers the Mass to be an unceasing re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, then how do we reconcile that with the singular, unique moment of salvation offered through His death and resurrection? Should we not, therefore, be able to analyze this sacrificial act with scrutiny like we would any other event of significant historical consequence? This raises the concern that the continuity of the Eucharistic celebration may inadvertently lead to a depersonalization of Christ's sacrifice, reducing it to mere ritual devoid of historical importance.

          If the bread's identity is entirely obliterated in its transubstantiation, what does that mean for the relationship between the tangible and the spiritual? This transition could suggest a profound disconnect between the material world and the divine, potentially eroding the foundational basis of faith that relies on the relational aspect of the human experience. The identity of bread as a symbol is not only essential for sacramental meaning but also for its ability to act as a conduit for divine grace. If the substance is wholly transformed, the sign becomes paradoxically mute, leaving the faithful without an essential point of reflection and encounter with the divine.

Christ Is The Radiance Of God's Glory

BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY. Heb. i. 3. "God, the great Spirit, dwelleth in light which no man can approach unto. His habitation is dark with excessive brightness. But Christ is God come down to be a Brother, to set Himself before us in a form on which we can look without fear. The eye that dares to look at the sun aches and is distressed. But our eyes can bear that milder light which beams from the sun. It is refreshing and sweet and pleasant. So we cannot see God; He is veiled in terrible brightness. But we are made acquainted with God by means of Him who is the BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY—His Softened Radiance. For Christ says, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also.’ All the glory of the divine character is seen in the Lord Jesus, and we can gaze on His countenance and His form. His dread does not fall upon us; His excellency does not make us afraid.

The Holy of Holies was a most sacred place. No footsteps ever trod its unpolluted floor save those of the high priest. But even he could not go in without incense because of the blaze of the Divine Glory which shone forth from the ark of the testimony. But when the cloud of incense arose and moderated the dazzling lustre, then he could enter without being destroyed by it. And Jesus Christ is like that incense. He is the medium through which the rays of the Godhead come to us in a way in which we can bear them. So we view the insupportable glory of God shining through the veil of our own nature. The Lord Jesus was found in fashion as a Man and humbled Himself that we might become familiar with Him. He was lowly and meek and self-denying. And yet, what lustre was there in His wisdom and knowledge! What glory beamed from Him when He cast out devils. What bright proofs of His Deity betrayed themselves from time to time to the confusion of His enemies. Ascended now into heaven, the brightness of His glorified Person none can conceive of. He fills all heaven with light, for the city has no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God lightens it, and the LAMB is the LIGHT thereof!

Oh, the delights, the heavenly joys, the glories of the place, where Jesus sheds the brightest beams of His overflowing grace!

How bright is the fierce lightning which plays around the dark cloud in the summer night! And how bright is the sun at noonday! But what is the brightness of the lightning or the sun compared with that celestial Light which beamed on Saul of Tarsus and struck him to the ground? It was a brightness above that of the midday sun—the BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY—which appeared to him. And Saul, unused to such distressing brightness, became blind for many days. Our eyes could not bear this glory of Christ now. When we shall see Him as He is, our eyes and our minds will be fitted for the dazzling vision. But those who are enlightened by the Spirit already see a little of His spiritual glory here on earth, and the sight of it rejoices the heart.

We connect brightness with gladness; it excites the mind and fills the heart with joy. How refreshing is the morning hour! How cheering are the bright beams of the sun after darkness! They awaken you and invite you to walk abroad in the meadows and wander beside the streams. And how lovely everything looks bathed in the glory of the sunbeams! The fields seem to laugh, and the little hills leap for very joy. The sparkling brook dances and exults in the sun’s bright ray. There is life and joy spread through all nature. Even the inanimate things—the little murmuring rills and the rustling trees—seem almost endued with voices wherewith to utter their delight. The little hills break forth before you into singing. The valleys shout for joy, and all the trees of the field clap their hands. What a contrast is all this to the dismal gloom which hung over everything during the absence of the sun! And so, when the BRIGHTNESS OF THE FATHER’S GLORY penetrates the darkness of our minds and shines into our hearts, what unspeakable delight fills our expanded souls! How do we exclaim, ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord; my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.’ The light is felt to be marvelous light, and we glory in Him who is GOD with us—God come down out of heaven to take part of our flesh and blood and thus to become our BROTHER.

