Eloheim And Jehovah

[Hammer]

In recent years, many anti-Mormons have latched onto the significance of Eloheim and Jehovah in LDS theology. The claim is that Latter-day Saints speak of the Father as Eloheim and the Son as Jehovah, whereas the Old Testament clearly does not distinguish them as two divine beings, and often denies such a distinction. 1 Kings 18:39 is a good example of this.

I find this argument shallow, since knowledgeable Latter-day Saints have said that it is a nomenclature used for expedience. I have also noticed that it has a precedent in the New Testament. How many times does Paul speak of â??God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ?â? If â??Godâ? translates Eloheim, and Lord translates â??Jehovah,â? this is a genuine scriptural warrant for the LDS usage.

Yet given these satisfactory justifications for using the names this way, another question remains unanswered, or perhaps, more accurately, unasked: If the LDS convention is to use these names to distinguish the Father and the Son, what is the LDS theology concerning the names? For instance, when Mormons read the Old Testament, what do the names Eloheim and Jehovah mean to them in that context?

When reading the OT I see Eloheim meaning the God head. Jehovah meaning Christ.

[soren]

When reading the OT I see Eloheim meaning the God head. Jehovah meaning Christ.

I can see that supported in the New Testament, but I don't see the OT following that, at least not consistently.

Cannot Jehovah also mean the Godhead? There are places where the name is applied to the Father, Ps. 2:7 and 110:1, for instance.

[Hammer]

I can see that supported in the New Testament, but I don't see the OT following that, at least not consistently.

Cannot Jehovah also mean the Godhead? There are places where the name is applied to the Father, Ps. 2:7 and 110:1, for instance.

Are not both Father?

[soren]

Are not both Father?

Both are Father in that both are Creator, as we see in Gen. 1:26. Hence Isaiah calls the messiah, "The everlasting Father" in Is. 9:6.

But the verses I mentioned in my post before, apply "Jehovah" to the Father as distinct from the Son, not in virtue of any shared role whereby they would be called Father together. Thus Ps. 2:7 is about the Father begetting the son: "I will declare the decree: the LORD (Jehovah) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This is interpreted by Heb. 1:4-5: "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?"

Ps. 110:1 is about the Father speaking to the Son and giving him his glory: "The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Adonai), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Again Heb. 10:12-13 gives us an intepretation: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."

As a Catholic, I believe the undivided Being of God is possessed by three distinct persons. Hence, there is no problem with the fact that they share names, as they are one in being, yet communicate with each other as distinct individuals as we see in these verses. The plural sense of the name "Elohim" is itself suggestive of this idea.

Now, I also believe the Father or all three person together can properly be called Elohim, and that the Son can be distinguished from the Father Elohim as Jehovah in certain clear contexts. There is strong New Testament support for such a practice. I do not, however, see how the name Jehovah can be restricted to the person of the Son in light of such verses as these.

While this is all fine for a Catholic, I do not propose this necessarily as a problem for Mormonism. I am told that the nomenclature is not absolute, but I want to know how a Latter-day Saint interprets the names in all the contexts in which they are used, some of which don't match the explanations I have yet heard, and for which I await further explanation.

[Tanyan]

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com

[Hammer]

soren

Both are Father in that both are Creator, as we see in Gen. 1:26. Hence Isaiah calls the messiah, "The everlasting Father" in Is. 9:6.

Yes. I refer to Mosiah 15 for my understanding of Christ as Father. If you read your scriptures with this in mind, you will see a whole different idea imerge.

But the verses I mentioned in my post before, apply "Jehovah" to the Father as distinct from the Son, not in virtue of any shared role whereby they would be called Father together. Thus Ps. 2:7 is about the Father begetting the son: "I will declare the decree: the LORD (Jehovah) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This is interpreted by Heb. 1:4-5: "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?"

You see Mosiah 15 has the this all explained how Christ is both the Father and the Son.

Ps. 110:1 is about the Father speaking to the Son and giving him his glory: "The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Adonai), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Again Heb. 10:12-13 gives us an intepretation: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."

I also think Mosiah 15 explains this.

