God, Gods, and Goddesses: Making Sense of the Elohim in Genesis

The Hebrew noun ’elohim can be a bit confusing. Technically, ’elohim is a masculine plural noun meaning “gods.” It’s used, however, as a reference to God singular in many biblical passages.

A classic illustration of how puzzling this noun can be appears in the biblical story of Eden. Would eating the forbidden fruit make the first humans like God or gods? This question derives from the words spoken by the snake in the biblical account. In his discussion with the woman, the snake corrected her belief concerning the forbidden fruit, stating:

For God (’elohim) knew that on the day you eat from
it, your eyes will open and you will be like
’elohim knowing good and bad (Gen 3:5a)

The first ’elohim clearly serves as a reference to God (singular). Since the corresponding verb “knew” is a third person masculine singular verb, there’s no ambiguity in the text. The snake tells the woman that “God knew. . .” However, the second example of ’elohim does not contain any corresponding grammatical constituents that identify the word’s meaning. The snake could have told the woman that she would become like God knowing good and bad, or like gods knowing good and bad. The term “knowing” is a masculine plural participle, but it simply refers back to the masculine plural “you will be” that refers to the man and woman not ’elohim.

This matter has led to some debate amongst translators. The KJV of the Bible translates the snake’s words as, “you will be like Gods.” However, more recent English renderings, such as the New American Standard Bible and the New Revised Standard Version, opt for the more monotheistic rendering “like God.” These translations seem to rely upon the fact that the first ’elohim clearly functions as a reference to God, and it would seem strange to have a second ’elohim be immediately used after God to indicate “gods” in the plural.

It’s possible that in rendering ’elohim as “God,” more recent translations are reading this passage exactly the way that a later monotheistic editor of the passage hoped they would. A later biblical editor who embraced a more monotheistic theology than the original author may have substituted the noun ’elohim for the divine name Yahweh in the beginning of this verse. This passage is part of the opening of the J source in Genesis, which typically uses the divine name Yahweh rather than ’elohim. As demonstrated by recent English translations, a change from Yahweh to ’elohim would allow an editor to hide the fact that referring to both Yahweh and ’elohim in a single passage would naturally lead some readers to interpret ’elohim as “gods” rather than a singular reference to Yahweh.

Still, even as is, the meaning of the second ’elohim remains ambiguous. Even though the issue of “God vs. gods” cannot be solved through a direct grammatical analysis, linking Genesis 3:5a with Genesis 3:22 clarifies the second ’elohim as a reference to “gods” in the plural.

Later in the same account, after the humans eat the forbidden fruit, Yahweh appears speaking to the divine assembly confirming the snake’s words in 3:5a. “Look,” states Yahweh, addressing the other ’elohim in his council, “the man has become like one of us [i.e., the ’elohim]!” (Gen 3:22). In other words, the fruit made the humans like the divine “us,” i.e. ’elohim just as the snake had declared. The text’s inherent logic implies that the author held a similar view to other ancient Near Eastern people. The ’elohim or “gods” included both male and female deities. Eating the forbidden fruit made the man like the male divinities in Yahweh’s council and the woman like the female goddesses.

Interestingly, a similar issue appears in the Priestly account of creation, when God speaks to the divinities in his council with the words, “Let us make man in our image according to our likeness” (Gen 1:26). Hence, both the Priestly and Yahwistic versions of creation include a reference to Israel’s God addressing a group of non-specified deities. Even though references to a deity speaking in the plural in these types of accounts are confusing to many modern readers, they wouldn’t have been to the ancients who understood their God to have exercised dominion over the universe through a divine council of deities. Similar statements where a god appears speaking to a specified divine council of gods appear throughout the ancient Near East.

The subsequent verse in the Priestly narrative, however, contains the same type of grammatical ambiguity concerning ’elohim witnessed in Genesis 3:5a. The text reads:

Then God (’elohim) created man in his image in the image of God/gods (’elohim) he created them; male and female he created them (Gen 1:27).

This passage, therefore, parallels Genesis 3:5. Both verses contain two references to the noun ’elohim. In both verses, the first ’elohim clearly means “God” singular since the corresponding verb (“created” in 1:27 and “knew” in 3:5a) is as a third person masculine singular form, i.e. “he,” in the singular, did X. Then, following a clearly marked reference to “God,” both verses present a second reference to the noun ’elohim that is grammatically ambiguous. Genesis 1:27 could mean “in the image of God” or “in the image of gods” he created them. This observations provides some evidence in support of my suggestion that Genesis 3:5a was tampered with by a later biblical editor. The editor of the two accounts may have changed Genesis 3:5a by removing the original name Yahweh in order to match 3:5a with Genesis 1:27.

Still, just as a careful reading of Genesis 3 clarified that the second ’elohim contextually means “gods” in the plural, the same is true for Genesis 1:27. The text should be read “in the image of gods he created them, male and female.” Thus, both biblical verses (3:5a and 1:27) follow the same grammatical pattern: reference to ’elohim meaning “God” singular—together with a corresponding masculine singular verb—followed by a second ambiguous ’elohim that means “gods” in the plural.

Though traditionally interpreted as “God (’elohim) created man in his image, in the image of God (’elohim) he created them,” this translation makes little sense. In addition to considering the parallel statement in 3:5a, readers should recognize that if the author had truly intended the second ’elohim to mean “God” singular, his text would have read that God created the man “in his image” not “in the image of ’elohim.”

In other words, the author could have clarified his meaning by simply writing the words: “Then God created man in his image; in his image he created them; male and female he created them.” In fact, it would have been most logical to simply omit the ambiguous clause altogether, i.e. “Then God created man in his image, male and female he created them.” The only reason to include the clause “in the image of ’elohim he created them, male and female” is if the author meant what he said: Men and women were created in the image of gods, the first man in the image of male gods and the first woman in the image and likeness of female goddesses.

Both Genesis 3:5a and 1:27, therefore, not only follow the same grammatical pattern, they both imply that their respective authors believed in the existence of male and female ’elohim for humans to either be or become like.