As far as I know, I am the LDS apologist who has done the most work into the Elijah/Elias issue (e.g., "Elias" as a "forerunner" in LDS Scripture). I came across the following in an interesting (not always in a good way, mind you) book that had a chapter-length discussion of this, including a defense of the thesis that “Elias” in D&C 110 was Melchizedek (a view others hold to, including LeGrand L. Baker and Stephen D. Ricks in their Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord? The Psalms in Israel's Temple Worship in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon [2010]
Elias(h), Elijah, and Temple
Ordinances
The link between Elias and Elijah
not only includes their mutual appearances on April 3, 1836 (D&C 110), but
also their names sometimes are used interchangeable: Elias in Greek for “Elijah”
and “Elias.” For instance, there are 18 references to Elias in the New
Testament and only four do not pertain to Elijah. But knowing this does not
eliminate the obfuscation about Elias. Both the Bible dictionary and McConkie’s
Mormon Doctrine give several definitions or applications of Elias based
on what Joseph Smith revealed on the subject. Yet here is another example where
Joseph Smith’s sketch was incomplete or adumbrated. This is evident by merely looking
at the Joseph Smith Translation of Mark 9:3 where Joseph notions that the Elias
mentioned in Mark 9:4 is John the Baptist. However, John the Baptist could not
have been embodied on the Mount of Transfiguration because he was dead (Mark
6), and had not been resurrected yet since Jesus had yet to be resurrected and
Jesus was the first fruit of the resurrection. All of the heavenly visitors on
the Mount of Transfiguration had to have translated bodies because keys were
bestowed by the laying on of hands. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith deserves
a lot of credit because he knew there is a distinction between Elijah and
Elias, and he revealed most of the doctrine of Elias which was lost as there is
no mention of Elias in the Old Testament.
The key to a complete
understanding of the doctrine of Elias is in the Hebrew (as well as the Greek),
which Joseph Smith had not answered. When the angel Gabriel (Luke 1), John the
Baptist (JST John 1) and the Lord (Matt. 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:12) used the
title, they did not say the English or Greek Elias, but the Hebrew Eliash,
which means “my God is fire.” (In Luke 1:17, Gabriel said Eliash,
not Eliyahu (Elijah), even though some Malachi phraseology is used.)
When Elijah was the subject of conversation with the Jews, they said Eliyahu
(my God is Jehovah), not the English Elijah or the Greek Elias.
During John the Baptist’s ministry,
Jewish leaders thought he might be Elijah because of what Malachi prophesied
about Elijah’s return. When they inquired it of him, John the Baptist figured
it was a good teaching opportunity so he answered in Hebrew that he was neither
Eliyahu (Elijah) nor the Messiah, but Eliash (JST John 1:21). Yet
the Jews pressed him further asking, “How then art thou Eliash?” He went
on to explain that he was not that “God of fire” who was to follow him and “baptize
. . . with fire, and with the Holy Ghost” (JST John 1:28). Then they
grasped how he was Eliash—he was not spiritual fire, his God was.
It follows that anyone who is a
forerunner of God’s fire is an Elias(h), John the Baptist being the
perfect example. Noah (Gabriel) was the first Elias(h) (D&C 27:6-7) because
he oversaw the baptism of the earth with water in preparation for its baptism
by fire. Thus he was given the privilege of annunciation (Luke 1:11-20). John
the Revelator is also an Elias(h) because he is preparing the earth for the
great and dreadful day of the Lord that will burn as an oven (D&C 77:14;
Mal. 4).
The interchangeability of the s
and sh in Elias(h) is related to the effect of transliteration and
dialect on translation. There is no sh in Greek so naturally the Greeks
transliterated Eliash as Elias. Moreover the Hebrew letter ש is
either a shin or a sin: the word shibboleth was pronounced
shibboleth by the Ephraimites (Judg. 12:5-6). Another example of this
could be the name S(h)inai . . .
