Elohim: ‘We’, ‘US’... Singular or Plural GOD?

[firedragon]

It actually doesn't.

Oh it does.

 

[firedragon]

Given what I have surveyed above, I think the strongest contenders are consultation of the angels, a vestige of polytheism, plural of self-deliberation or referring to a divine agent/emanation as in Wisdom.

There is plural of intensity. Plural of intensity of scarcity. Plural of value. Plural of volume or size. Etc. Etc.

 

[Vouthon]

So how about Genesis 1:26? is it a plural joined to a plural or singular?

In that case, God’s name Elohim (formally plural) is coupled with a plural verb.

This is not common, its usually paired with a qualifying singular as in your verse reference but in this case it isn't.

 

[Vouthon]

There is plural of intensity. Plural of intensity of scarcity. Plural of value. Plural of volume or size. Etc. Etc.

Your point being?

The plural of self-deliberation is the one that commands wide scholarly support (and arguably has quite strong biblical evidence in its favour), not majesty, and I explained so in my original OP.

 

[rosends]

Side note:

In the medieval period, you had a plurality of interpretations amongst Jews ranging from angelic (Rashi - in Rashi's judgment, God was so humble that he would consult the heavenly court (more specifically, the angels) surrounding him as exemplified by 1 Kings 22:19 and Daniel 4:14/17.); invoking the earth, heaven and other creatures (Nachmanides); Maimonides (largely following the angelic theory) and then the exegete I cited who favoured plural majesty etc.

Rashi was not using his judgment. He was referencing the position of the Medrash Rabbah:
"“if a great person . . . says, ‘Why do I need to take permission from one lesser than me?’ . . . they say to him: Learn from your Creator, for He created upper ones and lower ones, and when He came to create the human, He ruled with the ministering angels.”'

 

[Vouthon]

Side note:

Rashi was not using his judgment. He was referencing the position of the Medrash Rabbah:
"“if a great person . . . says, ‘Why do I need to take permission from one lesser than me?’ . . . they say to him: Learn from your Creator, for He created upper ones and lower ones, and when He came to create the human, He ruled with the ministering angels.”'

Thanks for that Rosends!

My point in that case was only to explain to my counterpart, firedragon, that Rashi took up the common midrashic interpretation of it being consultation of the ministering angels / other elohim, which even commands scholarly support today because it makes good sense in context (with how angels appear later in Genesis, Exodus etc.)

In my assessment (and that of most actual scholars), plural of majesty is not a strong explanation contra firedragon.

 

[rosends]

Thanks for that Rosends!

My point in that case was only to explain to my counterpart, firedragon, that Rashi took up the common midrashic interpretation of it being consultation of the ministering angels / other elohim, which even commands scholarly support today because it makes good sense in context (with how angels appear later in Genesis, Exodus etc.)

In my assessment (and that of most actual scholars), plural of majesty is not a strong explanation contra firedragon.

I would love to sit down some time and start looking for other examples of the royal we. I know that some sites posit them but I have never really taken the time to assess. I think it is important to decide HOW we look at a text. Is it a sociological artifact? Is it a divine echo? Is it a pastiche of voices or a unified whole? How we view it might determine what we see in it. I admit, I subscribe to all the wonderful confirmation bias that theism allows for.

 

[Harel13]

I would love to sit down some time and start looking for other examples of the royal we.

Yes please. Shkoyech.

 

[Vouthon]

I would love to sit down some time and start looking for other examples of the royal we. I know that some sites posit them but I have never really taken the time to assess. I think it is important to decide HOW we look at a text. Is it a sociological artifact? Is it a divine echo? Is it a pastiche of voices or a unified whole? How we view it might determine what we see in it. I admit, I subscribe to all the wonderful confirmation bias that theism allows for.

Should you get around to it, I would be most interested to read what you discover

 

[Soapy]

@Soapy

There are a variety of ways an exegete could interpret the use of the plural na‘aśeh adam (literally, “let us make a man,” or “shall we make a man?”) in the first chapter of Genesis, some more plausible and justifiable on the basis of the text than others.

In these verses, the basic grammatical problem is that the plural of Elohim (which can be rendered 'gods' as opposed to just 'God') is combined with an adjective also in the plural in Gen. 1:26: “let us make man, in our image and our likeness”, rather than being matched with or qualified by a verb in the singular as in other instances.

This grammatical construction could variously signify:

(1) Angels:

An address of counsel by YHWH to the other 'elohim', or angels, the subordinate heavenly beings comprising His court, who are referred to independently in Psalm 82:1 "God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment" [as you suggested in your OP] and which surface elsewhere in Genesis as divine emissaries.

Philo of Alexandria and a number of ancient Jewish witnesses favoured this interpretation, including Sanhedrin 38b in the Bavli/Talmud ("The Gemara asks: Why do I need these instances of plural words? Why does the verse employ the plural at all when referring to God? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act unless He consults with the entourage of Above, i.e., the angels, as it is stated: “The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones” (Daniel 4:14)) the Targum Onkelos (which elucidated Genesis 1:26 in theological terms by interpreting it as God saying "let us make [...]" to the angels that were created by him and that were ministering in front of him) and in the medieval period the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) as an example of divine humility:

"Although [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel, to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies, Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person [God] should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one [the angels]".

This remains a strong contender in contemporary scholarship for exegeting the meaning of the verse.

(2) To the earth:

An address by YHWH to the earth/heaven, other elements and beings that He has created before adam (i.e. because man is formed from the dust of the earth, in addition to his becoming a nephesh or living soul through being so breathed into by God). Rabbi Nachmanides (1195-1270) favoured this interpretation but it is not supported by modern scholars, as Hasel notes: "the view of a partnership between God and earth in the creation of man finds no support in the OT or in ancient Near Eastern texts. The idea is actually contradicted in Gn 1:27 where God alone is the Creator of the world. It would be also strange that the earth is spoken of in the third person in vs. 24".

(3) Plural of 'self-deliberation':

Whereby YHWH is depicted anthropomorphically as someone in contemplation with himself about the act of creating humanity, which He did not do with the preceding creations of inanimate nature and animals (signifying the unique dignity of the human being, created as His image or earthly manifestation of His power).

This interpretation was first advanced by the church father St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) in his Creation of Man: "This same language was not used for (the creation) of other things. The command was simple when light was created; God said, “let there be light.”…O marvellous! A sun is made, and no counsel precedes; a heaven likewise; and to these no single thing in creation is equal. So great a wonder is formed by a word alone, and the saying indicates neither when, nor how, nor any such detail...For humans, there was deliberation…See how worthy you are! Your origins are not in an imperative. Instead, God deliberated about the best way to bring to life a creation worthy of honour." (Creation of Man 3.2) and enjoys a considerable degree of support today from scholars, such as Westermann.

There is biblical evidence to back up this theory: for example in Genesis 6:6, God regretted creating human beings and the LORD himself held his own heart. In support of this hypothesis, 2 Sam 24:14 is often cited, where David speaks of himself in the plural "let us fall [nippehih] into the hand of the Lord . . . but into the hand of men let me not fall ['eppokih]", although this has also been contested on the basis that: "it can hardly qualify as an explanation that there is a plural of deliberation used in Gn 1:26, because in none of these examples do we find God as the speaker".

(4) Polytheism:

As has been argued by many secular scholars, it could retain a vestige of Canaanite polytheism in an otherwise monotheizing redaction, akin to a later passage of the Torah in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 which, in its earliest attested textual variation from Qumran (circa. first century BCE) that is replicated by the Greek LXX but not the later Masoretic, refers to other nations having gods apportioned to them and may distinguish El Elyon "the Most High" as father from YHWH as a son, thus characterising the latter as one of the elohim of the nations, assigned by El to Israel:

"When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance" (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, in 4QDeutj)

(continued....)

All these theories are plausible to someone.

But only one is true.

Yahweh made the earth (The universe - not just planet Earth!) to be occupied by an entity crafted in His own image and ruled over by a Sinless and Righteous KING AND RULER (a God-like person).

The suggestion that Yahweh ASKED the angels: ‘Should we make man?’ is ridiculous - completely invalid. If Yahweh was consulting with the angels as to whether or not to create man then what purpose would there have been to the creation as was. The current Earth life would just be an endless repetitive circle of life with no meaning, much like a spinning wheel at a constant rate - great to initially see it spinning but very soon seen as pointless!!! There needs to be something that interacts and moderates with it to provide WORK.
Mankind provides that disruptive element in husbanding the animals and developing the Earth into a paradise garden... and then onto the other habitable planets in future time. So it was never a question but rather a statement - a DIRECTIVE that Yahweh issues: ‘Let us make man in our image’.

