De Moor V:13: Old Testament Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 2



We do not dare, says our AUTHOR, according to the best Theologians, to refer the plural Name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim/God to this, with other plurals, Adonim, Baalim, Makers,[1] Creators,[2] Holies, etc., the reason for which is clearly the same; as if the Plural Termination should lead us to a Plurality of Persons, and the common Construction with a Singular Verb or Adjective, to One Essence.


Johannes a Marck

This argument, according to our AUTHOR, 1. was unknown to the Ancients, inasmuch as not one of the Fathers, Greek or Latin, observed a mystery in this term, or proposed it against the Arians. 2. It was invented by the Scholastics, inasmuch as LOMBARD is noted as the first to hold it, book I of his Sentences, distinction II: see BUXTORF’S[3]Dissertationem de Nominibus Dei Hebraicis, § 42; GEORG CALIXTUS’[4]de præcipuis Christianæ Religionis Controversiis, page 11: whether WAGENSEIL,[5] in Carmenis Lipmanni Confutatione, Telis Igneis Satanæ, pages 129, 130, solidly evinces the contrary of this, and the far greater antiquity of this argument among Christians, I seriously doubt. 3. But then it did satisfy, and even now does satisfy, Great Men: not only Lutherans, see CALOVIUS’[6]Biblia Illustrata on Genesis 1:1, tome I, pages 215-218; WAGENSEIL’S Tela Ignea Satanæ, pages 128, 129; DEYLING’S Observationes Sacras, part II, Observation II, § 5-15, pages 13-22: but also of our men, MARTYR, ZANCHI, JUNIUS, whom HEINRICH ALTING cites on this matter, Theologia elenctica nova, locus III, page 105; POLYANDER,[7]Synopsi purioris Theologiæ, Disputation VII, § 40, 41; PISCATOR, Scholiis and Observtionibus on Genesis 1:1; WALÆUS, Locis communibus, opera, tome I, pages 155, 156, 236, and whom SOHN[8] cites here; HOORNBEECK, Socinianismo confutato, tome I, book II, chapter V, section II, pages 420-426; MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, locus II, § 10, locus III, § 44; ANTONIUS HULSIUS, Nucleo Prophetiæ on Genesis 1:1, § 9-15, pages 5-13; PETRUS VAN MASTRICHT, Theologia theoretico-practica, book II, chapter XXIV, § 3, page 237; JACOB ALTING, Heptadibus VII, Dissertation IV, pages 207-214, opera, tome 5; and also the Most Illustrious ALPHEN,[9] whom see in his Commentario on Daniel 9, pages 117-119, 125-127; but also the Most Illustrious LEYDEKKER, Exercitatione de Theologia vel Symbolo Mosis, § 92-111, which is found in tome I of Veritatis Euangelicæ triumphantis, and also in de Veritate Religionis reformatæ, book I, chapter III, § 26-33. JOHANN ANDREAS DANZ, who, in his Dissertatione on Genesis 1:26, inserted in Hase and Iken’s Thesauro novo Dissertationum in Veterem Testamentum, pages 123 and following, urges this argument from the plural name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim/God constructed with a singular Verb or Adjective for the Plurality of Peson in the One divine Essence, also denies that this argument was at length invented by the Scholastics; but from the most ancient writings of the Jews he contends that already in the first ages of Christianity Christians made use of the same in disputation with the Jews: while he believes that the silence in the writings of the Fathers is to be derived from their ignorance of the Hebrew Language; see his Dissertationem just now cited, § 19-22.



While our AUTHOR sides with others, who take the negative on this point and believe this argument to be destitute of solidity, of which sort are CALVIN, MERCERUS,[10] and DANÆUS on Genesis 1:1; PAREUS on Genesis 1:1, pages 21-25, whose words, worthy of consideration, read in our AUTHOR’S Historia Paradisi illustrata, book IV, chapter IX, § 3, page 848; DRUSIUS in de Elohim; BUXTORF in his Dissertatione de Nominibus Dei Hebraicis, § 42-44, and in his Thesauro Grammatico, book II, chapter X, pages 420-423; LEUSDEN[11] in his Philologo Hebræo, Dissertation XXXII, § 6, pages 333-336; VOSSIUS in his Etymologico Linguæ Latinæ on the term Deus, page 210; SPANHEIM in his Decadum Theologicarum IV, § 3, numbers 1, 2, opera, tome 3, column 1209; and others enumerated by CALOVIUS in his Bibliis Illustratis on Genesis 1:1, pages 216 at the beginning.


