Mormon Theology And Yahweh

[Damien the Leper]

My question goes out to the Hebrew and Judaism scholars specifically but I also welcome the insights and information of others.

Given the history of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible and relationship with the Jews...do we as LDS draw the same conclusion as mainstream Christianity that Jesus is the same being as Yahweh?

If so, what is OUR reasoning and theological process that leads us to this conclusion.

If not, why not and how do we reason such?

Furthermore, considering what we know from the temple and that Jehovah is a bastardization of the name...what are we to conclude? Also, what can we draw as a solid conclusion about the relationship between El Elyon and Yahweh?

[Ron Beron]

My question goes out to the Hebrew and Judaism scholars specifically but I also welcome the insights and information of others.

Given the history of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible and relationship with the Jews...do we as LDS draw the same conclusion as mainstream Christianity that Jesus is the same being as Yahweh?

If so, what is OUR reasoning and theological process that leads us to this conclusion.

If not, why not and how do we reason such?

Furthermore, considering what we know from the temple and that Jehovah is a bastardization of the name...what are we to conclude? Also, what can we draw as a solid conclusion about the relationship between El Elyon and Yahweh?

The church view...

Keith L. Sellers and Victor G. Forsnes, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Dec. 1989, 52–53

Keith L. Sellers, visiting professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University, and Victor G. Forsnes, professor of engineering, Ricks College. To better understand the Lord’s words in Isaiah 44 and 45, we must first identify who is speaking. The passage indicates that it is “the king of Israel,” the “Lord of Hosts” (Isa. 44:6)—“a just God and a Saviour” (Isa. 45:21). This is the God of the Old Testament, the Great I Am—Jehovah.

Through Latter-day scripture, we know that Jehovah was the premortal name for Jesus Christ. “Behold,” Jesus told the Nephites, “I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel.”

Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, is known by many other names. One of these is the Son, meaning the Son of God the Father. (See1 Ne. 11:18–21.) In 1916, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve explained that “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh.”

They went on to declare that because of this unique relationship with God the Father, “Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah,” as well as in mortality and today in his resurrected state. “The Father placed His name upon the Son,” the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve continued, “and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.” (In James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75), 5:27, 31–32.)

Invested with this kind of authority, Jehovah can rightly speak to Israel as though he were the Father in matters involving their learning, understanding, and salvation. He was thus invested with the power of the Father in creating the earth and in his role as the Messiah—the Christ, the Anointed One—in performing the infinite and eternal atonement. He embodies the fulness of the Father’s power, and in his role as the Mediator speaks and acts for the Father.

The more academic side...

While I am not as up on this as some on this board (Bokovoy, Mak, etc.) it is the conclusion of some scholars who assert that the changes in the Bible of the name of divinity, e.g., Elohim, El Elyon, and El Shaddai reflect variations from different documents gathered from the (J)ehovahists, (E)lohimists, and (P)riestly classes.

One text, if available is El, Elohim, and Yhwh in the Bible Author(s): M. H. Sega :Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Oct., 1955), pp. 89-115.

Some further reading...

El-Elyôn (God Most High). In the biblical tradition this “El-Elyôn” was naturally identified with Yahweh (Gen 14:22): “I [= Abram] have lifted up my hand unto Yahweh, El-Elyôn, creator of heaven and earth.” This identification is facilitated by the fact that both elements of the divine name El-Elyôn can be reduced to the function of the attributes: “the divinity, the most high.” The conversion into an epithet of Yahweh is, of course, only the last phase of a long process. In the poetic language which stands even closer to the Canaanite worldview, Deut 32:8–9, speaks of “Elyôn” (as the creator and sustainer) who attributes to different nations a portion of the inhabitable land and assigns a nation to a god (to a divine being, “son of El” [according to the original form of the text; cf. LXX, Qumran]). Then Yahweh had equally acquired “his people as his portion.” This text seems to presuppose an even earlier differentiation between the “supernational” creator-god (“Elyôn”) and Israel’s national god Yahweh (cf. Ps 82:1, 6).

