2

Since the plural Elohim is used of Moses at Exodus 7:1 [a] and one person at Psalm 45:6 [b] is there any grammatical reason to see it as a literal numeric plural when used of the one true God?


[a] Literally “made you Elohim to Pharoah” (KJV “a god”. While some bibles add the word “like”, it does not appear in Hebrew. [b] This verse about a Hebrew king is applied to Jesus at Hebrews 1:8 in many bibles. Whether it refers to God or the king is based on whether Elohim/God is taken as vocative or nominative.

  • 1
    Moses has a mind and a soul, does he not ? – Lucian Apr 19 at 6:13
  • 1
    In various Romance languages, the word person is feminine (because it ends in -a). Does this mean Romance speakers consider all persons are literally female ? No. If by absurd a grammatical number or gender would correspond only to the literal reality depicted by that specific number or gender, Jews, who speak Hebrew, would have been morally compelled to embrace polytheism a long time ago, and most human languages, in general, would make little or no sense (since various non-gendered objects are ascribed a grammatically feminine or masculine gender, for instance). – Lucian Apr 19 at 6:43
  • 1
    Since Christianity has never argued that one must subscribe to a Trinitarian understanding of God merely because the word in question is, grammatically speaking, a plural, it is not clear why you felt the need to even ask this question in the first place (Q&A sites are not generally designed for debates, nor is hermeneutics to be confused with theology). – Lucian Apr 19 at 6:58
  • 2
    The confusion that is introduced is the very English 'indefinite' article - a stumbling block in the translation of many texts. For elohim read 'Deity' (not 'a god'). I have made thee deity to Pharaoh. The composite (it is an im ending) conveys a concept that requires further revelation. (Which is clarified in the New Testament upon the manifestation of the Son of God.) – Nigel J Apr 19 at 7:55
  • 1
    @ThomasPearne: This still does not change the fact that most Christians are Trinitarians, nor the fact that these Trinitarians have never argued that the word's grammatical number is the main or principal reason for their Trinitarian beliefs. This question seems somewhat off topic, inasmuch as it pertains more to the realm of basic logic or simple grammar, rather than hermeneutics proper. It is like asking a banal arithmetic question on Physics.SE. As to its thinly veiled theological or apologetic argument, it betrays a very shoddy (mis)understanding of historical Christian thought. – Lucian Apr 19 at 22:45
3

Exodus 7
There are two considerations. First, Moses is not alone:

And the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. (Exodus 7:1) [ESV]

The presence of Aaron with Moses adds a "plural" sense to the meaning:

You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach you both what to do. He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him. (Exodus 4:15-16)

The LORD made Moses אלהים to Aaron and like אלהים to Pharaoh. Moreover, when Moses spoke to Pharaoh, it was really the LORD speaking through both Moses and Aaron. Thus the plural nature would be present when Pharaoh heard from the LORD (through Moses/Aaron).

Second, the idea that Pharaoh would acknowledge Moses as "God" (i.e. a monotheistic supreme entity) is inconsistent with Pharaoh's polytheism and his rejection of the God of the Israelites:

Afterward Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.” (Exodus 5:1-2)

Moses will go on to demonstrate the type of limited authority Pharaoh believes a "god" has. This understanding is essentially demanded as Pharaoh's magicians will replicate what the "god" Moses does. From Pharaoh's perspective it must be I have made you gods...

Finally, if there is a singular meaning, it would be better "god" not "God:"

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

All capitalization is interpretation and "god" best describes how Pharaoh sees Moses.

Psalm 45

Your throne, [O] God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness (Psalm 45:6)

Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler note the difficulty of the passage:

This may also be translated "Your throne, O God ("'elohim"), is everlasting" (so the LXX) , where the king is referred to as God. If this is taken literally, this psalm would be unique in the entire Bible in explicitly depicting the king as divine (see v. 4 and v. 18 n.), a notion that existed at times in other Near Eastern cultures but is otherwise absent in biblical thought. Other modern scholars render the v. as "Your throne is like God's throne" (so also Ibn Ezra) or "Your throne is supreme." The Targum and Saadia add the words "will establish," reading, "God will establish your throne," while Rashi understands "'elohim" as judges (see Exod. 21.s, translators' note). These medieval and modern translations including NJPS (Your divine throne) make this v fit other texts, which do not view the biblical king as divine.1

The reference to verses 4 and 18 (3 and 17) likewise describe attributes or praises which are typically reserved for God:

Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty!! (45:3[4])
I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore nations will praise you forever and ever. (45:17[18])

Verse 4 is followed by actions during which the divine being is not on the throne:

In your majesty ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; let your right hand teach you awesome deeds! Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you. (45:4-5)

So in addition to the uniqueness of what is described, the Psalm itself raises the question of occupancy: will it remain empty while אלהים is away? If another אלהים occupies the throne, properly or not (cf. Isaiah 14:13), then it is a throne of אלהים (gods). In other words, it is theology which interprets "God" be on His throne or it remains vacant when He is not there.

The Psalm is silent as to the purpose of the throne. If it is the place of judgement, the questions raised above all come into the picture:

God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment
(Psalm 82:1 NJPS)

In the divine "courtroom" there are many אלהים (gods/judges) and the singular אלהים (God) is standing. Does this mean the throne is unoccupied or has God who is standing overruled a judgment passed by אלהים seated on the throne? Therefore, the singular "God" of Psalm 45 is not strictly grammatical. Rather it interprets both the purpose of the throne and its sole occupancy.

Conclusion
Any analysis should begin from the perspective the word is plural. Unless the context completely rules out the plural, the literal numeric plural must remain a consideration. In both examples cited, however unlikely, a plural meaning is possible

In the case of Pharaoh, the events leading up and following what the LORD tells Moses make the singular God unlikely; for if Pharaoh has no knowledge or regard of the God of the Hebrews, the English "God" misrepresents what Pharaoh believes about divine beings.

Psalm 45 is singular only when it is presumed "God" has but one throne which is only occupied by "God." Ironically, the Exodus raises the question of occupancy. If it is God who is with His people leading them out of Egypt, then is His throne vacant? Finally, elsewhere the plural is clearly needed in the divine courtroom where God is standing and it is a matter of belief whether His throne is occupied or vacant. This does not mean a singular reading is incorrect. It simply points out the singular is a function of interpretation and the literal plural remains a possibility.


1. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Jewish Study Bible, Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 1332

| improve this answer | |
3

Reason why Moses was a representative

It is evident that pharaoh took Moses seriously otherwise he would have killed him on the spot. Pharaoh was no atheist. He believed in the “pantheon” of gods and was aware that other nations had their own gods. It was foolish that he should kill a man that represented his god, lest he bring the anger of that representative/ambassador’s god upon himself and curse his land. That was a declaration of war. He knew these gods had power, his own magicians demonstrated the power of the Egyptian gods.

If Moses was the Elohim and Aaron was his prophet then it would have been expedient to kill them both and do away with them. The belief was rather that the spirit of the gods were present with/inside these men which is how they possessed power and knowledge to perform the secret arts. The Babylonians believed the same thing.

Reasons why Pharoah did not consider Moses to be The Elohim/God is because Moses never claimed to be God. As far as Pharoah was concerned this was God’s representative who held the power of his god/s. When Pharoah saw the staff turn to a serpent he didn’t call his gods, he called for the representatives of his gods.

Reason why Moses was a plural

In the same chapter God is speaking to Moses (not to Aaron) and says

“Go to Pharaoh in the morning, as he is going out to the water. Stand on the bank of the Nile to meet him, and take in YOUR hand the staff that turned into a serpent. And you shall say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, “Let MY people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness.” But so far, you have not obeyed. Thus says the Lord, “By this you shall know that I am the Lord: behold, with the staff that is in MY hand I will strike the water that is in the Nile, and it shall turn into blood.And the Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, their canals, and their ponds, and all their pools of water, so that they may become blood, and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, even in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.’”” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭7:15-17, 19‬ ‭

In this passage it clear that Moses is not claiming to be God but His representative because he isn’t asking for worship but is relating God’s request

Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness

It is also showing that God, Moses AND Aaron were echad. This is evident by the staff references. God told Moses to take the staff yet Aaron has it and God says with the staff that is in MY hand (Not in Moses’ hand or in Aaron’s hand) and yet it was in Aaron’s hand though Moses was supposed to have taken the staff.

Moses was an elohim because God’s spirit was over/in Moses, they were at least two but given the staff was in Aaron’s hand and God claimed it was in His hand they were three.

