The Trinity study ,plural references to God in the Old Testament:Plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs

[amazing grace]

“Alone” excludes other gods — not God’s own Spirit or Word​

meaning no rival gods, not “no internal plurality within God”

Correct --- the singular usage of God or God 'alone' would exclude other gods.
Of course, it wouldn't exclude God's Spirit, God is Spirit.
Nor would it exclude God's word, God expresses himself through his word, what he says and how he says it.

Where does the phrase "no internal plurality within God" come from? Is it sola scriptura?

 

[FreeInChrist]

Correct --- the singular usage of God or God 'alone' would exclude other gods.
Of course, it wouldn't exclude God's Spirit, God is Spirit.
Nor would it exclude God's word, God expresses himself through his word, what he says and how he says it.

Where does the phrase "no internal plurality within God" come from? Is it sola scriptura?

“It's not a Scripture quote."

I’m not quoting a verse — I’m explaining the context. When Scripture says God is ‘alone,’ it’s denying rival gods, not denying God’s own Word or Spirit. Otherwise John 1:1 and Psalm 110:1 wouldn’t even work. It’s theology drawn from the text, not adding to it.

We’re just using theological language to describe what the verses already show.

 

[atpollard]

I didn't mean that we had to start the WHOLE conversation OVER!!!

It seems you left out the 'plural intensive - singular meaning'.........

A "plural intensive" (or "plural of majesty") is a linguistic concept, primarily in Hebrew, where a noun uses a plural form (like a plural suffix) but refers to a single entity, emphasizing its greatness, majesty, or power, not its quantity. For example, the Hebrew word Elohim (God) is a plural form used to denote the singular, supreme God, conveying divine greatness rather than multiple gods, as it takes singular verbs and adjectives. -- AI

"God said" ---- said is singular therefore God is singular. That is how the Hebrew works ---- singular verbs, singular pronouns and singular adjectives ----- point to a singular subject.

Is there any OTHER example of the “plural intensive” in ancient Hebrew other than God?

If not, then it seems a “begging the question” fallacy (“it means singular in the case of God because it means singular in the case of God”).

 

[amazing grace]

“It's not a Scripture quote."

Okay.

I’m not quoting a verse — I’m explaining the context. When Scripture says God is ‘alone,’ it’s denying rival gods, not denying God’s own Word or Spirit. Otherwise John 1:1 and Psalm 110:1 wouldn’t even work. It’s theology drawn from the text, not adding to it. We’re just using theological language to describe what the verses already show.

So it is not theological language when scripture says God 'alone' or God is 'alone' to mean just what it says -- God alone, by himself, etc.?

John 1:1 works perfectly well and better if we stick with the logos (the word) being in the beginning ....... the logos being with God, i.e. God's word being with Him and the logos was God, i.e. God's word fully expresses who he is. (God without the definite article ('the') makes it qulitative. “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it expressed or revealed God.)
If one reads 'Jesus' or 'Son' into John 1:1 that is adding to the text and not drawing from the text.

Why wouldn't Psalm 110:1 work?

 

[amazing grace]

Is there any OTHER example of the “plural intensive” in ancient Hebrew other than God?

If not, then it seems a “begging the question” fallacy (“it means singular in the case of God because it means singular in the case of God”).

Honestly, I don't know. I am not a Hebrew scholar and I drew the definition from the one capbook previously used:
H430
אלהים 'ĕlôhı̂ym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God

And pulled the explanation from AI : A "plural intensive" (or "plural of majesty") is a linguistic concept, primarily in Hebrew, where a noun uses a plural form (like a plural suffix) but refers to a single entity, emphasizing its greatness, majesty, or power, not its quantity. For example, the Hebrew word Elohim (God) is a plural form used to denote the singular, supreme God, conveying divine greatness rather than multiple gods, as it takes singular verbs and adjectives. -- AI

Here is what else AI says about the singular, plurality of elohim: Yes, elohim is used in Hebrew as both a singular and plural noun depending on context and verb agreement. It is technically the plural of eloah (god). When referring to the one God of Israel (e.g., Genesis 1:1), it takes singular verbs. When referring to multiple pagan deities or divine beings, it takes plural verbs.
Key details regarding the usage of elohim:

• Singular Usage (The One God): When elohim refers to the God of Israel, it is often considered a plural of majesty or intensity (similar to the royal "we"), representing the fullness of divinity. For example, in Genesis 1:1, elohim is used with a singular verb, bara ("he created").
• Plural Usage (Gods/Divine Beings): When used to describe false gods, idols, or supernatural beings (e.g., Exodus 20:3), elohim takes plural verbs, adjectives, or pronouns.
• Contextual Clues: The verb tense in the sentence dictates whether it is singular or plural.
• Similar Hebrew Terms: Similar to elohim, other Hebrew terms like mayim (water) or panim (face) use a plural form to represent a singular concept.

The word appears 2,602 times in the Hebrew Bible, with its meaning determined by its specific grammatical context.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Okay.

So it is not theological language when scripture says God 'alone' or God is 'alone' to mean just what it says -- God alone, by himself, etc.?

John 1:1 works perfectly well and better if we stick with the logos (the word) being in the beginning ....... the logos being with God, i.e. God's word being with Him and the logos was God, i.e. God's word fully expresses who he is. (God without the definite article ('the') makes it qulitative. “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it expressed or revealed God.)
If one reads 'Jesus' or 'Son' into John 1:1 that is adding to the text and not drawing from the text.

Why wouldn't Psalm 110:1 work?

“When Scripture says God is ‘alone,’ the context is always about rival gods and idols (Isa 45:5–6; Neh 9:6), not defining God’s internal nature. If ‘alone’ meant absolute solitary personhood, then passages where God speaks with His Word, His Spirit, or says ‘Let us make man’ wouldn’t make sense.


John 1:1 also doesn’t say the Word was merely an attribute — it says the Word was with God (relationship/distinction) and was God (full deity). An attribute can’t be ‘with’ someone. And Psalm 110:1 clearly shows two persons both called Lord. So ‘alone’ must mean no rival gods, not no distinctions within God.”

 

[amazing grace]

“When Scripture says God is ‘alone,’ the context is always about rival gods and idols (Isa 45:5–6; Neh 9:6), not defining God’s internal nature. If ‘alone’ meant absolute solitary personhood, then passages where God speaks with His Word, His Spirit, or says ‘Let us make man’ wouldn’t make sense.

I don't know if the context is ALWAYS about rival gods and idols ... Does scripture differentiate between God and his internal nature? How can God be 'separated' from his internal nature?

The passages where God speaks using plural pronouns, a total of four verses ---- In two of the 'us' references Gen. 3:22 and Isaiah 6:6-8 - cherubim and seraphim are present and it's highly likely that God is speaking to them. It wouldn't be beyond impossible for Gen. 1:26 and Gen. 11:5-9 to also be God speaking to his heavenly host, to the angelic beings.
So 'Let us make man' does make sense when God is actually speaking to someone else.

John 1:1 also doesn’t say the Word was merely an attribute — it says the Word was with God (relationship/distinction) and was God (full deity). An attribute can’t be ‘with’ someone.

It does say the logos was with God.......Is your word with you? It would be full deity IF the definite article was in place but as it is it is qualitative.
So, just for kicks I asked AI : Trinitarian scholars which say 'god' in John 1:1c is qualitative.
<snip>
Key proponents and scholars who argue for this qualitative interpretation include:

• F.F. Bruce: A prominent New Testament scholar who argued that the absence of the article does not make it indefinite, but rather qualitative, indicating the Word has the same nature as God.
• Robert M. Bowman, Jr.: While strongly defending the deity of Christ, Bowman has argued that the qualitative nature of theos allows for, but does not necessitate, an indefinite translation ("a god"), and emphasizes the Word's divine nature.
• Daniel B. Wallace: Although contextually interpreted, Wallace is widely recognized for his work on the qualitative use of predicate nominatives in Greek grammar, which is applied to John 1:1c.
• Murray J. Harris: In "Jesus as God," Harris argues for a qualitative interpretation of theos, focusing on the attributes rather than the identity of the person. <snip>

My attributes are with me!!! I don't go anywhere without my attributes - they are what make ME who I am.

And Psalm 110:1 clearly shows two persons both called Lord. So ‘alone’ must mean no rival gods, not no distinctions within God.”

Psalm 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.

Yes, there are TWO persons here EACH called lord. One is Yahweh (adonai) and one is David's Lord (adoni).......Even the biblical translations capitalize the first LORD indicating Yahweh's name - the verse is prophetic concerning Jesus. (Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:13)

I'm not understanding - Why reference this verse as 'alone' meaning no rival gods, not 'no distinctions within God'?
What is 'no distinctions within God'?

 

[FreeInChrist]

I don't know if the context is ALWAYS about rival gods and idols ... Does scripture differentiate between God and his internal nature? How can God be 'separated' from his internal nature?

The passages where God speaks using plural pronouns, a total of four verses ---- In two of the 'us' references Gen. 3:22 and Isaiah 6:6-8 - cherubim and seraphim are present and it's highly likely that God is speaking to them. It wouldn't be beyond impossible for Gen. 1:26 and Gen. 11:5-9 to also be God speaking to his heavenly host, to the angelic beings.
So 'Let us make man' does make sense when God is actually speaking to someone else.

It does say the logos was with God.......Is your word with you? It would be full deity IF the definite article was in place but as it is it is qualitative.
So, just for kicks I asked AI : Trinitarian scholars which say 'god' in John 1:1c is qualitative.
<snip>
Key proponents and scholars who argue for this qualitative interpretation include:

• F.F. Bruce: A prominent New Testament scholar who argued that the absence of the article does not make it indefinite, but rather qualitative, indicating the Word has the same nature as God.
• Robert M. Bowman, Jr.: While strongly defending the deity of Christ, Bowman has argued that the qualitative nature of theos allows for, but does not necessitate, an indefinite translation ("a god"), and emphasizes the Word's divine nature.
• Daniel B. Wallace: Although contextually interpreted, Wallace is widely recognized for his work on the qualitative use of predicate nominatives in Greek grammar, which is applied to John 1:1c.
• Murray J. Harris: In "Jesus as God," Harris argues for a qualitative interpretation of theos, focusing on the attributes rather than the identity of the person. <snip>

My attributes are with me!!! I don't go anywhere without my attributes - they are what make ME who I am.

Psalm 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.

Yes, there are TWO persons here EACH called lord. One is Yahweh (adonai) and one is David's Lord (adoni).......Even the biblical translations capitalize the first LORD indicating Yahweh's name - the verse is prophetic concerning Jesus. (Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:13)

I'm not understanding - Why reference this verse as 'alone' meaning no rival gods, not 'no distinctions within God'?
What is 'no distinctions within God'?

“When I say ‘not no distinctions within God,’ I mean that Scripture shows personal distinctions in God — Father, Word/Logos, and Spirit — without contradicting His oneness. ‘Alone’ only denies rival gods, not these internal distinctions (see John 1:1, Gen 1:26).”

 

[amazing grace]

“When I say ‘not no distinctions within God,’ I mean that Scripture shows personal distinctions in God — Father, Word/Logos, and Spirit — without contradicting His oneness. ‘Alone’ only denies rival gods, not these internal distinctions (see John 1:1, Gen 1:26).”

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Instead of 'distinctions within God' - I just see God as the Father, Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah and the Spirit as the Spirit of God.

 

[Runningman]

“When I say ‘not no distinctions within God,’ I mean that Scripture shows personal distinctions in God — Father, Word/Logos, and Spirit — without contradicting His oneness. ‘Alone’ only denies rival gods, not these internal distinctions (see John 1:1, Gen 1:26).”

This might be more of a matter of the way you read the Bible and assign meaning to words and concepts. For example, we know the Bible never speaks of "internal distinctions within God." This is something you have deduced, parsed out, or inferred somehow, but could not be a statement on par with divinely inspired Scripture. Hence, no one mentioned it.

Do you think you could discuss what you believe using only the provided vocabulary in the Bible?

 

[mikesw]

This might be more of a matter of the way you read the Bible and assign meaning to words and concepts. For example, we know the Bible never speaks of "internal distinctions within God." This is something you have deduced, parsed out, or inferred somehow, but could not be a statement on par with divinely inspired Scripture. Hence, no one mentioned it.

Do you think you could discuss what you believe using only the provided vocabulary in the Bible?

oh my. we return to the unitarian's pocket dictionary that is used to control discussion instead of having real debate. There is not mention of trinity here. The only thing needed to show the unitarian fallacy is John 1:1-18, but unitarians read with hyperliteralist details and reject the use of logos metaleptically ( a form of multiple allegories) that show a pre-existing One that becomes flesh.

 

[Runningman]

oh my. we return to the unitarian's pocket dictionary that is used to control discussion instead of having real debate. There is not mention of trinity here. The only thing needed to show the unitarian fallacy is John 1:1-18, but unitarians read with hyperliteralist details and reject the use of logos metaleptically ( a form of multiple allegories) that show a pre-existing One that becomes flesh.

Maybe we are not in agreement about what the actual debate is. Are you wanting to debate what the Bible says or, rather, debate the biblical viability of your religion? Please explain what your goal is here, maybe we should have did that way back at the beginning, but it would be good to know going forward.