James Large, Concise Names of Christ, p. 54-55

Punching Holes In King James Only Conspiracy Narratives

        One assertion that we regularly hear from King James Version only advocates is that the Roman Catholic Church has been an influential force behind the production of numerous corrupt Bible translations. They are alleged to be part of an effort to discredit that particular archaic translation. It has been claimed that modern translations of the Bible are part of a broader conspiracy by Rome to gradually manipulate innocent and unsuspecting people into conversion.

Two noteworthy passages that have been placed into brackets of modern Bibles would be Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. The claim advanced by King James only theorists leaves us with a nagging question, however. If the Roman Catholic Church was plotting to undermine the authority of the King James Translation, then why does it accept those passages as inspired Scripture, despite them being included in textual brackets?

        Following is a footnote from the New American Bible Revised Edition on the text of Mark 16:9-20:

        "This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent."

        Following is a footnote from the New American Bible Revised Edition on the text of John 7:53-8:11:

        "The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture."

        The New American Bible has been formally sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church for distribution and edification in faith. Moreover, it contains footnotes which plainly indicate to us that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are accepted as inspired Scripture in Roman Catholicism. Yet, King James only proponents refer to these two passages to illustrate how critical scholars want to undermine the credibility of the King James Version.

         It would definitely seem counterproductive for scholars commissioned by the pope to produce new translations of the Bible to outrightly affirm the texts that they are attacking to be divine revelation. A much more fair and reasonable explanation for bracketed texts in modern translations is the reporting of manuscript findings. Rather than the use of critical scholarship resulting in the removal of passages from the New Testament, it has been shown to have grown slightly over the centuries.

         The moral of the story is that we must be responsible when expressing disagreement with other groups of people. There are bonafide conspiracies, as well as elaborate myths. What both have in common is that they merit exposure. The claim that the Roman Catholic Church has produced counterfeit Bible translations for the purpose of diminishing the authority of the King James Version does not hold water.

The Bible Is Not A Safe Guide?

"The Bible was never intended to take the place of the living, infallible teacher, the Church, but was written to explain, or to insist upon, a doctrine already preached. How indeed could a dead and speechless book that cannot be cross-questioned to settle doubts or decide controversies be the exclusive and all-sufficient teacher of God’s revelation? The very nature of the Bible ought to prove to any thinking man the impossibility of its being the one safe method to find out what the Saviour taught. It is not a simple, clear-as-crystal volume that a little child may understand, although it ought to be so on Protestant principles.”

Bertrand L. Conway, The Question-box Answers: Replies to Questions Received on Missions to Non-Catholics, p. 67

Exploring The Correlation Between The Redeemer In Job 19:25 And The Ransom Concept Of Christ In 1 Timothy 2:5

        The central theme of the Book of Job relates to the suffering of God's people. It grapples with the question of what believers are to do when confronted with bad situations that put their faith to the test. Job was a man of faith par excellence, but that did nothing to negate the numerous temptations and trials that he had to face. God brought him down to the lowest point he could go and raised him back up again. In this world, the righteous have to deal with the unpleasant reality of things such as the loss of family, disease, and the loss of material comfort. That is precisely what Job encountered. It is to be gathered from the narrative that evil manifests itself in the form of personal wrongdoing as well as natural evil.

        How can the existence of evil be squared with the concept of a perfectly good God? Why do the righteous have to suffer? The Book of Job compels us to consider a number of points in the face of these kinds of questions. The first would be that humanity is sinful. Job 5:6-7 speaks of man naturally being inclined to cause of his own afflictions. Job 15:14-15 speaks of the human race and the rest of creation as being corrupted by sin. The second point would be that the world usually does not reflect the justice one would expect from a righteous God (Job 9:22-24). The third point would be the inability of man to fathom the mysteries of God (Job 11:7-9). The Book of Job reveals that all human beings without exception need to trust in God. It has elements that lay the foundation for the gospel.

        Job had three friends who tried to help him make sense of his troubles. They believed that he had suffered as a result of personal sin. Eliphaz made a theological argument that God is just in punishing the wicked, so Job cannot be innocent as he claims. Bildad asserted that the loss of Job's family was proof that he had sinned somehow (Job 18:19). That was commonly taken to be a sign of divine disfavor. Zophar told Job that evildoers will be punished by God and that he should have been punished more severely for his alleged crimes than he was at the time. However, the truth was that his three friends had been utterly mistaken. They did not know that God had used Satan to test Job. 

        Job had not done anything to invite calamities upon himself, but they came anyway. That disproves the notion that the root cause of our suffering in life is necessarily due to sinful choices that we make. Nor would it be correct to say that suffering has no value or that God is arbitrary in allowing us to go through pain and misery. If Job had been guilty of anything at all, then it would be that he became self-righteous in the process of defending the integrity of his own ways. That is when God stepped in to remind him of his lack of knowledge and understanding of how He operates. Job needed to be reminded of the finitude of his abilities. One of the key texts being examined is cited as follows:

        "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth." (Job 19:25)

        Job was despaired of life. He accepted that he was going to die the way that he was. His friends could condemn him, but God was a witness to his innocence. That the Lord is his redeemer or vindicator is supported by the context. Job 17:3 contains legal imagery of God Himself providing bail from accusers. Job 19:26 expressly mentions His name. Job expressed utter confidence that God would defend his cause. Further, no one but God Himself could have served as a mediator in Job's case. The word "redeemer" has the meaning of a kinsman redeemer or a relative who would pay off financial expenses out of his own pocket. Job's faith was based on good judgment as to the character of God. His hope for justice in another world was assured.

        The subsequent verse was included here and analyzed to provide further insight:

        "And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God." (Job 19:26)

        Job believed in some concept of a bodily resurrection. As stated before, he was fully expecting his life to expire. Therefore, he was thinking of God's ultimate justice while undergoing pain, distress, and false accusations by people that he thought to be his friends. That his body would be destroyed did not diminish his hope that he would see God. Job expected to see Him while separated from his flesh. The King James Version inserts the word "worms" after "skin," perhaps to convey the idea of physical death and decay. It is absent from the Hebrew text.

        The third verse being examined comes from the New Testament and is cited as follows:

        "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)

        The Apostle Paul, coming from a Jewish background, affirmed the teaching that only one God exists. Jesus Christ is the only one who stands between God and us to plead our case. He enables the guilty to be reconciled to God. He has established the terms by which that can happen. God, in His mercy, extends an offer of salvation to every man (1 Timothy 2:4). Christ died for the sins of us all, but the benefits conferred are appropriated only to those who believe. We are saved and then grow in the knowledge of divine truth. That is the means of preventing people from being deceived by false teachers (1 Timothy 1:3-4). Job himself yearned for a mediator (Job 9:33), which has been answered in the person of Jesus Christ.

        "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:6)

        This text emphasizes the universal scope of God's plan of redemption. Jesus Christ offered Himself up as a sacrifice in order that we might be set free from sin. His atonement has the power to save the entire human race, but only those who receive the gospel by faith are saved. It is correct practice to pray for the conversion of everyone, since Christ died for them. The way of salvation has been provided for us through Him. It is the will of God that the gospel be preached to all men. He took great pains to bring about our redemption. If God were just one amongst many other gods, then He might be concerned only with the salvation of His own followers. But there is only one who exists, so His concern extends to the unbelieving and rebellious world.

        Jesus Christ is our advocate who paid the penalty for our sins. Our debt is not a financial one, but a spiritual one that needed to be settled by Him on the cross. The redeemer figure that Job longed for was ultimately fulfilled in Christ. Job's redeemer represented hope and vindication, yet Christ fills in those roles perfectly. We have greater cause to have hope in light of the gospel. Job's expectation of a redeemer fits with Paul's teaching that Christ voluntarily released us from sin and death. Job's expectation of a redeemer who will "stand at last on the earth" is analogous to the Apostle Paul's saying that Christ's atonement would be "testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:6). Both Job 19:25 and 1 Timothy 2:5 emphasize God's redemptive plan through a mediator. In Job's context, the redeemer is anticipated. In Paul's context, the theme of a redeemer is fulfilled. Jesus Christ is both our ransom and mediator.

What is the Jew?

"The Jew is the symbol of eternity...He is the one who for so long had guarded the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind. A people such as this can never disappear. The Jew is eternal. He is the embodiment of eternity."

Leo Tolstoy, What is the Jew? printed in Jewish World periodical 1908

The Immortal Jew

"The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in the twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"

Mark Twain, Concerning the Jews, Harper’s Magazine, 1899

It Is Finished: A Biblical Response To Trent Horn’s Misunderstanding Of Christ’s Atonement

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to refute arguments made by Trent Horn on the nature of Christ's atonement and the meaning of His words on the cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30). Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "The fact that Christ’s death “paid for” or atoned for our sins does not mean that everything is finished regarding our salvation."

          Our justification before God is a done deal. Other aspects of salvation such as sanctification, perseverance, and glorification are ongoing but are guaranteed to be completed. They can therefore be safely spoken of in terms of having already happened. It is for this reason that Hebrews 10:14 speaks of us being perfected once for all.

