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

[DanielGracely]

Greetings Backwoodsman,

I'm glad that you came to value the spiritual gift of evangelism. May we all come to similarly value all the spiritual gifts.
Re: the actual subject of this thread, I was wondering if you had any futher comments about Elohim, Elowah, theos, etc.?

[DanielGracely]

Hello Matt,

I'm in South Jersey, near Philly. Calvinism has really grown in this region in the last 20 years or so. Aside from my experience and the young online bloggers you mention, the problem is mounting in the Southern Baptist Convention. Several years ago a poll was taken of graduates coming out of Southern Baptist seminaries. It found that only 10% of serving pastors in the SBC identified themselves as Reformed in their thinking, compared to 29% of Southern Baptist seminary graduates. If those numbers are representative of the country in general, it doesn’t bode well for where the American Church may be heading. I guess time will tell.

As for your suggestion about a transliteration of Elohim rather than the Englished "Gods", I see this as a step in the right direction but imo also a compromise, since it implies that Elohim has no quid pro quo equivalent in English. Still, I suppose half a loaf is better than none.

[DanielGracely]

A few days ago, I noticed a problem in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) entry of Elohim which Backwoodsman quoted, but I failed to point this out to readers at the time. The reason I bring attention to it now is to show the caution with which we should all approach such sources, rather than simply give them a free pass. In fact, I imagine most or all of the persons who have contributed to this discussion are probably already aware of the verses in John 10:34-35 that I’m about to cite, which is at the heart of the exception of ISBE’s claim. But first, speaking of Elohim, the ISBE states:

(1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Ps 96:5; 97:7).

It goes by quickly, doesn’t it? The word “uniformly”? As I pondered this word and looked it up on thefreedictionary.com, and then double-checked myself this morning by looking up the word online at the Merriam Webster site, I found that both dictionaries supported the primary definition that “uniformly” mean “unvarying” or “not variable”. In other words, there are no exceptions. And so, when the ISBE states that Elohim’s construction is uniformly singular unless used of heathen divinities, this must mean, if the ISBE is to be faithful according to the dictionaries, that the ONLY exception for Elohim ever meaning “Gods/gods” would be if the Elohim were heathen divinities.

However, in John 10:34-35, after Jesus sarcastically asks the Jews for which good work from His Father are they going to stone him, and the Jews answer that they are not going to stone him for any of the works but for blasphemy, since he, being a man, makes himself out to be God, Jesus replies by quoting from Psalm 82:6 to show that the categories of man and man’s Creator are indeed NOT immiscible categories:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Though in context of Psalm 86, in which Asaph the psalmist refers to the judges of Judah (and/or Israel?) to be elohim, it seems plain here in John 10 that Jesus is thinking of the humanness of the judges, not their judgeship, when he points out to the Jews intending to stone him that the Scriptures itself declares that “ye,” i.e., ye men, are gods (elohim). Jesus’ whole point is that it is possible for a man to also be eternal God, since the term “elohim” is used of humans in Psalm 86. Clearly, then, Jesus’ statement to the Jews is an exception not covered by the ISBE, which declares that the plural of Elohim “uniformly”, i.e., ALWAYS means heathen deities. In passing we note that heathen deities neither see nor hear nor speak nor think. But humans do.

And so, I think the question before us is how problematic is this exception to ISBE’s view of Elohim?

In fact, it seems considerable. For with John 10 we now have evidence that elohim can refer to men, i.e., plural beings, all of whom are made in the image of God. So, no longer are we talking about an “Elohim” that is merely the vain imaginations of Old Testament foreign peoples who stupidly assigned their mental constructs to carved wood or stone. (As Isaiah says, a man takes part of the same log and has an idol carved for himself, while putting the rest of the log into the fireplace for warmth, and considers it not.) And so, if such heathen imaginations were the only rival to what Elohim could mean, it would certainly help strengthen the position of the ISBE. But the strength is significantly diminished once it is shown that Elohim/elohim can mean a plurality of beings. Granted, it does not appear that Ps. 82:6, referring to men, conjoins the word Elohim with a singular verb or adjective, as it does with Elohim the Creator(s). But it does show that the plural form of Elohim can, in fact, mean a plurality of beings. And that is significant.

Finally, whereas Paidion showed us a N.T. example in which Hebrews 11:5 translated Elohim to the Greek word theos (singular), John 10 is a N.T. example that shows us that Elohim has been translated to the Greek plural. And so IF there were any assumptions among us that somehow Elohim was uniformly translated to the singular Greek word theos, that is shown disproved.

All of it more food for thought.

[backwoodsman]

I'm glad that you came to value the spiritual gift of evangelism. May we all come to similarly value all the spiritual gifts.

They weren't evangelists; they were just ordinary Christians who tried to correct an erring brother who would've been much better off had he reacted more humbly and graciously.

