The question has been posed countless times: Are the Father and the Son one and the same Person? In this second part of the series we reflect on Genesis chapter one, specifically the term/title Elohim in our search for an answer to this question. Pluralists contend that the term/title Elohim is proof-positive that the Creator is a Godhead that is composed of the Father and the Son. But is this biblically correct. We explore the term from both a Christian and Hebraic perspective.

Part One Review

In part-one of this series I introduced my overall position on the Trinity/Binitary Concepts of our Heavenly Father and Creator of the Universe. We also looked at some of the historical events that shaped the development of the Trinitarian and Binitarian Concepts of the Godhead, to include the Nicenean-Constantinople Councils and their resulting Creeds. And lastly, I briefly touched upon why I believe this issue is vitally important to every Torah Observant Believer in Y’hoshua Messiah. Essentially, the manner in which we view the Father and the Son will influence:

• The manner in which we view and worship the Creator.
• How we relate to one another within and outside our Faith Community.
• How we view the plan of salvation and the work of the Gospel.
• And how we view the world tomorrow, all rests upon our individual worldview of the Natures and Persons of the Father and the Son.

Godhead

In part one we stumbled upon the term Godhead. What does the term/descriptor actually mean?

In general, our understanding of the term/descriptor Godhead tends to be based on the Faith Community we affiliate with.

The term Godhead is not found in the authorized versions of the bible (i.e., KJV, ESV, NASB). However, it may be found in the Wycliffe Bible of 1395 (i.e., Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9) and the Tyndale Bible of 1525 (i.e., Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9).

If we are exploring Godhead from a Christian perspective, we are looking at what Wikipedia considers “the divinity or substance (i.e., the ousia) of God. “Ousia” is a Greek rendering of the Latin term “substantia” (i.e., substance in English) or “essentia” (i.e, essence in English). As the early Catholic Church grappled with the issue of the divinity of Christ, the concept of ousia took center-stage and it introduced to the powers that be the idea that The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost were composed of a single essence or substance: a divine substance or essence, that made them a collective; a triune entity; a trinity; the Godhead if you will.

When we consider the term “Godhead” from a Jewish perspective, despite the term being a uniquely Christian concept, we get an entirely different understanding of the term.

Judaism’s concept of “The Godhead” is viewed from the perspective of what wikipedia describes as “the essential nature of a god;” or better, “divinity.” In other words, the term denotes the thing that makes what or who they call God, God:

• His actions.
• His properties.
• His nature.

The Bible Must Be a Witness to the Truth

Torah explicitly instructed that punishment for capital violations of Torah were only to be meted out on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15).

Master taught that dealing with problems between parties in the body should involve 2 or 3 witnesses (Matt. 18:16).

Genesis chapter one (and two) along with countless other key passages in the Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4,5; Psalm 2 and 110), prove the Unitarian nature of our One True God, the Creator of the Universe—Yahovah/Yahuah/Yahweh. Thus these central passages serve as witnesses to the Unitarian existence of Father.

Despite what appears to be iron-clad proofs to the single Person, Unitarian nature of the Creator, most Christians and a great many Messianics remain hard-bent to force the square peg into the round hole and say these passages herald to the loudest extent possible the triune/binary nature of our God.

When forced to examine these passages objectively, however, most will concede that there is no true biblical support for a plural nature doctrine to explain the Creator.

The true nature of the Creator had to be taught to every new Gentile convert who came into the Faith. I believe this was well achieved throughout the Tanakh and eventually the Brit HaDashah (i.e., the New Testament writings): that the Creator of the Universe was a single, personal, All Powerful, yet merciful Being whose name is YHVH/YHWH.

As it relates to Messiah, what more was needed to be known about His true identity apart from that which the Master’s select apostles taught and wrote? He was as Peter revealed: the Messiah, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16); He was that Prophet that Moses foretold would come to us–a man–whose teachings and instruction we must shema!

So let’s now look at Genesis 1 and 2 and consider what these passages actually say (or not say) about the unitarian or triune or binary nature of the Creator.

The Term/Title God

The title “God” is used over 3,800-times in the authorized translations of the Bible (i.e., the KJV, NASB, ESV and ASV). In the Hebrew text, our English title “God” is rendered “Elohim.” It is used throughout the entire first and second chapter of Genesis and is translated as God in the English from the Hebrew. In fact, every place where we see the title “God” rendered in the English authorized versions, we find the corresponding Hebrew title Elohim.

