Yahshua: Son Of Elohim

God or Son? Jesus Is God? THE FOURTH MAN Yahshua: Did He Pre-exist? Yahshua Came Down From Heaven Can A Spirit Being Die?

Yahshua's Glory Before the Foundation of the World Did Our Saviour Pre-exist? Yahshua A Man The Greek Word Logos Yahshua: Son Of Elohim Hebrews 1:12

The 2nd Psalm - Pre-existence? The Pre-existence Yahshua's Pre-existence "One And The Same Being?" ONE LONE YAHWEH Oneness Matthew 28:19 ECHAD And Pre-existence New Covenant And Sabbath

YHWH Did Yahshua Create? Who Is The Word? Who Raised Yahshua From The Dead? The Word of Yahweh The First & The Last Yeshua Is Not Yahowah The Holy Spirit Is An It

Elohim: Singular Or Plural? TWO YAHWEHS? Did The Father And Son Have The Same Name? Are You A Nicolaitane? Should Believers Be Vegetarians? Voy Wilks On STDs Can A Spirit Being Die?

Who Was Cain's Wife? Santa God Sabbath Church Confessions House of Yahweh - Abilene, Texas TRM Wine Or Grape Juice?

The Name Jesus "Jesus IS God!" Links Eternal Virgin? THE TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS The Epistle Dedicatory To The 1611 Authorized Version Isaiah 9:6

Trinity Schminity

The Law

I AM

..................................................................................................................................

Some of those trying to support the DECEPTION of a "preexistent" savior argue that Yeshua the Messiah and YEHOVAH God are the SAME being, or they argue that Yeshua was YEHOVAH of the Old Testament. This argument, committed to the laws of logic, simply does not hold up! Logic -- and the Bible -- plainly reveal that Yeshua and YEHOVAH are TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS!

Gary Sjordal

Assembly of Yahweh (7thDay)

Box 509, Cisco, Texas 76437

Phone # 817-442-3962

THE PRE-EXISTENCE

1 Peter 1:11

6/25/97

"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" (1 Peter 1:11 KJV).

There is a least one other Scripture in which the translators add "Christ," as if he were back there in ancient times, when Israel was in the wilderness:

"Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Nether murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer" (1 Cor. 10:9-10).

When we go back to the historical record, we see it was the LORD (Yahweh) whom Israel tempted, not "Christ" (Ex. 1:1-7; Nu. 14:20-22, 16:41, 21:5-8; Ps. 95:9-10; Heb. 3:7-11). Several versions have made corrections in the text or in a footnote, such as the Revised Standard Version, Knox Ver4sion, New World Translation, and the Bethel Edition. Now back to 1 Peter 1:11.

In a footnote, the Diaglott indicates the Vatican Ms does not contain the words "the anointed;" that is, Christ Messiah. Agreeing with this are the following versions:

The Koster Version (Note: Mr. Koster believed in the pre-existence).

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.

The New World Translation.

The James Duncan Version (1836).

The Geneva Bible of 1602 *

* The Geneva Bible give an uncertain reading, as follows:

"Searching when or what time the Spirit which testified before of Christ which was in them, should declare the sufferings that should come unto Christ, and the glory that should follow."

Even though the second "which" is misplaced, the meaning is apparently this:

The Spirit which was in the prophets testified beforehand of (about) the suffering of the Messiah, and the glory that should follow (come to the Messiah at a later time).

It was not the Messiah which was in the prophets; instead, it was the Spirit [of Yahweh] which was in the prophets. This thought is born out by other Scriptures:

"Yahweh, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, ..." (Heb. 1:1-2 KJV).

"But those things, which Yahweh before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that the Messiah should suffer, he has fulfilled" (Acts 3:18).

We see it was not the Messiah, but Yahweh, who revealed to the prophets the coming and sufferings of the Messiah. Isaiah 53 is a good example of his. This was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, by the Spirit of Yahweh (Isa. 53:1; Heb. 1:1). It was only later hat Yahweh spoke to us by his Son, Yahshua (Heb. 1:2).

Conclusion

Apparently, at an early time, someone added the word Christ to Peter's message in 1 Peter 1:11. This is indicated by several versions noted above. If this is correct, 1 Peter 1:11 does not indicate that Yahshua pre-existed.

