Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.

[DanielGracely]

Hi backwoodsman,

I show myself weak to the weak, but show myself strong to the strong. Between the two of us you were the first to respond to what the other fellow said, and you cited a quote implicitly accusing me of assuming "that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism." That was a baseless and aggressive charge, since those holding such a view reject supernatural revelation in favor of the supposed evolutionary development of Israelite religion; therefore I denied it. Furthermore, you throw out a comment about my believing in a theologian conspiracy but then claim foul when I dismantle your views with strong rhetoric until you play the victim card. Perhaps this just isn't the best venue for you.

I especially find it ironic that you feel the need to lecture me about having a Christ-like attitude about Body relations, when you don't even have the courage to publicly identify with Christ on this forum by putting your real name to your posts. That much, at least, I would have respected. Confession of Christ before men is no confession when done anonymously.

[jeremiah]

hello daniel,

i went back and read backwoodsman's first post. i think you jumped to quickly in concluding that he was implicitly accusing you of assuming " ...." go back and look at it. the part he emphasized in bold was before the sentence you took offense to.

i hold to a minority view or two myself. if communion with Christ and the love of the brethren is what we want to maintain, than thick skin must be developed and maintained when discussing our minority views.

grace and peace...

[DanielGracely]

i went back and read backwoodsman's first post. i think you jumped to quickly in concluding that he was implicitly accusing you of assuming " ...." go back and look at it. the part he emphasized in bold was before the sentence you took offense to.

Wow. So because backwoodsman's accusation was more subtle than highlighted, that excuses him? Why would he include a sentence even if it only implicitly accused me of rejecting supernatural revelation and believing in the evolutionary development of Israelite religion—a charge essentially accusing me of not being a Christian— when he could just as easily have omitted that sentence with 3 dots ["..."]. He didn't. Sadly, now you're defending him. I wonder, really, with how much mercy you yourself would respond if someone effectively charged you with not being a Christian because of one of your ideas.

The point is, the Scriptures tell us, “as much as lieth within you, live peaceably with all men. ” I think I have stayed within that admonition, despite your feeling I haven’t lived up to some level of expectation of yours. I realize you think you are trying to maintain the unity of the Body of Christ, and so I don’t fault you in your motivation.

But what you nevertheless fail to realize is that I act from an uncomely spiritual gift. Such gifts, which Paul mentions, are not uncomely because the persons using them are uncomely. They are uncomely because they make most Christians uncomfortable, and so most Christians prefer that these uncomely gifts not be expressed. These include the gift of knowledge, which often corrects. If you have this gift, you will find that there is no ‘good’ way to correct, wherein people respond positively to you. For by definition that’s not how people react to uncomely gifts. Even a Christian doesn’t say, “I find it comely that you have corrected me.” Moreover, the admonishing tone of the prophets and of Christ and of Paul was sometimes very severe, and at times even sarcastic. I once had a biblical counselor tell me that sarcasm was the last venue God uses when a people won’t listen to any other approach. Paul used it in Corinth with those who challenged the expression of his spiritual gift, and he also used it with the unbelieving Athenians who mocked him (shown in Luke’s use of the Gr. hos). Even Christ Himself was known to have used sarcasm with unbelievers. Therefore, how could you know, for example, that I am not the voice of God’s exasperation to His own Body in this matter of Elohim, because of its long neglect? Or why would you suppose, if you do, that God has not reserved for himself others to be his voice of exasperation with His Church in other matters where the Body needs correction—in doctrine, in knowledge, and so forth? In short, surely when it comes to the Body’s neglect, God knows that when nothing else has gotten a people’s attention, tone will. That is why there is a time and season for every purpose under heaven. For there is a time when the servant of the Lord should not strive but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach; patient. But as there is also a time—as the prophets sent by the Lord showed, when, because of a people’s long neglect of the truth, a different form of censure is required.

