God In The Old Testament

[Katzpur]

Can anyone give me any guidelines for knowing whether a reference to God in the Old Testament is the God the Father or to His Only Begotten Son?  I know that the individual known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament is known by the name Jehovah in the Old Testament, but I'm still unclear as to whether every mention of God in the Old Testament is referring to Jehovah or to Elohim?  I'm especially curious about the instances in which God appears to individuals or to groups of people, where they see Him and speak to Him "face to face."  Is it Jehovah that's being spoken of in these instances or Elohim.  If it's sometimes one and sometimes the other, how can I tell which one it is?  Sometimes context gives me a clue, but not always.

[cinepro]

Here you go:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/enrichment-section-a-who-is-the-god-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng

[Ahab]

After the fall in the garden of Eden our Father started speaking to us (Adam and Eve and their children) through a Mediator, rather than in person as he did before the fall.  There are a few instances when he spoke to tell us to listen to his "beloved Son", but other than those brief introductions everything else he has told us has been through that Mediator, who also speaks to us through mediators.  Everything the Mediator says is what our Father wants us to hear, though, and is as if he had said it himself.

[Katzpur]

 

 

Here you go:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/enrichment-section-a-who-is-the-god-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng

Thanks for the article.  I appreciate it and it was helpful.  I'm still not sure though if there are any instances in the Old Testament where "God" is referring to Elohim.  The link didn't answer that question.

 

Are the following passages referring to Jehovah?

 

Genesis 32:30  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

 

Exodus 24:10-11 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.  And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

 

Exodus 33:11  And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

 

Exodus 33:22-23  And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. 

 

Edited January 1, 2014 by Katzpur

[JLHPROF]

Can anyone give me any guidelines for knowing whether a reference to God in the Old Testament is the God the Father or to His Only Begotten Son?  I know that the individual known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament is known by the name Jehovah in the Old Testament, but I'm still unclear as to whether every mention of God in the Old Testament is referring to Jehovah or to Elohim?  I'm especially curious about the instances in which God appears to individuals or to groups of people, where they see Him and speak to Him "face to face."  Is it Jehovah that's being spoken of in these instances or Elohim.  If it's sometimes one and sometimes the other, how can I tell which one it is?  Sometimes context gives me a clue, but not always.

 

In my opinion, the identity of the God that is speaking is inconsistently applied and conveniently passed over.  

 

For example, if we believe that YHWH (the God that identifies himself as The Lord or I Am) is Jesus Christ then there are attributes shown as belonging to YHWH that can't be Christ, so they are automatically attributed to Elohim by default, even if the original text refers to Jehovah.  I have an issue with this practice.  Either EVERY instance of YHWH/Jehovah (referred to as the Lord God or I Am) is Christ or it does not refer to Christ.  Just my opinion.

 

Also, the Hebrew name Elohim can be applied to a singular head God or to the plural council of the Gods, which is also often applied inconsistently.

 

But the Cinepro provided the official church position and that's what you probably wanted.

[The Nehor]

Jehovah being the God of the Old Testament means that in those cases where God appears it is the Premortal Savior that is there. The Savior does speak as if He is the Father at times. There is no way to determine which originated any specific communication. I am not sure it would matter if we could.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It's important to look at the historical development of the received text as it's come down to us. I was just rereading an article I really like by Kevin Christensen for the Maxwell Institute on the Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Can anyone give me any guidelines for knowing whether a reference to God in the Old Testament is the God the Father or to His Only Begotten Son?  I know that the individual known as Jesus Christ in the New Testament is known by the name Jehovah in the Old Testament, but I'm still unclear as to whether every mention of God in the Old Testament is referring to Jehovah or to Elohim?  I'm especially curious about the instances in which God appears to individuals or to groups of people, where they see Him and speak to Him "face to face."  Is it Jehovah that's being spoken of in these instances or Elohim.  If it's sometimes one and sometimes the other, how can I tell which one it is?  Sometimes context gives me a clue, but not always.

See Exodus 6: 2-3, where he first introduces himself as JEHOVAH, then reminds in NT, that he is the great I AM.

[Robert F. Smith]

In my opinion, the identity of the God that is speaking is inconsistently applied and conveniently passed over.  

 

For example, if we believe that YHWH (the God that identifies himself as The Lord or I Am) is Jesus Christ then there are attributes shown as belonging to YHWH that can't be Christ, so they are automatically attributed to Elohim by default, even if the original text refers to Jehovah.  I have an issue with this practice.  Either EVERY instance of YHWH/Jehovah (referred to as the Lord God or I Am) is Christ or it does not refer to Christ.  Just my opinion.

