James White on Numbers 23:19 and LDS Theology

God is not a man to be capricious, Or mortal to change His mind. Would He speak and not act, Promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

I recently came across this note by James R. White on his facebook page addressing a to-and-fro between a Muslim apologist and another Trinitarian apologist and proponent of ID ; in this note, he makes some comments about Trinitarian Christology in light of Num 23:19, as well as making some “pot-shots” against LDS theology. As these are rather common accusations made against LDS theology, we will carefully examine such arguments.

White's comments will be in blue followed by my responses.

Issues realting to Creation

Verse 19, the beginning of the word given to Balaam by Yahweh, states a basic reality: God is God. God is not human. God is the creator of humanity.

What one has to know is that White reads into this the later doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Further, White is fond of appealing to Zech 12:1 as a biblical text disproving the LDS concept of pre-existence. This is not the realm to do a full discussion, especially as there have been competent, lengthy discussions of such topics available:

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought (review of the works of William Lane Craig and Paul Copan on this issue)

Kevin L. Barney, On Preexistence in the Bible (a response to ch. 3 of J.P. Holding, The Mormon Defenders [2001])

I myself addressed the Christological necessity of universal pre-existence, not merely notional pre-existence for everyone but the person of Jesus, at The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence.

God "changing" His Mind and Reformed Theology

Using standard Hebrew parallelism (this is a poetic section), the same truth is restated, this time with the statement “that He should repent.” The term used here, nacham. . . is deeper than the Western concept of “repent” as in “change one’s mind,” but often includes within it the idea of regret at one’s actions, or at least regret at the results of past events.

The problem is that, as White is correct, this is a poetical section. However, he is trying to get systematic theology from poetry, which his always precarious, though he is known to do this with other texts, such as Gen 50:20, notwithstanding it being a poetic parallelism, too (see Does Genesis 50:20 Prove Compatibilism?). Such is always dangerous, theologically and exegetically speaking.

Furthermore, in historical narratives, God is said to “regret” things, including creation:

The Lord was sorry (נחם) that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry (נחם) that I have made them." (Gen 6:6-7, NASB)

Indeed, there are many instances where God, as a result of historical contingencies and/or the free-will actions of people, will “change” His mind. For more, see the section, “The Bible is both God-centered and Man-centered” in my paper An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology.

As one example, take the "potter/clay" metaphor for God's relationship with mankind, one that Calvinists such as White are fond of (White has a book, written in response to Norman Geisler, entitled The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free [2d ed.; Calvary Press, 2009], showing his fondness of this metaphor). However, when examined exegetically, this metaphor does not support monergism, but actually supports synergism. How so? Take chapter 18 of the book of Jeremiah as a whole. This metaphor of God’s relationship to His people is used in vv. 4-6 :

The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him. Then the word of the Lord came to me: Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. (NRSV)

However, only by ignoring (1) the totality of the Bible (e.g., the texts discussed above) and (2) the rest of this chapter in Jeremiah, can one be able to absolutise this pericope to support the popular Reformed reading thereof. In the verses immediately following this text, we read the following which again highlights the dynamic relationship between God’s will and the free-will actions of human beings:

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7-10, NRSV)

Robert B. Chisholm, currently the department chair and senior professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the following in a paper Making Sense of Prophecy: Recognizing the Presence of Contingency, presented at the ETS Far West Regional Meeting, April 2007:

The Lord sent Jeremiah to the potter’s house for an object lesson (vv. 1-2). As the potter shaped his pot according to a specific design, the clay was not pliable, so the potter reshaped it into a different type of pot (vv.3-4). Just as the potter improvised his design for the uncooperative clay, so the Lord could change his plans for Israel (vv. 5-6). If the Lord intends to destroy a nation, but it repents when warned of impending doom, the Lord will relent from sending judgment (vv. 7-8). Conversely if the Lord intends to bless a nation, but it rebels, the Lord will alter his plan and withhold blessing (vv. 9-10). God announces his intentions, but a nation’s response can and often does impact God’s decision as to what will actually take place. (p. 3)

The footnote for the above text (p. 3 n. 6) reads thusly:

By making room for human response, God does not compromise his omniscience (defined in the classical sense), sovereignty, and immutability. God fully knows what will transpire because he has decreed the future. But this decree, by God’s sovereign decision, accommodates the choices and actions of creatures to whom he imparts a degree of freedom. It also makes room for God to respond to these choices and actions. This relational flexibility is a corollary of his immutability, which encompasses his just and compassionate nature.

Commenting on Jer 18:7-10, Richard L. Pratt, himself a Calvinist (Presbyterian), so he would agree with White with respect to TULIP and other issues, wrote:

Several elements in this passage point to its categorical nature. First, each sentence begins with an emphatically general temporal reference. The expressions “at some time” (rg`), “and at some other time” (wrg`) emphasize that Yahweh’s words apply to every situation. No particular circumstances limit the protases. Second, the anarthrous expression “any nation or kingdom” (`l gwy w`l mmlkh) also points to the categorical nature of the policy. Yahweh’s responsiveness applies to all nations. Third, these verses describe the two major types of prophetic prediction: judgment (Jer 18:7-8) and salvation (Jer 18:9-10). In terms of form critical analysis, all prophetic oracles gravitate in one or both of these directions. Referring to these two major directions of all predictions underscores the categorical nature of the dynamic described here.

The universal perspective of Jeremiah 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions. Sincere repentance had the potential of effecting every unqualified prophecy of judgment. Flagrant disobedience had the potential of negating every unqualified prophecy of prosperity.

A survey of Scripture reveals that the descriptions of God’s reactions in Jeremiah 18 are only representative. Yahweh reacted to human responses in many different ways. At various times, he completely reversed (Am 7:1-9), postponed (e.g. 1 Kgs 21:28-29; 2 Kgs 22:18-20), mollified (e.g. 2 Chr 12:1-12) and carried through (2 Sam 12:22-23) with predictions. Yahweh exercised great latitude because his responses were situation specific, appropriate for the particularities of each event. nevertheless, a basic pattern was always at work. The realizations of all unqualified predictions were subject to modification as Yahweh reacted to his people’s responses. (Richard L. Pratt, Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions: An Inaugural Address Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, pp. 14-15)

Indeed, elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah, we see this explicated:

If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings. (26:3)

And said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, unto whom ye sent me to present your supplication before him; If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you. (42:9-10)

So we see that the metaphor of the potter and the clay cannot be absolutised in the way that many Reformed apologists are wont to.

Is man the same "species" as God?

Continuing, White states:

Mormon [theology] denies the ontological distinction between God and man

I will divide this into two sections, as Num 23:19 is used against LDS theology on both areas, and White is no exception: (1) "species" differentiation or lack thereof between "God" and "man" in the Bible and (2) divine embodiment.

The Question of the ontological relationship between God and man:

For 'in him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring (γένος).' Since we are God's offspring (γένος), we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. (Acts 17:28-29 NRSV)

In this passage, the apostle Paul quotes the Greek poet Aratus (approx. 315-240 B.C.), Phaenomena 5.

Here is how some standard Koine Greek lexicons define the term γενος:

Louw-Nida:

10.32  γένος, ους n: a non-immediate descendant (possibly involving a gap of several generations), either male or female - 'descendant, offspring.' ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ 'I am the root and descendant of David' Re 22.16. Here ῥίζα (10.33) and γένος are very similar in meaning, and it is often best to coalesce the two terms into a single expression, for example, 'I am a descendant of David' or 'I belong to the lineage of David.'

BGAD:

1629  γένος

• γένος, ους, τό (Hom.+; loanw. in rabb.) a noun expressive of relationship of various degrees and kinds.

1. ancestral stock, descendant ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ of high-priestly descent (s. Jos., Ant. 15, 40) Ac 4:6 (PTebt 291, 36 ἀπέδειξας σεαυτὸν γένους ὄντα ἱερατικοῦ, cp. 293, 14; 18; BGU 82, 7 al. pap). υἱοὶ γένους Ἀβραάμ 13:26 (s. Demetr.: 722 fgm. 2, 1 Jac.; Jos., Ant. 5, 113; Just., D. 23, 3 ἀπὸ γένους τοῦ ᾽Α); γ. Δαυίδ Rv 22:16; IEph 20:2; ITr 9:1; ISm 1:1. τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν we, too, are descended from him Ac 17:28 (quoted fr. Arat., Phaenom. 5; perh. as early as Epimenides [RHarris, Exp. 8th ser. IV, 1912, 348-53; CBruston, RTQR 21, 1913, 533-35; DFrøvig, SymbOsl 15/16, ’36, 44ff; MZerwick, VD 20, ’40, 307-21; EPlaces, Ac 17:28: Biblica 43, ’62, 388-95]. Cp. also IG XIV, 641; 638 in Norden, Agn. Th. 194 n.; Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 4 [Stoic. I 537] ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος …; Dio Chrys. 80 [30], 26 ἀπὸ τ. θεῶν τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος; Ep. 44 of Apollonius of Tyana [Philostrat. I 354, 22] γένος ὄντες θεοῦ; Hierocles 25, 474, vs. 63 of the Carmen Aur.: θεῖον γένος ἐστὶ βροτοῖσιν), cp. Ac 17:29.—Also of an individual descendant, scion (Hom.; Soph., Ant. 1117 Bacchus is Διὸς γ.). Jesus is τὸ γένος Δαυίδ Rv 22:16 (cp. Epimenides [VI BC]: 457 fgm. 3 Jac., the saying of Musaeus: ἐγὼ γένος εἰμι Σελήνης; Quint. Smyrn. 1, 191 σεῖο θεοῦ γένος ἐστί).

Moulton-Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament:

844  γένος [pg 124]

γένος

     is common in the papyri with reference to a species or class of things. Thus P Fay 21¹⁰ (A.D. 134) εἴτ᾽ ἐν γένεσιν εἴτ᾽ ἐν ἀργυρίῳ, “whether in kind or in money,” with reference to payments, ib. 90¹¹ (A.D. 234) χ@ρῆ]σιν ἐγ γένι λαχανοσπέρμου ἀρτάβας τρ@ῖ]ς, “a loan in kind of three artabas of vegetable seed,” P Oxy VIII. 1134¹³ (A.D. 421) περὶ ἄλλου τινὸς εἴδους ἢ γένους, “of any other sort or kind.” In P Grenf II. 44¹¹ (A.D. 101) the word occurs in connexion with the transport of “goods,” and in P Oxy IV. 727²⁰ (A.D. 154) an agent is authorized γένη διαπωλήσοντα ἃ ἐὰν δέον ᾖ τῇ αὐτοῦ πίστει, “to sell off produce as may be needful on his own authority”: cf. ib. I. 54¹⁶ (A.D. 201) εἰς τειμὴν γενῶν, “for the price of materials” for the repair of public buildings, and ib. 101¹⁶ (A. D. 142) where γένεσι = “crops.” Similarly P Amh II. 91¹⁵ (A.D. 159) οἷς ἐὰν αἱρῶμαι γένεσι πλὴν κνήκου, “with any crops I choose except cnecus” (Edd.). In P Oxy IX. 1202²⁰ (A.D. 217) κατ᾽ ἀκολουθείαν τῶν ἐτῶν καὶ τοῦ γένους, the word is used = “parentage”: cf. BGU I. 140²⁶ (B.C. 119) τοῖς πρὸς @γ]ένους συνγενέσι, “to the legitimate parents.” With γένος = “offspring,” as in Ac 17²⁸, cf. IG XIV. 641 (Thurii) καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμῶν γένος ὄλβιον εὔχομαι εἶμεν … Ὄλβιε καὶ μακαριστέ, θεὸς δ᾽εσῃ ἀντὶ βροτοῖο, and 638 γῆς παῖς εἰμὶ καὶ οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γένος οὐράνιον (both cited by Norden Agnostos Theos, p. 194). Ac 4⁶ has a close parallel in P Tebt II. 291³⁶ (A.D. 162) ἀ]pεd@ι]ξας σεαυτὸν γένους @ὄ]ντα ἱερατικοῦ. In OGIS 470⁵ (time of Augustus) a certain Theophron describes himself as priest διὰ γένου τῆς Ἀναΐτιδος Ἀρτέμιδος, “hereditary” priest. In ib. 513¹⁰ (iii/A.D.) γένους τῶν Ἐπι(λ)αϊδῶν, and 635⁴ (Palmyra, A.D. 178–9) οἱ ἐγ γένους Ζαβδιβωλείων, it answers to gens, a tribe or clan. For the common τῷ γένει in descriptions, cf. Syll 852² (ii/B.C.) σῶμα ἀνδρεῖον ὧι ὄνομα Κύπριος τὸ γένος Κύπριον. In Vettius Valens, p. 86²⁶, εἰς γένος εἰσελθών is used of a manumitted slave: cf. p. 106^11. 

