Jehovah vs. Elohim


Curious_George
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear Friends in Faith,

No, I'm not asking who would win in a Father-Son arm wrestling match...but, it is my understanding that the LDS Church teaches that Jehovah and Elohim are separate individuals, namely, God the Son and God the Father, respectively. Is this true?

If so, how do Mormons interpret verses such as Isaiah 43:10-11? "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord [Jehovah or Yahweh], and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."

In the King James OT, I am told that "the Lord" translates Jehovah [or Yahweh as it is more probably pronounced] and "God" translates Elohim. Thus, the above Scipture citation would seem to suggest that Yahweh and Elohim are the same entity. Indeed, Elohim, I have been taught, is just the generic Hebrew word for God or "the Divinities," so it would only make sense for the Israelites to say, "Yahweh is Elohim alone," just as a modern English speaker might say, "The Lord is the only God." Indeed, this is said explicitly in Deuteronomy 4:35, "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord [Jehovah or Yahweh] he is God [Elohim]; there is none else beside him."

Therefore, how would a Mormon respond?

Sincerely in Christ,

Geoffrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Hebrew is mostly right. "El" is a generic word for "God". The "ohim" suffix functions either as plural or as a superlative. The Isaiah scripture you cite merely states "el"; the Deuteronomy passage uses "elohim". Mormons have no problem acknowledging this more generic usage of the word "elohim" even though we also believe that Elohim is a proper name of God the Father.

As for the actual meaning of the verses in question: they both boil down to "Jehovah is God; beside Him there is no other" - the essence of the shema. From the day Jacob's wives snuck out of Laban's household and took his idols with them, the house of Israel has struggled to avoid slipping intro the worship of the false gods of their neighbors. It's an issue when Moses leads them out of Israel, it's an issue during the reign of Solomon, and it's an issue when Isaiah is ministering to the Southern Kingdom. Under the circumstances I have no problem with God's prophets eschewing the finer points of the Godhead/trinity in favor of a blanket "there are no other gods!!!" A bit of "divine hyperbole", if you will. (Remember, in Kindergarten Cop, how Arnold Schwarzeneggar exasperatedly screams to his whining class that "there IS no bathroom!!!"? Same principle.)

Mormonism already teaches that, at least from the time of Moses, Israel had shown itself unable to handle the fullness of God's law; and so for the next millennium and a half they would be focusing on the Mosaic law which was supposed to prepare them for the further light and knowledge that would come with the Messiah. So while this may not convince people of other religions--particularly trinitarian Christians and Jews--we Mormons are generally pretty comfortable with the situation.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Doctrine

Just a guy is right, the verse is talking about Jehovah is god and savior, and that there are no other gods ( strange gods, idols ) set before him, meaning he is the main god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the Jehovah=Christ and Elohim=God the Father is a rule that is true most of the time, there are many examples through the scriptures which Jehovah=the Father and Elohim=Christ. Numerous times the title LORD God, or Jehovah Elohim is used. Who is this speaking about? Well, context is the key. If we were to use the above rule in these passages we would be very confused. The Church and scholars make this known but sometimes the general membership of the Church still relies on this rule as concrete doctrine. The Church has even included this in our scriptures. In our Topical Guide there is a section that points you to all the scriptures which refer to Jehovah as the Father God the Father, Jehovah

There are also many instances where Joseph Smith and other leaders of our Church used the name of Jehovah to describe God the Father. So what you are pointing is nothing new to LDS. Many people (LDS and non-LDS) mistakenly believe that there is no deviation by the ancients on the names of Christ and the Father, but this is not the case.

FAIR has an article on this subject which should be helpful: Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah - FAIRMormon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I wonder but that the word(s) used which we translate as 'before me' in Exodus 20:3 might not be the same used in Isaiah 43:10-11. If so then it clarifies the matter quite a bit. The usage in Exodus does not indicate time but preeminence.

If so then one could say that Isiah 43:10-11 likewise is not referring to time either. If so then we perhaps we could render the verses above in a manner like so:

The Lord speaking unto Israel said, "You are my my witnesses, and my servant [prophet] I chose to teach you so that you would know and believe in me and understand that I am your Lord and there never was nor will there ever be any other God appointed unto you as your Lord and Savior save me.

1 Corinthians 8

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

If Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him, crucify him." Mankind verily say that the scripture is with them. Search the scriptures; they testify of things that apostates would blaspheme. Paul, if Joseph Smith as a blasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be subject to that one. ...

Some say, "I do not interpret [the] same as you." They say it means the heathen god. Paul says, "there are gods many." it makes a plurality of Gods anyhow. Without a revelation, I am not going to give the God of heaven to them anyhow. You know, and I testify, that Paul had no allusions to it. I have it from God, get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen god in the text.

For a more in depth discourse on the subject of Plural Gods, I refer you to Joseph Smith's Sermon on Plurality of Gods found here.

I think I've answered your question =). At least I hope I did.

Sincerely,

Brother M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is our current tradition of naming the Father and Son. It has not always been so. For example, Joseph Smith calls God the Father "Jehovah" in D&C 110. Elohim and Jehovah are titles, but by the time Elder James Talmage wrote "Jesus the Christ" the tradition was established, making them names more than titles.

That said, there is some distinguishing of the two titles in ancient Israel. In the Documentary Hypothesis, we find that "J" always calls God "Yahweh" (Jehovah), while "E" always calls him "Elohim." In early Semitic tradition, El Elyon (God Almighty) was the head/chief God, with his Divine Council of sons/gods. Of these members of the divine council, Yahweh was the preeminent son, given Israel as his inheritance (other gods were given other nations). Margaret Barker notes that Jehovah was the Messiah and the Angel of the Presence of the Lord.

So there was an ancient distinguishing of the two. Over time, the Jews combined the two in their worship, as Jehovah went from being a god on Mount Sinai, to Israel's God, to a mobile God that could follow his people to Babylon and elsewhere in the world. Note that Ezekiel sees Jehovah on a flying chariot throne, so that he can be with his people in the Diaspora.

By Jesus' day, the most Jews did not know the difference between the two, as monotheism replaced the monolatry of previous times. This is why the Jews considered it blasphemous for Jesus to call himself "I Am" (Jehovah).

Barker notes that the early Christians considered Jesus as Messiah and Jehovah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martain, in light of what I just discussed above, many scholars believe that it is tied to events in the region. The divine son/god Yam had just been replaced by Baal among the Canaanites. Jehovah was explicitly stating that he was Israel's first God, having made the covenant with Abraham; and that he would never be replaced by Baal or any other god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share