Trinity Truth

Click  icon to download articles in Microsoft Word format (Best for Printing)

 Yachid vs. Echad

 Yahweh Alone

 Elohim

 We, Us, & Our--Who are They?

 Pluralis Majestaticus 

So Who are They Already? (Coming Soon)

To See or Not to See? (Coming Soon)

The Messenger of Yahweh (Coming Soon)

Yachid

Yachid means only, one, solitary, and unique when used as an adjective, and simply one when used substantively.[i]  The word occurs 12 times in the Bible to describe things that are absolutely one and unique.  What’s interesting to note is that yachid comes from the root, yachad which means to join or unite.[ii]  The 1917 JPS Tanach renders yachid as only 10 out of the 12 times that it appears in the Hebrew text, the other two times being rendered, solitary, and 8 of those 10 times the word is used in reference to an only child. 

 

One exception is its use in reference to Isaac as being Abraham’s “only” son.  We know that Abraham had another son (Ishmael) so this may possibly allude to Isaac’s coming into being as the result of a union (between his parents).  More likely though is the explanation that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son.  He was the son with whom God would establish his covenant and the son through whom the Messiah would come (Gen. 17:19; 21:12). 

 

It is also worth noting that the LXX translates yachid in these verses (Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; cf. Zech. 12:10) as the Greek agapetos (beloved).  This is not without significance as it is directly comparable to the Father’s use of agapetos in reference to his Son at the baptism (Mat. 3:17) and transfiguration of Christ (Mat. 17:5).  The other word that the LXX uses to translate yachid is monogenes (e.g. Jud. 11:34; Ps. 25:16; 35:17) which is of even greater significance as this is the word used in reference to Jesus’ relationship as the Father’s Son in the Greek Scriptures (Jo. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jo. 4:9).  Note that monogenes is derived from monos (one) and genes (kind) meaning one of a kind (i.e. unique).[iii]  Consequently, Hebrew translations of the New Testament scriptures employ use of the word yachid in reference Jesus being the only begotten Son of God. 

 

1. And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.'… (Gen. 22:2)

 

2. And he said: 'Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou art a God-fearing man, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me.'… (Gen. 22:12)

 

3. and said: 'By Myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, (Gen. 22:16)

 

4. And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (Jud. 11:34)

 

5. Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog. (Ps. 22:21)

 

6. Turn Thee unto me, and be gracious unto me; for I am solitary and afflicted. (Ps. 25:16)

 

7. Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their destructions, mine only one from the lions. (Ps. 35:17)

 

8. God maketh the solitary to dwell in a house; He bringeth out the prisoners into prosperity; the rebellious dwell but in a parched land. (Ps. 68:7)

 

9. For I was a son unto my father, tender and an only one in the sight of my mother. (Pro. 4:3)

 

10. O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes; make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation; for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. (Jer. 6:26)

 

11. And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day. (Am. 8:10)

 

12. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. (Zech. 12:10)

 

Contrary to what many Trinitarians believe yachid is a word that can be used in reference to God while not hurting the Trinitarian position because He is in fact the unique God.[iv]  He’s unique in that He is the only God that exists while all others that are called gods are not by nature gods (1Cor. 8:5, Gal. 4:8).  Even if we view yachid in its meaning of absolute, indivisible unity then we still see no problem for the Trinity.  We affirm that God is absolutely and indivisibly one God.  In terms of ontology, yachid can describe Yahweh although it is not accurate in describing the persons of the Trinity, in other words we would never say that God is one Person but we can and do say all the time that God is one God.  This is why the distinction between the Being and Persons is so important.  However, yachid is not used in scripture to describe God, so we will take a look as echad which is.

 

Echad 

 

In contrast to yachid we have echad. Echad on the other hand is a word that allows for plurality within one or diversity within unity.[v]  According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament echad is closely identified with yachad (the root of yachid meaning to be united).[vi]  As stated above, yachid is never used in the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to God but echad is used in Judaism’s most fundamental statement of faith, the Shema (Shema Yisrael Yahweh eloheynu Yahweh echad, Deut. 6:4).

