Robert Bowman (executive director of the Institute for Religious Research) has responded to a post on my blog, “David Bokovoy vs. Luke Wilson” entitled, “Mormonism and the Names of God: Robert Boylan vs. Luke Wilson.” I hope to get to his comments about various Hebrew issues and Joseph Smith’s approach to Gen 1:1 in the King Follett Discourse later (I have to go in for surgery in a few days, so busy prepping for that as of writing). However, Bowman does try to attack my credibility from the get-go with the following:
Bokovoy or Boylan?
On May 8, 2016, Boylan posted a piece he titled “David Bokovoy vs. Luke Wilson on the names of God.” Boylan begins as follows:
A couple of years ago, the now-Dr. David E. Bokovoy (PhD, Hebrew Bible [Brandeis]) commented on an article produced by the late Luke Wilson of the Institute for Religious “Research” (anti-Mormons like to use [loosely] the term “research” in the names of their ministries, including Bill McKeever]). The post is no longer online, but I did save it for future use. It contains some interesting material, so I believe it worthwhile to reproduce it here:
The colon at the end of the paragraph indicates that what follows is to be understood as simply reproducing the post by David Bokovoy. The rest of the post exhibits the same tone and perspective, and there is no indication that any of the post other than the introductory paragraph is by Boylan. The reader is thus given to understand that except for that first paragraph David Bokovoy is the author of the post.
As it turns out, David is a friend of mine, so I contacted him about the article. David kindly responded, assuring me that he did not recognize the post attributed to him, that it does not represent his views or feelings toward the Institute for Religious Research, and that I had his permission to state as much in my response to Boylan.
Since I prefer to think the best of someone until forced to do otherwise by the evidence, I will suggest that it is possible that Boylan thought the material came from Bokovoy and confused him with someone else. Since I cannot prove otherwise, it is also possible that David wrote part of what Boylan quotes and that it has been repurposed by Boylan for his polemical purpose. What can be fairly said is that Boylan should have requested Bokovoy’s permission to use his comments, if they actually came from Bokovoy, before posting them on his blog. I take David at his word that he did not recognize the post as coming from him, and I therefore conclude that Boylan posted it without asking for permission or checking to make sure it accurately represented Bokovoy’s position
As noted, I will try to find time to respond to the rest of Bowman's response in the near future, however, as the following accusations are clearly thrown out to cast me into bad light (a common tactic used), let me respond with the following:
1. David Bokvoy is the author of this piece. He posted it under his very own name, and fortunately, I managed to find the original thread here from 2006. Unfortunately, due to a change in software and/or some other issue related to the forum, not all of David's posts have words contained therein, but it does show that Bokovoy was pretty active online against the IRR and did critique Wilson on this and other issues. Perhaps Bokovoy forgot (it has been almost a decade), but the charges against me are simply false.
2. The article is on a public forum. I found it to be pretty useful and reproduced David's response to Luke Wilson with proper attribution. There is nothing wrong with such.
3. The comment was not repurposed/reworked. The charge that I reworked David's comments in response to Wilson is nothing short of accusing me of downright deception.
If Bowman has integrity, he will retract these bogus accusations he wrote against me and rework the article accordingly.
One should note that this is not the first time Bowman has either criticised my blog and/or tried to cast my abilities into negative light (though the first time he threw mud at me, personally, by [falsely] presenting me as inept [see the discussion above]]).
Commenting on my post, "The Trinity versus Colossians 1:16 and Revelation 4:11," Bowman wrote the following in the Mormons and Evangelicals facebook page:
Boylan argues:
“First Premise: If Jesus is God within the Trinitarian understanding of Christology, he played an active role in the creation, just like the Father.
Second Premise: Jesus played a passive role in the creation, as opposed to the active role in creation played by the Father. [Boylan’s premise here is based on the passive verb forms ἐκτίσθη and ἔκτισται in Colossians 1:16.]
Conclusion: Jesus is not God as understood within the framework of Trinitarian Christology.”
