This verse (as well as several others like it) is used to claim that the LDS belief in the corporeality of God is in error because this text seems to imply that God literally fills all things, and he therefore cannot possibly have a body. That is the common argument, and it is how many translators have interpreted this passage both in medical and also in modern times. But how did those ancient translators of the Hebrew into Greek view its meaning> The Hebrew word used in this passage, while yet having a primary meaning conducive to the position of the Evangelicals and of that of various other critics of the LDS Church, also carries the meaning of sufficiency or satisfaction, which rarely, if ever, is discussed (or even noticed) by them. These other meanings here also exegetically are possible when sound hermeneutics are used to interpret this text. The Septuagint reading of this verse (after the English text of Brenton) is:
But will
God indeed dwell with men upon the earth? if the heaven and heaven of heavens
will not suffice [or, satisfy] thee, how much less even this house which I have
built to thy name?
When the translators of the Septuagint translated the Hebrew
text into Greek, they actually chose to use αρκεσυσιν (“they shall be sufficient,” from αρκεω, which means “to suffice” or “to be
enough for.”) It is of significance that this Greek word was used
instead of χωρεω or περιεχω—these carrying nearly the same meanings as the primary meaning of the
underlying Hebrew word (כּל). This is even more significant because the
translators of the Septuagint frequently looked for ways to omit
anthropomorphisms, the same as did the Jewish scribes as they could,
notwithstanding they all missed a few. And it’s a good thing, too! Otherwise we
may not have become aware of them. Of course, they also may not have been
looking for ways to have God fill the heaven and earth in any literal
sense, either. This idea at the early time may have eluded them. But in any
case, because it is a possible meaning of the Hebrew, and also because ancient
translators saw this meaning in the Hebrew rather than what later would be
understood, the impact of this verse otherwise significantly is lessened
against the LDS (and the early Christian) belief in the corporeality of God.
Another verse commonly used in 2 Chronicles 2:6. Like the
above related text, the Septuagint translates this to read:
And who
will be able to build him a house? for the heaven and heaven of heavens do not
bear his glory: and who am I, that I should build him a house, save only to
burn incense before him?
Interestingly enough, the translators here did not follow our
current Hebrew text in this place. Unfortunately, the Dead Sea Scrolls are of
no help to us where, whatsoever. There are no extant manuscripts or fragments
of this 2 Chronicles text. But as has been perceived by scholars, the Septuagint
actually has underlying it a Hebrew text that sometimes differed from that
which now is in common use, and it also frequently has been found to be in
agreement with the Dead Sea Scrolls text. Is it possible that an older Hebrew
text reads as in the Septuagint here? It certainly is possible. But even if we
also rejected the possibility of an older reading existing that was so
significantly different there, what of the current Hebrew text? What is its
possible significance apart from a possible older reading? The Hebrew word in
question also has additional significations of meaning, as “comprehend,
sustain, support, provide, nourish, supply, restrain, hold in ensure.” (BDB,
465) Any one of these alternate meanings are possibilities in spite of what
some scholars may suggest. And the latter of these not only comes close to the
meaning that is seen in the Septuagint rendering, just as some of the former
match with meanings seen in other, related text also in the Septuagint, they
also may be seen to have possible connotations such as “take hold, seize;
grasp; arrest/capture; make a prisoner; charm; allure; seduce; enchain;
enslave; occupy; captivate,” and others negative definitions, as indeed also
was seen by the Latin translators, here using capere.
Further of interest is how the Syriac Peshitta reads at this
place. The text follows the Greek verse division but does not entirely follow
that reading of the text. Its reading (translated) is: “Because the heavens and
heavens of heavens cannot bear him.” Again, the ancient translators saw a
different meaning from that which now often is attached to this passage today
(although George Lamsa seemed to get caught up in the more recent meaning in
the English translation serving as a base for at least parts of his own
translation of the Syriac Peshitta). In all cases, however, the ancient
translators felt quite differently about the meaning of this passage than do
most today, which makes it of considerably less usefulness to the critics.
Yet another passage used by critics, a parallel passage of
that of our 1 Kings 8:27, is 2 Chronicles 6:18. The Septuagint translates this
text (again following Brenton) to read:
For will
God indeed dwell with men upon the earth? if the heaven and the heaven of
heavens will not suffice thee, what then is this house which I have built?
Like the parallel passage at III Kings 8:27 (our 1 Kings
8:27), this passage uses αρκεσουσιν (“they shall be sufficient,” from αρκεω, meaning “to suffice,” or “to be
enough for”). The Latin text here also uses another form of its very same word,
carrying a negative connotation at that parallel passage, as at this one. (II
Paralipomenon, 6:18) In any case, this text is not of as great utility for use
against the LDS position on the corporeal nature of God as the critics have
imagined it to be.
D. Charles Pyle, 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 (Revised and
Supplemented)
(North Charleston, S.C.: CreateSpace, 2018), 288-92