 

Now let’s be very clear in saying that the simple meaning of echad is one.  Just like the English usage of the word one this may denote a simple and prime numeric oneness, or a plurality in unity may be in view.  For this reason context and usage determines the definition.  Many Trinitarians stack the deck in their favor by wrongly implying that echad always means a compound unity; some have even been misled to the point of translating the word as compound unity. 

 

This same word that is used to describe the One True God in Deuteronomy 6:4 is also used in many other instances where the one in question is indeed a compound unity.  These passages all show diversity within one.  This is not to say that echad can mean two, three, four, or more… No, what this means is that echad can be used to modify something that is singular such as one person or something that is plural such as one group of persons.  Yachid on the other hand could never be used of a group of persons (for this reason if applied to God it must be to the essence only, never the Persons).[vii]

 

1. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day (yom echad). (Gen. 1:5, jps)

 

2. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (basar echad). (Gen. 2:24)

 

3. And the LORD said: 'Behold, they are one people (am echad), and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. (Gen. 11:6, jps)

 

4. And thou shalt make fifty taches of gold, and couple the curtains together with the taches: and it shall be one tabernacle (hamishkan echad). (Ex. 26:6)

 

5. And join them one to another into one stick (l’etz echad); and they shall become one in thine hand. (Ezek. 37:17)

 

The Modifying Principle

 

Bruce James in his online article entitled, Why Can’t a Jew Believe in Jesus? says,

 

“Christians give lip service to the Shema, but their theology says that there is a Trinity -- G-d, Jesus (the "son of G-d") and the "Holy Ghost." They will try to teach you that this Trinity of three entities is really just one, like a "bunch of grapes" is one. But the Torah is very precise in its language. Throughout the Torah if echad is to be applied to a bunch of something, the word "agudat," or a form of the word, would be used… Christians cite to Gen. 1:5 ("v'ai yehi erev, v'ai yehi boker, yom echad" -- ". . . and there was evening and there was morning one day") to suggest that echad modifies morning and evening and puts them together into a "bunch." Clearly, it only modifies the word "day." Similarly, they quote Numbers 13:23 which describes how the Israeli spies cut down a branch with one ("echad") cluster of grapes. But here, too, echad modifies the word "cluster" and not grapes. In the Shema, echad modifies the word "G-d" and means precisely what it says -- "one." Moreover, if the Torah wanted us to know that G-d was more than One it would have told us then about the Trinity instead of making a specific point that there was only One G-d.”[viii]

 

The fallacious reasoning of this argument is threefold.  First of all, Christians do not teach that God is “one just like a ‘bunch of grapes’ is one.”  This would be a false analogy because grapes can be separated, and each grape is simply a part of the bunch.  No grape is the bunch all by itself.  Mr. James is guilty here of constructing a straw man argument by attributing a false analogy to Trinitarians (Christians) when they do not in fact hold to this argument.   

 

Secondly, the word echad does not modify the word God in the Sh’ma, but rather the word Lord which of course in Hebrew is Yahweh the personal name of God.  And if we were to employ Mr. James’ reasoning that echad modified God then that only lends support to the position that there is plurality within Yahweh because the phrase our God is the Hebrew eloheynu which shows us that the plural form of God is used. 

 

Thirdly, the Torah does tell us that there is plurality within the Godhead, yet Mr. James like so many others is equating the Trinity with tri-theism.  This is another straw man argument that is so popular among critics of the Trinity.  The Trinitarian position is that there is only one God.  And I must at this point mention that whatever the word that echad modifies is one, whether it is one heard, one cluster, or one Lord.  It is the composition of the word being modified that determines whether or not plurality in unity is in view.

 

Unitarian, Anthony Buzzard writes,

 

"It is untrue to say that the Hebrew word echad (one) in Duet. 6:4 points to a compound unity. A recent defense of the Trinity argues that when "one" Modifies a collective noun like "cluster" or "herd," a plurality is implied in echad. The argument is fallacious. The sense of plurality is derived from the collective noun, not from the word "one." Echad in Hebrew is the numeral "one". Isa. 51:2 describes Abraham as "one" (echad), where there is no possible misunderstanding about the meaning of this simple word.”[ix]

 

Sadly as mentioned above, I have heard some believers in the Trinity argue that the word echad means compound unity but Buzzard takes the minority position and use it as representative Trinitarianism.  His statement that the sense of plurality is derived from the collective noun is accurate, but his reasoning is circular.

 

In fact, both men have just shown us a classic example of circular reasoning (begging the question).  The truth of their conclusion is assumed in their premise.  In this specific case, the assumption is that there is no plurality within Yahweh so echad cannot be modifying a tri-unity of persons.  They have simply restated the premise in the conclusion without ever actually having proved it.  There is no a priori reason to assume that Yahweh is not a plurality of persons and in fact as we have seen and will continue to see, this is unfounded from scripture.  The Hebrew Bible does indeed show us a plurality within Yahweh.

 

Anthony Buzzard comments again on his web site saying,

 

“This compound-unity argument is not used by scholars of the Hebrew language. One has only to consult a lexicon of Hebrew to see that nothing compound is implied in ‘one.’”[x]

 

The lengths that anti-Trinitarians will go to prove their position are great.  This man has resorted to some very dishonest tactics in order to show he’s correct.  It cannot be said that Hebrew scholars do not argue for a compound unity because we have already seen that Hebrew scholars do exactly that, namely Dr. Michael Brown.  Certainly Dr. Brown can rightly be called a scholar of the Hebrew language, as he has a PhD in Semitic languages from New York University.  He reads, writes, and speaks 16 languages fluently and is recognized in both the Orthodox Jewish and Christian communities as a scholar. 

 

Secondly, we have seen from the lexical aids used that echad absolutely allows for a compound unity.  We are not contending that echad should be translated as compound unity or anything other than the word one (although it does have other possible translations), but the evidence is massive that it is a word which can and does denote plurality within a single unit.

 

Notes

 

[i] See Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1906; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2005), p. 402 for an extended definition.

 

[ii] Note also that the noun form yachad means union, unitedness while the adverb form means together, altogether, alike.   Ibid.

 

[iii] See Zodhiates, Spiros, “monogenes” in The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament, (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers) 2000, c1992, c1993.

 

[iv] See Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, (Las Vegas, NV: Scholars Press, 1996) p. 88 where he says, “Unitarians should naturally expect to find that the word yachid was applied to God in the Bible. On the other hand, Trinitarians would not expect to find yachid used of God because they believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead.”

 

[v] See James Strong,  New Strong’s Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1995) p. 5 and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979 p.28-29).

 

[vi] Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1980) p. 30.

 

[vii] Please note that the Persons are inseparable from the essence, but they do not comprise the essence.  In other words, the three Persons are not parts of the divine essence that when added together form the one essence of God, but rather they all equally share in the one essence.

 

[viii] James, Bruce.  Why Can’t a Jew Believe in Jesus? http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewofjesus/a/jesus_onegod.htm

 

[ix] Buzzard, Anthony F. and Charles F. Hunting. The Doctrine of The Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, (Lahnam: International Scholars Publications, 1998.)

 

[x] Buzzard, Anthony F.  Does Everyone Believe in the Trinity? http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/trinity.htm

 

[Top of Page]

I don’t personally believe that the purpose of the Shema was to state God’s numeric oneness although it is true that numerically there is only ONE God.  The Shema demonstrates that Yahweh is God ALONE.  The New Living Translation of the Bible seems to have recognized this in their translation of Deuteronomy 6:4 by stating it this way, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”  This New International Version of the Bible offers a foot note stating the same thing.

