Page 31 - BV16

Is “ELOHIM” Really Uni-plural? 31

four verses? This would be a startling case of which I think should not be compromised in any
poor judgment. Comparing our verse with Isaiah way.
6:8 we find another of the four “us” texts. The
context informs us in verses 1-3 that they are an- The facts of the history of Bible interpre-
gelic beings. Angels, when they appear, have the tation show that the idea of plurality in Elohim
form of man, and can thus be said to be in the originates in a secondary Roman Catholic
same image as man. Thus from the leading evan- writer. His use of the plural ending on Elohim to
gelical commentary of our day (Word Biblical show that God is more than one Person was op-
Commentary on Genesis, by Gordon Wenham, posed by leading scholars both Catholic and
Ph. D): Protestant. It is a considerable paradox to realize
that this misleading Roman Catholic tradition
“I do not find the difficulties raised against the found new life when promoted by Herbert
view that God was consulting the angels com- Armstrong as the basis for his whole understand-
pelling...When angels do appear in the OT they ing of the identity of God.
are frequently described as ‘men’ (Genesis
18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb Roman Catholic Commentators
‘created’ in verse 27 does in fact suggest that
God worked alone in the creation of mankind “The second principal authority which
[cp. Isa. 44:24]. ‘Let us make man’ could there- the Master of Sentences [Peter Lombard of the
fore be regarded as a divine announcement to the 12th century] adduces for the plurality of per-
heavenly courts, drawing the angelic host’s at- sons in the Godhead is Genesis 1:1. ‘In the be-
tention to the master stroke of creation, man. As ginning God created.’ In the original the noun
Job 38:4, 7 puts it, ‘When I laid the foundation of Elohim is put in the plural, and the verb in the
the earth...all the sons of God shouted for joy’ singular; the former signifying a plurality of
(cp. Luke 2:13, 14). From the Epistle of Barna- subsistencies; and the latter [the singular verb]
bas and Justin Martyr [150 AD] who saw the meaning a unity of nature. But this cannot be
plural as a reference to Christ Christians have maintained, for the plural is here used for the
traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the singular...It is evident that the noun is to be
Trinity [or Binity]. It is now universally admit- taken as singular in meaning, as otherwise it
ted that this was not what the plural meant to would indicate many gods as many men. Those
the original author.” err egregiously who would prove a plurality
of divine persons from such passages. For the
As an orthodox evangelical Wenham change of number does not arise from any mys-
goes on to say that the New Testament sees Jesus tery, but from an idiom. Such changes are made
[Yeshua] as associated with the creation -- a from the usage of the Hebrew language” (Tostat,
view which many others would question. Op., Tome 12, De Sanctissima Trinitate).

Jesus [Yeshua] did NOT say “In the be- “With the exception of Peter of Lom-
ginning I made them male and female,” but “In bardy and Paul of Burgos, there has not been,
the beginning God made them...” And God, not amongst the Greek, Latin and Hebrew writers,
the Son, rested after the work of creation (He- one commentator worthy of imitation who has
brews 4:4) and did NOT speak through a Son un- explained the word elohim of the Trinity [i.e. As
til the New Testament period (Hebrews 1:1-2). a plural, applicable also to a Binitarian God-
head]” (Sixtus Senesis, Bib. Sanct. Lib 5, note
Isaiah 44:24 presents God as solo and 1).
unaccompanied at the creation -- a privilege

The Berean Voice July-August 2002