Jesus and His God: Elohim

Showing posts with label Elohim. Show all posts

Thursday, October 19, 2023

Isaiah 46:9 - No God Like Jehovah

* Isaiah 43:10 – Before Jehovah There Was No God Formed

* Psalm 82:6 – Who Are The Gods?

John 17:3 - Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God?

Deuteronomy 6:4 - The Meaning of Echad

Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. - (Deuteronomy 6:4, Green's Literal Translation)
Hebrew and Greek words are transliterated throughout.

The claim is often made that the Hebrew word translated "one" [echad] means "composite unity", or others may prefer, "compound unity" or "complex unity". From this it supposed that the word "one" jehovah consists of more than one person, and thus it is claimed that the usage of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 offers proof of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is true that "one" can mean "composite unity", "complex unity" or "compound unity", whether in Hebrew or English. There is no evidence, however, that the Hebrew word echad means anything different from the English word "one". There is nothing mystical about the Hebrew word "one" as used in Deuteronomy 6:4 that would mean that Jehovah is more than one person.

Echad [Strong's #259 "united, i.e., one; or (as an ordinal) first"] simply means one [whether composite, complex, compound or absolute] just the same as our English word means one. Look at its usage in a Hebrew concordance: "one door" Ezekiel 41:11); "one reed" (Ezekiel 40:5-8); "one gate" (Ezekiel 48:31); "one saint" (Daniel 8:13) -- just a few examples. (See also Numbers 7:11,13,14,26,32,38,44; 9:14; 16:22, for a start) It is used exactly the same as our English word "one". Being a single individual, object, or unit. noun: A single unit, a single person or thing.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/echad.html

The English word "unit" is defined as:

a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole
b : a part of a military establishment that has a prescribed organization (as of personnel and materiel)
c : a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function
d : a part of a school course focusing on a central theme
e : a local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

-- Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
https://www.yourdictionary.com/

The word composite means "made up of distinct parts." A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up a part of one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. Many trinitarians point to Numbers 13:33, which speaks of "one cluster" of grapes. It is often claimed that this provides an illustration of "one" as applied to the Hebrew word Echad and their trinity doctrine. However, one grape on a cluster is a part of the cluster, but it would not be proper to say that the one grape is the cluster. This is true in both Hebrew and English. One grape could hardly be said to wholly and fully the one cluster, as is claimed for each of the alleged persons of the triune God. Deuteronomy 6:4 says that there is only one Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Jehovah who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 -- two separate beings. It is this "one Jehovah" who is the God of the Messiah. (Micah 5:4) Jehovah is not presented as being more than one person, nor is Jesus presented as being Jehovah.

Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means "compound unity". The word "compound" means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as "composite."

Additionally, sometimes the trinitarian will used the term "complex unity". Webster refers to "complex unity" as a meaning of the English word "whole," and describes it as meaning "a coherent system or organization of parts fitting or working together as one."

Jehovah is different from the false deities of the heathen, which were often worshiped as triads consisting of three parts. Jehovah is one Jehovah -- not two parts, not three parts.

Jay Green's interlinear says: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one." His translation reads: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Jehovah, not two Jehovahs or three Jehovahs, etc. However, in this context, Jehovah is warning about Israel's worship of the idol-gods of the nations. (Deuteronomy 6:12-15) He certainly foreknew that Israel would get involved in such idolatry and would even use His Holy Name in worship of those idols. Thus, it was important to for Him to note that He, as their God, Jehovah, is not more than one Jehovah; there are not a multiplicity of Jehovahs being represented as is found in the heathen lands around Israel. While some of the heathen may have used forms of the name Jehovah (Yahweh) in their worship, without a covenant Jehovah was not their God, except in the broad sense that Jehovah is the God of all his creation. As such, however, He is still only one Jehovah, but he is not represented by any idol even if the heathen or even the children of Israel may have used a form of His name as applied to an idol.

While it is true that the word "one", whether in English or "echad" in Hebrew, can mean a composite/compound/complex unity, and "one" can have more than one part, as in one cluster of grapes (Numbers 13:23), each grape is a part of the cluster, not the whole. One grape in a cluster does not equal the whole cluster, nor does any grape in the cluster equal the cluster, etc.; each grape is only a part of the whole. One of the people (Genesis 34:16) does not mean one person is wholly the people as is claimed in the trinitarian dogma, as that dogma claims that each of the alleged persons of their trinue God are "wholly" God -- not a part of God.

Likewise, your body is made up many parts, all of which go to make up the composite whole. Your arm is not your whole body, nor is your leg, etc., but only a part.

If this idea of composite, compound or complex unity is applied to the idea that God is more than one person, then you would have the Father as a part of God, but not all of God; you would have the Son as a part of God, but not all of God; and the Holy Spirit as a part of God, but not all of God. Thus allowing that all three persons are equal, we would have 1/3 of God as the Father, 1/3 of God as the Son and 1/3 of God as the Holy Spirit. Yet the trinitarian dogma does not define the trinitarian "godhead" as such, for they claim that Jesus is "fully God." They do not claim that the Father is part of God, they claim that he is fully God, etc. Therefore, their usage of "composite unity", "complex unity" or "compound unity" as a means to see the trinity in the word "echad" does not, in reality, exist, except that they should create their own definitions to suit their trinitarian dogma.

Is Jehovah a Unity? We can say that Jehovah is love, but Jehovah is not "all" love and nothing else. "Love" is not equal to the whole of who Jehovah is. It is only one component of who Jehovah is. The many components of Jehovah's being, personality and character are discussed in Paul S. L. Johnson's Book entitled *GOD*, which can be ordered from the Bible Standard.

Additionally, did the Hebrew writers themselves consider the usage of echad to mean more than one person in one God? There is nothing in anything that they wrote that presents them as believng such an idea. It is only by adding the trinitarian philosophy and then reading the trinitarian philosophy into the expressions used that one can find the concept of a triune God as defined by trinitarians in the Bible.

One Flesh in Marriage

Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh.

The argument is often put forth that Genesis 2:24 illustrates that echad means more than one person in unity. Of course, we allow that echad can mean more than one person in unity, but this does not mean that the persons involved are the same being, sharing the same sentiency as is claimed for the trinity dogma: three persons in one omniscient being, all three of which are individually wholly and fully the one omniscient being. The unity involved in marriage, if divided equally, still would be 1/2 + 1/2 = the whole. The marriage still consists of two separate parts that equal the whole. The same holds true for the many other "illustrations" of composite unity that our trinitarian friends come up with. We do not deny that echad means composite unity when that term is used properly; the meaning of composite unity, however, does not describe the dogmatic definition given of the trinity.

A married couple does not literally become one flesh human being. The man, after marriage, still has his own sentiency, his own thoughts, and his own self, and a woman after marriage still has her own sentiency, her own thoughts, and her own self. The marriage union does not make the two one sentiency or one human being as is claimed for each of the members of the alleged triune God, that is, they are all three claimed to be the one Supreme Being. And trinitarians further claim that each of the three alleged persons is individually wholly and fully the Supreme Being (not a part of the Supreme Being).

Some claim that the expression "one flesh" means that the two are the same substance, as is claimed for the trinity. The problem is that a man and woman are both of the same substance before they get married, thus their becoming "one flesh" does not mean that they become of the same substance when they are joined together in marriage. Obviously, the expression "one flesh" in Genesis 2:24 does not mean the same thing that "one substance" is claimed for the trinity, for the trinity claims that all three persons of the alleged trinity are all omniscient, thus all one sentient being, since all three, being omniscient, would have all have the same sentiency. Nor does the idea of "one flesh" in the marriage union mean that they both, as a result of the marriage, then become the same flesh substance (or "nature" as trinitarians often express it), as some have argued, since the man and woman already are of the same fleshly substance before marriage. Thus all mankind is spoken of as "one flesh", in the sense of actual substance, but all mankind do not constitute one sentient human being. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39.

When a man and woman become married, they definitely do not become one sentient being, and no longer two sentient beings, for then there would be no such thing as a married "couple". Nor do either one of the two equal the whole of the union, as is claimed for each person of the alleged trinity, in that is claimed that each person of the trinity is wholly God, not part of God. The man and woman who come together are still each only part of that union; neither is equal the whole union.

Strictly speaking, the "one flesh" that is being spoken of is in the marriage union, in which the two come together in the marriage bed as though one body. That this is what is being spoken of can be seen by 1 Corinthians 15:39, where Paul refers to this scripture in describing fornication with a prostitute. In the case of such fornication, the man and woman usually do not remain together as in marriage, but they do become as one body during the act of fornication. For such a union to take place, however, there have to be the two who are already flesh before they unite with each, neither of which is equal to the whole.

Of course, we can also see that the marriage union as a whole could also be included. But still, neither party is equal to and wholly the union, but each remains a "part" of the union. The trinitarian dogma claims that the Father is not "part" of God, but all of God, the Son is not "part" of God, but all of God, and the holy spirit is not "part" of God, but all of God. Therefore, is the "one flesh" union of Genesis 2:24 a composite unity? Absolutely! Does it offer any illustration that would apply to the trinity? No.

Additionally, composite unity does not mean that the various parts of the unity are neccessarily equal to each other, for in the husband-wife relationship a man is not equal in all respects to the woman, nor is the woman equal in all respects to the man, etc. Not all of a man's organs are the same as that of a woman, and thus, not all of a woman's organs are the same as a man.

Additionally, in a cluster of grapes, one grape may be bigger than another, but then a cluster of grapes includes not only the grapes but the stems that link the whole the cluster together. The stem is not equal to the grape, nor the grape to the stem. So again we find that the one cluster of grapes does not provide any illustration of the trinity.

Echad corresponds with the Greek heis -- one. It is simply the common Hebrew word for "one".

"He is unique... He is not many, but one... Yahweh is a single unified person... one Lord is also opposite to diffuse... He is single... God's person and his will are single... Israel is called to concentrate it's undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique." -- The Broadman Bible Commentary

YACHIYD

Another word related to echad is Yachiyd (Strong's #3173). This word corresponds with our English word "only". It is most commonly used in the expression "only son". (Genesis 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) Like Echad, it is also closely associated with Yachad, meaning "to join, unite" (Strong's 3161), thus Yachiyd carries a similar connotation of unity as does Echad. Strong gives its basic meaning as "united", "sole", and further as "beloved", "lonely". The *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon* adds also "only" and "unique". The KJV translates this word in Psalm 86:6 as "solitary", in the sense of "lonely".

The word (often transliterated as Yachiyd) is not used of Jehovah in the Bible, and it usually refers to an only son. It corresponds most closely with the English word "only", especially in the sense of only son, only beloved, or lonely, which is perhaps the reason it is not used of Jehovah, since Jehovah is not a son of anyone, nor is he a man, that he should be "lonely".

Another word that sometimes means "only" is the word often transliterated as "bad" (Strong's #905), meaning "alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone". It is used in Deuteronomy 8:3, where the Hebrew word is translated into Greek as *monos*. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) *Monos* is the word used to describe the Father in John 17:3 as the "only true God." *Bad* is also used of Jehovah in Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 83:18; 136:4; Isaiah 2:11,17; 37:16; 44:24.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/bad.html

The Triple Point of Water

It has been argued that water provides a good illustration of composite unity as applied to the trinity. It is claimed that water can be in three forms at once yet all forms are still one thing: water. The test-tube experiment is cited: in a single test tube, the water can be in all three states at the same time! Actually, this is deceptive, to say the least, since not all of the molecules of water in the test tube are in all three states all at once. For this to be a valid demonstration of the trinity, such would have to occur. What these trinitarians are referring to is called the triple point of water. We present below some quotes from the WEB on the triple state:

All three boundary lines meet at a point called the triple point. At this temperature and pressure, all three phases are in equilibrium with one another
https://mars.nasa.gov/education/modules/mars.pdf

Triple point-the temperature and pressure in which all 3 states of matter co-exist in equilibrium.
http://www.learnchem.net/tutorials/som.shtml

Note that this does not say that all of the water molecules are in all three states at once; it says that they are in equilibrium. Thus, about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as ice; about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as liquid; and about 1/3 would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as gas. (If applied to the trinity, then 1/3 of God would the Father; 1/3 of God would be the Son, and 1/3 of God would be the Holy Spirit.) Never are all the molecules in the given container in all three states at once! Never is one molecule in all three states at the same time. Putting the three phases in equilibrium at the triple point actually does nothing to change the fact that there are still three phases of a single substance, which coexist in different parts of the vessel that holds them. For this analogy to have any merit toward providing a demonstration of the trinity, you would have to produce a solid liquid gas, that is, the whole body of H2O under consideration would have to be liquid through all of its molecules, and at the same time solid throughout all of its molecules, and at the same time gas throughout all of its molecules.

At least one trinitarian has noted the fallacy of the triple state argument as applied to the trinity, and has written about it online. We will quote a part of what he states:

The three phases of water analogy of the Trinity, although often suggested, is, in fact, an inadequate explanation as understood by traditional orthodox Christianity.... In the water (three states or phases) analogy we see a similar problem. Water, in the aggregate (not individual molecules but in bulk) will be in a phase (solid, liquid, or gaseous) depending on the temperature and pressure. [Along a phase line (of temperature and pressure) it can exist in two phases and at the triple point in all three.] Water can transform from one phase to another, just as the "persons" can in a modalist Trinity. However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the "persons", while all God, do not change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Nor do they change into/from one another. Water can change from one phase to another. Thus, the three phases of water are an inadequate, i.e. heretical, model for the Trinity even though it has some partial value. -- a post by Edward Pothier

The above statement was made by a trinitarian in the newsgroups, and can be found online at:
https://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/d247185e57b134dc?oe=UTF-8

We also received the following email on this concerning whether all the molecules were in all three states at once:

In really short answer, any one molecule can only be in one state at once. The Triple Point is the temperature and pressure at which all three phases can exist together, however each molecule will be in one phase. For more about triple point see this website:
http://onsager.bd.psu.edu/~jircitano/phase.html (Site no longer exists)
Marcy M. Seavey
Education Director
Iowa Project WET and GLOBE Iowa
Iowa Academy of Science

Having shown that this does not give an adequate illustration of the trinity, we now ask: what if there should be a substance that could be in three states throughout all at once? Possibly God could create such. Would it be proof of the trinity? No. It would only prove that such a substance could be in all three states throughout all at once, nothing more. It would not offer a reason to add the idea of the trinity to the scriptures.

