See for more themes.
| Q4: Does Elohim imply a plurality of Beings? Hypothesis: What does Elohim mean? For introduction and less detailed treatment already done, see these studies: (1)Introduction: A scholarly treatment was written by Nehemia Gordon of the Jewish faith. While it is not allowed to critique his entire thesis because of copyright reasons his discussion in "Elohim: Plural or Singular? (Part 1) by Nehemia Gordon, 2003" is treated in detail here. Gordon starts off asking is Elohim a numerical plural? "The plural form of elo'ah is elohiym and is often translated as God. While English plurals only identify quantity, as in more than one, the Hebrew plural can identify quantity as well as quality." Jeff Benner QUOTE
When you look at the Ancient Hebrew script, the Strong Authority "El" is the smallest letters for describing GOD. The next script is "eloah" a Hebrew word that means "the strong authority secure, Behold! Him" and this Hebrew word in all heavenly contexts means "the heavenly Father", "the supreme GOD".
When you look at these pictures of Elohim, the word suggests the heavenly power flows.
One could surmise a massive single source of energy flows and moves and has its Being.
One could also surmise this massive source of energy flows and moves but is a Family of Beings.
1Jo 1:5 Elohim is light.
But we know light is a Family of energy forms all related to each other expressing different properties or personalities.
"So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic plurals"
Gordon, 2003. Gordon Part 1 download pdf
Gordon suggests in his example that Hebrew has adjectives. Actually Hebrew words as adjectives, in the Bible are rare. Nearly all words are actions, including verbs and nouns. Only in recent times with Greek thinking, has a modern Hebrew language developed with adjectives and with modern thinking.
"It is worth noting that the word Elohim is not always a majestic plural. When referring to the pagan gods, the term Elohim is usually a numerical plural."(Gordon, 2003).
Than Gordon makes the Hebrew word "Elohim" have different meaning depending upon context, another mistake Greek thinking scholars do. In any language, words always have a basic meaning that never change in any context, including polysemous words. Slight changes depending upon context, yes, but not major differences in meaning. See my studies here or here
Next Gordon poses an example where Elohim is used in other contexts.
Ex 7:1 � And YHWH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee 'elohim' to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
"Certainly this does not mean that YHWH made Moses into a god, but rather that he would speak to Pharaoh with authority through Aaron who would serve as his mouth-piece in the way that the prophets serve as the mouth-pieces of YHWH. In any event, there is clearly nothing multiple about Moses, even though he was made an Elohim to Pharaoh (Gordon, 2003)."
Gordon's context is a communication system process. Is there anything multiple about this system of communication? Everything, we have three mouths all speaking, GOD, Moses and Aaron. We have a flow of powerful communication via GOD through this "earthly elohim" system. There is a model of both "earthly elohim" and heavenly Elohim represented here.
Notice how the power of Elohim flows from the source to other relational Beings.
Where does Moses and Aaron get their flow of power from ? The Father.
How many relational personalities do have channelling this flow of power? Three.
How many flows are there from all these Persons? One
How many Parents do have here ? Two
How many Parental powers do we have here? One
The father's flesh and the mother's flesh are united as one. They are the same flow. Different vessels or personalities for the flow. Yes. But of the same flow. That makes them a uni-plural noun.
1Ki 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess "elohim" of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god "elohim" of the Moabites, and Milcom the god "elohim" of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.
In this example we see "Elohim" used three times to denote pagan deities. Gordon has an interesting comment to make about this verse.
"Here we see three pagan deities each of which is referred to as an Elohim. Obviously the book of Kings is not saying that any of these false deities is a "great God". On the contrary, the verse goes on to rebuke the Israelites for worshipping them. The meaning is that the Sidonians, Moabites, and Ammonites looked upon their deities as great Gods and in this instance Scripture employs the terms used by the pagans themselves to refer to their own deities. At the same time we must observe that Ashtoret, Kemosh, and Milkom are each referred to as Elohim even though there is nothing multiple about any one of them."
Gordon is suggesting the Hebrew word for "elohim" is different to the pagan religions that also use "elohim". Why should the word have a different meaning? If Hebrew was the Mother of all languages from Eden, then the word "Elohim" must have first meant something in Hebrew, and a picture of what God is like. This picture must be a Family picture of Beings, because Satanic religions has counterfeited the word picture with polytheism. We of modern times assume "eloihm" only appeared to Abraham after coming out of Ur, a Babylonian city. The fact is, Hebrew has been around nearly 2000 years before, and so has pagan religions and traditions, before the great flood. So these false religions and their schemes we are not told about before the flood.