As Daniel C. Peterson in his seminal essay, Ye are Gods: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind wrote the following on γενος via-á-vis its implications for LDS theology:

The word rendered “offspring” by the King James translators is the Greek genos, which is cognate with the Latin genus and means “family” or “race,” or “kind,” or, even, and most especially interesting for our present purpose, “descendants of a common ancestor.”²⁸⁵ Paul was saying that human beings are akin to God—the word kin is itself related to genos—or, to put it differently, that he and they are of the same genus. (The Latin Vulgate rendering of the same passage uses exactly that word, genus.) What does this mean? The great third-century philosopher Porphyry of Tyre explained in his Isagoge, one of the most important and widely read treatises on logic from the ancient world, that the primary meaning of the term genos or genus refers to

a collection of things related to one another because each is related to some one thing in a particular way. In this sense, the Heraclids are said to be a family [genos] because of the relationship of descent from one man, Heracles. The many people related to each other because of this kinship deriving from Heracles are called the family of the Heraclids since they as a family are separate from other families.²⁸⁶

Porphyry’s explanation that the nature of a genus consists at least partly in its separation from other genera seems to accord very well with the argument at Acts 17:29, where Paul contends that, because we and God are of the same genus, “we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” Such things, such genera, he says, are separate from our genus, and, hence, are not appropriately worshiped by human beings. They are beneath us.

“The basic language of the Bible and of the Christian religion,” wrote G. Ernest Wright, albeit in another context,

is an anthropomorphic language, drawn from the categories of personality and community. Confusion with metaphors drawn from other realms should be avoided because there is a basic relatedness and kinship between God and human life which does not exist in the same sense between God and nature.²⁸⁷

Aratus’s declaration, which Paul endorsed, may perhaps represent a quite venerable position among Greek thinkers. “One is the race of men with the gods,” wrote the great fifth-century B.C. lyric poet Pindar, using the same word, genos, that appears in Acts 17.²⁸⁸ The so-called lamellai, or “Golden Plates,” found in tombs in Thessaly, Crete, and Italy are among the most intriguing documents from antiquity and provide still further evidence. These lamellai were apparently placed in the hands of the dead to remind the soul of powerful phrases that it was to use when confronting the powers of the underworld; they would thus help the soul to attain salvation. Among them is a plate from Petelia, dating to the mid-fourth century before Christ, that seems to make a point rather similar to Paul’s own. Describing the terrain and the guards that the deceased soul will encounter in the spirit world, the text advises him to declare, “I am a child of Earth and starry Heaven; but my race [genos] is of Heaven alone.”²⁸⁹In other words, the deceased person belongs there, in heaven; he is akin to heavenly things and not to the mundane objects of earth.

Notes for the Above

285.   William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 155; see Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:684–85. For the meaning of the term in classical or pagan Greek (which is identical), see any of the numerous editions of the standard Liddell and Scott lexicon. The same term, genos, is used in the modern Greek translation of the Bible (Athens: Biblike Hetairia, 1971).

286.   Porphyry the Phoenician, Isagoge, trans. Edward W. Warren (Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1975), 28–29. Compare Plotinus, Enneads 6.1.3.

287.   Wright, “The Faith of Israel,” 359.

288.   Pindar, Nemean Odes 6.1. The phrase is admittedly ambiguous. It could also mean “one is the race of men, another the race of the gods,” and is frequently, if not generally, so rendered. However, I follow the interpretation of the passage advanced by John C. Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion: A Study in Survivals (New Hyde Park, N.Y.: University Books, 1964), 65 and 65 n. 1, and endorsed by Stylianos V. Spyridakis, “Reflections on Hellenic Theanthropism,” in TO EΛΛHNIKON: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis Jr., ed. John S. Langdon et al. (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Coratzas, 1993), 1:9, 16 n. 2. Dawson W. Turner, The Odes of Pindar Literally Translated into English Prose (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852), 371, gives the passage as “Men and the Gods above one race compose.”

289.   The Greek text of the plate, in both transcription and reconstruction, is published at Günther Zuntz, Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 358–59.