Is "ELOHIM" Really Uni-plural?

By Anthony Buzzard

The opening words of the Bible introduce us to the supreme majesty of the God of creation. There is one who speaks with absolute and unchallenged authority as Creator. He is from the beginning and in the beginning. “In the beginning God created...

”It is one of the tragedies of Bible study that the meaning of the word God, Elohim, has suffered from the fatal tendency of man to embrace polytheism, the belief in more than one God. Elohim is grammatically a plural form. Readers will know of the word cherubim, with the same ending, meaning cherubs (plural). But Elohim when designating the One God of Israel and of the Bible is not plural in meaning.

An example from our own acquaintance is this: Do you insist that the word news, because it has an “s” on the end, is plural? When did you last say, “the news are good”? An elementary knowledge of language is enough to understand the elementary fact about Elohim: that though it is plural in its form, it is singular in meaning when describing the God of biblical monotheism (belief in One God).

How do we know this? Any lexicon of Hebrew (roughly the biblical equivalent of the Webster’s known to English speakers) states this fact with complete clarity. The fact is observable -- and has been observed by countless lexicographers -- in this way: The verbs which follow Elohim (the One God) are in the singular number. And thousands and thousands of pronouns, that is, substitutes for the noun, are in the singular. In addition, Elohim is said to be the same person as El (God) and Yahweh [YEHOVAH] (the personal God of Israel): “For who is El but Yahweh [YEHOVAH]? And who is a rock except our Elohim?” (II Samuel 22:32). Yahweh [YEHOVAH], God’s personal name, is constructed all of its 6,800 times with SINGULAR verbs and accompanied by SINGULAR personal pronouns.

“Elohim, though a plural form, can be treated as a singular, in which case it means the One supreme Deity...and conveys the notion of all that belongs to the concept of deity in contrast to man (Numbers 23:19) and other created beings [angels]. It is appropriate to worldwide relationships (Genesis 1:1), because there is only one supreme and true God, and He is a person... Strictly speaking Yahweh [YEHOVAH] is the only name of God... Yahweh [YEHOVAH], therefore, in contrast with Elohim, is a proper noun, the name of a Person, though that person is divine” (New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 474, 475).

Language has unmistakable ways of telling us that a speaker is a singular individual. It uses personal pronouns of the first person singular. We all know this, formally or instinctively: “I” and “me” require no analysis, much less a theological dispute. Across the pages of the Hebrew Bible, the One God presents Himself as exactly one single individual, divine Person: “I.” That “I” “Me,” and “He,” “Him” has no equals. “None is like Him,” and “there is no other besides Him.”

Nehemiah 9:6: “You [singular, ‘Thou’ in 1611 English] are Yahweh [YEHOVAH], You alone. You have made the heavens of heavens, with all their hosts, the earth and all that is on it, he seas and all that is in them.” Psalm 83:18: “Let them know that You [singular] alone, whose name is Yahweh [YEHOVAH], is the Most High over all the earth.” Isaiah 43:10, 11: “You are my witnesses, says Yahweh [YEHOVAH], and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before me no El [God]was formed nor shall there be any after Me. I, I am Yahweh [YEHOVAH] and besides Me there is no Savior.” Isaiah 45:22: “For I am El [God] and there is no other.” Psalm 18:31: “Who is Eloah but Yahweh [YEHOVAH]? And who is a rock except our Elohim?” El, Eloah, Elohim and Yahweh [YEHOVAH]: These words designate the One and Only God of Israel and of the universe. The invariably singular pronouns which substitute for those divine names merely confirm the obvious. They communicate the truth that God is a single divine Person thousands upon thousands of times. And yet -- by a miracle of misinterpretation and misunderstanding -- Bible readers have managed to miss the glaring fact about the One God and His singularity. They have supposed, under the influence of well-meaning teachers and the massive energy of tradition unexamined, that God is really two or three Persons, or as some maintain “personal distinctions.”

How is this muddle over who God is conceivable? One sample is found in groups whoseorigin is in the teaching of Herbert Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God. Armstrong’s authoritative voice from the pulpit and radio, reinforced by constant repetition in the printed word, tract and magazine, backed by sophisticated propaganda skills, declared that Elohim is really a “uniplural” word, like “family.”

But Elohim is not a collective noun. Collective nouns, like nation, army, crowd, herd of cattle, row of trees, chain of mountains, tell us that many living beings or lifeless things are gathered as one unit. But Elohim is not that sort of noun. To present it as a word like “family” is false and misleading. Elohim designates a single Person, not a group of Persons. Sometimes Elohim has a plural meaning and it is then correctly translated as gods. The pronouns associated with Elohim, with plural meaning, are also plural to reflect that plurality: “I said, ‘You [plural] are gods [Elohim]’” (Psalm 82:6). But there are no plural pronouns or verbs associated with Yahweh [YEHOVAH], who is Elohim. Would not 6,800 appearances of Yahweh [YEHOVAH] as a singular word with singular pronouns and verbs convince us that the one God is never ever to be thought of as plural?

Jeremiah 10:10: “Yahweh [YEHOVAH] is a God of truth.” Deuteronomy 4:35, 39: “Yahweh [YEHOVAH] is the God.” Yahweh [YEHOVAH] is a singular God and He is the God [HaElohim], par excellence, “the only one who is truly God,” as Jesus [Yeshua] said addressing his Father (John 17:3). If the Father of Jesus [Yeshua] is “the only one who is truly God,” it would be a blatant contradiction of the words of Scripture to say that Jesus [Yeshua] is also the true God! Throughout the New Testament the One God and Jesus [Yeshua] are distinct individuals -- as we would now say, “different people.” The Father and Son are as distinct as any two individuals. God is one, and Jesus [Yeshua] is another. They relate to each other as “I” and “you,” Father and Son, and Jesus [Yeshua] speaks of themselves as “we” and “us.” They are never said to be One Person, much less are they together called “the One God,” or the “true God.”

The term “God” (Elohim) is applied to judges in Israel (Psalm 82:6), to single pagan gods like Ashtoreth and Chemosh, and on one occasion to the coming Messiah (Psalm 45:6). In the New Testament the word “God” is referred to Jesus [Yeshua] twice for certain (John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6). But the Father of Jesus [Yeshua], the Yahweh [YEHOVAH] revealed as a single divine Person 6,800 times in the Old Testament, is called “God” or “the God” over 1300 times in the Greek New Testament. When the New Testament cites an Elohim text, meaning the One God, it translates it into Greek as the singular word “theos” (God), never ever a plural word “theoi.”

This must prove that Elohim has no trace of plurality in its meaning when it designates the One God of Creation. How great then was the disaster when some announced on their own uninformed authority that Elohim in Genesis 1:1 is a “uniplural” word.

No lexicon, as far as we know, says that Elohim is “uniplural.” In fact we do not find the word “uniplural” in either the Oxford Dictionary or in Webster’s “Unabridged.” Was that word an invention? (Perhaps readers can help us track its origin). If “uniplural” was intended to mean “collective” the sense would have been clear. But the statement is false. Elohim is NOT a collective noun, and certainly, since it is nothing like the word “family,” it is not a “family name.” And yet thousands nodded approvingly as we sat through theology “101”, and biblical languages “101”, little knowing that our mentors were unequipped to teach us correctly the most fundamental meanings of the word “Elohim.” The correct meanings however were available in standard authorities. (But we argued that only we really knew! This is the height of arrogance).

“Let Us Make...”

Much of our confusion came to us via Genesis 1:26. Overlooking some 20,000 occurrences of the words for God with accompanying and confirming singular personal pronouns and verbs, we were invited to latch on to four (only) appearances of the word “us,” connected somehow with the One God. “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image...’” With our false premise well in mind, that Elohim is really plural in meaning, we needed only to be reassured by Genesis 1:26 that the Elohim family of Gods was at work. Herbert Armstrong wrote with confidence about “two Gods in the One God Family.” There in Genesis 1:26, he said, they cooperated in the creation of man.

But of course nothing is said in that verse about “two,” nor about a Son. Furthermore the verb is in the SINGULAR: It was God who said, “Let us...” and then He -- not they -- performed the creative act. “Let us,” of course, means “Let me and any number of others take action.” The One God was in conversation with one or two or many others who are not here defined. Is it reasonable to imagine on this evidence that He was talking to one other, His Son? And if the Son was addressed, is he said to be a coequal member of a God Family? This would be in the highest degree unlikely, especially since Elohim is not a collective noun at all!