How’s this for a counterargument to get us thinking:
Premise 1: According to Isaiah 44:24, Jehovah alone made the heavens and the earth (“alone” and “by himself”).
Premise 2: According to LDS theology, Jesus Christ, not the Father, is Jehovah.
Conclusion: Therefore, according to LDS theology and Isaiah 44:24, the Father was not involved at all in making the heavens and the earth.
In case you’re wondering, the orthodox position is that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, but so is the Father and so is the Holy Spirit, because the three persons are one God. This view happens to fit all of the biblical evidence.
In Hebrews 1:10, the writer says of the Son (see v. 8),
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
“Laid the foundation” is an active verb form, ἐθεμελίωσας, and the sense of both lines is that the Son is the Lord who did these things. So the Son was active, not merely passive, in the creation of the world.
Boylan infers from the use of a passive verb form in Colossians 1:16 that the Son was purely passive in the creation of the world. That is an illicit exegetical move because it misunderstands the subject of the passive verbs. The passive verb forms in Colossians 1:16 have as their subject “all things,” not the Son Jesus Christ. In the clause, “In him all things were created,” the subject is “all things,” not “him.” What is the passive recipient of the action denoted by the verbs is creation (“all things”), not the Son.
Many if not most orthodox Christian theologians are comfortable with the idea that the three persons of the Trinity all played somewhat distinctive, complementary roles in the creation of the world, just as they all play distinctive and complementary roles in redemption. But none of the three persons is “passive” in these divine works.
“First Premise: If Jesus is God within the Trinitarian understanding of Christology, he played an active role in the creation, just like the Father.
Second Premise: Jesus played a passive role in the creation, as opposed to the active role in creation played by the Father. [Boylan’s premise here is based on the passive verb forms ἐκτίσθη and ἔκτισται in Colossians 1:16.]
Conclusion: Jesus is not God as understood within the framework of Trinitarian Christology.”
How’s this for a counterargument to get us thinking:
Premise 1: According to Isaiah 44:24, Jehovah alone made the heavens and the earth (“alone” and “by himself”).
Premise 2: According to LDS theology, Jesus Christ, not the Father, is Jehovah.
Conclusion: Therefore, according to LDS theology and Isaiah 44:24, the Father was not involved at all in making the heavens and the earth.
In case you’re wondering, the orthodox position is that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, but so is the Father and so is the Holy Spirit, because the three persons are one God. This view happens to fit all of the biblical evidence.
In Hebrews 1:10, the writer says of the Son (see v. 8),
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
“Laid the foundation” is an active verb form, ἐθεμελίωσας, and the sense of both lines is that the Son is the Lord who did these things. So the Son was active, not merely passive, in the creation of the world.
Boylan infers from the use of a passive verb form in Colossians 1:16 that the Son was purely passive in the creation of the world. That is an illicit exegetical move because it misunderstands the subject of the passive verbs. The passive verb forms in Colossians 1:16 have as their subject “all things,” not the Son Jesus Christ. In the clause, “In him all things were created,” the subject is “all things,” not “him.” What is the passive recipient of the action denoted by the verbs is creation (“all things”), not the Son.
Many if not most orthodox Christian theologians are comfortable with the idea that the three persons of the Trinity all played somewhat distinctive, complementary roles in the creation of the world, just as they all play distinctive and complementary roles in redemption. But none of the three persons is “passive” in these divine works.
I am not a member of this group (this criticism was forwarded to me by a friend), but I did respond thusly (it is lengthy, but there were a number of exegetical issues involved):
Just some thoughts on some of the "criticisms" raised by Bowman.
Bowman fails on a host of points:
(1) On the LDS use/understanding of Yahweh/Jehovah, his understanding of this issue is just bad. I discussed this issue in some detail in my response to Bobby Gilpin on topic of LDS Christology, "Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/05/latter-day-saints-have-chosen-true.html) and discussed Isa 44:24 at http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/james-white-fails-on-isaiah-4424.html Bowman can engage in his typical mental gymnastics and his now-infamous "Jesus is Yahweh and is not Yahweh at the same time"-argumentation, but it just shows how illogical the Trinity is, something I think Bowman knows deep down (remember, he lost his written debate on the topic against Dave Burke, a Christadelphian, back in 2010).
