Elohim or Gods: why change?

Elohim or Gods: why change?

Genesis 1:1

I wanted to spend a little time focusing on the aspect of Gods (Elohim). I recently found myself speaking on the concept of Gods within a Mormon context, although I do not consider myself a Mormon theologian, having been educated in Judaic, Protestant, and Catholic theology. I will examine the concept of Gods within a Mormon context and address the plural use of the word Gods (Elohim) within Judeo-Christian Scripture. My studies aim to shift the conversation from Mormon theology to Protestant and Catholic theology to create a dialogue about the conflicts within the latter as a point of departure toward Mormon theology. Does Protestant and Catholic Scripture lay the groundwork for Mormon theology? The answer is yes. Too often, Protestants make absolute statements that are frankly based on misinterpretations and flawed translations of Scripture. I intend to shed some light on these errors to create further dialogue and open the door toward Mormon theology. This study will embark on the use of the name for God, Elohim, within Scripture. I intend to show that Protestant Scripture does, in fact, teach that Gods existed in heaven at the time of Creation and exist now in heaven, but not in the form of the Trinity, as articulated by Protestants and Catholics.

Let’s begin with Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (NASB) The translation here for “God” is actually “Elohim” in Hebrew, which means Gods and should be written as such. “In the beginning, Gods created the heavens and the earth.” Yet this is not what one reads when they look at their English translations. Why? The obvious reason is that it does not fit within their preconceived theology. Thus, a change is necessary.

The use of the plural name for Gods, Elohim, opens the door for further examination, as the notion should not be immediately dismissed simply because it creates obvious conflict with one’s theology. I often have written that over time, when approaching Scripture objectively, I found myself outside the bounds of Protestant and Catholic theology. This is one of those cases. The Bible begins by speaking about Gods (Elohim), and one must seriously consider this ramification. I will give you a brief explanation of the name Elohim, cross-reference supporting Scripture, and address some of the arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologians have used over the years basically to change the entire meaning of Genesis 1:1 and other Scripture verses.

Elohim is the Hebrew plural name for Gods in the Bible. While Elohim is plural, the name at times is followed by a singular verb. When Elohim is used to identify false gods, a plural use of the verb tense is at times used. This is one of the main arguments made for changing the plural name Elohim to the singular name, Eloah (singular God in Hebrew). We should note that Elohim appears approximately 2,000 times in Scripture, while Eloah appears approximately 250 times. While this argument of singular and plural tenses may seem valid, there are numerous exceptions. Let’s take a look at some:

Gen 20:13: “When God caused me to wander from my father’s house….” This is Abraham talking, and here, the more literal translation should read “…Gods (Elohim) they caused me to wander….” Abraham uses Elohim with a plural verb. The Gods caused Abraham to wander in this verse.

Gen 35:7: “Because there, God had revealed Himself to him….” In this verse, Jacob built an altar to God because Jacob had seen the Elohim (Gods). The verse should read “The Gods (Elohim) revealed themselves….” Jacob has seen the Gods, and they revealed themselves. Thus, Jacob built an altar to them.

Psalm 58:11: “And men will say, “Surely, there is a reward for the righteous; Surely there is a God who judges on earth!” The more accurate translation should read “The Gods (Elohim), they judge the earth!” In this verse, there is a plural, Gods, who will judge the earth, so who are they?

These few verses and many more show that Elohim also can take a plural verb when speaking of the God of Israel, and it is clearly denoted. Elohim (Gods), at times, are even mentioned in the same sentence twice, which makes Protestants and Catholics even more uncomfortable.

Psalm 45:7: “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore, Gods (Elohim), Thy Gods (Elohim), has anointed Thee With the oil of joy above Thy fellows.” The first Elohim is addressing the second Elohim. These are two distinctly different personages here, in which the first Elohim places the second Elohim above His companions and anoints Him with the oil of joy.

Once again, who are these Gods?

Hosea 1:7: “When the Lord (Elohim) first spoke…But I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the Lord their Gods (Elohim)…” As noted, we begin with Elohim saying that Elohim will deliver Judah by a second Elohim. Two distinctly different Elohim are placed in the same verse, with one addressing the other.

These verses introduce the name Elohim addressing each other, but it also happens with the name Jehovah in Gen. 19:24, There is a fire and brimstone coming down from Jehovah on earth, while another Jehovah is in heaven. In Zech. 2:8-9, we see one Jehovah sending another Jehovah to accomplish a task. The same happens with the name Adonai, in Psalm 110:1: “Jehovah said to my Adonai.”

Yet at times, God speaks in the plural sense, such as in Gen 1:26, when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image…” to follow up this verse in Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King.” But the singular use of the name Maker is actually Makers. The verse should read, “Let Israel be glad in his Makers.” To continue with this theme, we read in Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth,…,” when the literal translation should read, “Remember also your Creators….” One more verse, just for fun -- Isaiah 54:5: “For thy Maker is thy Husband: Jehovah of host is His name” should read “for thy Makers is thy Husbands; Jehovah of host is His name.”

