The Word Elohim

Welcome.

Well I don't have that information, but I'm not sure that it's that hard to find someone on the forums who can help. Heiser's material will probably come into play somewhere down this road.

What I really wanted to reply was, simply to say, 'thank-you' for doing the Lords' work. FT job plus pastoring a small church. May the Lord continue to bless your hands. Men like you are examples and an inspiration us many of us!

thanks again.

mm.

While my resource, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, will not directly answer your question about the Hebrew word Elohim, there are several notes and sets of cross-references that will come close to answering it.

Just now, I checked, starting at Genesis 1:1,

God. Heb. Elohim. H430. Gen 2:2; +Gen 19:29; +Exo 2:24; +Ps 45:6; Ps 89:11; Ps 89:12; Eph 3:9; *Col 1:16; Col 1:17; Col 1:18; Heb 1:2.

The "H430" links to the Strong's Concordance entry for Elohim.

Checking the Subject Index under Elohim I find the following entries:

Elohim. Deuteronomy 5:9 note.

Elohim, used of angels. Psalm 8:5 note.

Elohim, used of God the Son (Messiah). Psalm 45:6, 7.

Elohim, used of God in his covenant relationships. Genesis 19:29. Exodus 2:24. Psalm 45:6.

Elohim, used of false gods, idols, or heathen deities. 2 Chronicles 35:22 note.

Elohim, used of divinely appointed judges, magistrates. Psalm 82:6 note.

The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge is a resource available in Logos.

My updated and expanded edition of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, which is titled The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, contains the following note at Genesis 1:1 which was not in the New Treasury:

God. Heb. Elohim. A plural noun, the singular form of which is Eloah, meaning "The Worshipful One;" it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons, as it is applied alike to Jehovah and to the false gods of the nations. It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number (Robert Young, Concise Critical Comments, p. 1).

Francis said:

Carl R. Denti said:

If you have can you please tell is the word ever used in the plural of a singular subject other than our one true God.

Yes, of the spirit of Samuel (1 Sam 28:13).

There could be quite a few cases like that. Examples:

• Judges 16:23 "Dagon their god"
• 1 Sam 4:7 "A god has come into the camp" (so 5:8, 11)
• Ex 22:20 "any god other than the Lord"

Try a case-sensitive search for:
god AND <Lemma = lbs/he/אֱלֹהִים>

David Paul said:

Technically, as far as the grammar of v.13 is concerned, the verb is plural to go with the plural ':elohhiym. It is Shaa'uul's response in v.14 that gives the impression of a singular referent, but that actually doesn't affect the grammar of the previous verse.

The question is not that easily settled. First, Elohim, even when it refers to YHWH can take either a singular or plural verb. This does not indicate one way or another whether it concerns YHWH and shows that there was fluctuation in usage which could be reasonably expected to come into play as well when Elohim is used of other singular referents than YHWH. Second, in 1 Sam 28:13 it is a bit of a stretch to explain why Saul, who evidently does not see what the woman sees, would be told that she sees gods and then reply "what is his form" (definitely singular). If Saul understood the plural to refer to a singular being, it makes sense that it would be because that is possible in terms of usage. In other words, the NET note is theologically tendentious. Third, in Exodus 32:4 Elohim certainly refers to a single idol yet the verb that follows (who brought you up) is plural. Here again inconsistencies in translation do not help. Compare different translations in English and you will see this is your god or these are your gods (same in other modern translations such as German). What would be the sense of pointing to one statue and say these are your gods though? 

Francis said:

David Paul said:

Technically, as far as the grammar of v.13 is concerned, the verb is plural to go with the plural ':elohhiym. It is Shaa'uul's response in v.14 that gives the impression of a singular referent, but that actually doesn't affect the grammar of the previous verse.

The question is not that easily settled.

Actually, it is. PLURAL + PLURAL = PLURAL...all day, every day.

Francis said:

Second, in 1 Sam 28:13 it is a bit of a stretch to explain why Saul, who evidently does not see what the woman sees, would be told that she sees gods and then reply "what is his form" (definitely singular).

Actually, it's no stretch at all. The thing to keep in mind is that Shaa'uul wanted to specifically talk to Sh'muu'eil AND HE TOLD THE WOMAN SO IN VERSE 11. Shaa'uul has tunnel vision and has one person in mind, so his response in v.14 is not driven by the woman's words (grammar), but by his impatient desire to speak to the person he told her he wanted her to "bring up" (context).

Francis said:

If Saul understood the plural to refer to a singular being,

He didn't...he was only interested in a singular being.

Francis said:

it makes sense that it would be because that is possible in terms of usage.

It doesn't make sense because it isn't possible in terms of usage.

Francis said:

In other words, the NET note is theologically tendentious.

Actually, no...the NET is simply describing a plain fact accurately. Any tendentiousness is a result of your not recognizing that Shaa'uul's verbalization of his psychologically-driven context is not driven by the woman's grammar.

I have no issue with you wanting to encourage a wider scope of examination for this word in the OP's study. It's warranted. However, I do want to again draw attention to another issue that mirrors, or at least parallels, the point I made in my last post. When it comes to grammar, I am quite certain that many "issues that relate to grammar" are not "issues about grammar". Looking at particular "use cases" in the Bible and making "grammar rule deductions" from them is precarious and subject to error.

Francis said:

Yet here is another example that shows that number disagreement when it comes to the word (e)Elohim is not limited to references to YHWH only:

““Or has a god tried to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders and by war and by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, as the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?” (Deuteronomy 4:34)

The question implies a contrast with any of the deities of the nations around Israel. Looking at the wording of the first clause 

א֣וֹ׀ הֲנִסָּ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֗ים לָ֠בוֹא לָקַ֨חַת ל֣וֹ 

(o hanissah elohim lavo laqahath lo) 

it is clear that the foreign deity is referred to by the plural elohim yet is referred to as a singular entity (lo = to him(self), sg. suffix).

In this case, YHWH ':Elohhiym is making a comparison TO HIMSELF; He uses ':elohhiym to refer to Himself regularly, not the least reason being that "He" consists of the Father and the Word, which is two, thus the "Us" of Gen. 1:26 and Gen. 11:7. Because YHWH chooses to emphasize the 'ehhaadh (oneness, i.e. unity, i.e. perfect agreement) of the Us, YHWH uses ':Elohhiym with a singular verb to reemphasize that unified agreement. The very fact that YHWH is comparing hypothetical "fictive beings" to himself explains why He uses the word ':elohhiym with a singular in this particular case. He's giving these hypothetical phantoms every possible opportunity to measure up, so He uses the language He uses when speaking of Himself.

If you want to make a "grammatical point" that results in a "grammatical rule", you need to find another case in which a comparison to the ACTUAL REAL SINGULAR "US" is not in play. This example (Deut. 4:34) is not that. Again, to restate my general point, sometimes there are "grammatical shuffles" that occur in language that are based on contextual circumstance and thus are not sufficient for making declarations about "rules of acceptable grammar".

The second example you give is a better example for making the point...yet it still has some potential snags.

Francis said:

In Judges 6:31, Gideon's father contends with those who wanted to kill his son because he had destroyed Baal's altar in these words: "If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because someone has torn down his altar." The words are:

אִם־אֱלֹהִ֥ים הוּא֙ יָ֣רֶב ל֔וֹ כִּ֥י נָתַ֖ץ אֶֽת־מִזְבְּחֽוֹ

( im-elohim hu' yarev lo ki nathats eth-mizbecho)

Baal is referred to as elohim and all the other referrents (pronouns) are singular.

While this is better for making your case, I still feel there are some potential unrecognized hurdles that must be either identified or dismissed. One question I have is...are there any examples of Ba'al or other gods being referred to in the singular (i.e. as 'eil)? Another question I have is whether or not Gideon is likewise describing Ba'al by making a veiled comparative reference to YHWH by using the same language that YHWH uses to describe Himself. Remember, the WHOLE POINT of what Gideon is saying is that Ba'al is an imaginary phantom and this will be "demonstrated" (so to speak) by his certain impotence as compared to what YHWH could easily do as the REAL SINGULAR "US". Given such a circumstance, where comparison to ':Elohhiym is present, or at least plausibly suggested, I don't think that this example can be credibly called upon to demonstrate the notion that phantom gods are "naturally" described in Hebrew with the "plural/singular" construction. To establish that as a legit grammatical structure, you probably would need to find a purely pagan scenario in which comparison to YHWH is out of the question.

Fwiw, I am not even bringing up the fact that there are hundreds of examples of "case shifts" and other such grammar inconsistencies in the Bible, particularly in prophecy. There are an uncountable number of singulars translated as plurals and vice versa, shifts from first to third person and back again, and singular nouns/plural verbs & plural nouns/singular verbs scattered throughout Scripture. The NET Bible brings attention to many of these (though not all). Many of these are deliberate, not in the sense of being depictions of "Hebrew grammar rules", but rather are manipulated for intended prophetic effect. Approaching these instances as "grammar issues to be resolved" is to miss the point entirely.

Francis said:

presuppositions will also play a big role in how the data is approached and interpreted.

No doubt...but there are two kinds of presuppositions: exegetical and eisegetical. Presuppositions derived from interior conditions and phenomena are not "problems". They are fundamental requirements for establishing the fullest and most accurate assessment of intent. This is all the more true given the Bible's prophetic propensities, which include "hiddenness", "concealment", and literal "word games", among many other such phenomena. The Bible is absolutely NOT a normal text with usual "naturally occurring" facets presented in a diachronic historical timeline. It is a wholly curated piece of art that is deliberately shaped and crafted to serve a dizzying array of prophetic purposes. Failing to distill the appropriate and necessary presuppositions for the text in question effectively shuts out any possibility of comprehending the text as YHWH's will requires. It is nothing less than the working out of Prov. 25:2.