 

Dr. Michael Brown agrees with this interpretation saying,

 

“…the translation of the New Jewish Version, recognized as the most accurate English translation produced by Jewish scholars, states: ‘Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD alone.’ The point of the Shema is to demand absolute faith in the LORD alone, with no gods before Him. The Hebrew word “echad,” translated “alone” here, means “one” in the sense of ‘that one alone.’”[i]

 

The Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament states,

 

“Hence what is predicated here of Jehovah (Jehovah one) does not relate to the unity of God, but simply states that it is to Him alone that the name Jehovah rightfully belongs, that He is the one absolute God, to whom no other Elohim can be compared.”[ii]

 

The fact of the matter is that God made it very clear that there’s only one God in all of existence in passages such as,

 

“…the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him…” (Deut. 4:35)

 

“…I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God…” (Is. 44:6)

 

“…Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any…” (Is. 44:8)

 

The Shema was not to reflect on God’s absolute or composite unity, but it was to show and command obedience and faithfulness to the LORD God of Israel alone.  If we observe the entire Sh’ma as recited by Jews, then we see that it does not end with verse 4.  The core of the Sh’ma is Deuteronomy 6:4-9, which says,

 

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.”

 

This is not drawing attention to the fact that there is one God who is an absolute, indivisible unity, nor is it drawing attention to the fact that there is only one God in all of existence.  When God wanted to say that, he said exactly that as was just seen.  It’s showing that Israel’s God was ALONE their God.  It just so happens that the Lord used a word that allows for plurality within one.  It just so happens, that Yahweh’s personality is never once described with the word that does not allow for diversity in unity.  God knew exactly how to describe himself.

 

Interestingly enough, there appears to be a precursor to Trinitarian thought concerning the first verse of the Sh’ma by Jewish commentators.  Observe these quotes from the Zohar, an ancient Kabbalistic writing from the second century. While it is not my intention to in any way assert that Jews have traditionally held Trinitarian beliefs, but we must admit that the thought has crossed their minds, even if only in the writings of certain Jewish mystics. 

 

"Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone. So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."[iii]

 

"Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit."[iv]

 

It is argued by some that the use of the phrase “three modes” above is teaching modalism.  This is in question since we do not see the doctrine clearly taught, but simply the use of the word.  Modalism of course teaches that God is one person who assumed three different roles or modes.  The truth is that neither the Trinity nor modalism is clearly taught in the first passage, but the second quote certainly shows an aspect of Trinitarian thought, be it ever so slim.  Of course it is not a perfect picture in every way, but one would not be surprised to see someone eased into Trinitarianism by reflecting on these comments.

 

Notes

 

[i] http://sidroth.org/questions.htm

 

[ii] Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch.  Commentary on the Old Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006) 1:884.

 

[iii] The Zohar, 2nd Ed. Maurice Simon, trans., (New York: Soncino Press, 1984) II:43b.

 

[iv] Ibid., III:134.

 

[Top of Page]

The most common Hebrew word that is translated as God in the Old Testament is Elohim, which is the plural form of Eloah.  Elohim is not the plural form of El as many think.  The plural form of El is Elim which is seen in Isaiah 57:5 among other places.  Elohim is used well over two thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Eloah is used 57 times.  It's an interesting word because it is used to describe many things, some of which are not God or gods at all. 

