What about Elohim in Genesis 1?

When faced with the scriptural statement that God is one, trinitarian Christians will sometimes point to the use of the Hebrew word “Elohim” in Genesis 1:1,26 & 27. They assert that because Elohim is a plural noun used with singular verbs for God that it indicates that God is both singular and plural. In addition, they teach that the combination of God saying “let us make man in our image” in verse 26 (a plural reference) and “God created man in his own image” in verse 27 (a singular reference) demonstrates their point that God is a trinity, both three and one. They view it as evidence that the trinity is clearly taught in the bible. However, if we look at these assertions more deeply, we will see that they are not entirely correct, and that to infer a trinity doctrine from the use of Elohim in the scriptures is misleading and bordering on ignorance of the ancient Hebrew language and its use in scripture. So, let’s check out the details and evaluate these claims more closely.

Elohim and Genesis 1:1

Genesis, the first book of the bible, starts out by saying “In the beginning, God created…”, and the Hebrew word for “God” used here is “Elohim”. Elohim is a very interesting word. It is often described as a name of God. Although it is mostly used to refer to God and translated as “God”, the truth of the matter is that Elohim is not exclusively used to refer to “God” in the scriptures. It is a word sometimes used to refer to judges, angels, deities (gods and goddesses), idols and men, such as Moses. Here is a sample of verses where “Elohim” is used to refer to someone other than God Almighty:

In total, elohim (including its inflected forms) is used 2606 times in the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures. In less than 260 times, it is used to refer to someone other than God. Also, it is also interesting to note that elohim is actually a plural word in Hebrew, yet it can used to describe either a plural or singular referent. It is important to understand that this is an aspect of the Hebrew language with certain words. This is not unique or exclusive to the word elohim. However, to make this point clearer, we can look at the example above of Moses being referred to as “a god” in Exodus 7:1. The plural word elohim is used, but the Greek translation is the accusative singular theon. There is actually no Hebrew or Greek word for the article “a”, but the clear meaning is that elohim singularly refers to Moses. Does this make Moses to be multi-person? Of course not! We see the same usage to other gods such as Baalzebub and Ashtoreth, but this also does not make them out to be multi-person. So, let’s see if we can understand elohim a bit better.

Properly understanding elohim

To properly understand elohim we need to examine its form, etymology, meaning and usage in the Hebrew language. In the English language as a general rule, we typically add -s or -es to the end of a word to make it plural. Similarly, in the Hebrew language, for masculine words we add ים [Yud Mem] (-im) to the end of the singular masculine word to make it plural. As such, elohim (אֱלֹהִים) is the plural form of eloha (אֱלֹהַּ), and eloha is the emphatic form of el (אֵל). The word el has a direct plural form when you add -im to it as well, which will form the word elim (אֵלִם). So, in essence, we have 4 hebrew words that relate to each other, and they are all used in scripture with slightly different (but similar) applications, and meanings. We need to examine these 4 words to see how they relate to each other and how they are used.

So, let’s start with el, which is often translated as God but really has the meaning of “power”. In addition to being translated as “God”, it is also translated as “god”, “mighty”, “might”, “power”, “idol”, “great”, “strong”, and “goodly”. According to Gesenius, el is scarcely ever applied to God in prose by itself without the use of some adjunct or attribute (such as el shaddai, el eliyon, etc.), or without some cognomen (such as a name, or surname; eg. Israel). In contrast, el is more frequent in poetic language by itself without any adjunct. It is a general name of gods, and it is also used of idols. To the ancient Hebrews this word el denotes the notion of power and strength.

The plural of el is elim, and this word is used very infrequently in scripture. It is formed by adding “-im” to “el” and it is translated as “gods”. One example of the use of elim in scripture is Exodus 15:11 (“…LORD among the gods?” [בָּֽאֵלִם יְהוָה (ba-elim YeHoVaH)]). It is translated as various words, such as “gods”, “heroes” and “mighty ones”.

The prolonged (emphatic) form of el is eloha and is only used in poetry and later Hebrew. It is used of any god, but mostly of the true God. It is found about 57 times in scripture.