And note that ‘In our image’ is not difficult to understand. The problem is with Trinitarians who refuse to acknowledge that the angels did ANYTHING in the creation events. Not only that but the ludicrous idea that angels are soppy weepy be-winged ladylike creatures as in the disgustingly humanised figurines drawn, painted, or modelled by ungodly medieval mindsets.

Angels are EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT and IMMENSELY POWERFUL Spirit Beings and they MUST fully carry out all aspects of what Yahweh sets them to accomplish. However, Yahweh says that angels are not to be glorified, praised, honored, and certainly not Worshipped.

Effectively, do not worship your work tools.

Please notice that the scriptures says that: ‘The world to come will by no mean be ruled by angels’. So you must understand from this that, at present, angels are ruling over spiritual aspects of the created world. This takes great power, intelligence, and wisdom.

So, if Yahweh, who has great (all) power, high (all) intelligence, and complete wisdom, directs his angels (or ONE ANGEL... perhaps the ONE whom became known as ‘[The] Satan’) then it would not be out of sorts to say, “Let US create msn in our image” because the image is ‘Wisdom, intelligence, and power’ (and much more, of course) BUT LIMITED to the physical laws of the created world.

I propose that [the] Angel created the BODY of the first man, Adam, under the directions of Yahweh, but Yahweh, as scriptures says, ‘Blew the breath of life into him’ ...”and the man BECAME A LIVING SOUL”... which, of course, means that the man was NOT A LIVING SOUL before Yahweh, by His Holy Spirit, put a controlling and animating spirit into the lifeless body.

Add to this: The angels who rebelled, ‘Made bodies for themselves’ and put their OWN SELF into those bodies to animate them - the Fathers of the Nephilims.

And you also want to note that these bodies must have been human-like since they were able to PROCREATE with human women. If the angels could create human-like bodies...

But note that Yahweh alone could put an independent animating Spirit into a body:

• “So God created man in His Image”

This is said so credit is not given to the angels so that there would be an attempt to worship them - hence, the angels who became known as Satan was so angered as to sin!

 

[firedragon]

Your point being?

The plural of self-deliberation is the one that commands wide scholarly support (and arguably has quite strong biblical evidence in its favour), not majesty, and I explained so in my original OP.

Thats ad populum.

Consider this. You were quoting a passage from Hasel. Read what he says further about the plural of deliberation considering the Genesis verse in question.

"The rarity of parallels gives us little confidence in the correctness of this view".

Why does he say that? I am quoting the same person you quoted.

"However, it is by no means certain that this is really the plural expressing self- deliberation because the speaker can include here the craftsman who would be asked to produce such ornaments of gold. In any case, these examples hardly qualify as explanations that there is a plural of deliberation used in Gn 1:26, because in none of these examples do we find God as the speaker. Passages with God as the speaker are Is 6:8; Gn 3:22; 11:7. But these passages can hardly be used in support of a plural of deliberation in Gn 1:26, because they have the same problems as the passage under discussion and either fall into the same category without any supportive evidence or are to be explained as Gn 1:28 in other ways."

Thus, though you quoted part of Hasel full text, he is not really agreeing with you. And you would see his goal at the end of the chapter.

A proper understanding of the "let us" as a plural of fullness does not militate against OT monotheism. The transition between the plural in thephrase " let us" in vs. 26 to the singular in the phrase "God created in vs. 27 remains harmonious because the plurality of "persons" within the divine Being keeps them all within divine rank and maintains the emphasis on creation through the one Godhead. On the basis of our discussion of the various suggestions for coming to grips with the plural "let us" in Gn 1:26, it seems that to take this plural as a plural of fullness avoids the pitfalls of the other views we have considered and appears to have most in its favor.

 

[Soapy]

Quote Jewish scholars, not seventh day adventists.

Pluralis majestatis. The noun is in the plural not to indicate plurality but out of respect to the person designated. Modern Hebrew includes in this category ֱאלֹ ִהים (God) and also ְּב ָע ִלים (owner), e.g., לֹא ִנ ְמ ָצא ְּב ָע ָליו ׁ ֶשל ַה ֶּכ ֶלב (The owner of the dog was not found).

Enclopedia Judaica

WE WILL MAKE MAN — Although they did not assist Him in forming him (the man) and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel (i. e. to argue in favour of their own views), yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, “I shall make man”, we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself. And as a refutation of the heretics it is written immediately after this verse “And God created the man”, and it is not written “and they created” (Genesis Rabbah 8:9)

Rashi.

Anyway, do you think Moses is a plural of numbers as in there were several Moses? Just a question out of curiosity.

Isnt ‘Moses’ an Egyptian name?

• “Pharaoh’s daughter] named him Moses [Hebrew Mosheh], ‘because,’ she said, ‘I drew him out of the water' (Exod 12:10)

 

[firedragon]

Isnt ‘Moses’ an Egyptian name?

• “Pharaoh’s daughter] named him Moses [Hebrew Mosheh], ‘because,’ she said, ‘I drew him out of the water' (Exod 12:10)

Brother. Egyptian or Mexican, the name doesnt matter in this matter.

In this case, see what scholars have to say about the linguistics.

 

[Soapy]

i wonder if you realize that the son of God had a major role in the act of creation ? when ya get right down to it there really was only one thing that the almighty God did completely by him self .

There is no sense in what you just said.

And all Trinitarians always mess up (hint at the fallacy) since they propose that JESUS, Son of God, CREATED ALL THINGS... then they say that ALL THREE CREATED but in fact only claim that Father and Son created (i.e. That God the father created the world for him, the son!)

Also, only TWO of the ‘GOD’ are ever stated in Genesis:

1. God
2. The Holy Spirit

Why do Trinitarians never say that God was talking to the Holy Spirit in saying, “Let us create man”?

Do you spit the conundrum of trinity...

 

[Soapy]

Brother. Egyptian or Mexican, the name doesnt matter in this matter.

In this case, see what scholars have to say about the linguistics.

View attachment 49836

We are getting off topic.

 

[firedragon]

We are getting off topic.

No brother. That is "THE TOPIC" of this very thread.

 

[Soapy]

Ok... let me say it differently. No, it isn't just that scripture that brings us to that conclusion but rather a compilation of scriptures as we digest words from God through the prophets. It just so happens it also fits the narrative in the scripture you mentioned and in Genesis.

Is48:16 Draw near to me, hear this:
from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,
from the time it came to be I have been there.”
And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.

From the beginning he was there along with the Lord God and his Spirit.

I used the analogy of man because we also are a triune being and, yes, my body speaks to me and at times I speak to my body. Man is a three part being, spirit, soul and body so "we" go together as one man.

Then you have YHWH speaking from a human body to Abraham in 18, where we believe it was The Word in an epiphany.


"Zech2:6 Up! Up! Flee from the land of the north, declares the LORD. For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heavens, declares the LORD. 7 Up! Escape to Zion, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon. 8 For thus said the LORD of hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye: 9 “Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me. 10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD. 11 And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 12 And the LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem.”

No fewer than three times in this text, Yahweh (the LORD God) states that he has been sent by Yahweh. Now hang on a minute – Yahweh has sent Yahweh? That’s right – that is exactly what the text says. Here, there are two persons identified by the title of Yahweh. There is simply no way of reading this except through the lens of divine plurality. In light of the New Testament, we can conclude that here the Son speaks of Himself being sent by the Father to dwell in the midst of God’s people."

quote

OH DEAR, KENs, I think you should read the verses before the ones you quoted.

What you presented is a PROPHECY of the coming Messiah.

• “Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me.”

Was Jesus not SENT by ALMIGHTY GOD, the LORD of Hosts?

And Isaiah 48 speaks of YAHWEH sending a saviour ENDOWED with HIS (Yahweh’s) Spirit.

Was this not Jesus?

God does not SEND God... nor can a UNITED nor trinity God SEND one part of ITSELF while claiming that IT is indivisible....!

 

[Soapy]

No brother. That is "THE TOPIC" of this very thread.

What: Moses?

The topic is whether ELOHIM is meant as a plurality in God, a plural majesty, or a non-gendered term like,

• “They” and “Their”, and “Them” as in the anecdote I stated in the O.P:
• “what are you going to buy THEM for THEIR birthday present’

when it is actually the birthday of only ONE PERSON, a Friend of unknown gender.

 

[firedragon]

What: Moses?

The topic is whether ELOHIM is meant as a plurality in God, a plural majesty, or a non-gendered term like,

• “They” and “Their”, and “Them” as in the anecdote I stated in the O.P:
• “what are you going to buy THEM for THEIR birthday present’

when it is actually the birthday of only ONE PERSON, a Friend of unknown gender.

Exactly. Elohim is the topic, and exactly what I spoke of. Maybe you didnt understand.

 

[cataway]

Elohim, i see it more like all the people that are involved in government of a country . called government