 

Anachronism

 

Now what I am about to say will come as a shock to the majority of people reading this, but the word Elohim does not mean God as we in the western world understand the idea and being of God.  It is precisely because of this understanding of God that the Mormons attempt to read polytheism into the use of Elohim in scripture.  Observe this comment made by Joseph Smith about the word “elohim”,

 

“In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.”[i]

 

But as J.P. Holding said,

 

“If elohim includes God, on down in rank through the angelic hierarchy, then this is not polytheism, but polyelohimism -- whatever that may consist of.”[ii]

 

What Mr. Holding is saying is that Elohim does not necessarily mean God as we think of God in terms of Deity.  The truth of the matter is that the word Elohim denotes might, majesty, grandeur, and strength.  It is for this reason that Yahweh can be spoken of as the “God of gods” (elohei ha'elohim - Deut. 10:17; Jos. 22:22; Ps. 136:2) while the Bible from cover to cover maintains a strict monotheism.  Yahweh is not called “God of gods” because there are numerous deities among whom Yahweh is supreme (this is the belief of the henotheists), but because He is the mightiest of all who have might.  Yahweh alone is substantially God and as we have seen Paul state earlier, the others aren’t by nature gods at all.  It is precisely for the reason that elohim is used in reference to people and things that we know not to be God by nature, that we are able to conclude that Elohim is not simply a word meaning God.  Let’s observe the various uses of Elohim in scripture.

 

Usage of Elohim

 

·         It is used to describe the One True God

 

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God (elohim) created the heaven and the earth.

 

·         It is used to describe multiple Idols

 

Exodus 20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods (elohim) before me.

 

Deuteronomy 4:28 - And there ye shall serve gods (elohim), the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

 

·         It is used to describe individual Idols

 

Judges 11:24 - Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god (eloheikha) giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.

 

1 Samuel 5:7 - And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god (eloheinu).

 

1 Kings 18:24 - And call ye on the name of your god (eloheikhem), and I will call on the name of the LORD; and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God.' And all the people answered and said: 'It is well spoken.' (jps)

 

·         It is used to describe Angels 

 

Psalms 8:5 - For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (elohim), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

 

·         It is used to describe Judges

 

Psalm 82:1 - A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges (elohim) He judgeth: (jps)

 

·         It is used to describe Men

 

1Samuel 28:12-13 - And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying: 'Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.' And the king said unto her: 'Be not afraid; for what seest thou?' And the woman said unto Saul: 'I see a godlike being (elohim) coming up out of the earth.' (jps)

 

Exodus 7:1 - And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

 

The word Elohim in and of itself does not prove God’s tri-unity but it definitely helps to build the case for it.  While there is absolutely no indication of the number three in the word, there is absolutely an indication of multiplicity, be it two or more.  It is a word that certainly allows for plurality within the Godhead and it is not by coincidence that Yahweh used this word in scripture, much the same way it was not coincidental that he used echad to describe his oneness.  The fact of the matter is that there was a perfectly good singular noun that the Yahweh used quite a few times to describe Himself.   To remove any and all ambiguity, He could have consistently used Eloah or even El to describe Himself, yet He didn’t. 

 

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum says,

 

“If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) exists and is used in such passages as Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could have easily been used consistently. Yet it is only used 250 times while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The far greater use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead rather than against it.”[iii]

 

At this point it is important to inform the Trinitarian that they should avoid the argument that the word “elohim” proves the Trinity.  This simply is not the case, although it lends great support in favor of the doctrine. 

 

Nehemiah Gordon speaks of “elohim” in his online article, “Elohim: Plural or Singular?” saying,

 

“So we see that when the Tanach speaks about YHWH it uses Elohim as the majestic plural meaning "great God" but when it speaks about pagan gods it uses Elohim as a numerical plural meaning ‘gods’.”[iv]

 

Responding to a similar argument that the plural form elohim was used to show that the Israelite God was bigger than the Pagan gods Glenn Miller says, 

 

“And the oddness is compounded by the existence of alternative word forms for expressing power. The biblical writers had several ways to express 'BIGness', the most common one being using words for '(the) Almighty'. There are plenty of good (unconfusing) [sic] ways to express majesty, absolutization [sic], exclusivity, etc—but they picked a potentially 'misleading' form of a plural...when someone sees a plural form, the first thing they think about is PLURALITY, not power, absoluteness, etc. This fact—that when an author began a sentence with (the) Elohim, the audience would EXPECT a reference to plurality—strongly suggests (IMO) that this form SUGGESTS, and not merely ALLOWS, for a plurality of persons within the ONE God of the Shema.”[v]

