The Narrow Path Ministries

I apparently lean toward an unorthodox view of the Trinity. I think Elohim is a corporate One, but not one Being or one Person. Of course I do believe Elohim is Three Persons, all of whom are co-eternal, equally powerful, and of the same substance. Moreover, I do recognize different functions among these Persons. But the idea that God is "Three in One" is expressed so often in church creeds in such an odd manner, that it invites the question "One what?" For God cannot be only one Person or Being, yet at the same time be Three Persons, can he?

This question ("One what?") begs an explanation. For if God were a singular Being from all eternity, like the Allah of Islam, then God would have had no moral dimension until he created other living souls, to whatever extent he was One Being or One Person. For a Being who is alone in the universe cannot be either selfless or selfish, since both these states require another person to be present. Therefore the moral dimension would be absent in eternity past, if God were a singular Person or Being.

This idea— that God is One Being— likewise raises the question of whether God is some self-glorifying egotist. I've noticed Calvinists are big on this. They love to talk about God being all about Himself. But in my view the Godhead is self-sacrificial according to their own ideals; for (1) the Father GAVE UP the Son for the sins of the world, so that the Son might be glorified; (2) the Son CAME NOT on his own but because the Father sent Him; and (3) Jesus said that when the Spirit came, He would NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF, but of what he heard and saw. Therefore, the Spirit likewise does not seek to glorify Himself as a Person. Now, again, I say all this because, to whatever extent we conflate the Persons of the Godhead to mean "One Being," to the same extent we must also say that God is motivated by self-glorification.

This leads me to my final complaint. Why is "Elohim" rendered in the singular ("God") instead of in the plural in nearly all of its occurrences in the O.T.? For there is a <i>quid pro quo</i> of Hebrew to English:

Elohim/ Gods (plural)

and

Elowaw/God (singular).

Now, I grant that the plural Elohim is almost always used with the singular verb, e.g., “The Gods is…” This is actually the statement of Genesis 1:1: “The Gods is creating the heavens and the earth.” But I ask: What right did translators have, to change the plural noun (Elohim) so that it harmonized with the singular verb. For could they not just as easily, and with similar justification, have harmonized the singular verb to the plural noun, Elohim?

When I’ve asked people this question, here are some of the excuses I get. First, I am told it would “confuse” readers to render the Hebrew the way it actually is. But here I must ask, “Should we really proceed on the basis that God didn’t quite know what he was doing, when conjoining the plural “Elohim” with the singular verb? Second, I am told that certain kings of ancient times described themselves with the plural Elohim in conjunction with the singular verb, to express their majesty. But if that is the case, i.e., if it is really true that God wants to convey his majesty thus, how is that accomplished in translations that reduce the plural Elohim to the singular “God”?

Of course, I know most or all the verses typically trotted out to convey that God is somehow Three Persons yet One Being, such as in Isaiah, when we are told by the Lord that there is none else except “Me,” etc. And let us also concede it is singular pronouns that are almost always used to refer to the plural, Elohim. But is it possible that the singular is present merely to underscore the fact that, though the Persons of the Godhead sometimes enter conference with different desires, they always leave the conference with the same decision? That the singular verb is simply pointing to the unity of their decisions?

So, my whole point is this: I would like to see translations that actually show the plural Elohim with the singular verb. “The Gods is…”. For this is what God is actually saying to us. And I object to the idea that we cannot do this simply because it would sound awkward in English.

Anyway, I would be reasonably content if translations would just rendered God’s word as it is, and leave the whole debate about rendering Elohim to the English “God” or “Gods” to the margins where commentator opinions belong. For the fact is, for centuries we have distorted the Old Testament so that it does not reflect the plurality of the Persons of the Godhead. Had we translated it correctly, I think the idea that Jesus is also God would have had a much easier time gaining traction.

I agree with your translation points.

ISBE says: "The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is 'Elohim, ordinarily translated "God" (Gen 1:1). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Genesis alone approximately 200 times. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also 'El and 'Eloah. (1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Ps 96:5; 97:7). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. [emphasis mine] It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic."

That's the old ISBE; the new edition adds, "The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called the "plural of majesty" or the "intensive plural" because it implies that all the fulness of deity is concentrated in the one god."

DanielGracely wrote:So, my whole point is this: I would like to see translations that actually show the plural Elohim with the singular verb. “The Gods is…”. For this is what God is actually saying to us. So must we NOT really change it under the supposed justification that the English must not sound awkward?

English doesn't have this "intensive plural", so translating it "Gods" wouldn't convey the same meaning to an English reader. So it seems to me, it's correctly translated to the singular "God", but a margin note on the Hebrew grammar would be good.

(edit: For those not familiar with the ISBE, I see the first two entries in Google are the Illinois State Board of Education, and the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. Neither is the ISBE from which I quoted. That would be the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.)

Just a few observations:

1. The Septuagint translation from Hebrew to Greek (around 300 B.C.) renders "Elohim" as "θεος" (a singular word).
2. As you have pointed out the Hebrew uses "Elohim" with a singular verb.
3. In Genesis 19:24, Elohim says, "Let us create man in our own image".
This would suggest that either Elohim is a group of Gods, a compound Being, or a single Being who is addressing one or more others (whether angels, gods, or Gods).
4. Psalm 82 speaks of an assembly of gods (Gods?)
Here is a translation of the Septugint:

God is in the assembly of gods. In their midst He judges gods.

The first word has the article in Greek. Since there is no other modifier, this indicates the supreme God — the Father.
Both words for "gods" has no article.

Backwoodsman quotes the ISBE:

"The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is 'Elohim, ordinarily translated "God" (Gen 1:1). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Genesis alone approximately 200 times. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also 'El and 'Eloah. (1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Ps 96:5; 97:7). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. [emphasis mine] It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic."

That's the old ISBE; the new edition adds, "The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called the "plural of majesty" or the "intensive plural" because it implies that all the fullness of deity is concentrated in the one god.”

Backwoodsman then quotes my statement about how our translations have been constrained because of wanting to avoid awkward-sounding English. I will begin my response by first citing his reply to this point:

English doesn't have this "intensive plural", so translating it "Gods" wouldn't convey the same meaning to an English reader. So it seems to me, it's correctly translated to the singular "God", but a margin note on the Hebrew grammar would be good.

But then by the same logic, backwoodsman, if you’re advocating that any wording or concept in the Old Testament that “wouldn’t convey the same meaning to an English reader” ought to be changed, why didn’t translators render differently the many statements in the Old Testament that, if abstractly understood as ideas, nevertheless contained, and still contain, nothing of meaning to the average English reader? Here I think of the statement about a man putting his hand against the wall of his house and being bit by a snake. Am I really to suppose the average English reader reads this and thinks to himself: “Oh, but, of course.” But if, then, the average English reader doesn’t understand why a snake might bite a man if he put his hand against a wall, why didn’t translators rush to take the same degree of liberty to render something fundamentally different here, as they did with Elohim? Your point here is unfortunate, For, in fact, whole books have been written to help English readers understand the various phrases in the Old Testament that convey no meaning to them; yet translators knew enough to leave those statements alone. But apparently, they just couldn’t resist tinkering with Elohim, even to so fundamental a level of grammatical change.

This result by translators is what has led to the kind of confused ISBE entry you have quoted above. For not only does the ISBE fail to answer the question: “God is One what?”, but it further compounds the problem by claiming that Elohim is “kindred” to El and Eloah. But El is an alleged abbreviation, and Eloah is the singular form for God. And so the question begs itself: “Elohim and Eloah are kindred how?” Well, I won’t expect an answer to that question anymore that I expect an answer to what the ISBE (or anyone else) means by the claim that God is one God. That is, One in what sense? I have yet to receive a real answer to this point from any theologian. For it is plain they don’t want to take a cue from even a cursory reading of the N.T., which shows that the Persons of the Godhead do NOT have to choose the same thing, nor know the same thing, nor think the same thing, nor desire the same thing. So in what sense is God “one” God, if it is not of these fundamental categories which define individual, sentient Being?

Moving on, another problem with the ISBE is that it assumes its own conclusion. For it begins by claiming that Elohim is the equivalent of the [singular] Greek theos in the New Testament. Well, pshaw! I don’t doubt that translators think this is the case! But where is the proof? Is it really in ISBE’s claim that Elohim uniformly governs constructions of a “singular verb or adjective, UNLESS used of heathen divinities”? But what, then, of Gen. 1:26, where God says “Let US make man in OUR image…” or Gen. 11:7, where God says “Let US go down…” Is Elohim really to be taken for “heathen divinities”?

And then we have the strange claim of the newer edition of ISBE, stating:

“The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called the "plural of majesty" or the "intensive plural" because it implies that all the fulness of deity is concentrated in the one god.”

Now, granted, perhaps no one here besides myself has more championed the idea on this forum that the lexical use of words in extra-biblical writings are the control groups which keep theologians honest. And so, at first glance it should seem as though I would be on board with agreeing that how pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts treat the word “Elohim” is exactly how we must insist the Hebrews understood that word. But the problem here, is that control groups are only as good as their similarities to the group in question. For example, if doctors were to prescribe to People Group A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI drugs) with successful results, and on that basis prescribed People Group B SSRIs, the result could be disastrous if Group A were adults but Group B were adolescents, since the latter show a higher incidence of suicide when taking these drugs. For it is not enough to simply test adults and assume the results will be the same for all age groups.

Even so, we must ask why the ISBE IMPLIES that the pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite conception of a chief God was sufficiently similar to how the Elohim of the Bible is expressed in both the Old and New Testaments? Indeed, is Marduk, wisest of the Babylonian gods and eventually their ruler, a God who consists of different persons, such that one Person sends another Person to do his will, each of whom is of Marduk? Or does Marduk consist of Persons each of whom desires that his actions would glorify another of the Persons of Marduk, and not of Himself as a Person? Nay and Nay. But then why would anyone suppose that the Babylonian conception of God as expressed in their use of the word “Elohim” might comprehend the full spectrum of what the word “Elohim” meant to the Hebrews? And ditto with the Canaanites. The fact is, the earliest example known to us in which men were made aware of Elohim speaking of Himself is to Noah (Gen. 9:6) and to Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:16); and so, we should expect that if such a descendent group as the Babylonians would distort Elohim into a pantheon of Gods in which Marduk conquers the gods of waters to form and populate the earth, that a similar distortion would find its way into their definition of “Elohim”. Again, unless the control group in relation to the test group is one of apples to apples, or oranges to oranges, comparisons and “lexical control groups” will do us little good. And so, while I might concede that the O.T. does reflect the kind of majesty implied in the plural use of the word Elohim as evidenced in certain other cultures, I do not think the plural conveys only this.

Moving on, the ISBE goes on to claim:

It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural.

But, backwoodsman, if of “actual multiplicity”, then what is your argument? That “actual multiplicity” is merely a possibility but not always an actuality? Says who? Translators (including the Septuagint’s), or the Christian theologians who follow in their footsteps with the same agenda of “monotheism”, a term I have already shown they neither define nor explain?

And so, at last, I find myself drawn to what earlier may have seemed I was avoiding to embrace—the idea that words should be understood according to their usual, normal meaning. For it is the majority use of Elohim I follow, whether (I contend) in the Bible or in extra-biblical writings, which in the case of Elohim indicates the plural of what we in English call “Gods/gods,” and of Elowah what we call “God/god.” And so, it will not do to make the matter so flexibly plastic as to speak cozily of the “kindredness” of Elohim with El and Elowah, while failing to really explain the distinctiveness of these words.

Finally, a word must be said about the damage our current translations have had upon the work of evangelism. For, when presenting the gospel to an unbeliever, I have personally found no single argument stronger for Christianity than to explain how each of the Persons of the Godhead behaves sacrificially for the glory of Another Person of the Godhead, and thus not for Himself. And I sense the quiet that pervades the moment, when the unbeliever realizes for the first time God may not be the incredible and insatiable egotist they have always imagined. And though here in the previous sentence I have referred to God in the singular, it is in the same spirit in which Christ told Phillip that since he had seen Him, he had seen the Father. For in any practical sense of the word, to behold the Incarnate Person of the Godhead IS to behold the whole of the Godhead. Not technically, but experientially. But that is enough.

Incidentally, I would hope any future editions of the ISBE would broaden their horizons enough to realize not everyone in disagreement with their view of “Elohim” is arguing for “primitive Semitic polytheism”.

I apparently lean toward an unorthodox view of the Trinity. I think Elohim is a corporate One, but not one Being, or Person. Of course I do believe Elohim is Three Persons, all of whom are co-eternal, equally powerful, and of the same substance. Moreover, I do recognize different functions among these Persons. But the idea that God is "Three in One" is expressed so often in church creeds in such an odd manner, that it invites the question "One what?" For God cannot be only one Person or Being, yet at the same time be Three Persons, can he?








"One what", i think the Torah means "One God" numerically therefore Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not independent gods existing eternally independent from the Father but at some point in the distant past came out from the Father.
Jesus is "the Word of God" and the Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of God." I think "of God" could be phrased "from God." So i see them as extensions of the One God and whether they are "persons" can be determined from the NT descriptions of them.

Steve7150 says:

"One what", i think the Torah means "One God" numerically therefore Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not independent gods existing eternally independent from the Father but at some point in the distant past came out from the Father.
Jesus is "the Word of God" and the Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of God." I think "of God" could be phrased "from God." So i see them as extensions of the One God and whether they are "persons" can be determined from the NT descriptions of them.

OR

it merely speaks of their functions as Persons as it pertains to creation, not of their dependence on the Father for their Being. It seems to me that the natural reading is that, while the head of Christ is God [the Father], this speaks (1) of the Son’s voluntary placement under the Father’s will; and (2) of the Holy Spirit of God’s agreement to the Father’s plan, rather than of any chronological order of ‘birth’ to some of the Persons of Elohim. For when Christ said that He came from the Father, and returned to Him, it seems that the natural reading is not that Christ somehow came into a differentiated and separately personalized status at some point in eternity past, but simply that his Incarnate role was directed by the Father.

For when Christ said that He came from the Father, and returned to Him, it seems that the natural reading is not that Christ somehow came into a differentiated and separately personalized status at some point in eternity past, but simply that his Incarnate role was directed by the Father.







When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was he answered "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one" Mark 12.29 The greek word used was "heis" which according to a Lexicon means "a primary numerical."
Jesus quoted Duet 6.4 from which the hebrew word used for "one" was "echad" which was always understood to mean a numerical one rather then "unity" which was a later expanded definition by trinitarians.
My understanding of the purpose of Duet 6.4 was to emphasize the numerical one , to contrast Yahweh from the numerous pagan gods , so Israel shall worship the one true God.
So it seems to me if Jesus and the Holy Spirit always existed as God , we have three Gods.

DanielGracely wrote:if you’re advocating that any wording or concept in the Old Testament that “wouldn’t convey the same meaning to an English reader” ought to be changed

I'm advocating no such thing. It's a simple grammatical construct that can't be directly translated to English, because it doesn't exist in English. I'm no Hebrew expert, but based on the available info, it seems to me it's translated as well as can be done; translating it as a plural would be less accurate and confusing.

This result by translators is what has led to the kind of confused ISBE entry you have quoted above.

The ISBE isn't confused; it clearly and concisely explains the answer to your question. If you want to know what it says about the nature of the trinity, you can look that up too, but you won't find it in the article on the names of God.

For not only does the ISBE fail to answer the question: “God is One what?”

You don't need the ISBE or anyone else to answer that for you. As steve7150 pointed out, Moses answered it in Deut. 6:4, and Jesus answered it in Mark 12:29. One what? Moses said one Yahweh, and Jesus, quoting him, said one Lord. Clear enough? Well, it's as clear as God saw fit to make it. If you want it clearer, you'll have to take it up with Him, not with some imagined conspiracy of theologians.

I think you're confusing this simple grammatical point with a theological statement about the nature of God. If you can separate the two in your thinking, I think both will become much clearer. It's obvious you're pretty heavily invested in your ideas, but I'd encourage you to consider that God doesn't hide essential knowledge inside word games; if He wants us to know it, and thinks we can understand it, He states it clearly enough that anyone who is looking for Him can see and understand it. Inevitably, something, somewhere, sometime will be lost in translation; hence the value of referencing the original languages. But God knew from the start what languages His word would eventually be translated into, and the difficulties involved, and I believe He made sure the essential gospel is translated intact.

I really like the scholarly arguments made by Daniels Genesis 1 case, and the really good answers to the point.
But Daniel, would not the rest of the Torah, and succeeding revelation mean 'anything' to the understanding of a translation of an ancient text, as we do impose extra biblical meanings to understand words, why not the bibles own words?

Since Moses (or the earliest scribe) was likely the scribe of 'all' Genesis and the first 5 books* wouldn't the translators be correct to allow the scribes own understanding help us understand the meaning? And, allow the oneness of Elohim be translated as such, If a language other than Hebrew 'permits';
Since: The 'context' of scripture reveals there is Only one True God. When God came to Abraham's tent it was 'One' of the visitors who was God. When God appeared to Moses He said 'I am', certainly 'the God' (Elohim) who was speaking to Moses was 'alone'. At Mount Sinai there was Only One God present, and 'that God' said you shall have no-other Gods. Then God, 'who speaks as One' continues to make a serious charge against 'all' other Gods throughout the rest of the books of Moses the same scribe (s,?).

Note there only seems to be One God who speaks to Israel the 'whole' time, and note God continues to seriously contest and challenge 'any' and 'all' Gods, calling them 'all' false even ridiculing them (Note Elijah and Mount Carmel). Then we have many Prophets going over and detailing Gods oneness and uniqueness, such as Isaiah.
The Hebrew language can stand as it is, none of us will ever understand ancient Hebrew the way the Israelites did, so demanding the translation 'should' be rendered Gods seems to be imposing a decision on the meaning outside of what God has argued and defined as the meaning of Elohim; 'There is Only One True God' and all others are false. Maybe Elohim is the best word to allow a plurality of character / person within, and yet at the same time also be a word for one God, but we will never 'really' know the ancient understanding of Genesis Hebrew, but we can surmise what God meant from the abundance of other passages.

(*Note, I consider the beginning of Genesis may have 'also' been common lore for hundreds, or thousands of years, prior to Moses. Certainly the story of Lot and Abraham were)

If you 'really' want a Bible that renders Genesis chapter one as 'they the Gods', then may I recommend Joseph Smiths translation 'The Book of Abraham' (Chap.4:1-12), at least here we can be sure, because these were copied from Abrahams own hand!