The auspicious appearance on April
3, 1836 in the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110) are paralleled those on the Mount
of Transfiguration and are clues as to what really happened on the mount. There
are 18 references to Elias in the New Testament. Matthew 11:14; 17:12; Mark
9:13; and Luke 1:17 refer to Elias(h). Matthew 16:14; 27:47; Mark 6:15; 8:28;
15:35; Luke 9:8, 19, 54; John 1:21; Romans 11:2; and James 5:17 are all in
reference to Elijah. Notice that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all use the name Elias
for either Elias(h) or Elijah. The remaining three references on Elias pertain
to the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30). Elders
Talmage and McConkie say that this Elias refers to Elijah; but the original
Greek probably indicated Elias and Elias. When it was
translated into the English or rewritten in Greek, the translators and scribes
thought it was a redundancy, so they wrote just Elias. Thus here it
refers to both Elijah and Elias(h). The three tabernacles that Peter
offered to make were for Moses, Elijah, and Elias so they would not leave. When
the Greeks and the English dropped the second Elias, they assigned the third
tabernacle to the Lord.
It never dawned on Joseph Smith
that there were three heavenly visitors with bodies on the Mount of
Transfiguration. But in a way, this is evidence that this visitations were real
because they correlate perfectly with the Mount of Transfiguration and he did
not even realize it.
Who was the Elias on the Mount of
Transfiguration and in the Kirtland Temple on Passover, 1836 that committed the
dispensation of the gospel of Abraham (D&C 110:12)? McConkie states in Mormon
Doctrine under the subtitle “Elias” that he was a contemporary of Abraham
of unknown identity. But then under the subtitle “Gabriel,” Elder McConkie
intimates that he is Noah who “conferred the keys of the dispensations upon
Joseph Smith.” This is erroneous since Joseph Smith received the keys of
Abraham’s dispensation from Elias. Although the authors admit that the Elias
who appeared to Joseph Smith could have been Noah, they prefer Melchizedek for
the following reasons:
1. Melchizedek was more of a
contemporary to Abraham than Noah. Noah may have raised Abraham (both of
Jasher), but Melchizedek ordained him to the patriarchal order (Heb. 7:1-7; JST
Gen 14:25-40; D&C 84:14).
2. Melchizedek was more likely
than Noah to have been translated, and translation was crucial for those who
appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration because keys were bestowed by the
laying on of hands. Consequently, Satan threw a tantrum when Moses was translated
(Jude 1:9), and probably had a similar fit when Elijah was translated. There is
no intimation anywhere in the scriptures of Noah being translated. In fact
Genesis 9:29 states that he died. Contradistinctively, Hebrews 7:3 says that
Melchizedek had not end of life. Moreover, the Joseph Smith Translation of
Genesis 14:27 states: “he was ordained an high priest after the order of the
covenant which God made with Enoch,” the seventh patriarch. This order has
power to control the physical elements and be translated (JST Gen. 14:30-32).
It continues by saying that Melchizedek (Eber), the 14th patriarch, was called
the king of heaven and sought for the City of Enoch which was translated (JST
Gen. 13:34-36). Since God’s house is a house of order, it is a perfect fit that
the 14th patriarch would be translated just like the seventh. Noah did not need
a body for the annunciation since there were no keys bestowed.
3. Although Noah is an Elias(h), a
forerunner of God’s fire, so is Melchizedek. Five times in the “book” of
Hebrews the Lord is called “a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”
(5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21), and the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 14:35
says “that the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.”
4. Melchizedek did not have a dispensation
while Noah had his own, separate from Abraham’s Melchizedek, not Abraham, was
given the privilege of committing Abraham’s dispensation because although
Abraham directly received the promises, Melchizedek was greater than Abraham
(Heb. 7:7; Alma 13:19), was probably translated, and was a forerunner of the dispensation.
Evidence that Melchizedek indeed did prepare for Abraham’s dispensation is that
Abraham was a Hebrew, a descendant of Eber, yet anyone who was a Hebrew in
spirit and belief was also a Hebrew and had Melchizedek (Eber) as his or her
spiritual progenitor. This is why Paul calls himself “an Hebrew of the
Hebrews” (Philip. 3:5). Melchizedek started the spiritual adoption process
(see gospel of Abraham below).
5. Peter, James, and John restored
the Melchizedek priesthood because they were the last to hold the keys of that
priesthood, but they probably received those keys from Melchizedek on the Mount
of Transfiguration.
6. Every time the authors ponder
and pray on the matter, they get a stupor of through when they propose Noah to
be this Elias.