Elohim is the plural form of eloha and occurs over 2600 times in the scriptures. As a plural form, it can have various applications. It can be applied to a plural referent or a singular referent. This is because its plural form not does only denote a quantity greater than one. In “A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew”, Jouon and Muraoka state that in the Hebrew language various types of plurals are distinguished, which include “plurals of composition, of extension, of excellence or of majesty, of intensity, and of abstraction”. Elohim can also express a plural of excellence or majesty. From a grammatical viewpoint, when Elohim is constructed in a sentence with a singular verb or used with a singular adjective, it is taken in a singular sense, and is understood as referring to a plural of excellence or majesty. It can also be understood as denoting higher powers, according to Gesenius. So, in Genesis 1:1, when Elohim is used to refer to God in the singular, it is an expression of the plural of majesty of God being the creator and and expression of all the powers involved in creation. It is not any sort of dual meaning relating to plurality of persons, which is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. It is a valid use of the plural word elohim to express the majesty and powers of a singular God in creation. The singular reference of elohim in Genesis 1:1 is also supported in the Greek LXX translation where it is translated as the singular word, “theos”.

The idea that the plural word Elohim can relate to a singular referent and can be distinguished as a plural of excellence or majesty, and not just a plural of quantity, is not unique in the Hebrew language. There are other plural words in Hebrew that can have a singular referent:

In fact, this idea of a plural form having a singular referent, or vice versa, is also in the English language. Take for example, words like “sheep” which can be singular or plural, or “pants”, or “data”, or “news”, just to name a few. These are all words whose form does not directly indicate whether it is singular or plural in number.

Genesis 1:26 and ‘let us make’

Genesis 1:26 adds another layer to the idea of plurality and singularity of elohim and its related verbs that we have to peel back to really understand. We are really only examining the first few words of this verse, “God said, ‘let us make man…”. In these first few words, we have God speaking, and he makes the statement “let us make man…”. In English, the focus is on the plural pronoun, “us”, but in the Hebrew, there is no pronoun in that clause, but rather the first person plural verb form, na’ase (the equivalent Greek translation in the LXX is also in the first person plural verb form, poiesomen). In everyday speech, when a person says “let us [do something]…”, he or she is speaking of or to others, including himself or herself. Trinitarian Christians take this to mean that God is speaking about himself in the plural as “us” and thus is hinting at his plurality of persons. This is a grammatically untenable interpretation, as expressed in the notes of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

The use of the 1st pers. plur. is a well-known crux of interpretation. How are we to explain its occurrence in the utterance of the Almighty?…

i. Until recently, the traditional Christian interpretation has seen in the 1st pers. plur. a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The requirements of a sound historical exegesis render this view untenable: for it would read into the Book of Genesis the religious teaching which is based upon the Revelation of the New Testament.

ii. It has been regarded as a survival of polytheism, and has been compared with “Elohim,” a plural word for “God” which some regard as a relic of polytheism. But “Elohim, in the present context, is always combined with a verb in the singular. Why should “said” be in the singular, if “let us” indicates the plurality of Gods? Again, any departure from the strictest monotheism is unthinkable in the writing of the Priestly Code. The explanation may safely be dismissed as improbable in the extreme.

Of course, there are very detailed explanations of what is meant by that clause said by God. However, the main question is whether God was speaking to others, to himself, or to other persons in some Trinity. Grammatically, we know that elohim in this verse is a singular reference because the verb “said” (in Hebrew, vayyo’mer) is the third person masculine singular verb form. If elohim really referred to a multi-person entity in the form of the Trinity, then why would the scriptures refer to God as speaking in the singular? It should instead use the third person plural form (in Hebrew, vayyo’mru). What we see, rather, is a singular God saying, “let’s make…”. So, God seems to be speaking to others. Were there other beings present during the creation events? Are there other times in scripture where God utters the first person plural verb form? Apparently there are only 4 places in the entirety of scripture where God speaks and uses either a plural pronoun “us” or the first person plural verb form:

It is interesting to note that apart from these 4 passages, there are tens of thousands of verses where God speaks using first person singular verbs and pronouns. If God was truly multi-person, then why is this the case? Why is it that only in these 4 verses, God uses the first person plural when talking? If God was a multi-person trinity then shouldn’t the scriptures honestly present him as such and shouldn’t he use “we” and “us” all the time? Instead what we see is numerous times where God says “I”, “me” and “my”.

In the book of Isaiah, there are multiple references (Isaiah 42:5; 43:7; 44:24; 45:12 & 18) to creation, and God is described as using the first person singular “I”, not “we” or “us”. Particularly in Isaiah 44:24, it says, “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;”. And in Genesis 1:27, we read, “So God created (third person singular) man in his [own] image”, which shows that God (elohim) is a singular person who created man and everything alone, by himself (not by ‘themselves’ as a trinity of persons). As a support to this, we can even reference Jesus who said in Matthew 19:4, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female”. Notice that not only did Jesus refer to God as a singular entity “he”, he also did not include himself to be present at creation in any form whatsoever.