These do not deny with the Socinians, that the Triune God most frequently goes under the name of אֱלֹהִים/Elohim/God in the Sacred Books; nor that the Unity of the divine Essence is indicated by the singular Verb added to the plural Noun, אֱלֹהִים/Elohim: but they do not believe that the Plurality of Persons in the divine Essence is solidly proven by the Plural Number of this Name or its Construction with a Singular Verb or Adjective.



As in the case of the name Elohim, the matter also stands similarly in other divine Names and Epithets, Adonim or אֲדֺנָי/Adonai;[12]Makers, Isaiah 54:5, כִּ֤י בֹעֲלַ֙יִךְ֙ עֹשַׂ֔יִךְ יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת שְׁמ֑וֹ, for thy Makers are thine husbands; Jehovah of Hosts is His name;[13]Creators, Ecclesiastes 12:1,וּזְכֹר֙ אֶת־בּ֣וֹרְאֶ֔יךָ, remember now thy Creators; Holies, Joshua 24:19, כִּֽי־אֱלֹהִ֥ים קְדֹשִׁ֖ים ה֑וּא, for He is Elohim Holies. But principally it is wont to be disputed concerning the Name Elohim, which occurs in such a Construction far more frequently. We briefly discoursed concerning the Plurals of the Names Eloah and Adon in Chapter IV, § 5, refuting also the account of the use of the plural Name Elohim given by Le Clerc.[14] Now, against the Argument for the Trinity sought hence, our AUTHOR observes:


α. That it is common among the Hebrews, to use the Plural Number to express Excellence; thus בְהֵמוֹת/behemoth/beasts is used in Job 40:15, concerning which singular Pronouns and Verbs are then employed.[15] So also חָכְמוֹת/wisdoms occurs in Proverbs 1:20, etc., with which substantive singular Verbs and Pronouns are also then constructed: תָּרֹנָּה, she crieth; תִּתֵּ֥ן קוֹלָֽהּ׃, she giveth her voice; etc. Which obtains especially in Names of Dignity and Dominion: thus in Genesis 40:1, לַאֲדֹנֵיהֶ֖ם לְמֶ֥לֶךְ מִצְרָֽיִם׃, to their lords, to the king of Egypt;[16] in Genesis 42:30,דִּ֠בֶּר הָאִ֙ישׁ אֲדֹנֵ֥י הָאָ֛רֶץ אִתָּ֖נוּ קָשׁ֑וֹת, the man, the lords of the land, spake roughly with us; Isaiah 19:4,אֲדֹנִ֣ים קָשֶׁ֑ה וּמֶ֤לֶךְ עַז֙, lords a cruel one, and a fierce king. That is such a case the Construction is made either according to the Termination or according to the Signification indiscriminately, observes our AUTHOR, citing also Exodus 21:4,[17] 29,[18] in which אֲדֹנִים/Adonim and בְּעָלִים/Baalim are also constructed with a singular Verb. And he thinks that it is also plainly done so, when אֱלֹהִים/Elohim is used of God: in Genesis 1:1, בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים, Elohim created; in Genesis 20:13, הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֮, Elohim cause me to wander; in 2 Samuel 7:23, אֲשֶׁ֣ר הָלְכֽוּ־אֱ֠לֹהִים לִפְדּֽוֹת־ל֙וֹ לְעָ֜ם, whom Elohim went to redeem to Himself for a people; in 1 Chronicles 17:21,אֲשֶׁר֩ הָלַ֙ךְ הָאֱלֹהִ֜ים לִפְדּ֧וֹת ל֣וֹ עָ֗ם, whom Elohim went to redeem to Himself as a people. And so, what pertains to the Idiom of the Language, is not to be referred in a peculiar manner to the Mystery of the Trinity: but, inasmuch as a plural Noun is constructed with a singular Verb or Adjective, or a plural address is used of one singular Person, that, as it is evident from the various names and places gathered, pertains to the genius of the Language for the sake of expressing Excellence and Dignity. But the divine Essence excels in Excellence and Dignity all created things by infinite degrees: why is it strange then, if the Name expressing this Essence is also constructed in this manner, and is set forth in the plural?


