This is the discussion between Bob (red ink) and me (black ink).In Bokovoy’s response to Heiser, he interacts with Genesis and uses authors and Aramaic targums that I don’t know. I would like to share with you quickly these excerpts and authors and then ask: 1. Are you familiar with these authors? 2. Who would be the contemporary O.T. scholars providing contrary viewpoint to what these critics propose? thanks.
I am just lifting Bokovoy’s quotes from his paper that deal with Genesis and these authors.1. Bruce R. McConkie expressed a similar view: “Christ and Mary, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and a host of might men and equally glorious women comprised that group of ‘the noble and great ones,’ to whom the Lord Jesus said: ‘We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell’ (Abraham 3:22-24).” Since the expression we will go down is followed in the Book of Abraham with the statement “they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1), it appears that Elder McConkie believed that these Gods from the heavenly council included premortal humans. To some extent, therefore, the title god is appropriately applied to the premortal sons and daughters of Heavenly Father (271-272). [McConkie is LDS.]
I am only familiar with McConkie’s name as a leading Mormon but not his writings. I am not familiar with the “Book of Abraham.”
2. Quoting Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002): “The original god of Israel was El. This reconstruction may be inferred from two pieces of information. First, the name of Israel is not a Yahwistic name with the divine element of Yahweh, but an El name, with the element, el. This fact would suggest that El was the original chief god of the group named Israel. Second, Genesis 49:24-25 presents a series of El epithets separate from the mention of Yahweh in verse 18″ (275-276).
This statement appears to be based on an evolutionary view of Israel’s religion and on the Documentary Hypothesis regarding different sources behind the Pentateuch. The fact is that Jacob (and the other patriarch’s) knew and worshipped Yahweh, as 49:18 makes clear (see also Gen. 4:26; 9:26; 12:8; etc.) . But I suspect that Smith might interpret such references as representing a later source and as anachronistic. But those who view Genesis and the rest of Moses’ Law as divinely inspired revelation understand the patriarch’s to have viewed Yahweh as the supreme Creator, also known as El or Elohim. Smith’s allusion to “El” as “the original chief god of the group named Israel” suggests that he may believe Israel was originally henotheists who later developed into monotheists. I am only conjecturing. I would have to read this quote in the larger context of his book. For critiques of the documentary hypothesis and source criticism, see T. D. Alexander, From Paradise to Promised Land, 3-94; O. T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1949); Duane Garrett, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991); Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003).
3. Thinking of Genesis 1:26-27 and quoting Marc Z. Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005): “The word tzelem (“image”) elsewhere always refers to a physical representation. For example, the book of Ezekiel uses tzelem when it refers to “men sculptured upon the walls, figures of Chaldeans drawn in vermillion” (23:14) or when it accuses Israel of fornicating with “phallic images” (16:17). The word often refers to idols (e.g., Num. 33:52; Ezek. 7:20; Amos 5:26; 2 Chron. 23:17). It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not surprising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions, both Jewish and Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms” (289).I’m not familiar with Brettler, but I am familiar with the Hebrew term for “image.” That the Hebrew term tzelem refers to a two or three dimensional concrete object is a fact known to biblical scholarship for some time. But it is the three-dimensional “physicalness” of humanity that distinguishes us from God. Hence, pure “spirits” or immaterial beings are not, to my knowledge, called “images of Elohim.” That the Bible describes God in corporeal terms need not imply that God is in fact physical or material. More likely, our physical attributes analogically resembles what God is like. Our “seeing,” “hearing,” “speaking,” and “walking” provides a concrete idea of God’s archetypal perceiving, communicating, and moving. But our possession of a body in no way necessitates that God must have one.
4. In addition to associating humanity with the tzelem of God, the Bible describes the first man as a deified member of the divine council. In the Eden story the Lord took advantage of the wet, claylike soil and “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). In an important study concerning this imagery, Walter Brueggemann has shown that a biblical connection exists between being raised from the dust and enthronement. [Quoting from Walter Brueggeman, “From Dust to Kingship,” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestatmentliche Wissenschaft 84/1 (1972)], “To be taken ‘from the dust’ means to be elevated from obscurity to royal office and to return to dust means to be deprived of that office and returned to obscurity” (290).Yes, I am familiar with Brueggeman’s article and actually reference it in my article on the Covenant of Creation (see attached). OT studies have helpfully pointed out many indications in the Genesis creation narratives that indicate man’s royal status as Yahweh’s vice-regent, given dominion over the earth. I draw out more of these indicators in my article.
5. Paraphrasing Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift, 1951), Man’s status as the archetypal gardener/king in Genesis 2-3 contains important parallels with Mesopotamian kingship theory (291).
Haven’t read Widengren’s work but it’s referenced in Terje Stordalen’s more recent work, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Peeters, 2000), which I have read. I would prefer to state it this way: Mesopotamian kingship theory (as well as Egyptian kingship theory) contains remnants of primeval revealed truth that were distorted over time. For example, Mesopotamian kings and Egyptian Pharaoh’s sometimes referred to themselves as “the image” and “the son” of their particular deity, who had appointed them to rule as the deity’s representative on the earth. Such kings also built royal gardens next to their palace and the deity’s temple (see my article). Some modern scholars claim that Moses borrowed these ancient ideas from the Mesopotamians or Egyptians and incorporated them into the Genesis account. I see it the other way around. Primeval revelation was passed down and corrupted over time. God’s revelation to Moses “sets the record straight” so to speak.
6. Quoting Nicholas Wyatt, “Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2-3,” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93/1 (1981), “the man in his garden is a symbolic allusion to the king in his sanctuary.” Bokovoy goes on to say, Significantly, the only other explicit reference to the Garden of Eden in the Hebrew Bible appears in a context that addresses the link between kingship and divinity (see Ezekiel 28:2-13).
I would agree that the Garden of Eden was more than a fertile food plot or idyllic park. It was a royal sanctuary without question. But the passage in Ezekiel speaks of a personage being judged for an attempt to be like God. Though most commentators agree that the immediate referent is the king of Tyre, they do not all agree on the identity of the archetypal personage to which the lament appears to allude. Some believe it’s a reference to Satan. Others believe it’s a reference to Adam. I presently incline to the latter. I’m not sure how this passage would support Mormon doctrine?
7. [For an English translation of the Targum Neofiti, see Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1], The same theological move to purely “humanize” the divine council appears in Neofiti’s revision of Genesis 6:2, which changes the Hebrew title “sons of God” into the Aramaic expression “sons of the judges”:Not surprising that the Targum would change “sons of Elohim” to read “sons of the judges.” Ancient Jewish scholars, like modern Jewish and Christian scholars, debated whether the “sons of God” was a reference to angels or to humans. The Targum cited obviously interpreted the phrase as referring to human rulers and provided a “dynamic equivalent” translation to remove the ambiguity.
And the sons of the judges saw that the daughters of the sons of man were beautiful in appearance and they took wives for themselves from among whomsoever they chose. (Genesis 6:2) (311). [Bokovoy uses the targum as evidence of a cover-up against henotheism.]
I wouldn’t take the Targum’s translation as “evidence of a cover-up against henotheism” unless I was a Mormon or Modernist. The ancient Rabbis did believe in angelic beings. And both Testaments make it clear that man was created to serve as God’s regent—indeed, redemption will entail “ruling and reigning with Christ”! But both man and angels are always distinguished from the one true God. Thus, I agree with Paul, “There is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4), that is, He’s in a category of his own. Sounds to me that this Mormon scholar, Bokovoy, is grabbing at straws, desperately looking for any shred of evidence he might stretch and twist to support his theology.
Thanks Bob. For those of you, interested in Bob’s lengthy article on the Covenant of Creation, email me.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd,
Can you enlighten me why evangelicals really care whether or not God does or does not have a body. If Christ could have a body, could not the Father also? Would you really care if Gen. 1.26-27 were referring to a physical image? I am just curious, for there are evangelicals who admit that it is possible.
Secondly, I just don’t have any clue what “immaterial” spirit is. I would certainly suggest any such concept doesn’t appear in the bible.
Thirdly,
There is too much material here to cover. *sigh*
Mike, you have me laughing. This is exactly what Blake Ostler would tell me. I get very broad in my informal discussion.
Perhaps, we could zero in on your first idea: physical image.
Can the Father take on physical image? I believe so.
“I’m not familiar with Brettler, but I am familiar with the Hebrew term for “image.” That the Hebrew term tzelem refers to a two or three dimensional concrete object is a fact known to biblical scholarship for some time. But it is the three-dimensional “physicalness” of humanity that distinguishes us from God. Hence, pure “spirits” or immaterial beings are not, to my knowledge, called “images of Elohim.” That the Bible describes God in corporeal terms need not imply that God is in fact physical or material. More likely, our physical attributes analogically resembles what God is like. Our “seeing,” “hearing,” “speaking,” and “walking” provides a concrete idea of God’s archetypal perceiving, communicating, and moving. But our possession of a body in no way necessitates that God must have one.”
This seems to be a blatant example of trying to read ones preconceived theology into a text instead of trying to exegete meaning from what it actually says. This is a classic example of eisegesis.
Mike said, “This seems to be a blatant example of trying to read ones preconceived theology into a text instead of trying to exegete meaning from what it actually says. This is a classic example of eisegesis.”
Mike, I appreciate your concern that my argument for a theological proposition be based upon exegetical data and not preconceived ideas read into the text. Therefore, I shall try to explain how I arrived at the concluding statement above, the one to which I believe you may be objecting, namely, that “our possession of a body in no way necessitates that God must have one.”
In the OT, tselem (‘image’) is used of idols (Num 33:52), sculptured statuettes (1Sa 6:5, 11), a large statue of a man (Dan. 3:1-3,10,12,14-15,18), and two-dimensional painted or carved images upon a wall (Ezek 23:14). The word demut (‘likeness’) is used for the physical and psychological resemblance of a father and his son (Gen 5:3), building plans (2 Kgs 16:10), or just the abstract idea of resemblance (Psa 58:4; Ezek 1:5, 10, 28). In light of the biblical usage of these terms, we can define an “image” or “likeness” as a visible replica which represents and bears a resemblance to some original (archetype).