Beginning with verse 4 of the 2nd chapter we see “LORD” used, typically attached to the title “God.” LORD translates to YHVH (i.e., the “tetragrammaton”) or Yehovah/Yahuah/Yahweh in Hebrew and is used over 6,600-times in the authorized English versions of the Bible.

In verse 26 of chapter 2, we find the “Let Us” phrase spoken by the Creator when creating man–that being, “Let us make man in Our image; after Our likeness.” This phrase of “Let us” has been classically used by the pluralists as one of their proof-positive verses that they say proves the plurality of Persons that is our Creator.

Exploring the Title/Term Elohim

The title “Elohim” when used in the Genesis account of the Creation is used to describe the One True God—the Creator. It is used to describe (from the Hebrew text) the Creator over 2300-times in the authorized versions of the English Bible.

This unassuming statue is a representative of the pagan elohim Ba’al–widely worshiped in the Ancient Near East

Some scholars contend that the term/title Elohim is rooted in the Ugaritic term and title “el” and “eloah” which of course means “god” or “God,” the Creator. Ugarit, according to wikipedia, “was an ancient port city in Northern Syria” which seems to have some connection with the Hittite Empire. (Recall that throughout the Torah Father told us that He would go before us as we went to possess the land of promise and utterly destroy the Hittites. These were a warring and pagan people that obviously Father did not care too much for.) Dates for its existence seem to range wildly, with some scholars aging the city some 6,000-years B.C.E. However, more conservative dating place its existence and significance in the region somewhere around the 2nd and 3rd millennia B.C.E. Seems that Egyptian culture played heavily upon the lifestyle of the population. Additionally, the population of Ugarit at some point became primarily Amoritic.

It is clear from archaeological studies and our very own Biblical record, that the peoples of this region worshiped Ba’al and Dagon. Two temples dedicated to these two gods, as well as a house belonging to a high priest to one or both these gods, have been identified. Additionally, numerous pagan texts have been found.

Dagon was a widely worshiped elohim of the Canaanites.

This was the Canaanite world of antiquity and it, along with her regional neighbors, heavily influenced our cultural and religious practices and understanding. Needless to say, this proved to be a massive point of contention for Father. The language, culture and religion of this and neighboring cities and nations infiltrated virtually every aspect of our Hebrew existence during our nation’s years of development and even during the time of our possessing the Land. More times than not, we readily succumbed to the temptations that these pagan nations offered, leading us time and time again to find ourselves on Father’s “aw crap” list.

But as it relates to the term/title “Elohim,” it very likely had some pagan origin. However, one must keep in mind that language in the ancient world was highly fluid and many terms were used universally throughout the ancient near east. Just because a term may derive from a pagan nation does not mean that it cannot be used for Faith purposes. It would seem that everyone of the mixed multitude coming out of Egypt would understand the term El, or Eloah, or maybe Elohim, and that would be the basis upon which Father would reveal Himself to us. Language often provides common ground for two parties to get to know one another.

According to Mark. S. Smith, in his book entitled “God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World,” writes of the term “Elohim:”

It is “cast in terms of “vertical translatability.”

In other words, Hebrews adopted and re-interpreted this ancient term (or the root thereof)—although it was used by the regional pagan nations to describe or refer to their gods: Ba’al and Dagon—to refer to Yahovah/Yahuah/Yahweh, the one-true God.

The Christian Concept of the Term/Title Elohim

I that much of our understanding of God and the Godhead and the Trinity or the Binitary (take your pick) is firmly based upon Catholic Church tradition and doctrine with little to none of that understanding coming from an individual, personal, exhaustive examination of scripture and associated revelation by the Holy Spirit.

Of the Father the Prophet Isaiah wrote:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith YHVH. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (55:8,9; KJV; adjusted).

So, I stand firmly on the belief that understanding just who and what our Father and our Messiah are, either collectively or individually, requires that we be able to substantiate that understanding from Yah’s Word as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit (aka, the Ruach Kodesh).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with consulting extra-biblical resources to help us in gaining a better understanding of what Father is trying to reveal to us in His Word. The Bible does not readily provide the substantive historical, cultural and linguistic elements that we may need to properly interpret and understand Father’s Word. Thus, it behooves us to pray that Father lead us into all understanding. And Father has been faithful in revealing and making available to us such extra-biblical truths through the work of various researchers around the world.

