Category: Trinity Doctrine

Posted on

Elohim is plural. Is God more than one Person?

Summary

Elohim is an Old Testament Hebrew word that is frequently translated as “God.” It is plural in form and is used hundreds of times for pagan gods. The Old Testament also uses elohim for God. Some Trinitarians, therefore, argue that the Old Testament writers used elohim for God because these writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being. But this is not true:

(1) Elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

(2) It was general practice among the Hebrew people to pluralize nouns when they desired to express greatness or majesty. It is then not a numerical plural. For example:

Moses is also called elohim, for God made Moses very great in the land of Egypt (Exo 7:1; 11:3).

Words such as Adonim (meaning “lord” or “master”), Adonay, Baalim and Behemoth are also plural in form but frequently refer to a single person in an exalted position.

The Old Testament sometimes refers to God as “the Holy Ones,” but used together with singular verbs.

(3) The most distinguishing teaching in Judaism is that “The Lord our God is one Lord.” This firm understanding that there is only one God denies any idea that the authors of the Old Testament used elohim because they thought of God as a multi-personal Being.

(4) The New Testament writers, when they quoted the Old Testament, always translated the Hebrew word elohim with the singular noun theos.

(5) The Septuagint, which is the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, also always translates elohim with the singular theos.

(6) On the basis of this ample evidence, dictionaries define elohim as a plural of majesty. For example, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says that “the plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God.”

Purpose of this article

ElohimElohim (אֱלֹהִים) is an Old Testament Hebrew word that is most frequently translated “God.”  Elohim is plural in form, for it has the plural suffix im.  Plural nouns normally signify multiple instances of that noun, which is also true of elohim. The Bible applies elohim more than 400 times to pagan gods. In such instances it is translated as “gods” and is associated with plural verbs and plural adjectives.  For example, “My people have forgotten Me, They burn incense to worthless gods.”

The Old Testament also uses elohim for God.  Some Trinitarians, therefore, argue that the Old Testament writers used elohim for God because they thought of God as a multi-personal Being.  The purpose of this article is to show that this is not true.

Plural of Majesty

Firstly, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says the following about elohim:

“The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun ’elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.”

An example of this is Genesis 1:26: “God (elohim) said, “Let Us make man in Our image.” Here plural pronouns are used but the verb “said” is in the singular, which implies that “God” is a single Person. This further implies that the “Us” and “Our” include persons other than “God.”  In the New Testament, God made the world through His Son (Heb 1:1-2). “God” therefore refers to the Father, and the “Us” in Genesis 1:26 may include His Son.

An example where elohim is used for a human being as a plural of majesty is Exodus 7:1, where “the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god [elohim] to Pharaoh.”  Here, God told Moses that He was going to make Moses appear great in the eyes of Pharaoh, as we see in Exodus 11:3:

“The man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people.

IT WAS GENERAL PRACTICE AMONG THE HEBREW PEOPLE TO PLURALIZE NOUNS WHEN THEY DESIRED TO EXPRESS GREATNESS OR MAJESTY. It is then not a numerical plural.  For example, adonim is the plural form of adon, which means “lord” or “master.” In spite of its plural form, it frequently refers to a single person in an exalted position, for example to Abraham (Gen 24:9, 10, 51). Another example is Adonay, which is also a plural form of adon, and which always refers to God. Still other examples are Baalim and Behemoth. The Old Testament also sometimes refer to God as “the Holy Ones,” but used with singular verbs.

Monotheism

The distinguishing maxim in Judaism was and still is:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4)

This slogan stood in opposition to the polytheism of the day.  The Hebrew mind had a firm understanding that there is only one God.  The pervasive monotheism of the Old Testament denies any idea that the authors of the Old Testament used elohim because they thought of God as existing in multiple Persons.

Translations

The New Testament was written in Greek. In that language, the word for “god” is theos. The plural form of theos is theoi, which is used to refer to multiple “gods,” for example:

“When the crowds saw what Paul had done,
they raised their voice, saying
‘The gods (theoi) have become like men
and have come down to us.’” (Acts 14:11).

Although theos has a plural form, the New Testament always uses the singular form for God.

This is also true when the New Testament quotes passages from the Hebrew Bible.  The New Testament writers always translated the Hebrew word elohim with the singular noun theos, for example in Mark 12:29.  If elohim really indicated that the one true god consists of multiple Persons, then the New Testament writers would have also used the plural form of theos.

SeptuagintThe Septuagint is the ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.  When used for the God of Israel, the Septuagint also always translates elohim with the singular theos.

Dictionary Definitions

On the basis of this ample evidence, dictionaries define elohim as a plural of majesty.

“Elohim is a plural form which is often used in Hebrew to denote plentitude of might.” — (Hertz, The Pentateuch & Haftorahs)

“The form of the word, elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty.” — (Flanders, Cresson; Introduction to the Bible)

“The Hebrew noun elohim is plural, but the VERB is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. this use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty.” — (New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6)

“The plural form of elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the Trinity of Persons in the godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars.” — (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

Counterarguments

Despite this strong evidence, some still attempt to show that elohim ‘allows for’ a plurality of divine Persons within God.  To support this claim, they point to a few exceptions where the Old Testament uses plural verbs, pronouns, adjectives, participles, etc. with elohim.  But a handful of exceptions can never negate the evidence from more than 2500 instances where the Old Testament uses elohim for God with singular verbs.  It is much more probable that the few plural verbs, etc. are part of the Jewish practice of using plurals to express greatness.

What is his son’s nameHAT IS HIS SON’S NAME

AnsweringIslam uses Proverbs 30 to support its claim that God is a Trinity:

“The words of Agur son of Jakeh. … I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One (qadoshim – the NRSV renders this as “holy ones”). Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name?” (Proverbs 30:1-4)

Since Agur speaks of “the holy ones,” of God’s incomprehensible acts and of “his son’s name,” AnsweringIslam concludes:

That “the holy ones” refer to the Father and the Son;
That “his son” refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus;
That they are equal;
That both incomprehensible;
That this text established the deity of the Son of God; and
That God has a multi-personal nature.

However, the Old Testament does not contain the concept that God has a Son, as we know Him from the New Testament. To find evidence of the existence of the Son in a few isolated and ambiguous verses is wishful thinking. AnsweringIslam’s conclusion is therefore astounding. To derive all of these conclusions on such an ambiguous passage is to hang a mountain on a camel’s hair.  “His son” is possibly just a metaphor to emphasize that, for Agur, as well as for us, God is utterly incomprehensible.

For a further discussion, see End Times Prophecy.

OTHER ARTICLES

Posted on

Justin Martyr viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father.

This article continues the discussion of the Christology of the early church fathers. The introduction to this series defined the Trinity doctrine and gave a historical and conceptual development of this doctrine. The second article discussed the views of Polycarp. This third article discusses the Christology of Justin Martyr.

Justin MartyrJustin Martyr was an early Christian apologist. He was born around AD 100. Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and one dialogue did survive. The First Apology, his most well-known text, passionately defends the morality of the Christian life and provides various arguments to convince the Roman emperor to abandon the persecution of the Church. But apparently, he failed, for he himself was martyred, more or less in the year 165, alongside some of his students.  It is for that reason that he is called Justin Martyr.

In Justin’s view, the Greek philosophers had the most essential elements of truth but derived it from the Old Testament. Thus he declared that many historical Greek philosophers, such as Socrates and Heraclitus, in whose works he was well studied, were unknowing Christians (Apol., i. 46, ii. 10). However, in his view, the Greek philosophers had only a part of the Logos (the Word or the Wisdom), while the whole is in Christ.

SUMMARY

According to Justin Martyr, Jesus is the same as the Old Testament Angel of the LORD. 

He wrote that God begot Jesus “before all creatures a Beginning.”  Perhaps we can understand this as something more than ‘the first’, but the Beginning from whom all created things flowed.  In other words, the “Beginning” already contained everything in the creation.  “Through the Word, God has made everything.”  In other words, it is still God who created, but God begot the “Word” as the means through Whom God created.