 

[mikesw]

Maybe we are not in agreement about what the actual debate is. Are you wanting to debate what the Bible says or, rather, debate the biblical viability of your religion? Please explain what your goal is here, maybe we should have did that way back at the beginning, but it would be good to know going forward.

I just want you to stop pretending that your vocabulary restrictions are valid. Maybe you have not realized that we have been discussing what the bible says. The unitarians provide hyperliteralist readings and skip half the verses while denying allegory that shows the pre-existence of Jesus. That is what the discussion hinges on.

 

[Grace ambassador]

denying allegory that shows the pre-existence of Jesus

Was not aware of this; please elaborate with an example or two?

 

[mikesw]

Was not aware of this; please elaborate with an example or two?

The idea of interest here is John 1:1-18. The logos is used allegorically to contain attributes of the One involved in creation who has certain attributes identified by previous writers. So logos carries with it many ideas shared before. The style of layering then is recognized as metalepsis (which is a step beyond metonyms -- where the word "law" can encompass the whole system of written laws, police and judges).
= = = shared before editing this post = = =
The area i have shared before is that John 1:1-18 uses logos metaleptically.
The idea begins with Prob 8:22-31 that shows wisdom being possessed by the Lord in creation. Philo took that sense of wisdom in creation and blended with the sense of logos of the Greek philosophy as working as a co-creator. The idea was of conscious participation of one they call logos. Basically then the word logos encapsulates the broad concept of a conscious one having wisdom and participating in creation. (There are improper details behind the Greek philosophy and Philo's use, but any wrong conceptions are canceled out by John 1 incorporation of logos.)
John 1 takes the basic idea of logos from within both Jewish and Greek writings and applies logos analogically into its proper sense of relationship with God (i.e. the logos was with God and the logos was God). So we have the One who roughly appears in Philo and Greek philosophy being identified. The logos, though originally limited in meaning to be a word or message, now carries with it the divine pre-existing One. The characteristics then of that divine One are represented as a metonym that then becomes flesh to who we know as Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

I just want you to stop pretending that your vocabulary restrictions are valid. Maybe you have not realized that we have been discussing what the bible says. The unitarians provide hyperliteralist readings and skip half the verses while denying allegory that shows the pre-existence of Jesus. That is what the discussion hinges on.

So you can't discuss your religion using the same words that the people in the Bible discussed their religion with?

 

[Runningman]

The idea of interest here is John 1:1-18. The logos is used allegorically to contain attributes of the One involved in creation who has certain attributes identified by previous writers. So logos carries with it many ideas shared before. The style of layering then is recognized as metalepsis (which is a step beyond metonyms -- where the word "law" can encompass the whole system of written laws, police and judges).
= = = shared before editing this post = = =
The area i have shared before is that John 1:1-18 uses logos metaleptically.
The idea begins with Prob 8:22-31 that shows wisdom being possessed by the Lord in creation. Philo took that sense of wisdom in creation and blended with the sense of logos of the Greek philosophy as working as a co-creator. The idea was of conscious participation of one they call logos. Basically then the word logos encapsulates the broad concept of a conscious one having wisdom and participating in creation. (There are improper details behind the Greek philosophy and Philo's use, but any wrong conceptions are canceled out by John 1 incorporation of logos.)
John 1 takes the basic idea of logos from within both Jewish and Greek writings and applies logos analogically into its proper sense of relationship with God (i.e. the logos was with God and the logos was God). So we have the One who roughly appears in Philo and Greek philosophy being identified. The logos, though originally limited in meaning to be a word or message, now carries with it the divine pre-existing One. The characteristics then of that divine One are represented as a metonym that then becomes flesh to who we know as Jesus.

You're starting to sound like an actual scholar. So you finally admit that the Word of God can be God's spoken words, a thing personified? That's what the 1st century Jews and Christians believed and still continue to believe up until this present day.

 

[mikesw]

So you can't discuss your religion using the same words that the people in the Bible discussed their religion with?

My Aramaic and Greek are rather rusty these days.

 

[mikesw]

You're starting to sound like an actual scholar. So you finally admit that the Word of God can be God's spoken words, a thing personified? That's what the 1st century Jews and Christians believed and still continue to believe up until this present day.

oh wow. so you can return to the dictionary and forget about the context and usage of the words. That is not helpful in scholarly debates. I would have hoped you would have caught up to higher levels such as rhetorical criticism.

 

[Runningman]

My Aramaic and Greek are rather rusty these days.

How about any English translations that uses the same words that you use? I never saw anyone in the Bible state anything about their beliefs that reflect what your beliefs are. Looks like you aren't the same religion as the one that Jesus taught about.