(2) Bowman is fond of finding triadic phrases in the Bible and using such as implicit evidence for the later Trinitarian dogma, including Matt 28:19. The problem is that he has been refuted time and time again on this issue by the likes of Dale Tuggy (e.g., http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/04/does-matthew-2819-support-trinitarianism.html and http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/another-note-on-matthew-2819-and-trinity.html for some of the problems with Matt 28:19 being used as a “proof-text” for the Trinity)
Bowman fails on a host of points:
(1) On the LDS use/understanding of Yahweh/Jehovah, his understanding of this issue is just bad. I discussed this issue in some detail in my response to Bobby Gilpin on topic of LDS Christology, "Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/05/latter-day-saints-have-chosen-true.html) and discussed Isa 44:24 at http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/james-white-fails-on-isaiah-4424.html Bowman can engage in his typical mental gymnastics and his now-infamous "Jesus is Yahweh and is not Yahweh at the same time"-argumentation, but it just shows how illogical the Trinity is, something I think Bowman knows deep down (remember, he lost his written debate on the topic against Dave Burke, a Christadelphian, back in 2010).
(2) Bowman is fond of finding triadic phrases in the Bible and using such as implicit evidence for the later Trinitarian dogma, including Matt 28:19. The problem is that he has been refuted time and time again on this issue by the likes of Dale Tuggy (e.g., http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/04/does-matthew-2819-support-trinitarianism.html and http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/another-note-on-matthew-2819-and-trinity.html for some of the problems with Matt 28:19 being used as a “proof-text” for the Trinity)
(3) On the use of passive verbs in Col 1:16
Bowman just shows his knowledge of grammar is as bad as his exegetical abilities--these verbs are being used of the actions of Jesus, so he is trying to confuse readers who don't know how language works with his nonsense. This is not just my fallible opinion; it is the scholarly view of commentators who have discussed such issues. Consider the following:
[T]he creation language of [Psa 32:6, LXX] maintains the passive construction found in the Hebrew. It reads:
τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firmAnd by the breath of his mouth all their power. (Ps 32:6 LXX)
This passive construction is analogous to the language of the Colossian hymn where Christ’s role in creation is depicted through the use of passive verbs. Though Christ is the subject of the passage as a whole, in Col 1:16 the subject of the sentence is “everything in the heavens and on the earth.”
Christ’s involvement in their creation is presented though the use of εν with the dative so that all things were created “in him.”
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς . . τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
For in him everything in the heavens and upon the earth were created . . . All things were created through him and for him. (Col 1:16)
Just as in Ps 33 (32 LXX) where the word of the Lord does not create, but is the means by which God created, so in the Colossian hymn Christ does not create, but is presented as the one in whom, through whom, and for whom God created all things. (Matthew E. Gordley, The Colossian Hymn in Context [Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 61-62 [square brackets my own for clarification]).
In Col 1:16, there is a subtle shift of verb tenses. In the NRSV of this verse, we read:
For in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all things have been created through him and for him.
The term translated as "were created" is ἐκτίσθη, the third person indicative aorist passive of κτιζω, while the phrase "have been created" is ἔκτισται, the third person indicative perfect passive of κτιζω. In addition, the prepositions that are coupled with these tenses differ (εν [in] and εις [into/towards/for], respectively).
Commenting on these shifts in tenses and prepositions, Nigel Turner wrote the following:
St. Paul was pursuing the intimation of verse 15, that Christ is God’s icon and our archetype. The two tenses are thus explained by the fact that the prototokos conception necessarily involves two other conceptions, viz. (1) a past act which is punctiliar (grammatically) because one aspect of creation is past for ever, and (2) a second action which is not merely punctiliar but also perfective. Of this second action, the results are with us still, since we and all creation are not yet in actuality the icon of Christ, as he is of God. Although the process has been soundly set in motion, it will proceed while all nature continually renews itself in him until it reaches his entire perfection. Aptly using the perfect tense, St. Paul could close the verse with the words, “All these things were once created by his instrumentality (dia, “thought”; not en, “in,” as at the beginning of the verse) and they continue to be created now towards (eis) him.” He meant towards his perfect image; closer to the intended pattern. St. Paul did not often confuse the prepositions eis and en, and indeed in Col. 1:16 he set both together in a context which requires that their meaning is not at all synonymous: “in (en) him were once created all things that are in heaven and upon earth the visible and the invisible, thrones, lordships, powers, authorities; all these have been created (and now exist) by his continual support (dia) and he is their goal (eis).” (Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1965], 125).
N.T. Wright writes in his commentary on Colossians, part of the Tyndale Commentary series: "All that God made, he made by means of him. Paul actually says 'in him,' and though the word εν can mean 'by' as well as 'in,' it is better to retain the literal translation than to paraphrase as NIV has done. Not only is there an intended parallel with verse 19, which would otherwise be lost: the passive 'were created' indicates, in a typically Jewish fashion, the activity of God the Father, working in the Son. To say 'by,' here and at the end of verse 16, could imply, not that Christ is the Father's agent, but that he was alone responsible for creation."
Related to this would be one's discussion of 1 Cor 8:4-6, a verse that Bowman (as well as Bauckham et al.) engage in the most blatant form of eisegsis to get to support their man-made dogma via "divine identity" and other such nonsense (see http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/10/1-corinthians-84-6-as-anti-trinitarian.html ). Ultimately, one would have to render Deut 6:4 in light of their "arguments" as "Hear, O Israel, Jesus is our Father, Jesus is One" (http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-split-shema-theory-does-not-support.html).
On the use of syllogistic logic, 1 Cor 8:4-6 blows Bowman out of the water--
In 1 Cor 8:6, creation is said to be εκ (from) the Father, while it is said to be δια (through/by) the Son. Now, again absolutising this pericope in the way Trinitarians wish to do, let us examine how this pericope is another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the Trinity flows from every page of the Bible":
First Premise: If Jesus is God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology, all things would be made from (εκ) him.
Second Premise: All things were not made from (εκ) Jesus.
Conclusion: Jesus is not God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology.
This is perfectly logical reasoning, called modus tollens. Not only do Trinitarians have to go against careful, scholarly exegesis of the Bible, but also logic.
Bowman just shows his knowledge of grammar is as bad as his exegetical abilities--these verbs are being used of the actions of Jesus, so he is trying to confuse readers who don't know how language works with his nonsense. This is not just my fallible opinion; it is the scholarly view of commentators who have discussed such issues. Consider the following:
[T]he creation language of [Psa 32:6, LXX] maintains the passive construction found in the Hebrew. It reads:
τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firmAnd by the breath of his mouth all their power. (Ps 32:6 LXX)
This passive construction is analogous to the language of the Colossian hymn where Christ’s role in creation is depicted through the use of passive verbs. Though Christ is the subject of the passage as a whole, in Col 1:16 the subject of the sentence is “everything in the heavens and on the earth.”
Christ’s involvement in their creation is presented though the use of εν with the dative so that all things were created “in him.”
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς . . τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
For in him everything in the heavens and upon the earth were created . . . All things were created through him and for him. (Col 1:16)
Just as in Ps 33 (32 LXX) where the word of the Lord does not create, but is the means by which God created, so in the Colossian hymn Christ does not create, but is presented as the one in whom, through whom, and for whom God created all things. (Matthew E. Gordley, The Colossian Hymn in Context [Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 61-62 [square brackets my own for clarification]).
In Col 1:16, there is a subtle shift of verb tenses. In the NRSV of this verse, we read:
For in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all things have been created through him and for him.
The term translated as "were created" is ἐκτίσθη, the third person indicative aorist passive of κτιζω, while the phrase "have been created" is ἔκτισται, the third person indicative perfect passive of κτιζω. In addition, the prepositions that are coupled with these tenses differ (εν [in] and εις [into/towards/for], respectively).
