Roger Perkins and the Hebrew Bible

Just recently Dr. James White played a debate on his podcast link between a modalist named Roger Perkins and a Church of Christ minister named Bruce Reeves. Now, I am no theologian, but as someone who is interested in hermeneutics and linguistics, I was just shaking my head at the amount of simply horrendous linguistic reasoning coming from Mr. Perkins. You can watch the section I will be reviewing here:

Roger Perkins – The Nature of the Godhead – Affirmative 01 from Bruce Reeves on Vimeo.

I will be reviewing the first 12:37 of this video. Beginning at about 5:17, Mr Perkins states the following:

The Hebrew word most often translated “God” is from Strongs number 430, and it is אֱלֺהִים. You can look in Strongs, Vines, Browns Drivers and Briggs, and so forth, and they will define this term as a plurality of God’s attributes, his majesty, and his greatness; and its plural form, אֱלֺהִים, means multiple gods, but in its singular form it means the one true God which is why אֱלֺהִים is translated in the singular. אֱלֺהִים is the plural form of the singular אֱלוֹהַּ number 433, which is the singular form denoting the numerical one. אֵל, number 410, is the shortened form of אֱלוֹהַּ which is, again, the numerical singular “one God,” but אֵל, number 410 is the shortened singular form meaning “the almighty” denoting the one singular God of Israel. You can go to Brown Driver and Briggs pages 41-43 for more on this. So, we see that אֱלֺהִים is a plurality of the one God’s attributes, and אֵל and אֱלוֹהַּ is the one singular, individual God.

Approximately 265 times, ladies and gentlemen, אֵל and אֱלוֹהַּ is applied to the Old Testament God using the strongest term available to denote his singular, numerical oneness.

This presentation is entirely confused. The first big problem is this idea that the plural means a “plurality of God’s attributes.” There are numerous problems with this. The difficulty is that this use of the plurality of the word “God” to refer to one God did not begin with the Israelites. It is this fact that really causes a problem for this idea that the plural here is meant to refer to a “plural of attributes.” For example, take this text from the Amarna Letters, EA 299. The first line and a quarter is transliterated and translated:

a-na LUGAL EN-ia DINGER.MEŠ-ia ^dUTU-ia
To the king, my lord, my god, my sun god…

What is interesting is that the logogram DINGER [the logogram for “īlu,” the Akkadian word for “god”] clearly has the MEŠ sign immediately following it, which is the sign used to make logograms plural. Yet, this word is clearly in apposition to LUGAL [šarru], which is clearly singular. In fact, the very next phrase identifies this receipient of this letter with the sun god [^dUTU] which is clearly singular. Hence, if you tried to translate according to the number, you would get something like, “To the king, my lord, my gods, my sun god…” which doesn’t make any sense. That is why most Semitists will recognize that these usages in the Amarna letters are the first examples we have of the plural form of “God” being used as a singular. For example, Marvin H. Pope writes:

That the use of the so called plural of majesty in reference to a single god is pre-Israelite is virtually certain from the use of īlanī as singular in the Amarna letters, but there is no certain attestation of the pre-Israelite use of אֱלֺהִים as a singular [Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Brill Academic. Boston, Massachusetts. 1955. p.21]

Even George Barton, clear back in 1890 recognized this fact about the Amarna letters:

It will be seen, therefore, that ilani-PL with the force of a singular occurs more than forty times. That it really is a singular is shown not only by the fact that it is in apposition with a singular noun, but by a variant, sarri, bili-ya ili-ya ILU šamši-ya etc., where ilu occurs in place of ilani-PL (See No.193: 1, 10, and No. 198: 1, 3) [Barton, George A. A Peculiar use of Ilani in the El-Amarna tablets. JAOS 15 p.cxcvii

What this shows is that the use of the plural of “god” to refer to one god was not unique to Israel[1]. However, does this mean that the king of Gezer in EA 299 is referring to all of the king’s attributes? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

