I would recommend
this article, for starters.
To that, I will add:
“This word is plural in form, and although it most frequently means “God” it can be used in a plural sense. Thus it can refer to other gods (Ex. 20:3; Josh. 24:16), foreign gods (Jer. 5:7), gods of the nations (Isa. 36:18), etc. Sometimes it appears to mean beings with divine qualities or authority — either angelic or human (Ps. 8:5; 82:1, 6; 138:1)…The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called the “plural of majesty” or the “intensive plural” because it implies that all the fulness of deity is concentrated in the one god. Elohim being the most common word for God in the OT thus conveys this idea. Some have also thought that the frequent use of Elohim emphasizes that God is not intrinsically monistic but includes within Himself plurality of powers, attributes, and personhood.” Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, Vol. 2, Page 505-506. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002.]
That citation comes from
this article and
this article, which I would recommend you read if you have a lot of spare time on your hands.
Let me try to summarize what I consider the most important points, and add some of my own.
First, the word
elohim, which is plural, is used over 2700 times in the Old Testament, almost exclusively with singular verbs. There are only a scant few cases with plural verbs, and you have cited most, if not all of them. This difference between these two usages is really quite overwhelming, and it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Hebrew speakers, Israel, and the various folks that wrote the Old Testament considered the God
Elohim to be one and unique. This in and of itself eliminats our problem, at least formally. In other words, we can conclude based on this that the verses you cited mean something other than that
Elohim is plural. We may not know what they do mean, but we know one thing they don’t.
Second, we can see various reasons why these passages might have been rendered with the plural verbs when they were - we can start to answer the question of what these passages *do *mean. Just to provide a few examples:
In Genesis 20:13, Abraham might be referring to something other than the original journey he made at God’s command. This seems the least likely possibility. He might be referring to angels, as some have suggested that the word
elohim refers, in its core, to things like rulers, or divine powers, or other such things, and that it was taken from this usage to simply become the word used to refer to God. This would make sense, as it was often the angel of the Lord that told Abraham to do different things. I think that the most likely possibility is that Abraham is simply speaking this way to communicate with the Pharoah. The Pharoah is furious with Abraham for having lied to him and is asking Abraham why he did it. Abraham is no doubt afraid of the Pharoah’s anger, and he just wants to get Sarah back and leave. Rather than go ahead and introduce this new God Yahweh to Pharoah, he simply says, “I’ve done this ever since the gods caused me to leave my father’s house.” In other words, he’s just speaking in a way that would make sense to Pharoah, as Pharoah is a polytheist.
As regards Genesis 35:7, some have suggested that Jacob is referring to the angels, because, as I said, the word
elohim would seem to have the possible meaning of “heavenly powers” or that sort of thing. This would make sense, as this was indeed where he saw the angels ascending the ladder.
2 Samuel 7:23 has a very nice explanation, as given in Keil and Delitzsch’s commentary:
The construing of Elohim with a plural arises from the fact, that in this clause it not only refers to the true God, but also includes the idea of the gods of other nations. The idea, therefore, is not, “Is there any nation upon earth to which the only true God went?” but, “Is there any nation to which the deity worshipped by it went, as the true God went to Israel to redeem it for His own people?
In other words, they suggest that what is being said here is, “is there any nation who have been redeemed by their gods as Israel has?” I think that this explanation makes a great deal of sense, particularly given that by the time the books of Samuel were written, there is no
question as to whether or not God was considered to be one or not. The people of David’s time most
certainly worshipped one God, so any interpretation of this passage to the contrary is simply nonsensical.
Peace and God bless!
