Q: Does the use of Elohim indicate polytheism?

An objection often supposes that because *Elohim* is a plural form, a multiplicity of gods is indicated, and this is supported by the use of "us" and "we" in Genesis 1:26 and elsewhere in Genesis. This is answered by the fact that *Elohim*, though a plural form, was paired with verbs in the *singular* -- thus indicating not a multiplicity of beings, but a multiplicity of power or majesty. Is it possible that *elohim* is a more generic, abstract term? Could it be more like the word "power" in meaning (as that word is used as a noun)? If it refers merely to any being of power (God would be the "elohim" with the capital E, just like "gods" today), then this could include angels or perhaps demons taking the role of what we now call a pagan god. The nature of an *elohim* is to be determined not merely by the term, but by the *reactions* and descriptions given to the elohim. There are many *elohim*, but only one was ever accorded worship and designated as the Creator. That one is the "elohim" with the capital E. David and Moses spoke of other *elohim*, sometimes as objectively real, but never other than one as worthy of praise and worship. Assuming that a common designation thereby denotes a progression is a category fallacy; it is no more true than saying that bicycles and autos are "wheeled vehicles" proves that bicycles grow into autos. That leaves the issue of who is the plural "we" in places like Gen. 1:26. Some suggest the Trinity is in view; others suggest angels. Whatever the case, in light of the above use of *elohim*, and in light of that we are not told anything about the other "persons" God talks to (much less shown that these were persons that the Hebrews *worshipped*), the charge of "polytheism" on the basis of these passages lacks proper context.

Question 1

Does Genesis 3:22 promote an anti-reason stance?

Accepted Answer

Some consider this verse programmatic for establishing an anti-reason stance in Christianity:

> Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'

Had one investigated the use of the word 'know' here (yada), however, they would have found that it means 'knowing' in the sense of familiarity -- not critical or intellectual apprehension. This passage does not promote a hatred of reason or knowledge.

Question 2

Does the use of Elohim indicate polytheism?

Accepted Answer

An objection often supposes that because Elohim is a plural form, a multiplicity of gods is indicated, and this is supported by the use of "us" and "we" in Genesis 1:26 and elsewhere in Genesis.

This is answered by the fact that Elohim, though a plural form, was paired with verbs in the singular -- thus indicating not a multiplicity of beings, but a multiplicity of power or majesty.

Is it possible that elohim is a more generic, abstract term? Could it be more like the word "power" in meaning (as that word is used as a noun)? If it refers merely to any being of power (God would be the "elohim" with the capital E, just like "gods" today), then this could include angels or perhaps demons taking the role of what we now call a pagan god.

The nature of an elohim is to be determined not merely by the term, but by the reactions and descriptions given to the elohim. There are many elohim, but only one was ever accorded worship and designated as the Creator. That one is the "elohim" with the capital E. David and Moses spoke of other elohim, sometimes as objectively real, but never other than one as worthy of praise and worship.

Assuming that a common designation thereby denotes a progression is a category fallacy; it is no more true than saying that bicycles and autos are "wheeled vehicles" proves that bicycles grow into autos.

That leaves the issue of who is the plural "we" in places like Gen. 1:26. Some suggest the Trinity is in view; others suggest angels. Whatever the case, in light of the above use of elohim, and in light of that we are not told anything about the other "persons" God talks to (much less shown that these were persons that the Hebrews worshipped), the charge of "polytheism" on the basis of these passages lacks proper context.

Navigation