The One God is, as we have seen, constantly in the Old Testament a SINGLE Person. He is just that in Genesis 1:26. Why destroy the evidence of 20,000 texts with the evidence of four verses? This would be a startling case of poor judgment. Comparing our verse with Isaiah 6:8 we find another of the four “us” texts. The context informs us in verses 1-3 that they are angelic beings. Angels, when they appear, have the form of man, and can thus be said to be in the same image as man. Thus from the leading evangelical commentary of our day (Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis, by Gordon Wenham, Ph. D):

“I do not find the difficulties raised against the view that God was consulting the angels compelling... When angels do appear in the OT they are frequently described as ‘men’ (Genesis 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb ‘created’ in verse 27 does in fact suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind [cp. Isa. 44:24]. ‘Let us make man’ could therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly courts, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of creation, man. As Job 38:4, 7 puts it, ‘When I laid the foundation of the earth...all the sons of God shouted for joy’ (cp. Luke 2:13, 14). From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr [150 AD] who saw the plural as a reference to Christ Christians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the Trinity [or Binity]. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.”

As an orthodox evangelical Wenham goes on to say that the New Testament sees Jesus [Yeshua] as associated with the creation -- aview which many others would question.

Jesus [Yeshua] did NOT say “In the beginning I made them male and female,” but “In the beginning God made them...” And God, not the Son, rested after the work of creation (Hebrews 4:4) and did NOT speak through a Son until the New Testament period (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Isaiah 44:24 presents God as solo and unaccompanied at the creation -- a privilege which I think should not be compromised in any way.

The facts of the history of Bible interpretation show that the idea of plurality in Elohim originates in a secondary Roman Catholic writer. His use of the plural ending on Elohim to show that God is more than one Person was opposed by leading scholars both Catholic and Protestant. It is a considerable paradox to realize that this misleading Roman Catholic tradition found new life when promoted by Herbert Armstrong as the basis for his whole understanding of the identity of God.

Roman Catholic Commentators

“The second principal authority which the Master of Sentences [Peter Lombard of the 12th century] adduces for the plurality of persons in the Godhead is Genesis 1:1. ‘In the beginning God created.’ In the original the noun Elohim is put in the plural, and the verb in the singular; the former signifying a plurality of subsistencies; and the latter [the singular verb] meaning a unity of nature. But this cannot be maintained, for the plural is here used for the singular...It is evident that the noun is to be taken as singular in meaning, as otherwise it would indicate many gods as many men. Thoseerr egregiously who would prove a plurality of divine persons from such passages. For the change of number does not arise from any mystery, but from an idiom. Such changes are made from the usage of the Hebrew language” (Tostat, Op., Tome 12, De Sanctissima Trinitate).

“With the exception of Peter of Lombardyand Paul of Burgos, there has not been, amongst the Greek, Latin and Hebrew writers, one commentator worthy of imitation who has explained the word elohim of the Trinity [i.e. As a plural, applicable also to a Binitarian Godhead]” Sixtus Senesis, Bib. Sanct. Lib 5, note 1).

“A certain Catholic and learned writer is of the opinion that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are Gods because in the OT the name of the Almighty is always expressed in the plural number, as Elohim, which he thinks ought to be rendered Gods. The doctrine itself I do not oppose, but convinced by other arguments, I acknowledge his argument to be not solid” (Turrien, Clem Constit, 3, 17. Apud Sandium).

Protestant Commentators

“From the words ‘God created’ our commentators in general deduce the mystery of the most Holy Trinity: the noun, as they conceive, denoting the Trinity of persons and the verb the unity of Essence -- Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. The reason assigned for this inference is that the expression in the original signifies not Gods, they created, but Gods, He created. The Hebrews however attribute this phraseology to an idiom of their language. For the plural words Elohim and Baalim (masters) are used of men and lords, in relation to individuals, as adonim kasha = lords (plural) oppressive (singular), Isa. 19:4, and elsewhere. I am loath indeed to countenance The Jews, unless when they have truth manifestly on their side. But from other passagesof Scripture the doctrine of the Trinity can be more clearly and expressly established. And we must contend against our adversaries with stronger weapons than this [argument from Elohim], if we would not, by ignorance of their language, expose ourselves to their ridicule. I agree with the Jews in referring the usage under notice to a Hebrew idiom, but conceive that the plural noun is ascribed to God, chiefly in order to express the fullness of His excellencies, by which He diffuses Himself throughout the universe and exerts His majesty and power which are immense and inexhaustible” (Mercer).

“The argument taken from the plural noun Elohim joined to the singular verb bara is exceedingly poor. Since by the usage of their language the Hebrews in designating honorable persons are elsewhere accustomed to employ the plural number for the singular. And this is not surely for denoting some divine mystery, but merely on account of dignity and aggrandizement” (Lambert Daneau, Opusc. Theol., p. 2027).

“In ‘Elohim created’ it is thought that a mystery is concealed and that a plurality of persons is implied. For what reason? Because a plural noun is construed with a singular verb [cp. News is good; the sheep are good, the sheep did good]. This is partly true and partly false as to the sense. For when Elohim is spoken of one [person], its significance is singular, being used of the one God everywhere and of an individual angel, calf, idol and man [and thus of the individual Elohim]. And our opinion is demonstrated by other arguments. Both Jerome and Procopius call it a noun of the common number, because it is used of one God and of a plurality. But if this true, and of this there cannot be any doubt, the argument drawn from the number falls to the ground; for when employed of an individual, what child would say that this noun has ever a plural sense? [And YHVH is an individual!] Who would affirm that there are various cities of the names of Athenoe, Theboe Salonoe, because these are each spoken of in the plural number? Who would deny that there is one supreme heaven, which the apostle terms the third and David the heaven of the heavens, because in Hebrew it is called shamayim in the dual form, or as preferred by Jerome in the plural? Who would infer that there are many darknesses because in Latin the corresponding word is not employed in the singular number? (Tenebrae). There is equally a mystery -- but which no one recognizes -- in the plural baalim (lords). This word is sometimes used of one lord and having a singular sense; as well as in adonim (lords) when said of the One God. Because I have written that the noun Elohim does not from its termination signify the Trinity, I am accused of being a Unitarian Arian, when my adversaries should rather becalled Sabellians (Modalists) since they make the holy spirit the spirit of himself and say that Christ [Yeshua] was self-begotten and what is very absurd constitute a plurality in individual persons. For though they do not say so expressly, yet all of this necessarily results from their opinion. So true it is that ‘when fools fly from one fault they run into the contrary.’ And when unlearned men avoid errors they fall into others[!]” (Drusius).

“The weakness of the argument constructed by Peter of Lombardy has been acutely observed and clearly set forth by Tostat, Cajetan, Bellarmine, Sixtus Senessius, Calvin, Mercer, Pareus, Drusius and De Muys who in an appendix to Bellarmine’s Grammar produces many arguments to prove that nothing solid can be concluded from the plural form of Elohim” (abridged from Sixtinus Amama, Antibarb. Bib. Bk. 2, pp. 174, 175).

“Elohim: The first subject of Genesis and the Bible is God. The word is the second most frequent noun in the OT. It is derived from the common Semitic word for God, il. As here, Hebrew generally prefers the plural form of the noun, which except when it means ‘gods,’ i.e., heathen deities, is construed with the singular verb [interesting that when it is taken as a plural it refers to pagan gods!]. Though it has often been taken as a plural of majesty or power, it is doubtful whether this is relevant to the interpretation of Elohim. It is simply the ordinary word for God, plural in form and singular in meaning. Strictly speaking Elohim is an appellative, that is, it can be used of any deity. It is not a personal name, such as Yahweh [YEHOVAH], El Shaddai, Marduk or Chemosh. Nevertheless as with the English word God it often acts almost as a proper name...Elohim implies that God is the sovereign Creator of the whole universe, not just Israel’s personal God” (Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis).

It is liberating to discover that our thinking has been darkened by misinformation! When the light of Truth comes to us, we can mourn over our careless acceptance of error and move forward. If we have been misled on such a basic issue as the definition of the One God, what else in our belief system deserves to be reevaluated?

It appears from the facts of Hebrew grammar and usage that God is strictly a SINGLE DIVINE PERSON. Jesus [Yeshua] is His unique Son begotten not in eternity but in history, in the womb of his mother Mary (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35; I John 5:18, not KJV but NASV, etc.). God is not a family of two or three Persons. Much less can one “become God as God is God.” Common sense should dictate that if we are born in time we cannot be eternal. God alone claims that unique position and any compromise of His unmatched Unity is an affront to His incomparable position as “the Only One who is truly God” (John 17:3).

There is after all, in the creed of Paul, a single divine individual. “To us [Christians] there is One God the Father” (I Cor. 8:6). The biblical definition of God should be sought in those passages which directly address who God is. In contrast to the numerically plural gods of the pagans, Paul asserts: “There is no God except One. For even if there are so-called gods, even as there are many gods and many lords on earth or in heaven, yet to us [Christians] there is One God, the Father” (I Cor. 8:4-6). Extracting a simple idea from this creedal statement of Paul we have this: “There is no God except the One God, the Father.” Paul then continues by placing Jesus [Yeshua] next to the Father as the one Lord Messiah. With the other writers of the New Testament he has in mind the remarkable passage in Psalm 110:1 in which the Messiah is seated next to Yahweh [YEHOVAH]. This verse is used by the writers of the New Testament as a golden text. It is alluded to some 23 times and this is by far a record number of “hits” in terms of New Testament appeal to the Hebrew Bible. In Psalm 110:1, the One God, Yahweh [YEHOVAH], addresses another individual. David penned what is called “the divine oracle of Yahweh [YEHOVAH] to my lord.” “My lord” is the Messiah as both Jesus [Yeshua] and the Pharisees agreed as they discussed this verse in Matthew 22:41-46.

Since we know that Yahweh [YEHOVAH] us the One God, the second individual obviously CANNOT also be the One God!! And indeed the very words which describe the second person of Psalm 110:1 prove the fact. The inspired Hebrew text, confirmed as correct in the inspired New Testament, tells us the status of the “my lord” of David. Speaking under inspiration, as Jesus [Yeshua] said (Matt. 22:43), David speaks of adoni, my lord.

The Bible very carefully informs us of the difference between God and man, that is between who is worthy to be accorded the title of full Deity and who is not. The Messiah here is not given the title fit for Deity. The text thus preserves the unique position of Yahweh [YEHOVAH] who alone is the One God. “My lord” -- adoni -- is the proper title for a human (occasionally an angelic) superior. It is NEVER the title for God. Adoni occurs throughout the Old Testament 195 times and tells us that the one addressed is not God, but a superior personage other than God. There is a similar word, on the other hand, which designates the One God and Him alone. That word is adonai. In all of its 449 occurrences adonai means the Lord God. If the Messiah were the Lord God, the divine title would have been entirely appropriate for him in Psalm 110:1. What the Psalmist wrote was, “Yahweh [YEHOVAH] speaks to the lord [Messiah, the king].” It is a readily available language fact that the two terms adonai and adoni function differently. The one is a reverend way of avoiding pronouncing Yahweh [YEHOVAH]. Adoni is the proper way to address non-Deity figures.

Jesus [Yeshua], then, is the one Lord Jesus Messiah in I Corinthians 8:4-6, but he is carefully to be distinguished from his Father who is the unique and only God. We encourage our readers to confirm the above facts for themselves. Remember that adonai and adoni are both forms of the word ADON = Lord. By itself the word ADON can refer to a human or a divine superior. But the Hebrew Bible meticulously reserves adonai for the One God and Him alone. Adoni informs us that the one bearing that title is NOT God. This is a marvelously clarifying feature of God’s revelation to us all in Scripture.

Elohim is not a “uniplural” word. It is not a collective word like “family.” Much less is it the family name of the “God family.” There is no family of divine, eternal beings in the Bible. There is a unipersonal God, the One God of Israel and of Jesus [Yeshua]. He desires our allegiance and has revealed Himself uniquely in the Son whom He brought into existence in Mary.

Should anyone still wonder if Elohim is a collective, i.e., “team” or “committee” word, consider this: Does a committee or team speak as “I”? Are teams or committees addressed as “him”? A family of Smiths all share one name, but when they speak as a family, do they say “I”?