That is why most Hebrew grammars take this to be the “plural of majesty” that Pope was talking about. However, this does not refer to the attributes of God. Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor define the “Plural of Majesty in this way:

Related to the plurals of extension and of abstract reference is a group of intensive plurals. In this usage (sometimes called the pluralis majestatis) the referent is a singular individual, which is, however, so thoroughly characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is used. Two of the great monsters in the Bible are designated with intensive plurals.[Waltke, Bruce. O’Connor, Michael. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns Publications. Winona Lake, IN. 1990. 7.4.3a][2]

In other words, what Waltke and O’Connor are saying is that the plural אֱלֺהִים is used because the God of Israel is so completely characterized by divinity. The excellent update to Williams’ Hebrew Syntax by John C. Beckman describes this as a “Plural of Respect,” and defines it this way:

A plural word may refer to a single, honorable or fearful object or person [Williams, Ronald J. Beckman, John C. Ed. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. The University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. p.2]

Likewise, the classical grammar of Gesenius describes the “plural of majesty” in this way:

Of (c): the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis, as has been remarked above, is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification, treated under e, which are mostly found in poetry [Gesenius, Wilhelm. Kautzsch, E. Cowley, A.E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 1909 §234g].

In other words, the plural of majesty does not refer to “a plurality of God’s attributes,” but, rather, it refers to a summation of these attributes, and the fact that the person so addressed is so fully characterized by these attributes that the plural is used. In other words, it refers specifically to the attributes if deity, and the fact that the Lord is fully and completely characterized by the attribute of deity, not the fact that he has more than one attribute.

What is more fascinating is the fact that the plural of majesty is not simply used of God, but also of humans as well. The grammars list these uses:

Isaiah 1:3 “An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master’s [בְּעָלָיו] manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand[3].”

1 Kings 1:43 But Jonathan replied to Adonijah, “No! Our lord [אֲדֹנֵינוּ] King David has made Solomon king.

Isaiah 19:4 “Moreover, I will deliver the Egyptians into the hand of a cruel master[אֲדֹנִים], And a mighty king will rule over them,” declares the Lord GOD of hosts.

2 Kings 22:20 “Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave [קִבְרֹתֶיךָ] in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place.”‘” So they brought back word to the king.

Hence, are all of these things speaking of the plurality of attributes of the master of a donkey, David, the Assyrians, and Josiah’s grave? It doesn’t make any sense.

Secondly, there is a major problem with this usage of the singular. Mr. Perkins assumes that, whenever the singular is used in reference to God it refers to a singularity of person. The problem is that the uses of the singular in any given language are far more complex than this. You have mass nouns such as “mail” which may refer to one or more letter [Go get the mail]. You have collective nouns such as fruit. If I were to say “I want fruit for dessert,” it wouldn’t mean that I want only one piece of fruit simply because the singular is used.

Worse than that, even in cases where the singular is a numerical “one,” the semantics of this oneness must be defined contextually. For example, I have a [singular] blanket on my bed. However, does that mean that the blanket is an absolute singular, and cannot have mixed fibers, or different colors simply because I used the singular? I can speak of a [singular] salt granule, but that one salt granule contains both a sodium ion and a chlorine ion. It would be absurd to conclude that, just because I use the singular “blanket” that I therefore have ruled out the possibility that my blanket has mixed fibers, or that it is multiple colors. It would likewise be absurd to conclude that, just because I speak of one salt granule, that I therefore am saying that this granule is not made up of sodium and chlorine ions. The point is that the nature of the singularity must be argued from the context. The fact that the singular is used of God 265 times is absolutely meaningless, without some conception of what the singularity means when it refers to God in the singular.

For example, let us take a look at some of the passages he lists:

Isaiah 43:10-12 You are my witnesses, utters the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you will know, and you will believe on me, and you will understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed; after me there will not be one. I, I am the Lord. There is no savior apart from me. I have declared, I have delivered, and I have proclaimed that there is no foreign thing among you, but you are my witnesses declares the Lord, and I am God.