The "One Lord" Deception

Some trinitarians will quote Deuteronomy 6:4 from the King James Version (or similar translation) like this: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." Then they will turn to 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read that to the church there is "one Lord Jesus Christ." There is "one Lord", they say, and that "one Lord" is Jesus. Most scholars should know that the two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the KJV, as well as many other translations have substituted "LORD" for the divine name. This should not be done, but because it is most often done, to those ignorant of the truth, the above reasoning seems logical. Some will claim that the Greek word "kurios", often rendered "the Lord" in the New Testament, means "Jehovah", since in the extant Greek NT manuscripts we find that kurios is often substituted for the divine name. Such is sophistry, however, for kurios is used of others than Jehovah in the NT, as well as in other Greek writings.* The word "kurios" does not mean "Jehovah", any more than the Hebrew words for "Lord", such as "adon" or "adonai"**, mean "Jehovah". 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not identifying Jesus as the one Jehovah of Deuteronomy 8:6.
==========
*See our studies on the holy name:
https://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html

Likewise, sometimes our trinitarian neighbors will compare Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:8 with Zechariah 14:9, using the King James Version, or a similar translation, to reach the conclusion that the "one Lord" of these scriptures is Jesus. Zechariah 14:9, reads, according to the King James Version, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." By use of the word "LORD" in all caps, the KJV shows that in the Hebrew text, the divine name appears, and that "the LORD" has been substituted for the divine name. Thus the World English Bible translation renders this verse in this manner: "Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one." Green's Literal renders this verse as: "And Jehovah shall be King over all the earth. In that day there shall be one Jehovah, and His name one." By this, we can readily see that Zechariah 14:9 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but rather of Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus. - Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3
==========
See:
Jesus is Not Jehovah
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/jesusnotjah.html

Others will say that Jehovah is referred to as "Lord" many times in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Genesis 15:2,8, Exodus 4:10; 5:22; 15:17; 23:17; 24:17; Deuteronomy 3:24; 9:26; 10:17; Joshua 3:13; 7:7; and many more. Thus, they ask, how can only Jesus be the "one Lord", as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, if Jehovah is also "Lord"? Actually, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not state that there is only "one Lord". Let us read 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 from Young's Literal Translation: "for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many -- yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him." What it says is that "to us [to the church] there is one Lord "through whom are all things, and we through him." Jehovah is "Lord", but he is not the one Lord "through whom" are the all (Greek transliteration: ta panta). Thus to the church, God has appointed one Lord through whom all things are provided from the God and Father of Jesus to the church (as well as the blessings of the age to come), including the existence of the believers as new creatures in Christ. -- John 1:17; Romans 3:22; 5:10,21; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 5:17,18; Galatians 4:7; 6:15; Ephesians 1:5; 2:10; Philippians 1:11; Titus 3:6.

Paul had just written concerning the idol-gods of the nations, and declares that the informed Christian knows that these idols gods are nothing, they have no power or might to good or to do evil. (Jeremiah 10:5) It is these that Paul refers to as those who are "called" gods (mighty ones). On earth, of course, the idols are something in that the carved images are made of wood or stone, and wood and stone is indeed "something", but as far as having the will and might to bring about or influence events in the world to a purposeful outcome, these gods are nothing. Thus, while they are "called" gods, they are not so by nature, which nature is special "might, strength", power, as based on the Hebraic meaning of the words that are translated as "God/god"*. (Galatians 4:8) They have no special might of themselves to perform any prophecy, any purpose, that might be attributed to them. In the heavens, the sun, the moon, stars and constellations, etc., have been called "gods". The sun, the moon, the stars, etc., are indeed something, as far as the substances that are combined in their make-up is concerned. But they are nothing as far as the claim that these are "gods", in that they do not have any will or might bring about any purposeful outcome amongst the intelligent creation, they are "nothing". Yet these have been called "gods" and "lords". The word Adonis comes from the Hebrew word "Adon", meaning "Lord". Thus these are "called" gods and lords, although they are not so by nature, as they, of themselves, cannot perform or accomplish any will, prophecy, or purpose that might be attributed to them. Most are familiar with the usage of the word "baal" (meaning "the Lord", "lord", or "the master") and its usage regarding false gods.
=========
*See
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

But Paul continues, "as there are gods many and lords many." The Westcott and Hort Interlinear has this as: "as even are gods many and lords many." Paul acknowledges that there are those who are "called" gods who have no might, no power, and yet he also goes on to acknowledge that there are indeed "many gods and many lords". Does the Bible speak of others than Jehovah as god or lord? Yes, it does. Moses was said to made a god -- a mighty one -- to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel were spoken of as the ELOHIM, the might (as a collective body), in Israel. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 -- see Acts 23:5) The angels are spoken of as "gods" (elohim) in Psalm 82:6,7. (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4.) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim, a god, a mighty one. (1 Samuel 28:13) Various kings are referred to as "gods" -- "the strong" (KJV) -- in Ezekiel 32:21. All of these are indeed "gods", and while they have might, strength, power, they do not have such of their own being, but only as they have received such from the Might of the universe, Jehovah. Likewise, many are indeed "lords" in various capacities. The Hebrew word "adon", means "lord" or "master". This word is used of a master over slaves (Genesis 24:14,27), rulers (Genesis 45:8), and husbands. (Genesis 18:12) The original Hebrew text contained only consonants, and adon appears is represented by the four consonants: "aleph-dalet-vav/waw-nun", corresponding somewhat to our A-D-W-N (). Some transliterate this as "'adown". Two other forms of adon are adoni (my Lord), and adonai, my Lords (plural), or a plural intensive -- the plural form used as a superlative -- of "my Lord") The form "adoni" ("my Lord") is represented by the Hebrew characters "aleph-dalet-nun-yod" (corresponding, roughly to the English characters ADNY. The Masoretes, in about the third century or later after Christ, added the vowel point roughly called "quamets" (sounds like the English "a" in the word "all") to form the word "adonai". They added this vowel point wherever they believed that the word referred to Jehovah, and not someone else. Where ADNY appeared to be referring to someone else than Jehovah, they added the vowel point roughly called "hireq", corresponding to the English letter "i" carrying the English short "i" sound, as in the word "machine". This is usually transliterated from the Masoretic text as "adoni".

KURIOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Once in a while, someone will claim that, while "lord" in the Old Testament may be used of others than Jehovah, in the New Testament the word "kurios" is only used of Jesus and his Father. Let us examine to see if this is true.

The Hebrew form adoni is used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1: "Jehovah says to my Lord [adoni], "Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet." This scripture is translated into the Greek as "kuriw [an inflection of kurios] mou" [literally, "lord of me"] in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; and Acts 2:34, where it is applied to Jesus as David's Lord. Thus we can say that Kurios of the New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew word adown (and its variations).

While there are several instances in the parables of Jesus that have the word "kurios" applied to master of a house, or the master of the workers, etc., some may claim that these instances actually apply the word indirectly to Jesus. It is interesting to note, however, that the King James Version renders kurios as "sir" in Matthew 21:30; John 4:11,15,19,49; 5:7; 12:21; as "master(s)" in Mark 12:35; Luke 14:21; 16:13; and as "owners" in Luke 19:33. In many of these instances, it is clear that the speaker is not addressing Jesus as "Jehovah", but simply as an address to a man. Nevertheless, in Matthew 27:63; Acts 17:16,19,30; Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 4:11, we have definite instances where the Greek word Kurios is used of others than God or Jesus. Thus it is indeed true that there are indeed "many lords", as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6. None of these "lords", however, is the "one Lord" "through whom" the church receives all things, nor are the members of the church "through" any of these other lords.

Paul further states: "yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him." Several words are usually added by translators to the Greek here, and Young's translation above shows two words added by the brackets []. However, it does not show that the word "things" is also added, although the word "things" is actually added by the translators. The Westcott & Hort Interlinear has "ta panta" as "the all (things)", with the word "things" in parentheses, denoting that it is added to the rendering. The Greek phrase "ta panta" literally means "the all", pertaining to the church. The all that the church has is "of" or "from" the one God, the God and Father of Jesus. "The all" is "from" any of the other who are indeed "gods", and certainly not from any of the idols that are "called" "gods". The believer has offered himself "to" the God and Father of Jesus, through Jesus. -- Acts 20:32; Romans 5:10; 6:10,11; 12:1; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 9:11; Galatians 2:19; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 7:19,25; 11:6; 12:28; 13:15; James 4:7,8; 1 Peter 2:5; 3:18; 4:6.

The scriptures identify the only true God -- the Supreme Being, the "might" or "MIGHTY ONE" of the universe -- as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. (Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by stating that his Father is "the only true God" signified that there is only one true Supreme Being, one true Might of the universe. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Jehovah, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Jehovah -- the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus -- who also sent Jesus. This same God is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. -- Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.

