Who is the Most High?

I am excited about the upcoming Thanksgiving season.

Can Jesus be praised and thanked as the Most High this Thanksgiving?

Today, I had a thoughtful time looking at Deuteronomy 32:8, II Samuel 22:14, Psalm 7:17, Psalm 47:2, Psalm 83:18, and Daniel 4:17 in the KJV. 

Read them.  Tell me what you think.

I long to offer the sacrifices of praise, worship, and thanksgiving due to the Lord during this wonderful holiday set aside for us in America.

27 comments

  1. Todd: Christ gave all glory and honor to his Father, the Most High God who is called “the only true God” in John 17:3. The response of Jesus to the rich man is instructive: “why callest me good? There is one that is good, that is the Father.”

    However, in worship we can never divorce the Father from the Son or Spirit. We worship the Father in the name of the Son through the power of the Spirit. All are present and essential to the relationship. In an important sense, glorifying one glorifies them all as one. However, it is clear to me that Christ intended that we worship and glorify the Father, pray to the Father in his name and give thanks to the Father.

  2. The loving and distinctive response and submission of the Son to the Father is a holy scene to behold. I think gazing upon this relationship through the scriptural window is to gawk upon something utterly unique.

    But there is much, much more to all these scriptural phrases surrounding God. And for some reason . . . I am suspecting that you see the mystery of these phrases, but your good theological formula is ruling out real viable and scriptural possibility for our friends. I don’t think you can pack it all neat and tidy, Blake.

    I can clearly see Jesus as eternally inseparable in conscious with Jehovah. Jesus is Yahweh. Ego eimi statements from John’s Gospel are criss-crossing like beautiful lightning bolts through my mind. So would you in clear cut fashion distinguish the Most High from Yahweh in these O.T. texts?

    Hey, all I did yesterday was pick up an ol’ Thompson Chain Reference Bible and target some references on “thanksgiving”, which directly led me to these selected TC references on the Most High.

    I am highly interested in this topic, Blake. This Thanksgiving, I can hardly wait to worship and thank the Father. And the Lord Jesus Christ whom the Spirit is exalting in the word, and presenting to us as King of all glory. I cry out to the Spirit of Yahweh to lift up Yahweh.

  3. Blake: In the OT, the “Most High” is YHWH (2 Sam 22:14; Ps 7:17; Ps 47:2; and etc) or YHWH is the “Most High”.

    If YHWH is the covenant name of God the Father only, then why does Jesus fulfull OT passages about YHWH (Acts 2:21, cp. Joel 2:28-32; and etc). But if the Son is YHWH, then He must also be the “Most High”; but if the Son is a seperable god from the Father, then Jesus as YHWH the Most High must be higher than the Father.

    If YHWH is the covenant name of “the Godhead” as you define “the Godhead,” then YHWH as “the Godhead” is the “Most High” Godhead (as if other “Godheads” exist), but it is not necessarily the case that the Father is the “Most High”.

    So who is YHWH and who is/are the Most High?

  5. I remember reading this:

    https://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/blake-ostlers-summary-for-his-new-book/

    Blake clearly laid it out with his propositions, didn’t he? I wish the LDS apostles would be so publicly bold with what they believe. Many say that Blake is way out on the fringe to what the GA’s believe. The future will tell.

    But having not read his book, I would be interested in his answer to my question in #2 and/or Scott’s in #3. They are fundamental questions in meditating on the scriptural text.

    I would think that Blake clearly sees the Most High as the Father (the most high of the council of Gods). When the Son came to this earth, He was allowed by the Father to represent YHWH to the people. This is my current perceptions, so Blake needs to correct me. Obviously, I don’t see the Son as just a Yahweh representative. I am thinking how the Lord Jesus Christ is exalted above all other elohim.

    Tonight, Psalm 97 has filled my attention.

    And, Mike, feel free to give your own input on the question for the title of this post.

  6. taken from The Bible (NY: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007) by Karen Armstrong:

    “In both J and E, for example, very different views of God were expressed. J used anthropomorphic imagery that would embarrass later exegetes. Yahweh strolls in the Garden of Eden like a Middle Eastern potentate, shuts the door of Noah’s ark, gets angry and changes his mind. But in E there was a more transcendent view of Elohim, who scarcely even ‘speaks’ but prefers to send an angel as his messenger. Later Israelite religion would become passionately monotheist, convinced that Yahweh was the only God. But neither the J or E authors believed this. Originally Yahweh had been a member of the Divine Assembly of ‘holy ones’, over which El, the high god of Canaan, had presided with his consort Asherah. Each nation of the region had its own patronal deity, and Yahweh was the ‘holy one of Israel’. By the eighth century, Yahweh had ousted El in the Divine Assembly, and ruled alone over a host of ‘holy ones’, who were warriors in his heavenly army. None of the other gods could measure up to Yahweh in his fidelity to his people. Here he had no peers, no rivals. But the Bible shows that right up to the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586, Israelites also worshipped a host of other deities” (16).

    Tell me, Mike and Blake, how the LDS version of Elohim and Yahweh would differ from this.

  8. Mike, I would reject Karen’s popular thesis of two different gods being portrayed in the pentateuch.

    Always one God. Always one Most High.

    Now, Karen seems to be portraying Yahweh as the chief God above El.

    I am trying to get a clearer idea of how LDS theology intersects with this prevalent higher criticism.

  9. Todd…your quote from Armstrong’s book is frightening. Most of these scholars start with biases against the supernatural origen of Israel’s religion and import evolutionary thought into the devolopment of it. I’m amazed that LDS thinkers are emboldened by the work of these anti-supernatural liberal scholars. Why would an LDS scholar who allegedly believes in the supernatural want to embrace the conclusions of liberal scholars who reject the supernatural origins of Israel’s religion?

  11. Todd,

    FYI, many scholars dispute there even being an E source or if so, whether it can really be separated clearly from J. On those grounds I would say you don’t have to accept there being two sources there if you didn’t want to as Karen is describing (though I personally think there is an E source).

    However, I think there are clearly several sources worked together in the Pentateuch nonetheless. If you had contrasted P with J(E) that would have been more clear; or even D.

    If you don’t want to accept multiple sources in the bible that is your choice (though I think it an incorrect one obviously). I would say that you could perhaps postulate (if there were several sources) that they are representing different individuals/groups understanding of their experiences with the same God–maybe similar in situation to the different portrayals of Christ in the synoptics and John, or the author of Hebrews and Paul, though this position is probably too far out given fundamentalist views of inerrancy anyway. Perhaps it is also the idea of editing and redaction over long periods of time that bothers you as well. Again, I think this has more to do with later fundamentalist views of inerrancy and what scripture can and cannot be.

    However, I think it is clear there are different understandings of God in the bible (since I believe humans were involved in creating it this comes as no surprise), and trying to harmonize them as though all of the very words of the bible came straight out of the mouth of God himself (I am thinking of inerrancy here obviously) does violence to the text, as well as to our own human religious experiences. ((Perhaps there is something we all can learn from the fact that there are different views expressed…))

    Simply, I suppose, I just don’t see why the biblical writers should be held to some standard they didn’t set.

  12. Scott said:

    “Why would an LDS scholar who allegedly believes in the supernatural want to embrace the conclusions of liberal scholars who reject the supernatural origins of Israel’s religion?”

    First, saying we “allegedly” believe in God (i.e., the so-called “supernatural”) seems to me offensive. I don’t think implicitly questioning our belief in God is a good way to start a conversation of growth and mutual love and learning. Just because you can’t grasp how to hold faith in God with certain scholarly conclusions doesn’t mean others can’t. I know plenty of evangelical and catholic scholars who use the Documentary Hypothesis and hold other views that fundamentalists would likely find terrible.

    Secondly, what a scholar personally believes and what a scholar says are two different things. I try and analyze what people say and use what I find to be true even if it might at first go against the grain of my assumptions (shouldn’t we all do this?). This process involves all of my mind and heart (which includes asking God for help in understanding various issues).

    Lastly, and of great importance, OF COURSE we don’t accept every assumption and every bias that a scholar writing about ancient Israel may (or may not) have. For instance, We DO believe in God. Period. Just because someone doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean they might not also have an excellent analysis of the development of the biblical texts that we can benefit from.

    Lastly, some of the conclusions of “liberal” scholars are in line with LDS teachings. (For instance, the obvious belief in a plurality of gods in ancient Israel.) This is why we can accept what they have to say also.

  13. To be of Karen’s celebrated group of scholarship, there is one assumption that a person must never hold:

    “any fundamentalist notion that only one view is correct”

    That is the primary ground rule.

    You can’t be a biblical scholar if you would be led by the Spirit to this belief on any biblical doctrine.

    Karen says fundamentalists are dangerous.

    But, Mike, I will try to refrain tonight from plotting on how to blow your house up. 🙂

  15. Todd, what argument do you have that fundamentalists aren’t dangerous? Do fundamentalists view the non-fundamentalist life as equal to the fundamentalist life, meriting equal dignity, respect, rights, etc.?