 

Also, the Hebrew name Elohim can be applied to a singular head God or to the plural council of the Gods, which is also often applied inconsistently.

 

But the Cinepro provided the official church position and that's what you probably wanted.

"Official" Church manuals come and go and are written by a variety of people assigned to the task.  Hugh Nibley wrote the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for 1957, and Elder James Talmage wrote several books which were still being used as Church manuals when I was a young man.  The uneven quality in some of the manuals we use is a problem for subjects such as this one, which requires considerable scholarship in biblical studies.

 

The excerpt cinepro provided unhappily lacks that scholarship, and even fails to quote the OT properly.  Thus, although you are correct to speak to both plural and singular meanings which Elohim can have, the manual incorrectly says that scholars agree on a singular meaning.  The same manual fails to capitalize LORD both when quoting the KJV and when referring to Yahweh/Jehovah in the Hebrew text -- even though the manual actually explains why LORD is capitalized in such cases and not in others.  That and the fact that divine epithets are not actually names, ought to inform our discussion in each instance.

 

The OT is a very diverse anthology of disparate materials written, redacted, and edited by humans attempting to reflect their own experience with God.  There is no one theology in the OT any more than there is in the NT.  The manual ought to have taken notice of the complexity of the biblical materials it dealt with, as well as to give due credit to the Jews for faithfully transmitting it to us -- instead of ignorantly fulfilling Nephi's very words in 2 Nephi 29:4.

 

The manual ought to have reflected the diversity of theological views among the Jews at the time of Christ, something everyone in biblical studies is now aware of.  Indeed, so much so is this true that major Jewish scholars now admit quite frankly that the Christian view of the Messiah as suffering servant (Isaiah 52ff) was the basic interpretation at Qumran long before Jesus' birth.**

 

**  Knohl, Israel.  The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. D. Maisel, S. Mark Taper Foundation Book in Jewish Studies.  Downloadable as an eBook at http://www.ebooks.com .  Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000.

Wise, Michael. The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ.  S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

See Exodus 6: 2-3, where he first introduces himself as JEHOVAH, then reminds in NT, that he is the great I AM.

Actually, He does not first introduce Himself there in Ex 6:3.  He was already known to the Patriarchs by that name.  The KJV punctuation there is incorrect, and modern scholarship agrees that there should have been a question mark in "by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them?" -- just as Joseph Smith's JST has made it a question (see the NIV note).

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for the article.  I appreciate it and it was helpful.  I'm still not sure though if there are any instances in the Old Testament where "God" is referring to Elohim.  The link didn't answer that question.

 

Are the following passages referring to Jehovah?

 

Genesis 32:30  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

 

Exodus 24:10-11 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.  And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

 

Exodus 33:11  And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

 

Exodus 33:22-23  And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. 

Glad to see you using the caps on LORD when you quote.  The KJV uses that to let us know that YHWH lies behind it.  Wherever you see the word "God" used in the KJV, it usually reflects Elohim, though it can also reflect El, both of which are titles.  El "God" was not only the Hebrew term, but also the term for the chief Canaanite god.  As you know, both Israelites and Canaanites spoke the same language, which the Bible terms the "language of Canaan."  We call it "Hebrew" today, but the Israelites did not. "Hebrew" was actually an ethnicon in those times.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[JLHPROF]

"Official" Church manuals come and go and are written by a variety of people assigned to the task.  Hugh Nibley wrote the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for 1957, and Elder James Talmage wrote several books which were still being used as Church manuals when I was a young man.  The uneven quality in some of the manuals we use is a problem for subjects such as this one, which requires considerable scholarship in biblical studies.

 

The excerpt cinepro provided unhappily lacks that scholarship, and even fails to quote the OT properly.  Thus, although you are correct to speak to both plural an singular meanings which Elohim can have, the manual incorrectly says that scholars agree on a singular meaning.  The same manual fails to capitalize LORD both when quoting the KJV and when referring to Yahweh/Jehovah in the Hebrew text -- even though the manual actually explains why LORD is capitalized in such cases and not in others.  That and the fact that divine epithets are not actually names, ought to inform our discussion in each instance.

 

The OT is a very diverse anthology of disparate materials written, redacted, and edited by humans attempting to reflect their own experience with God.  There is no one theology in the OT any more than there is in the NT.  The manual ought to have taken notice of the complexity of the biblical materials it dealt with, as well as to give due credit to the Jews for faithfully transmitting it to us -- instead of ignorantly fulfilling Nephi's very words in 2 Nephi 29:4.

