The meaning of "Elohim"
Elohim (Hebrew: "God" or "gods"). The word is a plural word, because of the "-im" ending. However, in the Hebrew language, plural words can also function in the singular. For example, the word "face" (panim) is plural in form but singular in meaning. Some Hebrew words can also be "uniplural," meaning they can function as either singular or plural. In the English language, "deer" and "fish" are uniplural words. The word Elohim is such a word. It is plural in some contexts and singular in others. The way to distinguish the plural from the singular is by the qualifiers (such as the verbs, adjectives or pronouns) that it relates to. Also, while English plurals only identify quantity, as in more than one, the Hebrew plural can identify quality as well as quantity—for example, "blindness" (sanverim).
Singular usage. Two important examples of singular usage (that have bearing in trinitarian debates) are found in the first chapter of the Bible and read as follows:
- Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created (Hebrew: bereshit bara Elohim) the heavens and the earth.
- Genesis 1:26: And God said (Hebrew: Elohim vayomer), let us make man in our image…
In Genesis 1:1, "bereshit bara Elohim," directly translates to "In-the-beginning created God." The verb "bara" is inflected in the perfect third person singular. This verb controls the meaning of the subject which is Elohim. If Elohim were intended to denote a plural meaning then the plural verb "bar'u" would have been used instead of "bara." With respect to this verse, all Bible translations (correctly) translate Elohim in the singular.
In Genesis 1:26, Elohim is the subject of the singular verb vayomer; therefore, Elohim in this verse is understood to be singular. He (Elohim) said, "let us make man." Who is the "us" in this verse? Trinitarians presuppose the Trinity. However, the verse itself does not clarify. EGW believed it was the Father speaking to His Son (SR 20.2, "And now God said to His Son...").
Another example is found in the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel when the people repeatedly cry out, "Yahweh hu ha-Elohim" (1 Kings 18:39). "Yahweh He is God." The "hu" means Elohim is understood to be singular. If the plural was intended, it would read, "Yahweh hem ha-Elohim." "Yahweh they are God."
The word Elohim is often accompanied by the article "ha-" to mean "the God" and sometimes with a further identifier such as "the living God" (Elohim hayyim, e.g. Deuteronomy 5:26; Joshua 3:10). While the singular meaning most often refers to the God of Israel, it can also refer to other singular deities such as Dagon (the Philistine god; Judges 16:23), Chemosh (the Moabite god), Astarte (the Sidonian god), Molek (the Ammonite god) and Baal. In the case of Baal, the word Baal (ba'alim) is also plural in form but likewise takes a singular verb.
Plural usage. When Elohim has a plural meaning (because of the plural qualifiers), it usually refers to pagan gods (Exodus 12:12; Deuteronomy 4:28). Apart from deities, Elohim can refer to angels (Psalm 8:6), evil spirits (1 Samuel 28:13), humans (Psalm 82:6), prophets (Exodus 4:16), kings, and judges. Two notable outliers are 1 Samuel 28:13 and Genesis 20:13. In 1 Samuel 28:13, Elohim is used with a plural verb, although some translators translate it as "a god" (most modern translations) instead of "gods" (as in the KJV). Genesis 20:13 also has a plural verb for Elohim in the phrase "God caused" when the polytheistic Philistine king Abimelech is speaking. All English translations translate it in the singular when in reality the plural was intended. You will note that whenever pagans mention the God of Israel they will often view him from a polytheistic perspective (e.g. 1 Samuel 4:8).
Eloha (Hebrew: "God"). The singular form of Elohim is Eloha which in turn is an expanded form of El. With respect to Eloha, it is important to consider the frequent use of the word in the Old Testament. Examples include Deuteronomy 32:15; Psalm 50:22; and Psalm 114:7. Sometimes these singular and plural forms (Eloha and Elohim) are used in the same context, for example in Isaiah 44:6-8 where verse 6 refers to the Israelite God as Elohim and verse 8 addresses him as Eloha.
Elohei (Hebrew: "God of"). This is a construct form of Elohim. It appears as Elohei Abraham ("God of Abraham", Genesis 31:53) and Elohei Abraham, Elohei Yishaq, w-Elohei Ya'aqob ("God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob") in Exodus 3:6.
Septuagint (Greek). The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates the Elohim of the Israelites with the singular title ho theos ("the God"). For example, see Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint (ὁ θεὸς). This practice of referring to God as ho theos ("the God") was carried forward into the Greek New Testament by the New Testament writers. For example, Matthew 4:10 ("the Lord your God"), which quotes Deuteronomy 6:13, is both ho theos in the Septuagint (Old Testament) and in the Greek New Testament.
Trinitarian interpretation issues
Grammatical singularity. Trinitarians make much of the fact that Elohim is a plural word which allows the possibility to understand it as a plurality of deities. However, with Elohim, context is everything. Elohim is understood as plural when surrounded by plural qualifiers (plural verbs, adjectives, pronouns, etc). It is understood as singular when surrounded by singular qualifiers. You will know when Elohim is referring to one God or many gods by the grammatical context. There is no ambiguity or misunderstanding of the meaning of Elohim when the context in considered.
Uniplural argument. Further, trinitarians emphasis the uniplural nature of the word (functioning as either singular or plural), as already mentioned. However, even in the uniplural sense, a word is understood as plural or singular by the context and its qualifiers (verbs, adjectives and the like). There is no escaping this. Injecting plurality into a word that is meant to be understood in the singular by the Biblical writer is disingenuous at best.
Church tradition. Many trinitarians, particularly Catholics, argue in favor of semantic plurality by way of Church dogma established by the early Church. The appeal is to the authority of the Church and its history. Who best to give the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures than the magisterium.
"The magisterium has a role in deciding authoritatively which truths are a part of sacred tradition." —Sacred tradition: "Dei Verbum" in Wikipedia.
To this group of trinitarians, "Sacred Tradition" takes precedence over "Sacred Scripture." The matter was settled centuries ago by competent Church theologians; no need to question it now.
Compound unity (aka, "collective one" or "unified one"). A "compound unity" is the term proposed by trinitarians to arrive at a semantic plural God while remaining a grammatically singular God. In other words, while the Hebrew word, Elohim, might literally be referring to a single deity, the semantic meaning is that it should be understood as a plurality. The Hebrew text may be saying "one" (echad) in a numerical sense, yet the (semantic) meaning is "many." The example most often cited is of "one flesh" (echad basar) in marriage (Genesis 2:24). It is evident that "one flesh" is made up of two individuals, male and female. Thus, in this case, "one" really means "two," hence compound unity. Other examples include::
- Genesis 11:6: Yahweh said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language..."
- Exodus 24:3: ...and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words which Yahweh has spoken will we do.”
- Numbers 13:23: ...one cluster of grapes...
- Judges 20:1: Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was assembled as one man.
In these examples (and many more), the Hebrew word echad ("one") refers to many, therefore there can be compound unity in oneness. Of course, there can be "absolute oneness" with the use of the word echad as well. Meaning, when it says "one" it really means numerical "one." So, how does one determine when "one" should be understood as "many" and when it should be understood as "one"? The answer is simple: It has nothing to do with the word "one" (echad). It has everything to do with the noun that the "one" modifies. How do you know we are dealing with a collective one is by evaluating the collective noun. If the collective noun implies plurality, then it has plural meaning.
Back to the "one flesh" example. In the course of time, a married couple will have children. This collective of parents and children can be called "one family." As this "one family" integrates itself into society with other families they become "one community." And so on, communities become "one nation," which become "one kingdom" of nations," which become "one world" of "one galaxy" of "one universe."
Do you see where the logical flaw is in this "compound unity" idea? The flaw is in placing the focus on the modifier "one" rather than the noun that the "one" modifies. We know when a phrase is compound because of the compound noun, not because of the word "one." We know that "one family" means a collection of individuals (parents and children) because the word "family" implies plurality. And so does community, nation, kingdom and so on. Others may not be so simple to determine, such as "one flesh." In these cases, we evaluate the context. If the context suggests plurality, then it is compound. Again, the word "one" on its own carries no sense of plurality. And when the collective noun itself is ambiguous, then the context will give the sense.
See how easy this is? A simple, common sense understanding of the English language is all that is needed to make sense of the "compound unity" phrases found in the Old Testament.
The Shema. The most important verse when discussing the singularity (or oneness) of God in the Old Testament is Deuteronomy 6:4. The Jews refer to it as the Shema. The Jewish people believed the Shema to be the fundamental truth of the Jewish religion, the most important commandment. The Shema reads as follows:
Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Elohim, Yahweh is one [Hebrew: echad].
Trinitarians believe the phrase, "Yahweh is one," is a "compound unity." So here's the test. Is the supposed collective noun "Yahweh" which the adjective "one" is modifying to be understood in a plural or singular sense? The answer is that it depends on who you believe Yahweh represents? If you're a trinitarian, Yahweh has to mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is no getting around this. The trinitarian interpretation of the text is colored by the theological bias that God is a Trinity. Nevermind that Yahweh is singular in the Hebrew, in all contexts, and that the Jewish people for thousands of years have always understood it to be singular.
Even Jesus understood the Shema to refer to a singular God. Jesus affirmed this in his dialogue with the scribe in Mark 12:28-32. In it, Jesus recites the Shema and agrees with the scribe's understanding of it when the scribe responded, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him" (Mark 12:32). The scribe did not say "they are one" and "there is no other besides them," but he said, "he is one" and "there is no other besides him." Yahweh was unmistakably understood to be one deity by both Jesus and the Jewish people of his time.
When you look at the Shema in the context of the entire Book of Deuteronomy, you will find supporting evidence to the singularity of God:
- Deuteronomy 4:35 (WEB): It was shown to you so that you might know that Yahweh is God. There is no one else besides him.
- Deuteronomy 4:39 (WEB): Know therefore today, and take it to heart, that Yahweh himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath. There is no one else.
- Deuteronomy 5:7: You shall have no other gods before me.
- Deuteronomy 10:17 (WEB): For Yahweh your God, he is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the awesome, who doesn’t respect persons or take bribes.
God in the plural. There are only four places in the entire Old Testament where God spoke in the plural sense.
- Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
- Genesis 3:22: Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.
- Genesis 11:7: Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.
- Isaiah 6:8: And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
None of the above verses constitute proof of a plurality of deities. Certainly not the last three. As for Genesis 1:26 why would "us" have to mean three; why not two? This is EGW's view:
SR 20.2: After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image. They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God said to His Son, “Let us make man in our image.”
Singularity, Duality, Plurality, and Multiplicity
Singularity. As is the case with Elohim, there are various reasons for a plural Hebrew word form to have a singular meaning and therefore translated as such, including:
- Majestic, intensive, superlative, or amplification. An honorable or fearsome object or person. Also called the plural of majesty (pluralis majestatis), plural of excellence (pluralis excellentiae), plural of intensity (pluralis intensivus), or royal plural. For example, Adonim ("Master"), Isaiah 19:4), Kedoshim ("the Holy One", Proverbs 9:10), tzohorayim ("lights", midday or the greatest part of the day), Shir HaShirim (the loveliest or most desireable).
- Quality, characteristic, or state. For example, virginity (bethulim), blindness (sanverim), life (chayyim).
- An object consisting of several parts. Also called the "plural of extension," "the complex plural," or "the compounding plural." For example, face (panim), a lengthened period of time (olamim, e.g. "everlasting" rock, tsur olamim, Isaiah 26:4).
- The numerous items of a single material indicating its composition. For example, "linen" garments (badim).
- A natural product found in an unnatural or artificial condition. For example, damim ("shed blood" or "bloodguilt"), "wheat" flour (chittim solet, Exodus 29:2), a homer of "barley" seed (seorim, Leviticus 27:16).
Multiplicity over plurality. There is a small but significant class of nouns which are plural in form, singular in concept and usage, but in truth express multiplicity. They include the following:
- mayim (#4325, מים) - water
- shamayim (#8064, שמים) - sky (or heaven)
- panim (#6440, פנים) - face
- hayyim (#2425b, חיים) - life (literally "the living")
Each of these words are firmly singular (water, sky, face and life), yet the Hebrew form possesses a plural ending (-im). Why are these words plural when the concept is singular? What connects them? Some suggest that it is because they express plurality. But more than plurality, they are in truth expressing multiplicity. Water is always flowing, moving, changing. The Sky is constantly changing—clouds moving, shapes forming, changing colors at sunrise and sunset. The human face is ever expressive, constant movement of the eyes, lips, etc. Life itself is constantly changing. Thus, we cannot capture their semantic meaning in anything but the plural.
Elohim is understood in the same way. He appears to us as constantly changing in roles, powers and emotions. Like water, sky, face and life, God cannot be captured strictly in the singular. God is not stagnant, but fluid. God is not fixed, but to our perception an intangible spirit being.
Duality. While multiplicity is the dominant quality of the above words (mayim, shamayim, panim and hayyim), duality is also a notable characteristic. This is particularly evident in the Creation Story. On the second day of Creation, the mayim ("waters") were parted into the mayim above the expanse and the mayim below the expanse (Genesis 1:6-7). God then called the expanse shamayim ("sky") which on the fourth day included evening and morning shamayim objects: the Sun to rule the Day and the Moon (and Stars) to rule the Night. The life created on earth on the fifth and sixth days were of male and female types. The panim ("faces") of these creatures were created with duality features—i.e. two eyes, two ears, etc. Even many of the internal "organs" of these living creatures manifest duality—i.e. two lungs, two kidneys, etc.
Dual-form ("-ayim"). The Hebrew language also has a way to express duality with the suffix "-ayim" which can be thought of as a plural of two. So you have the body parts ears, eyes, hands and feet all using the "-ayim" suffix.
- Ear - ozen (#241, singular), oznayim ("ears", plural).
- Eye - ayin (#5869, singular), enayim ("eyes", plural).
- Hand - yad (#3027, singular), yadayim ("hands", plural).
- Foot - regel (#7272, singular), raglayim ("feet", plural).
Even some forms of the name, Jerusalem, have an "-ayim" suffix (i.e. Yerushalayim as opposed to Yerushalaym, without the yod, which is the most common in the Tanakh). The Yerushalayim variant could represent the two Jerusalems, one on earth and the other in heaven, or the two hills it contains: Mount Zion and Mount Moriah.
References
