Elohim: Plural or Singular?
by Nehemia Gordon
In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth.
The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. Elohim ends with the masculine plural suffix
"-ִים" From this we might conclude that Elohim signifies a numerical plural
(i.e. denoting multiplicity) and translate it accordingly as gods. But before we
determine whether the world was created by a single God or multiple gods, we
must consider whether Elohim is really a numerical plural.
In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics:
1. It receives a plural suffix;
2. It receives a plural verb;
3. It receives a plural adjective.
The first characteristic, the plural suffix, is familiar to the English
speaker. In English, most nouns have the plural suffix "s" or "es". For example,
dog is the singular while dogs is the plural. Hebrew adds another dimension by
matching adjectives and verbs to the noun. In Hebrew, a plural noun gets a
plural verb and plural adjective. In contrast, English verbs and adjectives do
not change to match the noun. For example, in English:
Singular: The big dog guarded.
>>Plural: The big dogs guarded.
But in Hebrew:
Singular: The big (sg) dog (he) guarded. שָׁמַר הַכֶּלֶב הַגָּדוֹל
>>Plural: The big (pl) dogs (they) guarded.שָׁמְרוּ הַכְּלָבִים הַגְּדוֹלִים
So the first thing we must check about Elohim is whether it gets a plural
adjective and plural verb, because this will tell us whether or not it is a
numerical plural denoting multiplicity. In the very first verse of the Torah we
read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים meaning "Elohim (he) created". Were Elohim a numerical
plural, the verse would have to say בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים "Elohim (they) created".
Indeed, the word Elohim appears in its plural form over 2000 times throughout
the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has a singular verb. It
is always "And Elohim (he) spoke to Moses " and never "And Elohim (they) spoke
to Moses ". The same thing can be found with the adjective. The adjective for
Elohim is singular, not plural. Thus we find אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous (sg)
Elohim" (Ps 7:10) and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Elohim".
So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with
a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of
plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular
with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic
plurals. The meaning of the plural suffix in the majestic plural is not that
there is more than one of the noun, but that the noun is "great, absolute, or
majestic". For example, אָדוֹן means "master" while אֲדוֹנִים (Isa 19:4; Mal
1:6) with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, lord". Thus we read,
"I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh lord; and a fierce king
shall rule over them" (Isa 19:4). In this verse the fierce king that will
enslave Egypt is described as an ?ֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה "a harsh (sg) lord (pl)". In
this verse, the plural suffix attached to the word ?ֲדֹנִים does not make it a
numerical plural ("masters") but instead magnifies the meaning ("great master,
lord"). Because אֲדֹנִים is a majestic plural it receives the singular adjective
קָשֶׁה (harsh) and not the plural adjective קָשִׁים that would be required for a
numerical plural. The word בַּעַל also means "master" while בְּעָלִים with the
masculine plural suffix means "great master, owner". For example, in Exodus 21
the owner of the "goring ox" is repeatedly referred to as the בְּעָלִים "owner".
The word בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one
person. In this case, the plural suffix magnifies the noun imbuing it with a
connotation of "absolute owner, complete master". Because בְּעָלִים "owner" is a
majestic plural it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent
owner whose ox has killed, "the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be
put to death" (Ex 21:29). The verb ?וּמָת meaning "he will be put to death" is
in the singular even though the word for "owner" בְּעָלִים has the plural
suffix. The common characteristic of majestic plurals is that they have the
plural suffix while denoting singular objects and as a result they receive
singular adjectives and singular verbs. Elohim is quite simply an example of the
majestic plural and means "great God".
It is worth noting that the word Elohim is not always a majestic plural.
When referring to the pagan gods, the term Elohim is usually a numerical plural.
For example, the second commandment forbids us to worship אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים
"other (pl) gods". In this phrase, not only does Elohim have the plural suffix,
but it receives a plural adjective אֲחֵרִים other (pl). This tells us that in
the second commandment Elohim is used not as an majestic plural but as a
numerical plural denoting multiplicity. The prohibition is not against a
specific "other (sg) god" but against any "other (pl) gods". Elohim is used
numerous times throughout the Tanach to refer to pagan gods and in most of these
instances it is a numerical plural denoting multiple (false) gods. So we see
that when the Tanach speaks about YHWH it uses Elohim as the majestic plural
meaning "great God" but when it speaks about pagan gods it uses Elohim as a
numerical plural meaning "gods". In both instances the accompanying verbs and
adjectives reveal to us which meaning is intended.