As a Catholic, I believe the undivided Being of God is possessed by three distinct persons. Hence, there is no problem with the fact that they share names, as they are one in being, yet communicate with each other as distinct individuals as we see in these verses. The plural sense of the name "Elohim" is itself suggestive of this idea.

I think you will find Mosiah 15 almost in complete agreement with your beliefs then.

Now, I also believe the Father or all three person together can properly be called Elohim, and that the Son can be distinguished from the Father Elohim as Jehovah in certain clear contexts. There is strong New Testament support for such a practice. I do not, however, see how the name Jehovah can be restricted to the person of the Son in light of such verses as these.

While this is all fine for a Catholic, I do not propose this necessarily as a problem for Mormonism. I am told that the nomenclature is not absolute, but I want to know how a Latter-day Saint interprets the names in all the contexts in which they are used, some of which don't match the explanations I have yet heard, and for which I await further explanation.

I believe that Jehovah means "to be" as well as referring to Christ. Sometimes their names are 'statements' of WHO they are in state of being rather than identity. Do you understand this? Or do I need to further explain?

[HiJolly]

I'll have to search for the source but a while back I was reading about Eloheim and how it is used to describe gods, not God. That El was the actual Father God, in Canaanite Pantheon beliefs. If this is the case Christ is in essence Eloheim, a god, and still Jehovah. Eloheim being more of a title, rather than an actual name.

At the beginning of "Jesus the Christ", Talmage says that we have never known God's personal name - all references we have in scripture are titles.

HiJolly

[Hammer]

At the beginning of "Jesus the Christ", Talmage says that we have never known God's personal name - all references we have in scripture are titles.

HiJolly

I think Talmage had it right.

consider these references which seem to contradict unti; you read Mosiah 15.

1 Tim. 2: 5-6

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a bransom for all, to be testified in due time.

John 3: 16

16

[structurecop]

Who did people in the Old Testament pray to according to lds theology Eloheim or Jehova?

I don't believe there was a distinction in ancient times other than geographically. Most scholars believe El/Elohiem to be the personal name according to the northern tribes and Ea/Yahweh the personal name according to the south. The conflation occurs when the texts are redacted from different geographic sources and they are mixed in the OT.

[soren]

Yes. I refer to Mosiah 15 for my understanding of Christ as Father. If you read your scriptures with this in mind, you will see a whole different idea imerge.

You see Mosiah 15 has the this all explained how Christ is both the Father and the Son.

I also think Mosiah 15 explains this.

I think you will find Mosiah 15 almost in complete agreement with your beliefs then.

I believe that Jehovah means "to be" as well as referring to Christ. Sometimes their names are 'statements' of WHO they are in state of being rather than identity. Do you understand this? Or do I need to further explain?

Either you misunderstand my beliefs or I misunderstand Mosiah 15. In fact, I find it very starkly at odds with my theology. But rather than leaping into that, let me define my own position a bit more, so you can see for youself why I think it differs from Mosiah 15.

The most impoirtant thing to note is that there are two senses in which I use the term "Father" with respect to God. In one sense Christ is the Father, but in another sense he absolutely isn't.

Christ is Father only insofar as he is our Creator. He, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, made our bodies, our spirits, the entirety of heaven and earth, everything that exists other than God. (Col. 1:15-17) When Isaiah speaks of Christ as the "everlasting father," this is what I understand him to mean, that Christ is Father only relative to us.

But I mean that in a totally different sense from saying that the person of Christ is the person of the Father, that is, that Christ is his own Father. That idea is a heresy called modalism, rejected by the Catholic Church since the earliest centuries, and which I fully reject as well. For if it were true, the scriptures would provide us with many absurdities, like Christ praying to himself, and fathering himself, offering himself to himself, receiving glory from himself, and mediating between man and himself. Et cetera.

Therefore, when I speak of Christ in terms of the relation of the persons within the Trinity, I absolutely deny that he is the Father. The common existence of the Father and Son in Catholicism in no way implies common personhood. It is therefore of necessity to say that the Son is not the Father, that the Father is not the Son, that the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so forth.

