(In Genesis 1:26 the original word which has been translated "God" is "elohiym" which is a plural word.)
Reply: Gn 1:26 says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Does this mean that God is plural?
"The plural form does not indicate multiple gods, but God and the retinue of the divine court." Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV (cf. Zondervan NASB Study Bible, Oxford Annotated Bible-RSV, and Oxford Study Bible - REB)
What divine court?
God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 8:22-30).
"Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27).
How do we know this? Examine Ezra 4:17, 18 which says, "Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me." King Artaxerxes was not a Trinity, yet he can refer to himself as "us."
What does Elohim mean? Aaron Ember wrote: "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.
"Rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power." Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon under Elohim.
Hebrew grammarian Gesenius says of Elohim, "The plural of Majesty...sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides posing the secondary sense of an intensification of an original idea...that the language has entirely rejected the idea of a numerical plurality in elohim (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute." Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 398-399
At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as Elohim. The word Elohim is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply "gods." (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.-1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).
"It is exegesis of a mischievous kind, if pious, sort that would discover the doctrine in the plural form 'Elohim,' of the Deity's name, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham, or even in the ter sanctus of the prophecies of Isaiah." Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
German scholar Franz Delitzsch observed that "the idea that the Trinity is represented in the three is in every point of view untenable."
What then of Genesis 19:24, "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven."
Are there 2 Jehovahs here? Or, maybe, 2/3rds of the required three for a Trinity?
A similar expression is used at Ex 24:1, where the Harper Study Bible NRSV has a footnote that says, "The Lord refers to himself in the third person as in 19:24." Is this unusual? King Solomon did the same thing, "Solomon assembled the elders of Israel . . . unto King Solomon."
Gen 49:1,2, " And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the latter days. Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; And hearken unto Israel your father." Here we another example of speaking of yourself in the 3rd person.
This was common back then, so it can be dismissed as the New English Bible has in its reading of Gen 19:24, "The LORD rained down fire and brimstones from the skies on Sodom and Gomorrah." (see also Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, New Jerusalem Bible, NIrV, Bible in Basic English, New Century Version-ICB, New Living Translation)
From a reader: A study into the original manuscripts, or at least checking Concordances & Lexicons, reveals that the word translated as "one" is "echad" this word was not used to denote a singular entity. It was however, used to denote a unit composed of more than one- for example, it would be used in the context "One Army" but would NOT be used in the context of "One Person."
Reply: ECHAD is indeed used to denote a single entity. Even Abraham is referred to as ONE(Echad) at Isaiah 51:2. Exekiel 33:24, "`Abraham was only one (ECHAD) man, yet he possessed the land." NIV
Is Abraham not a singular entity?
When the LXX translators made the first translation into another language, Greek, they rendered the word ECHAD with the singular "hEIS." Deut 6:4 "KURIOS O QEOS HMWN KURIOS EIS ESTIN" LXX/Septuagint. This was carried over into the NT. Consider Mark 12:29:
"KURIOS O QEOS HMWN KURIOS EIS ESTIN." That which was a characteristic of the Hebrew language, was not carried over into the Bible by the pre-Christian Jews nor the 1st century Christians. God is simply ONE...not THREE. Sorry.
Trinitarian professor of theology Gregory Boyd admits, "Even weaker [than the argument for Elohim] is the argument that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) used in the Shema...refers to a unified one, not an absolute one. Hence some Trinitarians have argued, the Old Testament has a view of a united Godhead. It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (eg Gen. 2:24, they shall become one flesh). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the Old Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as our English word one. The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended." Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, 47, 48
No comments:
Post a Comment