Who is speaking to whom

So, who is God speaking to in Genesis 1:26? In my research about this, I came across various explanations as answers to this question:

1. God the father speaking to the other two persons of the holy trinity: This is what trinitarian Christians want everyone to believe about the simple verse. They assert that because elohim is a plural word and says “let us make…” it shows evidence that God the father is speaking to the other two persons of the trinity godhead. This assertion cannot be substantiated neither grammatically or exegetically, nor by any detail in the text itself. There is no mention of “trinity”, “God the father”, “other persons”, “godhead”, or anything of the sort that could even hint at this claim. This is all the in the collective imagination of trinitarians, which they have taught many unsuspecting Christians over the centuries. As we have revealed about the use and meaning of elohim in the Hebrew language, this interpretation really has no valid foundation.
2. God is speaking to himself using ‘we of majesty’ idiom: I already showed that elohim as a noun is the plural of majesty form of el. However, there is an idiom referred to as ‘we of majesty’, in which a monarch would speak of himself or herself in the plural as “we” or “us”. This explanation seems possible, but in my research, I found mixed support, for and against this. According to a footnote on page 469 of A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Jouon and Muraoka state clearly that “The we of majesty does not exist in Hebrew”. In contrast to this statement, I was actually able to find a scripture that show the use of ‘we of majesty’ directly, Ezra 4:18, but the commentator said this example was from a very late period of Biblical literature and may not be relevant to the text in Genesis. I don’t think the expression is best explained from this line of reasoning.
3. God is speaking to himself using the plural of deliberation: This possibility is listed in the notes of the Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges, and gives the idea that “there is more solemnity and dignity in the words, ‘let us make man in our own image’, than would have been conveyed in the words, ‘let me (or, I will) make man in my own image'”. Although it seems somewhat reasonable for consideration, I don’t really agree with this point, as it gives no explanation for how this could be relevant to the passage. It is just an unsubstantiated assertion.
4. God is speaking to his heavenly host: Was God by himself when during the creation event, or were there others with him as witnesses to the event? In Job 38:6-7, we read, “On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone, while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God [elohim] shouted for joy?”. So we see that when the foundations of the earth were laid, the sons of elohim shouted for joy. Who are these “sons of elohim”? We also have a reference in 1 Kings 22:19, where God is sitting on his throne, with the heavenly host on his left and his right hand sides. In Isiah 6:1, we read about “Seraphim” (beings with six wings, normally understood as ‘angels’) standing above God while he is sitting on his throne. So, although there is no direct reference to others in Genesis 1, when we look at scriptures like Job 38 that refer to creation, and also scriptures where God is giving decrees or making pronouncements, there are heavenly hosts all around him including sons of elohim. Jewish commentators refer to them as angels, and most of them understand this speech as God addressing the angelic hosts. It is clear that God created man by himself, as we have shown, but it is likely that the heavenly angelic hosts were there to bear witness of this. There is much more that could be explored on this point, but it is sufficient to present as the most possible meaning.
5. God was speaking with the earth (as a personification):This idea that God was speaking with the earth as a personification was proposed by the 12th century Jewish Torah scholar, Moshe ben Maimon, commonly known as Maimonides. The idea is from looking at the previous text in Genesis 1:24-25, where it says, “And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature…, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind…”, and also looking at Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground…”, and realizing the earth is referred to as a participant of creation. In Genesis 1:224-25, we see God declares that the earth bring forth every beast of its kind, but also states that God made every beast of its kind. We also see God making humans from the dust of the earth (or ground) and breathing into them the breath of life. This is also confirmed in other scriptures like Ecclesiastes 12:7 that says when we die, our body returns to dust, and our spirit (or breath) returns yo God who gave it. So, when God said, “let us make man in our image…”, this interpretation suggests that God was referring to the earth, as it played a significant role in the formation of man. At first, I was going to dismiss this interpretation, as I personally don’t think this is what the scripture meant, but I decided to include it as to not appear too biased.

The above list is not exhaustive by any means, as I have come across a few other interpretations, but I think these listed will suffice to give us the understanding that this passage does not have a simple or universally accepted interpretation. There is a lot of bias involved in understanding such passages. My personal view is that we should try to stick with what the scripture says and let scripture interpret scripture, within context, of course. many scholars of various persuasions throughout the centuries have proposed many interpretations. However, we should not just accept something because it is widely accepted, but rather based on its own merits and relevance. But, where did all this difference of understanding come from?

