MORMON DOCTRINES ON CHRIST
MISCONSTRUE HEBREW TERMS OF SPEECH
In reading any piece of literature written during a different time
period, we need to make allowance for the terms of speech that were
in use at that time, if we are to have a proper understanding of
the content. Many of the errors in the Mormon teachings on the
Lord Jesus Christ have arisen because of their disregard of the
customs and terms of speech used by the people living in biblical
times. For instance terms of degree called
"Hebraisms," were commonly used in a figurative way in
order to emphasize facts more vividly. But in formulating their
doctrine, the prophet and founder of the LDS church, Joseph Smith,
wrongly took these terms of speech literally.
This article provides a clear understanding of the meanings of the
relevant terms of speech that were used in the time of Christ.
"FIRSTBORN"
In biblical times the oldest son, or the "first-born,"
was a V.I.P. in that he was honoured and enjoyed special privileges
that were not extended to any of his siblings (Deut 21:17). So it
became customary to use the term "first-born" to denote
pre-eminence in rank. In Exodus 4:22, God refers to the nation of
Israel as His first-born, to make the point that they were honoured
above all the other nations, as they were His chosen people. And
in Psalm 89:27, He says of David, "I also shall make him My
first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." But
David was not God's oldest child. Nor was he even the first born
child in his own family. He was the youngest. God was merely
using the term "first-born" to emphasize the point
that He was going to make David the most honoured out of all the
earthly kings.
Mormons use Colossians 1:15 (which says that Christ is the
first-born over all creation), as proof that He was God's oldest
son in a pre-existence. However, as the above scriptures have
clearly illustrated, this isn't what the Hebraism
"first-born," implies. In this context it has nothing
to do with ancestry, but emphasizes a special status of honour
and pre-eminence.
"ONLY BEGOTTEN"
As with "first-born," the LDS wrongly takes the term
"only begotten" literally when it is used of Christ.
And they teach that Christ was the only Son that God has ever
begotten in the flesh. In other words, that God came down to
earth and fathered Christ through a physical relationship with
Mary. But as the following scripture reveals, the term "only
begotten" was also a Hebraism, and as such was meant to be
understood figuratively, and not literally:
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he
that had received the promises offered up his only begotten
son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be
called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the
dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11:
17-19, KJV) (Italics inserted by author)
But Isaac was not Abraham's only begotten son. He wasn't even
Abraham's first-born son, Ishmael was, and Abraham also went on to
father other sons after Isaac (see Genesis 25:1). The term
"only begotten" was used here to signify that Isaac was
the special, unique son of Abraham, because he was the son of the
promise, in that through his line would come the Redeemer of Israel.
Hebrews 11 above tells us that Isaac was a type or a picture of the
coming Messiah. Therefore, Christ the Messiah, because He is the
special, promised one, is correspondingly referred to as "the
only begotten."
"SON"
The term "son" as used in biblical times did not
necessarily mean biological offspring, as this too was a Hebraism,
and when used in this manner it denoted the characteristics or
nature of the person concerned. An excellent example of this usage
is given in Mark 3:17, where Christ named the brothers James and
John, "Sons of Thunder." As the Bible doesn't go into
any detail here, we can only speculate that they both had fiery
tempers.
In the Old Testament, Judges 19:22, 1 Samuel 2:12, 2 Samuel 23:6,
and 1 Kings 21:10 talk about the "sons of Belial." These
men were not the physical offspring of a man named Belial, but
were given the name "sons of Belial" to denote that they
were worthless and lawless, as was this character named Belial
(c/f 2 Corinthians 6:15). Belial was also used as a name for
Satan, so there may be some connection here.
In just the same way, Christ's title of "the Son of
God," isn't meant to indicate that He came into being through
a carnal relationship between God the Father and the virgin Mary,
as is claimed by the LDS. No, it is a Hebraism that very clearly
indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed the nature and the
attributes of God. For instance, when Christ's disciples were out
fishing, Christ came to them, walking on top of the water,
thereby displaying the abilities, power and attributes of God.
They responded by saying,"Truly, you are the Son of
God" (Matthew 14:33). That is how the Bible uses the
Hebraism, "son."
Don't forget that Christ also called Himself "the son of
man" (Matthew 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, etc., etc.) But by so
doing He wasn't indicating that he had been sired by a fallen man.
He was merely clarifying the fact that although He had existed in
the form of deity (Philippians 2:6), in taking on the form of a
man He had also taken on the nature or the frailty of mankind,
such as the ability to get hungry and tired and to require rest,
and so on.
In those days it was the responsibility of the father to train his
sons in the way they should go. And when used as a Hebraism, the
word "sons" can also take on this connotation. For
instance, when the Bible talks about the "sons of
prophets," this has nothing to do with their ancestry but
merely reveals that these men were being trained and instructed by
the prophets in ministerial service (See 2 Kings 2:7, 2 Kings 5:22,
etc.). And likewise, when it mentions angels being "sons of
God," this doesn't imply that they were the literal offspring
of God, as is taught by the LDS. Here again it merely indicates
that the angels are ministers of God, who under instruction by Him
to carry out His will.
"FATHER"
The biblical usage of the word "Father" when used as a
Hebraism, means someone who is the source of something. For instance
in John 8:44, Christ called Satan "the father of lies,"
meaning that his evil, perverse nature is personified in the
spawning of untruths. Christ amplifies his statement by saying that
whenever Satan speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature.
In the Hebrew culture it was customary to give the title of
"Father" to someone who was the source of, or who provided
for their needs or protection; or who was the source of advice
and wisdom, or the source of their education, and so on; and who was
worthy of honour and respect, such as a counselor, a prophet or a
priest; or even to indicate a person who had been the source of or
the founder of an occupation or a life-style:
And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents,
and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was
the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. (Genesis
4:20-21, KJV)
I was a father to the poor ..... (Job 29:16, KJV)
[Concerning Joseph] So now it was not you that sent me hither, but
God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh ..... (Genesis 45:8,
KJV)
Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now
unto you. (Acts 22:1, KJV)
"The richness and beauty of the biblical concept of father lies
in that, being a source of another, the father imparts and
communicates himself to this other. ....." from International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition, Copyright © 1979
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved.)
So when Christ taught His disciples to pray to "Our
Father" in heaven, He wasn't inferring that God had sired
us all in a previous existence, as is claimed by the LDS. He
used the word "Father" purely as a term of honour and
respect, in the context of God being the source, the benefactor and
the provider of all that we have.
CONCLUSION
Joseph Smith had little formal education. It is a well known fact
that his spelling and grammar were such a problem that he invariably
used a scribe to do his writing for him. And because of his lack of
knowledge regarding terms of speech, he jumped to the wrong
conclusions when compiling his doctrines, specifically those on
Christ. Consequently, Mormons are following a non-existent Saviour.
The above material is a continuation of
The LDS Jesus Christ is Not the Saviour of the Bible.
Copyright 2008, Mormonism and Biblical Truth. All rights reserved.