Strongly mirroring such an interpretation, Joseph Fitzmyer writes the following:

‘For we too are his offspring.’ These words are quoted from the third-century astronomical poem of the Stoic, Aratus, who was born in Soli (in Cilicia) ca. 315 B.C., tou gar kai genos eimen, “of him we too are offspring” (Phaenomena 5). Luke may have changed the Ionic eimen to Attic semen, but he more likely found it so in a source, because the Attic form was current. It appears also in frg. 4 of the second-century B.C. Jewish apologist, Aristobulus, quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 13.12.6 (GCS 8/2.194). In quoting this verse, the Lucan Paul makes a new point in part III of his address: God is not only near to human beings, but they are related to him as kin. Paul understands the Stoic idea in a biblical sense; c. Psalm 139; Luke 3:38 (Adam as God’s son). (Joseph A. Fizmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1998], 611; emphasis added)

Acts 17:28-29 provides strong evidence for Latter-day Saint theology on this particular issue.

There have been some attempts, especially by Michael Heiser, to argue the species-uniqueness of Yahweh from the Old Testament. One such text that is employed is Neh 9:6. Blake Ostler wrote the following in response to Heiser on this issue:

Nehemiah 9:6: It is you, O Lord, you are the only one; you made the heavens (עָשִׂיתָ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַיִם), the highest heavens and all their host (כָל־צְבָאָם), the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them. To all of them you give life, and the heavenly hosts bow down before you. (New American Bible [NAB])

Nehemiah claims that the hosts of heaven have been made or organized just as the earth was organized (עשׂה, 'asah) with everything on it. However, the sense of “create” here does not entail creation out of nothing but rather organization of the armies of heaven. Further, it doesn’t entail that the armies of heaven are created in all respects. The sun, moon, and stars are not “created” in the sense that they are brought into existence from nothing. Rather, the sun, moon, and stars are “created” in the sense that they are placed in the raqia or dome that separates the waters above the heavens from those below as Genesis 1 states. In fact, the parallel in Psalm 148:1-5 suggests that the “hosts of heaven” refer to the sun, moon, and stars: “Praise the Lord from the heavens; give praise in the heights. Praise him, all you angels; give praise all you hosts. Praise him, sun and moon; give praise, all shining stars. Praise him, the highest heavens, you waters above the heavens. Let them all praise the Lord’s name; for the Lord commanded and they were created” (יְהַלְלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם יְהוָה כִּי הוּא צִוָּה וְנִבְרָאוּ) (NAB).

Based on the parallel between “hosts of heaven” and the sun, moon, and stars in Psalm 148:2-3, the assertion that the “hosts of heaven” are created refers to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, but only in the sense that the preexisting heavenly bodies are organized by being placed in the firmament or raqia on the fourth day in Genesis 1:14-18. As physically organized things, the sun, moon, and stars are deemed to be created or organized realities in Mormon thought as well. Returning to the Hebrew cosmology, it must be kept in mind that the Hebrews regarded the sun, moon, and the stars as sentient beings that can praise Yahweh. However, the sun and the moon are not among the sons of God who reside in the highest heaven above the heaven of heavens. The creation in Nehemiah 9:6 refers to dividing the waters by fixing the dome to hold back the waters above and the separate the waters from the heaven below the firmament. The sun, moon, and stars are fixed in the firmament and that is what constitutes their being “created” . . .  The armies or hosts of heaven like the sun, moon, and stars are the lowest in the heavenly hierarchy. These heavenly hosts or bodies are fixed in the solid but transparent “firmament” or raqia that is below the waters which are located in the heavens above the firmament. The raqia holds back the waters from flooding the earth. The sun and the moon move below the raqia, and the stars are fixed in it like lights in the dome. The sons of God in the council of heaven around God’s throne, in contrast, are above the heaven of heavens in the realm of the uncreated.

Thus, the proof texts reviewed by Heiser do not establish that the “sons of God” are not the same kind as Yahweh because they are created in the sense that they are ontologically contingent and he is not. Rather, they merely establish that: (1) some of the elohim are not considered to be fully divine beings like Yahweh; (2) some of the heavenly hosts such as sun, moon, and stars were created or organized at the time that the earth was created. The sun, moon, and stars already existed to be placed in the firmament. They are created only in the sense that they are organized by taking preexisting heavenly hosts and placing them in their order in the firmament. However it is contrary to the Hebrew scripture to regard the sons of God as created in the sense that they are brought into existence at the time of creation because they were already present with Elohim at the creation of humankind. When Elohim declares in Genesis 1:26: “Let us make man in our own image” (emphasis mine), the plural refers to the council of gods who assist in the creation. When God says in Job: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . . . When all the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4 7), Job cannot refer to the creation of the earth because the stars were placed in the raqia on the fourth day after the foundations of the earth had already been laid. (Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 283-84.)