You see, real tolerance is not just in making allowance for the other fellow’s spiritual gift, but also in understanding how he is NOT gifted. To one is given the gift of faith; to another, knowledge; to another, wisdom; to another, prophecy; to another, teaching; to another, mercy, etc. And so, Jeremiah, let us hypothetically say your gift is mercy. This means that the Spirit is always working in your life toward helping you realize how you can be merciful in a given circumstance. But that is not how God is primarily working with others. To them He is either giving knowledgable insight about difficult sayings of the Bible, or giving wisdom about what to do in the practical matters of life, or how best to teach a lesson, or how most effectively to pastor a flock, etc. None of these other people are being reminded by God about opportunities to exhibit mercy to the same degree God is reminding and encouraging you. This is why the Bible says “as much as lieth within you, live peaceably with all men.” For it lies differently in men according to their gifts. And to the one who is given much, much is required. If God by his Spirit intervenes in your mind to constantly exhort and encourage you 24/7 about when and how you can demonstrate mercy, much demonstration of mercy from you is required. But, conversely, God will not hold others accountable to the same standard of demonstrating mercy. That is, one Christian may find that he can overlook an egregious sin and not ask for an apology; but another may decide to retain the sin and press the person for repentance. Yet another might split these two, contenting himself mostly by expressing his indignation without necessarily asking for an apology. One sidenote: I hope that what I am saying here is not confused with the idea that sin is relative and therefore only in the eye of the beholder. Only what God considers sin is a sin. What is left to us is how we deal with someone sinning against us.

Anyway, I realize not everyone has been given a spirit akin to the compulsive Socratic tendency to examine every statement to see if it is true. And so, I don’t blame backwoodsman for not having the same gift of knowledge as I, in those matters which God has laid on my heart. But I will defend the use of my gift. And I may also defend myself against any charge, however subtly and implicitly made, that I am not a Christian. And if the problem here is that backwoodsman does not realize the import of his words, or the words that he quotes, this error goes to a point about the basic meaning of words and the importance of not using them idly, not to the question about whether or not he has NOT the gift of knowledge, which otherwise might have excused him.

At this point the conversation has moved away from the direct subject of this thread, into Body relations and thus (I suppose) Ecclesiology. Therefore at this point I won’t be responding to comments not related to the thread. So if either you or backwoodsman wishes to continue this conversation along these latter lines, I trust you will begin your own thread under Eccessiology, or whatever other subject Body relations fits best. I also trust that you and he, before admonishing me or anyone else on this site about what you think Christian behavior should look like, will identify yourselves publicly with Christ on this forum by putting your actual name(s) to your comments. Otherwise, at this point your anonymous criticism WOULD speak to your motives, and I, for one, will not respond. I think that is the very least you should do.

[jriccitelli]

Daniel, I enjoy your gracious candor and diplomacy, as much as you must enjoy my annoying sarcasm. I started to enjoy your research but the conclusion is not there.
It's rather tedious to say the Sun is 'not' white without telling us 'what it is then' if it is not white.
If you are telling us God is not One God, then what is God? What is your answer? I guess you are saying God is One God, but that the Hebrew scribes meant Gods every time they spoke of Elohim because they had no better word for Him, despite the contradiction of calling God Gods when 'to them' there was only One God. (?)

I have no objection to someone using an alias on the internet, some of us involved in active ministry 'do' receive needless death threats, and we have to think of our own families safety as 'more important' than online forums debates. There are people out there who hate us for no other reason than our opinion and searching for people to attack (or hack) anonymously.

As much as I love the study of Theology proper, I am having trouble with the undiplomatic tone. I have never seen anything of an intentional accusation in any of Backwoods posts, he seems, like many here, rather fair, balanced, and good natured.

There are plenty of people here with traditional and non-traditional views, and they are 'not' attacking a persons person for having a differing view-point.

[jeremiah]

good morning daniel,

because backwoodsman's accusation was more subtle than highlighted, that excuses him?

it at least leaves open the possibility that you misread his intentions.

