On Friday a few cultists came to my door. They were not Mormons or Jehovah’s witnesses, in fact, I didn’t figure out what group they were from until yesterday. I could fill this post up with a bunch of details about our encounter (we spoke for about 90 minutes) but I want to focus on one: the importance of grammar.

When I asked what group or church these missionaries represented the most knowledgeable of them, Enoch, said they were from the “Church of God.” My thought was “oh great, this will be fun to google since it is such a common name used by many different groups. After about 20 or 25 minutes of searching yesterday I struck gold, I found their website.

Their group’s full name (which I wasn’t told) is World Mission Society Church of God. They are a Korean-based cult which boasts 1.2 million members. One of their central doctrines is the belief in a mother God. I quote from their site:

Just as our physical life was given to us through our physical mother, our spiritual life is given to us through our spiritual Mother.

…just as Eve was called “the mother of all the living,” we can only be given eternal life through our heavenly Mother.

In this last age, we need our Jerusalem Mother who has been established by Christ Ahnsahnghong the Second Coming Jesus. Let us believe in Christ Ahnsahnghong, the Holy Spirit, and in Jerusalem Mother, the Bride, so that we can receive eternal life. (all 3 from: http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_mother.asp)

These quotes are representative of their belief in a Mother God and of her importance and centrality to their theology. (Note: Christ Ahnsahnghong is the name of the cult’s founder, whom they believe to have been Jesus Christ in his 2nd coming).

One of the ways that they attempt to prove the truth of this doctrine is through the Bible:

In the Bible, God is referred to through plural terms instead of singular terms, and it is written that God has a male image and a female image.

The Bible clearly testifies that our heavenly Mother exists, and that only our heavenly Mother can give us eternal life. (Both from: http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_mother.asp)

The first argument they offer in their article titled “Heavenly Mother” is from Genesis 1:26-27:

Let us study through the Bible to discover the existence of our spiritual Mother.

Gen. 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The above verse states that God has two images—a male image and a female image. Until now, we have only known and called upon the male image of God: “Father.” Then how should we call upon the female image of God? Logically, we should refer to God’s female image as “Mother.” This is why God had said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.”

The word “us” is a plural term. “Elohim,” the Hebrew word used in place of “God” in Genesis 1:26, directly translates to “Gods,” the plural form of the word “God.” Therefore, the references to “us” in the book of Genesis refer to God the Father and God the Mother. Some say that the word “us” in this verse indicates God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. If this argument is correct, there should be three types of people in the world—those who were made in the image of God the Father, those who resemble the image of God the Son, and those created in the image of the Holy Spirit. However, on this earth there are only two types of people: men and women. Therefore, the “Gods” mentioned in Genesis 1:26 are the male image of God and the female image of God—God the Father and God the Mother. (From: http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_mother.asp)

I want you to re-read Genesis 1:26-27 and notice the noun “image.” If you recall from elementary school, number is the factor of a noun which designates how many of that noun (person, place, or thing) are in view. For example, if I said “my boys are coming home for dinner in 30 minutes” you would know that I have 2 or more boys coming home. If you didn’t know how many male children I had you would at least know I had more than 1 because I said “boys” (plural) instead of “boy” (singular). That’s pretty simple, right?

Well in Genesis 1:26, when we look at the term “image” and ask whether it is singular or plural we quickly discover that it is singular. Were it plural, there would be an “s” at the end of the word. Discussing the number aspect of a noun seems pretty basic, and in truth, it is! We are used to English (for the majority of my readers) because we speak and read every day. This kind of stuff has become second nature to us. For those readers who primarily speak a non-English language the same is true for you in your native language. A language would not be a language if it did not have the ability to distinguish between the concepts of one boy and more than one boy, between one image and multiple images.

For anyone interested, the Hebrew word used for image in Genesis 1:26-27 is used in its plural form in 1 Samuel 6:5, when multiple images were in view.

It is worth mentioning that aspects of the Hebrew language differ from those of the English language. One such aspect is drawn out (and abused) in the section above. Elohim is technically a plural noun because it has a plural ending (-im). The exact purpose for using the plural ending on the part of the Hebrew writers is debated, but we can be sure that taking the strict grammatical distinction between the singular and plural from the English language and forcing it back upon the Hebrew writers is dubious at best.

Were we to do so we would translate (with Joseph Smith, Jr.) “God” as “Gods” or “The Gods” and then be forced to ask questions about the identity of these multiple Gods. So is the World Mission Society Church of God maintaining that multiple Gods have one image? That would seem to be the right direction to go if you decide (wrongly) to force this Hebrew plural into an English plural. No, they do the opposite! They say that the one God (singular) has multiple images (plural). It is like they went with a faulty assumption about Hebrew and then reversed the number of each noun to accommodate their doctrine of the Mother God.

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Well, no. No one less than the Apostle Paul draws tremendous theological distinctions from the exact same grammatical feature:

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. (Gal. 3:16, ESV)

Paul’s argument hinges on the word “offspring” (or “seed” in some translations). He correctly notes that the word is singular and not plural and that this grammatical feature has huge theological import for new covenant believers.

The missionaries I met with made this error in another passage when we were talking about the trinity. They believe that Matthew 28:19 teaches that each person of the trinity has a different name. This is important for them because of their believe that Christ’s new name (which they abuse from Rev. 2:17) is “Christ Ahnsahnghong.” Their double talk on the trinity should be drawn out in a separate blog, but my point here is that when they did this I immediately pointed out that the word “name” is singular, meaning that each person of the trinity has the same name: Yahweh/Jehovah. The words of B.B. Warfield came to mind:

In seeking to estimate the significance of this great declaration, we must bear in mind the high solemnity of the utterance, by which we are required to give its full value to every word of it. Its phrasing is in any event, however, remarkable. It does not say, “In the names [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”; nor yet (what might be taken to be equivalent to that),”In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost,” as if we had to deal with three separate Beings. Nor, on the other hand, does it say, “In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” as if “the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” might be taken as merely three designations of a single person. With stately impressiveness it asserts the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single Name; and then throws up into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost “(Authorized Version). These three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, each stand in some clear sense over against the others in distinct personality: these three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all unite in some profound sense in the common participation of the one Name. (from: B.B. Warfield, The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity)

Did these well-intending missionaries stop to consider my point? No. I tried to explain how there was no “s” at the end of “name” and that is why only one name is in view, but to no avail. They simply asserted that “name” (singular) really means “names” (plural) and explained to me that it was misunderstood at the time. If that last sentence didn’t shock you then re-read it. The Watchtower is another cult that does this. They tell you that you must believe what the Bible says, study the Bible, interpret the Bible with the underlying belief that it will produce a consistent message, etc. But then, in practice, ignore the verses which threaten the real authority: the cult leader’s teaching.