Genesis 14 is the only text in the OT where the terms “El” and “Elyôn” are directly connected (“El-Elyôn”). However, there are numerous instances where “El” and “Elyôn” are mentioned in parallelism, e.g., Ps 73:11 (“and they say, ‘How can El know? Is there knowledge in Elyôn?’ ”); Ps 107:11 (“for they had rebelled against the words of El, and spurned the counsel of Elyôn”). Salem in Genesis 14 is to be identified with Jerusalem (cf. Ps 76:3: Salem = Zion), which supports the assumption that the adoration of El-Elyôn was transmitted to the Israelite tribes by the intermediary of this Canaanite city-state. It would have been transmitted first to the Benjaminites who settled north of Jerusalem (cf. the conjecture “Elyôn” in the blessing of the tribe of Benjamin, Deut 33:12 [Helck 1984:523–29]), and then after David’s conquest of Jerusalem to other groups of the young kingdom (The Davidic connection arises from reading the conjectured “Elyôn” in the last words of David, 2 Sam 23:1: “the oracle of the man who was named by Elyôn”; cf. 1 Sam 2:10 [HALAT, 780]). With David and Solomon in the royal (residential) city of Jerusalem, the official and national cult was associated with the name of Yahweh, whereby pre-Israelite traditions were further transmitted and extensively absorbed. In many poetic texts Yahweh is placed in parallelism with Elyôn (e.g., 2 Sam 22:14 = Ps 18:14; Ps 21: ; the last clear identification is expressed in Ps 47:2: “Yahweh-Elyôn is terrible, a great king over all the earth.”

With the appropriation of the epithet “ (El-)Elyôn” the Yahweh worship, which is of nomadic provenance, has become enriched with the dimensions of world creation and the royalty.

Rose, M. (1996). Names of God in the OT. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), . Vol. 4: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (D. N. Freedman, Ed.) (1004). New York: Doubleday.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Nevo]

I'm no scholar, but I think the scriptures are a mass of confusion on this issue. In the Gospel of John, you have Jesus' "I am" statements which suggest that he is to be identified with Yahweh, yet in other places Jesus clearly distinguishes between himself and Yahweh ("the LORD"). In 3 Nephi 20, the risen Christ repeatedly refers to "the Lord" [= Yahweh] as "the Father." And what are we to make of Isaiah 53:6: "Yahweh has laid on him [the Suffering Servant = Jesus] the iniquity of us all"?

Edited July 6, 2012 by Nevo

[Damien the Leper]

Hmmm...this hole just gets deeper.

[halconero]

I'm no Hebrew expert but I just have to say that I love what I like to call the "plurality of titles and callings" in the Gospel.

A quick few examples:

John the Baptist called an Elias. Elijah called an Elias. Elias is an Elias. Elias can mean a restorer.

Abraham and Sarah - I learned this one a bit a go. A careful study of Genesis 17 reveals something of great significance, especially to those who have been sealed in the temple. Abram receives a named which can also be a title: Abraham - A father of a multitude. Sarai receives a new name/title - Sarah - meaning princess or queen (the two words in Hebrew are often interchangable). Anyone familiar with the temple rites knows that these titles, or the equivalent promises, are bestowed upon the faithful in the temple. What is one reason for calling it the Abrahamic covenant? Because all the faithful become "Abrahams".

The Church of the Firstborn - I won't go to much into this, as I'm going out in a few minutes. Basically, come the time of exaltation ever faithful child of God, be the born late into or early in the game, inherits the rights of the Firstborn, Jesus Christ (Romans 8:16-17). We receive the title and rights of a Firstborn.

What does this have to do with Yahweh? God the Father was Yahweh, but wait, so was Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus Christ is the Father, he is also the Son. He is the Father not in the Trinitarian sense of being of the same essence or substance as Elohim, but by virtue of the titles and roles that he has. A careful study of Names, their meaning helps deeping and greater understand to the true unity of the Godhead. They are truly one God.

[altersteve]

I'm no scholar, but I think the scriptures are a mass of confusion on this issue. In the Gospel of John, you have Jesus' "I am" statements which suggest that he is to be identified with Yahweh, yet in other places Jesus clearly distinguishes between himself and Yahweh ("the LORD"). In 3 Nephi 20, the risen Christ repeatedly refers to "the Lord" [= Yahweh] as "the Father." And what are we to make of Isaiah 53:6: "Yahweh has laid on him [the Suffering Servant = Jesus] the iniquity of us all"?

The Father and the Son are one. The title can refer to either of Them.

Problem solved.

[cksalmon]

I'm no scholar

Whatever, Nevo; I'll take your nonscholarship most days of the week.

but I think the scriptures are a mass of confusion on this issue. In the Gospel of John, you have Jesus' "I am" statements which suggest that he is to be identified with Yahweh, yet in other places Jesus clearly distinguishes between himself and Yahweh ("the LORD").

Is there a third option? The "I Am" statements and the distinguishing statements are not contradictory and the scriptures are not a mass of confusion?

The third option I have in mind is consistent with 3 Nephi 20 and Isaiah 53:6.

[Ron Beron]

The Father and the Son are one. The title can refer to either of Them.

Problem solved.

You are not suggesting that they are homoousius (of one substance), are you? Any discussion of either El, YHWH, et al can lead to a whole bag of worms.

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm stil most impressed by Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.

All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called the sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between El Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel's second God can be recovered.

(page 10]

She implies that some texts don't distinguish between El Elyon and Yahweh. It's best to recognize exceptions to a pattern as exceptions, and to acknowledge the known historical causes and editorial changes for what they are. It's also implicit that because Father is a title, it can be applied to different individuals in different contexts. Just as I can be both a father and a son without causing theological heartbreak and charges of inconsistency and insanity, so, it seems to me, Yahweh can be both a son of El Elyon and a father to those humans who by covenant become his sons and daughters. And since Lord can also refer to a ruler, human or divine, the practice of using Lord as a substitute for the Tetragrammeton does not mean that it cannot also appropriately refer to another ruler, human or divine. And since some LDS leaders at various times have used Jehovah as a divine title, rather than as a personal name, it too, can occasionally be pointed at different beings.

Helpful patterns exist. So does inconsistency, but that is what humans do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 7, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[altersteve]

You are not suggesting that they are homoousius (of one substance), are you? Any discussion of either El, YHWH, et al can lead to a whole bag of worms.

No, I'm not saying that.

[Darren10]

Ron Beron #2;

You cited the following from Keith L. Sellers and Victor G.:

Through Latter-day scripture, we know that Jehovah was the premortal name for Jesus Christ. “Behold,” Jesus told the Nephites, “I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel.”

Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, is known by many other names. One of these is the Son, meaning the Son of God the Father. (See1 Ne. 11:18–21.) In 1916, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve explained that “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh.”

They went on to declare that because of this unique relationship with God the Father, “Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah,” as well as in mortality and today in his resurrected state. “The Father placed His name upon the Son,” the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve continued, “and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.” (In James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75), 5:27, 31–32.)

While I have not previously read these words and explicit declaration from the First presidency, they are precisely what I have surmmized regarding LDS theology regarding the Son. The Son is distinguished from the Father, even created by the Father, yet the oness of the two is so deep and divine and perfect that one may propgerly refer to the Son as the Father.

[Darren10]

I'm no scholar, but I think the scriptures are a mass of confusion on this issue. In the Gospel of John, you have Jesus' "I am" statements which suggest that he is to be identified with Yahweh, yet in other places Jesus clearly distinguishes between himself and Yahweh ("the LORD"). In 3 Nephi 20, the risen Christ repeatedly refers to "the Lord" [= Yahweh] as "the Father." And what are we to make of Isaiah 53:6: "Yahweh has laid on him [the Suffering Servant = Jesus] the iniquity of us all"?

I'm completely unaware of Jesus distinguishing between Himself and YHWH. As for the Book of Mormon calling Jesus Christ the "Father" I find it conditional and, as Kerry Shirts pointed out in his #9 post, titular. Some examples are:

And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

(Helaman 14:12)

Here's Jesus is the Father because Jesus is the Creator (see also Mosiah 3:

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.

(Ether 3:14)

Here He is the Father since He is one with the Father and as a "spiritual" father for those who "belive on [His] name".