Just prior to Master going to fulfill His divinely ordained Passion on the execution stake, He taught His inner circle of disciples:

“I have yet many things to say to unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all Truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will shew you things to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16: 12-15; KJV).

We find a broad and general acceptance that the term Elohim in the Genesis account is proof-positive that God the Father was working with God the Son and God the Holy Ghost in constructing the world and man.

How do Christians get such an understanding from what alone appears to be a title or term to describe a single, all powerful Being or Entity that created the world simply through the agency of His Divine will? Clearly the Hebrew text records Elohim in a singular form such as “In the beginning Elohim (i.e, God)” and not, “In the beginning elohims (i.e., gods)” created the heavens and the earth. And here is an example of what I believe the Christian understanding of the term/title Elohim is likened to placing the proverbial square peg into the round hole. Indeed, the term “Elohim” has an inherent plural sense associated with it, like our English term man. In other words, Elohim may be talking about a single Being (i.e., YHVH) or a number of beings (i.e., the various pagan gods of the nations of the Ancient Near East). This same principle can be applied to the term “man,” whereby the term may be used to describe me, for instance, as Rod the man; or it may be used to describe all males/females living or having every lived on earth. Yes, the term Elohim has an inherent plural sense attached to it. However, for any specific use of the term, it must be understood in the context in which it is used. Period. Are we talking about more than one god, or are we talking about the One True Creator of the Universe. When we use man, are we talking John Smith, or are we talking about humanity—all the men and women of the world? It’s only commonsense. However, Christianity has with obvious desperation, seized upon the inherent plural nature of the term Elohim to insist that its use in the Genesis Creation account is proof-positive of the plurality of the Godhead.

Anthony Buzzard, author of his seminal work on this topic entitled, “God is Not a Trinity,” wrote:

“Elohim is plural in form but singular in meaning and that even the translators of our English bibles did not mark Genesis 1:1 as: ‘In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth.'”

Buzzard interestingly points out that Psalm 82:6 illustrates that even men can be referred to as elohim and that those who were classified as such were men “who possessed special positions as divinely commissioned agents.” This is a crucial point that cannot be understated: the term Elohim, like the English term God, is only a descriptor; a title; a term to highlight some being of exceptional notoriety, such as Moses before Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).

The Hebrew Concept of Elohim

As it has been from the very beginning, the Hebrew mind has never once given any consideration to a plural nature for the term Elohim that the Christian mind has so widely and firmly held over the centuries.

But allow me to read verbatim Hertz’ commentary on the term Elohim. I believe it will add significantly to our discussion here. Hertz writes:

“The existence of the Deity is throughout Scripture assumed: it is not a matter for argument or doubt. Elohim is the general designation of the Divine Being (now, note the singular emphasis of his chosen descriptor Divine Being) in the Bible, as the fountain and source of all things. Elohim is a plural form, which is often used in Hebrew to denote plenitude of might. Here it indicates that God comprehends and unifies all the forces of eternity and infinity.” (Pentateuch and Haftorahs, J.H. Hertz)

Does the Hebrew Term/Title Elohim prove the Trinity exists?

Note that Hertz treats the pluralistic nature of the term Elohim from a perspective of plenitude of might that obviously Hertz contends was used to bring the whole of creation into being. I respect Hertz’ perspective on the term Elohim, but I’m not certain I agree with the term necessarily pointing to a plenitude of power and might, apart from the term pointing our attention to one central, all powerful Being who is responsible for the creation of the universe.

The Jewish website, www.jewfaq.org, defines the term G-d, which we know to be Elohim in Hebrew (I found that this site caters more to those who are inquiring, from a basic level, the fundamental things related to the Jewish faith); so you will not find a direct treatment on the term “Elohim” on this site. However, instead of addressing the definition or relaying a firm understanding of the term Elohim, the site examines that nature of G-d which they contend defines God/Elohim. Allow me to quote directly from the site for you:

“The nature of G-d is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement. G-d exists. G-d is One: There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation. G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man’s imperfect attempt to understand the infinite. G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as “The L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd alone,” meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other. G-d is the Creator of Everything. G-d is Incorporeal. G-d is Neither Male nor Female. G-d is Omnipresent (all present). G-d is Omnipotent (all powerful). G-d is Omniscient (all knowing). G-d is Eternal. G-d is Both Just and Merciful. G-d is Holy and Perfect. G-d is our Father and our King.”

