10

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id61.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION"><U><B>SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id59.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="7"><U><B>7</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>8</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><B>10</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>11</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="13"><U><B>13</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="14"><U><B>14</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="15"><U><B>15</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="16"><U><B>16</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id79.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="17"><U><B>17</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="18"><U><B>18</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id81.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="APPENDIX"><U><B>APPENDIX</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id82.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 1: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 1: CONCLUSION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ABBREVIATIONS"><U><B>ABBREVIATIONS</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Volume 1. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 1998 Edward K. Watson.) pp. 110-114. MORMONISM: Section 1, Chapter 10. All rights reserved.]</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>CHAPTER 10</U></div> <bR> <div> <B>Can God be Called “Man”? </B></div> <bR> <div>      For us, the thing of greatest importance isn’t our ontological view of God and man, it is God’s will and what we must do to obey his will. This is why serious examinations of God’s nature are rarely encountered in LDS literature. This scarcity is why numerous people are confused on the issue and makes this Section necessary.</div> <div>      Man’s perception of who God is has changed over the millennia. The Bible itself shows the evolving views of God from being a tribal God (<I>El Shaddai</I>) or God of the mountains,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT> during the time of the Patriarchs to being the King of the gods during David’s era, to being the only God (Isa  40-48), to being a God with three members/persons in the NT (to being a nonmaterial, formless omnipresent deity with three persons after the NT in Traditional Christianity). One thing that remained consistent in the biblical text is the fact that  God is always described as being in anthropomorphic form. This view never changed in the Bible but was gradually abandoned by Jews and Christians after being influenced by Greek philosophy.</div> <div>      The changing views of who God is doesn’t mean he reveals himself in developmental stages which doesn’t make any sense since such an action causes him to deceive his followers. It seems self-evident that a tribal God is a different God than the King of the Gods, which is different than a singular God, which in turn is different than a deity that’s comprised of three self-aware personages. The view that God is comprised of three self-aware entities united in one God is irreconcilable with a view of one God possessing one person.</div> <div>      On the other hand, if the developmental concept is correct, there is no logical reason in denying the LDS view of God is a further clarification of divine Truth, and is the next stage in the revelation of who God is.</div> <div>       I believe all of the ancients prophets from Adam down knew who God was but this knowledge wasn’t clearly disseminated in the Bible as evidenced by the changing views of God found within the Bible. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Scriptural passages used against calling God “Man” </B></div> <bR> <div>      Our critics will always attack us for our view of an anthropomorphic God. This belief naturally results in a point of origin for Heavenly Father’s existence. This is abhorrent to those who insist on a hypostasis nonmaterial entity who has no beginning. Sometimes they will bring up these passages and argue of them being contradictory:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" ><B>  </B></FONT><B>Mos</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><B> 6:57</B> Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, <I>Man of Holiness is his name,</I> and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.</div> <div> <B>  Mos</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><B> 7:35</B> Behold, I am God;<I> Man of Holiness is my name</I>; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name also.</div> <bR> <div> <B>  Hos </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><B>11:9</B> I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for <I>I am God, and not man</I>; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. (Also see Num <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>23:19; Ps <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>50:21; 1 Sam <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>15:29).</div> <div>      </div> <div>      According to the Latter-day Scriptures, one of the names of God is “ Man of Holiness” which prompts the anti-Mormons to condemn (with surprising hostility) calling Heavenly Father, “Man.” They may not realize the earliest portions of the OT describe God as a “Man” like Adam.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >2</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>  If Jesus doesn’t lose any honor, glory and transcendence by being called “Man” why should Heavenly Father lose any if he is likewise given such a label?</B></div> <bR> <div>      There are four passages that the anti-Mormons use when they deny Heavenly Father being an exalted man:</div> <bR> <div> <B>1) Hos </B> <B>11:9. </B></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT> Hos <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for <I>I am God, and not man;</I> the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. </div> <bR> <div>      This verse isn’t a denial of God once being a man. God is simply stating that he is morally superior to man because in spite of the great anger he feels against the tribe of Ephraim, he won’t destroy them whereas man would if placed in similar circumstances. He is “more long-suffering and less vindictive than man.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >3</FONT> This verse can’t refute the idea Heavenly Father was once a  mortal entity in another universe.</div> <bR> <div> <B>2) Ps </B> <B>50:21. </B></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >  </FONT>Ps <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; <I>thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.</I></div> <bR> <div>      This verse simply has God comparing himself to a certain wicked man who doesn’t condemn other people’s sins. He’s talking to this wicked man ( 50:16) and mentions the many sins he’s doing and then says “Do you really think that I am like you?” What did God mean? Here’s the context:</div> <bR> <div>   Ps <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>50:16-23 But <I>unto the wicked</I> God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.