It is important to note that mankind is made AS the image of God and not AFTER the image of God, as if we were a replica of some preexistent physical image. The the two prepositions beth and kaph (which are sometimes translated as “in,” “after,” according to,” etc.) share in common the meaning of identity (i.e, beth essentiae [e.g., Exod. 6:3; Num. 18:26; 26:53; 36:2; Deut. 1:13; 26:14; Josh. 13:6-7; 23:4; Psa. 78:55; Ezek. 20:11] and kaph veritas [e.g., Num. 11:1; 2 Sam. 9:8; Neh. 7:2; Job 10:9; Psa. 122:3; Eccl. 10:5; Cant. 8:10; Hos. 5:10; Nah. 3:6], cf., GKC, §119i; §118x; Joüon, GBH, §133c,g). See also David J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), 75-80. The following considerations also warrant this conclusion: first, the Apostle Paul explicitly states that “man is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7). In this case, he does not use a preposition but simply identifies man as God’s image. Secondly, the NT writers refer to Jesus Christ as the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:14) or exact representation of God (Heb 1:3). Since Christ is the second Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:45-46), we would expect a parallel between Christ as God’s image and mankind as God’s image. Thirdly, if the “image of God” is something external to man and if man is created to correspond to that image, then it might be asked whether that image is male or female in form. If male in form, then how can it be said that woman is created after the image of God? Finally, since the concept of “image” almost always has a three-dimensional, physical-material connotation (see above), then to posit some external image as the pattern for man’s creation would be to suggest the preexistence of some material object external to the immaterial deity.
Elsewhere in Scripture, mankind’s material nature is contrasted with God’s spiritual nature. For example, in Isaiah 31:13, we read, “The Egyptians are man (‘adam}, and not God (Elohim), and their horses are flesh (basar), and not spirit (ruach)” (ESV). Notice how the parallelism of this verse equates “man” and “flesh” [i.e., that which is material], as well as “God” and “spirit” [i.e., that which is immaterial]. Jesus himself, in Luke 24:39, takes the position that there is a clear distinction between a bodiless entity (i.e., spirit) and a physical entity (i.e., body), when he invites the disciples, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Thus, Christ, like the rest of humanity, may be called the “image of God” of the “invisible God” for the very reason that He possesses a body but his Father, who is invisible, does not (cf. John 4:24; 1Tim. 1:17). I am not aware of any text of Scripture that refers to God the Father as an tselem, though there are plenty of OT passages that refer to idols as such (cf. Psalm 115).
In conclusion, the biblical data concerning the nature of humanity and the nature of God lead me to believe that the “image-ness” of humanity includes the communicable attributes of God made manifest in visible, concrete form. Moreover, as God’s images, we are his vice-regents, created to rule as his official representatives upon the earth. In the words of one OT scholar,
[M]an is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies (Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 160-61).
I am not sure if the information above will satisfy your demand for exegesis, but I did make an attempt.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
Bob,
I appreciate your response; I will get back to you later when I have more time.
Mike
[Sidenote (which I am greatly known for among LDS bloggers) – Bob, for the first time I have clicked on your name link for the school – and speaking of images – fantastic imagery of the oak.]
Elon
That the Bible describes God in corporeal terms need not imply that God is in fact physical or material. More likely, our physical attributes analogically resembles what God is like. Our “seeing,” “hearing,” “speaking,” and “walking” provides a concrete idea of God’s archetypal perceiving, communicating, and moving. But our possession of a body in no way necessitates that God must have one.
Astounding. So this is how Evangelical creedalists believe every word in the Bible?
Todd, do you not see that Bob’s comment # 4 in response to Mike shows that a lot of extraneous materials and understanding is needed to come to the conclusion that Bob comes to that God does not have a body despite what the more simple reading of the Bible (i.e. without the artifice that Bob has based on his extra-biblical education) would indicate?
“In God’s image” doesn’t actually mean in his “image” but just means X.
On the other hand, Latter-day Saints take the Bible at its word when it says man is created in God’s image and that those who accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ will be joint heirs with Christ thanks to the Atonement. In many ways, although Latter-day Saints seem to take the Bible much more literally than Evangelical creedalists doing their Ph.D.’s in core Evangelical talking points, such as the nature of God.
Sounds to me that this Mormon scholar, Bokovoy, is grabbing at straws, desperately looking for any shred of evidence he might stretch and twist to support his theology.
Now there’s a blatant provocation. Does Bob not see his own stretching and twisting in comment # 4? Apparently not.
Bokovoy is not “desperate”. The Bible straightforwardly supports Mormon “theology” — no straws needed. (Evangelical creedalists, on the other hand, seem to need a “quiverfull” of strawmen in their desperate fight against the Restored Gospel.)
I wonder what Bob thinks that redeemed men and women will be ruling and reigning over with Christ.
Bob wrote Thus, I agree with Paul, “There is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4), that is, He’s in a category of his own.
Latter-day Saints believe that the primary fruits of the Atonement of Jesus Christ are becoming “joint heirs with Christ”. This is because Latter-day Saints take John at his word when he writes that “we know that, when he [God] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2) Believing that we will become like God is entirely biblical and weighs against the Evangelical creedalist abstraction that God is of a different species than his children. The point of the Atonement is for people to become like God. This is what is so amazing about God’s mercy and grace.
Latter-day Saints do not worship an alien but rather their Father in Heaven — a father of the same species as his own children and who loves all of his children, even those who choose to reject him.
By the way, might I note that I was perplexed that Bob states he is unfamiliar with the Book of Abraham. How is this possible for someone who preaches against Mormonism? Should he not at least be familiar with the actual position against which he argues? He doesn’t have to believe it is scripture to read it and have an opinion about it. I guess that his junior high Evangelical creedalist youth group viewing of The Godmakers was enough to tell him everything he needs to know about what Latter-day Saints believe?
Dear John,
My comment of being “unfamiliar with the Book of Abraham” was simply an honest response to a question Todd Wood had raised on a discussion list, soliciting my input. For the record, I didn’t attend a junior high youth group where the “Godmakers” was shown, because at that time I was living in debauchery and sin. It was not until I was 22 years old that God through Christ miraculously converted me from a profane life and gave me a love for his Word. I am not an expert in Mormonism and am sorry if my responses to Todd’s questions gave the impression I was trying to portray myself as such.
Secondly, my assertion that the Mormon scholar Bokovay appears to be “grabbing at straws, desperately looking for any shred of evidence he might stretch and twist to support his theology” is admittedly provocative and probably unfairly judges his motives. I have never dialogged with him directly and should have refrained from making such a sweeping statement. In reality, he is simply attempting to marshal evidence in favor of his perspective on the nature of God, in the same way we evangelicals attempt to gather evidence for our view of God. In your opinion, I am misusing the Biblical evidence by not taking it literally. In my opinion, Mormon scholars are very selective of their use of evidence, highlighting those passages or that extra-biblical data that seems to support their position. In the end, we each are responsible for how we interpret the evidence and must allow God to be the final judge of our exegesis.
In the meantime, we may seek to persuade others to what we believe is the most biblical and orthodox view of God, yet we should do so with meekness and patience. I’ll try to be more careful in the way I portray the Mormon position.
Having said that, I beg your pardon, but I fail to see (1) how I’ve failed to treat every word of Scripture as inspired, and (2) how I’ve been guilty of “stretching and twisting” the Biblical evidence. To begin with, every Bible student, including Mormon adherents, recognizes that the Bible often employs metaphorical and figurative language. Thus, when Jesus says of the cup of communion, “This is my blood,” most (with the exception of Roman Catholics) recognize him to be saying something like, “This represents my blood.” Many other examples could be added, but suffice it to say that a high view of the Bible does not demand that every word must be taken literally. The immediate grammatical context and consistency with the overall teaching of Scripture must decide how language is used in any given text of Scripture.
Moreover, in my response above I gave several reasons that incline me to interpret corporeal language describing God metaphorically, or more precisely, anthropomorphically. For example, I pointed to two passages of Scripture that make a clear distinction between material entities and non-material entities: Isa. 31:13; Luke 24:29. Both of these passages seems to assume the existence of non-material beings. In fact, the first passage actually contrasts God as a spiritual being with men and horses as physical beings. These contrasts, together with the other texts I referenced that speak of God as “spirit” or “invisible” are what have lead me to reject the idea that God has a real body like ours. Moreover, as the evidence I amassed above regarding the term “image” demonstrates, our three-dimensional, physical qualities serve to make visible, by way of analogy, the invisible God (note: I did not say, “In God’s image” doesn’t actually mean in his “image” but just means X. I said that man is God’s “visible replica.”) Since Yahweh-Elohim does not identity himself as “an image”–indeed, since he discourages any attempt to represent him as an image (Exod. 20:4-6), I am very resistant to the idea that God by nature is corporeal.
But my greatest problem with Mormon doctrine is the idea that humans presently do or shall someday belong to the same species of God. Appealing to passages such as I John 3, which speaks of the prospect of believers becoming “like” Christ, are unpersuasive, since the term “like” in this context simply refers to correspondence and not to identity or equality of being. When Jesus speaks of coming “like a thief” at his second coming, I am not to assume that he will actually become a thief in character–only that his coming will in some way correspond to the coming of a thief in the night (sudden and unsuspected). When the Apostle Peter depicts believers “like living stones” who are “being built up as a spiritual temple,” we are not to suppose that believers assume the same physical properties and nature as bricks or a physical building structure. Instead, interpreting the Apostle’s words metaphorically, we understand him to say that the gathered church corresponds to the physical Temple in that we become corporately the place of God’s special presence (as was the Temple in the OT) where praises and worship is offered to the Creator.
Furthermore, the argument that we must belong to the same species as God since he is called our “Father” and we are called “his offspring” is a non sequitur. That God is our “Father” need only communicate the following: (1) God’s relationship to us in terms of our origin corresponds to but is not identical with the relationship that earthly fathers bear to their progeny, i.e, God is our Creator (Acts 17:28). (2) God’s relationship to us as “Father” also corresponds to an earthly fathers role as provider and protector of his children (Matt. 7:11). And (3) “Father” was also a common designation in the ancient Near East for suzerains (i.e., emperors) (see Isa. 22:21). This is why the Messiah is called “The Everlasting Father” and “Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6). Both of these designations highlight his supreme royal status as King of kings and Lord of lords. So when the Scriptures speak of God as our heavenly Father, we need not infer or conclude from these statements that we belong to the same species as God. Certainly, when suffering Job spoke of the grave, saying, “You are my father,” and of the worm that would feed on his corpse, “You are my mother” or “my sister” (Job 17:14), he wasn’t expecting the reader to classify him in the same species as a grave or a worm!
