Chapter V (2)

They found fault with Jesus Christ because he said he was the Son
of God, and made himself equal with God. * * * What did Jesus say,
"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If he called
them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures
cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the Father has sanctified and
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son
of God?" It was through him that they drank of the spiritual rock.
* * * * Jesus, if they were called Gods unto whom the word of God
came, why should it be thought blasphemy that I should say I am the
Son of God?

* * * *

They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead are exalted
far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions, and angels,
and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs
with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power. The Scriptures are a
mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are
blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another Scripture. "Now,"
says God, when he visited Moses in the bush, * * * "Thou shalt be
a God unto the children of Israel." God said: "Thou shalt be a God
unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe those Gods
that God reveals as Gods, to be sons of God, and all can cry Abba,
Father! Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from
before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a
reverence for. John said he was a king. "And from Jesus Christ, who
is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and
the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and
washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings
and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion
forever and ever. Amen." O thou God who art King of kings and Lord
of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare--"We
cannot believe thee."

USE OF THE WORD ELOHIM.[A]

BY PROFESSOR W. H. CHAMBERLIN, OF THE BRIGHAM YOUNG COLLEGE, LOGAN, UTAH.

[Footnote A: During the progress of the discussion between the Rev. C. Van Der Donckt and myself, as published in the _Improvement Era_, Professor William H. Chamberlin of the Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah, contributed the following brief though valuable paper on the use of the word "Elohim" in the Bible, which by his kind consent I am permitted to publish here.]

Two words, _El_, of which _Elim_ was the plural form, and _Eloah_, of which _Elohim_ was the plural, were applied generally to Deity by the Hebrew people. All these forms are found in the other Semitic languages, and are, therefore, very ancient in origin.

Under severest discipline the people of Israel were educated in the school of monotheism, in order that God's nature might be revealed to man, and in order that unity might be introduced into the moral life of man. Under this discipline, the people of Israel must have learned to apply the plural form Elohim, which their fathers had used of Deity, in speaking of the one God whom they had been taught to serve.

The Hebrew language would allow them to do this, for a few nouns, when used by them in the plural, seemed to magnify the original idea. In such cases the plural form was treated grammatically as singular. An example may be found in Job 40:15, where the plural form behemoth is used to intensify the image of the animal there being described, as is shown by context. In the same verse, the behemoth is referred to by the singular pronoun he.

But the use of _Elohim_, in this sense, by the later writers of Israel, is not necessarily opposed to the view that in the earliest documents or writings which the Hebrews possessed, it was applied to a plurality of Gods.

The objection to this view has been made that, with the plural form _Elohim_, in Gen. 1, the singular verb is used. Such a use of a singular predicate with a plural subject is, however, common in Hebrew. On page 111 of _Harper's Hebrew Syntax_ we find the following rule covering the case, viz: "When the predicate precedes the subject it may agree with the subject in number or it may assume the _primary form_, viz.: third masculine singular, whatever be the number of the following subject." So the plural form _Elohim_ after a singular verb, the construction found in Gen. i, and elsewhere, is no proof that it is singular in any sense. Similar constructions are found with other words in Gen. i:14, where the singular of the verb _haya_, be, is followed by the plural noun _meoroth_, lights; in Gen. 41:50, where the singular verb _yullodh_, was born, is followed by the plural noun _sheney banim_, two sons; in Job 42:15, where the singular verb _nimtsa_, was found, is followed by the plural noun _nashim_, women. Many similar examples might be given to illustrate the rule.

That _Elohim_ was used in the plural sense in Gen. 1, is shown in the 26th verse, where the _Elohim_ in referring to themselves use the plural suffix, _nu_, our, twice; and they also use the plural form of the verb _naaseh_, let us make. Also in Gen. 11:7, where _nerdhah_, let us descend, and _nabhlah_, let us confuse, two verbs in the plural form, proceed from the mouth of God, In Gen 3:5. the plural construct participle, _yodhe_, knowers of, modifies the noun, _Elohim_, which therefore is also plural. It is just possible that this participle is predicated of the subject you, but the participle would then follow the finite verb, giving a very unusual construction for the early Hebrew writers. One such construction is, however, found in Gen. 4:17, "he became (one) building a city."