Certainly spiritual gifts should be highly valued. And of course, if we value them, we should treat them as though they mean something -- when someone claims to have some spiritual gift, we need to test both the gift and the person against scriptural standards so we can distinguish between real spiritual gifts given by God and used in His love and wisdom, and those that are counterfeit or simply imagined. The more authority someone claims based on an alleged spiritual gift, the more important this discernment becomes. You've made some rather startling claims in this regard, and have been displaying equally startling disregard for other indispensable parts of the equation, characteristics mentioned in Eph. 4:1-3 and Col. 3:12-13 being high on the list. At first glance, your claims seem unlikely to stand up well to the clear Biblical standards; what reason(s) can you offer that we should accept those claims?

In case it's not clear to someone, this is very much on topic -- if your claims prove true, we need to listen to what you say; if false, not so much. (1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1)

Re: the actual subject of this thread, I was wondering if you had any futher comments about Elohim, Elowah, theos, etc.?

I do, but absent a good reason, I generally avoid doctrinal discussions with those who aren't interested in being learners as well as teachers. At present it seems clear that you're very interested in teaching, and completely disinterested in learning.

[darinhouston]

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.

Here in the South (at least in Texas), it is more than pervasive -- it is almost exclusive among the circles I enjoy. I have a pretty wide net across a number of denominations due to some associations I have made through my children's activities and schools and church organizations across the state. I have VERY few people with whom my views on Sovereignty resonate (and I now attend a United Methodist Church). The pulpit is pretty sound, but these ideas are almost universal downhere. Even the bibles people carry are study bibles by Macarthur and Piper etc. and almost every bible study I have attended over the past 10 years (other than the ones I have presented to some chagrin) have been based (not based -- foundationally grounded) in and supported by articles and excerpts from Piper and Macarthur and the like. Even my child's school (a hybrid home-school/private University Model Classical school) has as a confession a very specific and rigid Trinitarian formulation. I thought I might be disqualified since I submitted with my application a description of how I couldn't affirm the particular Trinitarian formulation but that I wouldn't go out of my way to teach against it at home (he's in Kindergarten, so I think I can await his questions on such things at this age). A few years ago, I considered leaving my career and hometown to help setup a missional church with some leaders from my former church, but they were part of the Acts29 "non-denomination" and the elders and teachers had to confess essentially the Westminster Confession which I could not do in good conscience.

[mattrose]

Perhaps Western NY is a haven for Arminian theology....

[DanielGracely]

Greetings Backwoodsman,

You state:

…we need to test both the gift and the person against scriptural standards so we can distinguish between real spiritual gifts given by God and used in His love and wisdom, and those that are counterfeit or simply imagined. The more authority someone claims based on an alleged spiritual gift, the more important this discernment becomes. You've made some rather startling claims in this regard, and have been displaying equally startling disregard for other indispensable parts of the equation, characteristics mentioned in Eph. 4:1-3 and Col. 3:12-13 being high on the list. At first glance, your claims seem unlikely to stand up well to the clear Biblical standards; what reason(s) can you offer that we should accept those claims? (emphasis mine)

Is not the above underlined portion a false dichotomy which the Bible does not support? For you seem to think there are only two possible scenarios for a man. Either he IS gifted by the Spirit and IS walking in the Spirit, or else he IS NOT genuinely gifted by the Spirit but only a counterfeit. But the problem with this view is that a man may express truth even though he is not walking by the Spirit. In fact, some have spoken by the Spirit and not even been saved. Caiaphas is an obvious example here. The Bible tells us he was prompted by the Spirit to say that it was more expedient that one man should die, than that a whole nation perish. Yet Caiaphas was intent on murdering Christ. How odd, that a man could utter the truth while even being a Christ hater.

This is hardly a unique instance of how the spiritual is often attended by the carnal. The king of Assyria was instructed by God to war against the northern tribes of Israel and to carry them away into Exile. Yet the Assyrian king, having received this instruction by the Spirit and even carrying it out, nevertheless added his own agenda of terrorizing other surrounding nations about which God had given him no instructions. Also, Joseph’s brothers were instructed by God to sell Joseph into slavery, yet they added their own agenda of jealousy and hatred. And Samson, though obedient for a while in not cutting his hair, by the power of the Spirit removed the gates of the city and carried them away to a hill, though he had just slept with a prostitute. And then there is Balaam who uttered blessing upon Israel, though he advised his employer how to intermingle in marriage his children with those of Israel’s, and thus turn Israel away from God. All these are examples in which the Spirit operated despite the failings of men.