Sadly, now you're defending him. I wonder, really, with how much mercy you yourself would respond if someone effectively charged you with not being a Christian because of one of your ideas.

you don't have to wonder, verbatim did that very thing, only when he charged that against me, his words left much less to my imagination(imo)

Jeremiah greetings, I’m very sorry that you were frustrated and confused about my response which I fully understood that you are holding in a dichotomy and rejected the doctrine of trichotomy of human nature.
I am no longer surprise that you cannot admit that man is constituted by three parts; spirit, soul and body discounting in what was written in 1 Thess 5:23 & 1 John 5:7-8.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.
Because every works of man that he deed shall be brought to judgment, what do you think must do according to Scripture?
1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
What does it mean to judge ourselves? And who is ourselves?
2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
So,maybe you fully acknowledge your ownselves more than any man, why did the Scripture said that you must examine your ownselves. Ask your self who is me and who is Jesus Christ that is in me. If you know Jesus Christ is in you, then it is the time that you had leave the doctrine and tradition of man.
Do you really Know if who is Jesus, henceforth Jesus said in John 8;19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
I’ll give you some questionnaire to answer, who is He?
John 1:9-11 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
v.10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
v.11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

.

to which i responded:

...no brother, i think you got me wrong. there is no need to be sorry. i was not in the least frustrated or confused regarding your response. i just come from a different perspective than you on this matter. regarding the other passages you cited, all i can do is assure you that every word of God is precious to me. i do not discount anything you pointed to. i merely understand them differently than you do. actually, i am neither a dichotomist or a tricotomist, i think both are false. it seems you think this is an issue that should cause me to examine whether i am in the faith. brother, i respectfully disagree. we may never come to agreement on this topic in this world, but that's ok, if you are in Christ, then i'll see you on the last day, or maybe before then, who knows. "...for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."...

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... a&start=10

it's not my intention to get you to drop this thread's discussion. i'm actually finding it interesting, though i don't accept all your premises or conclusions. nor would i argue your gifts. i guess you and i have a different idea of what peace with all men entails,(and no, i am not implying yours to be inferior to my definition of peace)

my name is jeremiah dillashaw (in case you meant my last name also), one can see that on every post, you can also see where i live, where do you live? it appears you're maintaining some level of anonymity as well. is gracely your last name? if mistakenly, i'm sorry, but i took that to be a clever play on words.

grace and peace is with us...

[DanielGracely]

Hi jriccitelli,

I'm pleased to address that portion of your comment related to this thread. I think I stated in my opening post that I believe Elohim is a Corporate One. As for "God" in the sense of what this word should mean in English, I think this word can mean either Elowah, i.e., ONE of the Persons of Elohim, or the WHOLE of the Godhead when Elohim wishes to emphasize His singularity of purpose instead of the plurality of His Persons. And when I use the term "His Persons," I don't at all mean to suggest "His [Him]" is something other than a plurality of Persons. Rather, I am just trying to be respectful of how Elohim expresses His identity with the singular pronoun, to (imo) emphasize unity of action, rather than separateness of function. Again, all I am asking for in the translations is a quid pro quo of the Hebrew and Greek plural and singular to their English counterparts.

I think there is a reason why Elohim is so often conjoined to singular verbs and pronouns in the O.T. For before Christ actually came in His incarnation and actually accomplished His work, I think Elohim found less reason via moral authority to emphasize the different functions of the Godhead, which, in fact, were yet to be revealed in the N.T. with much greater contrast. Conversely, in the N.T. it seems to be largely about the differing functions of the Persons of the Godhead, and so we have the frequent terms "Son of Man," "Son," Father," and "Holy Spirit."

Finally, by analogy we might think of “God” as water, ice, and water vapor, EACH of which is H2O (i.e., singular), and yet ALL of which are H2O (i.e., plural). This is probably not a perfect analogy, since material things are not equivalent to everything that persons are. But I think that is the general idea.