Francis said:

David Paul said:

Another question I have is whether or not Gideon is likewise describing Ba'al by making a veiled comparative reference to YHWH by using the same language that YHWH uses to describe Himself.

The problem with this kind of suggestion is that a creative mind can always come up with ideas of the kind to try to defend an a priori point of view. The point raised by the question is theoretically possible, but it is difficult to see how such a question would have arisen if not from a sustained effort to keep defending the a priori point of view. If answered, another such objection can no doubt be found but then the discussion is no longer based on what is reasonably credible and likely.

Again, if the a priori view is eisegetical and unsupported elsewhere in the text-at-large (the entire Book), then your concerns are well-founded and likely will witness an ultimate "crash" in the subsequent attempt at sense-making. But Occam's Razor is not a fixed stake in the ground. It is a movable roadshow that resets with every additional piece of evidence and each artifact taken into consideration. The "simplest explanation" of a scenario for which little background is known is not the same as for a scenario that is understood to be intricate and complex in structure and design. Add intentional obfuscation, which YHWH explicitly admits to employing for reasons of His own, and the Razor's simplest explanation can become a wholly unexpected construct. To correctly unpack (or repack, as the case may be) a given text or passage, the key may well be having the correct presupposition, itself extracted from elsewhere in the Bible. To repeat a statement I made in another thread a few weeks back, it is impossible to properly interpret Genesis without making reference to Revelation. It may not sound like a simple explanation, but it is a simple as it gets.

Francis said:

The more theoretical ideas need to multiply to try to do away with the difficulty a sustained phenomenon poses for a certain point of view, the less credible they and the whole enterprise become.

I don't dismiss this concern generally, but what I said above is still in force.

Francis said:

It may look workable when cases are considered in isolation but not in view of the cumulative evidence.

Often, yes. My whole point is that sometimes, given its "hide and seek" nature and the Book's own prophetic road map, most postulated scenarios will fizzle out given enough time, but there absolutely IS a "key" that explains and ties together seemingly disparate elements of a given text or passage. Often it is not intuitive. Finding the correct set of presuppositions, akin to the teeth on a key, is fundamentally necessary to making progress with the passage under consideration.

I'm not speaking directly about the word ':elohhiym here. Nor am I attempting to make a strong case for a particular view, other than generally being careful not to assume oneself out of an accurate appraisal of a given passage. Your concerns have their place, as do mine.

Francis said:

There are ideas like these aplenty all all the spectrum of views from "conservative" to "liberal" that can neither be proved nor disproved and in the end are as such of little value.

Without dispute, some questions cannot be resolved given the limitations of the text.

Francis said:

David Paul said:

Because YHWH chooses to emphasize the 'ehhaadh (oneness, i.e. unity, i.e. perfect agreement) of the Us, YHWH uses ':Elohhiym with a singular verb to reemphasize that unified agreement.

This is by no means a necessary reading of the text and one that is altogether very unlikely for the context in which it was produced.

Not "necessary" perhaps...unless it is in fact part of the key for interpreting the verse correctly.

Considering your comment about "context", we probably have to acknowledge disagreement on this point, given my deeply entrenched conviction that the Bible's context is the Bible. YHWH's eternal existence and His Authorship of the Book coincide to make every word in the Bible potentially accessible as part of the "immediate context".

Francis said:

It may work to invoke the Word here on the basis of the role in creation described in John 1 but it does not work when the usage is continued and applied to other deities in the rest of the OT.

I would like you to flesh this out some. Are you saying that 'ehhaadh is textually associated with imaginary gods in the Bible? How so? If you like, show a search in Logos that elicits your statement.

Lee said:

Spamming threads with contentious, even dubious, theological propositions is not helpful.

@Lee, you're right time to stop here.

@David, I suggest we continue the discussion via the Faithlife messenger if you'd like to.

Lee said:

Spamming threads with contentious, even dubious, theological propositions is not helpful.

You are so right, Lee...so I appreciate your willingness to sit this one out. [Y]

Francis said:

@Lee, you're right time to stop here.

Thanks. We should stop feeding the trolls. I know of folks who keep away from the forums because of this behavior. I'm one of them. 

From TWOT:

When 'ādôn appears in the special plural form, with a first common singular pronominal suffix ('ădōnā-y), it always refers to God. It appears in this form more than three hundred times, mostly in Psalms, Lamentations, and the latter prophets. Just as 'ĕlōhı̂m (God) is plural in Hebrew, so this word might also be called an intensive plural or plural of majesty. Only rarely is the suffix translated (cf. Gen 18:3; Isa 21:8; Ps 16:2).

Odd that it almost never gets mentioned.

Psalm 82:1, 6. Both verses refer to the singular and the plural. The Psalmist is make a distinction between the gods (Elohim) of the divine council, the sons of the Most High and God (Elohim). I hope this helps.