Also, we must note the context of this passage. The context of this passage is the return from exile, and Israel as the witness of God. The point is that Israel is a witness of God to his uniqueness among the nations. No other gods are like him. There is no other savior besides him, and there is no foreign thing [probably meant as “foreign god”] amongst Israel; they are the Lord’s witnesses. Hence, the oneness here is stressed upon his unique divinity, and his uniqueness among the nations. There is no one else who is like God, and Israel and their return from exile is a witness to his uniqueness. However, that says nothing about whether this unique God is a uni-personal or a tri-personal being, only that no one is like him in his divinity.

Genesis 14:18-20 Now Melchizedek, the king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. Then he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High who acquired heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then he gave him a tenth of everything.

Now, I think it should be obvious what the phrase “God Most High” is referring to here. It is not referring to a singularity in person, but, again, the uniqueness of God’s attributes. He is “God Most High.” Hence, again, the context is not a context of the personhood of God, but a contrast in his attributes with the attributes of other beings and other gods[4].

Nehemiah 9:17 But they refused to hear, and they did not remember your wondrous deeds which you did with them, and they stiffened their neck, and the set themselves first of all to return to their bondage in their rebellion. but you are a forgiving, merciful, and compassionate God, slow to anger, and great in loving-kindness, and you did not desert them.

The context of this passage is the great works which God did for the people of Israel, and yet, even though they rebelled against him, God still was gracious and merciful. Therefore, again, we see an emphasis upon God’s attributes, and not on his personality.

Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble and do not be afraid. Have I not proclaimed and declared from then on that you are my witnesses? Is there a God or a rock beside me? I do not know of one.

Again, the key to this verse is its context:

Isaiah 44:9 As for those who form idols, all of them are meaningless; their delight will be of no profit; their witnesses do not see, and will not know so that they will be ashamed.

Again, the contrast is between the witnesses of God and the witnesses of the idols, and the one true living God verses all of the false idols among the nations. Again, this has nothing to do with whether this one true God exists in three persons. All it is saying about him is that he is the one true God against all of the false Gods. Hence, again, there is nothing in this verse that speaks of whether this one true God who is distinct from all false Gods is a uni-personal or a tri-personal being[5].

I think it would be best quote Perkins at this point in this next verse:

Isaiah 45 and 21 tells us [now listen very closely to this if you would], there is no other אֱלֺהִים, plural besides me, a just אֱלוֹהַּ, singular. So, one individual אֵל says there is no says there is no plurality beside me. Imagine how the two other divine persons felt if one of them declared that there was no other plurality beside me.

There are a couple of things that should be noted here. First of all, the Hebrew term used here is not אֱלוֹהַּ but אֵל. Second, the Amarna material I quoted above should be enough to refute the notion that we are referring to a plurality just because of the fact that the plural אֱלֺהִים is used. Perkins is simply in error. Again the context, verse 20, clearly points out that we are dealing with the one true God against the false Gods of the nations. However, we must ask, why is the plural and the singular used. The answer is that this is parallelism. As I pointed out before in my response to Kent Brandenburg, the singular and plural set in parallelism is a common grammatical feature of parallelism in Biblical Hebrew. Also, the end of this verse would refute him as well: “There is not, except me.” That is very clearly parallel to the “plural” phrase he quotes “there is no God beside me.” Thus, apparently, God is a plurality if we read the text in the way that Perkins is reading it!

Again, the same thing is true of the Hebrew term אֶחׇד. It must be examined in its context. Perkins quotes from Deuteronomy 6:4, but, again, fails to quote 6:5:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Again, the context is the worship of God. The point is that God alone is to be worshiped, and God alone is to be loved with all of our heart and with all of our being. Again, this text says nothing about whether this one God who is to be worshiped exists in three persons or one person.

