Is "elohim" singular or plural?

[tonychanyt]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hמm)
Noun - masculine plural

It is in plural form but

created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular

Elohim:

The masculine plural ending does not mean “gods” when referring to the true God of Israel, since the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular​

Plural elohim followed by the singular verb bara refers to the one true God. This kind of phenomenon is not unique in linguistics. It is called synesis. There is plurality in unity within the divine being.

On the other hand, Exodus 32:1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods who will go before us.

gods
אֱלֹהִ֗ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural

will go
יֵֽלְכוּ֙ (yê·lə·ḵū)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - third person masculine plural

In this case, we have the usual plural noun followed by a plural verb. This elohim is not the LORD God.

Wiki:

Although the word is plural, in the Hebrew Bible it most often takes singular verbal or pronominal agreement and refers to a single deity,[1][2][3][4] particularly the God of Israel.[1][2][3][4][5][6] In other verses it refers to the singular gods of other nations or to deities in the plural.

The Hebrew word elohim is plural in form but in a sentence, it can function as singular or plural depending on the verb or the adjective accompanying it. When it is singular in function in a sentence, it always refers to the LORD God.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

When you look at the origin and the use of the word 'elohim' you'll find that actually a very good translation in modern day English would be 'the powers that be' (no joke).

And indeed plural in form, it was/used to refer the one God but also to judges/rulers (human beings) - anyone who holds power (see Psalm 82 for this).

The word 'El' has Semitic origins - a combination of the Hebrew characters Aleph (denoting power - the ancient pictogram of an ox), and Lamed (denoting guidance - the ancient pictogram of a shepherd's rod). Isn't that beautiful?

 

[tonychanyt]

Thanks for sharing

When you look at the origin and the use of the word 'elohim' you'll find that actually a very good translation in modern day English would be 'the powers that be' (no joke).

reference?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Thanks for sharing

reference?

That's my own conclusion; simply based on the word 'El' referring to 'power', 'guidance' and that in plural .... together that is nearly the same as the phrase 'the powers that be' in English, and apparently with nearly the same usage as well (possibly referring to God, gods (idols), spirits, or even just beings/persons in power. E.g. in 1 Samuel 28:13 (the story of the witch of Endor) the word 'elohim' seems to refer to spirits or deities.

From the Wikipedia page on Elohim:

Maimonides wrote: "I must premise that every Hebrew [now] knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries . . . ."

Maimonides' words exactly underscore that point.

 

[DennisF]

If elohim can be read as either plural, by the usual grammar, or singular (as in British English: "Coventry City have never won the FA cup.") then it is by the context of its use that noun number is to be determined. And that is the crux of the matter. I read "Yahweh elohim" as "Lord of [the] gods". Mike Heiser covered this in some detail, and my conclusion is similar to yours and Tony Chan's, that the only place that the number of a noun is determined is by a pronoun referring to it. Otherwise it is subject to the wider context. And in Genesis 1:26, "Then the elohim said, Let us ..." That tells me that elohim is to be read as plural, and these are the same gods referred to previously in Gen. 1:1.

 

[tonychanyt]

Mike Heiser covered this in some detail

Can you quote him?

 

[DennisF]

Can you quote him?

Better yet, here is his website: Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert
Unhappily, Heiser died a year or two ago. He was a Hebrew scholar, educated at the U. of WI, Madison.

 

[com7fy8]

Mommy can say "we" are making a cake, but the children with her are not doing anything, at all, even, but getting in the way.

So . . . may be God was including His angels . . . though the creating was through Jesus.

And ones consider "us" to mean the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Maybe God's word can multi-task . . . multi-mean.

"Us" could mean the three Persons and also mean with the angels present; because our Father does include lesser beings in what >He< does. And the singular verbing might be to show how God is one, though "us" can indicate that He is three Persons.

And it could be a Messianic thing > rigged to get people to discuss this now then have us realize God said "us" to show there were three, but then gave the singular to demonstrate that the one Jesus would be the One through whom all things were made.

"All things were created through Him and for Him." (in Colossians 1:16)

And this helps to show that Jesus was present before creation, as a member of the triune godhead. And this shows how the Messiah has existed before creation.

 

[tonychanyt]

Better yet, here is his website: Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert

Can you quote the relevant part?

 

[DennisF]

Mommy can say "we" are making a cake, but the children with her are not doing anything, at all, even, but getting in the way.

So . . . may be God was including His angels . . . though the creating was through Jesus.

And ones consider "us" to mean the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Maybe God's word can multi-task . . . multi-mean.

"Us" could mean the three Persons and also mean with the angels present; because our Father does include lesser beings in what >He< does. And the singular verbing might be to show how God is one, though "us" can indicate that He is three Persons.

And it could be a Messianic thing > rigged to get people to discuss this now then have us realize God said "us" to show there were three, but then gave the singular to demonstrate that the one Jesus would be the One through whom all things were made.

"All things were created through Him and for Him." (in Colossians 1:16)

And this helps to show that Jesus was present before creation, as a member of the triune godhead. And this shows how the Messiah has existed before creation.

""Us" could mean the three Persons and also mean with the angels present; because our Father does include lesser beings in what >He< does. And the singular verbing might be to show how God is one, though "us" can indicate that He is three Persons."

The problem with this kind of hermeneutic is that it is inherently speculative. What you say might be true, but how can we know that the correct sense of "us" in Gen. 1 refers to the Trinity? It certainly does not follow from the text itself. So where does it come from? Medieval theology, using methods of Greek philosophy to interpret scripture. I just don't find this a good path to take in biblical interpretation because it relies too much on abstract theological theory and not on direct inference from the text itself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hמm)
Noun - masculine plural

It is in plural form but

created
בָּרָ֣א (bā·rā)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular

Elohim:

The masculine plural ending does not mean “gods” when referring to the true God of Israel, since the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular​

Plural elohim followed by the singular verb bara refers to the one true God. This kind of phenomenon is not unique in linguistics. It is called synesis. There is plurality in unity within the divine being.

On the other hand, Exodus 32:1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods who will go before us.

gods
אֱלֹהִ֗ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural

will go
יֵֽלְכוּ֙ (yê·lə·ḵū)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - third person masculine plural

In this case, we have the usual plural noun followed by a plural verb. This elohim is not the LORD God.

Wiki:


The Hebrew word elohim is plural in form but in a sentence, it can function as singular or plural depending on the verb or the adjective accompanying it. When it is singular in function in a sentence, it always refers to the LORD God.

A grammatically plural word that, depending on context, is meant to be understood singular. When used in reference to YHWH it clearly is singular--the one God.

"Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27

The term here is Elohy, a construct form of Elohim, connected with kol-basar, "all-flesh"; "God of all flesh". The word is grammatically plural, but clearly indicates YHWH, the singular God.

When the word is used to refer to YHWH, it is singular in intent; when it is used to refer to pagan gods or to human rulers, the usual plural sense can be ascertained.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tonychanyt]

A grammatically plural word that, depending on context, is meant to be understood singular.

Most of the time, it could be resolved by the grammar alone without the context.

 

[DennisF]

A grammatically plural word that, depending on context, is meant to be understood singular. When used in reference to YHWH it clearly is singular--the one God.

"Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27

The term here is Elohy, a construct form of Elohim, connected with kol-basar, "all-flesh"; "God of all flesh". The word is grammatically plural, but clearly indicates YHWH, the singular God.

When the word is used to refer to YHWH, it is singular in intent; when it is used to refer to pagan gods or to human rulers, the usual plural sense can be ascertained.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks. This is quite helpful. To further the discussion, when Yahweh Elohim appears in the prophets or elsewhere, can it possibly be rendered as the "Lord of gods"?

Another question: Is there a collective singular in Hebrew? (I gave an example in British English of "city have" which in American English would be "city has" - a plurality of people in city rendered a collective singular. If so, could in Gen. 1:1 the same apply grammatically in Hebrew to elohim bara? I am looking at the possibilities, not being well-versed in Hebrew.

 

[tonychanyt]

Thanks. This is quite helpful. To further the discussion, when Yahweh Elohim appears in the prophets or elsewhere, can it possibly be rendered as the "Lord of gods"?

See Translate Yahweh Elohim and follow up there

Another question: Is there a collective singular in Hebrew? (I gave an example in British English of "city have" which in American English would be "city has" - a plurality of people in city rendered a collective singular. If so, could in Gen. 1:1 the same apply grammatically in Hebrew to elohim bara? I am looking at the possibilities, not being well-versed in Hebrew.

See Was 'elohim' in Ge 1:1 a collective singular? and follow up there

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks. This is quite helpful. To further the discussion, when Yahweh Elohim appears in the prophets or elsewhere, can it possibly be rendered as the "Lord of gods"?

I'm hardly an expert. But based on what little I know, I don't think that it can. The Tetragrammaton doesn't mean "Lord". We render YHWH as "The LORD" due to an ancient tradition that goes back to Second Temple Judaism, where it was common to substitute the Tetragrammaton with the Hebrew word for "lord", which is adonai. When the translators of the LXX rendered the Tetragrammaton into Greek, they used the Greek translation of adonai, which was kyrios. This practice is seen, also, in the New Testament; in large part because the NT quotes the LXX, even verbatim. Since the earliest Christians relied on the LXX as their Old Testament, when the Scriptures were translated into other languages, such as Latin, this same thing was retained. So the Vulgate uses dominus.

In the late Middle Ages we see a re-introduction of the Tetragrammaton. Through what was probably a scholarly mistake. In the 10th century AD the Masoretic sages who were part of the move to revitalize Hebrew among the Jewish Diaspora and reading of the Tanakh in Hebrew (since the time of Jesus it had been common to read the Tanakh in Aramaic translation among both Palestinian Jews and Diaspora Jews). In order to facilitate this the Masoretes created a system of vowel markers to aid reading of Hebrew, called niqqud. One of the unique facets of the Masoretic Text which they produced is that it includes the niqqud for ease of reading, but they intentionally used the niqqud for "Adonai" in the Tetragrammaton, to indicate to the reader to say "Adonai" rather than pronounce the Divine Name.

When we take YHVH (or YHWH) and add the vowels of Adonai we get YaHoVaH. As a result we get the Latinized Iahovah/Iehovah. Take the consonontal 'i' and give it a tail and we get the letter 'J', so Iehovah -> Jehovah. So we get "Jehovah" occasionally in some early modern Bibles, but more commonly English language translations stick with the traditional usage of using "lord" as a substitute. The KJV, relying on the Masoretic Text, the LXX, the Vulgate, and the critical Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Bezae fundamentally set the standard in English Bibles. When the Tetragrammaton appears, the KJV type-faced it as "The LORD"; alternatively where the Tetragrammaton appears alongside Adonai, the KJV chose to type-face it as "GOD" as in "The Lord GOD". Though the KJV on a couple occasions does use the Latinized corrupted form of the Tetragrammaton, "Jehovah", but it is sparsely used.

As for what the four letter Name of God means, I don't think there is anything resembling a conclusive answer. But the most popular theory is that the Name is taken from the same tri-consonontal root as the Hebrew verb hayeh (H-Y-H) "to be" or "I am". As in where God says to Moses in the burning bush, "I am that I am" as the answer to Moses' question of what God's name is, who God is. In other words it's theorized that the four letter Name of God means something like "The one that is" or "He is". God says "I am" and so His Name is "He is".

As far as I'm aware (which, take that with a huge grain of salt) to get something like "lord of the gods" would require some kind of construction involving the word Adonai, or another Hebrew word that could mean "lord", the only other suitable Hebrew word I know of would be ba'al. The problem with ba'al, of course is that while it does infrequently get used in reference to God, and it is used generically to mean something like "sir" in reference to human beings, the word ba'al is pretty infamous for its common usage among Canaanite and other Levantine pagan gods. The various "ba'als" which the the Israelites were constantly being rebuked for worshiping instead of God.

Another question: Is there a collective singular in Hebrew? (I gave an example in British English of "city have" which in American English would be "city has" - a plurality of people in city rendered a collective singular. If so, could in Gen. 1:1 the same apply grammatically in Hebrew to elohim bara? I am looking at the possibilities, not being well-versed in Hebrew.

When it comes to Hebrew I'm really only good for regurgitating what I've read from people way smarter than myself. I don't know if Hebrew has collective singular nouns.

-CryptoLutheran