β. If the Holy Spirit had willed to signify a Mystery of this sort by the plural Name Elohim constructed with a singular Verb, He would have seen to it that that Mystery was not profaned by the Name Elohim being used in the same Construction concerning Idols, as it is in Exodus 20:3, לֹֽ֣א יִהְיֶֽה־לְךָ֛֩ אֱלֹהִ֥֙ים אֲחֵרִ֖֜ים עַל־פָּנָֽ֗יַ׃, other elohim shall not be to thee before me; in Judges 16:23, the Satraps of the Philistines say concerning Dagon their God, נָתַ֤ן אֱלֹהֵ֙ינוּ֙, our elohim hath given. Indeed, singularly for the sake Excellence, Scripture makes use of this plural Name constructed with singulars concerning Moses alone, Exodus 4:16, וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּֽהְיֶה־לּ֥וֹ לֵֽאלֹהִֽים׃, and thou shalt be to him instead of Elohim, and in Exodus 7:1,נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה, I have made thee Elohim to Pharaoh.


γ. If Elohim, because it is plural in Number and is constructed with singulars, denotes Trinity in Unity of Essence, it should everywhere and always signify this: since, with a sufficient cause posited in act, the effect is posited: but it is certain that it does not always denote the Trinity, or the three Persons in the divine Essence, since it is attributed to the individual Persons, when one is expressly distinguished from another, Psalm 45:7; Genesis 1:2. It is not to be said, a. that this Name denotes the individual Persons by Synecdoche, while without Synecdoche it indicates the Trinity: for this is to assume the very thing that is controverted. b. Neither is refuge to be taken in ἐμπεριχώρησιν/ emperichoresis, since by that one Person is not made another.


δ. Finally, adds our AUTHOR, these Names are not able to have a Plural Signification, without them being translated in the Plural, and so being acknowledged as plurals, Gods and Lord, with an easy lapse into Tritheism in this way. And so, what concerning the True God is not able to be rendered in the plural, that does not have a plural signification: But the Names Elohim, Adonim, etc., are not able to be rendered in the plural concerning the True God. Therefore. The rationale of the Minor is, that it would have to be translated Gods, Lords, which, a. would easily lead us to Tritheism, and would not be readily reconciled with the Unity of the divine Essence; nor, b. with the interpretation of these Names in the singular by the Evangelists and Apostles of the New Testament; just as, c. also the same obtains in the Greek and Latin Versions of the Old Testament. And, while They Object that this was done because of the poverty of those Languages, in which there is no Noun answering suitably to Elohim in the plural: others responds that this is also supposed in vain, since the Name Θεὸς/Theos/God, which corresponds with Elohim, when the speech concerns the True God, ia also rendered Θεοὶ/ Theoi/gods in the plural, when it is employed to render Elohim, when used of Creatures, John 10:34. And so, if that Name Elohim indicates Plurality in God, it could certainly be rendered Θεοὶ/Theoi in the plural; but at the same time this would soon cause us to think of a Plurality of Gods.


Abraham Calovius

And so, our AUTHOR judges that the Plurality of the Name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim does not lead us to a Plurality of Persons. Yet not with GROTIUS, in Decalogi, does he refer the use of the Name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim in the plural, constructed with singulars, to an ellipsis, as if אֱלֹהִים/ Elohim were used in the place of אֱלוֹהַּ אֱלֺהִים, Eloah Elohim, God of gods: for it appears unsuitable, that the Sacred Scripture should begin with an ellipsis in Genesis 1:1, and should constantly persevere in that, even when this plural Name is conjoined with a plural Adjective or Verb, in which case to one absurdity would be added another, if you should wish to complete the sense through the singular Name אֱלוֹהַּ, Eloah: compare CALOVIUS’ Biblia Illustrata on Genesis 1:1, page 216; and above, Chapter IV, § 5. But our AUTHOR acknowledges an Idiom in the Hebrew Language in the case of these Names of God and others, employed in the Plural number but in the singular sense, which does not thus obtain in other Languages.


And these things do indeed appear thus to be disputed with sufficient probability by our AUTHOR with other Theologians: whence HEINRICH ALTING also, after weighing the arguments on both sides, concludes in Theologia problematica nova, locus III, problem VIII, page 178 at the end: “If the Faith of the Trinity be held in a holy manner, we leave it free to agree with whichever side: yet to use the negative appears better and more solid: for solid argument for evincing the Trinity are not able to be drawn from this.”


