Additional Scripture

Preface: This article is an extract from chapter 28 of my book One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers As Evidences of the Restoration (Horizon Publishers, 1996). The complete version of the chapter, along with the references, can be found therein. Information on ordering the book is provided at the end of this article.

THE TRUE CHURCH AND ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURE

Michael T. Griffith

1996

POINT:

Just as the Lord used his ancient apostles and prophets to bring forth scripture, so he has used his latter-day prophets to provide us with additional scripture for our blessing and benefit. In fact, the Bible prophets knew that in the latter days more scripture would be brought forth. This latter-day scripture does not replace the Bible but rather increases our knowledge and understanding of it.

SELECTED BIBLE PASSAGES:

Isaiah 29: A sealed book is to come forth. It will be presented to one who is "unlearned." It will be as a voice speaking out the ground, or as one whispering "out of the dust." It will be a record of a destroyed people. The book will surpass the wisdom of "wise men." It will enable mankind to have a better understanding of God and salvation. The book will be a part of a marvelous work and a wonder performed by the Lord.

Ezekiel 37:15-20: Two "sticks," i.e., books, are spoken of, one for Judah and the other for Joseph.

DISCUSSION:

The Sealed Book of Isaiah 29

Some critics of the LDS faith maintain that the sealed book referred to in Isaiah 29 must come from an evil source. They say this because in verse 4 the book is associated with a "familiar spirit," and in the Old Testament the term "familiar spirit" is normally used to refer to an evil spirit.

While at first glance this argument might appear to have merit, its inaccuracy becomes evident when we examine verse 4 in detail. In this verse Isaiah is speaking to an unspecified group or nation that will suffer the same fate as "Ariel," i.e., Jerusalem. Here is how Isaiah 29:4 reads in the KJV:

And thou [the unspecified group or nation] shalt be brought down, and thou shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Notice that the reference to the familiar spirit says nothing about the source or inspiration of the voice that is to speak "out of the ground." It merely says the voice will be as a familiar spirit only in that it will "whisper out of the dust." The verse does not say the voice itself will be evil. On the contrary, the rest of the chapter makes it clear that the sealed book is to be a great blessing to mankind. Isaiah says that many wonderful blessings that are to accompany the appearance of the sealed book (Isaiah 29:14-18).

Some commentators believe that Isaiah 29:1-4 refers to the people of Jerusalem, and that therefore the sealed book could not be the Book of Mormon. But Isaiah is addressing a group of people whose fate will be "as" Ariel's. The fate of the Nephite nation in the Book of Mormon and the subsequent coming forth of their sacred American scripture constitute a remarkable fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I quote the late Elder James E. Talmage, a Mormon apostle and a distinguished scientist:

Reverting to the writings of Isaiah, we find that prophet voicing the Lord's threatenings against Ariel, or Jerusalem, "the city where David dwelt." Ariel was to be distressed, burdened with heaviness and sorrow; then the prophet refers to some people, other than Judah who occupied Jerusalem, for he makes comparison with the latter, saying: "And it shall be unto me as Ariel." Concerning the fate decreed against this other people we read: "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."

Of the fulfillment of these and associated prophecies, a latter-day apostle has written: "These predictions of Isaiah could not refer to Ariel, or Jerusalem, because their speech has not been 'out of the ground,' or 'low out of the dust'; but it refers to the remnant of Joseph who were destroyed in America upwards of fourteen hundred years ago. The Book of Mormon describes their downfall, and truly it was great and terrible . . . . The remnant of Joseph in their distress and destruction became as Ariel. As the Roman army lay siege to Ariel, and brought upon her great distress and sorrow, so did the contending nations of ancient America bring upon each other the most direful scenes of blood and carnage. . . .

Isaiah's striking prediction that the nation thus brought down should "speak out of the ground," with speech "low out of the dust" was literally fulfilled in the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon, the original of which was taken out of the ground, and the voice of the record is as that of one speaking from the dust. (277-278)

Ezekiel's Sticks

Ezekiel speaks of a "stick" of Judah and of a "stick" of Joseph. The word "stick" here, etz in Hebrew, refers to a written record, which could have been produced in the form of a scroll or a tablet. Notice that the "stick" is to be written upon. In ancient times it was a common practice to write on sheets of parchments and wrap them around sticks. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a good example of this custom. Another practice was to keep records on wax or wooden tablets or boards. Archaeological discoveries in the Near East indicate that the sticks of Ezekiel 37 were writing boards used in Ezekiel's day. In accordance with these discoveries, the NEB renders the Hebrew word for "stick" in Ezekiel 37 as "a leaf of a wooden tablet." The stick of Judah is the Bible. So what of the stick of Joseph? The only record that qualifies as the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon. Elder LeGrand Richards explained:

A careful reading will indicate that it would be in coming generations (verse 18), when their children would ask the meaning of this commandment, that the Lord would "take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand."

Note that the Lord said he would do this and would make them one in his hand. Now, granting that the Bible is the stick of Judah, where is the stick of Joseph? Can anyone answer? God commanded that it should be kept to record the fulfillment of his greater promises to Joseph. It would naturally be a record kept in another land, since Joseph was to be "separate from his brethren." It is plain from the reading of this scripture that the record of Judah, or the Holy Bible, would remain with this people, that the record of Joseph would be joined unto it, and that the two would become one.

Should anyone object to God's doing exactly what he promised Ezekiel he would do? Could this promise be fulfilled in a simpler and more perfect manner than it was through the coming forth of the Book of Mormon? God led a branch of the house of Joseph to America and commanded them to keep records of all their doings. He then commanded his prophet Moroni to hide his sacred record in the Hill Cumorah in the western part of the American state of New York. Centuries later he sent Moroni back to deliver the record to Joseph Smith, and gave Joseph power to translate it with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim. The two records have now been joined together, constituting a complete fulfillment of another great prophecy. (67)

2 Timothy 3:16 and Additional Scripture

In 2 Timothy 3:16 we read, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Some conservative commentators view this verse as evidence that the Bible is inerrant and therefore as proof that no more scripture is needed. But Paul simply says that "all scripture" is "profitable" for doctrine, for reproof, etc. He does not say that the scripture of which he speaks is "perfect," or "infallible," or "all-sufficient." He only says it is "profitable." A synonym for "profitable" here would be "useful." If anything, Paul's statement seems to refute the claim that the Bible is inerrant and all-sufficient.

Furthermore, what constituted the "all scripture" to which Paul refers? We get the answer in verse 15, where Paul tells Timothy that "from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from his childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, i.e., the Old Testament. And yet, would any evangelical scholar assert that Paul viewed the Old Testament as the final and complete word of God to man? Definitely not. Taking verse 15 at face value, the term "all scripture" refers to the Jewish scriptures, which Timothy had known from childhood. It is possible that Paul also had in mind some of his own epistles, but that is about as far as his statement can be pressed. The New Testament as we know it simply did not exist yet; indeed, in Paul's day, many New Testament books were still in oral form or in multiple and varying rough drafts. Moreover, it is fairly certain that Paul's canon included some Jewish texts which are no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch (Barr 1983:25; 1984:4).

Missing Scripture

This brings us to a discussion of the fact that the Bible is not complete. The incompleteness of the Bible is one of the reasons the Lord saw fit to bless us with additional scripture through latter-day prophets. That we do not possess all of the holy writ enjoyed by the ancient saints can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The Bible mentions or alludes to a number of scriptural books or sources which are not included in the canon. Scholars have written extensively on the scriptural sources that are missing from the Bible (Reicke 171-172; M. Smith 96-104, 118-119, 134-135; Barr 1983:8, 25, 44-60, 62, 83; 1984:41-50; Achtemeier 1980:60; Buchanan xxvii-xxviii). The New Testament mentions several missing scriptural books by name. For example, in Colossians 4:16, Paul refers to an epistle he wrote to the Laodiceans (Milne in Achtemeier 1985:547; Furnish 1971:864), but this letter is nowhere to be found in our modern New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul mentions a previous epistle of his to the saints at Corinth (Fiorenza 1168; Price 800). Thus, the New Testament should contain three letters of Paul to the Corinthians, instead of just the two presently found therein. In Jude 14-15, the book of Enoch is quoted as scripture (C. Thompson 943; Barr 1984:42-44). However, this book is not included in any modern version of the Old Testament. In Matthew 2:23, Matthew refers to a prophecy that Christ would be called a Nazarene, but this prediction is no longer found in the Old Testament.

The writings of the early church fathers, especially those of the apostolic fathers, also mention or allude to scriptural sources that are now lost (Sparks 31, 62, 65, 166; Roberts and Donaldson 1:153-155). In addition, the church fathers viewed as scripture several books that are no longer included in the Bible. Among these books were 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and 2 Esdras (Sundberg 1221-1222; Richardson 15-16; Roberts and Donaldson 1:234-235; 2:354-355, 362, 366, 372, 459; 4:97, 424; Sparks 289; Fox 383). In fact, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas were both included in one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus. 1 Clement was counted worthy to be placed in the Codex Alexandrinus, another very early New Testament manuscript (Quasten 1:51).

What About Revelation 22:18-19?

Those who believe the Bible is the final and complete word of God to man view Revelation 22:18-19 as evidence of this belief. However, the wording of the passage itself does not lend itself to such an interpretation. Notice the warning applies to the words of "this book," i.e., the book of Revelation. The author, John the Revelator, could not have been referring to the Bible as we now know it, for it did not yet exist. The book of Revelation was not even the last book of the New Testament to be written (Bruce 94).

To those who would persist in interpreting John's words to mean that the Bible is God's final and complete word to man, it is fair to inquire as to which "Bible" they believe John had in mind. Was the apostle thinking of the Protestant Bible? Or was he speaking of the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha)? Furthermore, to which version of the Old Testament was John making reference? Was he referring to the traditional Hebrew text? To the Greek Old Testament? Or, to the Dead Sea Scrolls? And which version of the Gospel of Mark did John have in mind--the one with the long ending or the one with the short ending? And on and on and on we could go. It is pointless to argue that there no books or passages missing from the Bible when there is undeniable evidence that such is the case. Let us just be thankful that the Lord has blessed us with additional scripture to help us to better understand and appreciate the Bible as it has been handed down to us.