 

The manual ought to have reflected the diversity of theological views among the Jews at the time of Christ, something everyone in biblical studies is now aware of.  Indeed, so much so is this true that major Jewish scholars now admit quite frankly that the Christian view of the Messiah as suffering servant (Isaiah 52ff) was the basic interpretation at Qumran long before Jesus' birth.**

 

**  Knohl, Israel.  The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. D. Maisel, S. Mark Taper Foundation Book in Jewish Studies.  Downloadable as an eBook at http://www.ebooks.com .  Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000.

Wise, Michael. The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ.  S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.

 

Well, I'm no expert on Jewish theology or word usage, but I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of interactions featuring Yaweh/Jehovah in the Old Testament that are clearly NOT referring to Christ.  Not every instance of "LORD" or "I AM" or "YAWEH" fit with what we know of Christ.

And saying that "well, it must be meaning Elohim then" simply doesn't make sense either.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Actually, He does not first introduce Himself there in Ex 6:3.  He was already known to the Patriarchs by that name.  The KJV punctuation there is incorrect, and modern scholarship agrees that there should have been a question mark in "by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them?" -- just as Joseph Smith's JST has made it a question (see the NIV note).

True, just noting the first time he gave his name in the Bible.

[maklelan]

Actually, He does not first introduce Himself there in Ex 6:3.  He was already known to the Patriarchs by that name.  The KJV punctuation there is incorrect, and modern scholarship agrees that there should have been a question mark in "by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them?" -- just as Joseph Smith's JST has made it a question (see the NIV note).

 

I have to disagree with this. Very few scholars would approve of the NIV note (I can think of none off the top of my head, and this very question is a big part of my recent master's thesis), and those that would are those very conservative scholars who are uncomfortable with the straightforward reading, since it insists that YHWH's name was unknown prior to Horeb, and thus stands in direct conflict with the shape of the book of Genesis as it exists today. 

[The Nehor]

Well, I'm no expert on Jewish theology or word usage, but I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of interactions featuring Yaweh/Jehovah in the Old Testament that are clearly NOT referring to Christ.  Not every instance of "LORD" or "I AM" or "YAWEH" fit with what we know of Christ.

And saying that "well, it must be meaning Elohim then" simply doesn't make sense either.

 

Then just accept that the distinction refers only to Jesus being the one appearing. Joseph Smith on more then one occasion called the Father Jehovah.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, I'm no expert on Jewish theology or word usage, but I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of interactions featuring Yaweh/Jehovah in the Old Testament that are clearly NOT referring to Christ.  Not every instance of "LORD" or "I AM" or "YAWEH" fit with what we know of Christ.

And saying that "well, it must be meaning Elohim then" simply doesn't make sense either.

It helps to go by the Hebrew, which was the preference of Joseph Smith.  From there one can also take into consideration the wider ancient Near Eastern context.  Scholars will naturally take a diversity of views in interpreting that context.  I have no problem with informed disagreements.  However, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here.

 

I recommend the following for context:

 

Conrad E. L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Dagan, and the Rephaim, Harvard Semitic Monograph 21 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979).

 

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monograph 2 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).

[Calm]

as well as to give due credit to the Jews for faithfully transmitting it to us -- instead of ignorantly fulfilling Nephi's very words in 2 Nephi 29:4.

 

Very good and important point, imo.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have to disagree with this. Very few scholars would approve of the NIV note (I can think of none off the top of my head, and this very question is a big part of my recent master's thesis), and those that would are those very conservative scholars who are uncomfortable with the straightforward reading, since it insists that YHWH's name was unknown prior to Horeb, and thus stands in direct conflict with the shape of the book of Genesis as it exists today. 

I can think of one who interprets it as an elliptical interrogative and who is indeed cited by an ultra-conservative:  W. J. Martin, Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch (London, 1955), 18ff., cited in R. Harrison, Intro. to the OT, 399-400.

 

And it is true as you say, Dan, that the accepted, traditional reading of Ex 6:3 "stands in direct conflict with the shape of the book of Genesis as it exists today."  Indeed, Mowinkel, Speiser, Haran, and Andersen have all seen “Yahweh” as pre-Mosaic:   C. R. North in Rowley, OTMS, 54; Speiser, Genesis, 37-38 (cf. Genesis 4:26); M. Haran, “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, IV (1965), 39; F. I. Andersen, Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 231 (Hague: Mouton, 1974), 1-2.