God could have chosen to say I will make you ‘El’ (singular) to Pharaoh but text says elohim for a reason. They were plural The Angel of the Lord (God) who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush and two men. That’s a plurality.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I don't see any reasons based on legitimate grammar except an assumption that Elohim vs El supports your theology. That is circular reasoning. – user33125 Apr 19 at 18:43
  • Did you miss the part about in whose hand the staff was in? That was a demonstration of an echad elohim. The grammar indicates it’s plural by the suffix -im. Take the word for life in Hebrew it too ends in -im. But does man have a plurality of lives? If you read the Hebrew when God commands not to eat of the tree of knowledge in the Hebrew it reads מות   תמות which, in the English merely reads you shall die but could be translated in English dying you shall die. Man is at least a triad physical, soulish and spiritual. Man died spiritually that very day and eventually physically. – Nihil Sine Deo Apr 19 at 20:12
  • I looked at the Hebrew in the MT. All the words in the final clause are singular and no word has the -im suffix. Where did you get what you posted? – user33125 Apr 19 at 20:41
  • I don’t respect the MT it’s anti Jesus (and anti Trinitarian). It has been demonstrated to have changed text and play with history’s timeline. The original Hebrew did not have the niqqud/dots written in by the anti-Christs MT authors. @ThomasPearne it does help where it has not been corrupted. It’s also a much more recent work than other documents that collaborate among themselves but conflict with the MT’s narrative – Nihil Sine Deo Apr 19 at 21:09
  • 1
    @BillPorter For a God to reveal himself to humans He would use human prophets/representatives that had His Spirit. Yes, is my answer if I’ve understood your question. This was foretold of Jesus through Moses by God. ““The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭18:15‬ ‭. In some sense God needed Moses to speak to Pharaoh. – Nihil Sine Deo Apr 20 at 3:57
2

The plurality of elohim, where the word is in reference to a single deity, is an example of the "plural of majesty" or pluralis majestatis in Biblical Hebrew. Here is a concise scholarly article about it: https://hebrewsyntax.org/hebrew_resources/Beckman%20JC%202013%20%28Pluralis%20Majestatis%20BH%29%20EHLL.pdf.

A potential grammatical reason for interpreting the plurality of elohim as a numeric plurality where it is in reference to a single deity could be where the pronoun, adjective, or verb is plural rather than singular. (See the last paragraph of the above article for a couple of other examples besides the ones mentioned below.) The passages that are usually cited are Gen 1:26 where elohim says "Let us make (naʿaseh) humankind in our image (betzalmenu) according to our likeness (kidmutenu)", and Gen 3:22 where the tetragrammaton-elohim says "Look, the human has become like one of us (mimmennu)". Other passages that are often cited along with these two, are Gen 11:7 where the tetragrammaton says "Let us go down and mix up" (neredah ve-navelah) and Isa 6:8 where adonai says "Whom shall I send and who will go for us (lanu)?". A major weakness to this interpretation is its dependency of a much later theology to understand the grammar. There is no known Israelite belief of God like this. There are also other possible explanations.

The plurality in these passages might not be examples of the plural of majesty. As the above article mentions, there are no undisputed cases of the plural of majesty for verbs or pronouns in Biblical Hebrew. Some have suggested, for example, Ezr. 4:18 where King Artaxerxes refers to the letter addressed to him (cf. v. 11) as "The letter that you sent to us (ʿalêna) was read and translated before me (kadamay)". But the king could simply be referring to his court or government where he says "us" and to himself where he says "me". (There might be other suggested examples, but I do not know offhand.)

Some scholars understand the plurality of these verbs and pronouns as a "plural of deliberation" similar to the English "Let's see" when an individual is thinking out loud to himself. In support of this, some have suggested 2 Sam 24:14 where David says to the prophet Gad “I am in great distress; let us fall (nippelah) into the hand of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall (al eppolah) into human hands.” However, like the above passage, David is probably referring to his land (cf. the first and third choices in v. 13) where he says "let us fall" and to himself (cf. the second option in v. 13) where he says "let me not fall". (There might be other suggested examples, but I do not know offhand.)

Most scholars understand the above passages as examples of God speaking to or referring to his divine council/assembly/court: cf., e.g., Ps 82:1; 89:5–7(6-8); 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Dan. 7:9-10; 4:17(14). In my humble opinion, this explanation is the most straightforward and best fits with the theology of ancient Israel.

| improve this answer | |
  • +1 Good article – user33125 Apr 19 at 20:59
  • Great response, except for the superimposed “ancient Israeli” theology. That is very much disputable. Modern Orthodox Jews will definitely agree with you, first century Jews and historians and earlier would not based on the writings of their day. – Nihil Sine Deo Apr 20 at 3:04
  • It’s worth noting that this is a modern idea and attempt at making the plural elohim singular like the el. It’s an interpretation that doesn’t reasonably, confidently and unequivocally prove that the pluralis majestatis was how the ancients perceived elohim. It is filtered through a sectarian ultra orthodox and anti-Trinitarian view that seeks to impose a monotheism of its own description and non Scriptural. This doesn’t make it true or accurate just biased. It’s an interesting perspective and very clever. But there are too many passages in the OT that defy this view. God is echad not yachid – Nihil Sine Deo Apr 20 at 3:15
  • @NihilSineDeo Your view of an implied yachid vs echad is the modern argument. It never appeared until the modern era. – user33125 Apr 20 at 19:25
  • What is your conclusion/application for Exodus 7:1 and Psalm 45:6? – Revelation Lad Apr 20 at 19:53
0

I found this answer online. Did Someone Find the Doctrine of the Trinity In the Name of God? Why is God’s Name “Elohim” Plural? by Tovia Singer

First, let me say that what you are doing is a great service to Jews and the religious community at large. You are setting the record straight – one that has needed correction for almost 2,000 years! Thank you.

Yesterday, a Christian business associate made a point that in the very first verse of Genesis G-d is referred to as “Elohim” which is plural. She also said that it is a plural form of three (something I have never heard before). That, she concludes, is proof of the Trinity! Why is G-d’s name plural in this verse?

Answer: The claim advanced by your business associate is one of the more well-known arguments used by missionaries to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, the most guarded and untenable creed of the Church. It would be difficult to imagine a doctrine more hostile to the uncompromising monotheism preached in the Jewish Scriptures than the Christian claim that there is a plurality within the divine nature of God. Yet, armed with little knowledge of the Hebrew language, many Trinitarians brazenly argue that the name of God, as it appears in the first verse in the Bible, “proves” there are three distinct Persons in the godhead.

More specifically, missionaries point to the plural form of the Hebrew name of God אֶלהִים, (Elohim), which appears frequently in the Torah, to bolster their claim that there is a complex unity in the godhead. They argue that the use of the Hebrew letters “ ים” (yud and mem, pronounced “im”), which is a plural suffix at the end of the word Elohim, provides ample evidence from Tanach that there is a plurality within the nature of God. Your business associate went out on an even more bizarre limb when she declared that this Hebrew syntax is somehow indicative of the “plural form of three.”

You can rest assured that the Hebrew tongue is a foreign language to your business associate, and that both of her contentions are erroneous. While her first assertion can be easily explained away by her lack of familiarity with the biblical language, her second point cannot. Her latter comment that the plural suffix in Elohim is indicative of “a plural form of three” is particularly preposterous, and illustrates the desperation and frustration some Trinitarians display in their rash effort to defend this alien Church creed.

While I too have never heard any missionary make the astounding claim that plurals somehow mean “a plural form of three,” the incentive for spawning this irresponsible contrivance is clear. If you examine the few verses evangelicals use from the Jewish Scriptures as they seek to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, you will notice that none of them, even in Christian terms, speaks of three persons. In essence, her flawed declaration was born out of a desperate desire to weave the Trinity out of whole Jewish cloth. This is an impossible task.

Bear in mind, there is no mystery as to the origins of the Trinity, nor is there any secret for how this aberrant doctrine emerged. The doctrine of the Trinity was forged out of the crucible of the Catholic Church long after the Christian century. It is, therefore, no wonder that this pagan doctrine was unknown to authors of the New Testament (click here to see list). Church history reveals that it was not until three hundred years after the birth of Christianity that the doctrine of the Bianity (325 C.E.) and Trinity (381 C.E.) received formal approval in the Christian community. These well documented events occurred under circumstances rife with contention, political agitation, and radical dissension in the early Church.

In essence, the Jewish people never believed in a Trinity, and the Church adopted it under enormous political pressure from the most pagan segments of the young Catholic Church. Understandably, missionaries undertake a formidable task when they seek to prove this fourth century doctrine from a radically monotheistic Torah which is timeless. Let’s examine your business associate’s claim.

There is an enormous difficulty with the interpretation that the name Elohim signifies a sort of plurality in the godhead; for if Elohim implies a plurality of persons, how can missionaries explain that the identical word Elohim in Tanach refers to Moses as well? Regarding Moses, the Torah says,

The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made thee a god אֶלהִים, (Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”

(Exodus 7:1 KJV)

Are missionaries suggesting that there was a plurality of persons in Moses? Is your associate going to insist that Moses was part of a Trinity? The notion that Moses, who is called Elohim in the Torah, possessed more than one person is preposterous. Moreover, if the name of God is to signify a plurality in the godhead, why wasn’t the nameJehovah, which is by far the most frequently used name for God in the Jewish Scriptures, also written in the plural? Clearly, this sort of Trinitarian argument is baseless.

The word Elohim possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. In Hebrew, the suffix ים (im), mainly indicates a masculine plural. However with Elohim the construction is grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the God of Israel, but grammatically plural elohim (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).

