According to a Catholic theological definition (which is accepted by many), “the persons of the Blessed Trinity are truly distinct relationally, but not “as a matter of essence, or nature.” Each of the three persons in the godhead is said by them to possess the same eternal and infinite divine nature; but, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other.ⁱ Now this is accepted as a mystery. But remember that this is a viewpoint decided upon by a vote of men.

WHY IS the Plural word “GODS” THEREFORE “HERESY”? No wonder an elderly man at a congregation that I visited accentuated assertively that he considered my illustrated book on the Trinity "GODS" was false. He wrote in big letters throughout the book, “ONE GOD.” He was apparently espousing the Catholic theology with an judgmental accent. I don’t know his actual thinking because he wouldn’t talk to me. I had illustrated in my book, When the Gods Walked Among Us, how the Bible points out that there are multiple persons in the Godhead even in the Old Testament. More than one person in the deity; i.e., three individuals. Therefore, a plurality. But acting with absolute singular action. The disagreement expressed probably was not that the Bible speaks of three persons as deity but probably that my conclusion did not match the man’s conception of the matter.

THE CATHOLIC DEFINITION IS THE ACCEPTED ONE? Even among Protestants? The Catholic Council’s definition of trinity defines the “one God.” This may be why a well versed and exegetical Protestant denomination preacher also concluded that the trinity is but a mystery and we cannot understand it.ⁱⁱ He was satisfied that it was a mystery because he believed that an omnipotent God of three persons should be a mystery to us mortals. He quotes, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16).

THEREFORE, THERE ARE NOT “THREE” GODS but “one God.” The definitions of the “Trinity” at the Council of Florence, AD 1338-1445, was quote, “as easy as one, two, three… four.”ⁱⁱⁱ It taught there is one nature in God, and that there are two processions, three persons, and four relations that constitute the Blessed Trinity. The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from both the Father and the Son.” These are the two processions in God. And these are foundational to the four relations that constitute the three persons in God. Yet, one must not conclude that there are three gods.^iv This is the decisive ruling from a council of humans.

THE COUNCIL’S ATTEMPT AT UNDERSTANDING “ONE GOD.” If there are three persons, how can there be “one God”? It is anathema to have three gods! The current^v Roman Catholic stance is that God “generates the Son which constitutes Him as the Father. The Son is generated by the Father. They in turn spirate^a the Holy Spirit.” Now this had to have satisfied the council while protecting against anyone accusing Catholics as being Polytheists. After all. even though there are three persons in the Godhead there can be only one God. This dilemma had been resolved! Catholics and hence, Christians can now be called monotheists. So, that must be the end game. How to be monotheistic in translation(?)
^a spirate: “the act by or manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son”-- Webster online

MONOTHEISM IS “THE SACRED COW.” Monotheism is obviously the guiding principle for the council and others defining the trinity of the Bible. Merriam-Webster online defines "monotheism" strictly as "the doctrine or belief that there is but one God." Apparently, the definition of the trinity must not violate an understanding of the principle of monotheism. Monotheism is supposed to characterize “the traditions of Zoroastrianism, Bábism, the Bahá'í Faith, Christianity, Deism, Druzism, Eckankar, Sikhism, Manichaeism, Islam, Judaism, Samaritanism, Mandaeism, Rastafari, Seicho-no-Ie, Tenrikyo, Yazidism, and Atenism.” Elements of monotheistic thought are found even in early religions such as ancient Chinese religion, Tengrism, and Yahwism. ^vi Hence, it is “taboo” to suggest that Christianity or Judaism is not “monotheistic” and therefore, we must not and cannot use the plural ending -s with God!

