ONE PROBLEM THAT THEOLOGIANS have had over the years is in justifying the deity of Christ with his human birth and ultimate death as a man is with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity which was developed and defined at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.  Not having many good answers and fighting against what they called "heresies," they developed a strange doctrine.  Historically, they put this problem to rest in part by creating the mystery doctrine that Jesus was both "God and man"—that he was "fully" God and "fully" man, and then forcing it upon the faithful on pain of excommunication and death.  The idea defies logic.  If a thing is 100% of this and 100% of that according to substance, it is a mathematical and logical impossibility--that is 200 percent! A being cannot be 100% A and 100% B at the same time and in the same relationship.  We instinctively and intuitively reject this unnatural recipe on two grounds: (1) because it insults our intelligence and (2) because the "law of non-contradiction" automatically comes into play and condemns such a conglomeration.  In defense, some say his spirit was God and his flesh was man.  But that's at best, a 50/50 proposition.

Others, seizing upon this mystery doctrine, use it as a vehicle to help "prove" that they, themselves, ultimately as resurrected humans, will become God as God is God.  That is about as blasphemous as you can get.  How can finite beings become infinite?  The teaching of some theologians and cultic church groups of man becoming God is the equivalent of "poking your finger" in God's eye (see our Study No.34, Will Man Become God?).  As to the deity of Christ, one might expound on this further by asking the question, "Deity now, deity before, deity always, or a combination of the three?"  Orthodox, mainlineChristian Churches generally teach that Jesus was (and is) "fully God and fully man" (the 200% solution!).  An intriguing question that needs to be answered in this respect is: "If Jesus was fully God and fully man on earth, is He still a man?"  It is abundantly clear that Jesus is right now divine in some sense of the word because he is presently sitting on the right hand of the Father ruling earth and the universe in and from heaven and has been given the power of life (Matt.28:18; Jn.5:26-30; 10:28).  He is now King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev.1:5).  Jesus deserves great honor.  However, serious arguments abound over other views of his deity: whether he was preexistent with and as God at all, or preexistent and co-equal with God before he became the Messiah, whether he was the God of the Old Testament, and whether he was always God, for example.  (NOTE: This study does not imply anything other than what is specifically written, pro or con, regarding the existence of Jesus before his human birth.  The supposed preexistence of Christ is an entirely different and complex issue.)

The premise of this brief study is simply that God is not a family, and additionally, that he is not a growing family, as some contend, such that resurrected humans entering God's family turn into God as God is God. 

One problem with the idea that God is a family should be obvious even to the unsophisticated, i.e., that God does not have a last name.  The notion that "God" is a family presumes what has yet to be shown: that the word "God" is a family name.  In all my studies, I have yet to find anyone who has dared make the bold claim that the name "God" is a tribal, family, or surname because clearly, it is not.  What they will do, however, is massage the definition of the Hebrew word "elohim" in an attempt to show that it should be defined as "family," thereby lending legitimacy to their argument that God is a family.  (Since writing this statement, one person of the "poly-binitarian" persuasion has suggested that the word "God" was a surname of sorts.)  But "elohim" does not signify family, church, or group.  Neither it nor "God" is a "family" name.

Elohim: el-o-heem'; [Strong's H430] plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specially used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:- angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty( .)  This is the "book definition" of elohim.  It is a plural word.  However, it being plural does not give us liberty to say that it is ALWAYS plural IN USE.  It is NOT always plural in context and usage.  In fact, MOST of the time, elohim is singular in usage!  Consider the word "News."  It is a plural word that is virtually ALWAYS used in the singular mode.

The concept that "God is a family" is a relatively recent innovation, heavily based at best upon an uncertain and ambiguous plural rendering of the Hebrew word "elohim."  However, the plural word "elohim" is not strictly a plural noun in usage or grammar, so any doctrine that relies on a plural reading of the word "elohim" in any given passage is on shaky ground. (Gen.3:22 will be analyzed in another study.)

Elohim is often singular.  "And he said, I am God [El], the God [elohim] of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation" (Gen.46:3, KJV; cf. 1Ki.11:5).  (Continued...)