Commenting on these shifts in tenses and prepositions, Nigel Turner wrote the following:
St. Paul was pursuing the intimation of verse 15, that Christ is God’s icon and our archetype. The two tenses are thus explained by the fact that the prototokos conception necessarily involves two other conceptions, viz. (1) a past act which is punctiliar (grammatically) because one aspect of creation is past for ever, and (2) a second action which is not merely punctiliar but also perfective. Of this second action, the results are with us still, since we and all creation are not yet in actuality the icon of Christ, as he is of God. Although the process has been soundly set in motion, it will proceed while all nature continually renews itself in him until it reaches his entire perfection. Aptly using the perfect tense, St. Paul could close the verse with the words, “All these things were once created by his instrumentality (dia, “thought”; not en, “in,” as at the beginning of the verse) and they continue to be created now towards (eis) him.” He meant towards his perfect image; closer to the intended pattern. St. Paul did not often confuse the prepositions eis and en, and indeed in Col. 1:16 he set both together in a context which requires that their meaning is not at all synonymous: “in (en) him were once created all things that are in heaven and upon earth the visible and the invisible, thrones, lordships, powers, authorities; all these have been created (and now exist) by his continual support (dia) and he is their goal (eis).” (Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1965], 125).
N.T. Wright writes in his commentary on Colossians, part of the Tyndale Commentary series: "All that God made, he made by means of him. Paul actually says 'in him,' and though the word εν can mean 'by' as well as 'in,' it is better to retain the literal translation than to paraphrase as NIV has done. Not only is there an intended parallel with verse 19, which would otherwise be lost: the passive 'were created' indicates, in a typically Jewish fashion, the activity of God the Father, working in the Son. To say 'by,' here and at the end of verse 16, could imply, not that Christ is the Father's agent, but that he was alone responsible for creation."
Related to this would be one's discussion of 1 Cor 8:4-6, a verse that Bowman (as well as Bauckham et al.) engage in the most blatant form of eisegsis to get to support their man-made dogma via "divine identity" and other such nonsense (see http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/10/1-corinthians-84-6-as-anti-trinitarian.html ). Ultimately, one would have to render Deut 6:4 in light of their "arguments" as "Hear, O Israel, Jesus is our Father, Jesus is One" (http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-split-shema-theory-does-not-support.html).
On the use of syllogistic logic, 1 Cor 8:4-6 blows Bowman out of the water--
In 1 Cor 8:6, creation is said to be εκ (from) the Father, while it is said to be δια (through/by) the Son. Now, again absolutising this pericope in the way Trinitarians wish to do, let us examine how this pericope is another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the Trinity flows from every page of the Bible":
First Premise: If Jesus is God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology, all things would be made from (εκ) him.
Second Premise: All things were not made from (εκ) Jesus.
Conclusion: Jesus is not God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology.
This is perfectly logical reasoning, called modus tollens. Not only do Trinitarians have to go against careful, scholarly exegesis of the Bible, but also logic.
(4) Hebrews 1:10-12
[4 a] Heb 1:8
Bowman is correct that vv.10-12 is about the Son, not the Father, as some (mainly Christadelphians in recent times) have claimed. He is also correct that v. 8 is pretty strong evidence that the author (IMO, the author of Luke-Acts, but that is an issue for another day . . . ) is addressing the son in vv.10-12. However, this is another nail in the coffin of the zombie that is the Trinity. Why? As I wrote in my response to Bobby Gilpin in the link from above:
[I]n Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "Midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
[4 b] On Heb 1:10
And, "In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (NRSV)
This is a quote from Psa 102:25 (101:26, LXX). And Bowman is correct that ἐθεμελίωσας is in the active voice. Firstly, this can be consistent with the LDS view (and what I wrote about Col 1:16) when one understands that it is the Father (who is identified as "God" to the distinction of the Son in Col 1:15ff) who creates through/in the Son who is the Father's agent, and that this is the Genesis creation. There is no problem.
However, one should note that while the Hebrew of Psa 102:24f is addressed to Yahweh, it is *not* the case in the LXX due to the issue of how the LXX translators understood v. 23 (LXX v 24) to be vocalised. ענה could be vocalised as "broken/weakened" (per the MT) or ἀπεκρίθη ("he [Yahweh] answered" as per the LXX which the Hebrews author is following), so the subsequent verses are not addressed to Yahweh but a human king. Furthermore, LXX Psa 101 was understood by early Christians to be about the topic of Messianic Eschatology, so one could argue that the author, using prolepsis, is speaking of the new creation and the future messianic age (cf. Heb 2:5). As one commentator wrote:
[T]he whole passage down to the end of the psalm becomes the answer of Yahweh to the suppliant who accordingly appears to be addressed as Kurie [lord] and creator of heaven and earth…Instead of understanding the verse as a complaint of the psalmist at the shortness of his days which are cut off in the midst, LXX and the Vulgate understand the utterance to be Yahweh’s answer to the psalmist’s plea that he will intervene to save Zion, because “it is time to have pity on her, yea, the set time is come” (v. 13). He is bidden acknowledge (or prescribe?) the shortness of Yahweh’s set time, and not to summon him when it is but half expired. On the other hand he [the Messianic lord] is promised that his own endurance shall be perpetual with the children of his servants. B.W. Bacon, “Heb. 1:10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps. 102:23,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 3, 1902, p. 280-285, here, pp. 282-83 [I have a pdf of this interesting article if anyone wants a copy thereof]).
Such would conform with Isa 51:16 where Yahweh addresses a human about the formation of the new heavens and new earth ("I have put my words in your mouth, and hidden you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, 'You are my people'" [NRSV]). As the Word Biblical Commentary (WBC: Isaiah 34-66 [1987], p. 212) writes:
That makes no sense if it refers to the original [Genesis] creation . . . Heavens and land here must refer metaphorically to the totality of order in Palestine, heavens meaning the broader overarching structure of the Empire, while land is the political order in Palestine itself.
However one cuts it (Genesis creation or speaking, via prolepsis, of the Messianic age), there is no issue with LDS Christology.
This is already getting lengthy. Much more could be said on these topics, but that should give some food for thought.
[4 a] Heb 1:8
Bowman is correct that vv.10-12 is about the Son, not the Father, as some (mainly Christadelphians in recent times) have claimed. He is also correct that v. 8 is pretty strong evidence that the author (IMO, the author of Luke-Acts, but that is an issue for another day . . . ) is addressing the son in vv.10-12. However, this is another nail in the coffin of the zombie that is the Trinity. Why? As I wrote in my response to Bobby Gilpin in the link from above:
[I]n Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "Midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
[4 b] On Heb 1:10
And, "In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (NRSV)
This is a quote from Psa 102:25 (101:26, LXX). And Bowman is correct that ἐθεμελίωσας is in the active voice. Firstly, this can be consistent with the LDS view (and what I wrote about Col 1:16) when one understands that it is the Father (who is identified as "God" to the distinction of the Son in Col 1:15ff) who creates through/in the Son who is the Father's agent, and that this is the Genesis creation. There is no problem.
