Theology, an Overview of the Identity of God, Part 2

The basis of this understanding deals with the nature of the Hebrew word for God, “Elohim.”

Genesis is translated from the Hebrew into English. On the study of this text, one must examine the grammar at its roots, beginning with the Hebrew word for God used here, “Elohim.” “Elohim” is the plural form of “El” or “Eloha”; however, it does not denote a polytheistic character of God (i.e. “gods”) (Israel of God).

“The masculine plural ending does not mean “gods” when referring to the true God of Israel, since the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular (e.g., see Gen. 1:26).” (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html)

As a result the following verb, “said”, (in Hebrew is “amer”) is singular. This is further proven in verse 29 which start, “Then God said, ‘I give you…’”. If the text were indicating an existence of multiple deities, the grammar of this would have gone along the lines of “And God said, ‘We gave you...’”  This leaves the question:

Why did the writer use ‘us’ and ‘our’ in the rest of verse 26?

This answer can be explained by examining the grammar moods.  In verse 26, the cohortative mood is used. According to literature on Hebrew grammar, this mood  is used with an auxillary verb like ‘let’ and “may”. An example of non-cohortative would be “we will rule”, while the cohortative would be “Let us rule” (Learning to Read Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar. Robert Ray Ellis). Further studies suggest that when verse 26 uses the plural pronouns, it’s in a majestic plural sense. Where the speaker and the audience are both involved. In this case the speaker is God and the audience, all of Creation. The grammar application applies similarly to Genesis 11, and Isaiah 6.

In essence, the conclusion of multiple deities is false and a result of inadequate study of Hebrew and grammar. Resources are available across the internet as well as throughout different local libraries for one to find this information themselves. This raises the question, “Why do they teach this then?” This is addressed later.

With this understanding, when one continues and analyzes the scriptures referencing the creation of man and woman in the image of God, it makes sense to look at the character trait of God implied and attribute it to the creation. It does not make sense to look at the creation and attribute it to the creator.  An example of this can be found in the way we discuss children and parental resemblances. It makes sense to say that I and my dad look alike, but it does not make sense to conclude that my dad looks like me (implying I’m the source of our good looks). It does make sense to say that I look like him. In this text, made in the image would have to reference some type of greatness or majesty possessed by God potentially. This topic is more important for other studies, such as the identity of man which will be covered later.

Furthermore, there are a few other issues with the included interpretations. Nowhere in these verses shared do they even mention a female deity, and this is not to say that God is a man, but that he expresses himself in a masculine way (this makes even more sense when looking at the word Elohim). Furthermore, none of these verses suggest a new age. It speaks of a new covenant.

Therefore, when studying this text in addition to the Hebrew grammar, one can more clearly understand the message of this passage. The eisegesis performed by the WMSCOG interpretation because of it’s nature of putting in meaning, harms the interpretation of the text.