I believe we have established a basis for examination, but now I want to address some overall themes that Protestants and Catholics use to discount these verses to change their meaning. One of the arguments is that the author did not intend to convey a plural meaning with the use of the name Elohim. This is an argument I hear often and one I actually argued against in my Systematic Theology course. For me to believe this argument, I must first discount the following facts:

1. Scribes who wrote Scripture were highly educated, as only royalty and high-ranking officials were literate. Thus, it was a highly prized skill. Not just anyone could walk into a school or other place and learn to read and write. It typically was reserved for royalty, high-ranking officials, and their heirs. It was serious business because empires of this era relied on scribes to operate their realms. Thus, it is difficult to believe that scribes would not know the difference between a singular noun or verb and a plural noun or verb. They grew up with their particular language and assumed this extremely important occupation, one in which mistakes simply were not tolerated. Scribes would not have made such mistakes.

2. In the case of scribes who wrote the Torah, they always worked in groups. Torah were highly prized items, and Jews used extremely high vetting standards to ensure the accuracy of each Torah. Every single page of the Torah was exactly the same, and each scribe took great pains to ensure perfection. These highly educated scribes would complete a page, then another senior scribe would look over their work. Then each page of the Torah was written in such a way that it produced rows and columns, forming a grid pattern. In Hebrew, each letter receives a numerical value; thus, a senior scribe would be able to add up the numerical values for all letters in a row to obtain a total numerical value for that row, which then would be cross-checked with a master copy for accuracy. They would do this for each row to ensure accuracy, then the same process would be done for each column to ensure each Torah was perfectly identical. It was simply impossible for a single letter to be incorrect, much less an entire word.

3. Additionally, numerous copies of ancient writings have been unearthed that all seem to match. The fact that we have multiple copies that all read the same shows that we are not relying on a single copy that could contain errors, but rather multiple copies, to make comparisons and ensure accuracy.

The process used to produce Scripture by ancient scribes was a process of perfection. I totally discount the argument that the authors meant to convey a different meaning from what was actually written. This mistake would not have been made by masters of their own language, whose documents were double-checked by senior masters. This was a highly prized skill in which perfection was demanded and achieved.

This elicits the question: Why do Protestant and Catholic theologians repeatedly change the meanings of these verses, when the author clearly meant exactly what was written? The reason is simple: Those who translate documents do so through their own theological prisms to make interpretations while translating. Thus, when they come across a verse that clearly does not agree with their preconceived theology, they begin to look at ways to rewrite the verse so that it agrees with their preconceived beliefs.

Then there is the argument that no language can be translated literally into another language. That is true. There is no such thing as an exact literal translation in many cases. I have often had to deal with this argument as well. Although no literal translation is often possible, the literal meaning is possible to translate and communicate. In all the cases I have dealt with, the meaning is clearly conveyed in the original language, and it can be translated as such. I have provided numerous examples in this short paper. The literal meaning is there, yet Protestants and Catholics continually change the meanings of verses that do not fit their theological frameworks. Given all the facts known about scribes and how Scripture was produced, we can conclude that the authors meant to convey exactly what they wrote down, and we should not make any changes to the meaning of a single verse.

This paper began by examining the concept of Gods within a Mormon context. Since I am not a Mormon theologian, I will not embark on a defense of Mormon doctrine. This paper was meant only to show that the same Scripture that Protestants and Catholics avail themselves to actually opens the door for further discussion of Gods in Heaven. The fact that Scripture has been manipulated over time, and that many theological assumptions have been made due to erroneous translations, should be a topic of discussion. The topic of Gods is a real subject that should not be ignored, as even Protestant and Catholic Scripture leaves open this possibility. What do Mormons believe on this subject? I will leave that for Mormon theologians who have far more knowledge than I do. Mormon theology is available for all to read on our Church-approved websites. I welcome people to ask questions on Mormon.org, lds.org, or byu.edu. There, you will find honest reflections on our beliefs. I discourage people from doing general searches on Google or other search engines because you will find numerous detractors misrepresenting Mormon truth, trying to confuse readers.

My writing comes from many years of theological education from a Protestant perspective. Yet over time, I developed distinctly Mormon beliefs. My approach to Scripture was honest and free of any Mormon bias, yet I developed questions in which the answers given to me simply did not make logical sense. Thus, I began to consider other alternatives, and these alternative possibilities led me to the Mormon Church. This paper should cause any Protestants or Catholics to pause and consider that maybe what they have been taught over the years may not be as absolute as they thought. Other possibilities exist and should be explored, and Gods is one such topic.