 

Nehemiah Gordon continues,

 

“Indeed, YHWH is called by the singular Eloha (God) some 47 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures which proves that He is not a plurality or multiplicity. This and the fact that the verbs and adjectives connected with Elohim are always singular confirm our conclusion that Elohim is an majestic plural denoting a singular individual but with a connotation of greatness.”[vi]

 

Let’s test this claim that the verbs and adjectives connected with Elohim are ALWAYS singular.

 

1.      (Plural Verb) And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander (hi'tuh oti elohim) [Lit: They caused me to wander] from my father's house, that I said unto her: This is thy kindness which thou shalt show unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me: He is my brother.' (Gen. 20:13, jps)

 

2.     (Plural Verb) And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared (ni'glu elayv ha'elohim) [Lit: They appeared] unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother. (Gen. 35:7)

 

3.      (Plural Adjective) For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God (elohim ha'chayim) [Lit: Living Gods] speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? (Deut. 5:26)[vii]

 

4.      (Plural Adjective) And Joshua said unto the people: 'Ye cannot serve the LORD; for He is a holy God (elohim kedoshim)  [Lit: Holy Gods]; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression nor your sins. (Jos. 24:19, jps)

 

5.      (Plural Verb) And who is like Thy people, like Israel, a nation one in the earth, whom God went (halekhu elohim) [Lit: They went] to redeem unto Himself for a people, and to make Him a name, and to do for Thy land great things and tremendous, even for you, in driving out from before Thy people, whom Thou didst redeem to Thee out of Egypt, the nations and their gods? (2Sam. 7:23, jps)

 

6.      (Plural Verb) And men shall say: 'Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily there is a God that judgeth (elohim shofetim) [Lit: Gods that judge] in the earth.' (Ps. 58:12, jps)

 

7.      (Plural Noun) Remember then thy Creator (boreykha) [Lit: Creators] in the days of thy youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say: 'I have no pleasure in them'; (Ecc. 12:1, jps)

 

8.      (Plural Noun) For thy Maker is thy husband, (voalayikh osayikh) [Lit: Makers, Husbands] the LORD of hosts is His name; and the Holy One of Israel is thy Redeemer, the God of the whole earth shall He be called. (Is. 54:5, jps)[viii]

 

9.      (Plural Noun) A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a father, where is My honour? and if I be a master (adonim) [Lit: Masters], where is My fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise My name. And ye say: 'Wherein have we despised Thy name?' (Mal. 1:6, jps)[ix]

 

10.  (Plural Noun) But the saints of the Most High (elyonin) [Lit: Most High Ones] shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.' (Dan. 7:18, jps)

 

Mr. Gordon goes on to contradict himself by acknowledging the plural verbs used with Elohim in the book of Genesis, but dismisses them quickly by saying,

 

“From these two verses in Genesis we might conclude that God is a plurality. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that in Genesis alone the word Elohim, referring to YHWH, gets singular verbs, adjectives, or pronouns some 157 times and only in these two instances does it receive plural verbs. At the same time, there is only one other instance in the entire Tanach of Elohim getting a plural verb.”[x]

 

He is correct in that we should not ignore the fact that singular verbs, adjectives, and pronouns are used with Elohim, there is after all only one God.  But we can’t ignore the plural uses either.  All of these verses pose no theological problems for the Trinitarian.  In fact it is because of verses such as these that we are Trinitarians.  In other words, harmony in the entire Old Testament revelation is found only in a belief in the Triune Godhead.  There is no need on the part of the Trinitarian to strain for an answer or stretch the text to say something it does not.  We do not have to resort to inserting modern literary devices into ancient writings so as to make our position plausible.  All we have to do is read the scripture and believe it for what it says.