This is self-evident from the fact that the verb “created” בָּרָה (bara) in Genesis 1:1 is in the singular. This linguistic pattern is well known and widely used throughout the Jewish Scriptures. For example, I am certain that many readers are familiar with the Hebrew word חַיִים (chayim), meaning “life.” Notice that this word contains the identical plural suffix “im,” as inElohim, yet it repeatedly means “life”, in the singular, throughout the Bible. Examples are:

And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth, like these who are the daughters of the land, what good will my life חַיִים (chayim) be to me?”

(Genesis 27:46)

You have granted me life חַיִים (chayim) and favor, and Your care has preserved my spirit.

(Job 10:12)

The fact that the name of God, Elohim, does not in any way imply a plurality in the godhead is well known and widely recognized even among Trinitarian Christians. For example, in the New International Version Study Bible (NIV), which is a Christian commentary that can not be construed as friendly to the Jewish faith, the Christian author writes in his commentary on Genesis 1:1:

God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.

(New International Version Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 6.)

Finally, it is important that we explore the crucial message which the name Elohim conveys to the Children of Israel. To be sure, two questions must be answered. 1) Why does the Torah employ this intensive plural name for the Almighty throughout the Torah? 2) Why is this name predominant throughout the creation narrative in the beginning of Genesis?

There is a fundamental principal regarding the many names of the Almighty as they appear in the Torah – they are exalted descriptions of the God of Israel. The name Elohim, which is not an exception to this rule, comes from the Hebrew root el, which means “might” or “power.” This common root appears in a variety of words throughout the Jewish Scriptures. For example, we find this word used in the famous opening words to Psalm 29, הָבוּ ליהוה בְּנֵי אֵלִים(havu la’donai b’nai eylim). This chapter is well known because this Psalm is joyously sung in every synagogue as the Torah scroll is returned into the ark following a congregational reading. What do these noble words mean?

“Ascribe to the Lord, O sons of the mighty. Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength”

(Psalm 29:1)

With these passages in mind, we have a deeper understanding of the name Elohim. The pagan mind ascribed a separate and distinct god for each of the powers in the world which it observed, and on whom it depended. The nations gazed upon the life-giving and perplexing energy emanating from the sun and the rain, and they worshiped the many gods who they believed controlled these forces. They craved an abundant harvest and boundless fertility, and they venerated each god who they believed governed each of these abodes. The ancients were mystified by the powers which sustained them and awestruck by the forces that terrified them, and venerated each with elaborate rituals and oftentimes gruesome rites in order to “appease the gods.”

The Torah conveys a radically different message for mankind. All the life-sustaining forces in the universe, all the power that man can behold, emanate from the One Master of the world, One Creator of the universe – the Lord of Hosts is His name. This grand message is contained in the name of God, Elohim. All the forces of the world emerged from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, the God of Israel alone – Elohim – is worthy of our worship and devotion.

It is for this reason that the Torah employs the word Elohim almost exclusively as the name of God throughout the first two chapters of Genesis. In these opening passages of the Book of Genesis, the Almighty is creating all the powers and forces which stir and sustain the universe.

Therefore, the nation of Israel, to whom God revealed Himself at the foot of Mount Sinai, knew nothing about a plurality of persons in the godhead. No fact could be more firmly established once all of our sacred literature – both canonical and rabbinical – is used as our eternal guide. This matter is indisputable.

Best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

| improve this answer | |
0

I see Ex 7:1 far more simply, without any theological baggage at all. The fact is, as far as Pharaoh was concerned:

  • everything Moses said (to Pharaoh) was from LORD God
  • everything Pharaoh said to Moses was equivalent to speaking directly to the LORD
  • everything Moses did was by the power of God

Moses was God's representative but as far as Pharaoh was concerned Moses was effectively God standing before him. (There is a similar attitude for a state ambassador.)

Ellicott reaches a similar conclusion:

See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh . . . --This is God's answer to the objection of Moses that his lips were uncircumcised (Exodus 6:12), and probably followed it immediately. The force of it would seem to be: "Thou art not called on to speak, but to act. In action thou wilt be to Pharaoh as a god--powerful, wonder-working, irresistible;

Similarly, the Pulpit commentary also reaches a similar interpretation:

I have made thee a god to Pharaoh. Moses was diffident of appearing a second time before Pharaoh, who was so much his worldly superior. God reminds him that he is in truth very much Pharaoh's superior. If Pharaoh has earthly, he has unearthly power. He is to Pharaoh "as a god," with a right to command his obedience, and with strength to enforce his commands.

Thus, Ex 7:1 states the practically obvious - Moses spoke and acted as though he was God.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy