Friday, December 26, 2014

Article Against God Family Heresy

This is from the August 3, 1993 issue of Worldwide News. It was cited by Stephen Flurry in his booklet, God is a Family, as seen in a previous post.


Does elohim refer to a family of divine beings?

Is elohim a singular, or a plural, word? What does it show about the nature of God?

By K.J. Stavrinides

The word elohim can refer to the true God, to a false god, to angels, and to human beings. In its rather wide application, this name is unusual and difficult to translate into English. The ability of this word to refer correctly to God, angels, man, and man-made gods can be understood only if the root of the word is kept in mind; it is somewhat like referring to the "powers that be," whether they are human or divine, singular or plural. In this light, it becomes clear that the Hebrews applied the name elohim to the true God because it conveyed one of his attributes-that of power.

When elohim refers to a singular being (the true God or a false god), it takes a singular verb. When it refers to more than one being, as in the heavenly powers (the angels or God and the angels) or in the human powers (the judges), it takes a plural verb. In neither case does the word elohim refer to a family of beings, whether they are human or divine. The following passages are sufficient to make the use of this word clear.

God (elohim) created

In Genesis 1: 1, elohim takes the singular verb bara, which means "he created." The verb, then, tells us what was done by the one God. Even with this point in mind, the objection can be raised that collective nouns in English (church, nation, etc.) take singular verbs. That answer will not do, in this case, because one needs to ascertain first that elohim is such a word. It cannot simply be assumed to be so. It is not obvious in Hebrew, and no authority on the Hebrew language has ever said such a thing. In fact, the voice of scholarship has been united on this point, that elohim, when speaking of the Creator, refers to a single deity. The use of the word in the Old Testament is ample testimony of this truth, as the following examples show.

Greater than all the gods (elohim)

Exodus 18:11 compares the true God with all the false gods (elohim) and says that none of them is like him. This is clearly a plural reference, yet not about a family of beings. It is historically accurate to say that the false gods to which Exodus refers were not members of one family.

Ashtoreth the Goddess (elohim)

1 Kings 11:5 is perhaps one of the clearest examples of the singular use of elohim in which it cannot possibly be construed to refer to a family of divine beings. After all, it is plainly obvious that "Ashtoreth the goddess (elohim) of the Sidonians" was but one deity, not a family of such beings.

Lower than the angels (elohim)

Psalm 8:5 says that God made man a little lower than the angels (elohim). Since all the angels were created beings, there are no father angels, mother angels, or offspring angels. Christ made it clear that angels do not marry. This use of elohim is not in the context of a family.

Bring him to the judges (elohim)

Exodus 21:6 constitutes the law regarding Hebrew slaves. If the freed slave expressed a desire to continue to serve his master, he was to be brought before "the judges (e1ohim)" where his desire would be made official. The judges were an institution of Israel and did not constitute a family.

The above passages may suffice to indicate that the word e1ohim-in its reference to God, angels, judges, and false gods-is not a collective noun; it is not like "church," "nation," etc. The concept of a divine family of beings is not applicable to the true God, and certainly did not arise out of the Holy Scriptures. Some reasons for the inappropriateness of the concept may also be helpful.

The names "Father" and "Son" do indicate a family relationship. (We can omit reference to the Holy Spirit, in this light, because the name "Holy Spirit" does not immediately suggest a family relationship.) This is perfectly acceptable and biblically sound. The error creeps into the concept when the relationship is understood in terms of separate beings. The following will make the explanation easier to understand.

In a human family, a father and a son are two beings. One is the father because he existed while the son was not yet born. The father provides for the son, because the son needs his help. Human beings are limited. They have a beginning, they have needs, and the father-son relationship is meaningful only in light of these limitations.

It is a gross misunderstanding to think of God in such terms. God is spirit. He has no limitations in space or time. In other words, it is not true that the Son had a beginning or that the Father existed while the Son did not. Neither is it true that the Father looked after a young Son during some childhood, or provided for the Son's "needs." Rather, the names "Father" and "Son" reveal important truths about God.

The book of Hebrews speaks of the Son in various ways. He is referred to as a Son, as the "'brightness of His glory," and as the "express image of His person." These are three ways of expressing the same idea. As the Son is God, he has no needs, and he is not in the same relationship to the Father that a human son is to his parent.

The names "Father" and "Son" are applied to God, without the limitations that hold true in a human family. This is another way of saying that God is not a family (a word that has meaning only in the context of limited human beings). God is infinite, eternal, and in all ways unlimited. The attempt to make elohim reflect a family of divine beings is not only impossible historically, linguistically, and culturally; it is theologically wrong, and inappropriate in the discussion of the true God.


  1. Is this Dr. Stavrinides, who was, I believe, at the Bricket Wood Campus during the 1970s? His line of thinking appears to be more consistent with Jesus' answer to the trick question the Scribes and Pharisees asked Him about who a much-widowed woman would be married to in the Kingdom than were the doctrines of classic Armstrongism.

    I believe that Armstrongism is probably the most pretentious religion in the history of mankind, in that they never made allowance even for anything that was probably actually intended to remain a mystery during the human lifetime. They always feigned answers, and were cock-sure about them. No wonder none of them were scientists!


  2. Dr. Stavinides was in Pasadena for some time.

    He was the one who brought us the 'hypostasis'.

    It's so much easier to say, 'Trinity', don't you think.

  3. The only reason this article came to my attention was because Stephen Flurry mentioned it in his booklet.

    One thing that caught my attention with Stephen Flurry's booklet is the way he kept using Thayer's Lexicon to "prove" to God Family dogma. But in fact Thayer was a Sunday keeping Protestant. Using his words to claim support for the God Family dogma is very misleading.