MONOTHEISM AND THE BIBLE. Trinity as a word does not appear in the Bible. Now, it should be admitted also that the word “monotheism” does not appear in the Bible either. Webster points out that actually the word monotheism appears the first time in history during 1660 AD with the definition as “the doctrine or belief that there is but one God” with the comment, “historically related forms of monotheism [are] as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—B. R. Barber.” ^vii

BUT THE BIBLE USES THE PLURAL! The crucial question is: Can one be wrong if he uses strictly the Bible terms? Now one cannot truly deny that the plural is used in the Bible itself. If one studies the Torah or the Old Testament in its original language of Hebrew, one must concede that the Bible uses the plural for God. Genesis 1:1 states in the original Hebrew “In the beginning Gods…” The Hebrew equivalency of our plural ending of “s” was “im”; i.e., using a readable script for us. The singular word for God was “El.” The word “God” in the first Hebrew verse is actually an “im” word: “Elohim.” Plural.^viii When properly translated this word is “Gods.” That means that to a reader of the original Old Testament, God is plural. Now the English translators apparently felt obligated not to use the plural form. But why?

SUBJECT AND VERBS. One admitted problem the translators had was that the Hebrew verb “created” [The subject's action word] is singular in Genesiss 1:1. Like in English grammar, a subject and its verb even in a foreign language must agree in number. Consequently, the apparemt reasoning in translating is that the subject “Gods” must be singular. Their translation then is “In the beginning God created [both subject and verb singular].” Although this may have made sense for a solution to the problem for the translators, it made no difference to the ancient Hebrews. They obviously still used the plural for their Creator. For example, in Exodus 32 Aaron and the disobedient Israelites used the plural referring to God. We know because in this instance the English is properly translated in the plural by our English translators. It has just caused confusion among English readers who do not understand that the prophet Moses had used the plural in chapter one for the Creator. And for that matter, the prophets also used the plural throughout the Old Testament. According to the King James Concordance Elohim is translated as a singular God 2366 times! The word seems to be translated singular by the translators only if the context is interpreted as speaking of the God of Israel by the prophet. Pagan gods or what appears to refer to such do not warrant that privilege. The word is translated at least 216 times as “gods” when the translators apparently interpret the word coming from the people and may refer to idols.

Let's look in Exodus 32:1 where Elohim is properly translated in the plural “gods.” Israel (the people) gathered together before Aaron and said “Make us gods [Elohim], which shall go before us because we don’t know what happened to Moses.” The request from the people is therefore in the plural. But in response Aaron had a single molten calf engraved while they (Israel) still said, “These ['e^lleh, plural] be thy gods [Elohim] that brought thee up from Egypt” (32:4). The people obviously understood that the plural word gods [Elohim] was still applicable although Aaron represented “their gods” as a single entity, a golden calf. All this proves is that the people were accustomed from Moses and Aaron to using the plural word Gods with a singular verb for their deliverer from slavery.

A RULE IN ENGLISH WILL ALLOW PLURAL NOUNS UNIFIED TO BE USED IN A SINGULAR SENSE. The plural noun still refers to multiple entities but has singular verbs.

Notional plural nouns. Certain plural nouns, compounds and noun phrases are commonly treated as notionally singular; e.g., quantified or measured and expressed as a unit.

Example A. Six hundred dollars was the price quoted.

Example B. Three days isn’t long enough to do it.

Example C. Fewer cars in cities results in reduced pollution.

Example D. Noun phrases using “and”, can be treated as singular; e.g., fish and chips is my favorite.

Example E. Mathematical additions expressed in words; e.g., seven and three is ten.

If God wanted the Godhead to emphasize unity from the very first text, then a singular verb could be expected in English and obviously in the Hebrew. Hence, unified Gods together and singularly created. But this should underscore the obvious: The Gods are one in the action of creating. Gods created. Therefore, we should not argue that it is a sin to say GodS.

WHAT ABOUT VERSE 2? It is interesting though that in verse 2, the translators went ahead and identified the [Holy] Spirit, who is the second member of the Deity: “And the Spirit [singular] of God [plural, Elohim^H430 ] moved [singular] upon the face of the waters.” The Hebrew word for Spirit is ru^..ach which is used for a concept of “wind, breath, mind, or spirit” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions). Even the Alexandrian 70 Jewish Greek scholars understood it to mean here as God’s Spirit and translated it as Pneuma (Spirit) of God. Verse 2 is consistent with the plural Gods of verse 1. It is the Spirit of God moving upon the waters. The psalmist makes this clear when writing: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath [rûakh, Spirit] of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6, KJV): God, Word, Spirit, and Creation.

As a side note, Islam teaches “that Christians worship three gods; God, Mary, and her son, Isa (Jesus)– but in their mention of a trinity, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned.” ^ix Even Jewish theology treat their word ruach^H7307 as being just God’s wind or breath. But such passages as Psalm 104:30 treats Him as a renewer, a creator: “Thou sendest forth thy spirit,^H7307 they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.” Genesis 1:2 is important then for the separate existence of the Holy Spirit that makes up the active Trinity in creation.

VERSES 26, 27. Moving on, later in the text, Genesis 1:26 is very importantfor our study. The statement of the Creator[s] of man is literally translated into English for us as “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” This is stated in connection with the original Hebrew’s plural; i.e., Elohim: Gods. According to the King James Concordance the plural of God Elohim is used over 2366 times plus as singular “Fod” in the Old Testament. ^x On the other hand, sometimes elohim is translated with the English plural form “s”; Genesis 3:5, “ye shall be as gods”; Genesis 31:30, 32; Genesis 35:2,4; etc. Elohim is correctly translated with the English plural ending “s” as gods in Psalm 8:6 which passage is quoted by Jesus in the Greek New Testament (John 10:34 and 35).

Finally, one EXPLANATION FOR THE HEBREW USE OF THE PLURAL. One assumption for the Bible using the plural Elohim without meaning plural has been offered: it was used in a plural way to emphasize a god having special added power. The Jews believed that God was so powerful that He is referred to in the plural.

Answer. But the “70” faithful Alexandrian Jews that translated the Torah Hebrew into Koine Greek, during post-Babylonian captivity, did not believe this for they translated the Scriptures’ Elohim into the singular Theos and not its plural Theoi. Why? If the plural is required for power what happened to the power? Then why not still show that in the new Greek language?

Another explanation could be the Jewish translators may have simply shown their prejudicial preconception of believing in the singular God. Also, it has been suggested they may have imitated the esteemed Classical Greek writer Homer. Homer would sometime use the singular form theos as an indefinite number. The Jewish translators may also have chosen the singular theos as an indefinite number. But it seems to me that if the Jews considered plural as meaning power, then why didn’t they just use the Greek plural as equivalent? Obviously, they did not interpret the plural use as using power since they used the singular the-os and not theoi, etc.

Finally, in Genesis one, there is the creation of singular “man” as a plural husband and wife (v. 27) which is likened to the image of Gods; i.e., “in our image.” This unified concept and oneness of God is depicted in thee creation of man. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and … “ “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:28).

GOD IS PLURAL IN HIS DENOTATION BUT SINGULAR IN HIS CONNOTATION. . Likewise, Genesis 3:22 uses both husband and wife together for singular “man” comparatively. “And the LORD God [Jehovah Elohim, plural] said, ‘The man has now become like one of us.[plural]’” Again, thousands of years later, the voice of God to the prophet in Isaiah 6:8, “`Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” The reference of God here is given as “the Lord”^H136 (adonai^H136).  This word "Lord" is plural just like the word Elohim. It literally means “my lords” and is a title forGod s.

From the first chapter of the Bible it is logical to me then that the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures spoke of the true God in the plural [GODS] along with specific separate mention of the identification of the Spirit of God. The creation of man as both husband and wife is compared to the plural but image of the Gods.

God’s eternal plan of redemption and God’s plurality with singular actions are both mysteries in the Old Testament. But the New Testament revelation gives us the answer to the eternal mystery of who Elohim is along with His peculiar singleness and what His eternal plan has been.

Perhaps there's a hint of the Biblical trinity unity in Alexandre Dumas' fiction story of three musketeers whose battle cry was "One for all; and all for one!" At any rate the unity is illustrated for us.

My conclusion is that we as the Hebrews of old should emphasize the singleness of Jehovah. They are as one. This can perhaps be done in English with the singular word God but we must not forget that Gods, the Trinity created us in their image. This is why it is not wrong to use the plural word "Gods."

______________ GAYLON WEST edited by Janie Ward and Mary West