This is part 4 of my response to Robert Bowman; the previous instalments were:
In this post, I will discuss Gen 1:1 and Joseph Smith's interpretation in the King Follett Discourse (KFD) and Sermon in the Grove (SG). I was planning on waiting until next week or so due to surgery on Monday, but it appears that Robert Bowman views this as an excuse not to interact with the rest of his article. Furthermore, it should be noted that, in these responses, I am hoping not just to respond simply to Bowman (except where he tried to attack my intellectual integrity in a rather poor showing) but also to add to the discussions on these issues. This is one of the reasons why I like to, as I did in part 2, interact with presuppositions.
Gen 1:1 reads:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Hebrew reads:
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
This article will focus on Joseph Smith’s comments on the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים.
In the SG, Joseph Smith was recorded as saying the following:
Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King ames’ translators, “I the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rose, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the world Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding heim, it renders it Gods. It reads first, “In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,” or, as others have translated it, “The head of the Gods called the Gods together.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 371)
Joseph also offered the following:
If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, “The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image.” I once asked a learned Jew, “If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?” He replied, “That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible . . . In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. (Ibid., p. 372)
Joseph’s deconstruction of Gen 1:1 is paralleled in the earlier KFD:
I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyse the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination . . . It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” (Ibid., p. 348)
In these comments we can clearly see the influence of Joshua Seixas on Joseph Smith and his approach to Gen 1:1.
Firstly, for those who, like me, studied biblical Hebrew in university, may be wondering about the odd transliteration system, this is due to Seixas (and later Alexander Neibaur) teaching Joseph and other early Latter-day Saints, not Ashkenazic Hebrew but Sephardic Hebrew, which has a different pronunciation and transliteration system. The following is the Hebrew alphabet with its corresponding pronunciation system on p.6 of the 1834 (2nd) edition of Joshua Seixas’ Hebrew grammar:
When one examines the 1834 edition of Seixas' grammar, we see his direct influence on Joseph Smith.
On p. 85, we find the statement about a [grammatical] termination tied into the first Hebrew word of Gen 1:1, which is an odd phrase that Joseph must have picked up from Seixas:
On p. 76 Seixas gives instructions on how to discover the root of a Hebrew word:
On page 21 section 11 (the section referenced on p. 85 [reproduced above]), it is noteworthy that it defines the termination -ith as a feminine suffix:
As Ben McGuire notes, when discussing Joseph's comments on Gen 1:1 in the KFD:
You will notice that Seixas refers to the ith as a "termination." Essentially, the notion of ith as a grammatical termination (for Joseph Smith) be traced specifically back to the Seixas instruction. Joseph Smith here breaks down the first word exactly as Seixas would have done, in the classroom environment, while searching for the Hebrew word to then look up in a lexicon. The lexical entry however is reshit (which includes the termination) and, even though Joseph comments on the ith as a grammatical termination, he continues to use reshit as a complete term--just as Seixas suggests on page 85 of his grammar. (An Introduction to the Texts, p. 7 [this is .pdf document that was on the CD offered by FairMormon a few years ago reproducing the Seixas' grammars])
I don’t think there is any question that Seixas was the Jewish scholar Joseph discussed elohim and its meaning with, though it is possible that Joseph misunderstood what Seixas said (not having access to any other source of this discussion, one is left only to guess). Much of Joseph’s discussion of Hebrew in these two sermons clearly show the influence of his being tutored by Seixas and the influence his Hebrew grammars had on Joseph, including rather unusual terminology.
Elohim and other considerations
To keep things simple, the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים itself, which is a generic class noun,s can mean “God/god” (sing) when the verb is singular, and “Gods/gods” when the verb is plural (as is the case in Gen 20:13, for e.g. [it should be noted that it does not mean a plurality of persons within a singular elohim as some—not Bowman—have advanced to prop up the Trinity, such as Natan Yoel in The Jewish Trinity]) The verb in Gen 1:1 is singular, so a single אֱלֹהִים is in view. Maybe Bowman (and some LDS with fundamentalist leanings) will raise some eyebrows here, but I am not going to defend Joseph’s interpretation of Gen 1:1 and אֱלֹהִים as, within the realm of the historical-grammatical method (which I privilege), it does not hold up (I don’t hold to prophetic infallibility, so such is like water off a duck’s back for me), but only explaining the possible reasons behind such, coupled with Joseph’s a priori assumption, even outside seeking biblical support, of a council of Gods/plurality of the Gods doctrine. Indeed, Joseph makes some comments showing that he is only appealing to the Bible to support a doctrine he received independent of the text itself just to appeal to those who hold to a sola scriptura mentality:
The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, "If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason." How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains. (Teachings, p. 349)
I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I [also] have the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony [James being Jacobus in the German Bible], were it not to back up the word rosh—the head, the Father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right. (Ibid)
For a discussion of using the wrong texts for the correct doctrine, see part 2 as well as, among others, the book, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G.K. Beale (Baker Academic, 1994) that features essays from liberal, centrist, and conservative scholars (Beale himself is a conservative who holds to inerrancy as laid out by the Chicago Statement, as seen in his commentary on Revelation in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series).
Notwithstanding, one must be cautioned against a lot of nonsense floating around about elohim in Evangelical and other circles (see the resources listed in part 3 of my response). For instance, on the claim that Moses being called elohim in Exo 7:1 "proves" that elohim can and does mean "human judge" has been soundly refuted by academic scholarship for decades now; one recent examples notes the following:
[The Priestly source] is not so explicit regarding the means by which YHWH brought the people out of Egypt. YHWH and his glory do not appear in P until Sinai, so there was no visible manifestation to lead the people physically out of Egypt and to Sinai. P explicitly establishes Moses’ and Aaron’s roles as divine mediators in Exod 7:1-5 . . . In effect, Moses takes the role of YHWH and Aaron of Moses, which involves Moses speaking commands to Aaron who carries them out. The source of the actions, their true agent, remains YHWH, as the passage makes clear by the summarising the entire process as YHWH stretching his hand out over Egypt and removing the Israelites. In the way, Moses and Aaron act out which is otherwise obscured from human observation, YHWH attacking Egypt and rescuing his people. Divine action here is both mediated by human proxies and represented typologically by human action. (Anne Katherine Knafl, Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014], 237-38)
Furthermore, belief in a plurality of Gods was part of the theology of the earliest biblical authors. For instance, note the following from Evangelical Protestants:
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.[1] 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.[2] This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites.[3] [1] 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[4]. This ability for the God 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. [3] See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. [4] 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.
LDS scholar Blake Ostler, commenting on the meaning of elohim vis-a-vis the divine council in the Hebrew Bible, offers the following comment:
The council of the gods is thus not like a democratic legislative body of individuals whose members can oppose Yahweh but a body of united will and action. They are one God in the sense that both the head God Yahweh and the sons of God are collectively called 'elohim. The word 'elohim is the best example of plurality and unity among the gods that can be conveyed by a single word, for it expresses the supremacy of the head God while at the same time including the council of gods within its very meaning. there is a sense in which the council is united as one with Yahweh and thus not separated from him. Indeed, the very fact that the gods are consistently referred to in collective terms suggests that they act as a body one with Yahweh. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, Vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Gerg Kofford Books, 2008], 34-35)
The NRSV of Deut 32:7-9 reads:
Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.
One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the DSS has the reading "sons of god" or, as ANE scholars understand the term, "gods."
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 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.
For more, see Paul Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Brill, 1996).
Such is also the case in the New Testament. One recent scholar, while trying to defend Bauckham’s nonsensical “divine identity” concept, did admit that 1 Cor 8:4-6, an anti-Trinitarian text, allows for the existence of other divine beings:
[W]e should note that in [1 Cor 8:6] it is possible to see the inclusion of Jesus Christ in the identity of the God of the Old Testament, but there is no exclusion of the existence of other beings that might in some sense be considered divine. Paul takes seriously the existence of those beings, but he is clear that Christ is far above them in authority, surely more in the category of the one God than of the lesser powers, demi-gods, so to speak . . . Paul does not question [their] existence.(George Carraway, Christ is God Over All: Romans 9:5 in the context of Romans 9-11 [Bloomsbury, 2015], 87, 89 n. 141).
Moreover, the New Testament understanding of the doctrine of theosis is consistent with LDS theology, but provides many challenges to Evangelicalism which holds to strict ontological monotheism. Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (cf. 1 Chron 29:23 where Solomon sits on the throne of Yahweh!)), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9.
To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
Further for those interested in related topics, the articles listed on part 3 of my response to Bowman discusses some of these issues in further detail. It is Evangelical Protestant, not Latter-day Saint theology that, when all the evidence about the number and nature of God/gods in the Bible is examined, is anti-biblical. The same applies for Christology and related fields.
Further Reading
Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods
Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism