Sunburned (1)
O God, You are my God; I shall seek You earnestly; my soul thirsts for You, my flesh yearns for You, in a dry and weary land where there is no water. Psalm 63:1 NASB
God – ʾĕlōhîm ʾēli attah. Even the opening words have some interesting implications. First, of course, is the relationship between ʾĕlōhîm and ʾēl. As Western readers of the text, we are apt to think that the two words are essentially the same, that is, words for God. But would that be true at the time David wrote this song? Note the comment in TWOT:
The name “El” is a very ancient Semitic term. It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language except Ethiopic. Pope, in his study of “El” in the Ugaritic, notes that it is the most frequently occurring name for the deity in proper names throughout the ancient Semitic world (Marvin Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, p. 1).[1]
What this means is that David is not simply repeating God’s “name.” He is deliberately specifying this particular ʾĕlōhîm as his “god,” his ʾēl. In David’s world, gods were everywhere. If we are going to appreciate what David is saying, we must begin by imagining a polytheistic arena. To demonstrate how important it is to recognize this Semitic distribution, we should also note that “the term El was used in reference to a personal god and not merely as a generic term in the ancient Semitic world.”[2] David isn’t saying, “O God (the supreme ruler), You are the Almighty, Sovereign (as a function or title).” He is saying that ʾĕlōhîm is his personal God as distinct from the gods of other cultures. But, of course, El is also the personal name of the god of many of the surrounding cultures. How does David distinguish this god from all the other gods?
That leads us to the second implication. What do we discover about the word ʾĕlōhîm? Christians usually think of ʾĕlōhîm as a hidden term for the Trinity.[3] That requires a Latin Christian lens. It seems unlikely that David was thinking like Athanasius. But at least this much is true:
This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of ʾĕlōah, is found far more frequently in Scripture than either ʾēl or ʾĕlōah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun ʾĕlōhîm is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.[4]
Furthermore, “the form ʾĕlōhîm occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language.”[5] What this means is that David is distinguishing his god from all the other ʾēl gods of the surrounding world by using the plural ʾĕlōhîm. We typically think of God’s personal name as YHVH. With that filter in place, we consider ʾĕlōhîm as a title or category. For example, Scott’s comment that ʾĕlōhîm represents the “plurality in the Trinity.” ʾĕlōhîm would then be a word for “godhead,” not the person, YHVH. But if ʾĕlōhîm is indeed a personal name, then we can understand why David seems to repeat himself in translation but is actually distinguishing God’s personal name in Hebrew. Did you imagine that is what David was saying?
Finally, let’s not forget that David wrote in Paleo-Hebrew. If we were inclined to look at the consonant meanings, we also find noteworthy distinctions. ʾēl is aleph-lamed, the pictogram of strong leader or strong teacher. This is the god who instructs, disciplines and directs, as all gods should. But ʾĕlōhîm adds hey-yod-mem, and now the picture changes. ʾĕlōhîm is the strong leader who is praised for work over chaos, and that looks very much like a reference to the deliverance from Egypt. So ʾĕlōhîm isn’t just any god. ʾĕlōhîm is the God who took His people out of the chaos of slavery. The opening three words. My, don’t they contain so much more than we thought? I wonder what we’ll find in the rest of this verse.
Topical Index: ʾĕlōhîm, ʾēl, God, Psalm 63:1
[1] Scott, J. B. (1999). 93 אלה. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Note Scott’s remark, “More probable is the view that ʾĕlōhîm comes from ʾĕlōah as a unique development of the Hebrew Scriptures and represents chiefly the plurality of persons in the Trinity of the godhead.”
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
Skip, a minor correction…
But ʾĕlōhîm adds het-yod-mem,
It is actually: hey-you-mem
Auto-correct strikes again…
hey-yod-mem
Dear Skip this is just precious. How enslaved I have been and how much of my life is coming clear of chaos. Yes a personal El Elohim strong and worthy of praise. Sometimes the wordsmith gets it right and it is “good” because it is ‘good’ like the Father.