From this you may realize that when I speak about the Father and Son in Ps. 2:7 and 110:1, much hinges on which sense of "Father" am I speaking of. Do I mean only God the Father or the whole Trinity? Since these verses do not speak of Christ under the aspect of his Creatorship, but rather as he relates to his Father, as he is distinct from his father, I interpret them in the latter sense. Thus in Ps. 110:1 the person referred to as Adonai is not the person referred to a Jehovah, because the Son, in fact, isn't the Father, even though the Father is Jehovah.

Can you see from this why I find no harmony between my beliefs and Mosiah 15?

[The Gardener]

In recent years, many anti-Mormons have latched onto the significance of Eloheim and Jehovah in LDS theology. The claim is that Latter-day Saints speak of the Father as Eloheim and the Son as Jehovah, whereas the Old Testament clearly does not distinguish them as two divine beings, and often denies such a distinction. 1 Kings 18:39 is a good example of this.

I find this argument shallow, since knowledgeable Latter-day Saints have said that it is a nomenclature used for expedience. I have also noticed that it has a precedent in the New Testament. How many times does Paul speak of â??God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ?â? If â??Godâ? translates Eloheim, and Lord translates â??Jehovah,â? this is a genuine scriptural warrant for the LDS usage.

Yet given these satisfactory justifications for using the names this way, another question remains unanswered, or perhaps, more accurately, unasked: If the LDS convention is to use these names to distinguish the Father and the Son, what is the LDS theology concerning the names? For instance, when Mormons read the Old Testament, what do the names Eloheim and Jehovah mean to them in that context?

Eloheim is the pluralized form of God in Hebrews Gods..Eloi being the singular

Jehovah comes the YHWH name in the Old Testament the jews wouldn't say his name

out of reverance. It was translated incorrectly into English as JHWH and the verbs from

adonai were added to make Jahovah, later Jehovah.

Jesus called himself the same person in Exodus 3:14 in John 8 believe while disputing with the Jews.

Before Moses was, I am. Saying to the effect he was the same person talking with Moses saying I am that I am. Saying he was The one taking Moses on the Mountain. The Jews knew what he was talking about because they picked up rocks to stone him for blasphemy.

[soren]

Eloheim is the pluralized form of God in Hebrews Gods..Eloi being the singular

Jehovah comes the YHWH name in the Old Testament the jews wouldn't say his name

out of reverance. It was translated incorrectly into English as JHWH and the verbs from

adonai were added to make Jahovah, later Jehovah.

Jesus called himself the same person in Exodus 3:14 in John 8 believe while disputing with the Jews.

Before Moses was, I am. Saying to the effect he was the same person talking with Moses saying I am that I am. Saying he was The one taking Moses on the Mountain. The Jews knew what he was talking about because they picked up rocks to stone him for blasphemy.

I agree with all of that. My question has not to do with whether Jesus is Jehovah, because he is, but how LDS theology interprets verses that speak of the Father as Jehovah as well, specifically Ps. 2:7 & 110:1. I also had a question about verses teaching that Jehovah is Elohim, which has already been answered, but I think only partly.

[Hammer]

Either you misunderstand my beliefs or I misunderstand Mosiah 15. In fact, I find it very starkly at odds with my theology. But rather than leaping into that, let me define my own position a bit more, so you can see for youself why I think it differs from Mosiah 15.

This could be, or perhaps you are understanding Mosiah differently than I do.

The most impoirtant thing to note is that there are two senses in which I use the term "Father" with respect to God. In one sense Christ is the Father, but in another sense he absolutely isn't.

I also see it this way. He isn't His own Father whom He prays to or refers to in the NT. I also see Father as one who has 'increased Himself'.

Christ is Father only insofar as he is our Creator. He, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, made our bodies, our spirits, the entirety of heaven and earth, everything that exists other than God. (Col. 1:15-17) When Isaiah speaks of Christ as the "everlasting father," this is what I understand him to mean, that Christ is Father only relative to us.

I also believe this is so. This is why Mosiah seems so on with me. He became the Son so that He could become our personal Father through the atonement, thus giving us rebirth.

But I mean that in a totally different sense from saying that the person of Christ is the person of the Father, that is, that Christ is his own Father. That idea is a heresy called modalism, rejected by the Catholic Church since the earliest centuries, and which I fully reject as well. For if it were true, the scriptures would provide us with many absurdities, like Christ praying to himself, and fathering himself, offering himself to himself, receiving glory from himself, and mediating between man and himself. Et cetera.

Agreed.

Therefore, when I speak of Christ in terms of the relation of the persons within the Trinity, I absolutely deny that he is the Father. The common existence of the Father and Son in Catholicism in no way implies common personhood. It is therefore of necessity to say that the Son is not the Father, that the Father is not the Son, that the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so forth.

Again I agree. Mosiah is clear within its context what Christ's Fatherhood is referring to. He is the Father in giving Himself over to the birth into Flesh. But He has an actual Father who is separate from Him.

From this you may realize that when I speak about the Father and Son in Ps. 2:7 and 110:1, much hinges on which sense of "Father" am I speaking of. Do I mean only God the Father or the whole Trinity? Since these verses do not speak of Christ under the aspect of his Creatorship, but rather as he relates to his Father, as he is distinct from his father, I interpret them in the latter sense. Thus in Ps. 110:1 the person referred to as Adonai is not the person referred to a Jehovah, because the Son, in fact, isn't the Father, even though the Father is Jehovah.

I understand that this is how you see these verses, however, I see them more in line with Mosiah. Infact very specifically so. But I have no problem with the way you see it. It just doesn't make as much sense to me.

Can you see from this why I find no harmony between my beliefs and Mosiah 15?

I do see your point, though I see it as chosen, rather than absolute. No problem there either.

[krose]

At the beginning of "Jesus the Christ", Talmage says that we have never known God's personal name - all references we have in scripture are titles.

Which causes me to point to the question in my previous post (#25 above):

How is it possible to ever break the third commandment and take his name "in vain?"

Anyone?

[Hammer]

Which causes me to point to the question in my previous post (#25 above):

How is it possible to ever break the third commandment and take his name "in vain?"

Anyone?

His title? His essence, station? Everyone knows that when someone is using the word God in vain, it is referring to Heavenly Father or Christ. I hear Jesus's name taken all the time as well.

Jesus is an actual name.

[krose]

His title? His essence, station? Everyone knows that when someone is using the word God in vain, it is referring to Heavenly Father or Christ.

Everyone knows? I believe you just discounted the majority of the world's population. You may have upset Shiva. Watch out.

When I was in Japan I sometimes heard people use the term "kamisama" (god), and I can assure you they were not referring -- even in the slightest -- to the Hebrew god.

I hear Jesus's name taken all the time as well.

Jesus is an actual name.

True, that one is a name, but the Children of Israel couldn't possibly have been expected to know it in order to use it "in vain," or for selfish reasons.

Actually, the most logical explanation I have heard for this commandment is that it is rooted in the ancient superstition that if you learn the secret name of a deity, you can then invoke the name to exercise control over that deity. You could then use the name for your own selfish purposes ("in vain" or for your own vanity). Perhaps the old story of the genie in the lamp being obliged to do your bidding came from a similar notion.

At any rate, we still have people invoking holy names as an indicator of power and authority, such as saying or commanding "in the name of...".

[Hammer]

Interesting information.

[myleague]

At the beginning of "Jesus the Christ", Talmage says that we have never known God's personal name - all references we have in scripture are titles.

HiJolly

Thank you for that, I've owned the book but never read it, the mere size of it scared me. I'm not a fan of reading; I'm waiting for the movie.

Nice picture of a hobo nickel, do you have one? I was received on that was my grandfather's, the story came down that it was carved by a Jew in an interment camp. Wasn't till years later I learned the real history behind those nickels, and I was saddened to know that my nickel wasnâ??t unique.

[HiJolly]

Thank you for that, I've owned the book but never read it, the mere size of it scared me. I'm not a fan of reading; I'm waiting for the movie.

Nice picture of a hobo nickel, do you have one? I was received on that was my grandfather's, the story came down that it was carved by a Jew in an interment camp. Wasn't till years later I learned the real history behind those nickels, and I was saddened to know that my nickel wasnâ??t unique.

No, I don't have one. I found the photo (& photo of the camel on the other side) on a Hadji Ali (HiJolly) website.

HiJolly

[kamenraider]

Boyd Kirkland wrote an article called Jehovah As the Father in this issue of Sunstone.