Jesus is appointed as the one Lord of the church by Jehovah, the God of Jesus. There is one God, the Father, Jehovah, the God of Israel, who sent Jesus (John 17:1,3), and this one God has appointed for the church (as well as for the world regarding the age to come) one Lord, Jesus. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 2:2,6,8; 45:7; Isaiah 9:7; 61:1; Matthew 28:18; Luke 1:32; John 3:35; 5:22,26,27,30; Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42; 17:31; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:17,20-22.

ELEINU in Deuteronomy 6:4

Some note that the Hebrew form of the word for "God" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is transliterated as ELEINU (a form of ELOHIM, Strong's #430), and that this word does not mean an absolute singularity, but that it allows for "God" to be more than one. One gives the usage in the Hebrew of Numbers 20:15 (our fathers) and Isaiah 53:5 (our iniquities) for comparison. Actually, if this word is used as a plural, it would mean "our gods", and not "our God". Such would be stating that Jehovah is more than one god*, not more than one person. This would not at all fit in the context of Deuteronomy 6:4, which distinguishes Jehovah as being one as compared to the heathen around them who worshiped a multiplicity of gods. Nevertheless, in Hebrew, a plural form of a word can be used to represent a singular with an intensified meaning. Many scholars refer to such usage as "plural intensive." This can be seen from Mark 12:29, where the Greek word for "God" is not at all plural, but singular. Thus, forms of ELOHIM, as applied to Jehovah who is one, although actually plural as to form, do not mean "gods" not any kind of plurality, but rather the forms of ELOHIM take on the intensified singular meaning of God, as Superior God ("Mighty One") or Supreme God (Mighty One). (See our study: Elohim – Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?

Since it is a reference to Him who is the source of all might (1 Corinthians 8:6), it would mean Supreme God (Supreme Mighty One). Comparing scriptures, such as Numbers 20:15 (Abith'inu = our Fathers); and Isaiah 53:5 (Aunthi'inu = our iniquities), and 1 Samuel 12:9 (Chtath'inu = our sins), is irrelevant since in the latter scriptures the forms are not being used as a plural intensive. Indeed, applying the plural usage in the scriptures given to ELEINU in Deuteronomy 6:4 would result in the meaning of "gods". The plural intensive forms of ELOHIM are used in such verses as: Genesis 1:26; 3:5; Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 24:19; 2 Samuel 7:23; Job 35:10; Psalm 29:1; 58:11; and many other scriptures; nevertheless, the use of the plural intensive in these verses gives no evidence at all that Jehovah is more than one person. Thus, there is nothing in the word, ELEINU, that gives any reason to think that Jehovah was saying that He is more than one person. The plural usage of ELEINU does not designate persons all whom are wholly and fully the one God, but rather it designates gods, more than one god.
==========
*Trinitarians usually object if one says that they believe that there are three Gods.

See:
Deuteronomy 6:4 - Elohim and Echad

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Elohim - Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?

A common argument used by trinitarians and some others is that the word often transliterated *elohim* (or elohiym) is plural, and thus, it is claimed that this signifies that God is some kind of plurality. Forms of the word ELOHIM in the Bible are most often translated to English translations of the Bible as "God". Some trinitarians claim that *ELOHIM* is plural referring to the alleged plurality of “three persons” all whom are the one ELOHIM (God).

The truth is that the Hebrew Scriptures do often use the plural word Elohim in singular settings, usually with the singular article or singular verbs, etc., with a singular application. The same is done with some other plural nouns, such as *chayim*, literally plural, meaning “lives”, but used singularly: life. (Genesis 27:46; Job 10:12) This has been called the “plural intensive” — where the plural is used in a singular context to denote the superlative degree or superiority. This usage has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine. Even most trinitarian scholars know this.

Exodus 7:1 - And [Jehovah] said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god [ELOHIM - Strong's #430] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. -- King James Version.

We should note that Moses is also called elohim. (Exodus 4:16; 7:1) Did Jehovah make Moses persons of a godhead to Pharoah. No. These scriptures concerning Moses indicate that elohim, although plural inform, is applied to the singular person, Moses. Scriptures show that Moses is a type of Jesus. (Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23). Moses is not more than one person, so why the plural usage here? It is plural used in a singular setting to denote the superiority (plural intensive), that is, to denote the greatness of the power given to Moses by Jehovah over the power of Pharaoh and the gods of Pharaoh.

1 Samuel 28:13 - The king said to her, Don't be afraid: for what do you see? The woman said to Saul, I see a god [ELOHIM, Strong's #430] coming up out of the earth. -- World English

The ELOHIM who appeared to the spirit-medium that Saul went to see was definitely not a plurality of persons. -- 1 Samuel 29:13.

{Psalm 45:6} Your throne, O One of Might [ELOHIM, Strong's #430], is forever and ever. A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.

{Psalm 45:7} You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God [ELOHIM, Strong's 430], your God [ELOHIM], has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. -- Restoration Light Improved Version.

Many believe that Elohim in Psalm 45:6 is also applied to Jesus as an individual being, again to show the supreme power of Jesus in his kingdom as given to him by the Elohim over Jesus: Jehovah. (Psalm 45:6,7; See also Hebrews 1:8,9) Obviously, two different individuals are being referred to as ELOHIM in these verses. In verse the one person who is Messiah is referred to as ELOHIM, and verse 7, another ELOHIM is presented as being the ELOHIM of the Messiah. In verse 7, the ELOHIM of the Messiah is said to anointed the Messiah and make him "above" his fellows. The very fact that this power over his fellows is given to Jesus by Jehovah’s anointing shows that Jesus is not equal to Jehovah. Additionally, if elohim means more than one person in one godhead, then in Psalm 45:6,7 we would have one “godhead of persons” anointing another “godhead of persons”. Actually, the usage of ELOHIM in Psalm 45:6 speaks of only one person, that is, the Messiah, and ELOHIM in Psalm 45:7 also speaks of one person, that is, the God and Father of Jesus. In neither instance is ELOHIM referring to a plurality of persons.

Isaiah 61:1 - The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me; because Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isaiah 61:2 - to proclaim the year of Jehovah's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God [ELOHIM]; to comfort all that mourn. -- American Standard Version.

Isaiah depicts the Messiah as prophetically speaking as recorded in Isaiah 61:1,2. Jesus owns this verse as speaking of himself as recorded in Luke 4:14-21. In verse 2, the Messiah includes himself as one Jehovah's people in reference to our God. Thus Jesus refers to Jehovah as "our" ELOHIM. He speaks of Jehovah as ELOHIM as being one person, not a plurality of persons. We should note that Jehovah is presented as being only one person and this one person anoints the one whom he sends. This is in harmony with Acts 2:36 and Acts 10:38. Jesus speaks of this one person as being his Father in John 17:1,3. Most definitely, however, "ELOHIM" in Isaiah 61:2 is not speaking of a plurality of persons all of whom are the one ELOHIM. It is being used a plural intensive.

Micah 5:4 - And he shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God [ELOHIM, Strong's 430]: and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

Here Micah records the words of the prophecy regarding the Messiah. He declares that the Messiah shall stand in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his ELOHIM. Jehovah is directly identified as the ELOHIM of the Messiah. Does this mean the ELOHIM of the Messiah is a plurality of three persons? That would be self-contradictory if the Messiah himself is one of the persons of ELOHIM. It should be obvious that ELOHIM in Micah 5:4 is NOT speaks of three persons but rather as only one person. It should be obvious that this is the same one person who spoken of as the God and Father of Jesus in Ephesians 1:3 and 1 Peter 1:3. ELOHIM in Micah 5:4 definitely is not referring to a plurality of persons as being one ELOHIM.

Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God [ELOHIM] moved upon the face of the waters. -- King James Version.

Another scripture to note is Genesis 1:2, where ELOHIM is used in the phrase usually translated as "spirit of God". It should be evident that ELOHIM in Genesis 1:2 refers to only one person, and that the "spirit" belongs to that one person. The word "spirit" is obviously referring to God's Holy Spirit, but if God's spirit is a person being designated in the plurality of ELOHIM, we have something of a contradiction in the expression "spirit of God". The possessive form used would actually mean that one of the assumed persons of the alleged triune God belonged to all three persons of the triune God, making mean the spirit of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it would be saying the Holy Spirit of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

We should also note that elohim in the plural means “gods” — not persons. Thus the argument that its plural usage means a trinity would tend to mean that there are three gods, not three persons.

There was only one golden calf called Elohim. (Genesis 32:4) Should we think that ELOHIM applied to this calf means more than one person? This provides another example of the usage of “elohim” as a plural intensive.

In Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ‘elohim’ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god.

At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adhoneh’, the plural intensive of excellence) of Egypt.

Eloah (the singular for Elohim) is used for God in verses such as Nehemiah 9:17. El is also used for God in many places throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Genesis 14:18. If Elohim means three persons, then El would mean one person. If “Elohim” is a plural word referring to three persons, then “El” must refer to only one of those three persons. This would mean a trinitarian would have a massive job in explaining which instances of “El” in the scriptures referred to which Triune Person in Elohim.

Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho Theos’ is used. If a plurality of persons were meant, then we would think that the inspired NT writers would have translated the intensive ‘elohim’ as plural in Greek also. It is not. Obviously, Jesus is using the word THEOS (God) in Mark 12:29 as referring to one person who had sent him. -- John 6:29; 8:42; 10:36; 17:1,3; Acts 3:26; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:9,10.

Below we present some quotes from various scholars concerning the usage of Elohim as a plural intensive, or as some prefer, “plural of majesty” (a pluralis excellentice) or “plentitude of might”. We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions reached by the authors.

430 ‘elohiym el-o-heem’ - plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. — A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, With Their Renderings in the Authorized English Version, by James Strong, S.T.D., LL. D.

“Elohim is a plural form which is often used in Hebrew to denote plentitude of might” (Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs).

“The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty” (Flanders, Cresson; Introduction to the Bible).

“Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic Allah ); it is often used in the short form EL (a word signifying strength , as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs. (Genesis 17:1; 28:3; Exodus 6:3) The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect, and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world. The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among 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. Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth.” — Smith’s Bible Dictionary

“‘Elohim: this mac. Hebr. noun is pl. in form but it has both sing. and pl. uses. In a pl. sense it refers to rulers or judges with divine connections (Ex. 21:60; pagan gods (Ex.18:11; Ps. 86:8); and probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97;7). In both of the passages where ‘angels’ is the apparent meaning it is so translated in the Sept. On the former see Hebrews 2:7. In the sing. sense it is used of a god or a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in a position like a god (Ex. 7:1); God (Deut. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and many other OT passages). With the latter meaning it occurs with several modifiers such as righteous (Ps. 7:90), living (1 Sam. 17:26), holy (Josh. 24:19), and true (2 Chr. 15:3). It usually takes a sing. verb so no implication of any plurality in the divine nature can be inferred from the fact the word is plural.” — *Lexical Aids to the Old Testament*, as appears in the Appendix of Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, Executive Editor, Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D., page 1598

God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality. — New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6

This word [elohim], which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah [Strong's #433], is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular. — Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Volume 1 (edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody Press, 1980, page 44):

Grammarians call [Elohim] a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h). The Ethiopic plural amlak has become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (Ueber einige phon. Inschr., 1889, p. 17 sqq.), and Barton has shown that in the tablets from El-Amarna the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23 April, 1892, pp. cxcvi-cxcix)…. If we have recourse to the use of the word Elohim in the study of its meaning, we find that in its proper sense it denotes either the true God or false gods, and metaphorically it is applied to judges, angels, and kings; and even accompanies other nouns, giving them a superlative meaning. — New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, “Elohim”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm

It (Elohim,) is derived from an Arabic word, which signifies to reverence, to honor, to worship. Hence, it comes to pass that it is frequently applied to kings, magistrates, judges, and others to whom reverence is shown, and who are regarded as the representatives of the Deity upon earth. Psalm 82:6. Exo.. 7:1…The plural of this word, Elohim, though it denotes but one subject, is appropriately used to designate Jehovah by way of eminence. In fact, many theologians have thought they perceived an allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity, though they have no sufficient ground for supposing that this doctrine was known at so early a period. And without resorting to this supposition, the application of this plural name to a singular subject may be explained from an idiom of the ancient oriental and some other languages, by which anything great or eminent was expressed in the plural number, (pluralis dignitatis, or majestaticus.) Accordingly, Eloha, (the singular,) augustus, [majestic,] may be considered as the positive degree, of which Elohim, (the plural,) augustissimus, [most majestic,] is the superlative. — Knapp’s Theology, page 93.

There are two theories as to why the word [elohim] is plural: In one view, predominant among anthropomorphic monotheists, the word is plural becaue of the common Hebrew practice of expressing extension, magnitude and dignity by pluralizing the form of words. In another view, more common among secular historians and polytheists, is that the word’s plurality is reflective of early Hebrew polytheism. — “Elohim”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

We include some online links for further reading. We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by the authors.

Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?

God and the Plural Nouns and Pronouns

Related Studies

Sunday, October 23, 2016

True God Versus False God = False Dichotomy

The claim is often made that the Bible speaks of one true God and false Gods, but that it is absurd to say that there in a big true God and a less true God. According to this reasoning, Jesus is either the only one true God or no God at all. They would further reason that since the words for "God" are applied to Jesus, that this must mean that Jesus is the only true God.

What this does is set up a false dichotomy while ignoring the Hebraic usage of the words for deity; it would refuse to acknowledge that the words for deity could be ascribed to anyone to whom the only true Might of Universe might give special power or authority. Such a dichotomy would mean that all of the angels are false gods (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7), and the sons of the Most High are false gods (Psalm 82:1,6), and that Jehovah made Moses a false god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), etc.

Forms of the Greek word usually transliterated as “theos” are based on forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as “el” (including forms of ELOAH and ELOHIM, etc). The basic meaning is might, power, strength, etc. As such all power, all might, all strength in the world can only come from the only true Might of the Universe, the God and Father of Jesus. There is no might in the universe aside from the God of Israel.

An idol, formed by the hands of men, has no power to perform anything that might be attributed to that idol, and thus all such “gods” are by nature have no might, no power, thus are false gods, false proclaimed mighty ones.

But, in the Bible, the Hebrew word for deity, meaning might, strength, and power, is used of many others besides the only Most High. And yet at the same time no one would think of applying the term false god to such usage. When considering forms of the Hebrew word *EL*, that this word is used to mean other than God Almighty or a false god may be readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version*, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*:

“It is in the *power* of my hand.” (Genesis 31:29) Should we think that this means either in the only true God of my hand, or in the false god of my hand? The Hebrew word that is often translated as "god" or "God" cannot be here be understood as meaning a false god, or the Supreme Being. It is simply used to denote power or strength.

“There shall be no *might* in thine hand.” (Deuteronomy 28:32) Are we to think that this means no only true God in my hand, or that it means no false god in my hand?

“Neither is it in our *power*.” (Nehemiah 5:5) Again, are we to think that this should mean either "our only true God", or else, our false god? We do not know of any translator who would think, nor we do know of any translation that renders the Hebrew word in this verse as either "God" or "god".