Divine Embodiment

Because of space considerations, one will discuss only Gen 1:26-27 and Heb 1:3, as they are among the most popular OT and NT texts LDS use as biblical evidence for “divine embodiment.” The texts read as follows:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:26-27)

Who [Christ] being the brightness of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Heb. 1:3)

On Gen 1:26-27, John Day wrote:

[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as well as prophet at a time not too long before P, and whose theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek. 1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut, ‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical totality.

The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature, referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years. Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John Day, From Creation to Babel Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).

Such conclusions are also supported by vv.21-25:

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. And God blessed the, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (לְמִינָהּ), cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:21-25)

According to this pericope, each class of creation is described as having been created "after its kind (alt. species [מִין])." Subsequently, they were assigned a duty--to multiply and replenish the earth. Horses do not look like mice and fish do not look like cats. They were created after their own kind. This is important as plays an important exegetical role vis-a-vis the relationship between God and the physical nature of man in the verses that immediately follow this pericope:

And God said, Let us make man in our image (צֶלֶם), after our likeness (דְּמוּת): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image (צֶלֶם), in the image (צֶלֶם) of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26-28)

As Presbyterian Old Testament scholar, Meredith Kline, wrote:

By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam's representative, but as Adam's son he did resemble his father. The terminology "in his likeness" serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase "after its kind" which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance. (Meredith G. Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit” Westminister Theological Journal, 39 [1976/77]: note 34)

Kline, on this theme, also comments that "the traditional avoidance of the visible corporeal aspect of man in formulating the imago Dei doctrine (in deference to the noncorporeal, invisible nature of God) has not reckoned adequately with the fact of theophanic revelation and in particular has missed the theophanic referent of the image in the Genesis 1 context" and that "the theophanic Glory was present at the creation and was the specific divine model or referent in view in the creating of man in the image of God."

Interestingly, Kline (correctly) rejects the idea that Gen 1:26 is evidence of a plurality of persons within the "one God" (a later reading that desperately tries to read the Trinity back into the Old Testament). On Gen 1:26 in the same article, he wrote:

In Genesis 1:26 it is the plural form of the creative fiat that links the creation of man in the image of God to the Spirit-Glory of Genesis 1:2. The Glory-cloud curtains the heavenly enthronement of God in the midst of the judicial council of his celestial hosts. Here is the explanation of the “let us” and the “our image” in the Creator’s decree to make man. He was addressing himself to the angelic council of elders, taking them into his deliberative counsel.

This understanding of the first-person-plural fiat is supported by the fact that consistently where this usage occurs in divine speech it is in the context of the heavenly councilor at least of heavenly beings. Especially pertinent for Genesis 1:26 is the nearby instance in Genesis 3:22, a declaration concerned again with man’s image-likeness to God: “Man has become like one of us to know good and evil.” The cherubim mentioned in verse 24 were evidently being addressed. In the cases where God determines to descend and enter into judgment with a city like Babel or Sodom, and a plural form (like “Let us go down”) alternates with a singular, [30] the explanation of the plural is at hand in the angelic figures who accompany the Angel of the Lord on his judicial mission. [31] When, in Isaiah’s call experience, the Lord, enthroned in the Glory-cloud of his temple, asks, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8), the plural is again readily accounted for by the seraphim attendants at the throne or (if the seraphim are to be distinguished from the heavenly elders, as are the winged creatures of the throne in Revelation 4) by the divine council, which in any case belongs to the scene. (A similar use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the assembly of the gods as described in Canaanite texts of the Mosaic age.)

On Heb 1:3, LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text" offered the following exegesis of the verse:

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.

Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.

Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα aapaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.

Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.

The Hypostatic Union

[W]e believe the Second Person of the Trinity voluntarily took on a perfect human nature in the Incarnation. The Second Person did not cease being fully God, fully eternal, etc. There was no inter-mixture of the natures so that the divine became semi-human or the human became semi-divine.

That is true, up to a point. However, the Hypostatic Union, as defined at Chalcedon, clearly teaches that, apart from being fully human and fully divine, Jesus is a singular person. Jesus is a man, and the NT has no issues with using “man” even after his exaltation:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς) (1 Tim 2:5)

Only by engaging in something akin to Nestorianism or some other early christological heresy can one consistently appeal to the (eisegetical) interpretation of Num 23:19 and hold to such a formulation of Christology. And remember, White is fond of saying (quite correctly, I will add), that “inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument” when debating Muslim apologists. Note the following from Chalcedon:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. (DS 301)

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis. (DS 302)

However, it is only by “splitting” Jesus into two persons, functionally, can Trinitarians answer common objections to Trinitarian Christology, such as claiming that Jesus, in his humanity, did not know when the parousia (Second Coming) would be (see Mark 13:32//Matt 24:36), but he did know in his divinity, although according to Chalcedon and the Hypostatic Union, Jesus is one divine person. It is similar to someone, upon being asked if hey had a dollar, said "no." Upon closer investigation, it turned out he did have a dollar, and his response being "I was speaking from my left pocket, which had no dollar coin; my dollar coin was in my right pocket"; a huge level of "divine deception" is necessitated by such an interpretation, such is the danger of many false theologies, White's included.

[T]he NT reveals the Trinity simply because it is written in light of the historical action of the Triune God that preceded it. I have addressed this in my book, The Forgotten Trinity

I read White's book back in 2007. While it is better than Morey's The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (1996), it is not convincing. By all means, read White's book and compare and contrast with something such as Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008) to see the biblical and philosophical problems within Latin/Creedal Trinitarianism, as well as the sound biblical evidence for Latter-day Saint theology. Also, an article White and Durbin tried, and failed, to refute, on these issues, would be Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" contains exegesis of some of the relevant texts (e.g., Deut 6:4).

Answering the anti-Mormon abuse of Num 23:19

So, how should LDS approach Num 23:19?

Firstly, one should note that these are the words of a false prophet, so it speaks volumes Evangelicals have to quote this verse. Notwithstanding, similar sentiments are found in 1 Sam 15:29 and Hos 11:19, so let us address this verse.

Secondly, it should be noted that Num 23:19 uses the Hebrew term, אִישׁ which is the comparative form of the word “man” in biblical Hebrew. It is used to compare one man to another (e.g. comparing an old man to a young man; a man to a woman).

Women, wives, and older men are all beings of the same species. The Hebrew word assumes that characteristic as the point of similarity on which it is used to make comparisons. In this passage, the attribute being compared through the use of the word אִישׁ is the trait of honesty, not manhood. This verse, and others like it, compare God as a man who does not lie with mortal men who do. The passage always assumes that God is a man.

Furthermore, the phrase translated “a son of man” in the next portion of the verse are taken from the Hebrew, בֶן־אָדָ֖ם, a phrase used to refer specifically to a mortal man, literally a descendant of Adam. The contrast is not between God and man, for that would have required use of the Hebrew word אָדָ֖ם alone.

Even these linguistic elements refuting the Evangelical appeal to this verse aside, the context of Num 23:19 (and other like-verses) are not the physiological nature of God, but his moral character--unlike fallen man, God does not lie nor does he stand in need of repentance. God's impeccable character is in view here.

Funnily enough, ignoring the meaning of the Herbew word , absolutising Num 23:19 in the eisegetcal way some critics are wont to do, Hos 2:18 is proof for the LDS perspective:

"It will come about in that day," declares the Lord, "That you will call Me Ishi And will no longer call me Baali." (NASB)

Here, God calls himself "Ishi," the transliteration of the Hebrew, אִישִׁי, it being the first person possessive form of אִישׁ!

A related text from the New Testament that critics sometimes appeal to is Rom 1:22:23:

Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beats, and creeping things.

As noted above, the Father (and the Son) has a glorified, incorruptible body and nature as opposed to corruptible, mortal men. Nothing in this passage, as understood contextually, and with proper understanding of Mormon theology, proves to be problematic. Further, Paul was condemning the pagans and those who are evil who exchanged God and His glory for things that aren’t real like idols (Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11). Their futile speculations were showing the pre-eminence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the culmination of God’s glory. He wasn’t teaching God’s alleged omnipresence or non-materiality which wouldn’t even make sense in the context of Rom 1:23.