However, one should note that while the Hebrew of Psa 102:24f is addressed to Yahweh, it is *not* the case in the LXX due to the issue of how the LXX translators understood v. 23 (LXX v 24) to be vocalised. ענה could be vocalised as "broken/weakened" (per the MT) or ἀπεκρίθη ("he [Yahweh] answered" as per the LXX which the Hebrews author is following), so the subsequent verses are not addressed to Yahweh but a human king. Furthermore, LXX Psa 101 was understood by early Christians to be about the topic of Messianic Eschatology, so one could argue that the author, using prolepsis, is speaking of the new creation and the future messianic age (cf. Heb 2:5). As one commentator wrote:
[T]he whole passage down to the end of the psalm becomes the answer of Yahweh to the suppliant who accordingly appears to be addressed as Kurie [lord] and creator of heaven and earth…Instead of understanding the verse as a complaint of the psalmist at the shortness of his days which are cut off in the midst, LXX and the Vulgate understand the utterance to be Yahweh’s answer to the psalmist’s plea that he will intervene to save Zion, because “it is time to have pity on her, yea, the set time is come” (v. 13). He is bidden acknowledge (or prescribe?) the shortness of Yahweh’s set time, and not to summon him when it is but half expired. On the other hand he [the Messianic lord] is promised that his own endurance shall be perpetual with the children of his servants. B.W. Bacon, “Heb. 1:10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps. 102:23,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 3, 1902, p. 280-285, here, pp. 282-83 [I have a pdf of this interesting article if anyone wants a copy thereof]).
Such would conform with Isa 51:16 where Yahweh addresses a human about the formation of the new heavens and new earth ("I have put my words in your mouth, and hidden you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, 'You are my people'" [NRSV]). As the Word Biblical Commentary (WBC: Isaiah 34-66 [1987], p. 212) writes:
That makes no sense if it refers to the original [Genesis] creation . . . Heavens and land here must refer metaphorically to the totality of order in Palestine, heavens meaning the broader overarching structure of the Empire, while land is the political order in Palestine itself.
However one cuts it (Genesis creation or speaking, via prolepsis, of the Messianic age), there is no issue with LDS Christology.
This is already getting lengthy. Much more could be said on these topics, but that should give some food for thought.
One final comment--
Bowman wants us to believe that the Trinity is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (I disagree and believe he is condemned under Gal 1:6-9). For it to be true, it must be consistent with logic. However, notice the following admissions:
John H. Fish III, a Trinitarian, in an article entitled, “God the Son," wrote the following as an admission of the illogical nature of the Trinity:
Theologically it is correct to say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But these statements cannot be reversed. We cannot say God is the Father, because that would omit the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor can we say God is the Son, or God is the Holy Spirit. (John H. Fish III, "God the Son", Emmaus Journal Volume 12, 2003 (1) (34), Dubuque, IA: Emmaus Bible College).
To transpose this admission from theological to mathematical language, it is the equivalent of saying while 3=1+1+1, 1+1+1 does not equal 3, which is utterly absurd. Also, Fish's claim means one cannot say that any singualr person of the Tri-une being is God (e.g., "God is the Father"), notwithstanding passages such as 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Cor 8:4-6 that predicate "God" upon the person of the Father.
This is echoed by John V. Dahms in his article, "How Reliable is Logic?" (Journal of Evangelical Theology 21/4 [December 1978] 369-80); on p.373, Dahms (another Trinitarian) makes this startling confession (comment in square brackets mine for clarification):
The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation [read: Hypostatic Union] also provides a problem for those who insist that logic is universally applicable. how can there be two natures but only one person, especially if it be remembered that the debate over monothelitism led to the conclusion that the two-natures doctrine implies that Jesus Christ had two wills? That one person can have two wills would seem to be contrary to the law of contradiction. Of course there are "conservatives" who declare that in Christ "there are not two wills, one Divine and one human." One suspects that the law of contradiction has inspired such a judgment, though one wonders whether they are not violating the same law when they continue to affirm that "each nature is complete in itself." Be that as it may, by what logic is it possible for a nature that cannot be tempted to be united with a nature that can be tempted, or for a nature that can grow in favor with God? The Monophysites and the Nestorians had more respect for logic than the orthodox, as did the Docetists and the Ebionites before them, as do those liberals who deny the incarnation today. It is not without some justification that Paul Tillich speaks of the "inescapable contradictions and absurdities into which all attempts to solve the Christological problem in terms of the two-nature theory were driven."
One has to understand that traditional Trinitarian theologies require one to accept a logical and mathematical problem. Consider the following, which are accepted by the Trinitarians:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x)
Bowman wants us to believe that the Trinity is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (I disagree and believe he is condemned under Gal 1:6-9). For it to be true, it must be consistent with logic. However, notice the following admissions:
John H. Fish III, a Trinitarian, in an article entitled, “God the Son," wrote the following as an admission of the illogical nature of the Trinity:
Theologically it is correct to say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But these statements cannot be reversed. We cannot say God is the Father, because that would omit the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor can we say God is the Son, or God is the Holy Spirit. (John H. Fish III, "God the Son", Emmaus Journal Volume 12, 2003 (1) (34), Dubuque, IA: Emmaus Bible College).
To transpose this admission from theological to mathematical language, it is the equivalent of saying while 3=1+1+1, 1+1+1 does not equal 3, which is utterly absurd. Also, Fish's claim means one cannot say that any singualr person of the Tri-une being is God (e.g., "God is the Father"), notwithstanding passages such as 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Cor 8:4-6 that predicate "God" upon the person of the Father.
This is echoed by John V. Dahms in his article, "How Reliable is Logic?" (Journal of Evangelical Theology 21/4 [December 1978] 369-80); on p.373, Dahms (another Trinitarian) makes this startling confession (comment in square brackets mine for clarification):
The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation [read: Hypostatic Union] also provides a problem for those who insist that logic is universally applicable. how can there be two natures but only one person, especially if it be remembered that the debate over monothelitism led to the conclusion that the two-natures doctrine implies that Jesus Christ had two wills? That one person can have two wills would seem to be contrary to the law of contradiction. Of course there are "conservatives" who declare that in Christ "there are not two wills, one Divine and one human." One suspects that the law of contradiction has inspired such a judgment, though one wonders whether they are not violating the same law when they continue to affirm that "each nature is complete in itself." Be that as it may, by what logic is it possible for a nature that cannot be tempted to be united with a nature that can be tempted, or for a nature that can grow in favor with God? The Monophysites and the Nestorians had more respect for logic than the orthodox, as did the Docetists and the Ebionites before them, as do those liberals who deny the incarnation today. It is not without some justification that Paul Tillich speaks of the "inescapable contradictions and absurdities into which all attempts to solve the Christological problem in terms of the two-nature theory were driven."
One has to understand that traditional Trinitarian theologies require one to accept a logical and mathematical problem. Consider the following, which are accepted by the Trinitarians:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x)
What about LDS theology?
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:
Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.
Other texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":
Kingship MonotheismThere are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
Also, logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:
A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
On Psa 82:6, perhaps one of the most popular texts Latter-day Saints cite in favour of this doctrine, consider the following comments from three Evangelical Protestant scholars in a recent commentary:
Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).
Bowman is preaching, to borrow from Walter Martin, a false God, a false Christ, and a false Gospel. I do hope he repents before it is too late (Rev 21:8)
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:
Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.
Other texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":
Kingship MonotheismThere are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
Also, logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:
A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
On Psa 82:6, perhaps one of the most popular texts Latter-day Saints cite in favour of this doctrine, consider the following comments from three Evangelical Protestant scholars in a recent commentary:
Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).
Bowman is preaching, to borrow from Walter Martin, a false God, a false Christ, and a false Gospel. I do hope he repents before it is too late (Rev 21:8)
Bowman’s response to the issue of logic and the Trinity, however, is dismissed. In this facebook post, he wrote the following:
I just love how Mormons are all gun-ho for logic when they think it serves their interests, but when you make a reasonable point in criticizing Mormonism they go all pietist-fideist on you. What's really funny about this is that they think they can swing the logic sword at the nature of God, but somehow using logic in discussing a factual matter in the life of Joseph Smith or the meaning of a Greek word in the Bible is unspiritual.
When y'all are prepared to agree to a level playing field in which logical analysis is welcomed on ALL subjects, let me know.
This, ladies and gentleman, is called a "dodge." It should be noted that Bowman tried to ensure logic and Church history would not be part of his debate with Dave Burke (a Christadelphian from Australia) on the Trinity vs. Biblical Unitarianism in 2010 a few days before the debate began.