The God of Israel is NOT a self-existinguncreated Family. Such a definition invites polytheistic paganism into the faith, and that according to a celebrated historian of church history is exactly what happened from the second century. When the early church fathers began to speak of the Son of God as “God,” even if subordinate to the One God, the trouble and the confusion were under way. Thus “polytheism entered camouflaged into the church” (Professor Loofs). This trend is more than encouraged when God is said to be “two” or “three.”

It is an amazing fact that writers of commentaries on Psalm 110:1 and tracts on the nature of God have very often provided erroneous information about the original words of Scripture in this precious verse.

Benjamin Warfield in a celebrated article on the Trinity in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia speaks of “certain repetitionsof the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God.” He then cites Psalm 110:1, where in fact the sacred text carefully informs us that God is speaking to another who is not God (adoni). In recent times, a booklet produced by the Church of God International, “Who, What is God?” states: “In Psalm 110:1 the Messiah is called ‘Lord’ (Adonai).” But the word there is NOT adonai. If it were, the Bible would indeed present us with two Gods.

[PDF] SOURCE

THE TITLES EL & ELOHIM Good or Bad?

By Voy Wilks

Are the titles El and Elohim acceptable in referring to Yahweh, the Most High? I respectfully call to your attention the following thoughts:

The most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, dating to the first or second century before Yahshua’s birth, refer to the Supreme Being by the titles EL and Elohim. Therefore to claim that late scholars (Jewish or Gentile), added these titles is unfounded.

Thousands of times throughout the Sacred Writings (the Bible) Yahweh is referred to by the titles El and Elohim; by the Fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), by the judges, by the Prophets, by the Apostles, by Yahshua the Messiah and, of more importance, by Yahweh Himself. This indicates these titles are wholesome and, by using them we bestow greater honor upon Yahweh the Most High.

True, there was a Canaanite g-d by the NAME OF El. But this was after the fact. Yahweh, the Most High El claimed this TITLE (NOT A NAME) 1700 YEARS BEFORE THERE WERE ANY Canaanites. These titles were Yahweh’s choice, therefore we must not alter them (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

Yahweh commanded Jacob to go to Beth-El, and there worship EL (Genesis 35:1).

Take the prophet – one of Yahweh’s greatest, yet his name was EL-iyah. Did the Most High Yahweh demand that the prophet change his name? No. Instead, Yahweh performed wonderful deeds through El-iyah the prophet. The same is true of Dani-EL, the prophet. Yahweh did not demand, or even request, that he change his name.

Yahshua the Messiah honored EL-iyah (by that name) as a great prophet (Matthew 11:14).

When asked about the commandments of Yahweh, Yahshua the Messiah quoted the Shema, speaking of Yahweh as “our Elohim” (Mark 12:29, Deuteronomy 6:4). Since Yahweh was Yahshua’s Elohim, why not join good company, and make Yahweh our Elohim as well. To claim EL-ohim is a vile title is to imply that Yahshua Himself was a vile person (a sinner). If Yahshua sinned, then He could not have been the Messiah.

On that certain day of Pentecost long ago the Apostles were filled with the Holy [set apart] Spirit and did astonishing things (Acts 2). This included the Apostle Peter. A few days later, still filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:1-13), the Apostle Peter spoke favorably of the Prophet Samu-EL, calling him by name (Acts 3:24). He did not substitute for the prophet Samu-EL some name of his own choosing, as some do today.

The Apostle Paul also wrote in a favorable way about the prophet, calling him by name, Samu-EL (Heb. 11:32). Samu-EL is honored as a prophet and judge in Israel.

The name Israel – Yahweh himself gave this name (Isra-EL) to Jacob, as a more fitting name (Genesis 32:28). Who are we to disagree with the most High?

SUMMARY

It is a misguided devotion, trying to separate Yahweh from the titles El and Elohim; titles He chose for Himself in the very beginning; 1,700 years before there were any Canaanites, therefore 1,700 years before there existed a Canaanite g-d by the name of EL (Genesis 1:1, 2:4, 10:18). In quoting the Shema, Yahshua declared Yahweh to be our Elohim (Mark 12:29). Yahweh himself commanded Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to EL (Genesis 35:1). The titles El and Elohim were good enough for Yahweh, so they should be good enough for us.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse