Jesus is God of the OT?

[Deborah]

There are some problems with your approach here. The "Lord" does appear to the brother of Jared, but the "Lord" does not identify himself as Jehovah.

Given that the person to whom the Lord appeared was from the same lands and heritage as those in the OT there can be only one understanding of who the Lord is and that is Jehovah or whatever name he was known as at that time. Our understanding of God the Father is certainly from other revelation but the Bible also makes clear they are separate Beings, unless you want to twist the scriptures which talk of Jesus pleading with his Father or the voice of the Father when Jesus was baptised and the many other scriptures which support such doctrine.

[Kevin Christensen]

One of the main points of Margaret Barker's work has been to demonstrate that the first Christians recognized Jesus as Yahweh. Her book The Great Angel is the best approach to the notion, exploring a wide range of sources.

The evidence that the first Christians identified Jesus with the God of the Jews is overwhelming; it was their customary way of reading the Old Testament. The appearances of Yahweh or the angel of Yahweh were read as manifestations of the pre-existent Christ. The Son of God was their name for Yahweh. This can be seen clearly in the writings of Paul who applied several 'Lord' texts to Jesus. . . . Now Paul, though completely at home in the Greek world, claimed to have been the strictest of Jews, educated in Jerusalem and zealous for the traditions of his people. How is it that he, of all people, could distinguish between God and Lord as he did in 1 Corinthians, if this was not already a part of first century Jewish belief? He emphasized that this distinction was fundamental to his belief: "there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:6). This is, to say the least, a remarkable contradiction of Deuteronomy 6:4, if he understood that verse in the way that we do, as a statement of monotheism. If, on the other hand, it was a statement of the unity of Yahweh as the one inclusive summing up of all the heavenly powers, the 'elohim, then it would have been compatible with belief in God Most High also.1

A short summary appears here:

http://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

Brant Gardner has an insightful FAIR presentation on the topic:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html

Gardner is very good on showing the different contexts in which to appreciate the titles of Father and Son.

And I have a section in Paradigms regained in here, scrolling to "A Word About Book of Mormon Theology and Paradigms."

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=50

The identity is also explicit in the Book of Mormon, as some posters have shown. And it does show up in Mormon thought early. Parley Pratt's hymm, for example, "once a meek and lowly lamb, Now the Lord, the great I AM." Those who argue for an evolution in LDS teaching should not ignore the much more comprehensive work of Bruening and Paulson here:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[wenglund]

Interesting how things catch your eye once you hear about it.

Before this week, I had never heard that Jesus is God of the OT. I have now heard it 3 different times!

I am not sure how a person could attend the temple and not have heard of this notion. But, I am just curious. Was it your previous understanding that Jesus became God during New Testament times? Before this week, what did you suppose was Jesus' role during Old Testament times. What was your previous understanding about when Jesus became intercessor between the Father and mankind, as well as creator, "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father"?

As for biblical prooftext for the notion, I think Jesus, himself, intimated it best in the conundrum he posed to the Pharisees (see Mt. 22:41-46):

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Clearly, David, during OT times, considered Christ to be his Lord.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brenda]

We have the very clear account in Ether 3 where the Lord (Jehovah) shows himself to the brother of Jared and proclaims

Jesus after all is creator of this world and is the one who has authority of it under the Father, Elohim.

I do find it interesting that many who do a cursory reading of the OT find the Jehovah to be harsh and unforgiving in contrast to the image the see in Christ in the NT. However, I have heard church scholars talk about the mercy and love they see in the Jehovah of the OT. Furthermore, the people were a great deal more stubborn and rebellious and as such were living the lesser law rather than the law Jehovah wanted to give them through Moses.

I agree. However, as I suggested in an above post, perhaps the difference is in how the accounts were written. Maybe the customs of those days, thousands of years ago, promoted a stern and angry God. They, the prophets of old, wrote about him, as they felt they should write about him. Maybe they felt that was more respectful. Maybe they wrote about God in a way so as to encourage greater obedience and reverence from the people. Perhaps God was as loving and gentle as we see him in the NT, but the writers of the OT portrayed him to be more stern.

[Lightbearer]

Interesting how things catch your eye once you hear about it.

Before this week, I had never heard that Jesus is God of the OT. I have now heard it 3 different times!

Could someone give me a Readers Digest version of the reasons why LDS believe this? Is this an LDS only teaching, or is it common throughout all Christianity?

I must say that I am speechless... I was under the impression that you were born in the church and even served a mission? 30 years ago I was teaching this to investigators in the Mission field. Jesus is not only Jehovah, but created this earth (under the direction of the Father) and He will judge the world. Surely you have read or heard the following passage from the Book of Mormon:

(Ether 3:6-16) "And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear. And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen? And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this? And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me. And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak? And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie. And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh."

In addition the end of the Book of Mormon also mentions Jehovah by name:

(Moroni 10:34) "And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen."

Now we know from other revelations that Christ is the judge of both quick and dead (The Father judges no man but hath committed all judgement to His Son.)

Hope this helps.

[Vance]

When God created man, the Father walked and talked with man and had an open relationship with him. But once man sinned against the Father, the Father could no longer speak to man, or vice versa, without an intercessor. That intercessor was Jehovah/Jesus.

When God spoke to Moses, it was Jehovah. When he spoke to Enoch, Abraham, Noah and the brother of Jared, he was Jehovah. The Father only appears to man to say, "This is my Beloved Son, hear Him."

Once Adam-ondi-Ahman occurs, and once the keys are all restored to Jesus, whose right it is to rule, then Jesus will vanquish Satan and, at the end of the Millennium, he will turn it all back to the Father, who will accept the work, and it will pass into perfection and part of His glory. Then, too, because of the Atonement, we also will be like Jesus and inherit all that the Father has.

Until then, though, the Father does not commune directly with man â?? only to bear witness of the Son. That's why, in the first vision, it's the Son that talks about the creeds and the churches and so forth.

Well said.

I would add that Jesus is also described as "the Mediator". And being fully authorized to speak for and AS GOD, the Father it can cause confusion when He changes from speaking as Jehovah (the Son) to speaking as (Elohim) GOD, the Father, thus causing some to be confused.

[Cold Steel]

Yes, it's one of the doctrines that really seemed to have been well thought out by Joseph Smith, if he was the one who concocted the magnificent theology that surrounds and permeates Mormonism. Jehovah/Jesus is the mediator between the Father and man. It's not a matter of figuring out who's talking: Jehovah or the Father; it's always Jehovah. The Father cannot talk to man directly, and if He does, He does it through the Son, the divine mediator. This is exactly the theology taught in the story of the Brother of Jared.

[Brenda]

Yes, it's one of the doctrines that really seemed to have been well thought out by Joseph Smith, if he was the one who concocted the magnificent theology that surrounds and permeates Mormonism. Jehovah/Jesus is the mediator between the Father and man. It's not a matter of figuring out who's talking: Jehovah or the Father; it's always Jehovah. The Father cannot talk to man directly, and if He does, He does it through the Son, the divine mediator. This is exactly the theology taught in the story of the Brother of Jared.

I've never really thought about this before. It's interesting that, as you say, God speaks through Jesus Christ, yet when we pray, we pray directly to God the Father (in the name of Christ). So when we receive answers, are they directly from God or is the Holy Ghost acting as the mediator?

[mysteryman]

Given that the person to whom the Lord appeared was from the same lands and heritage as those in the OT there can be only one understanding of who the Lord is and that is Jehovah or whatever name he was known as at that time. Our understanding of God the Father is certainly from other revelation but the Bible also makes clear they are separate Beings, unless you want to twist the scriptures which talk of Jesus pleading with his Father or the voice of the Father when Jesus was baptised and the many other scriptures which support such doctrine.

The main problem with your post is that the passage of Ether doesn't reflect current Mormon understanding of God that the Father is Elohim and the Son is Jehovah, this wasn't standard until 1916. The passage from Ether Jesus declares himself the Father and the Son without qualification, this passage is very modalist in nature and doesn't reflect current Mormon theology at all.

[Kevin Christensen]

The main problem with your post is that the passage of Ether doesn't reflect current Mormon understanding of God that the Father is Elohim and the Son is Jehovah, this wasn't standard until 1916. The passage from Ether Jesus declares himself the Father and the Son without qualification, this passage is very modalist in nature and doesn't reflect current Mormon theology at all.

The passage has a context. As does the title of "Father", which can be appropriate to different individuals at different times. I'm both a Father and a Son, and oddly, no one confuses me either my earthly father, my Heavenly Father, the Father of Our Country, the Founding Fathers, or the Father of Abstract Art, or even the Godfather of Soul.

Read Brant's essay, and the detailed FARMS Review essay by Bruening and Paulson.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Scottie]

I must say that I am speechless... I was under the impression that you were born in the church and even served a mission?

Just to clarify, I was born in the church, but I did not serve a mission.

Jesus is not only Jehovah, but created this earth (under the direction of the Father) and He will judge the world.

Well, I had learned that Jesus designed this world, then God created it. Not sure where I learned that...

I also learned that JS will be judging us on the right arm of Jesus. I don't know how much truth there is to this statement.

I wonder, would there be any benefit to revising the Bible to replace 'God' with 'Jesus' in the OT if the consensus of Christians agree that it is, indeed, Jesus?

[David T]

That's what the Old Testament Stories (for kids) LDS illustrated book does...

[Anticas]

The main problem with your post is that the passage of Ether doesn't reflect current Mormon understanding of God that the Father is Elohim and the Son is Jehovah, this wasn't standard until 1916. The passage from Ether Jesus declares himself the Father and the Son without qualification, this passage is very modalist in nature and doesn't reflect current Mormon theology at all.

I would like to see a reference to JS referring to Jehovah as God the Father. I do not believe there has ever been any real confusion over the issue from a chuch policy standpoint. Particular members may have been confused after reading one passage or another and not properly putting them in the context of the entire cannon, but I do not believe the church has ever changed its stand on this issue in any way.

[lukas_s]

I would like to see a reference to JS referring to Jehovah as God the Father. I do not believe there has ever been any real confusion over the issue from a chuch policy standpoint. Particular members may have been confused after reading one passage or another and not properly putting them in the context of the entire cannon, but I do not believe the church has ever changed its stand on this issue in any way.

Your beliefs would be wrong.

Jehovah as Father

Lots of good references in there that you can check out for yourself

[wenglund]

I wonder, would there be any benefit to revising the Bible to replace 'God' with 'Jesus' in the OT if the consensus of Christians agree that it is, indeed, Jesus?

Since most Christians view "God" as entailing the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, and since they view this Truine as the "God" of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, I don't believe they would think it beneficial to revise the Bible as you suggest. In fact, some of the more liberal factions of Christianity have thought it beneficial to alter specific references to individual persons of "God" (particularly those references that are gender-based, like "Father") and suplant instead generic designators (like "the holy one").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anticas]

Your beliefs would be wrong.

Jehovah as Father

Lots of good references in there that you can check out for yourself

This entire artical is nothing but one mans oppinion based on his perception of events.

JS knew that the Father and the Son were seperate personages from the very beginning. His very first vision had them standing next to each other. I somehow doubt he simply forgot that for the next few years until he re-remembered it.

I don't have the time or the inclination to rebut this entire article, but the single example I just gave calls everything in it into suspicion. That in addition to the fact that the intent of the author here is to call into question LDS beliefs before he even starts.

You are going to have to do better than that.

[Deborah]

The passage from Ether Jesus declares himself the Father and the Son without qualification, this passage is very modalist in nature and doesn't reflect current Mormon theology at all.

Abinadi clarifies why he is called both in Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Sonâ??

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Sonâ??

[Scottie]

This entire artical is nothing but one mans oppinion based on his perception of events.

JS knew that the Father and the Son were seperate personages from the very beginning. His very first vision had them standing next to each other. I somehow doubt he simply forgot that for the next few years until he re-remembered it.

I don't have the time or the inclination to rebut this entire article, but the single example I just gave calls everything in it into suspicion. That in addition to the fact that the intent of the author here is to call into question LDS beliefs before he even starts.

You are going to have to do better than that.

He seemed to forget that he saw the Father and Son together until about revision 6 of the first vision.

[lukas_s]

This entire artical is nothing but one mans oppinion based on his perception of events.

JS knew that the Father and the Son were seperate personages from the very beginning. His very first vision had them standing next to each other. I somehow doubt he simply forgot that for the next few years until he re-remembered it.

I don't have the time or the inclination to rebut this entire article, but the single example I just gave calls everything in it into suspicion. That in addition to the fact that the intent of the author here is to call into question LDS beliefs before he even starts.

You are going to have to do better than that.

I posted that more for the references given at the end of the article, and less for the substance of the article. Again, you can go do the reference checking yourself.

And yes, Joseph knew that the Father and Son were separate personages from the beginning. I believe this too. However, it is clear from Joseph's own statements and various other statements during that time that he did not carry the current LDS understand of Jehovah as premortal Jesus and Elohim as Heavenly Father.

The current LDS understanding wasn't standardized until 1916. The fact that it had to be standardized should call to attention the fact that the Church has not always equated Jehovah with Jesus Christ.

[Anticas]

He seemed to forget that he saw the Father and Son together until about revision 6 of the first vision.

That statement is highly debatable. There have been attacks on JS's vision accounts and I have heard plenty, none of which are convincing in their conclusions. Each of these attacks have come from people pre-disposed to look for fault in JS in any way they could seem to find it. So the source makes them suspect in and of themselves. Still, even after a preponderence of all the evidence I am confident to say the arguement that JS did not change his account beyond simply deciding what to say about it on one occasion or another is stronger than the contrary point of view.

I would be willing to bet you have told stories to your friends/family about something that happenned to you that if they were all typed up and put next to each other someone could say: Oh look, he left that part out in this one so obviously he changed his story. In reality you just weren't thinking to include or emphasize that part or that it wasn't of prime importance to the point you were perhaps trying to make when you told it. (this would even be more prevelant in an event where you may or may not wish to include all of the details of at any given time depending on the setting and the audience)

[mysteryman]

Abinadi clarifies why he is called both in Mosiah 15:

Mosiah 15, another excellent modalist passage from the Book of Mormon. "1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people." So God himself will come down, not the Son of God, but God himself.

"2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Sonâ??" So because of the flesh God is called the Son of God. Not becasue he is literally the Son of God as modern Mormondom would say, but because God is dwelling in the flesh.

"3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Sonâ??" God himself thus becomes the Father because it was the power of God that conceived him, and God is also the Son because he is dwelling in the flesh.

You couldn't have picked a better passage that demonstrates modalist ideas in the Book of Mormon that are contrary to current Mormon thought. Thanks!

[Scottie]

That statement is highly debatable. There have been attacks on JS's vision accounts and I have heard plenty, none of which are convincing in their conclusions. Each of these attacks have come from people pre-disposed to look for fault in JS in any way they could seem to find it. So the source makes them suspect in and of themselves. Still, even after a preponderence of all the evidence I am confident to say the arguement that JS did not change his account beyond simply deciding what to say about it on one occasion or another is stronger than the contrary point of view.

I would be willing to bet you have told stories to your friends/family about something that happenned to you that if they were all typed up and put next to each other someone could say: Oh look, he left that part out in this one so obviously he changed his story. In reality you just weren't thinking to include or emphasize that part or that it wasn't of prime importance to the point you were perhaps trying to make when you told it. (this would even be more prevelant in an event where you may or may not wish to include all of the details of at any given time depending on the setting and the audience)

Of course I have, as has everybody.

However, say I told a story where I glimpsed a gorilla in the wildness, which changed over time to a face to face encounter with bigfoot, would you perhaps question the story? Same with JS. It wasn't just a simple matter of leaving parts out for selective audiences. It grew more incredible each time he told it. It seems to be in JS MO to lie, under the excuse of God commanding him to lie, which apologists justify to the Nth degree.

I just can't fathom an audience who would believe he saw an angel, but would find it beyond belief that he saw God and Jesus.

[Deborah]

You couldn't have picked a better passage that demonstrates modalist ideas in the Book of Mormon that are contrary to current Mormon thought.

Saying â??having subjected the flesh to the will of the Fatherâ? clearly indicates to me that there is a separate Father. Unless heâ??s being schizophrenic, as most Christians portray him in the NT when heâ??s praying to himself.

The problem with the scriptures is they have to be taken in context, context being all the scriptures together. I think it is clear from early writings Joseph Smith recognized that God and Jesus were separate beings but either didnâ??t know how to express it to others or just didnâ??t think it was anything controversial. I personally never had an issue with this before I joined the church as I always believed they were separate because thatâ??s what the Bible said, even though my previous church taught otherwise.

[mysteryman]

Saying â??having subjected the flesh to the will of the Fatherâ? clearly indicates to me that there is a separate Father. Unless heâ??s being schizophrenic, as most Christians portray him in the NT when heâ??s praying to himself.

The problem with the scriptures is they have to be taken in context, context being all the scriptures together. I think it is clear from early writings Joseph Smith recognized that God and Jesus were separate beings but either didnâ??t know how to express it to others or just didnâ??t think it was anything controversial. I personally never had an issue with this before I joined the church as I always believed they were separate because thatâ??s what the Bible said, even though my previous church taught otherwise.

Its simple modalist type thought, it says, "and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son." The "flesh" is subjected to the Father, which is Jesus because he is both. The next sentence makes it clear that Jesus is both the Father and the Son. It is clearly not talking about two different sorts of Father's, the Father of Jesus and yet Jesus is also the Father in a sense. This passage, like the one in Either is clear, Jesus is both the Father and the Son. These verses are clear that God himself, not God the Son who is different from God the Father, God himself will come down and take on flesh. Because he was conceived by the power of God, which is Jesus since he is the one that came down, he is the Father. But because he dwells in the Flesh, he is the Son. Therefore Jesus is both the Father and Son, not in the trinitarian sense, but in the modalist sense. The Book of Mormon is very ambiguous when it comes to Gods nature. But when you isolate passages that are clearly not lifted from the New Testament, the message is that there is only one God and that one God is Jesus who is both the Father and the Son.

[ChristKnight]

Saying â??having subjected the flesh to the will of the Fatherâ? clearly indicates to me that there is a separate Father. Unless heâ??s being schizophrenic, as most Christians portray him in the NT when heâ??s praying to himself.

I love seeing this. Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus was praying to Himself, nor do we believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit also incarnated, as if they were all one Person. Sorry to go off topic, but I had to say this.