[mattrose]

A few thoughts on this thread...

1. I re-read it in an attempt to see where the spirit of the debate went south, and it is hard to find a particular post/point. I noticed a gradual escalation in the aggressiveness of the rhetoric. I suggest that this would not occur if posters made it a habit to begin and/or end their posts with a friendly reminder that we are brothers/sisters in Christ and that, though we argue our opinions passionately, we realize that other Christians may have different opinions and still be family.

2. Daniel, I suppose your view of the trinity is not mainstream since you seem to be uncomfortable with a word like monotheism being used to describe elohim. But I do think there is a trend in theology to start with the trinity (are you comfortable with that word?) and then try to understand how they are unified (as opposed to the classic idea of starting with unity and then trying to understand how 'it' can be 'three'). Most, in this trend, are still comfortable with the concept of monotheism I think, but I don't think they would UNDERSTAND monotheism very differently from what your position seems to be. They might not answer the 'one what?' question by saying 'one corporate entity,' but that is probably close to what they mean and that answer may not be overly objectionable from your point of view (though you can correct me if I'm wrong about that).

3. I don't think the classical trinitarian view is as vulnerable to the charge of lacking a moral dimension as you imagine. However confused you think classic trinitarianism may be, it is still TRInitiarianism. There is still relationship there, even if we don't wholly understand.

4. I think your point about translating elohim is a good issue to raise. Frankly, though, I would prefer something between the way they do it now (Translating it singular to match the verbage) and your recommendation (Translating it plural and leaving the verbage in the singular). I would prefer they leave it ELOHIM and let the reader investigate. I would think you would find this option to be pleasing, and a victory for your side (since Elohim is a plural word). But it would also leave room for the opinion of the ISBE to be heard. Since there is a chance that the ISBE is correct (that the intention of the writers doesn't translate well into English), translating Elohim as 'gods' in such cases could give a false impression.

5. In any case, simply translating elohim as God where the translators see fit also gives a false impression to the average reader. It should, at the very least, be footnoted with comment about the plural nature of the Hebrew word.

I appreciate the passion in this discussion

Elohim Bless!

[DanielGracely]

Matt writes:

Most, in this trend, are still comfortable with the concept of monotheism I think, but I don't think they would UNDERSTAND monotheism very differently from what your position seems to be.

Actually, Matt, my concern is that the trend of Christian monotheism is moving away from understanding monotheism in the corporate sense. I say this because of two reasons. First, because it was primarily a statement by Calvinist John Piper (in a Crosswalk.com article, some years ago) that first drew my attention to the fact that even a well-known professing Christian can couch the "Trinity" in such terms that the corporate oneness of God is essentially lost. And I believe this is rather typical of Calvinism. The second is that Time Magazine in its March 12, 2009 cover feature article, "10 Ideas Changing Our World Right Now," believes "The New Calvinism" is one of the 10 Ideas changing the way people think. My own experience, not to mention the Southerm Baptist Convention’s (of which I am not a part) would seem to confirm Calvinism’s growing influence.

As much as I generally avoid trying to copy and paste a paragraph or so of my book into a online comment, I don’t think I can express the matter better than how I did some years ago in footnote 18 of chapter 9 of my book, Calvinism: A Closer Look:

Calvinist John Piper, in an article called, “Is God for Us or for Himself?” concludes at the end of his article:
“God is the one Being in the entire universe for whom self-centeredness, or the pursuit of his own glory, is the ultimately loving act. For him, self-exaltation is the highest virtue.”

Although in his article Piper also mentions God glorifying Himself in the redemptive process, his remarks miss the fact of God’s selflessness seen in the Godhead’s individual Persons. For the Son would in fact do only that which the Father showed Him to do, and the Father was committed to support only that which the Son requested in return (even if to the point of willing to rescue Christ in Gethsemane and to the breaking of Scripture) Thus for Piper to speak of God as “one Being” who seeks His own glory is false…. [For] note that Jesus said, “The Spirit speaketh not of Himself but of me.” Where in Piper’s article is such a distinction pointed out? For Piper speaks of “God’s intention in sending his son,” instead of “The Father’s intention in sending His son,” which would have stated the matter correctly; for Christ Himself said He came not on His own but because the Father sent Him. Piper thus misses the point, i.e., that the motive of the Father is to glorify the person of the Son, and that the motive of the Son is to glorify the person of the Father, and that as Each does so, the person of the Spirit (who supports the work of the Son as designed by the Father) is also glorified. That is different than stating that God’s motive is to glorify God, and that God is one Being. In the end, then, Piper’s view of the Persons of the Godhead is divine musketeerish—all for one, and one for all—in which one’s motive is not merely for the benefit of others but also for himself. While it is true that glory ultimately redounded to the Father for having sent His Son, this realization did not inform the Father’s motive, as the Bible makes clear. The Father has never been selfish in that sense, i.e., in the sense that Piper means. Piper uses the term ’self-centeredness,’ but there is a 180° difference between God centering and orienting the world properly according to Himself as the Creator and Final Judge of the creature man, and what Piper is describing, which in fact would be divine selfishness….

Nowhere here or in Piper’s entire article does Piper state anything about the sacrificial nature of the individual Persons within the Godhead or how such selflessness informs the definition of who God really is.
[end of book quote]

Matt, some time after my wife and I left a particular church, a wave of pro-Piper-ism affected many there. I was told that Piper’s adherents were known at the church as “Piper heads”, though whether this was intended as a derisive or endearing label, I don’t know. Probably both. Anyhow, I was told that Piper-ism was particularly strong in the young people’s group, where the two leaders stressed the importance of Calvinist doctrine through the principle of “beholding the beauty of Christ.” I’m familiar enough with Calvinism to understand how such a phrase doesn’t mean to reference the Son’s selflessness and intent NOT to glorify himself as the Person of the Son, but to instead motivate the devotee to simply accept the oneness of What IS, and approve of it, as coming from a benign God whose right is to glorify Himself and who exhaustively and irresistibly brings to pass everything we read about in the newspapers.

So, actually, I am concerned that among Christians the proper understanding of Elohim is moving away from the proper understanding that God is one in the corporate sense.

[mattrose]

I don't doubt your experience

I can only say I have the opposite experience

I personally know 1 single young person that seems passionate about Calvinism. Almost every young person I talk with where this issue comes up finds Calvinism somewhat ridiculous to be honest. What's more, I can hardly find a middle-aged or older person that finds it compelling! The New Calvinism is a growing trend on message boards, maybe. But I have my doubts that it has much ground level support. There are some strong personalities at the top, but I haven't seen it in real life with 1 exception.

Of course, I am a pastor in a Wesleyan (Arminian) Church. The Calvinists in my area are basically 1 point calvinists (eternal security). The typical Christian doesn't ponder, much, the distinctions regarding the Trinity. They simply believe in the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Most of the recent theological writings I've been reading trend TOWARD a more corporate trinity model, to be honest.

Like I said, clearly your experience in your area is different from mine (I live in the North-East, in Western NY state). I don't envy you. Perhaps if I was in an area or a circumstance where the new-calvinism was a strong as it seems to be where you're at, I'd have some of the same passionate concerns.

PS, I am curious as to your thoughts on my suggestion to simply leave the word untranslated (elohim)... certainly newer translations have done this with other difficult terms (like sheol/hades). I find this preferable.

[backwoodsman]

I especially find it ironic that you feel the need to lecture me about having a Christ-like attitude

Need? Oh, no, Daniel, I don't do this out of any sense of need. I'll always be thankful for several who tried to reach me at a time in my life when I was caught in a deeply rooted deception. I'm very grateful that they were willing to try, and gracefully bear my reactions that brought shame on the name of Jesus, even though they never saw any results from their efforts. It's an honor to be able to serve my Lord in this small way.