Does the majestic plural form of Elohim implies that there is anything
multiple about God? To help clarify this it is worth looking at the few
instances where the majestic plural form of Elohim is used to refer to someone
other than YHWH. The clearest example of this is in Exodus 7:1. In this passage
YHWH tells Moses that he will make him an Elohim to Pharaoh: "Behold I have made
you an Elohim to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet" (Exodus
7:1). Certainly this does not mean that YHWH made Moses into a god, but rather
that he would speak to Pharaoh with authority through Aaron who would serve as
his mouth-piece in the way that the prophets serve as the mouth-pieces of YHWH.
In any event, there is clearly nothing multiple about Moses, even though he was
made an Elohim to Pharaoh.
On rare occasions Elohim is used as majestic plural even when referring to
pagan gods. For example, "And they bowed down to Ashtoret the Elohim of the
Sidonians, to Kemosh the Elohim of Moab, and to Milkom the Elohim of the
children of Amon." (1Ki 11:33). Here we see three pagan deities each of which is
referred to as an Elohim. Obviously the book of Kings is not saying that any of
these false deities is a "great God". On the contrary, the verse goes on to
rebuke the Israelites for worshipping them. The meaning is that the Sidonians,
Moabites, and Ammonites looked upon their deities as great Gods and in this
instance Scripture employs the terms used by the pagans themselves to refer to
their own deities. At the same time we must observe that Ashtoret, Kemosh, and
Milkom are each referred to as Elohim even though there is nothing multiple
about any one of them.
Clearly the word Elohim, when it refers to YHWH, is an majestic plural
which is numerically singular, having a singular verb and a singular adjective.
This majestic plural is simply a grammatical form that denotes greatness without
any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If we
maintain that Elohim implies multiplicity then we must concede that Moses was
also a multiplicity along with Kemosh the pagan deity of the Moabites and Milkom
the pagan deity of the Amonites.
That YHWH is a single individual and not a multiplicity of gods or
personalities is consistent with what we find throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.
Moses declares to the children of Israel, "YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one" (Dt
6:4). Were YHWH a multiplicity of gods or personalities what would be the point
of saying that He is "one"? It is worth noting that it does not say YHWH is one
of something (one god, one personality). He is just simply "one", in every
respect of the word. Similarly, the prophet Zechariah tells us about the
universal worship of YHWH at the end of days, "And YHWH will be king over the
entire earth; at that time YHWH will be one and his name will be one" (Zech
14:9). Zechariah is saying that today people multiply YHWH but at the end-time
all mankind will know that YHWH is a single individual deity with one single
name. We are taught in the book of Isaiah that YHWH is the one and only, "I am
YHWH and besides me there is no savior" (Isa 43:11). Elsewhere in Isaiah, YHWH
poses the rhetorical question, "Is there an Eloha (God) besides me?" (Isa 44:8).
Similarly we read in the Psalms, "Who is an Eloha (God) besides YHWH and who is
a rock (=savior) besides our Elohim?" (Ps 18:32). In these verses the word for
"God" is Eloha ?ֱלוֹהַּ, the singular form of Elohim. These passages are saying
that YHWH is an Eloha and besides Him there is no other Eloha. Indeed, YHWH is
called by the singular Eloha (God) some 47 times throughout the Hebrew
Scriptures which proves that He is not a plurality or multiplicity. This and the
fact that the verbs and adjectives connected with Elohim are always singular
confirm our conclusion that Elohim is an majestic plural denoting a singular
individual but with a connotation of greatness.YHWH is called Eloha (God), the
singular form of Elohim, in the following verses: Dt 32:15.17; Isa 44:8; Hab
3:3; Ps 18:32; 50:22; 114:7; 139:19; Job 3:4; 3:23; 4:9.17; 5:17; 6:4.7.9; 9:13;
10:2; 11:5; 12:4.6; 16:21; 19:6.21.26.; 21:9.19; 22:12.26; 24:12; 27:3.8.10;
29:2.4; 31:2.6; 33:12.26; 35:10; 36:2; 37:15.22; 39:17; 40:2; Prov 30:5; Neh
9:17.Some pronounce Elo'ah or Elowah.
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:09:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?
OK. No problem. You may be right.
But the "restoration" DOES make some sense. Look at what they have in Gen. 1.
Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own. So they have
"the supreme ones". I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
gods." And it has earth pre-existing. That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
probably not. The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
pre-existing myth, And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
the head. When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
Genesis 1. Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11? We also have good reason to think the whole
Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and
Manetho for Exodus.
Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?
--- In email@example.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
> I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
they've found something revolutionary.
> Having fun doesn't require being deceived.
Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.
> However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
> firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
> source, that of scholarship. Where is it?
Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]