At the same time, the observation of BUDDEUS is not to be neglected, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, book II, chapter I, tome I, page 260, “It is not the case, that the words בְּעָלִים/Baalim and אֲדֹנִים/Adonim detain us, which with a singular verb are likewise used of one thing, Exodus 21:4,[19] 6,[20] 8,[21] 36,[22] as if the term אֱלֹהִים/Elohim, no less than those, were set forth in the plural number only for the sake of honor and dignity. For those terms are never conjoined with others in such a way that either a verb, or an adjective, or an affix of the plural number answers to them. Moreover, even if the terms אֲדֹנִים/Adonim and בְּעָלִים/Baalim are chiefly employed in the plural number for the sake of honor, yet the same is not able to be said concerning the word אֱלֹהִים/Elohim, since it does not rest satisfied in the signification of dominion or authority, and so in the same place, it is not able to be considered with words indicating anything of this sort, etc.:” compare also BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section II, § 14, tome I, page 742b; GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram,[23]book III, tractate III, canon LII, pages 397, 398. But if that observation should stand concerning the names אֲדֹנִים/Adonim and בְּעָלִים/Baalim, when they are used in a singular sense concerning something other than the True God, never constructed with a verb, adjective, or affix of the plural number, as it stands, if there be confidence in Concordances: it follows, 1. that it is not able to be said altogether universally and also with respect to Creatures, what our AUTHOR has; that, when אֲדֹנִים/Adonim and similar Names are used in the plural concerning one thing only, Construction is then made promiscuously, either according to the Termination, or according to the Signification. And, 2. that something peculiar obtains here in the use of Names of this sort, and especially of the Name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim, concerning God: since this is not only constructed with a Verb or Adjective of the singular number to denote the Unity of the divine Essence; but also with plural Verbs and Adjectives, just as I have already adduced above, הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֮, Elohim caused me to wander, out of Genesis 20:13; הָלְכוּ־אֱלֹהִים, Elohim went, out of 2 Samuel 7:23; thus in Genesis 35:7 we also have כִּ֣י שָׁ֗ם נִגְל֤וּ אֵלָיו֙ הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים, because there Elohim appeared to him. Now, the same Name used of God is joined with plural Adjectives, in Joshua 24:19, כִּֽי־אֱלֹהִ֥ים קְדֹשִׁ֖ים ה֑וּא, for Elohim is holy; in Jeremiah 10:10, וַֽיהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ אֱמֶ֔ת הֽוּא־אֱלֹהִ֥ים חַיִּ֖ים, but Jehovah is the true God; He is the living God; in Psalm 58:11, יֵשׁ־אֱ֜לֹהִ֗ים שֹׁפְטִ֥ים, He is a God judging. That is this manner the argument for the Plurality of the divine Persons from the Name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim is to be sought, WALÆUS has also already urged, wishing that special attention be given to the Construction of the plural Verb with this Name, Locorum communum, page 236, rationale I, opera, tome I: likewise HOORNBEECK, Socinianismo confutato, tome I, book II, chapter V, section II, pages 420-426. VRIEMOET follows the same in Adnotationibus ad Dicta classica Veteris Testamenti, tome I, chapter III, pages 125, 126. 3. After the sufficient and super-abundant revelation of the mystery of the Trinity elsewhere in Scripture, this peculiar Construction of the Name Elohim, denoting the One God, with Plural Verbs and Adjectives, to which, nevertheless, is everywhere joined again in context another singular Pronoun or Verbs, as in 2 Samuel 7:23, לוֹ, to/for Himself;[24] in Joshua 24:19, הוּא/He;[25] in Psalm 58:11, יֵשׁ, there is:[26] perhaps it will furnish for us an occasion for contemplating the Plurality of Persons in the One divine Essence, although a solid argument against Adversaries is hardly able to be constructed from this. See what things contra Houbigant Prolegomenis in Scripturam Sacram RAVIUS[27] disputes, Exercitation III, pages 13-18. And, 4. it will be able to be answered to the Arguments set forth above by our AUTHOR:


Johannes Hoornbeeck

α. To the first: in the case of the Name of Elohim, used with Plural Adjectives and Verbs, where nevertheless the speech concerns the one true God, that more common Idiom of the holy Tongue does not obtain, of which our AUTHOR makes mention; but something peculiar, receding from that, and under which something of a Mystery appears to lurk: neither is the argument here only sought from the Plural of the Name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim, as it is set forth by some, while the argumentation of our AUTHOR to the contrary proceeds more rightly; but from the Plural Verbs and Adjectives constructed with this Name. Apart from the fact that the plural number in titles of Dignity does indeed obtain when one speaks of another: but no one among the Hebrews was marking himself with the plural Number only for the sake of honor; which God nevertheless does many times, saying אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, I am Jehovah thy Elohim/God: compare HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome 1, book II, chapter V, section II, pages 420 and following.