Moreover, note that when Paul says that if he fed the poor and gave his body to be burned but had not charity, "it profiteth me nothing.” That is, he doesn’t say that it profited nothing, but only that it profiteth HIM nothing. For feeding the poor would certainly have benefited the poor, despite whatever skewed motivation Paul could have had. Even so, Paul states clearly that if he had all knowledge and understood all mysteries but had not charity, “I am nothing.” That is, it is not that he didn’t have knowledge. He did. But he says it would be HIMSELF who would be nothing. It is not that the knowledge is nothing. For this reason also Paul admonishes us all to “speak the truth in love.” But then why would Paul admonish us to speak the truth in love, were it not possible to speak the truth unlovingly? But implied in your view is that one cannot speak the truth UNLESS he is loving. And so, the Bible simply doesn’t support the false dichotomy that you’ve set up. In fact, my pointing this out to you is evidence that it is I, not you, that expresses knowledge according to the Spirit in this matter. (You asked for evidence of my gift.)

But to say that I am expressing knowledge here according to the Spirit is not at all a proof that I am spiritual. In fact, nowhere in all this thread have I ever made any claims about being “spiritual” in the way that word is normally understood. In fact, generally I don’t feel particularly spiritual, nor do I think of myself as a “spiritual person.” I have merely said that I believe I have the gift of knowledge that benefits others. And this isn’t a claim about all knowledge by any means, but only those areas to which I apply myself for a substantial amount of time. And even then it is only in the general sense.

But, of course, you’re right to say we ought to live according to the ideals of Eph. 4:1-3, etc. But who does this consistently? Do you? Did not even Paul say toward the end of his life that he didn’t consider himself to have apprehended? Indeed, it seems about the only thing we might manage consistently is to repent daily of our behavior! For surely, as we journey through our life’s circumstances, we experience some admixture of faith with doubt, or humility with pride, or proper focus with neglect. Yet you admonish me as though your own attitude needs no improvement. Do you really feel that way—above reproach? Your words certainly suggest that, despite your implied claim that your pride and ungraciousness are now in the past. Most of us have a long way to go, Backwoodsman. I have never supposed anything differently about myself in this regard.

And what is this about your having ideas about the Trinity but that you won’t share them because (in your opinion) I’m not willing to learn? Is my response or lack thereof the primary thing here that ought to determine whether or not you share what you believe is the truth? Are there no 3rd party readers who have been contributing here that you feel could not benefit from your views? Or are there no strangers who one day may stumble across this thread? Believe me, based on the numerous questions I have put to you, and your responses, I think it highly unlikely that you will concede the general points of this comment. (I mean, I hope you will, but I see nothing in your past responses that gives me that confidence.) But I know others are listening in, and I trust they will be helped. If you really feel I am so far afield, why would you allow my obstinacy to be the thing preventing you from sharing?

Anyway, I am not unmindful of the many objections I have raised against the traditional Trinitarian view that so far you have not countered effectively. Nor am I unmindful that your astonishing array of ad hominem attacks in your last post seem now to be your only strategy of response. Is it really that important for you to try to discredit my message via my person? But then, have you never heard of the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument? Indeed, such attempts of this nature always fail, since the message and person are separable. But besides all this, what if I am nothing? So what? How would that excuse you, or me, or anyone else here, from giving creditable answers to the issues at hand?

God bless,

[jriccitelli]

I think keeping Elohim in Hebrew 'sounds' like a good idea (Although, Elohim alone would look and sound as if it was a personal pronoun, like Jehovah), but wouldn't you 'again' be left with the question of whether to render it as 'the' Elohim or just Elohim?

[DanielGracely]

Hi jriccitelli,
This is a good question, but I would probably have to give this particular point some further study before answering it with much confidence. I did notice that an online Interlinear Hebrew text did not give the article, though I think, like Greek, there can be articles before Hebrew nouns (or at least some nouns). Also, the Interlinear had something like "in the beginning/ he created / Elohim / the heavens and the earth." And so perhaps some would feel that "he" ought to appear in Genesis 1:1. On the other hand, I think it's typical in Hebrew to e.g., speak of "the man /he travels" which would seem to make the "he" unnecesary (at least in some instances). Sorry I can't be of more help here.

[DanielGracely]

To all,

At this point, because I have spent a number of evenings well past midnight writing and editing comments, I would be in danger, were I to continue blogging here, of neglecting my work, my family, etc. Even under normal circumstances I often tire easily, and lack of rest makes it worse. I'm not blaming anyone here for my decision to engage. But I am ending my participation under this thread for at least the forseeable future. That is, it's possible I could return, but it seems to me that under this thread I have covered everything that reasonably I should have. And so, if there be anyone here who still feels I have not answered them properly, it strikes me as unlikely that any thoughts I could add would make a difference to them, either to the persuasion of my argument or to the question of my motivation. Indeed, were I to continue blogging I would surely weary even 3rd party readers at this point. And besides, I am reminded of Lincoln, who said that if he spent all of his time refuting the charges of those who opposed him, he would have time for nothing else.

To everything there is a time and purpose under heaven. There is a time for debate, but there is also a time to cease from striving. But of this latter point the Bible assures us it is to the glory of a man. And so, I hope I have not extended that time of discussion beyond that possibility of blessing.

Sincerely,