Next, Perkins says this:

Isaiah prophesied that the son would be born, and that he would be given. Then he gave the attributes of that name; he gave the attributes; he says “wonderful counselor, the mighty God, the eternal father” did you hear that? It says tonight, I will repeat it again, Isaiah 9 and 6, he called Jesus, he referred to the name, and he puts the attributes in that name, and part of that was the mighty God [not a mighty god] and the eternal father [not a eternal father]. This would be very strange language, ladies and gentlemen, if it was a second individual in the Godhead, being called by the name of the first individual in the Godhead. The mighty God and the eternal father, and I would ask tonight, respectfully, what is the first divine individual doing wrapped up in the name of the second divine individual. My opponent’s position would have Isaiah’s prophecy unfulfilled. If Isaiah is not calling Jesus the eternal father, ladies and gentlemen, then is he also not calling him “wonderful,” is he also not calling him “counselor,” and is he also not calling him “the prince of peace?” Will my honorable opponent be consistent and say that Jesus is also not “wonderful,” that Jesus is also not “the prince of peace?” The actual text itself ties the eternal father to the name of Jesus. So, we have a clear demonstration here of the duality in Christ Jesus that he was simultaneously the son given and the eternal father, and the mighty God.

This argument hinges upon the use of the article “the” by Perkins. The problem is that the definite article is not found in the Hebrew at all. I suppose it could be assumed, because we are dealing with a name, but, again, as Perkins notes here, the point is to give the attributes of this person. A much better translation could be achieved by capitalizing the beginning of each of these titles, and to leaving off the definite article as the NASB has done. That gets across the fact that we are talking about a name, but also shows the attributive nature of these titles.

Finally, why is all of this important? It is important because of Perkins’ conclusion:

So that my first premise tonight is well-established based upon the actual grammar of the Old Testament Hebrew and the Old Testament Jewish writers believed one אֶחׇד individual אֵל of God. That is my first premise.

Of course, he discusses whether or not the Hebrews before the time of Jesus believed in the Trinity. My own opinion is that the Hebrew scriptures leave the issue ambiguous. They will make statements like “God cannot be seen,” and then show instances such as Isaiah 6 where God was indeed seen. The ambiguity requires resolution, and that resolution will either come in the revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament, or in the Jewish traditions which seek to explain [however inadequately, I believe] the way in which these paradoxes can be understood. Still, if the Hebrew Bible teaches that God is uni-personal, then the Hebrew Bible, as scripture, must be believed. However, Perkins fails to interact with the actual context of the Hebrew Bible to show that, in any way shape or form, any of its statements about the oneness of God are dealing with his person rather than his being. Because of that, I would conclude that Perkins has not established the modalist perspective from the Hebrew Bible.

[1]There have been attempts to connect the Ugaritic ‘ilm, ‘ilhm, and the Phoenician ‘lm with this plural, but the examples are too ambiguous to be conclusive.

[2]See also, Jouon, Paul. Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax Pontifical Biblical Institute. Rome, Italy. 2005. §136d-f, who separates the plural of majesty and the plural of intensity, although still allows that the two uses are analogous.

[3]To be fair, this could also be conceived of as grammatical parallelism with the בְּעָלָיו being parallel to the קֹנֵהוּ in the first colon.

[4] I am well aware of the interpretation that says that “God Most High” was actually a title for a pagan deity. As a Christian, I would obviously disagree with this understanding of the passage. However, I am also certain that Mr. Perkins would as well, so there is no reason to address it here.

[5]This also refutes the common Jehovah’s Witness argument that Jesus is God, but he is not God in the same sense that Jehovah is God. Aside from the fact that this is a departure from monotheism, it also has the added disadvantage of handing the argument to Isaiah’s opponents. Why could not a pagan respond, “Well, Baal is God, just not in the same sense that the Lord is God?” Thus, it would totally destroy Isaiah’s argument about the uniqueness of God among the nations.