• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1This document is Appendix A of 
One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstoneof the Christian Faith
(copyright 2003) by Christian Educational Services, a division of Spirit & Truth Fellowship International.You may use any or all of this document as long as proper credit is given to the One God& One Lord book and www.BiblicalUnitarian.com.To order a copy of 
One God & One Lord 
, please visit STFonline.org/store or call us tollfree at 1-888-255-6189 (317-255-6189), M-F 8:30-5 (EST)
Old Testament
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (
 KJV 
)
1
. The word “God” is
 Elohim
, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words,has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense of “gods” or “men withauthority,” and in a singular sense for “God,” “god,” or “a man with authority, such as a judge.” The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, considered to be one of the best available, has as its first usage for 
 Elohim
: “
rulers, judges
, either as divinerepresentatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power,
divine ones,
superhuman beings including God and angels,
 gods
.” 
1
 
 Elohim
is translated “gods” in many verses. Genesis 35:2 reads, “Get rid of all the foreigngods you have with you,” and Exodus 18:11 says, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods.” It is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9. It is translated“angels” (
 KJV 
) or “heavenly beings” (
 NIV 
) in Psalm 8:5. That is its plural use, and thereis no evidence that anyone thought of these “gods” as having some kind of plurality of  persons within themselves.
2
.
 Elohim
is also translated as the singular “god” or “judge,” and there is no hint of any“compound nature” when it is translated that way. An example is Exodus 22:20, whichreads, “Whoever sacrifices to any
 god 
other than the
LORD
must be destroyed.” Another example is Judges 6:31: “If Baal really is a
 god 
, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” In Exodus 7:1, God says that He has made Moses a “god”(
 Elohim
) to Pharaoh. Again, in Judges 11:24, the pagan god Chemosh is called
 Elohim
,and in 1 Samuel 5:7, the pagan god Dagon is called
 Elohim
, yet Christians do notconclude that those gods were somehow composite or “uniplural,” or that the people whoworshipped them thought they were.
1
Francis Brown,
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
 
(Hendrickson Pub.,Massachusetts, 1906), p. 43.
 
2Exactly how to translate
 Elohim
in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars. Thequestion is whether 
 Elohim
in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. The
 KJV 
says“judge.” The versions are divided between them, some translating
 Elohim
as a man,others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word
 Elohim
refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not haveany inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as “god”when referring to a pagan god, or as “judge” when referring to a man. The evidence inScripture does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word
 Elohim
inherentlycontains the idea of a compound nature.
3
. Some teach that the word
 Elohim
implies a compound unity when it refers to the trueGod. That would mean that the word
 Elohim
somehow changes meaning when it isapplied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just noevidence of this. The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jewsthemselves. When we study the history and the language of the Jews, we discover thatthey never understood
 Elohim
to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jewswere staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of morethan one God into their culture.
Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God.
This fact in and of itself oughtto close the argument. No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar,Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of 
 Elohim
was for intensification, and wasrelated to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, “That thelanguage has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in
 Elohim
(whenever itdenotes
one
God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with asingular attribute.”
2
 The singular pronoun is always used with the word
 Elohim
. A study of the word willshow what Gesenius stated, that the singular attribute (such as “He,” not “They,” or “I,”not “We”) always follows
 Elohim
. Furthermore, when the word
 Elohim
is used to denoteothers beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as “uniplural.”To us, the evidence is clear: God is not “compound” in any sense of the word. He is the“one God” of Israel.
4
. Scripture contains no reproof for those who do not believe in a “Triune God.” Thosewho do not believe in God are called “fools” (Ps. 14:1). Those who reject Christ arecondemned (John 3:18). Scripture testifies that it is for “doctrine, reproof, andcorrection” (2 Tim. 3:16 -
 KJV 
), and there are many verses that reprove believers for allkinds of erroneous beliefs and practices. Conspicuous in its absence is any kind of reproof for not believing in the Trinity.Buzzard, pp. 13-15,125 and 126Morgridge, pp. 88-96
2
 
E. Kautzsch, ed.,
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar 
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1910), p. 399.
 
3Snedeker, pp. 359-367
Genesis 1:26
And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (
 KJV 
)
1
.
 Elohim
and
 Adonim
, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meanta plurality of persons, it would be translated “Gods.” But the Jews, being trulymonotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God.This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “pluralof emphasis,” and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrewscholars identify this use of “us” as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis,and we believe this also.
2
. The plural of majesty is clearly attested to in writing from royalty through the ages.Hyndman writes:The true explanation of this verse is to be found in the practice which has prevailed in all nations with which we are acquainted, of persons speaking of themselves in the plural number. “Given at our palace,” “It is our pleasure,” arecommon expressions of kings in their proclamations (p. 54).Morgridge adds:It is common in all languages with which we are acquainted, and it appears tohave always been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of greatdignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say
we, our, us,
instead of 
 I,my, me
. Thus, the king of France says, “
We
, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “
We
, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says “
We,
Alexander,” or “
We
, Nicholas” (p. 93).The plural of majesty can be seen in Ezra 4:18. In Ezra 4:11, the men of the Trans-Euphrates wrote, “To King Artaxerxes, from your servants.” The book of Ezracontinues, “The king sent this reply: Greetings. The letter you sent us has been read andtranslated…” Thus, although the people wrote to the king himself, the king used the word“us.” It is common in such correspondence that the plural is used when someone speaksof his
intentions
, and the use of the more literal singular is used when the person
acts
.Morgridge adds more insight when he says:It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of theTrinity: yet he often represents God as saying
we, our, us,
when speaking only of Himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicativeof a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran,that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in theBible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 94).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...