In conclusion, I believe that there only is or ever will be one Supreme Being, the Triune God, Father, Son, and Spirit. I do not adhere to this conception of God because of any special attachment to human creeds. Rather, I am persuaded by the prophets and the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:2), among whom I do not count Joseph Smith.
Cordially,
Bob Gonzales
Thinking of Bob’s last paragraph . . .
John, do you think that the Old and New Testaments together (and considering this data alone) give a perfectly logical and coherent view of God? Complete consistency?
Todd, I’m a Mormon, remember. I don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency.
Bob:
It sounds to me like you are saying at least two things:
1. You believe that you would have come to the conclusion, on your own, by simply reading the Bible, that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not three substances but only one substance.
2. In order to come to a correct interpretation of the Bible with regard to what it means that mankind is created in the image of God, one must at least know Biblical Hebrew and have been educated in one particular type of exegisis.
John f., so should I should stop seeking to present to you the triunity of God in biblical scripture, because you don’t see the biblical scripture itself coherent on explaining God?
The heart issues are much deeper than the later church history creeds.
And when I examine the Joseph Smith translation or any English translation, knowing Hebrew at least on a rudimentary level is helpful. I am sure Mike would concur to this.
John, what is your particular type of interpretational hermeneutics?
“The fact is that Jacob (and the other patriarch’s) knew and worshipped Yahweh, as 49:18 makes clear (see also Gen. 4:26; 9:26; 12:8; etc.)”
The fact is that the text says so, but that doesn’t make it a facutal reality. There’s a serious difference. Literature is not reality, it’s a constructed reflection of reality.
There are no Yahwistic theophoric names until Moses’s Mother Yocheved. This strongly implies that the name Yahweh wasn’t known at the earliest period of Israelite religion.
“Hence, pure ‘spirits’ or immaterial beings are not, to my knowledge, called “images of Elohim.””
Where can we find such beings defined as such in the text? Most scholars I have read would find the proposition that Israelites could believe in immaterial existence nonsensical and anachronistic.
Do angels count? Yet we have mutliple accounts of angels appearing to humans, who don’t recognize them as being any different in appearance than humans. Moreover, once the angels have gone, the Israelite recipient exclaims that they have seen God himself.
I also find it odd that he (you) aren’t familiar with Bretler. I assume it’s a function of being at a baptist seminary instead of a secular institution’s religion dept. or divinity school doing Hebrew Bible.
Bretler is not the only one to read this way. (He’s an orthodox Jew, btw.) James Kugel, recently retired from Harvard as a Hebrew BIble prof and also an orthodox Jew supports Bretler, and goes into this in depth both in his The God of Old and his more recent How to Read the Bible.
Surely THEY as orthodox Jews can’t be accused of “grabbing at straws, desperately looking for any shred of evidence he might stretch and twist to support his theology” since it’s not supportive of THEIR theology. Bokovoy is a student of Brettler’s, btw.
Another thought- in my program, you’d be seriously marked down for assuming that the late Judaic second-temple Greco-roman concept of “image of God” was identical to or useful for analyzing the Israelite concept in its original meaning.
“Appealing to passages such as I John 3, which speaks of the prospect of believers becoming “like” Christ, are unpersuasive, since the term “like” in this context simply refers to correspondence and not to identity or equality of being.”
Mormons have never equated theosis with “identity or equality of being.” We will never be equal to the Father, nor share his “identity” whatever that might mean. That said, the passage in 1Jo 3:2 uses homoios, and BDAG lists the first meaning of it as “of the same nature, like, similar.” I don’t see how you can rule out the first meaning in favor of the last two unless you toss out a lot of other NT scriptures and history. For example, Act 17:28-29, in which humans are of God’s genos. In terms of history, I cite the former Catholic who wrote a MA comparing LDS and early Christian doctrines of deification and concluded this.
“the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church . . . is that they also believed that salvation meant “becoming a god.” It seems that if one’s soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and “gotten it wrong” on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a “great apostasy” on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the “restoration of all things.””
Jordan Vajda, a Dominican priest, MA at GTU/UC Berkely, Partakers of the Divine Nature’: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization.
John F. is a lawyer who also has a MA from Oxford. Don’t mess with him 😉
I am preparing for some important exams right now so I don’t have much time.
But I wanted to ask Nitsav which University he is at.
Mike, drop me an email aaron dot nonymous at gmail dot com.
ok
You mean, I am a Baptist preacher messing with another LDS lawyer. This is dangerous.
If I am in trouble one of these days, which LDS lawyer is going to bail me out? I will be locked up for good. 🙂
And Nitsav, could you let me know which University as well?
elonwood@juno.com
Dear Nitsav,
Thanks for condescending to interact with a poor baptist “wanna-be scholar.” You’re obviously a well-educated man, and you’ve raised some serious questions about statements I’ve made. With my limited knowledge, I’ll try to offer some responses below:
1. With regard to the question of whether Yahweh’s name was known before it was reportedly revealed to Moses at the burning bush (Exo. 3:14, 15): the Book of Genesis indicates that the name was known prior to its revelation to Moses (e.g., Gen. 4:26; 9:26; 12:8; etc.). My commitment to the veracity of Scripture compels me to affirm that the Genesis record is accurate. The chronicler and other NT writers treated Genesis as real history, so that’s good enough for me. The fact that Jochabed (Exod. 6:20) was likely named before Moses received the revelation of God’s name suggests that theophoric names existed prior to the Sinai revelation–unless, of course, Moses (or an alleged redactor) purposely distorted reality. Yet, if the events and persons portrayed in Scripture are in fact “a constructed reflection of reality,” as opposed to “real reality,” then we are left to pick and choose autonomously what we think is true or untrue in the Scripture. We can even posit contradictions between so-called “Judaic second-temple Greco-roman” doctrines of “image of God” and the supposed “original” Israelite conception. Do you hold the same view of the literature which Joseph Smith authored? Does the Book of Mormon also provide a “constructed reflection of reality” in distinction from reality itself? Will new canonical literature arise that will render Joseph Smith’s teachings obsolete?
2. Regarding the existence of immaterial spirits, I’m not surprised that the majority of modern scholars would find the affirmation of such nonsensical and anachronistic. But if the OT prophets, Christ, and his apostles believed in the existence of spiritual, non-physical beings, then I’d prefer to follow their teaching. Besides, I am unaware of any modern scholar, Jewish, secular, or Mormon, who has disproved the existence of non-material, spiritual beings.
3. I’m sorry that I’ve not had the privilege to familiarize myself with Bretler or Bokovoy, though I do remember coming across the name of Kugel in my reading. But I suspect I could cite some Old Testament scholars with whom you may not be familiar. Of course, that would be vain. I’ll take your comment as a rebuke and perhaps someday if I have the time, I’ll try to better familiarize myself with these men.
4. Finally, with respect to becoming gods: I do believe that we will become “glorified” (Rom. 8:17, 29). More than that, I believe that we will in some sense share in Christ’s own glory, and He in our glory (2 Thes. 1:10, 12). In this sense, we will become just like the incarnate Christ–human beings brought to perfection. And I also believe that such glorification will entail the obtaining of qualities that we might currently call “super-human,” or which some might venture to label, “semi-divine.” In that sense, we “will be like him” (1 John 3). But I reject the notion that we will become ontologically God-like. Such a notion strikes me as the very heart of human sin–a snatching at divinity. Into this sin, the First Adam fell (Gen. 3:6) and his fallen seed have since followed (Gen. 11:1-9). But the Second Adam, Christ in his humanity, refused to snatch at deity but assumed the form of a servant (Phil. 2:5-8), and for this God exalted him and given him “the name” which the Tower builders sought after (Gen. 11:4). Consequently, I prefer to adopt the mind of the man Christ Jesus, and assume the posture of a servant with the hopes that God will someday exalt me too, so that I might join the multitudes who spend eternity at the feet worshiping the Triune God (Rev. 4:10-11; 5:11-14), rather than entertaining the prospect of become the center of worship along with a pantheon of other so-called gods.
Respectfully yours,
Bob G.
Dear John,
I’ll try to respond to your two statements in reverse order.
1. God revealed himself to his chosen people in their mother tongue, which for children of Abraham was Hebrew. Consequently, the original audience for which the canonical literature was given did not have to take college classes to learn a dead foreign language. However, since no one speaks the Hebrew of Scripture today, we either have to learn it ourselves or depend upon others who study Hebrew. Thankfully, many have studied the language, and there are several helpful and accurate English translations available. As a result, the layperson has access to God’s word, though he still depends somewhat on those whom Christ appoints to be pastor-teachers in the church (Eph. 4:11-14). Also, regarding proper exegesis, I believe that (1) God created man with the natural capacity to use and interpret language. Not surprisingly, children become interpreters at a very earlier age. So in one sense, we might say that “common sense” exegesis is the proper method we should follow. Nevertheless, the effects of sin upon our noetic capacities hinders us from rightly interpreting God’s word (1 Cor. 2:14). Moreover, the remaining sin in a believer’s heart can sometimes lead him to draw wrong conclusions from Scripture (e.g., John 21:23). Not surprisingly, their are major differences between believers and unbelievers in the way they interpret special revelation (including Scripture) and also general revelation (creation, history, and conscience). Even genuine believers may have differences. For this reason, (2) we need to pray earnestly that God would enlighten our minds to properly understand and apply his word (Psa. 119:33-37).
2. I believe that Scripture reveals the following propositions about God:
a. There is only one true and living God (Deut. 6:4; 32:37-39; Isa. 43:10-13; 44:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:1, 4-6), and that this one true God is jealous to protect his uniqueness (Deut. 4:23-24; 5:7-9; 6:13-15).
b. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are each represented as the true God in Scripture (Father=God [John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6]; Son=God [John 12:36-41, compare with Isa. 6:1-5; Heb. 1:1-12]; Spirit=God [Acts 28:25-26, compare with Isa. 6:8-9]).
c. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are portrayed as distinct persons in Scripture (John 14:25-26; 17:1-26).
I don’t profess to comprehend fully the complexity of God’s being. But as a creature I am content to live with mystery (Psa. 131). I hope this helps to clarify what I was trying to say in an earlier post.
Warm regards,
Bob G.
Bob,
When I grow up, I want to be like you!
Your loyal friend,
Scott W
Scott, can I be like you when I grow up?
Will I ever grow up?
Todd…you don’t wanna be like me! You’re afraid even to visit me when in NC! 🙂
Scott
“Do you hold the same view of the literature which Joseph Smith authored? Does the Book of Mormon also provide a “constructed reflection of reality” in distinction from reality itself? Will new canonical literature arise that will render Joseph Smith’s teachings obsolete?”
Yes, yes, and already has happened (depending on how we define “obselete.”) Mormons don’t believe that scripture (ANY scripture) is a full, complete systematic exposition of truth, nor that all scripture speaks with one voice. We hold to prophets who are fallible but inspired spokesmen for God, who reveals truth line upon line. Joseph Smith thought there were yet more things to be revelaed, whether new things, clarifications or deeper understandings of old things. This is embedded in the 13 Articles of Faith, # 9, as well as a host of statements by leaders of the LDS Church. (The summary in there by Richard Mouw is particularly illuminating.)
“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
D&C contains at least one revelation revealed after Joseph Smith that enlarges upon something he taught.
So what hwe have here is not really haggling over this passage or that passage, but very different worldviews or paradigms, and paradigm debate is often fruitless.
“But if the OT prophets, Christ, and his apostles believed in the existence of spiritual, non-physical beings, then I’d prefer to follow their teaching.”
But again, it remains to be demonstrated that this “spiritual non-physical beings” is what they believed, and not something modern Protestants eisegete into the text! For example, David Paulsen, an LDS philosopher (who also happens to have a law degree) has published in Harvard Theological Review on the topic that the earliest Christians (following a Jewish model, IIRC) held that spirit, pneuma, was material! His is not the only article on this topic out there, but since he’s LDS, it comes more readily to mind.
“My commitment to the veracity of Scripture compels me to affirm that the Genesis record is accurate.”
This also is something I see as being imposed on the text, not something the text itself affirms. Even if it did, it would be a logical fallacy to simply accept it. Unless you wish to argue that either “well, you have to accept it because it’s the Bible!” (which is special pleading) or else that you have some external confirmation, which puts you smack into LDS epistemological territory, something EV’s in particular delight in ridiculing. (There is, incidentally, an amusing debate between James White and Daniel Peterson/William Hamblin in which White finally admits that he believes the Bible to be true because the Spirit of God tells him so.)
In any case, this has been a pleasant and thought-provoking discussion, for which I thank you 🙂
In particular, thanks for the civility. It’s not often something granted in discussion to we unregenerate evil Mormans 😉
Dear Nitsav,
The pleasure was mine. By God’s grace I want to treat my neighbor as I should want him to treat me. I am sorry that at present I’m preoccupied with a writing project and therefore cannot continue our discussion. But if we have the opportunity in the future, I should like to discuss the following points, raised by your last post:
1. What was Christ’s view of the Old Testament canon of his day, the Law and the Prophets (or Law, Prophets, and Psalms (i.e., Kethuvim)?
2. What does Christ teach about the possibility of personal entities existing apart from or outside physical bodies?
3. An epistemological question: Are there “properly basic beliefs” or “ultimate presuppositions” that do not require “special pleading” (i.e., circular reasoning)? Since everyone must have a pou sto (Greek for ‘place to stand’), that is, some set of ultimate presuppositions which serve as the criterion by which all other truth claims are measured, then what criterion is used to measure and evaluate such “ultimate presuppositions”? If one uses one’s ultimate presupposition to evaluate his ultimate presupposition, then he would seem to be, as you say, “begging the question.” But if he uses another criterion to judge his ultimate epistemological starting point, then he has just destroyed his worldview paradigm by positing a different starting point.
4. I believe in the Scriptures as the Word of God for two reasons: (1) they are in general self-attesting, that is, they come to the community of God’s people as God’s canonical revelation, and the authors cross-reference works within the canon, attributing to these other works divine authority. But that’s only step one. (2) The Scriptures are self-authenticating, that is, they convey a revelation that authenticates itself to the heart of God’s images. To put it another way, the Scripture resonates within man’s heart as God’s word. Perhaps this is similar to the LDS claim. I have heard it called “a burning in the bosom,” so to speak. If this is so, then our epistemology may have some similarity or point of contact. Perhaps the “nature of self-authentication” would be a further question to explore. Does God’s revelation of himself, whether through creation, providence, conscience, or special forms of revelation (prophecy, theophany, scripture, etc.) authenticate itself? And if so, how?
But I’ve already said too much. My project due date is January 15th. Perhaps after that date we can further explore these topics together if you have time. I hope you enjoy the holiday season.
Your friend,
Bob Gonzales
This is odd: All of the theophanies in the OT to which Mormons appeal to support their idea that God the Father has a body are appearances of YHWH (or Jehovah).
Do these Mormons believe that God the Father is Jehovah? Or if Jehovah is the Son, do these Mormons believe that the Son had a body prior to his incarnation in the womb of Mary?
Mormons don’t read the Jehovah/elohim father/son distinction back in to the OT. It’s not something we developed out of the OT, but a conventional usage.
“do these Mormons believe that the Son had a body prior to his incarnation in the womb of Mary?”
Nope.
Nitsav,
You assert that Mormons don’t read the Jehovah/elohim father/son distinction back into the OT. I’m not so sure about this. Consider the following references in which some weighty Mormon sources identify the pre-mortal Christ as Jehovah:
** “Christ is Jehovah. Through childhood … I had the mistaken idea that the God of the scriptures was Elohim, the Father, and that all through the Old Testament we were reading of the Father when the prophets spoke of “God” or “The Lord.” … I did not know that Jehovah, or the future Christ, was the God of the burning bush when Moses received his call to spectacular service…. ” (“The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.8)
** “We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27)” (Gospel Principles, Chapter 3: taken from LDS.ORG).
** “When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in the Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God (Bible Dictionary in Mormon Holy Bible, p. 681 [Notice how the entry reads: “God, is generally the Father,” but Jehovah . . . is the Son” – In other words, Jehovah is not used as a title for the Father]).
** Sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith stated, “Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors” (Gospel Doctrine, p.70).
** Mormon Doctrine, “Jehovah” (p. 392).
** See the Book of Mormon index under “Jehovah”.
** See “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve” in Articles of Faith by James Talmage, pp. 465-473.
** “Jehovah” = “Jesus Christ” (The Deseret Book® LDS Internet Library A Topical Guide to the Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, © 1977 Deseret Book Company).
Scott, I’m well aware of the references.
LDS teaching manuals and those who do LDS exegesis don’t look at the Hebrew of a given passage and conclude that if it says Elohim, the Father is talking, and if Jehovah, then the son.
One manual (I don’t have the reference handy) flatly says that the scriptures often do not specify whether it is Father or Son speaking.
For more on this, see
http://en.fairmormon.org/Elohim_and_Jehovah
Nitsav,
The article to which you refered me doesn’t prove that Mormons have typically viewed “YHWH” or Jehovah as a generic title for deity, applicable to both the Father and the Son. There is one quote that might do the trick, but there are no refereces to support it: “Nineteenth-century Mormons—including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor—generally used Jehovah as the name of God the Father.”
Do you have any references to support the above quote?
Nitsav,
The article quotes from McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”. But McConkie’s book, under “Tetragramaton,” clearly asserts that “Jehovah is the English form of the actual name by which the Lord Jesus was known anciently”. Also, under the heading “Jehovah,” McConkie links the Hebrew Yahweh, the God of Israel, to Christ: “they are one and the same Person”.
Scott, since when did McConkie know anything about Hebrew?
I’m telling what I see as both as a Semiticist and a faithful LDS who has done extensive reading in LDS doctrine and history, who reads the Ensign each month.
Asserting that Jesus is the God of the old testament is a separate issue from asserting that every place one sees yhwh in the text, it’s Jesus.
Follow some references at the bottom of the article. I’m about to get logged off this timed public computer.
Nitsav,
I’m a bit taken back at the manner with which you dismiss McConkie’s work. Like you, McConkie was a “faithful LDS,” and although he wasn’t a semiticist, he was an apostle of your church and an expert in Mormon doctrine. I’m persuaded that McConkie’s statements about YHWH represents a long-standing doctrinal tradition in your church.
The article that you encouraged me to read doesn’t persuade me that LDS tradition hasn’t identified YHWH of OT revelation as exclusively the pre-mortal Christ. I don’t know who wrote the article, but I think it’s poorly reasoned and seems to vacilate between two different views of Scripture and the development of Israel’s religion.
OT revelation details one YHWH who is Israel’s Creator and God; this God appeared to patriarchs and other faithful worshipers. He alone is YHWH; and yet the NT makes it clear that YHWH is both the Father and Son. This supports Trinitarian theology.
If you’re willing to stand with the article you referenced, then you may not use the OT appearances of YHWH as evidence that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone since you don’t know whether the YHWH-theophany in any given passage was the Father or the Son (who didn’t have a body at that time).
I think that most LDS rely on D&C 130 when they say that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/130/22#22
And that is huge problem, Brian, for those holding fast to the biblical scripture.
Nitsav and Scott . . . interesting conversation.
I am waiting for a modern LDS apostle to publicly declare that McConkie had no idea what he was talking about, that this is not “Mormon Doctrine”.
Another interesting comment typed out yesterday . . .
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/02/18/peculiar-people-mormons-and-jehovahs-witnesses/#comment-5147
My point is that most Mormons don’t “appeal [to the Bible] to support their idea that God the Father has a body” (Scott, comment #29). Mormons appeal to the D&C, and then are free to consider an embodied God in any, all, or some of the biblical theophanies.
Todd said:
“And that is huge problem, Brian, for those holding fast to the biblical scripture.”
I don’t know if you were referring to God being embodied or to LDS using additional scripture Todd.
But, simply, I am glad Jesus is revelation of deity in the fullest sense and that he is the person who reveals the Father in the fullest sense. So I have no problems with God (the Father) having a body.
Let’s be honest here, there are no passages that say the Father is non-embodied (or “immaterial”), so there is simply nothing biblical that forecloses such a position.