Is Jesus Elohim?

[liamconnor]

Much heat has been exerted in attempting to show that Jesus was not YHWH.

Can we say that Jesus was Elohim? On what Biblical grounds (linguistic playing the largest part) can we say Yes or No?

IF the answer remains No, why has this identification not loomed as large for antagonists towards the Trinity? What is it about the specific name "YHWH" that is touchy? Put another way, "Is calling Jesus Elohim less offensive than calling him YHWH to non-trinitarians?"

[onewithhim]

I realize now that my OP was not specific enough, and the title was misleading.

I am not interested in discussing whether Jesus was IN FACT Elohim, or YHWH, or God, or Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, or the Ground of All Being. Those are metaphysical questions.

I am interested in a literary/historical question. Whatever Jesus' actual ontology, I want to discuss whether authors of the N.T. identified, by their writings, Jesus with the YHWH of the O.T. Can it be shown by literary analysis (which of course requires knowledge of the original languages and the culture) that some authors believed Jesus was eternally divine, not created. i.e., the authors of the N.T. would side against Arian. According to them, there was no "time when he was not".

This is a literary question.

The authors of the N.T. would definitely side with Arius. No question.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 29 by onewithhim]

Further comments on Jesus not saying "I Am":

http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... -say-i-am/


http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... ighty-god/

[onewithhim]

When clicking on the links in my post above, you will see that the articles don't come up, but an "Oops!" comes up.....just type in John 8:58 and it will take you to the article.

[ttruscott]

Put another way, "Is calling Jesus Elohim less offensive than calling him YHWH to non-trinitarians?"

Elohim is plural...so it doesn't refer to any single Divine individual but to GOD, the Divine Unity (`echad)

[onewithhim]

Put another way, "Is calling Jesus Elohim less offensive than calling him YHWH to non-trinitarians?"

Elohim is plural...so it doesn't refer to any single Divine individual but to GOD, the Divine Unity (`echad)

Sorry, you are wrong.

Elohim is "plural" only in that it refers to a plurality of magnificence or awesomeness. It has been shown to refer to a single god--not a duality or trinity, Dagon of the Philistines. The title "elohim" was used to refer to that false god.

Do your research.

When applying to Jehovah, Elohim is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Gen.1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: 'That the language of the O.T. has entirely given up the idea of plurality in [Elohim] (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...[Elohim] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.'" (The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol.XXI, 1905, p.208.) Did you get that? The word means an INTENSITY of an attribute, not that the subject to which it refers is plural.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 34 by onewithhim]

I believe, God of hosts, ie , heavenly hosts, is the root of the plural suffix. There is also a feminine implied, like Baal and Baalim. But I think plural forms are given a feminine like in , even, European languages. Like in German, das Hund, die Hunde.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 34 by onewithhim]

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.� - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.� – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary� in the appendix:

“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.� – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among [real] scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.�

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence� that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!

So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods�).

For example: “I am the Lord thy God [elohim - plural of excellence in Hebrew becomes theos - singular in the Greek Septuagint]� - Ex. 20:2. And “know that the Lord he is God [as always, the plural elohim, as applied to the God of Israel, becomes the singular, theos in the Septuagint] he made us...� - Ps. 100:3.

But when elohim really does mean plural in number, we see it rendered into the Greek plural for “gods� in the Septuagint: “Thou shalt not worship their gods [elohim in Hebrew becomes theois - plural in the Greek Septuagint], nor serve them .... And thou shalt serve the Lord thy God [singular - Greek].� - Ex. 23:24-25.
The plural elohim argument is no more proper than the plural “faces� argument:

When the Hebrew scriptures speak of the face of God, they invariably use the plural Hebrew word which is literally “faces� (e.g. Ex. 33:20, Num. 6:25, Ps. 10:11). Obviously, according to this type of trinitarian reasoning, to have “faces� God must be more than one person!

It is apparent to any competent OT Bible scholar, however, that “faces� is used in a similar manner to the plural “elohim.� That is, the plural “faces� is used in a singular sense in the ancient Hebrew idiom.

We only have to look at other uses in the Bible. King David, for example, is described with the plural “faces� usage: 2 Sam. 14:24 uses the plural “faces� twice for King David! This scripture, when translated into the ancient Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before Christ, used the singular “face� in Greek. The same thing has happened in many scriptures, e.g. 2 Ki. 3:14 (Jehoshaphat) and 2 Ki. 18:24 (an official).

Clearly, the Hebrew translators of that time did not understand a “multiple-person God� (any more than a “multiple-person David [or Jehoshaphat]�) or they certainly would have translated the plural Hebrew “faces� of God with the plural Greek word for “faces� in the ancient OT Greek Septuagint. But they never did!

Likewise, as with the plural elohim, the New Testament writers never followed the Hebrew plural usage for “face,� but always used the singular “face� for God (e.g., Heb. 9:24). How extremely strange if they really believed God was more than one person!

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 36 by tigger2]

I think we agree here.

[ttruscott]

Likewise, as with the plural elohim, the New Testament writers never followed the Hebrew plural usage for “face,� but always used the singular “face� for God (e.g., Heb. 9:24). How extremely strange if they really believed God was more than one person!

When face refers to a singular unity it would never be rendered faces...GOD is a singular Unity...singular pronouns are quite acceptable when speaking of HIM.