What exactly is the gospel of
Abraham? According to McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, the gospel of Abraham
is synonymous with celestial marriage, but it actually is much more than that.
Not only does it include the law of circumcision and the branding of Jehovah
into Abraham and Sarah . . . . but according to Galatians chapter 3, the gospel
of Abraham is the promise that all of the faithful are the seed of Abraham
whether by pure descent or by adoption. In fact the last verse states, “If
ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs” (see also Mosiah
14:8; 15:10-11). It is through the gospel of Abraham that now there is so much
adoption into the house of Israel through patriarchal blessings, which are not
a declaration of lineage (except in the cases of literal descendants of Aaron
and the patriarchal birthright bloodline), but rather a declaration of the
inherited blessings of that lineage (Eldred G. Smith).
It was during the dispensation of
the gospel of Abraham that the patriarchal order came to an end. (Ephraim was
the last patriarch of this order.) The patriarchal order consisted of a government
where the patriarch wore two hats, one for the patriarchal birthright, the
other as the prophet holding the keys of the kingdom. A new order arose in the
house of Israel where the hats were separated so that the prophet who held the
keys of the Kingdom did not need the patriarchal blood-line birthright. (Notice
that by the time Moses came on the scene, he was able to hold the keys of the
Kingdom without having the patriarchal birthright.) It was through the dispensation
of the gospel of Abraham that this transition took place. There were so many
more spirits that needed the blessings of the patriarchal order but would not obtain
them with that order, that the Lord changed the system. For example, God
commanded Abram to marry Hagar and they had a son, but Abram knew that Ishmael
would not get the birthright. This grieved Abram because he loved Ishmael, but
with the new order of adoption into the house of Israel on the horizon, Ishmael
and his descendants could get the same blessings as Isaac if they were
righteous and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior.
There is also much overlap between
Judaism and what Joseph Smith revealed about Elijah. He is called the Tishbite,
but 1 Kings 17:1 says he is from Gilead, which is east of the Jordan river,
and Tishbah is a town in Naphtali, west of the Jordan. In Elijah the
Tishbite because he held the keys of the temple ordinances and he prophesied
that the Temple would be destroyed on Tisha Bov?
The Jews have a special pleading
setting of silverware, cup, and napkin for Elijah, along with a special chair
for him to sit on during the lavish Passover feast called the Seder.
During the Seder service, the door to the house is opened so that Elijah the prophet
is invited into the home. This is so the curse mentioned in Malachi will not
come upon that household and the people in attendance. The Jews even joke about
this opening of the door for Elijah. If someone hears a knock at the door and opens
it and nobody is there, then, the person opening the door will say, “It must
have been Elijah.” During the Passover Seder, a young person, usually a boy
of bar mitzvah age (13) is requested to ask the four questions and sit to the
left of the patriarch; Elijah’s chair is to the right. The Jews to this day are
fatuously clinging to the sterile belief that Elijah, as well as the Messiah,
have not yet come and are still waiting for them. But Elijah has already come
when he visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on Passover
1836 (D&C 110).
It is also interesting that the
last part of the Hebrew Bible mentions Elijah, and the first scripture out of
Moroni’s mouth when he appeared to Joseph Smith was the end of Malachi with a
twist: “And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made
to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If
it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wated at his coming.” When
Elijah came on April 3, 1836, he quoted Malachi verbatim rather than using
Moroni’s version. Both renditions of Malachi are applicable.
Joseph Smith taught through the
temple endowment, which was probably approved by Elijah when he came, that in
order to make it to the Celestial Kingdom, one has to be able to live the law
of consecration. The word consecrate in the Hebrew is מלאיד which
literally means “fill the hand.” When studying the story of Gideon, the Lord
had him reduce his army of 32,000 men to 300 lest Israel vaunt themselves
(Judg. 7:2). First he dismissed the fearful, those 22,000 who lacked faith then
he took the remaining 10,000 to a water hole and only those who drank from a
cupped hand were retained. The Lord was probably giving a lesson on
consecration, for the “cupped hand” is an important part of temple worship
including the superannuated thurification.
Elijah also held the keys if initiatory
work on the temple where saints are anointed to become kings and priests, and
queens and priestesses. The unction is very similar to the one David received
from Samuel when he was anointed king.