The thought of the possibility of God's having with him great associates was alive even to the time of Isaiah, as is shown in Isaiah 6:8, where Jehovah said, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for _us_?" Jehovah was a personal name applied to the Being who guided Israel, and afterwards lived on the earth as Jesus Christ. (III Nephi, 15:5, Doc. and Cov. sec. 110.) Probably few of the Jews were ever able to distinguish Jehovah from _Elohim_, as it was latterly used, i. e., in the singular sense, and so when late writers wrote down the portion of Genesis where the name of Jehovah began to be used, they placed next to it, for the same purpose for which we now place the marginal reading, the word _Elohim_. So we have in Gen. 2:4; 3:24, and in some other places, the expression _Jehovah Elohim_, translated the Lord God. The words were put together late in Israel's history when _Elohim_ had come to be used in the singular; _Jehovah Elohim_ meant Jehovah, i. e., God. Later the explanatory use of the word _Elohim_ was forgotten, and the two words combined to apply to God. (See page 219 of _Brown's Hebrew Lexicon_, the most authoritative lexicon in English, for the above explanation.)

The use of the singular noun _Eloah_ is almost confined to poetry. It is used in Psalm 18 and in Deut. 32. There is ground for saying that the Savior on the cross in crying out to his Father, used the singular form _Eloah_. In combining _Eloah_ with the suffix _i_, meaning my, and expressing the result in Greek the h would be dropped, for there is no letter h in the Greek alphabet. A, which was merely introduced to assist the Hebrew to pronounce the h, would also be dropped. The result would give us _Eloi_, the form given in the basic gospel, in Mark 15:34. (See also Judges 5:5, of the Septuagint).

In the year 1830, we find Joseph Smith, in the face of the tradition of the whole world, daring to render the word _Elohim_ in Gen i, _et seq._, in the plural. It is one great evidence of the divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ restored in these last days that its prophet said many things, in the day in which he lived, that a progressive people are beginning to appreciate as true; and so we find learned men sympathizing with the daring position taken above. With reference to Gen. 1:26, and similar passages, we find as one explanation in the lexicon mentioned above, a lexicon based on the work of Gesenius, the great German Hebrew scholar, that God was in consultation with angels. Now, since the term "angel," a term used loosely by the scholars, is made there to mean and refer to superhuman beings sufficiently advanced in intelligence to be included in a consultation with God, we have our prophet's explanation exactly. In conclusion I shall quote the words of the great Biblical scholar, the Rev. A. B. Davidson of Edinburgh, in explanation of the same: "The use of 'us' by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:17) is strange, but is perhaps due to his consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Is. 5:8)." (See _Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible_, page 205.)

OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD.[A]

BY ELDER WILLIAM HENRY WHITTALL.

[Footnote A: Millennial Star Vol. xxiii No. 19, p. 292.]

In comparing the ideas of others with our own upon any subject, with a view of coming to a clear understanding and just conclusion on the points discussed, it is both important and necessary that a clear definition of terms be given and received. Most of the disputes which arise in all classes of society, religious and secular, would be avoided to a great extent, if the disputants clearly understood and attended to each other's terms, and clearly defined their own.

Words are frequently used in such different sense--sometimes primary, and sometimes secondary--sometimes literal, and sometimes figurative, that a misconception is often likely to arise, which might be easily prevented, were a plain definition of terms given at the outset. Opposite parties are too apt to place their own constructions on each other's expressions.

"_Omnipresence_" as all will admit means _presence everywhere_.

Now, strictly speaking, _matter_, in its most extensive and comprehensive sense, is the only thing that can be said to be literally _everywhere_. There are various kinds and degrees of matter; but matter as a whole, and in a general sense, is the only thing that we can conceive of as being everywhere present, and nowhere absent.

One reservation, however, must here be made, for the sake of scientific accuracy,--namely, that wherever matter exists and moves, there is of necessity a corresponding or proportionate extent of space wherein to move.

There is no such thing, however, in all the creations of God, as what is called _empty_ space.

But this fact does not in the least affect our argument; for the motion of matter is merely the displacement of one thing by another--one particle occupying the space which had been previously occupied by another. Thus, if I thrust my hand into a mass of sand, I do not penetrate the grains of sand, (although I do penetrate the sand as a mass,) the hand merely going between, or making its way by displacing the grains with which it comes in contact. No particle of matter can occupy the same identical space as another at the same time; consequently, no _portion_ of matter can in an exclusive and strictly literal sense be omnipresent.

The nearest approach to a literal omnipresence, that we can conceive of, is that of the particles of one kind and degree of matter _commingling_ with those of another.

The following may serve as a simple illustration: In a homely cup of tea, we find the particles of the tea itself intimately mingling with those of the water; those of the sugar mingling with those of the other two elements; and then, again, there are the particles of caloric or heat everywhere present throughout the whole. Yet no one particle of either water, (itself a compound of gases), or tea, or sugar, or cream, can occupy the same space as any other particle. This simple illustration, however homely and commonplace, may serve as an example, on a small scale, of the nearest idea that can be formed of a literal omnipresence, or presence everywhere. The plainer the simile, the better for ease and clearness of thought.

