Unlike most
Latter-day Saints who begin their defence of the LDS belief that everyone, not
just Jesus, personally pre-existed with appeals to some biblical texts (e.g.,
Jer 1:5), I do not. Not that I do not think there is implicit evidence for such
(on this, see Kevin L. Barney, On
Preexistence in the Bible), but I think there is a much better way to
argue, that is, from Christology. Indeed, the LDS view allows for one to argue
that Jesus personally pre-existed and yet preserves belief in his full and
complete humanity, something Chalcedonian Christology does not allow for,
something that some non-LDS scholars have realised. On this, see:
On the topic
of LDS Christology itself, see:
Notwithstanding,
I recently encountered the following from a critic who tries to argue, via (in
some degree) Christology, against Latter-day
Saint theology on this point:
Mormonism makes no distinction between human
spirits and angelic beings. For example, in Mormonism, the Angel Moroni is
supposedly a resurrected human from the Book of Mormon. Yet, the Bible teaches
that humans cannot become angels because we are a completely separate creation.
In Hebrews chapter 2, we read that
by coming a human, Jesus “was made like
unto his brethren” (verse 17),
and “made a little lower than the angels”
(verse 9). Now, if angels are disembodied human spirits, how could Jesus be “made
. . . lower than the angels” by becoming a human? These biblical statements
wouldn’t make sense if angels are simply human spirits who do not have a body. (Christina
R. Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But
Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 102)
As always,
Darlington makes a number of blunders.
Firstly,
with respect to Moroni, the use of “angel” is in reference to his function; it is not a statement of
ontological category (which would refute her argument, anyway, as Moroni, being
resurrected is therefore embodied; not a “disembodied spirit!) Indeed, Joseph Smith only called Moroni
an "angel" once and that was clearly in the sense of
"messenger" (note: Hebrew מַלְאָךְ
and Greek αγγελος means "messenger"; it does not always refer to an
ontological class of beings):
And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from
Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the
prophets-- the book to be revealed . . . (D&C 128:20)
In JS-H
1:33, Moroni introduced himself as a messenger:
He called me by name,
and said unto me that he was a messenger
sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had
a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all
nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken
of among all people.
In the
Doctrine and Covenants, glorified, exalted beings are, ontologically “gods”:
. . . they [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] have
entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones,
and are not angels but are gods. (D&C 132:37)
Secondly,
many Trinitarians (and non-Trinitarians who believe in the personal
pre-existence of Jesus, to be fair) believe that the “angel of the Lord” in the
Old Testament was the premortal Jesus. Those who hold to this view would argue
that “angel” in such contexts is not an
ontological category, but a functional
one, so Darlington should actually know the nuances of “angel” even in the
Bible
Thirdly,
with respect to Heb 2:9, it is talking about Jesus taking on mortality—that is,
His spiritual body taking on our physical bodies—“angels” (disembodied spirits)
and believers in their disembodied state in the intermediate state (who
Darlington would argue were truly human, something, absolutizing her reading of
Hebrews, would refute as they are, well, currently disembodied!) In volume 3 of
his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary,
Bruce McConkie offered this succinct commentary on Heb 2:9:
The only sense in which either men or Jesus
are lower than the angels is in that mortal restrictions limit them for the
moment; and for that matter, angels themselves become mortals and then in the
resurrection attain again their angelic status.
The phrase, “a
little lower than the angels” is to be understood, of course, in a temporal sense. To quote one scholarly
commentary:
The Hebrew underlying βραχύ τι is a spatial metaphor implying gradation: “a
little (lower).” In the psalm, this is a positive statement, “little less than
a god” (REB); there is therefore no contrast between the two halves of Ps. 8:5
(lines 4 and 5 of the quotation). The expression which the LXX, followed by
Hebrews, translated “… than the angels” is in Hebrew plural in form, and may be
either singular or plural in meaning. Modern translations of the psalm vary
between “a little lower than God” (NRSV; cf. TEV text, “inferior only to
yourself”) and “a little lower than the heavenly beings” (NIV text). Hebrews,
following the LXX, is less ambiguous than the MT at the end of the line, which
must mean “… than the angels”; but more ambiguous at the beginning, where βραχύ τι may be either spatial (as in the MT; cf. 2 Sa. 16:1 LXX; Acts 27:28; so
Delitzsch, Vanhoye 1969, J. A. T. Robinson 1973.159) or temporal, “for a little
while” (NRSV, TEV; cf. REB, NIV note; Is. 57:17 LXX; Lk. 22:58, Acts 5:34; so
most commentators; Pryer 44–46). The temporal meaning fits better with the
other temporal expressions in the context (cf. νῦν … οὔπω, v.
8c). There is no reference, in this passage or elsewhere, to the incarnate Son
being “only a little” lower than angels, and it is therefore difficult to see
why the author should repeat the expression in a spatial sense. If it is
understood temporally, it has the function of distinguishing the short period
of humiliation from the uncompleted period from Christ’s exaltation to his final
triumph. Westcott’s comment: “ἠλαττωμένον. Not ἐλαττωθέντα. The human nature which Christ assumed He
still retains” goes further than the text, not only because “the text … speaks,
not of human nature, but of abasement,” but also because the perfect may refer
to a period in the past (Vanhoye 1969.287f.). The uniquely past aspect of
Christ’s death ἐφάπαξ, strongly emphasized later (see on 7:27), is not yet in focus. However,
the death itself is in focus, and it is therefore probably better to understand
ἠλαττωμένον as referring to this, rather than generally to the incarnation. (Paul
Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews:
A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 154)
Now, it is
true that v. 16 states that Jesus came not to help angels but the descendants
of Abraham, but, while in a disembodied state, premortal spirits are not
descendants of Abraham; it is only once they enter mortality do they become
descendants of the patriarch. When one takes into consideration the totality of Latter-day Saint theology
(something Darlington does not do),
one can see there is no contradiction.