β. To the second: the force of this argument also abates, if we grasp the observation just now set forth, concerning its strength consisting in the argument for the Plurality of Persons in the Trinity, not from the bare Plural of the Name Elohim, or its construction with a singular Verb; but from the Plural Verbs and Adjectives joined with it. How principally from the construction of the Name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim with Plural Verbs and Adjectives, yet agreeing again in context with another singular Pronoun or Verb, have also argued WALÆUS, Locorum communum, pages 155, 236, and HOORNBEECK, Socinianismo confutato, tome 1, book II, chapter V, section II, pages 420 and following.


γ. Hence the nerve of the third argument is cut: if indeed we suppose that the Name Elohim neither everywhere, not of itself, whether in consequence of origin or of the plural number, leads us to the Trinity; but only in those passage, where it is joined with Plural Verbs and Adjectives, even indeed by the force of this Construction. And this Construction does not so much define the Trinity, as lead us indefinitely to a Plurality of Persons, to be further determined elsewhere. Since the Name Elohim, denoting simply the One True God, elsewhere is also best able to be attributed to the individual Persons, since the individual Persons are the true God.


δ. To the fourth: although this Name ought not to be translated in the plural, the Name Elohim is able to be constructed in such a way that it is said to imply a Plurality of Persons: because this is to be attributed to the Idiom of the Hebrew Language, that the Name אֱלֹהִים/ Elohim and some others are able to be used in the plural with a singular sense concerning the One true God; while Plural Termination, Θεοὶ/ Theoi/Gods, Dii/Gods, Goden/Gods, and similar words, with a Plural Termination affixed, have the Signification of plural Essences. At the same time, when there is a receding from the accustomed construction of this word Elohim with a singular verb, adjective, or affix, when it is used of the One true God, with a Plural Verb or Adjective added to it; this leads us to think of the plural, not indeed of Gods, which is repugnant to both reason and the analogy of faith; but, as the rest of Scripture teaches, of Persons in the the divine Essence, which ZANCHI calls the three Elohim, but which Hebrew expression we do not which thus to express to the letter in the same sense in other Language: compare also the Marginal Notes in the DUTCH TRANSLATION on Genesis 20:13. CALOVIUS, in his Bibliis Illustratis on Genesis 1:1, pages 216b-218a, relates the observations of the ancient Jews concerning this matter.