          "Our Lord himself “did things” for our salvation even after the crucifixion, since the Bible says Christ’s resurrection justifies us. Romans 4:24-25 speaks of “Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” St. Paul says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” This shows that our justification, and even the act of remitting our sins, was not finished when Jesus said, “It is finished” on the cross."

          Romans 4:24-25 speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead as being proof that God had accepted His payment for our debt of sin. If the resurrection did not happen, then we would have no assurance of being forgiven by God. He did not need the resurrection to happen in order to justify us, but it does show that we can obtain a righteous standing before Him. It also shows that Christ is not a mere man, but God in the flesh. Only He could conquer death.

          "In fact, we have to do something in order to be saved because if Christ paid for all of humanity’s sins, then the difference between who is saved and who is damned can be found only in something the believer does, such as receiving grace through baptism and remaining in communion with Christ until death."

          What distinguishes saved people from the damned is their response to the gospel. Even unsaved people can do things like going to church, partaking in communion, and getting baptized. The one who abides in Christ has been regenerated by the Spirit of God and so does works that are pleasing to Him. We are not given conditions for justification in His sight other than faith. Nowhere is it said that Christ needed to do further works after the cross to ensure our salvation.

          "The lesson is clear: God has atoned or “paid for” all of our sins. But if we refuse to cooperate with God’s grace, then the debt can be reinstated. That’s why Hebrews 10:26-27 says, “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment.”

          Hebrews 10:26-27 is a call to faithfulness and repentance. However, grace is not earned through participating in sacraments but is graciously given to us by God apart from anything that we do. It is not like a substance transferred to believers as was taught by medieval theologians but is found in the person of Christ.

          "One prominent interpretation is that Jesus meant that the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah were now fulfilled in his sacrificial death. Read the preceding verses, which describe what happened after Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:27-28). John 19:28 is the only other place where tetelestai is used in Scripture. When combined with the related word teleiōthē, we see that the context is related to finishing, completing, or fulfilling messianic prophecies of the Old Testament."

          This is true, but incomplete. Jesus was affirming that He had accomplished all that God intended Him to do in His earthly ministry. Christ finished offering up Himself for our sins and paying its penalty. He defeated sin at the cross. It is then that He completed the work of redemption and atonement. Christ's death, burial, and resurrection were certain in the plan of God so they could be referred to as already done when He said, "It is finished."

          "Jesus could also have been referring to the “finishing” of the Last Supper. Scott Hahn proposed this hypothesis in his book The Lamb’s Supper (and in more detail in his 2018 book The Fourth Cup). Hahn notes that Jesus conspicuously did not drink from the fourth cup of the Passover meal. Instead, Jesus refused to drink wine until he came into his kingdom, and then, before dying, he drank sour wine on the cross. Hahn says, “It was the Passover that was now finished. More precisely, it was Jesus’ transformation of the Passover sacrifice of the Old Covenant into the Eucharistic sacrifice of the New Covenant."

          If Jesus Christ not drinking from the fourth cup carries with it any theological significance, then it would be that the Old Covenant is inadequate and we need a newer and a better covenant. We have that in Christ. The context nowhere makes a eucharistic connection with this action of His. This reading of His words is also anachronistic, since the understanding of the communion elements evolved over time. Moreover, different Jewish sects celebrated the Passover meal differently and not all accepted the fourth cup as part of their practice.

Historical Background On The Use Of Altars In The Roman Catholic Church

• Discussion:
  

          -Roman Catholic Churches contain stone altars in which the sacrifice of the Mass is conducted by the parish priest. It is maintained that the communion elements are miraculously changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ at the words of consecration. The altar is considered the central aspect of the church building or point of focus for worshipers. It is said to be made holy in the presence of Christ as the bread and wine becomes Him.

         The earliest Christians did not use altars or temples for three centuries. Afterwards, the table at which the communion celebration was held came to be known as an altar. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following, "According to Radulphus of Oxford (Prop. 25), St. Sixtus II (257-259) was the first to prescribe that Mass should be celebrated on an altar, and the rubric of the missal (XX) is merely a new promulgation of the law."

          Wayne Meeks, in his essay titled Social and Ecclesial Life of the Earliest Christians, notes:

          "Christians had no shrines, temples, cult statues or sacrifices; they staged no public festivals, musical performances or pilgrimages. As far as we know, they set up no identifiable inscriptions. On the other hand, initiation into their cult had social consequences that were more far-reaching than initiation into the cults of familiar gods. It entailed incorporation into a tightly knit community, a resocialisation that demanded (and in many cases actually received) an allegiance replacing bonds of natural kinship, and a submission to one God and one Lord excluding participation in any other cult."

          Christians have no need for altars in their places of worship because they do not perform sacrifices as did the Levitical priests of old. This order of things found its ultimate fulfillment in the atonement sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In contrast with the sacrificial system of Judaism, communion is based on spiritual sustenance and remembering Christ. The earliest Christians, being Jewish converts, would have understood these things. They also would have objected to the Roman Catholic eucharist on the grounds that the Old Testament forbade the consumption of blood, cannibalism, and knew a human body can be located at only one place at a time.

          The earliest Christians did not believe in the doctrine of the real presence in a corporeal sense. They did not view their offerings as making atonement for sin. The mode of receiving Christ was faith as opposed to physically eating Him. The communion elements were not treated as though they were no longer physically bread and wine, but the incarnate Christ Himself. Nevertheless, there is no question that patristic authors took the business of communion very seriously. Hippolytus of Rome, a bishop of the 2nd century, writes these instructions in The Apostolic Tradition: 

          “But let each of the faithful be zealous, before he eats anything else, to receive the eucharist…let each one take care that no unbeliever taste the eucharist, nor a mouse nor any other animal, and that nothing of it fall or be lost; for the body of Christ is to be eaten by believers and must not be despised. The cup, when thou hast given thanks in the name of the Lord, thou hast accepted as the image of the blood of Christ. Therefore let none of it be spilled, so that no strange spirit may lick it up, as if thou didst despise it; thou shalt be guilty of the blood, as if thou didst scorn the price with which thou hast been bought.”

          He was very much concerned with the purity of worship offered to God. He believed the bread and wine given at communion to be special and worthy of protection, but described the former in terms of being an "image" of Christ's blood. The communion elements communicate to us the reality of Christ's broken body and shed blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. The statement of Hippolytus is representative of the general attitude of Christians toward the communion ritual at that time.

          

          Roman Catholic Scholar Peter J. Riga made this remark about the origin of the altar in Judaism:

          "...They [the Jews] inherited the fundamental notion of the altar as being the meeting place, the "high place," the "sacred heights," from their pagan background. We have already mentioned how much the Jews depended on the common traditions of the Near East, which take us back to the very dawn of recorded history."

          He then goes on to posit this theory as to how such a development began:

          "But these pagan traditions were not accepted as such by the chosen people. Under the divine guidance of divine inspiration they slowly purified their notion of sacrifice and altar."

          The problem with this kind of an explanation is that God Himself nowhere sanctioned the use of pagan objects to worship Him. If the Old Testament gives us any details at all, it would be that He commanded the Jews to destroy altars belonging to outsiders who worshiped foreign gods (Numbers 33:52; Deuteronomy 12:1-3; Judges 2:2). That in and of itself makes it unlikely God would purify or redeem pagan traditions for His own sake. Jewish altars were unique in character. They were associated with monotheistic worship. They conveyed Jewish morals that other groups would not have shared. Whatever altars the Jews erected for themselves, were reflective of their own religious experiences.

          Just because the Jews had altars in which animals were sacrificed before God, does not mean Christians today need the same in regard to the spiritual sacrifices that they offer to Him. Later Christian converts came not from a Jewish but pagan background. Their understanding of the Old Testament was further removed from its original context. The communion meal evolved over time into a system of sacrifices that mimicked the Jewish system of ongoing bloody animal offerings. The introduction of altars into the Christian church laid the foundation for the development of the unbiblical idea of transubstantiation.

What Is The Relationship Between Truth And Life?

        "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

        Christ proclaims Himself to be truth. He is truth because God Himself is truth. The nature and character of God is expounded for us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the tangible expression of what we should know about God and how we should be in light of supernatural revelation.

        It is on the basis of Christ being the truth that He can also be called the way to God the Father. The validity of the first claim depends completely on the second one. The very nature of truth is that of a light which shines in the darkness.

        Truth has a sanctifying influence (John 17:17). It enables us to see things as they really are. Truth is what sets us free (John 8:32). It directs us in the way that we should go. Christ brings us into union with God. He is the physical expression of man's status before God.

        Christ proclaims Himself to be life. Even though life en toto continues to exist by His power, He is speaking more broadly here than the physical kind. It is not something inherent to our state of being. It is a spiritual life that extends beyond the grave. The Apostles’ Creed affirms: “I believe...the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.” 

        Truth is what gives life meaning. That is what makes it worth giving up one's own life for. It is the building block upon which everything else rests on. Truth and life find their ultimate realization in Jesus Christ Himself.