Interestingly, some have argued that this verse in Hebrews does not simply teach that Jesus assumed human nature; instead, the verse is teaching that Jesus assumed a specific human nature. As Eastern Orthodox scholar Patrick Henry Reardon wrote:
Interestingly, some have argued that this verse in Hebrews does not simply teach that Jesus assumed human nature; instead, the verse is teaching that Jesus assumed a specific human nature. As Eastern Orthodox scholar Patrick Henry Reardon wrote:
The author of Hebrews, by way of interpreting Psalm 8 (“You have made him a little lower than the angels”), comments that God’s Son “does not assume (epilambanetai) [the nature of] angels, but he assumes the seed of Abraham” (2:16) . . . The author of Hebrews does not say that God’s Son “assumed human nature.” He is said, rather, to assume the conditions of a specific line of history: Abraham’s seed. He did not simply become a man; he became a covenant descendant of Abraham. (Patrick Henry Reardon, Reclaiming the Atonement: An Orthodox Theology of Redemption, Volume 1: The Incarnation [Chesterton, Ind.: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2015], 24, emphasis added)
Consider also the following from two Latter-day Saint scholars who render Heb 2:16 as "For he is certainly not concerned about angels, but he is concerned about Abraham’s descendants":
2:16 For verily he
took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham /
For he is certainly not concerned about angels, but he is concerned about
Abraham’s descendants: This is a difficult verse to translate because of the
unclear use of the verb επιλαμβανομαι (epilambanomai), “to take hold of,”
which is used twice. In the New Testament, it is only used in the middle voice
and has the basic meaning of physically taking hold of or grasping something. A
literal translation is, “He does not take hold of angels, but he takes hold of
the seed of Abraham.” In a more abstract sense, it seems to mean “to be
concerned with/about Abraham’s seed” or “to help Abraham’s seed.” The early church
fathers, both Greek and Latin, generally understood the phrase to refer to
Christ’s taking on human nature, and the KJV follows them. However, there are
compelling reasons for rejecting such an understanding. First of all, there is
no parallel for this meaning in the Greek New Testament or anywhere else in
Greek literature. Second, both αγγελων (angelōn), “of angels,” and σπερματος ‘Αβρααμ (spermatos Abraam),
“of seed of Abraham,” are clearly more concrete than angelic or human nature.
In addition, the use of the present tense, rather than the aorist—which is used
in the preceding and following sentences—would be inappropriate as a reference
to Christ’s taking upon himself human nature since that had already occurred at
his birth. Finally, if this were the sense of this verse, it would simply be
repeating what was said in 2;14, and the causal participle γαρ (gar), “for,” would be
meaningless. Thus, in our Rendition, we have translated επιλαμβανομαι (epilambanomai)
as “to be concerned about.” (Richard D. Draper and Michael D. Rhodes, Epistle
to the Hebrews [Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary; Provo,
Utah: BYU Studies, 2021], 159-60)
There are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. (D&C 130:5)
Such a concept, while unusual to many outside the LDS tradition, finds support in ancient Jewish and Christian texts, such as the following:
Many pseudepigraphic texts (e.g., 3 Enoch) holds that the Old Testament patriarch Enoch became the angel Metatron
The Medieval Jewish text, Zohar Exodus 197a speaks of the translated Elijah as an angel among angels.
Zohar Exodus 231a says that "Gabriel is the messenger for this world, hence he had to put on the garments of this world."
Zohar Leviticus 68a-b states that “at the time when God breathed spirit into all the hosts of the heavens, they all came into being and existence, but some were held back until the Holy One, blessed be He, sent them below, and these have sway both above and below. Hence Elijah said: “As the Lord liveth before whom I have stood” (I Kings XVII, 1), not “before whom I am standing." Afterwards he returned to his place and ascended to his chamber, but the others do not ascend until they die, because they did not stand before God previously. Therefore Elijah and all those who cleave to the King were made messengers [angels] of the heavenly King, as we find in the book of Adam that all holy spirits above perform God’s messages and all come from one place, whereas the souls of the righteous are of two degrees combined higher, and therefore they ascend to a great height. This applies to Enoch and Elijah."
2 Enoch (J) 30:10-14, speaking of Adam, God is recorded as saying,
And on the earth I assigned him to be a second angel, honored and great and glorious. And I assigned him to be a king, to reign on the earth and to have my wisdom. And there was nothing comparable to him on the earth, even among my creatures that exist And I assigned to him a name from the four components:
from East - (A)
from West - (D)
from North - (A)
from South - (M)
And I assigned to him for special stars, and called his name Adam.
Other examples could be given, but it is clear that such a concept has strong ancient support.
Fifthly, and finally, Darlington shoots herself in the foot vis-a-vis the true humanity of Jesus and his taking on mortality, and the sinless of God the Father. How so? On p. 88, she wrote the following inane comment:
If the Mormon teaching were true that God was
once a man “like” us, wouldn’t that make
him once a sinner “like” us? Since Jesus was “without sin,” (Hebrews 4:15),
how could He do something His Father couldn’t do?
This is, to
be blunt, a stupid comment. (1) LDS theology does not state that the Father was
a sinner; (2) her comments seem to indicate a belief that LDS theology believes
Jesus sinned with her “how could [Jesus] do something His Father couldn’t do?”
Of course, that is a lie: LDS theology holds that Jesus never sinned (though
most LDS commentators, myself included, believe it was truly possible for Jesus
to have sinned).