Source of misunderstanding

So, we know what elohim means and how its used in the Hebrew language, which can be verified by standard Hebrew Grammars and lexicons. So, where does all this misunderstanding surrounding this word come from? In recent times, much of it has been proliferated by trinitarian Christian teachers and scholars who hold to the trinity doctrine and align all their interpretation according to their strongly held belief. This interpretation has been taught to many Christians in various denominations over the past centuries. You can easily verify this by reading through many publicly available commentaries on Genesis 1:1 and 1:26 available on the Internet. For example, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers says the following for Elohim in Gensis 1:1:

Christians may also well see in this a foreshadowing of the plurality of persons in the Divine Trinity

And likewise, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states:

It is in the plural number, and being joined to a verb of the singular, is thought by many to be designed to point unto us the mystery of a plurality, or trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence: but whether or no this is sufficient to support that doctrine, which is to be established without it; yet there is no doubt to be made, that all the three Persons in the Godhead were concerned in the creation of all things

Similarly for commentaries on Genesis 1:26, we see that Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers says:

…so in Elohim, the many powers concentrated in one being, lies the germ of the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Divine Unity

Another example is Pulpit Commentary saying:

Having already explained the significance of the term Elohim, as suggesting the fullness of the Divine personality, and foreshadowing the doctrine of the Trinity (ver. 1)…

It is interesting to note that the previous quotes from the commentaries all use very subtle inference and suggestion to inject the notion that elohim means trinity. Ellicott uses the terms, “foreshadowing” and “germ”, to inject the trinity doctrine. Gill uses the expression “…is thought by many to be designed…” and then goes on to directly suggest that the trinity was involved in creation. Pulpit Commentary also uses the term “foreshadowing” to inject the trinity doctrine in the interpretation of scripture. When you examine these statements clearly, it is easy to see how this doctrine was planted into the minds of many Christian leaders over the years. And yet another commentary is the very well respected Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament saying:

The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity: modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis; or as an address by God to Himself, the subject and object being identical; or as communicative, an address to the spirits or angels who stand around the Deity and constitute His council.

And here we come to the point that Keil and Delitzsch make, which is that the idea that God was speaking to co-creators as some sort of trinity is actually a very early idea. Interestingly enough, although this idea is not present in the scriptures of the Old Testament, it is present in the Works of Philo of Alexandria, a first century Jewish philosopher, and other men after him, including very influential early ‘church fathers’ such as Justin Martyr, a second century Christian Philosopher. Philo supports that idea that the creation of man was not done by just one creator:

On page 20…
And he would not err who should raise the question why Moses attributed the creation of man alone not to one creator, as he did that of other animals, but to several. For he introduces the Father of the universe using this language: “Let its make man after our image, and in our likeness.”

On page 21…
It is on this account that Moses says, at the creation of man alone that God said, ” Let us make man,” which expression shows an assumption of other beings to himself as assistants, in order that God, the governor of all things, might have all the blameless intentions and actions of man, when he does right, attributed to him ; and that his other assistants might bear the imputation of his contrary actions.

Justin Martyr further develops the idea that God the Father was speaking with his “Offspring”, which he says is called “Wisdom by Solomon” and “was begotten by God”. This is where we get the idea that ‘God the Father’ was speaking to ‘God the Son’ when he said “let us make man…”

Even more directly, we have the second century church father, Theophilus of Antioch, who was the very first person to use the word trinity in Greek, τριάδος [triados], defining this ‘trinity’ as “God, and His Word, and His Wisdom”. After defining the trinity as “God, his word and his wisdom”, he then he goes on to say regarding the creation of man:

For God having made all things by His Word, and having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the only work worthy of His own hands. Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” But to no one else than to His own Word and wisdom did He say, “Let Us make.”

So, Theophilus seems to express that God is requesting help from “his own word and wisdom” when he says “let us make…”. He then further expounds on God walking in the garden of Eden and says,

His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son?