And lastly, the JewishEncyclopedia defines God (in terms of Elohim) as:

“The Supreme Being…the Creator, Author, and First Cause of the universe, the Ruler of the world and the affairs of men, the Supreme Judge and Father, tempering justice with mercy, working out His purposes through chosen agents—and communicating His will through the prophets and other appointed channels” (Emil G. Hirsch).

Again, a perspective that is entirely unitarian in nature as it relates to the Creator without any ambiguity as it relates to there being any other unnamed entities working in concert in the great work of creation. In other words: the title/term Elohim as used in Genesis 1 and 2 denoted One Divine being who possessed a unique name (often mistranslated as LORD by our English translators). He alone was responsible for that which was created.

But Don’t Forget Genesis 1:26–“Let Us Make Man…Indeed, many pro-trinitarians and binitarians will point to Genesis 1:26 which reads:

“And God (Elohim) said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

as proof positive, in conjunction with the plural nature of the term Elohim, that Father had helpers in the work of the creation.

Is this verse the proverbial “smoking gun” to the pluralists’ Trinitarian/Binitarian insistence that Elohim is composed of two or three members of a so-called Godhead? The answer to this little puzzle requires that we answer a very simple, basic question: laying aside any preconceive perceptions that the Father was accompanied in His creative work by the Son, and even by the Holy Spirit, who else would have been with the Father during the time of the Creation?

To begin with, it would have been safe to say that the angels may have been with the Father during this critical moment in history. Furthermore, it is an equally good probability that the beasts as foretold to us through Master’s revelation to John the Apostle may also have been present (Revelation) at the time of the creation. Just saying. And then there is a good possibility there could have been the 24-elders who adorn the throne room of the Most High as revealed to us in the Book of Revelation. (Although I doubt they would have been present in the throne room at the time of the Creation as I have other ideas of who and what the 24-elders are.)

We are compelled to examine the evidence that is before us in totality and not base our ultimate understanding on isolated biblical sound-bites and presumptions.

It makes more contextual sense that when Father was creating the heavens and the earth, and when He said “Let us make man in Our image; according to Our likeness” in verse 26, Father was, according to Anthony Buzzard, “likely addressing His heavenly council.”

Job 38:4-7 reads:

“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Where upon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy?”

When weighing whether to go against Ramothgilead (i.e., located in ancient Syria), Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, approached the King of Israel. The King of Israel was encouraged by the King of Judah to consult his nation’s prophets, who numbering about 400, encouraged the kings to take on Ramothgilead, citing that “Adonai shall deliver it (the Kingdom of Ramothgilead) into the hand of the king” (I Kings 21:6). It appears that Jehoshaphat, the King of Judah, was not satisfied with the favorable admonishment of the prophets of Israel. Thus he asked the King of Israel, “…Is there not here a prophet of Y’hovah besides, that we might inquire of him” (verse 7)? With complete disgust, the King of Israel conceded that there was indeed a prophet of Yah in the land that seemed to speak the Words of Yah that more times than not were not favorable to the King of Israel. The King of Judah, nonetheless, encouraged the King of Israel to consider what that prophet had to say. That prophet was Micaiah. Thus, the King of Israel humored the King of Judah and fetched Micaiah the prophet, and when asked by the kings whether to wage war against Ramothgilead, and after a little bantering about, Micaiah painted this astounding picture with words:

“Hear the Word of Yahovah. I saw Yahovah sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. (Note, there is nothing mentioned in this pronouncement of other, equal, divine beings, but specifically “the host of heaving” who were collectively standing by the Creator on His right and on His left.”)

In Conclusion

What more needs to be said regarding the term/title, Elohim? The Bible offers numerous explanations as to the unitarian nature of Father in relation to the term Elohim. I’ve given you my thoughts and reflections on the matter. It now comes down to where you fall out on this term, Elohim. I trust that what I’ve given to you here provides you the wherewithal to conduct your own investigation into the term Elohim.