Justin proposed that God begot Jesus “from Himself;” “born of the very substance of the Father.”  This harmonizes with the word homoousios (same substance) in the Nicene Creed.  However:

He defined the Logos as “numerically distinct from the Father.”  Justin used the sun and the light from the sun as a metaphor to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son; highly related but still distinct.

Justin also described the Father as “God” and as “Lord of the universe” in contrast to “our Savior Jesus Christ.”  This implies that the Son is subordinate to the Father.  Justin explicitly stated that Jesus is “in the second place” next to God. This is inconsistent with the Trinity theory.

Justin did not mention that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature or that the Holy Spirit is self-aware.  These concepts developed in later centuries.

END OF SUMMARY –

ANGEL OF THE LORD

Angel of the LORDJustin Martyr identified Jesus with the Logos of John 1 and Revelation 19. He also identified Jesus with the Angel of the LORD and with many other Theophanies of the Old Testament.  He used this argument to convince Jews of the truth of Christianity.

ORIGIN OF CHRIST

Justin Martyr described Jesus as follows:

“God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 61).  He was “born of the very substance of the Father.”

To describe the Word as “a Beginning” implies that God’s purpose, in begetting the Son, was to create all things.  We often read in the Bible about “the beginning,” such as that “in the beginning, God created heaven and earth.”  But Justin Martyr thought of Jesus Himself as the Beginning.  Jesus is also described as “the beginning” in Colossians 1:18, and Revelation refers to Him as “the Beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3:14).

Since the Word is “rational,” He is a separate Person.

He was “born of the very substance of the Father.”  This aligns with the word homoousios (same substance) in the Nicene Creed. 

CREATION

Justin Martyr wrote, “through the Word, God has made everything.”  In other words, it is still God who created, but the “Word” was the means through Whom God created.

DISTINCT FROM THE FATHER

Justin Martyr described the Logos as “numerically distinct from the Father;”  “Numerically distinct” is a phrase that philosophers use in contrast to “qualitatively distinct.” Two things are “numerically distinct” if they are two different things, even when they are extremely similar; qualitatively the same.  Justin used the sun and the light from the sun as a metaphor to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son: The sun and the light from the sun are highly related but still distinct entities.

For Justin Martyr, the Father is God.  This is seen in the statement quoted above that “through the Word, God has made everything.”  That also means that Jesus is also distinct from God.

SUBORDINATE

In Matthew 28;19 Jesus told His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  Justin similarly wrote:

“For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water” (First Apol., LXI).

This expands Matthew 28, for Justin replaced “the Father” with “God, the Father.”  This confirms the distinction between God and Jesus. 

Justin also added in a few words to exalt the Father over the Son and over the Holy Spirit.  The description of the Father as “God” and as “Lord of the universe” and implies that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Justin continues to speak about baptism in the next paragraph.  He again equates God with the Father, in distinction to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and describes God alone as ineffable (indescribable):

The Cross of Christ“No one can utter the name of the ineffable God…And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost …” (First Apology 61)

In his First Apology 8, Justin explicitly states that Jesus is “in the second place” next to God.  This clearly evidences his view that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Matt Slick quoted Justin’s version of the baptismal creed because it mentions all three Persons, but the way in which the church fathers in the second and third century used these triadic passages makes a distinction between God and His Son and declares the Father to be superior over the Son.

CONCLUSION

Justin Martyr’s understanding of Christ and the Trinity may be summarized as follows:

The Father, who is God, begot the Son before all creatures.  The Father begot Him as a Beginning; born of the very substance of the Father; a rational power that proceeded from God; numerically distinct from God and subordinate to the Father.  Through Him, God has made all things.  In Old Testament times the Son appeared as the Angel of the LORD. 

Justin understood the Son to be “born of the very substance of the Father,” but still distinct from and subordinate to God, the Father.  Justin did not mention that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature or that the Holy Spirit is self-aware.  These concepts developed in later centuries.

ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES

FIRST 300 YEARS

FOURTH CENTURY

FIFTH CENTURY

LATER DEVELOPMENT

Proudly powered by WordPress

Table of Contents

→ TABLE OF CONTENTS