 

What is also interesting is the claim of Thomas Schneider that Yah appears as part of a Semitic epithet for God in an 18th-19th dynasty Egyptian Book of the Dead -- Schneider, “The First Documented Occurrence of the God Yahweh? (Book of the Dead Princeton ‘Roll 5'),” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, 7/2 (2007), 113-120.

[Robert F. Smith]

True, just noting the first time he gave his name in the Bible.

But that is just the point, Pa Pa, YHWH appears in the Bible before Horeb -- as McClellan points out.

 

"Modern scholarship agrees" on no such thing. Nearly all scholars read Ex. 6:3 as asserting that the name YHWH was not known to the Patriarchs.

I'll agree with you and McClellan here.  If we take a poll, we will find few who go along with what I see as "modern scholarship."  I overstated my position.  Thanks, Nevo.

[maklelan]

I can think of one who interprets it as an elliptical interrogative and who is indeed cited by an ultra-conservative:  W. J. Martin, Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch (London, 1955), 18ff., cited in R. Harrison, Intro. to the OT, 399-400.

 

And it is true as you say, Dan, that the accepted, traditional reading of Ex 6:3 "stands in direct conflict with the shape of the book of Genesis as it exists today."  Indeed, Mowinkel, Speiser, Haran, and Andersen have all seen “Yahweh” as pre-Mosaic:   C. R. North in Rowley, OTMS, 54; Speiser, Genesis, 37-38 (cf. Genesis 4:26); M. Haran, “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, IV (1965), 39; F. I. Andersen, Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 231 (Hague: Mouton, 1974), 1-2.

 

What is also interesting is the claim of Thomas Schneider that Yah appears as part of a Semitic epithet for God in an 18th-19th dynasty Egyptian Book of the Dead -- Schneider, “The First Documented Occurrence of the God Yahweh? (Book of the Dead Princeton ‘Roll 5'),” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, 7/2 (2007), 113-120.

 

Schneider's article is good, but it hasn't garnered a whole lot of attention. There are two other references to the divine name YHWH in Egyptian texts from around the 14th–13th centuries BCE. 

[rameumptom]

Note that the "official" Church position has only been around for about a century.  Previous to Elder James Talmage's "Jesus the Christ", the names Elohim and Jehovah were interchangeable in Mormondom, and Joseph Smith had no problem with God the Father appearing, as he did in the Kirtland Temple, and possibly on several other occasions.  God the Father, in fact, is called Jehovah in D&C 109.

 

So, our view that Jesus was the actual God that mediated the entire Old Testament, is a rather new concept in the Church.  With the Tanach being created from different authors/groups (J, E, P, D, R), it often makes it hard to determine where Elohim ends and Jehovah begins.

[Robert F. Smith]

Note that the "official" Church position has only been around for about a century.  Previous to Elder James Talmage's "Jesus the Christ", the names Elohim and Jehovah were interchangeable in Mormondom, and Joseph Smith had no problem with God the Father appearing, as he did in the Kirtland Temple, and possibly on several other occasions.  God the Father, in fact, is called Jehovah in D&C 109.

 

So, our view that Jesus was the actual God that mediated the entire Old Testament, is a rather new concept in the Church.  With the Tanach being created from different authors/groups (J, E, P, D, R), it often makes it hard to determine where Elohim ends and Jehovah begins.

As Brother Brigham pointed out in April of 1852, in a sermon in Salt Lake City, that, of the various deities which exist, one "is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (Journal of Discourses, 1:50; cf. Paul in I Cor 8:5-6), and it is to God the Father whom we pray, in the name of His Son.  The common misunderstandings arise when it is not understood that "God" and "Jehovah," and a host of other terms, are merely divine epithets rather than names.  Each term can legitimately be applied to any God who is playing the particular role at that moment.  As Hugh Nibley pointed out in a lecture in Long Beach, California, in 1968,

 

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).

[Tiki]

As Brother Brigham pointed out in April of 1852, in a sermon in Salt Lake City, that, of the various deities which exist, one "is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (Journal of Discourses, 1:50; cf. Paul in I Cor 8:5-6), and it is to God the Father whom we pray, in the name of His Son.  The common misunderstandings arise when it is not understood that "God" and "Jehovah," and a host of other terms, are merely divine epithets rather than names.  Each term can legitimately be applied to any God who is playing the particular role at that moment.  As Hugh Nibley pointed out in a lecture in Long Beach, California, in 1968,

 

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).

You needed Hugh Nibley to figure that out? Lol.