Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

* Pardon the font problems; WP does not handle certain kinds of transliterated fonts.

===========

The question has been asked countless times: Why is God’s name in Genesis 1:1 אֱלֹהִים (´élöhîm) written in the plural?

Many Christian readers presume there are intimations of the Trinity, but this view has been rejected not only by rabbinic scholars, but by Christian exegetes as well[1] as having no linguistic basis whatsoever in the Scriptures. In Biblical Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, an inferior speaks to a superior in the plural. Such a form of address is commonly referred to as “plural of majesty” (a pluralis excellentis). This custom still persists even in modern countries like Britain, where the “royal we” is still commonly used.

The significance of the plural form in the Hebrew usage suggests a plentitude of power and majesty or of intensification, i.e., the superlative “God of gods,” “the absolute highest God,” “the quintessence of all divine powers,” and the “fullness of being.”

Put in different terms, Biblical Hebrew often uses the plural form of a word when expressing an abstract noun.[2] As such, they tend to be more often masculine, but feminine nouns can also be expressed in the plural.[3] Biblical Hebrew does, however, have a singular form for God אֱלוֹהַ (´élôªh) that is employed in the poetical passages of the Tanakh (appearing 59 times)[4], albeit the plural of majesty is more often generally used.

Alternatively, the etymology of אֱלֹהִים (´élöhîm) most likely derives from אֵל (´ël), meaning “strength,” or “power”[5] as inיֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי (yeš-lü´ël yädî la`ásôt) “it is within my power” (Gen. 31:29)[6] and is a common Semitic word. A derived meaning from אֵל is אֵלוֹן (´ëlôn = “oak tree”) since its wood is extremely strong and the אֵלָה (ä´ëlâ = “the pasticcio tree”) which is also known for its hard wood.

It is no linguistic accident that one Hebrew name for God, אֱלֹהִים, also means “Judge.” The connection between these two meanings is obvious: the judges of primitive and early societies were their most powerful warriors; at their command, their foot-soldiers carried out their will. The Creator of natural law is also the Giver of the moral law. God defines the moral order that serves as the basis for ethical values and for self-discipline. Indeed it is God to whom all inhabitants of the world are ultimately accountable.[7]

Paul Tillich’s theological insights are especially relevant here. Tillich considers God the creative “ground of all being” that underlies all of nature and beyond. “He stands against the world, in so far as the world stands against him, and He stands for the world, thereby causing it to stand for Him. This mutual freedom from each other and for each other is the only meaningful sense in which ‘supra’ in supra-naturalism can be used. Only in this sense can we speak of ‘transcendent’ with respect to the relation of God and world. To call God transcendent in this sense does not mean that one must establish a ‘superworld’ of divine objects. It does mean that, within itself, the finite world points beyond itself.”[8]

[1] John Calvin observes: “Moses has it Elohim, a noun of the plural number. Whence the inference is drawn, that the three Persons of the Godhead are here noted; but since, as a proof of so great a matter, it appears to me to have little solidity, I will not insist upon the word; but rather caution readers to beware of violent glosses of this kind . . . (Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, trans. John King [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948], 70–71).

[2] Examples include: בְּתוּלִים (bĕtûlîm) denotes “virginity,” as opposed to the singular word for בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlā =“virgin”); דּוֹדִים (dôdîm = “erotic love”), as opposed to דּוֹד (dôd = “beloved”); מָּיִם (mayîm=, water [Biblical Hebrew has no singular form for “water”]); זָקֵן (zāqĕn = “an elder”), as opposed to זְקֻנִים (zĕqunim = “old age”); נַעַר(naº`ar =“a youth”) as opposed to נְעוּרִים (nĕûrîm), and so on. Rashi and Kimchi note that verbs denoting God’s actions are always written in the singular and never in the plural.

[3] Feminine abstract nouns are more commonly expressed in the singular, e.g., אֱמוּנָה (“faithfulness”); גְּבוּרָה (“strength”); אֶמֶת (“truth”); but can be expressed in the plural as well, e.g., תַּהְפֻּכוֹת (“perversity”); בִּינוֹת (“understanding”); חָכְמוֹת (“wisdom”), and so on.

[4] Deut. 32:15; 2 Chr. 32:15; Neh. 9:17; Job 3:4, 23; 4:9, 17; 5:17; 6:4, 8f; 9:13; 10:2; 11:5ff; 12:4, 6; 15:8; 16:20f; 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; Pss. 18:32; 50:22; 114:7; 139:19; Prov. 30:5; Isa. 44:8; Dan. 11:37ff; Hab. 3:3.

[5] As noted by the Moroccan Karaite philologist David ben Avraham al-Fisi (ca. mid 10^th century) in Kitab Jami’ Al-Alfaz Solomon Skoss ed. Vol. 1 (New Haven, CN: Vol. 20 Yale Oriental Researches, 1936), 97. Ramban arrived at a similar conclusion in his commentary on Genesis 1:1.

[6] Cf. Exod. 15:15; Deut. 28:32; 2 Kgs. 24:15; Eze. 17:13; 32:21; Mic. 2:1 Prov. 3:27 Job 41:17; Neh. 9:17; et. al.

[7] Cf. Rabbi N. T. Berlin’s commentary HaEmek Davar on Gen. 1:1.

[8] Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. II (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957), 7.