Blessings to All FJ
You know, we in the West have a view of reality that may be just about backwards of how reality actually is. Because of this, I believe, we have been experiencing huge reversals in our scientific findings recently. Again and again we are having to back up and look again. We thought, believed, hoped, along with the ancient Greeks, that there would be an ultimate particle of reality – which they named “atom” – that we could manipulate and control and use to build (or rebuild) reality with. Along with them, we fondly imagined that all value resided in the ideal forms of THINGS; of endpoints; of conclusions. Beauty was an ultimate form; function was defined by form; knowledge was a concluding form that argument, aka Socrates, served up on a silver platter. We envisioned ultimate causes as ideal forms, too; thus, God Himself was an endpoint of a whole bunch of ideal states called omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc., and WITHIN those forms He functioned.
But is this necessarily how people who lived much closer to the early giants of intellect who received their instruction and history directly from the antidiluvian survivors; Noah (and most of all, Shem) thought? Shem’s life directly overlapped that of Methusaleh, who walked and talked with Adam, as Noah’s father, Lamech did, too. Shem’s life overlapped Abram’s, too. These guys were not only longlived, they were brilliant in intellect and giants of memory, too. Adam – PERSONALLY – walked and talked in the Garden with Elohim; how else can we read Genesis? My question is, did they necessarily think like Greeks? Or have we set ourselves back a lot by attempting, along with those Greeks, to reset the order of reality backwards?
The Greeks taught us that function was defined by form; that God was defined by form, too. We are finding that that ain’t so in science; how long before we get suspicious that it might not be so in the spiritual realm, either? Science now knows that the end points – the conclusions – are not the facts of the matter (sic). What matters(!) is the space in between. It is not atoms that constitute reality; reality is about the space in between; the atoms are defined by the energy that holds them together; that makes them ‘one’ in definition; in substance. Systems in nature, too (including us) are defined by the co-relationships of the functions that hold those systems together; lose enough of those relationships, and the ‘thing’ ceases to be itself. What I want to know is, how long is it going to be before we realize that if we had it backwards when it came to science, we may also have had it backwards when it comes to God? Skip; again, it was you that got me started on this bunny trail.
Love TW mainly because the distillation of truth requires a lot of time , and carefull consideration. Being limited to words one can miss the deeper truths of the Spirit. Yet finding the truth through the limited sphere of existance that can be carried through words requires a mastery of them that includes Skips particular gifts. A knowledge of the history of words, culture, thought and theology such as Skip brings to bare is marvelous, inspiring and rare . I learn alot. Yet we all share a common reality and a common experiance. “Nothing befalls us that is not common to men” Proverbs reminds us. How can we with limited time and intelectual capacity ever hope to find this depth of truth without Skips resorces to operate with.? Trust. We must trust that the personal God that walked with David whatever His right and proper name might be walks with us and well. It is he who will ” Lead us into all truth”. In fact that is exactly what Yeshua promised us. He suggested it was fitting that he leave (to die as he did on the cross) Because then the father would send the holy spirit to lead us into “all truth”. Scripture describes Yeshua as full of “Grace and Truth”. I am not entirely sure what the actual spirtual and natural environment was like before the crucifixion of the Messiah. We only have glimpses back through dark and foggy glasses, such as words images and objects left to us. None of these acrtually communicate or carry the essence, the energy -the life or “Spirit” of the times of their creators.. Such is history to us trapped in time. Yet that is not so for “The Spirit of truth” that is now redialy avaliable to us who belive. How exactly David or the patriarchs engaged and found access in their time with that Spirit in is a mystery to me. Yet I suspect it was by a far more limited and selective inpartation than is now generally available for us to experiance. That is the Glory and opportunities of our time and we have Yeshua to thank for that…
What name do you call God?
YHVH? ADONAI? EL? ELOHIM? EL ROY? EL SHADDAI? EL OLAM?
EL ELYON? JEHOVAH? IMMANUEL? YAH? FATHER?
I like Lord . . . or Father God.
Perhaps, best of all, is knowing that I CAN call Him!
HalleluYAH and Amein!
I guess I am confused. In your article on “personal savior 2014” you state Yeshua is not personal . He is not an individual personal savior but only relates to community. Now if God is so personal to David as it is stated here, are we still to think Yeshua is not that personable.He states if you know me you know the Father.So an impersonal savior teaches us about a personal God?
I think you must be reading someone else. The article you mention from November 2014 is about the difference between the communal approach of Jewish thinking versus the individual approach of Greek thinking. It attempts to articulate the ORIGIN of that difference. It does not claim that Yeshua doesn’t have a personal relationship with you any less that YHVH does. It points out that Christianity focuses primarily on this single aspect rather than taking a wider Jewish view. Try reading it again, but fist take off you evangelical glasses and the need to make sure you are “saved” by Jesus. 🙂
It’s October 1 2014
I don’t think I am so stupid that I am reading someone else’s stuff nor did I mention November as a month.
Ah, apparently blog sites cannot communicate intonation. I don’t think you’re stupid. And it is October 1, 2014, but the article was still about how we came to the idea. Sorry if you were upset.
I’m not, you often use tongue and cheek,irony sarcasm so do I . I agree it sure does not translate well on a blog does it. Though it was nice to be so concerned ,we know your heart on this blog no need for apology on this one?
If I could “like” this response a thousand times I would. Repairers of the breach. It takes grace and much effort. Thank you Pam.
I see that you have more to come on this verse but in contending that “Elohim” is the personal name of the God Who took Israel out of Egypt then, as discussed last December, there are problematic verses we have to deal with that treat “elohim” not as a personal and supreme Diety but as a generic, judge/ruler/ambassador/powerhouse.
Exo 7:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you elohim (God) to Pharaoh
Exo 9:28 Intreat the LORD (for it is enough) that there be no more elohim (mighty) thunderings and hail;
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the [human] elohim (judges)
Exo 22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the [human] elohim (judges)
Exo 22:9 . . . the cause of both parties shall come before the [human] elohim (judges) and whom the [human] elohim (judges) shall condemn,
1Sa 14:15 . . . they also trembled, and the earth quaked: so it was a very elohim (great) trembling.
Rth_1:15 So Naomi said to Ruth, Behold, your sister-in-law has turned back to her people and to her elohim. (Is this a generic god, or, judge?)
Rth_1:16 Ruth replied . . . Your people will be my people, and your elohim my elohim. (Judges? Note that this idea makes sense as it is in the days of the Judges.)
Good question, and we needed to get around to this.
My question is; what if the names of God referred to the particular function He is exhibiting at the time? My father has a personal name, but I don’t always use it. Sometimes when I am talking about him to others who may not even know his name, I refer to his title; his function in my life; if that is the germane usage at the time of the conversation. God has hundreds of names. If you look at them, they are all descriptions of particular functions, are they not?
Love the thinking, reflection and sharing that TW is provoking. Thanks, Skip! And thanks be to You, YHVH/Yeshua, eli attah!
I just have to point out that we actually have zero evidence whatsoever that David would have wrote in word pictures. But, even if he did, we would have absolutely no means of trying to understand what it meant, which is why I can say with relative certainty that the Tanach wasn’t ever written in whats known as Paleo word pictures. There’d literally be no way we would ever be able to translate such a document, even into Hebrew, let alone any other language. I mean, what and where would we get the straight edge for interpreting it? Who would get to be the authority on what they meant?
If I may, this is a good understanding from a linguist, search the title “The Real Truth About the Paleo Hebrew Script” on youtube. Just presenting another scholarly opinion. And of course, there are a plenty more from other scholars that are experts in Semitic languages as well.
My point is, that I think it’s a big mistake to try and read meaning from word pictures into any language. Once the language becomes an alphabet that’s pronounced, those word pictures no longer hold meaning to the language. It’s just a big slippery slope IMHO.