So, we see a rudimentary trinity teaching from Theophilus of Antioch, where God the Father was speaking to his Word (who is also his Son) and his Wisdom in Genesis 1:26. Justin Martyr has a similiar view on this, and both of them basically seem to develop this idea from the first century Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, Egypt, called Philo Judaeus. As anyone who reads the text itself can verify, there is no reference to God speaking to his Son, nor any concept that the spoken word coming from God’s mouth is a person or another entity separate from God, and the same goes for the wisdom God used to create everything. But, we do have scriptures where God states the he performed creation by himself, and with his own hand (refer to last paragraph in above section). What is shocking for me as I read the words of these well-respected ancient men is that they consistently reinterpret the scriptures to say things that it does not say. They insert an intention into God’s actions that the text itself does not state, and in fact oftentimes state the opposite. One glaring example of this is to say that God had helpers or other creators, where we clearly see in words of the prophet Isaiah that God made all things alone.

God is one

So, is there any mention of God being three in Genesis? No. Is there any mention of the trinity in Genesis? No. What about the entire 39 books of the Old Testament (is God mentioned as being three or a trinity)? No. Is there a verse in the New Testament where it states that God is a trinity? No. We are told that God is one in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YeHoVaH] our God [Elohim] is one LORD [YeHoVaH]”, which Jesus, himself, affirms in Mark 12:29. From this investigation, we know that elohim does not infer any sort of plurality of persons. Multiple scriptures tell us that God performed creation by himself, alone. In addition to this, God speaks in the first person singular (verb and pronoun) tens of thousands of times in scripture, and we have shown that in the 4 times in scripture where he uses the first person plural, there were other beings with him, his heavenly hosts (including, sons of elohim). If you read the scripture without a pre-supposition of a trinity doctrine, the only conclusion you can come to is that God is one.

Conclusion

The Hebrew language is not a mystery language where words have magical hidden meanings and can be used for philosophical inferences that defy the natural use of the language. Elohim is a word used for God in Genesis 1, and throughout the scriptures. It is not exclusively used for God, but also used for men, other gods, idols, natural entities, and even spirits. It is not right to infer meaning of some multiple person characteristic to God just because elohim is used over 2300 for God, because we do not use the same reasoning for other applications of elohim. Hebrew lexicons, and Grammars can really help to shed light on how to understand this word, and it’s use in scripture can independently confirm that elohim has nothing to do with thr trinity doctrine.

When I meditate on how this inference has been used to perpetuate a doctrine that is demonstrably false, I have mixed feelings. In one sense, I feel betrayed that many sincere Christians have been fooled into believing a false doctrine. In another sense, I feel sad that it is so hard to prove and convince others that the trinity is false. And further, I also feel shocked at the extent to which this false trinity teaching has been spread, taught and accepted for centuries. When persons question this doctrine, they are met with opposition, rejection, and excommunication. God given logic, reason and facts no longer become applicable in the face of this doctrine. that alone should tell you how wrong this doctrine is. I sincerely hope that my presentation in this post will be a guiding light to anyone who seek to come to the truth. Always remember “God is not [the author] of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33), and neither am I.

References:

1. Genesis 1:1 (KJV) Interlinear – Blue Letter Bible – Site: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/t_conc_1001
2. Genesis 1:26 (KJV) Interlinear – Blue Letter Bible – Site: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/t_conc_1026
3. Genesis 1:1 Commentaries – Bible Hub – Site: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-1.htm
4. Genesis 1:26 Commentaries – Bible Hub – Site: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-26.htm
5. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translated, with additions and corrections from the Author’s Thesaurus and other works, by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. 1879. Pages XLIX (49) – L (50)
6. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius As Translated By Edward Robinson. 1907. Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. Pages 43-44.
7. Lexicon :: Strong’s H430 – ‘ĕlōhîm – Blue Letter Bible – Site: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h430/kjv/wlc/0-1/
8. 430. elohim – Bible Hub – Site: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm
9. Lexicon :: Strong’s H433 – ‘ĕlôha – Blue Letter Bible – Site: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h433/kjv/wlc/0-1/
10. Lexicon :: Strong’s H410 – ‘ēl – Blue Letter Bible – Site: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h410/kjv/wlc/0-1/
11. Suffixes in Hebrew – Wikipedia – Site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffixes_in_Hebrew
12. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2011 Third Reprint of the Second Edition, with Corrections. Paul Jouon and Takamitsu Muraoka. Pages 347, 469 – 470.
13. The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus, Translated from the Greek by C.D. Yonge, B.A. Volume I. London. 1980. Pages 20 – 21.
14. Justin martye The Dialogue with Trypho, Translation, Introduction, and Notes by A. Lukyn Williams, D.D. Honorary Canon of Ely. London. 1930. Pages 128-130.
15. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume II. Theophilus to Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Site: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_II/Theophilus_to_Autolycus/Book_II