“Like the *great* mountains.” (Psalm 36:6) Some translations do, in this verse, render the Hebrew form of EL with the word God, as does the World English: "the mountains of God." Most translations, however, do express with some word meaning either mighty, great, high, etc. Regardless, it still offers an example of how translators recognize that the word may, when applied to something other than Jehovah, be understood as meaning "great", "mighty", etc.

“In the *power* of thine hand to do it.” (Proverbs 3:27) Again, we do not know of any translation that renders the Hebrew word for "God" here as either "God" or "god". It should be apparent that the word is being used in a sense other than meaning the only true God or false god.

“Who among the sons of the *mighty*.” (Psalm 89:6) Here, the KJV uses the word "mighty" to express the Hebrew form for the word "God". Some do render it as "God" in this verse, thus as "sons of God"; many, however, argue that the context would indicate that it refers to sons of mighty human rulers or men of influence. Either way, however, the fact that many Bible scholars do recognize that word for "God" here may refer to others in some sense other than as the only true God or a false god.

“God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*.” (Psalm 82:1) The King James Version here renders the word for "God' as 'mighty', denoting the body that is referred to in Psalm 82:6 as "sons of the Most High". Other translations render the word for "god" here in various ways, "gods", "divine", "judges", etc., a few render it as "God". Regardless, the KJV and some other translations recognize its use in a sense other than that of the only true God or as a false god. See the study: "Who Are the Gods?"

“Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah] among the *gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?” (Exodus 15:11) Here the word for "God" in the KJV is rendered with as "gods"; we include it because the Complete Jewish Bible and the Jewish Publication Society translation render the word for "God" here as "mighty".

“Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*.” (Psalm 29:1) The word for "god" here in the KJV is rendered as "mighty". It should be obvious that the word for "god" here does not mean either false gods or the only true God. Some other translations render the word as "godly", "mighty ones", "heavenly beings", etc., but, as yet, we have not found one translation that renders the word for "God" as either "God" or in some way to denote a false god.

“The *mighty* God even the Lord [Jehovah].” (Psalm 50:1) The KJV renders one of the words for "God" in this verse as "mighty", not as "God" or a false god. This could be rendered as does Green's Literal: "God, Jehovah God", but most translators have rendered one of the words for "God" as meaning "mighty", or something similar.

“The *strong* among the mighty shall speak." -- Ezekiel 32:21) The KJV renders to the word for "God" in this verse as "strong". We know of no translation that renders the word for "God" in this verse as with "God" or in some way to denote a "false god." While it could be thought of as a reference to false gods, translators still provide us with thought that the word is used in the sense of "strong", or "powerful", without any thought of either it being a reference to the only true God or a false god.

See:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for “God”

In many of the scriptures presented above, it would be absurd to think in terms of “false god” or “the only true God.” Thus, the dichotomy presented concerning the application of the words for "God" toward Jesus is false.

Indeed, since all through the Scriptures, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always presented as one person, and not once more than one person, and since the New Testament distinguishes Jesus from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-36; Hebrews 1:1,2), and since the Hebrews commonly recognized such usage as applied to others than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the default assumption should be that this is the kind of meaning should be given to the very, very few places where Jesus is referred to by means of the words for "God". Indeed, to think otherwise would result in circular thinking, that is, since we believe Jesus is the only true God, then, when we find the words for "God" applied to Jesus, we believe and offer this as proof that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Addendum: Is Jesus Christ God, yes or no?

Although what we have already given above presents why the question cannot be answered "yes" or "no", without leaving a misconception either way, many will insist on a yes or no answer to the question: Is Jesus Christ God?

We can answer, "No", if by the word "God" one means the only true Supreme Being, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is Jehovah. -- Exodus 3:14,15; Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3.

Not once, from Genesis to Revelation, is the one sent by the Lord Jehovah (Isaiah 61:1,2) ever said to be the Lord Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Any who claim otherwise do so by means of the spirit of human imagination, assumptions based on imagination, and by placing the imagined assumptions upon whatever scriptures they present to allegedly prove that Jesus is Jehovah.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Bible that offers any proof that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person, while the testimony of the Bible is always to distinguish the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from his messiah, his anointed one, the one whom He has anointed and sent. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1,2; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2.

This unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that He Himself (Jehovah/Yahweh) is the only true God, the unipersonal God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 [Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4]; Matthew 4:7 [Deuteronomy 6:16]; Matthew 4:10 [Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8]; Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 [Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23]; Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12)

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus was sent by Jehovah, speaks for Jehovah as his unipersonal God and Father, represents Jehovah, and was raised and glorified by the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures ever present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13-26; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by Jehovah, the unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus is not Jehovah who anoints him. — Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38.

The Messiah is not the son of three persons, but he is the son of one person, the only true God who sent him. (John 17:3) In the expression "the son of God," the word "God" designates one person, not three persons. -- Matthew 14:33; 26:63; 27:43,54; Mark 1:1; 15:39; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70; John 1:34,49; 3:18; 9:35; 10:36; 11:14,27; 20:31; Acts 9:20; Romans 1:4; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 4:13; Hebrews 4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:20; 1 John 3:8; 4:15; 5:5,10,12,13,20; Revelation 2:18.

God's holy spirit, figuratively mouth, ears, hand, and finger, is not the holy spirit of the three persons, but one person. Expressions like the "spirit of God" designate elohim as one person, not three persons. Those who claim that elohim means three persons would, in effect, have this to mean "spirit of three persons" and at the same time claim that the spirit is one of the three persons, evidently without noticing the contradiction. -- Genesis 1:2; 41:38; Exodus 31:3; 35:31; Numbers 24:2; 1 Samuel 10:10; 11:6; 19:20; 2 Chronicles 15:1; 2 Chronicles 24:20; Job 26:13; Ezekiel 11:24; Matthew 3:16; 12:28; Romans 8:9,14,11; 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:11,14; 3:16; 6:11; 7:40; 12:3; Ephesians 3:16; 4:30; 1 John 4:2,13.

Expressions such as "spirit of Jehovah" depict "Jehovah", the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15) -- not as three persons -- but one person, and His spirit as belonging to Him as being only one person. The default conclusion from this is that God's Holy Spirit is not Jehovah Himself, although whatever is done, said, by or to God's Spirit is done said, by or to Jehovah Himself. -- Genesis 6:3; Numbers 11:29; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6,19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 10:26; 16:13,14; 2 Samuel 23:2; 1 Kings 18:12; 22:24; 2 Kings 2:16; 18:23; 20:14; Isaiah 11:2; 40:13; 42:1; 44:3; 48:16; 59:21; 63:14; Ezekiel 11:5; 36:27; 37:1,14; 39:29; Joel 2:28,29; Micah 2:7,8; Haggai 2:5; Zechariah 4:6; 7:12; Matthew 12:18; Luke 4:18; Acts 2:17,18; 5:9; 2 Corinthians 3:17.

The expression "son of the Most High ("Highest" in many translations)" designates the "Most High" as one person in contrast with the son. The default conclusion is that Jesus is not the Most High of whom he is the son. -- Mark 5:7; Luke 1:32 (see Luke 1:35); 8:28.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is the son of the unipersonal Most High, Jehovah. Jesus is never spoken of as the “Most High”; Jesus is not the only Most High Jehovah of whom he is the son. The default conclusion is that Jesus is not Jehovah who spoke to and through the prophets of old, and who now speaks through His Son. — Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16; Hebrews 1:1,2.

No scripture says that Jesus was God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, although possessing the mighty power of Jehovah as did Moses, he could be referred to as God (ELOHIM, THEOS) in a manner similar to Moses. (Exodus 7:1; Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Acts 3:18-22) Neither in the case of Moses nor Jesus does this make either of them into God Almighty who gives them their power and authority.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Hebrews 1:8 - Why is Jesus called "Elohim" and "Theos"? Psalm 45:6,7

Hebrews 1:8 but of the Son he says, "Your throne, God [Theos; Psalm 45:6: elohim], is forever and ever; The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, your God [Theos, Psalm 45:7: ELOHIM, that is, Jehovah -- Isaiah 61:1], has anointed you With the oil of gladness above your fellows." -- Psalm 45:6,7.

Many cite Hebrews 1:8 as proof that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As these verses appear in most translations, and without adding a lot of trinitarian or oneness assumptions to the verses, it would seem to be saying that there are two Gods -- two Supreme Beings, one Supreme Being that anoints another Supreme Being.

Some have claimed "he" in the phrase "he says" refers to the Psalmist who wrote the words in Psalm 45:6,7. Actually, however, "he" is a continuing reference in verses 5 through 13 that applies to the one person who is God of Hebrews 1:1,2. The unipersonal "God" is at the center working through "his Son." In Hebrews 1:5, "he" has to be referring the unipersonal God of Hebrews 1:1, since "he" says to the Messiah, "You are my son," as spoken of in Hebrews 1:2. In Hebrews 1:6, "he" who brings his firstborn again into the world has to be the unipersonal "God" of Hebrews 1:1. Likewise In Hebrews 1:7,8, we have no reason to think that "he" does not refer to the unipersonal "God" of Hebrews 1:1.

Thus, the Psalmist is evidently quoting God, at least in Psalm 45:6,7, and he prophetically speaks of the Anointed One, and the God of the Anointed One. Forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as Elohim are used of both, but it is evident from the context that the same meaning is not to applied to both. The One who does the anointing is spoken of the as the God of the One being anointed, thus the One doing the anointing is the Supreme Being of the One being anointed. This is shown in Psalm 45:7 and Hebrews 1:9. One anoints the other with the oil of gladness. The one being anointed has companions. These companions are probably the angels mentioned earlier, or his "brothers" mentioned in Hebrews 2:11; one does not normally think of God Almighty as having "brothers".

Like many of the Psalms, many believe that there is an original minor typical application as well as the major antitypical application of Psalm 45. Some scholars say that the original application of this Psalm was to Solomon. We read that Solomon "sat on the throne of Jehovah." (2 Chronicles 29:23; see also: 1 Kings 1:13) Likewise, Jesus' throne is also God's throne (Revelation 3:21), which he receives from his Father, the only true God. -- Psalm 2:4-6; Daniel 7:13,14; Acts 2:29-31; John 17:1,3.

Jehovah is the God [Supreme Being] of Jesus. Jesus was anointed by his God. Who is the Supreme Being over the Anointed One that is spoken of in Psalm 45:7 and Hebrews 1:9? The scriptures provide the answer in other scriptures. Another prophecy, provides the answer, in Isaiah 61:1, which has the Messiah prophetically saying: "Jehovah has anointed me." It is the Supreme Being -- Jehovah -- the God [Supreme Being] of Jesus, who did the anointing, and who called Jesus theos (translated from elohim -- Psalm 45:6,7; See also Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 17:1,3; 20:17; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; 5:20; Colossians 1:3; Hebrews 1:9; 1 Peter 1:3 Revelation 2:7; 3:2,13). Thus elohim who received the anointing is not the Supreme Being, since Jehovah is referred to as his Supreme Being. Thus, we should realize that elohim as being applied to the One Anointed does not carry the same meaning as it does for the One who did the anointing.

Jesus is prefigured by Moses, who is also called elohim, as well as "as" elohim. "And you [Moses] shall speak to him [Aaron], and you [Moses] shall put the words in his [Aaron's] mouth. And I [Jehovah] will be with your mouth, and with his mouth, and I will teach you wht you shall do. And he shall speak for you to the people. And it shall be, he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be a god [elohim] for him." (Exodus 4:16, Jay Green's A Literal Translation of the Bible, 1985) "And Jehovah said to Moses, Come, see I have made you a god [elohim] to Pharaoh." (Exodus 7:1, Jay Green's A Literal Translation of the Bible, 1985) -- Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23.

From this and other usages of the Hebrew words for "god", we determine that its meaning does not always mean the restriction of "Supreme Being", or the Almighty; nor does its usage of others mean that the others to whom it is applied are necessarily "false gods". Remembering that the basic meaning of Hebrew words for God is "strength" or "power"*, we need to note that Elohim is applied to Moses in this sense, that is, that God gave to Moses power, or strength, over Aaron and Pharaoh. Only Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, is God as the Supreme Being, or the exclusive Source of All Power. Moses was not this exclusive source of power, thus it would be false to refer to him as "God" with the restricted meaning of "the Supreme Being", but he was called elohim, since Jehovah gave him special powers.
*See our document:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

and:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/elohiym.html

Indeed, the spirit that impersonated Samuel is also called elohim. "The king said to her, Don't be afraid: for what do you see? The woman said to Saul, I see a god [Hebrew, elohim] coming up out of the earth." (1 Samuel 28:13, World English) However, it should be apparent that elohim here applied to this spirit is not in the same manner as it is applied to Jehovah. This spirit does have power granted by God, even though he is misusing the power as a spirit being. Recognizing this some translations render elohim here as:

*divine being* (New American Standard; New Revised Standard Version)
*spirit* (New King James Version; Good News Translation; New Century Translation; The Message translation; Contemporary English Version)
*godlike being* (Jewish Publication Society Bible).

Others render it as "a god" and some render it as plural "gods"; "gods", however, does not actually fit the context. Of course, how it is rendered in English does not change the word used in the Hebrew.

Likewise, the word is used in the plural sense as applied to the angels. It should be apparent that elohim applied to the angels is not in the same manner as applied to Jehovah. -- Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7.

See our study:

Elohim - Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?

The sons of God to whom the Word of God came likewise are also called elohim, but again we can see that they are not elohim in the same manner as the word is applied to Jehovah. (Psalm 82:6) Jesus, in quoting this Psalm, used the plural form of the Greek word THEOS, thus showing that he considered the Greek word THEOS in the same manner as the Hebraic usage of EL and ELOHIM when applied to others than the only true God.

See our study: Who Are the Gods?

Likewise, it should be apparent that in Hebrews 1:1,5,8 (Psalm 45:6) that theos (elohim) applied to the Son is with a different meaning than applied to Jehovah. Paul definitely identifies one person who speaks of his Son, thus the Son to whom "God" speaks is not "God" who does the speaking. There is definitely nothing in either Hebrews 1 or Psalm 45 about three persons in one God. The word *elohim* in the Old Testament usually refers to Jehovah, but as a general descriptive word it is often applied to others, which would include Jesus, the Son of Jehovah. In giving all power to Jesus, it is evident that the One who gave this power to Jesus is excepted. (1 Corinthians 15:27) The very fact that this power over his fellows is given to Jesus by Jehovah's anointing shows that Jesus is not equal to Jehovah, and thus that Elohim, as applied to Jesus, is not in the exclusive meaning as it is applied to Jehovah, for only Jehovah is the source of all power.

In the above scriptures we see three individual beings who are called elohim: Jehovah, Jesus and Moses. Only Jehovah has the position of Supreme Being, however, since both Moses and Jesus receive their power from Jehovah. We have no reason to believe that the author of Hebrews chapter one understood Psalm 45 in any other way than it had been viewed at the time it was written. The wording of the psalm draws a clear distinction between the one and only Ultimate Power, the Father (Creator) Who is the Majesty On High, -- and the secondary "Power", the son who was sent by Jehovah and to whom learned to obey though what he suffered. (Hebrews 1:1,2; 3:2; 5:8) Therefore, the Ultimate Power, the Creator of the first-born of creation, has anointed His obedient son (who offered up both petitions and entreaties to the One able to save him from death -- Hebrews 5:7) above his peers.

Additionally, we should also note how some translations render Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6:

Hebrews 1:8

Today's English Version: Your kingdom, O God, will last forever! You will rule over your people with justice.
Revised Standard Version, margin: God is thy throne for ever and ever. as obtained from:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1%3A8&version=RSV
Moffatt translation (1922): he says of the Son, "God is Thy throne for ever and ever."
Daniel Mace New Testament (1729): but to the son he saith, "God is thy throne for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of equity.
Twentieth Century translation: while of the Son he said--'God is thy throne for ever and ever

Psalm 45:6

Revised Standard Version: Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.
Good News translation: The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever. You rule over your people with justice.
New Jerusalem Bible - Your throne is from God, forever and ever.
The Message translation: "Your throne is God's throne, ever and always; The scepter of your royal rule measures right living."
JPS Version: Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
New English Bible translation: Your throne is like God's throne

Either way, however, there is nothing in Hebrews 1:8 or Psalm 45:6,7 that would lead us to think that Jesus is Jehovah. There is certainly nothing about three persons in one God.

Related RL Studies

Titus 2:13 - The Great God

Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

Psalm 82:6 - Who Are the Gods?

Related Links
Please note that we do not necessarily agree with all that is stated on the following links, nor do the authors of these pages necessarily agree with us in all we say.

The Trinity (David Stein)

Yahweh is the Only Elohim

Jehovah Our God is One

The Children of Christ

Instead of Thy Fathers

Monday, September 5, 2016

Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

Genesis 1:26 - "Let us" and the Trinity - c

Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8 have been presented as allegedly being proof of the plurality of persons who are claimed to make up the triune God. Regarding Genesis 1:26; Genesis 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults, page 82) claims that the "plurality" of these verses are speaking of Trinity. Let us examine these verses to see if this is so.

Genesis 1:26 - God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

We find nothing at all in this verse about there being a God consisting of three persons; any such thought has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what “God” said here. Evidently, the unipersonal “God”, in saying “Let us,” is speaking to someone else. By comparing spiritual with spiritual, we conclude that he was speaking to His Son here, but that does not mean that we need to imagine and assume that His Son is a person of God Himself. If I say to my son, “Let’s build our house according to our plans,” I am not saying that my son is person of myself.

Jesus was evidently of a celestial glory (1 Corinthians 15:40,41) higher than the angels before he became flesh, but that does not mean that he did not have the image of his God and Father before he became flesh. While in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), he possessed a sinless glory of God (Romans 3:23) -- a little lower than the angels -- which glory he offered up in sacrifice for sin. -- Hebrews 2:9, 9:26,28; 10:5; 13:11.

Regarding Genesis 3:22, see our study:
One of Us

Genesis 11:7 Come, let's go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Again, if I say to my son, "Come, let’s go shopping as we had planned," I am not saying that my son is a person of myself; since this is along the same line as Genesis 2:6, see what I have said earlier regarding that scripture. God certainly did not say that He was more than one person; one has to call upon the spirit of human imagination and read such a thought into what God stated.

Isaiah 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said: "Here am I; send me."

A trinitarian argues, evidently by applying the spirit of human imagination, that Isaiah heard the voice of God, and that God is referring to himself as more than one person.

One claims that the words attributed to God in Isaiah 6:8 were said in eternity. Obviously, there is nothing in Isaiah 6:8 about these words being said in eternity past. Such an idea has to be added to and read into what Isaiah said. Following such reasoning, one would conclude that Isaiah had been hearing these words in eternity past, and thus that Isaiah himself had existed in eternity past so as to be hearing these words in eternity past.

If applied prophetically to the church, it is more reasonable to conclude that Isaiah himself is playing a part in the exemplary prophetic role, depicting the church of Jesus who was yet to be. Each believer is depicted as hearing the voice of the Lord Jesus, asking, "Whom shall I send?", and thus is depicted as responding: "Here am I."

The Masoretic text has the word often transliterated as "Adonai" where "the Lord" appears in Isaiah 6:8. The claim has been made that this is one of the places copyists replaced Jehovah with Adonai, and thus some translations have the holy name in the scripture. However, we find that the Great Isaiah Scroll does not have the Holy Name in Isaiah 6:8, but rather the Hebrew characters representing what would b transliterated from the Masoretic text as Adoni [my Lord] or Adonai [Literally, my Lords, used singularly, as a plural intensive, as a superlative or superior "Lord" -- without any vowel points added, both words appear the same in the original Hebrew]. At any rate, it is probable, as some have suggested, that Isaiah originally meant this to be "my Lord", referring to the coming Lord of Isaiah [Isaiah is possibly being used to represent the Christian believer], that is, Jesus, the promised Messiah. In such a case, the words in question, who will go for us, are those of Jesus directed toward Jehovah. The "us" refers to both Jehovah and Jesus. The one to "go" for them would be Isaiah (being a figure of the church members individually). The fulfillment of the prophecy supports that 'the Lord' in Isaiah 6:8 is not Jehovah but Jesus, the one whom Jehovah anointed (made christ) as our Lord. -- Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 20:21.

What we do not find in those words is any thought that Jehovah is a triune God of three persons. It is being claimed that the word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, and these rare "definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two." It is further claimed the word ELOHIM denotes "the aspect of plurality in God." The plurality of ELOHIM means “gods”, thus any thought along this line would mean that Jehovah is more than one God. Two Gods? Definitely not! Although “us” certainly refers to more than one, ELOHIM most definitely refers to only one who is ELOHIM. Genesis 1:26 – God [ELOHIM] said [singular verb], “Let us make [plural] man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” The verb that corresponds with ELOHIM is not plural in the Hebrew text, but it is singular. The verb that corresponds with US is plural in the Hebrew text, which is correct, since the Singular “God” was speaking to someone else who was not Himself.

Genesis 3:22 Jehovah God said [singular verb in Hebrew], "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."

Again in Genesis 3:22, we find that a singular verb is used relating to ELOHIM, not a plural verb. The “Lexical Aids to the Old Testament” that appears in Key Study Bibles, notes this concerning ELOHIM.

This mas. Hebr. noun is pl. in form, but it has both sing. and pl. uses. In a pl. sense it refers to rulers or judges with divine connections (Ex. 21:6); pagan gods (Ex. 18:11; Ps. 86:8); and probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97:7). In both of the passages where “angels” is the apparent meaning, it is so translated in the Sept... In the singular sense it is used of a god or a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in a position like a god (Ex. 7:1); God (Duet. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and many other OT passages).... It usually takes a sing. verb so no implication of any plurality of the divine nature can be inferred from the fact that the word is plural. -- page 1598 in the King James Hebrew -Greek Key Word Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates.

The fact is, that ELOHIM, when used in a singular setting, that is, when the verb and/or pronouns, etc., in context are singular, ELOHIM is used as what many linguists call a "plural intensive," "honorific plural", or "majestic plural", that is, the word, although it is plural in form, is singular in usage to denote something similar to a superior or superlative usage.

See: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/elohiym.html

Since the plurality of ELOHIM means “gods”, not persons, there definitely is nothing in that word that would connect with a triune God, not unless one would think that Jehovah is Gods, more than one Mighty One.

Jesus and His God

Pages

Thursday, October 19, 2023

Isaiah 46:9 - No God Like Jehovah

Sunday, August 2, 2020

* Isaiah 43:10 – Before Jehovah There Was No God Formed

Friday, July 31, 2020

* Psalm 82:6 – Who Are The Gods?

Thursday, April 20, 2017

John 17:3 - Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Deuteronomy 6:4 - The Meaning of Echad

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Elohim - Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead?

Sunday, October 23, 2016

True God Versus False God = False Dichotomy

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Hebrews 1:8 - Why is Jesus called "Elohim" and "Theos"? Psalm 45:6,7

Related RL Studies

Monday, September 5, 2016

Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Genesis 1:26 - "Let us" and the Trinity - c

Get new posts by email: