Source: The Trinity — Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey, pp. 87ff
What must be in order for what is to be what it is?
If the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would write about God in such a way as to indicate this idea to their readers. Thus we must ask, “What would we expect to find in the Bible, if its authors believed that God was multi-personal?”
On the other hand, if the authors of the Bible believed that God was only one person, i.e., they were classic Unitarians, then they would write about God in such a way as to indicate that idea. Thus we are also warranted to ask, “What would we expect to find in the Bible, if Unitarians wrote it?”
If Unitarians wrote the Bible, which word for oneness would they apply to God? There is only one Hebrew word for absolute or solitary oneness: yāḥîḏ יָחַד (H3161). (It occurs only 12x in the Old Testament.) If this word is applied to God in the Bible, this would be quite damaging to the Trinitarian position.
Gen 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Psa 22:20; 25:16; 35:17; 68:6,7; Pro 4:3; Jer 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zec 12:10; Jer 6:26
This word is never used to describe God.
In the list of Hebrew words which speak of oneness, the word ʼechâd אָחַד (H259) refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are describe as "one". It occurs 976 times in 739 verses. This word is used to express a unified or compound oneness.
Examples: Gen 1:5; 2:24; 3:22; 11:6; 34:16,22; 2Co 30:12; Ezra 2:64; Jer 32:39
A Unitarian would never use ʼechâd to describe God because it means a compound or unified oneness. If the authors of the Bible were Unitarians we would not expect to find ʼechâd applied to God.
Yet it is used expressly to describe God in Deu 6:4. The use of ʼechâd in this verse is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of several Persons and not just a solitary person. There are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such an idea could be expressed.
But how can this be the true understanding of אָחַד ʼechâd when the Jews today reject the doctrine of the Trinity? The noted Hebrew scholar, David Cooper, explains:
Prior to the days of Moses Maimonides (1138-1204 A.D.), the unity of God was expressed by אָחַד ʼechâd which, as has been proved beyond doubt, has as its primary meaning that of a compound unity. Maimonides, who drafted the thirteen articles of faith, in the second one sets forth the unity of God, using the word: yāḥîḏ יָחַד which in the Tenach (the name for the Hebrew Bible) is never used to express God's unity. From these facts it is evident that a new idea was injected into this confession by substituting yāḥîḏ יָחַד which in every passage carries the primary idea of oneness in the absolute sense for אָחַד ʼechâd which primarily means a compound unity. Hence from the days of Maimonides on, an interpretation different from the ancient one was placed upon this most important passage.
While both Trinitarians and Unitarians expect to find singular word applied to God, because they both believe there is only one God numerically speaking, only Trinitarians expect to find plural words used of God as well.
Singular words for God: Num 23:19 (El); Isa 40:28 (Creator); Isa 45:11 (Maker). Since there is only one God, we are not surprised to find singular nouns and verbs used of God.
Plural words for God: Elohim (2249x ) Gen 1:1; 20:13a.
In Gen 35:7 the word “revealed” is plural. “They, i.e. God, revealed themselves to him.”
Exo 21:6; 22:7-8, 27-28 elohim refers to the “judges” of Israel and uses plural verbs.
Deu 4:7 “For what great nation is there that has a god (elohim) so near (plural form)
to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him?”
Joshua 24:19 “... for He is a holy God.” “holy” is a plural adjective which modifies “elohim” and can be translated as
”God, i.e., the Holy Ones.”
Psalm 58:11 “Surely there is a God (elohim) who judges (plural form) on earth!” This can be translated as: "They, i.e.,
God, who judge the earth."
Adonai is the second most common name for God and is also the plural form. This is not what we would expect if Unitarians wrote the Bible. But it is exactly what we would expect if the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal.
Makers/Creators
Job 35:10 refers to God as the “Makers” of mankind.
Psalm 149:2 “Let Israel be glad in his Makers” (plural form).
Ecc 12:1 “Remember now your Creators in your youth.”
Isaiah 54:5 “For your husband is your Makers” is plural in Hebrew.
Which Unitarian would ever speak of God as his "Makers"? Only Trinitarians do this.
The Trinitarian has no problem whatsoever understanding how God can be described in the Bible as both the “Maker” and “Makers” of the universe at the same time because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all involved in the work of creation. But the Unitarian is hard put to explain why the Bible speaks of a plurality of Creators. Trinitarians are often accused of theological gobbledygook when they say that, since God is one and three at the same time, God is both “Creator” and “Creators” at the same time. But this is exactly what the Hebrew text does. The same word for “Creator” and “Maker” are used in both their singular and plural forms.
At Creation. Gen 1:26-27 “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...” The main verb "make" is plural in Hebrew and agrees in number with the pronouns us and our. Yet the words image and likeness are singular because man is not made in two images and two likenesses of God and the angels. Man is made in the image and likeness of God.
Plural of Majesty. Some anti-Trinitarians have attempted to dismiss the passages as examples of the plural of majesty (pluralis majestaticus), much like the Queen Victoria of England who is reported to have said: "We are not amused."
The only problem with this argument is that there was no plural of majesty in the Hebrew language during biblical times. Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, a lecturer in Hebrew at Oxford University, explains:
Everyone who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagio-grapha) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen 41:41; Dan 3:29; Ezra 1:2, etc.
During the nineteenth century debates between Unitarians and Trinitarians, the principle of pluralis majestaticus was revealed to be a hoax popularized by the famous Jewish scholar Gesenius. It became clear that he used it as a ruse de guerre against Christianity.
The fundamental error resided in the attempt to take a modern monarchical idiosyncrasy and read it back into an ancient text when such an idiosyncrasy was unknown at that time. Richard Davies in 1891 pointed out, "Indeed, this royal style is unknown in Scripture."
What is astounding is that, 100 years later, the anti-Trinitarians are still using this hoax to dodge the significance of the use of plural pronouns in reference to God. They seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that it is a recent grammatical invention and, thus, cannot be read back into ancient times or texts.
We must also point out that anti-Trinitarians now apply the principle of pluralis majestaticus to all plural words of God when the principle really only relates to direct discourse, i.e., "Us" and "Our" passages. It is even invoked as a way to explain away the significance of the plural word "elohim" in such places as Genesis 1:1. But since Genesis 1:1 is not a direct discourse, the appeal to a supposed "plurality of majesty" is nothing more than a ruse.
At the Fall of Man. Gen 3:22 “Behold, the man has become like one of Us.”
At the Tower of Babel. Gen 11:7-9 “Come, let Us go down (plural) and there confuse (plural) their language.”
At the Call of Isaiah. Isa 6:8 “Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us? Then I said, Here I am. Send me!” Isaiah is being called as a spokesman for a multi-person Being. There is not a single text in all of Scripture where a prophet is described as a spokesman of angels.
Plural Persons. Gen 19:24 “Then the LORD (Yahweh) rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD (Yahweh) out of heaven.” This kind of language is not surprising for the Trinitarian but would never be said by a Unitarian.
Psa 45:6-7 "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou has loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee with the oil of joy above Thy fellows." (For more discussion on this verse see here.)