Consider the following :
There is a lot of confusion regarding how ancient polytheism was in different civilizations, so these pictures try to show that of the dozen or so gods each civilization had, there always seemed to be three main gods, depicted as King, Queen and Child.
"Will any one after this say that the Roman Catholic Church must still be called Christian, because it holds the doctrine of the Trinity? So did the Pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the Hindoos at this hour, in the very same sense in which Rome does. They all admitted A trinity, but did they worship THE Triune Jehovah, the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible?
And will any one say with such evidence before him, that Rome does so? Away then, with the deadly delusion that Rome is Christian! (The two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop)".
It seems at least from history that "Elohim" meant "a family of gods" from ancient Hebrew times, and it is only after perverted with a dozen of gods and sadistic rites, that GOD called Abraham out of Babylonian Ur to show the world a correct view of GOD. Sadly Satan messed up this too, by making Jewish religion think "Elohim" refers only to a solitary Being in heaven.
Gordon quotes" At the same time we must observe that Ashtoret, Kemosh, and Milkom are each referred to as Elohim even though there is nothing multiple about any one of them."
The fact is all pagan gods as seen above represented dozen of deities, that the powers flowed among many of them. This is what the term "elohim" means, the "flow of deity powers". While the book "The two Babylon's" tries to show triad deities among all major pagan religions, there is sufficient evidence that all pagan religions had many deities, and their term "elohim" referred to a "family of deities".
Even Gordon himself acknowledges on rare occasions Elohim can refer to a family of pagan gods in 1Kings 11:33.
But in a heavenly context referring Elohim to YHWH, Gordon wants the word "Elohim" to have a special and different meaning, despite the contrasting context when "Elohim" is referred to pagan deities. All languages have words with a consistent meaning regardless of context. Some multiple meanings exist for words, but their polysemy is completely different so context allows a reader to discern the difference.
For example "ab" can mean fruit or father.
Is it not easy to discern which Hebrew meaning for "ab" is which?
Next Gordon suggests this verse "YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one" (Deut 6:4). He asks the question if this verse is all about a multiplicity of gods, what is the point of saying that He is "one"? First this verse says YHWH is united to Elohim as one of power flowing. And in this sense many can become one flow of powers. This depends how you see the Hebrew word "echad". We have already seen that a husbands flesh and a wife's flesh are the same, according to Scripture, because the many are a single flow of powers. This flow in the case of married couples is the flow of love. The man has a personality of maleness-love and the woman, femaleness-love, but together this single flow of power is just love. This does not suggest there are two types of love only, but there exist a spectral dimension to love, so that many Beings can represent unique blends of this personality of love, while love remains a single flow of power. This demonstrates the many are a single flow of powers. Man in our pride are used to seeing things flowing from a single source, from the top downwards. But GOD is not like this, the source of power is more like a circuit of beings all sharing the flow together as a single flow.
Gordon lists this example :
"And YHWH will be king over the entire earth; at that time YHWH will be one and his name will be one" (Zech 14:9).
This is the context of Jesus' third coming to earth to set Himself up as the King of earth.
Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east,....
So Son-YHWH comes to establish His kingdom on the earth...His Name is "echad" united. United to whom ? His Father and the Holy Spirit.
Gordon lists this example :
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour "Yasha".
But this function is a description of the Son of GOD:
One of the sad things in the NT translations into Greek we have lost the spelling of Jesus in the Hebrew...what was it ? In Hebrew times people were named after a verb of function:
Ge 5:29 And he called his name Noah "Noach", saying, This same shall comfort "Noachm" us
Both of these words have identical Hebrew letter, NX, the verb to comfort with an additional letter "M" "meaning to flow".
Ge 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was "Palag"; for in his days was the earth divided "palag";
In this example both Name and Verb are spelled exactly the same "PLG" Hebrew letters.
So from these examples, Yasha is our only Yasha, (Saviour), the One who Rescues us. He is also spelled as Yeshua or Jesus or Emmanuel, meaning God with mankind.
(1)Introduction: A scholarly treatment was written by Nehemia Gordon of the Jewish faith. We continue with his discussion in "Elohim: Plural or Singular? (Part 2):-
Gordon notes the plural and singular nature of these verses. So how can we make sense of "He and us"? Simply, obviously the whole Family attended the Creation.
So all three beings of the "ELOHIM" heavenly kind, were present at Creation of earth, but at times only the Son-YHWH is referenced especially, as it was His creative act that was more personalized.
Gordon protests and saysWere YHWH Elohim a plurality the verse would have to have read,"And (they) YHWH Elohim said".
Consider the concept of marriage is the "two become "echad" flesh".
Fornication on the other hand is defined as :
In other words we have TWO beings and THEY plough each other with seed. In contrast sexual intercourse through marriage is defined very differently:-
Ge 4:1 � And Adam knew "yada" Eve his wife; and she conceived,
The meaning of the pictograph is "The active hands through the 'door of the eye', the very inner being of the soul"; is a reference to intimacy with something. So the marriage here not two couples coming together, but one flow become intimate with each other, a completing of the unit in harmony.
If Gordon wanted the passage to read "And (they) YHWH Elohim said", we would have polytheism, two Elohim kinds, but we have one heavenly Elohim kind, a single flow.
Next Gordon discusses the "royal we" argument and fails to notice in the heavenly council in his article:
Who is the one like the Son of Man, and comes to the Ancient of Days, such that the Ancient of Days gives Him (the Son of Man) a kingdom. Obviously the Son of Man can only be Jesus, a king, who is given planet earth as His kingdom.
Gordon's own theory of faith is different from Scripture. Notice :
"Another description of the heavenly council appears in the book of Job. We read there, "And it was a certain time, and the sons of God came to stand before YHWH" (Job 1:6; 2:1). What follows is a deliberation between YHWH and a satanic
angel, similar to that which took place in the vision of Michayahu between YHWH and the spirit of false prophecy. The "sons of God" that comprise the members of the heavenly court are the angels. The angels are called "sons of God" because they are YHWH's holy and chosen messengers.
First the Hebrew word "Satan" Strong's 7854, is not a satanic angel, it is a Named Being who is a Cherub. Second the "sons of ELOHIM" is not a reference to angels, the term "cherub" is found no where here. And thus "sons of Elohim" may refer to other unfallen beings or other worlds, each with their own prince. Notice the poorly translated verse says Mankind is made a little lower than the heavenly Elohim. (not angels - cherub, no reference anywhere to cherubs being made similiar to mankind)
Since Gordon does not like to see reference to Jesus as the Son of God, he twists Scripture to remove Him who pre-existed with the heavenly Elohim kind. He assumes the term "Son of ELOHIM" in Daniel 3:25 is the same as "angel" in Daniel 3:28...and He is correct, it is the same,...the "Son of ELOHIM" is the "messenger of the FATHER" who comes (in Hebrew/ Aramaic as "malak" ) "malak" never means "cherub" or angel...its always means "messenger", and can be messenger beings as human, cherub or Jesus, the Son of GOD.
Finally Gordon admits a problem in Genesis 20:13, and twists this passage where Abraham is speaking of His coming our of Ur, the Babylonian city...
(1) Ge 20:13 And it came to pass, when ELOHIM (with plural verb) caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.
"So contrary to the expected rule of Elohim getting a singular verb, here Elohim gets a plural verb. Because of this plural verb, we could literally translate this phrase "gods caused me to wander". From this verse alone it indeed appears that Abraham worshipped multiple gods whom he believed had caused him to wander from his father's house. However, this hardly fits the overall picture."
Gordon has a theory of faith that says the majority of passages over rules the meaning of minor problem ones, whereas a true Bible scholar must fit all Bible contexts into a single overall picture...Every Bible context must make sense. It seems even Abraham knew Elohim meant a "Heavenly kind of powers".
(2)Ge 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there ELOHIM (with plural verb) appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
" But the basic question still remains. Why are there these three instances in the Tanach where Elohim receives a plural verb?"
(3)2Sa 7:23 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom ELOHIM went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their ELOHIM's (with plural verb)?
"Let us remember that the rule of Elohim receiving a singular verb does actually work in some 2000 instances and the three verses just mentioned are the only exceptions in the entire Tanach. ...Could it be that these three anomalous verses hint at some great mystery about the paradoxical and contradictory nature of God? Or is there a much simpler, linguistic explanation?"
"Gordon tests these three exception with the golden calf, passage where ELOHIM is used for an idol in a plural case.
Ex 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
But Gordon says the calf was a single calf idol that was called ELOHIM. He asks the question :
"Why would the Israelites call a single calf "gods"?
Well what did the calf represent? Since they were of Egypt, they would have made an Egyptian idol.
Here near the Mount Sinai region we see Hebrew people who carved Egyptian bulls.
This information comes from Ron Wyatt, and Dr Kim David.
The Israelites would have made a golden calf to "Apis" a representation of Osiris, the King of the heavenly gods of Elohim. What is wrong with this depiction is not that it is different from Elohim as a concept, but that it is a man made attempt to represent Elohim.
Elohim expressly forbids the use of manmade technology to represent Strong Authorities above the creative powers of the Heavenly ELOHIM.
To say that Israel did not know what their graven image represented is pure foolishness, when they spent 400 years getting used to Osiris, the King deity of Egypt, when even their own Hebrew language the word Father "AB" is carved as the "bulls head and shepherd's home" letters.
Gordon uses mental twisting to make his case as one of 'attraction'
"The masculine plural form of the word Elohim had more attractive pull than the numerically singular meaning. As a result, it appears that the Israelites are referring to the golden calf as multiple false-gods when really they meant only a singular false-god."
What is more likely is the word ELOHIM in Hebrew means "the heavenly powers flow", "referring to a single flow of power which is shared among a family of personalities of being", which is simply saying just as light is a family of powers, X-rays, visible light and radio-waves are three different personalities of expressing the same single flow, which we call the electro-magnetic spectrum. The Bible simply calls it light, and that Elohim is like light (1John1:5).
A: " What a scholarly pdf you sent me, and only further strengthens my cause"
P: " A hasty conclusion"
A: "I didn�t know that a scholar who is a Jew, though not a Messianic Jew, actually presents the evidence but fails to acknowledge the theological implications. I can even use this pdf as proof Elohim is "plural�� I don't buy the plural majesty bit in the evidence of plural plural contexts he mentions, though I see his point sometimes for plural majesty.
What he should had done is looked at Eloah which is singular for Father, and looked at elohim as plural for father, and show this.�proving Elohim is just plural for father , but he does not do this....he suggests Elohim is a completely different term....lovely I like that !! I agree with him Elohim is a completely different term.
P: "Why don't you write to him and bring up your thoughts and concerns with him. I'm sure he will answer you and hopefully enlighten you concerning them."
A: "He admits there are over 9 cases for Elohim referring to a Family of powers (plural plural), but fails to admit it because of the 99% cases where Elohim is a reference to "oneness" (plural singular). maybe he should read the NT or become a Messianic Jew?"
P: "He never said anything about a "Family of powers" or about a "plural plural". In fact, he only used the word "family" one time when referring to the "British royal family". You are reading into his words what you want to just as you read your own words into many verses"
A: "Nehemia Gordon is a Kaaravite Jew, who respects Yeshua but is non Messianic Jew, nor believes in the NT salvation message by Yeshua.. He writes a really good account of the meaning of the word Elohim".
G: (1)"Certainly this does not mean that YHWH made Moses into a god, but rather that he would speak to Pharaoh with authority through Aaron..." . Gordon Part 1& 2 download pdf
A: "He fails to notice Moses and Aaron equal a Elohim in typology"
P: "Aaron was not an Elohim in typology. He was Elohim's prophet just as Yeshua is Yahweh Elohim's prophet.
G: (2)"The meaning is that the Sidonians, Moabites, and Ammonites looked upon their deities as great Gods "
A: "He fails to notice while a siingle deity is referenced each deity belonged to a family of deities."
P: "It is irrelevant if they belong to a family. What matters is that the individual deity is called an elohim."
G: (3)"Were YHWH a multiplicity of gods or personalities what would be the point of saying that He is "one"?
A: "He fails to notice if Hebrew wanted to make a strong case for one, it would use ashtey 6249 or yachiyd 3173 , not echad 259"
P: "Ashtey means eleven and yachiyd means sole. Echad means a numerical one. There is no stronger word in Hebrew for a numerical one than echad."
G: (4)"So when Abraham talks about YHWH taking him from his father's house in Gen 20 he refers to Him as a numerical plural but in Gen 24 he refers to Him as a numerical singular. How can we explain this paradox?"
A: "He fails to notice admit this problem verse overrides his theology. Ge 20:13 And it came to pass, when "the Elohim's" (plural plural) caused me to wander from my father's house,"
P: "I don't know what you are calling "plural plural". It doesn't say "the Elohim's". It simply says Elohim. Added to that was the plural verb. I believe this shows that when Yahweh first called Abraham back in Gen.12:1, he was a polytheist who did not know Yahweh as the one true God. Later, after journeying for a while, he came to know Yahweh more deeply and began to call upon Him (Gen.12:8). In Gen 20:13, Abraham is talking to a pagan king as he looks back to his initial calling by these unknown Gods, but in Gen.24:7, he is talking to his servant who would know a lot more about Yahweh than Abimelech did. He now recalls how Yahweh brought him out because he now knows Yahweh as his Elohim.
Also, when Yahweh spoke to Abraham in Gen.12:1-3, He revealed Himself as a singular being by referring to Himself as "I", not "We"."
G: (8)"Why are there these three instances in the Tanach where Elohim receives a plural verb?"
A: "He fails to notice admit this problem verse overrides his theology."
P: "You will allow three obscure, out of the ordinary verses to override the preponderance of the evidence that favors a singular Elohim? I will not put any weight on those verses until the Holy Spirit reveals to me why those three verbs are plural."
A: "He fails to notice admit this problem verse overrides his theology Ex 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods "elohim's (plural plural) , O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
P: "No. You fail to see that one single calf is called "Elohim". Why? It was not a family of calves. It wasn't even two calves".
A: "Aaron and Moses are mentioned as Elohim....that means a system of beings."
P: " Where is Aaron mentioned as Elohim? Moses was to be "as Elohim", not Aaron"
Maybe not directly, but look at the context of GOD speaking here and a system of mouths, and spokesmen for this flow of power.
Moses talks to Aaron, God talks to Moses, Aaron is thy spokesman and Moses is to be like Elohim. What we see here is a flow of powers from God through Moses and also via Aaron.
A: "
So ashtey originally meant 1, echad meant unit and yaccid meant only one.
P: "BDB Definition:
Asar never means one. Ashtey never means one except when combined with asar.
Maybe Satan has caused the evolutionary decay of Hebrew as a language for some purpose to destroy the concept of Elohim, and suggest Echad means one.
We shall never know the extent of satanic influence upon the Word of GOD.
A: ".. the single calf represented a system of deities, as the word Elohim means."
P: "What system of deities? Aaron made one deity to worship, a calf. You want to turn it into a system to justify your erroneous definition of Elohim."
A: ".. there are not just three verses that use Elohim as system of beings, but the NT references to Father and Son express it this way as well."
P: "I read the NT and do not see a system of strong authorities. I find Yahweh as the ONLY true Elohim and Yeshua being His Son that came into existence at his birth and was not part of Elohim in the OT. Then I go back and find proof that the OT teaches pure monotheism meaning one Being brought all to exist and rules over all. It wasn't until the NT that Yahweh gave His Son authority to rule."
A: "Greetings
I found this article very interesting.
You mention of the 2000+ uses of Elohim, several of them refer to Elohim as plurality. Does this not suggest Elohim means a system of persons as strong authorities all along, and that Jews in their faith over time restricted it's meaning because the single use of Elohim was used more often?
Rob"
P: "My limited Jewish mind can't believe in a "system of deities". I wish you the best in your polytheism!
Nehemia"
My communication was poor, I should have asked Nehemia Gordon whether the term "Elohim" means the "heavenly powers flow" and if this flow of power was shared among three Beings as a heavenly Elohim kind". People get upset with polytheism. And I do not consider the heavenly Elohim kind is polytheism. But just as light is a Family of unique and distinct personalities of electro-magnetic power, so the heavenly Elohim kind is a Family of unique and distinct personalities of love.
Even though we see darkly,(1 Cor13:12) a picture of GOD is pictured in Genesis like this. For further studies see:-
(1) Love Love is a spectrum across two words
(2) GOD GOD as a Father
(3) GOD GOD as a Mother
(4) GOD GOD as a Son
|
Created by Rob Thompson. Hosted since 10/01/2012. Visitors HOSTED by Prologic, my Son. A thin website.
"El" The "Strong Authority"
"Eloah" The "Strong Authority Secure. BEHOLD! the Being. "
"Elohim" The "Strong Authority Secure. BEHOLD! the Being flows. "
� ��
"yada" Strong's 3045.