We have now to define what we mean by the term "God."

This word, like many others, is frequently used to represent different ideas. We sometimes employ it in reference to Deity as a person. One of the old prophets saw God sitting on a throne. Of course, then, according to this personal sense of the word, God could not have been everywhere present; for he was on a throne. We often read of God as sitting down, standing up, walking about, &c. Now, a person, when sitting down, does not occupy the same space as when standing up. He always occupies the same amount of space, but no more, whatever posture he may place himself in, or however much he may change his relative positions by moving hither and thither.

Hence it is utterly impossible for God to be _personally_ omnipresent.

But we sometimes speak of God in reference to his attributes of love, wisdom, goodness, influence, power, authority, &c.

The next question, then, is, Can he be said to be omnipresent in these respects?

Yes, undoubtedly so; but not _literally_.

As these are all abstract terms, it is evident that they cannot be used in a strictly literal sense. Love, power, goodness, wisdom, &c., are not things which occupy space. We cannot measure knowledge by the yard, wisdom by the pint, influence by the inch, or power by the gallon. We cannot speak of authority as occupying so many square or cubic feet of space, or describe the height, depth, length, or width of intelligence or faith. These are all abstract terms; and in describing the extent of any attribute of God or man, we are bound to speak figuratively. We thus speak of "infinite power," of "boundless love," of "illimitable wisdom," of "unbounded influence," of "unlimited authority," of "infinite goodness," &c. If we examine such expressions closely, we cannot but see that they are used in a relative and figurative sense, and not in a strictly literal one. We cannot find room for all these things _everywhere_. If one thing occupied all space literally, we certainly could not locate half a dozen everywhere! The absurdity of the thing only proves the fallacy of the idea of literal ubiquity in reference to any attribute, the terms, expressive of which cannot be literalized.

But again: We often speak of God in reference to his agents. For example, the Apostle Paul says, "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Moses, who called and ordained Aaron, was God's agent. All the servants of the Lord are called by his agents acting in his name and by his authority. When a man is called and ordained to certain functions of the Priesthood, we say that God called him, and that he is a servant of God. Thus, in a relative sense, God may be and is said to be present where he is personally absent, just as her Majesty the Queen may be said to be present throughout all her dominions by her official and representative agents. She is not literally, but virtually or officially, representatively or vicariously present wherever her regal authority is swayed. It is not actually she who is present, but her agents or authorities, who act in her name in her various principalities and colonies.

Again: We often use the term "God" in reference to his _Spirit_, whereby he is said to be omnipresent.

But we also frequently use the term "Spirit" in more sense than one. Sometimes we speak of the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as a person. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct persons,--the first two being personages of tabernacle, and the last a personage of spirit. In this sense the Spirit can be no more spatially extended, and no more omnipresent, than the Father or the Son. If, indeed, either of the three could be personally and substantially present everywhere--that is, filling all space, it would puzzle the astutest intellect to conceive where the other two could be located!

The spirit of God, then, or the Holy Ghost, as a personage, cannot be _literally_ omnipresent, although we may (as we often do) speak of him as being present here and there by his influence, authority, and power.

But we also frequently speak of the Spirit of God as a divine substance or influence, of power diffused throughout the spiritual and physical universe, giving vitality, activity, and force to the various things around us, according to certain spiritual and natural laws.

It is, indeed, the inherent life and soul of all things--the inner and eternal principle of life and being. Whether we speak of "Nature" or of the "God of nature," we mean the same thing, unless, by way of distinction, we connect with the latter expression the idea of personality. In the former sense, God is _everywhere_.

President Young, upon this subject, says--"It is the Deity within us that causes increase. * * * He is in every person upon the face of the earth. The elements that every individual is made of and lives in possess the Godhead * * The Deity within us is the great principle that causes us to increase and to grow in grace and truth."

It will thus be evident that God is, by his Spirit, in this sense, _omnipresent_. Indeed, we arrive at the conclusion that God (although local in personality) may be said, in various ways and in different senses of the word, to be everywhere present. President Young says--"He is omnipotent, and fills immensity by his agents, by his influence, by his Spirit, and by his ministers." So that, go wheresoever we may, God is there, in some way or other. If we ascend to the heavens above, he is there; if we make the grave our bed, he is there; if we fly to any part of the earth or sea, he is there, and his providence will protect the just.