[1] For example, Job 35:10: “But none saith, Where is God my maker (עֹשָׂי, my Makers), who giveth songs in the night…” [2] Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember now thy Creator (בּוֹרְאֶיךָ, thy Creators) in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them…” [3] John Buxtorf, Jr. (1599-1664) succeeded his father as Professor of Hebrew at Basel (1629-1664), and was perhaps the equal of his father in Hebraic learning. [4] Georg Calixtus (1596-1656) was a German Lutheran theologian, remembered for his efforts to provide a broad enough base for the reconciliation and reunion of all Christendom. His very irenicism was an object of controversy throughout his career. Nevertheless, he was able to retain his post as Professor of Theology at Helmstedt from 1614 to 1656. [5] Johann Christoph Wagenseil (1633-1705) was a German historian and Hebraist. [6] Abraham Calovius (1612-1686) was a champion of Lutheran orthodoxy. He served the University of Wittenberg as Professor of Theology, and later as general superintendent. He opposed Socinians, Roman Catholics, and Calvinists, denying the possibility of the salvation of any of these. His Systema locorum theologicorum stands at the apex of Lutheran scholastic orthodoxy. [7] Johannes Polyander (1568-1646) was a Dutch Reformed theologian of French extraction. He served as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1611-1646), in the aftermath of the Arminian controversy. Although orthodox, Polyander was of an irenic and conciliatory spirit. [8] Georg Sohn (1551-1589) was a German theologian. He served as Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Marburg (1574-1584), and of Old Testament at Heidelberg (1584-1589). [9] Hieronymus Simons Van Alphen (1665-1742) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1714-1742). [10] John Mercerus (died 1562) began his career as a Roman Catholic scholar. He was one of the sixteenth century’s greatest experts in Hebrew, and he served as Professor of Hebrew and Chaldean in the Royal College, Paris (1549). Roman Catholics lamented his conversion to Protestantism. He wrote In Genesin, primum Mosis librum, sic a Græcis appellatum, commentarium. [11] Johannes Leusden (1624-1699) was a Dutch Reformed Orientalist; he served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Utrecht (1650-1699). [12]אֲדֺנָי is formally plural. [13] A woodenly literalistic rendering, retaining the plurals. [14] Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736) was educated in Geneva, under the tutelage of Philippe Mestrezat and Francis Turretin, and ordained circa 1680. His sympathy for the theology of the Remonstrants made it impossible for him to continue in Geneva. He settled as Professor of Philosophy at Amsterdam (1684-1731). In his Sentimens, Le Clerc finds fault with much of Richard Simon’s work, but his critical approach to the Scripture is similar to that of Simon. [15] Job 40:15, 16: “Behold now behemoth (בְהֵמוֹת, formally plural), which I made with thee; he eateth (יֹאכֵל, singular verb) grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his bellyהִנֵּה־נָ֣א כֹח֣וֹ) בְמָתְנָ֑יו וְ֜אֹנ֗וֹ בִּשְׁרִירֵ֥י בִטְנֽוֹ׃, singular pronouns).” [16] A woodenly literalistic rendering. [17] Exodus 21:4: “If his master have given him (אֲדֹנָיו֙ יִתֶּן־ל֣וֹ, plural subject with a singular verb) a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s (לַאדֹנֶיהָ, plural noun), and he shall go out by himself.” [18] Exodus 21:29: “But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him inבִּבְעָלָיו֙ וְלֹ֣א) יִשְׁמְרֶ֔נּוּ, plural subject with a singular verb), but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner (בְּעָלָיו, plural noun) also shall be put to death.” [19] Exodus 21:4: “If his master have given him (אֲדֹנָיו֙ יִתֶּן־ל֣וֹ, plural subject with a singular verb) a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s (לַאדֹנֶיהָ, plural noun), and he shall go out by himself.” [20] Exodus 21:6: “Then his master shall bring him (וְהִגִּישׁ֤וֹ אֲדֹנָיו֙, plural subject with a singular verb) unto the judges; he shall also bring him (וְהִגִּישׁוֹ, singular verb) to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore (וְרָצַ֙ע אֲדֹנָ֤יו, plural subject with a singular verb) his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him (וַעֲבָדוֹ, verb with a singular object pronoun) for ever.” [21] Exodus 21:8: “If she please not her master (אֲדֹנֶיהָ, plural noun), who hath betrothed her (יְעָדָהּ, singular verb) to himself (לוֹ [Qere], singular object pronoun), then shall he let her be redeemed (וְהֶפְדָּהּ, singular verb): to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power (לֹא־יִמְשֹׁל, singular verb), seeing he hath dealt deceitfully (בְּבִגְדוֹ, singular personal pronoun) with her.” [22] Exodus 21:36: “Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in (וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְרֶ֖נּוּ בְּעָלָ֑יו, plural subject with a singular verb); he shall surely pay (שַׁלֵּ֙ם יְשַׁלֵּ֥ם, singular verb) ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own (לּוֹ, singular object pronoun).” [23] Solomon Glassius (1593-1656) was a German Lutheran divine and critic. He was Professor of Divinity at the University of Jena. His Philologia Sacra was a groundbreaking work in Biblical Hebrew. [24] 2 Samuel 7:23: “And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem to himself (הָלְכֽוּ־אֱ֠לֹהִים לִפְדּֽוֹת־ל֙וֹ, a plural subject with a plural verb, but a singular object pronoun) for a people, and to make him (לוֹ) a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?” [25] Joshua 24:19: “And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is an holy God (כִּֽי־אֱלֹהִ֥ים קְדֹשִׁ֖ים ה֑וּא, a plural noun and adjective with a singular pronoun); he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.” [26] Psalm 58:11: “So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily there is a God that judgeth (יֵשׁ־אֱ֜לֹהִ֗ים שֹׁפְטִ֥ים) in the earth.” [27] Sebald Rau (1724-1818) was a German Orientalist and Reformed theologian.

164 views1 comment
ABOUT US

Dr. Steven Dilday holds a BA in Religion and Philosophy from Campbell University, a Master of Arts in Religion from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), and both a Master of Divinity and a  Ph.D. in Puritan History and Literature from Whitefield Theological Seminary.  He is also the translator of Matthew Poole's Synopsis of Biblical Interpreters and Bernardinus De Moor’s Didactico-Elenctic Theology.

ADDRESS

540-718-2554

 

426 Patterson St.

Central, SC  29630

 

dildaysc@aol.com

SUBSCRIBE FOR EMAILS

© 2021 by FROM REFORMATION TO REFORMATION MINISTRIES.