The Hebrew Bible has examples of
righteous people receiving a new name. For example, Abram was changed to
Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Hoshea to Joshua, and Naomi and
Marah. New names were also given to the New Testament: Simon to Peter, John to
Mark, Saul to Paul, and so on. Isaiah also taught that a new and improved name
would be given to the righteous, and it would be everlasting (Isaiah 56:5).
Joseph Smith revealed that a new name should be given in the endowment
ordinance.
The Jewish Bible also mentions the
veil in the tabernacle and the temple (Ex. 26:31-33; 2 Chron. 3:14). There is
also a veil in Mormon temples. Furthermore, Isaiah 22:23-25 mentions the nail
in the sure place, and Isaiah 24:5 mentions the everlasting covenant. Both
are an important part of the Mormon temple ceremony. Lastly, yad le El
is “hand to God,” “foot to God” would be regel le El, and pe le El
means “mouth to God.” This is one of the reasons why Joseph Smith studied
Hebrew in the School of the Prophets.
It is likely that Elijah also
revealed to Joseph Smith that the tokens of the Aaronic and Melchizedek
priesthoods together are a cryptogram. The message of the cryptogram is Jesus
Christ who was crucified is the Holy (Almighty) One of Israel.
One o the tokens of the
Melchizedek priesthood also will be used in the ordinance of the resurrection
(Isaiah 56:5; Mark 5:41). In Isaiah 56:5, the Hebrew not only mentions a new
name, but also the word yad (hand) and the obscure and arcane word bechomosaiy
(בחוֹמתי), which probably is the Hebrew word for “resurrection.” The ב means in,
the ח stands for life, the וֹ stands for create, and the מתי means
my death. Therefore the word means “in life created by my death”
which is the resurrection. The word yad is used for three reasons: One,
since it holds the scepter, it represents the power of God or the priesthood.
Two, yad was originally yod (Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon
to the Old Testament, p. 325), which is a token of Jehovah. Three, it is
used in a special grip when performing the ordinance of the resurrection (Mark
5:41—although revivification is not exactly resurrection, they are fraternal
twins, and the special grip is not mentioned because it is sacred). The reason
all this does not appear in the English is because the Jews do not believe in a
resurrection, nor do they know the Hebrew word for it coined by Isaiah. Moreover,
they along with the rest of Christendom do not believe God has a body, and do
not know that a special grip on the hand is required for the ordinance of the
resurrection. (This is another prime example of a mistranslation in the Bible,
and Isaiah 56 was not on the Gold Plates that Joseph Smith translated.)
Not only do mistranslations arise
over time, but also fairy tales and fantasies. When the Lord raised Jairus’
daughter from the dead (Mark 5:41). He used the word cumi, meaning “arise.”
After Jesus performed the miracle, it was rumored that the Lord used a magic
potion called alchemy to perform it. Al means “God,” and “chemy”
comes from cumi. Since then, alchemy has been used to mean “elixir
of life.” Milton wrote, “Four speedy cherubim put to their mouths the
sounding alchemy.” Why would Milton write sounding alchemy.” Why
would Milton write sounding alchemy if he were not referring to what the
Lord spoke (cumi) when He brought back to life Jairus’ daughter? Also,
Shakespeare wrote, “Guilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy.” Why
would Shakespeare describe alchemy as heavenly if the al did not refer
to God?
Although Elijah had the keys for
temple ordinances, he did not have keys for the ordinances of resurrection and creation.
Only the Lord holds those keys.
It is also within the purview of
this chapter to touch on solemn assemblies. In Deuteronomy 9:10, Moses refers
to the auspicious event of Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel
seeing Elohim as the assembly, and it was obviously a solemn one if
Elohim and Jehovah were present. This implies that at least one member of the
Godhead is present at a solemn assembly, and ideally, those in attendance
should see Him, or at least feel His presence (Ex. 13:21-22; 40;34; 1 Kgs.
8:10-12). (David B. Cohen and Irving H. Cohen, Spiritual Vision—Hebrew
Cryptograms: The Key to Unlocking Parallels Between Mormonism and Judaism [St.
George, Utah: Granite Publishing and Distribution, LLC., 2003], 111-22)
Further Reading