  16. Some Christian fundamentalists actually care by praying for those in other religions who oppose everything that they fundamentally believe.

    Continual, private, heart-felt prayer is one of the greatest acts of giving. Intercessory prayer is a self-sacrificing work.

    Secondly, all are made in the image of God. Does the Westboro preacher teach this biblical doctrine?

  17. Is the non-Christian, non-fundamentalist life worth living and deserving of equal respect and dignity as the fundamentalist Christian life?

  18. Will God appropriate the highest of celestial glory to every divergence of life on this earth, John f.? Non-fundamentalists would teach inclusivistic universalism. I think the Bible teaches differently. And I care enough about others to say so.

    We both must be situated in that kind of life, union with the eternal Son, for the deserving of celestial glory. This is crucial. My heart aches that people understand this.

    Would you tell a non-Christian, non-fundamentalist who lives a life apart from Jesus Christ that someday when that individual stands in the throne room, God will easily say, “You deserve equal respect and dignity. Come be with me in paradise.”

  20. Todd, God will be the judge of men’s souls. I hope you can at least agree that Latter-day Saints believe that much.

    What God does at the Judgment Seat is not in issue here. What is in issue is whether fundamentalist Christians are dangerous or not. If, based on their fundamentalist beliefs, they believe that non-fundamentalists, whether Christian or not, and all non-Christians (which apparently Evangelical creedalists insist includes Latter-day Saints), deserve less rights in society or deserve higher scrutiny or separate treatment of one kind or another as to rights and obligations of civil society, then it would be no wonder if those so designated find fundamentalists dangerous.

  21. #19 – this is what burdens me. What if that is a lie people are trusting in? They can believe and do anything they want in this life, but no worries, God will make up for it, to help them after death. Thanks Seth for not ignoring this. This is the crucial issue for me.

    #20 – I just read this, too, John f.

    http://www.asoftanswer.com/2007/11/20/if-you-think-the-evangelical-right-is-bad/

    The author has me chuckling. Let me say this. Some evangelicals are not bigoted. Even some fundamentalists are not politically bigoted (Shock). Should I try to research back through all my voting in Idaho and try to count all the LDS that I have voted for? LDS who I know that are ten times more talented than me? John f., I am not at all ashamed to say that some of the LDS here in Idaho Falls are so much higher caliber than me in many life skills. I don’t just consider them equal. I consider them way above me.

    For some reason, John f., you have me locked in individually as some kind of creedal screaming, social/political fire breathing dragon just because I strongly differ with you on Bible beliefs.

  22. I just had this funny (and probably unfair) image in my mind of Todd’s eventual funeral many years from now, and after all the mourners have left, John F. runs up and spray-paints “CREEDAL TRINITARIAN” on Todd’s gravestone and then runs off.

    Sorry John, I’m in a (probably uncharitably) humorous mood today.

  23. #2 – I don’t think you can pack it all neat and tidy, Blake.

    I have told myself that this week, I will wade through the Heiser/Bokovoy scholarly exchange in trying to keep a promise (brought to my attention by Mike).

    So today, I began reading on page 221 of The FARMS Review (Vol. 19, No. 1, 2007).

    It has been interesting. There are some things where I struggle with what Heiser is writing. Hopefully, I will share this later. But having read up to page 234 so far, here is a deja vu experience with Heiser. Though I am no textual scholar and by no means up-to-date on modern biblical scholarship, I was riveted by these words of Heiser:

    “In terms of an evaluation of the separateness of El and Yahweh, Latter-day Saint scholars have too blithely accepted the positions of Smith, Parker, and Barker. All is not nearly as tidy as they propose” (234).

    I haven’t read any of these guys. But who would think that a simple spud in Idaho, studying different Bible passages, would be directed to share almost exactly the same impressions about El and Yahweh?

    This is wild.

    And exciting.

    More later.

  24. Seth, I don’t particularly care that Todd is an Evangelical creedalist. What I care about is that my family and I are considered non-Christian altogether by people like Todd because, despite our entirely Christ-centered life and beliefs, we reject the theory of “one substance” for what it is.

    Seth, I also believe you are mistaken in what you think Todd wants out of this blog. I think that Todd would be the first person to reject the type of ecumenism that you seem to want to see on this blog. In a previous post, Todd has been critical of skirting issues and talking nice. It is true that he is worlds above Aaron S. in terms of his dialogue with Latter-day Saints but I think you misunderstand if you think he is interested in academic dialogue and/or consensus on any given issue.

  25. John f., you have reminded of some of good questions John Morehead asked me a while back about interfaith dialogue. I will try to work on a few statements in regard to this.

Leave a comment