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 Son—

(Mosiah 15:2)

Here He is the Father after the unique manner of which He subjected Himself to the Father. Here's another testimony on the profound oness between the Father and the Son. (See also verse7)

On the surface this can all be confusing but in depth there's much beauty (and insight) in these declarative verses of who Jesus Christ is in relation to the Father. Notice how the father is NEVER referred to as the Son. The only interchanging between "Father" and "Son" is applying a supperlative "Father" titularly to the Son but never the diminuative "Son" to the Father.

[Darren10]

I'm stil most impressed by Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.

(page 10]

She implies that some texts don't distinguish between El Elyon and Yahweh. It's best to recognize exceptions to a pattern as exceptions, and to acknowledge the known historical causes and editorial changes for what they are. It's also implicit that because Father is a title, it can be applied to different individuals in different contexts. Just as I can be both a father and a son without causing theological heartbreak and charges of inconsistency and insanity, so, it seems to me, Yahweh can be both a son of El Elyon and a father to those humans who by covenant become his sons and daughters. And since Lord can also refer to a ruler, human or divine, the practice of using Lord as a substitute for the Tetragrammeton does not mean that it cannot also appropriately refer to another ruler, human or divine. And since some LDS leaders at various times have used Jehovah as a divine title, rather than as a personal name, it too, can occasionally be pointed at different beings.

Helpful patterns exist. So does inconsistency, but that is what humans do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I love Margaret Barker's works and I too surmmized that "Father" can be applied as a title to the Son. Also, YHWH and Elohim are both used as proper names as well as titles and may be interchanged between God the Father and God the Son. I guess, as Red Beron pointed out in #2, so can "El Elyon"

[Nevo]

I'm completely unaware of Jesus distinguishing between Himself and YHWH.

In 3 Nephi 20:23, Jesus tells the assembled multitude at Bountiful: "Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord [YHWH] your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people." Jesus says he was raised up as a prophet like unto Moses by YHWH.

Jesus goes on to identify "the Father" as YHWH who covenanted with Abraham in Genesis (see vv. 25-27). When he quotes Isaiah 52:9–10, he substitutes "the Father" for YHWH in every case: "Then shall they break forth into joy—Sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Father [isaiah: "YHWH"] hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. The Father [isaiah: "YHWH"] hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father [isaiah: "YHWH"]" (vv. 34–35). He follows this by stating "the Father and I are one"—but that hardly clears things up.

On the face of it, these verses seem to equate the Father with YHWH. Although Jesus says he is "one" with the Father, he also distinguishes between himself and the Father ("the Father having raised me up unto you first, and sent me to bless you..." [v. 26]). Presumably if the Father/YHWH "raised up" Jesus and "sent him," then Jesus is not YHWH.

[The Nehor]

Even in this dispensation prophets have referred to the father as Jehovah. Based on my reading of the "Jehovah is Jesus" teachings of the past the teaching that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament means only that when God personally appeared to the Old Testament prophets that that being was the Premortal Jesus.

I don't think we have enough information to distinguish between whether it was the Father or the Son speaking by the Spirit or which one gave Laws to man and things of that nature. I suspect the distinction is meaningless in any case.

[Greg Kofford Books]

Charles Harrell spends a good deal of time discussing the complicated and evolving conception of God/El/Yahweh/Father/Lord/Jesus/etc in his This Is My Doctrine.

[Bill Hamblin]

Charles Harrell spends a good deal of time discussing the complicated and evolving conception of God/El/Yahweh/Father/Lord/Jesus/etc in his This Is My Doctrine.

Is it possible that that book is published by Kofford books?

[CASteinman]

Even in this dispensation prophets have referred to the father as Jehovah. Based on my reading of the "Jehovah is Jesus" teachings of the past the teaching that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament means only that when God personally appeared to the Old Testament prophets that that being was the Premortal Jesus.

I don't think we have enough information to distinguish between whether it was the Father or the Son speaking by the Spirit or which one gave Laws to man and things of that nature. I suspect the distinction is meaningless in any case.

This reminds me of Revelation 22: 7-9

[Greg Kofford Books]

Is it possible that that book is published by Kofford books?

Very very possible

[Darren10]

In 3 Nephi 20:23, Jesus tells the assembled multitude at Bountiful: "Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord [YHWH] your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people." Jesus says he was raised up as a prophet like unto Moses by YHWH.

Jesus goes on to identify "the Father" as YHWH who covenanted with Abraham in Genesis (see vv. 25-27). When he quotes Isaiah 52:9–10, he substitutes "the Father" for YHWH in every case: "Then shall they break forth into joy—Sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Father [isaiah: "YHWH"] hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. The Father [isaiah: "YHWH"] hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father [isaiah: "YHWH"]" (vv. 34–35). He follows this by stating "the Father and I are one"—but that hardly clears things up.

On the face of it, these verses seem to equate the Father with YHWH. Although Jesus says he is "one" with the Father, he also distinguishes between himself and the Father ("the Father having raised me up unto you first, and sent me to bless you..." [v. 26]). Presumably if the Father/YHWH "raised up" Jesus and "sent him," then Jesus is not YHWH.

That's a God point. Yes, the Father may be referred to titularly as YHWH. I believe YHWH (Jehovah) means "self existing one". But, just like Margaret Barker points out, scriptures never refer to man as "Sons of LORD (YHWH)", the Father is never referred to as "Son" whereas Mormon theology most definitely allows the Son to be called the "Father". As a title, the Father may be called YHWH and the son may be called "Elohim". see the following:

Jesus Christ—Jehovah

God the Father—Jehovah

I think it's a mistake to strictly connect "Jehovah" (YHWH / LORD) to Jesus and "Elohim" to the Father though there are difinite patters to make such a distinction in general. In oter words, in general, "Elohim" is in reference otthe Father and "Jehovah" to Jesus with exceptions to allow an interchange between the title and the being.

Also, do not forget that all Jesus does and did, even premortally, was for the work and the gory of the Father. So, even if Jesus as YHWH provided confort, covenants, redemption, and salvation premortally in hhte Old World, it is most proper for Jesus in the New World to accredit this to the Father having done these things for all things are of and for the Father, including the works of Jesus. Afterall His work at that point was completed, even having ascended Himself to the Father.

[inquiringmind]

Furthermore, considering what we know from the temple and that J-h is a bastardization of the name...what are we to conclude?

Three questions.

1.) Is the Temple ritual as inspired as the standard works?

2,) What do Mormons take the name to mean?

3.) If the translation of the BOM (The JST, and The Pearl of Great Price) is inspired, shouldn't Joseph have gotten the divine name right?

[Damien the Leper]

Should have would be the operative phrase.

[inquiringmind]

Should have would be the operative phrase.

Maybe.

But you'll notice I didn't even write out the corruption of the divine name you called a "bastardization."

Jews and Messianic believers in Jesus wont pronounce it (or write it out) because it is G-d's name, and they don't want to risk taking it in vain.

Could Joseph have used the conventional "J" mispelling to prevent gentiles from taking G-d's name in vain?

Edited July 14, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Damien the Leper]

Maybe.

But you'll notice I didn't even write out the corruption of the divine name you called a "bastardization."

Jews and Messianic believers in Jesus wont pronounce it (or write it out) because it is G-d's name, and they don't want to risk taking it in vain.

Could that be why Joseph used the conventional "J" mispelling?

I dont know Joseph's reasoning. Many modern scholars such as Brown, Metzger and Grudem would more than likely agree that Jehovah is NOT a proper translation of YHWH.

Mak or Volg? Can you shed some light?

[inquiringmind]

I dont know Joseph's reasoning. Many modern scholars such as Brown, Metzger and Grudem would more than likely agree that Jehovah is NOT a proper translation of YHWH.

Mak or Volg? Can you shed some light?

Thank you.

If I may, I'd like to clarify what I meant here.

I meant to say that Jews and Messianic believers in our Savior wont attempt to pronounce the Tertragrammaton (or write out any proposed pronounciation) because it is G-d's name, and they don't want to risk taking it in vain.

I didn't mean to imply that the conventional "J" spelling and pronounciaton is correct.

Edited July 14, 2012 by inquiringmind