Elohim

Use in the book

The opponents’ first ground is Ruah and especially the accompanying Elohim (pp. 41-42, I.041.1). Their reading identifies the spirit hovering above the waters with the divine Holy Spirit. The author first sets out that ground rather than letting his own conclusion stand as if uncontested. Remembering which voice is speaking prevents a reader from treating the early objection as the book’s final lexical definition.

In his reply, the author says that Elohim names Father, Son and Holy Spirit together (pp. 42-43, I.042.1). He appeals to its being plural rather than merely dual, and says that Christendom understands it in this way. He then reads Psalm 33’s Lord, Word and spirit of the mouth as distinguishing the three divine persons (p. 43, I.043.1). These are the book’s connected theological and grammatical claims, not conclusions independently established by the lexicon.⁴

The next move separates who created from what was created. Elohim belongs on the first side; the waters, earth, deep, darkness and hovering spirit belong on the second (I.043.1-I.044.1). Since the Holy Spirit is already included in the Creator’s name, the author argues that the subsequently specified spirit is a creature. The absence of any stated creating or perfecting activity on that creature’s part strengthens his interpretation.

The name’s occurrence in spirit of God receives a second answer on pp. 45-46 (I.045.1). The author invokes expressions such as mountain of God and city of God as intensifying idioms, and proposes exceedingly great spirit. He also recalls that Elijah can be a man of God without being God. These analogies aim to show that the phrase’s grammatical association with God does not alone determine divine identity.

Places to read

1. Part I · I.041.1The opponent’s use of the accompanying divine name.
2. Part I · I.042.1; I.043.1; I.044.123Elohim as Creator and the separation of Creator from creature.
3. Part I · I.045.1The proposed intensifying interpretation of spirit of God.

Translation

Elohim and Eloha are attested as printed transliterations. The entry does not replace them with a standardized modern Hebrew form, nor manufacture an original-script spelling absent from the cited paragraph. God in the English argument can conceal the original’s special appeal to the name; the headword restores that focus.

Pluralis is the author’s own grammatical term. His assertion about the plural and dual should remain distinguishable from the scriptural wording he quotes and from the theological conclusion he builds upon it. Keeping these steps separate makes the polemic assessable.

Connections

Elohim and Ruah should be studied together but kept distinct. The first carries the argument about the Creator’s name; the second carries the argument that the hovering spirit can be wind or air. Trinity develops the doctrinal structure that Elohim supports, while Spirit explains the created agent the author wishes to protect from confusion with God.

Cautions

The author expressly admits limited knowledge of Hebrew in the adjoining argument (pp. 44-45, I.044.1). His appeal to learned informants supplies testimony, not a warrant to treat every linguistic assertion as settled.

Do not use the entry to prove a doctrine from the form alone or to imply that the book denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The disputed identity is that of this particular hovering spirit.

Elohim

Elohim — Attested source wording; not an independently supplied Hebrew lemma. I.042.1; I.044.1.

Eloha

Eloha — Attested source wording; not an independently supplied Hebrew lemma. I.042.1.

pluralis

pluralis — Attested source wording; not an independently supplied Hebrew lemma. I.042.1.