</div> <bR> <div>      The context shows God meant, “Do you really think I’m like you, a being who takes pleasure in wickedness?” A comparison of this phrase with a positive statement (e.g., “Do you really think I’m like you, a being who is capable of love, kindness, mercy, pity?”) shows the point of Ps  50:21 is on the denial that God is similar to an<I> evil man,</I> not a denial that God is like a <I>man</I>, or else he will have to deny the positive statement as well (God is like a righteous man). </div> <div>      It’s obvious that when examined in context, this verse is incapable of denying God was once  mortal. </div> <bR> <div> <B>3) Num </B> <B>23:19 / 4) 1 Sam </B> <B>15:29. </B></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT> Num <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>23:19 <I>God is not a man</I>, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? of hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?</div> <bR> <div>   1 Sam <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for<I> he [is] not a man</I>, that he should repent.</div> <bR> <div>      These verses also can’t be used to deny the possibility of God being an exalted man since they are simply stating God isn’t a man who is prone to lying or a man who needs to repent. When he says something, it will come to pass (Mos  4:30). </div> <div>      Num  23:19 is part of a message God told Balaam to give to Balak, the king of Moab ( 23:18-24), who wanted Balaam to put a curse on the Israelites. This message was about the coming success of the Israelites and the futility of resistance against them (see Num  22-24). God said it, it will thus come to pass. This verse was a guarantee from God that the Israelites will be successful. It isn’t about the nature of God. </div> <div>      1 Sam  15:29 has Samuel telling Saul God’s decree that the kingdom will be taken away from him (1 Sam  15:27-29) would surely occur. God won’t change his mind and he’s not lying. </div> <div>      By contrasting the negative statement “God is not a man that he should lie [or repent]” with positive descriptions (e.g., “God is not a man that he should love,” “God is not a man that he should be merciful” “God is not a man that he should be righteous”) shows <B>there is no justification for isolating “God is not a man”</B> from the entire statement because Num  23:19 & 1 Sam  15:29's focus is on the denial of God being a <I>lying, repenting man</I>, <I>not</I> being a <I>man</I>!</div> <bR> <div> <B>Supports for calling God “Man” </B></div> <bR> <div>      Our critics have additional problems.</div> <bR> <div>      (a) The Bible in Ex  15:3 and Isa  42:13 describes God as a “<I>man</I> of war.”</div> <div>      (b) The parents of Samson referred to God as a “Man” (Judg  13:9-11). [They later described this “angel of the LORD” to be “God” (Judg  13:22).] </div> <div>      (c) The NT has Jesus Christ calling himself “The Son of Man” 84 times. Since Jesus didn’t have a human father, it can be argued that “Man” is one of the names of the Father especially in light of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C  49:22;  65:5;  76:16; etc.). </div> <div>      The “Son of man” in numerous biblical passages (e.g., Job  25:6; Jer  49:18; Ezek  2:1) simply means “man” or “human.” However, the “ Son of Man” in reference to Jesus obviously means a lot more than merely “man” or “human.” The “Son of Man” rises from the dead (Matt  17:9), comes in the clouds with power and great glory (Matt  24:30) and sits upon a heavenly throne (Matt  25:31). God gave Jesus the authority to judge<I> because </I>he is the “Son of Man” (John  5:27).</div> <div>      Which makes more sense, “Heavenly Father gave Jesus the right to judge <I>because</I> he is human (the Son of man);” or, “Heavenly Father gave Jesus the right to judge <I>because</I> he is the Son of  Heavenly Father (the Son of Man)?”</div> <div>      (d) What was the name of God Jesus said he will <I>continually</I> reveal to his followers (John  17:26)? Readers run into a problem because the NT doesn’t have him mentioning any recognized Divine Name in reference to the Father. The only possibility lies in his <I>repeated</I> usage of “Son of Man” as a self-designation (84 times!). Jesus’ actions  reveal “ Man” is one of the names of God. He identified himself as the   “Son of Man” just like some guys would identify themselves as the “son of Mark” or the “son of Frank” or the “son of Billy-Bob.”</div> <div>      If some say this isn’t possible because “man” is not capitalized as a proper name, that’s easily answered by the fact that the biblical translators didn’t recognize the significance of the expression steeped as they were in the Greek philosophical idea of God as this impersonal, nonmaterial entity. As a result, it should be written  “Son of Man” with a capital “M.”  This is why other Christian publications identify Jesus’ self-designation to be, “Son of Man,” with a capitalized “M.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT> </div> <div>      (e) It is from God that the entire human family derives its name (Eph  3:14-15). What is the entire human family called? “Man.” If we are called “Man” and our name is from God’s name, what then is God’s name? Naturally “Man.” The human family can also be called “Mankind” [Man-kind, after  Man’s kind] which also supports this usage of Eph  3:14-15. </div> <div>      (f) Nearly all Christian anti-Mormons do not realize “Man” is one of the ancient rabbinical names for God but was gradually abandoned with the coming of the Jewish Gnostic heretics (the <I>minim</I>).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >5</FONT> </div> <bR> <div>      One of God’s names is “The  Man of Holiness” or “Holy Man.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >6</FONT> Gen  18 has God and two other divine beings called “Men” and Jacob referred to the man he wrestled with as God (Gen  32:24-32). </div> <div>      It is indisputable that <B>the Bible </B><I><B>never</B></I><B> says God </B><I><B>can’t</B></I><B> be called “Man.”</B> This, by itself, doesn’t mean he can be called “Man” but the self-designation of Jesus as “the Son of Man” and all of the other items identified in this chapter seem to support the idea that it isn’t blasphemy to call God “Man.”</div> <div>      The exaltation of the “Son of Man” together with the identification of “God” with “Man” shows:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Son of God = Son of Man.</B></div> <bR> <div>      Consequently, Heavenly Father can be called “God” and he can also be called “Man.” We receive the label of “Man” from Heavenly Father. These facts show there’s nothing wrong with viewing Heavenly Father to be an exalted “Man.”</div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES] </B></div> <bR> <div> 1. THE RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND OF THE BIBLE (Schofield). p. 34; A GUIDEBOOK TO THE BIBLE (Parmelee). pp. 93, 243.</div> <div> 2. GB. pp. 93-94; THE EERDMANS BIBLE DICTIONARY. p. 59; RELIGION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (Pfeiffer). p. 76.</div> <div> 3. THE ONE VOLUME BIBLE COMMENTARY (Dummelow). p. 554.</div> <div> 4. e.g. RESPONSES TO 101 QUESTIONS ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (Fitzmyer). p. 115; UNITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (Dunn). pp. 27,35-40.</div> <div> 5. THE BOOK OF J (Bloom). p. 292.</div> <div> 6. ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS (Smith). 1:10-12.</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A> </div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>