<190207> Psalm 2:7 ? ?Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee?;

<203004> Proverbs 30:4 ? ?Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son?s name, if thou knowest??

(e) <010101>Genesis 1:1 and 2, margin ? ?God created? the Spirit of God was brooding?; <193306>Psalm 33:6 ? ?By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath [spirit] of his mouth?; <234816>Isaiah 48:16 ? the Lord Jehovah hath sent me, and his Spirit?; 63:7, 10 ? ?loving kindness of Jehovah? grieved his holy Spirit.?

<230603> Isaiah 6:3 ? the trisagion: ?Holy, holy, holy?; <040624>Numbers 6:24-26 ? ?Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee: Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.?

It has been suggested that as Baal was worshiped in different places and under different names, as Baal-Berith, Baal-hanan, Baal-peor, Baal- zeebub, and his priests could call upon any one of these as possessing certain personified attributes of Baal, while yet the whole was called by the plural term ?Baalim,? and Elijah could say: ?Call ye upon your Gods,? so ?Elohim? may be the collective designation of the God who was worshiped in different localities; see Robertson Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 229. But this ignores the fact that Baal is always addressed in the singular, never on the plural, while the plural ?Elohim? is the term commonly used in addresses to God. This seems to show that ?Baalim? is a collective term, while ?Elohim? is not. So when Ewald, Lebre von Gott, 2:333, distinguishes five names of God, corresponding to five great periods of the history of Israel, viz ., the ?Almighty? of the Patriarchs, the ?Jehovah? of the Covenant, the ?God of Hosts? of the Monarchy, the ?Holy One? of the Deuteronomist and the later prophetic age, and the ?Our Lord? of Judaism, he ignores the fact that these designations are none of them confined to the times to which they are attributed, though they may have been predominantly used in those times.

The fact that ^yhloa? is sometimes used in a narrower sense, as applicable to the Son ( <194506>Psalm 45:6, cf . <580108>Hebrews 1:8), need not prevent us from believing that the term was originally chosen as containing an allusion to a certain plurality in the divine nature. Nor is it sufficient to call this plural a simple pluralis majestaticus; since it is easier to derive this common figure from divine usage than to derive the divine usage from this common figure ? especially when we consider the constant tendency of Israel to polytheism.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment