God they caused me to wander

Genesis 20:13 and the Plural Verb with Elohim

Does “God caused me to wander” hint at the Trinity—or something else entirely?

One of the recurring arguments in Trinitarian apologetics is that the Old Testament occasionally speaks of God with plural language—plural nouns, plural pronouns, or even plural verbs. Genesis 20:13 is sometimes brought into that conversation because Abraham says:

“When God caused me to wander from my father’s house…” (KJV rendering)

But the Hebrew contains a striking feature:

• Elohim is grammatically plural in form.

• And here it is paired with a plural verb (“they caused…”). (Elohim, when referring to the God of Israel is usually paired with a singular verb)

So it is argued:
“If the verb is plural, it implies plurality within God— Father, Son, and Spirit”

This study aims to examine the evidence in depth: the Hebrew grammar, ancient translations, English versions, Targums, rabbinic discussion, medieval Jewish commentators, and Christian commentators (including Calvin)—and then to test the logic: if the plural must be taken as real plurality, would it actually yield ‘Trinity’… or ‘gods’?

1) The Hebrew Text: What Does It Actually Say?

Genesis 20:13 (Masoretic Text)

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתְעוּ אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים מִבֵּית אָבִי…

Key pieces:

• אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) — morphologically plural noun (“gods/God”), often used for the one true God.

• הִתְעוּ (hitʿû) — 3rd person plural Hiphil perfect (“they caused to wander / they caused to go astray”).

So, woodenly, the clause reads:

“When they caused me to wander—Elohim—from my father’s house…”

Hence the trinitarian assertion that this alludes to the Trinity.

2) The Verb תעה: “Wander” or “Go Astray”?

The root תעה (taʿah) can mean:

• to wander / stray (lost, roaming)

• to err / be led astray (moral/religious deviation)

This matters because it affects how interpreters understand what the “wandering” is.

Some (like Ibn Ezra, below) stress the traveling/roaming sense. Others (especially Targumic traditions) stress an idolatry/leading astray sense.

3) The Core Grammar Problem

In Biblical Hebrew, a basic expectation is:

• plural verb ↔ plural subject

• singular verb ↔ singular subject

So if someone insists:

“The verb must be plural in meaning (‘they caused’)”

then the most natural grammatical consequence is:

“Elohim must also be plural in meaning (‘gods’).”

This is clear elsewhere.

Deuteronomy 13:2

“Let us go after other gods (אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים)…”

The adjective “other” (אֲחֵרִים) is plural.

So Elohim must be plural.

It does not mean a singular God here.

Psalm 96:5

“For all the gods (אֱלֹהֵי) of the nations are idols…”

Plural construct (הָעַמִּ֣ים) Nations/peoples
Plural referent.
No ambiguity.

 Jeremiah 10:11

“The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish…”

Here we have:

• Elohim referring to pagan deities.

• Plural action. (עֲבַ֑דוּ) have made 

• Plural destruction. (יֵאבַ֧דוּ) shall perish 

This is exactly how Hebrew expresses real plurality.

That becomes a major fork in the road:

Option A: Formal (morphological) agreement

The verb is plural because Elohim is plural in form, but the meaning is still singular (God). This is how many grammarians and Jewish interpreters explain it.

Option B: Semantic (real) plurality

If the verb is truly plural in meaning, then Elohim is functioning as plural in meaning: “gods caused me to wander.”

Here’s the issue for a Trinitarian appeal:
Biblical Hebrew does not have a grammatical category for:

“one God (singular being) who internally contains multiple persons”

A plural verb in Hebrew normally communicates plural agents, not “one agent with internal plurality.”

So if Genesis 20:13 is pressed as real plurality, the grammar pushes toward multiple gods, not “one God in three persons.” This is not how Hebrew grammar functions.

That is precisely why even Trinitarian theologians like Calvin reject the “Trinity proof-text” use of this verse (we’ll get there).

4) Ancient Translations: LXX, Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch

This is where the evidence becomes extremely important.

4.1 The Septuagint (Greek LXX) reads it as singular

The LXX renders the clause with a singular verb:

ἐξήγαγέν με ὁ θεὸς
“when God brought me out…”

• ἐξήγαγέν = singular (“he brought out”)

• ὁ θεός = “God” (singular)

So the LXX does not preserve a plural verbal idea at all. It interprets the action as singular, and even shifts the verb from “cause to wander” to “bring out,” smoothing any difficulty.

4.2 The Latin Vulgate also reads it as singular

Jerome similarly has:

Postquam autem eduxit me Deus de domo patris mei…
“After God led me out from my father’s house…”

• eduxit = singular (“he led out”)

4.3 The Samaritan Pentateuch: the verb is singular

We also have testimony that the Samaritan Pentateuch aligns Elohim with a singular verb in places where the Masoretic Text has plural agreement, including Genesis 20:13.

Even if we debate whether the Samaritan reading is “original” or a later harmonization, it proves this:
an ancient textual tradition felt no obligation to retain a plural verb here, and in fact preferred the singular.

Bottom line from the ancient versions

The oldest translation traditions we can access overwhelmingly present Genesis 20:13 as singular divine action, not plural divine agents. They do not render the verb plural or create constructs of a plurality within the Elohim.

5) English Translations: Why do most still say “God caused me to wander”?

Most English Bibles translate the Hebrew sense (“wander”) but treat the subject as singular:

• “When God caused me to wander…” (common)

• or they follow the ancient “brought me out” tradition (as in some Catholic/Latin-influenced renderings).

So English translations often keep:

• the travel concept (“wander”)
  but not:

• the grammatical plurality (“they”).

Why? Because translators prioritize contextual monotheism and the overwhelmingly singular treatment of Israel’s God across Genesis. They do not see a plurality within Elohim being conveyed within the text.

6) The NET Bible Note: A Modern, Cautious Proposal

The NET includes a famously candid note:

• The Hebrew verb is plural.

• It may be agreement with Elohim’s plural form.

• But predicates with Elohim for the true God are usually singular.

• Perhaps Abraham accommodates to Abimelech’s polytheistic perspective.

• If so, translate: “when the gods made me wander.”

This proposal is noteworthy because it concedes the grammatical logic already emphasized here:

If the verb is semantically plural, the translation would be “gods,” not “God.”

NET frames this as “perhaps.” It is offered as a possible rhetorical explanation, not something demanded by the text.

tn The Hebrew verb is plural. This may be a case of grammatical agreement with the name for God, which is plural in form. However, when this plural name refers to the one true God, accompanying predicates are usually singular in form. Perhaps Abraham is accommodating his speech to Abimelech’s polytheistic perspective. (See GKC 463 §145.i.) If so, one should translate, “when the gods made me wander.”
NET Bible notes

7) The Targums: How Aramaic Jewish Tradition Reworked the Verse

Now we reach one of the most fascinating parts: the Targums do not simply “translate”—they often interpret.the Hebrew text.

7.1 Targum Onkelos

Onkelos reassigns the “erring/wandering” away from God:

“When the people/nations erred after the work of their hands… the Lord brought me near…”

This accomplishes two things:

1. It reads the “wandering” in the moral sense (“erring into idolatry”).

2. It makes God the rescuer (“the Lord brought me near”), not the one doing the “wandering-causing.”

   And it was, when the people erred after the works of their hands, the Lord did bring me near to the fear of Himself, from (among) the house of my father. And I said to her, This is thy favour which thou canst do for me; in every place through which we pass, say of me, He is my brother.

7.2 Palestinian Targum traditions (e.g., Pseudo-Jonathan)

A Palestinian-style rendering explicitly emphasizes attempted idolatrous pressure:

“When they sought to turn me aside to the worship of idols…”

So the Targumic instinct is clear:

• They Do not make God the subject of “causing to err/wander,”

• and they do not imply plurality in God based on the grammar.

• Instead, interpret the plural as referring to people/nations/idolaters, and God as deliverer.

That’s a very strong interpretive tradition.

8) Rabbinic Discussion: Tractate Soferim 4:6 (8th-9th Century)

This is one of the clearest windows into early Jewish sensitivity about the verse.

Soferim 4:6 discusses whether divine names in Abraham narratives are “sacred” or “secular.” It states:

• In “And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander,” the name is secular (i.e., not referring to God).

• But R. Ḥanina says it is sacred, interpreting it as:
  “Had it not been for God, they would long ago have caused me to wander.”

Notice what is not happening:

• The debate is not “Is God plural persons?”

• The debate is “Is Elohim here even referring to God, or to other agents?”

That’s huge. It means the rabbinic concern was not Trinitarian-style plurality, but whether the word should even be read as a divine reference in this clause. Full citation at end of this study.

9) Jewish Commentators: A Spectrum of Readings (All Monotheistic)

9.1 Rashi: “Authority words can be grammatically plural”

Rashi acknowledges the plural verb and says: don’t be surprised—authority and divinity terms can be treated grammatically as plurals, even with singular referents.

He cites examples like:

• plurals used for master/lord language, etc.

Rashi’s point is straightforward:

• this is grammar, not metaphysics.

  כאשר התעו WHEN GOD (CAUSED ME TO WANDER — The verb is in the plural. Do not be surprised at this for in many passages words denoting Godship or denoting Authority are grammatically treated as plural, e. g., (2 Samuel 7:23) “Whom God went (הלכו plural) to redeem”; (Deuteronomy 5:23) “the living (חיים adjective, plural) God”; (Joshua 24:19) “a Holy (קדושים adjective, plural) God”. So, too, the idea of Authority is expressed by the plural form, as (39:20) “And the master of (אדני construct plural) Joseph took him” and as (Deuteronomy 10:17) “Lord of (אדני) lords (האדנים)”, and (42:30) “the lord of (אדני) the land”; as well as (Exodus 22:14) “if its owner (בעליו) be with it”, and (Exodus 21:19) “and warning has been given to its master (בעליו)”
  RAshi on Genesis 20:13

9.2 Ibn Ezra: Elohim = God; “wander” = journeying, not sin

Ibn Ezra explicitly says Elohim should be rendered “God,” and explains that “wandering” means Abraham’s traveling from place to place without knowing the next destination (linking to the “wandering in the field” sense). This is the classic non-polemical, lexical approach (as you quoted earlier).

9.3 Later medieval strands emphasizing idolatry pressure

Several important medieval trajectories (Bekhor Shor, Bahya, Sforno) where Genesis 20:13 is read through Abraham’s break from idolatry—sometimes even taking “elohim” as idols or associating the departure with escape from pagan pressure.

Even when these readings are more radical, the motive is still the same:

• preserve monotheism

• and interpret Abraham’s departure as separation from idolatry

They are not using the verse to imply divine plurality.

9.4 Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto): rhetorical accommodation

 Abraham may have spoken in terms his audience (a pagan king) could grasp—so the plural language is rhetorical accommodation while Abraham personally remains monotheistic.

That sits very close to the NET note’s “perhaps” proposal, but from a Jewish philological angle.

10) John Calvin: A Trinitarian who rejects the Trinity-proof use of this verse

Calvin’s comment is extremely valuable because he is:

• a committed Trinitarian

• but he still rejects using Genesis 20:13 as a Trinity proof

He writes:

• because the verb is plural, he takes it as referring to angels guiding Abraham in wanderings

• and he explicitly criticizes the “Trinity of persons” inference as overly subtle—“as if it had been written: the gods caused me to wander.”

Then he makes the key grammatical observation:

• Elohim is often used for the true God with singular verbs

• but where a plural verb is added, it can signify angels or princes (in his view)

Even if we don’t adopt Calvin’s angel explanation, his value is this:

A major Trinitarian theologian did not treat Genesis 20:13 as Trinitarian evidence—because the grammar, taken “hard,” would suggest “gods,” not “Trinity.”

Th13.When God caused me to wander (430) Because the verb is here put in the plural number, I freely expound the passage as referring to the angels, who led Abraham through his various wanderings. Some, with too much subtlety, infer from it a Trinity of Persons: as if it had been written: The gods caused me to wander. I grant, indeed, that the noun אלהים (Elohim,) is frequently taken for God in the Scripture: but then the verb with which it is connected is always singular. Wherever a plural verb is added then it signifies angels or princes
John Calvin on Genesis 20:13

11) If We Translate the Verb as Truly Plural, We Must Translate Elohim as “Gods”

If the plural verb must be translated as real plurality (“they caused me to wander”), then the subject must match in meaning:

“the gods caused me to wander.”

This is not a theological claim; it’s grammatical consistency.

And that is precisely why this verse is unstable as a Trinitarian proof-text:

• Trinitarian theology does not mean “God is they” (as multiple gods)

• It means one God (singular) with personal distinctions

• But Biblical Hebrew plural verbs communicate plural agents, not “one agent with internal plurality.”

So if you push Genesis 20:13 toward literal plural agency, you drift into the grammatical space of multiple gods, not classical Trinitarianism.

12) Gesenius and Baer:

When examining Genesis 20:13 from a linguistic standpoint, it is important to consult the classical Hebrew grammarians — particularly Wilhelm Gesenius and the Masoretic scholar Seligmann Baer.

Their observations are highly significant because they approach the verse not theologically, but grammatically and text-critically.

Gesenius: Morphological Agreement, Not Ontological Plurality

In Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (notably §124 and related discussions), Gesenius addresses cases where Elohim, though semantically singular when referring to the God of Israel, appears with plural grammatical forms.

He notes that:

• Elohim is morphologically plural, even when referring to the one true God.

• In rare cases, verbs may agree with the morphological form rather than the semantic meaning.

• Such instances do not imply numerical plurality of subject.

In other words, Gesenius treats Genesis 20:13 as a grammatical phenomenon — not a theological revelation.

He does not suggest:

• Multiple divine beings,

• Multiple persons within God,

• Or divine plurality of any kind.

Rather, he categorizes the verse as an example of formal (grammatical) agreement.

This aligns with a well-known linguistic principle: sometimes agreement follows form rather than meaning.

In English, we occasionally see this with collective nouns (e.g., “the committee are divided”), but Hebrew allows this even more flexibly in certain categories — especially with words of majesty or authority.

For Gesenius, Genesis 20:13 is unusual — but not theologically explosive.

Baer: A Text-Critical Observation

Gesenius references Seligmann Baer, who worked extensively on Masoretic textual precision in his critical edition Liber Genesis.

Baer suggested that:

• The verb in Genesis 20:13 might originally have been singular.

• A singular reading would align with the overwhelmingly singular usage of Elohim when referring to Israel’s God.

• The plural form may reflect textual irregularity or stylistic influence.

Importantly, Baer was not arguing for theological plurality.

He was concerned with:

• Masoretic consistency,

• Grammatical coherence,

• And textual transmission.

Even where the Masoretic Text preserves the plural verb, Baer does not treat it as implying multiple divine agents.

He sees it as a textual or grammatical anomaly — not doctrinal evidence.

Why This Matters

Gesenius and Baer represent:

• Historical-critical scholarship,

• Hebrew linguistic precision,

• Textual analysis independent of theological polemic.

Neither saw Genesis 20:13 as suggesting plurality within God.

Instead, they treat it as:

• Morphological agreement,

• Or possibly textual variation,

• Or a rare grammatical exception.

This is important for two reasons:

1️⃣ If the grammar demanded plurality of divine persons, leading Hebrew grammarians would have noted it. They did not.

2️⃣ The explanation of formal agreement is linguistically sufficient. There is no grammatical necessity to move from plural verb to ontological plurality within Elohim.

The Larger Implication

When Genesis 20:13 is placed alongside:

• Ancient translations (which render it singular),

• Rabbinic interpretation (which preserves monotheism),

• Medieval Jewish exegesis (which offers grammatical or contextual explanations),

• And even Trinitarian commentators (who avoid using it as proof),

Gesenius and Baer reinforce the same conclusion:

The plural verb in Genesis 20:13 does not require, suggest, or imply plurality within God.

It is a grammatical feature with viable linguistic explanations — not a doctrinal declaration.

13) Pulling It Together: What the Evidence Actually Shows

When we put all the evidence side-by-side, several conclusions become difficult to avoid:

(1) The Masoretic Hebrew has a real grammatical anomaly

Plural verb with Elohim used for Abraham’s God is unusual.

(2) The earliest major translations read it as singular action

• LXX: “God brought me out” (singular)

• Vulgate: “God led me out” (singular)

• Samaritan tradition is reported to align these forms to singular as well

(3) Jewish interpretive tradition never treats it as plurality within God

Instead, Jewish handling falls into:

• grammatical plural-of-authority explanations (Rashi)

• lexical/travel explanations (Ibn Ezra)

• targumic re-voicing: idolaters err; God rescues (Onkelos; Palestinian)

• rabbinic debate: sacred vs secular name, not divine plurality

• rhetorical accommodation proposals (Shadal; echoed by NET as “perhaps”)

(4) Even major Trinitarian commentators don’t lean on it

Calvin rejects the Trinity inference and proposes angels instead, precisely because a hard plural reading would sound like “gods.”

(5) The key grammatical point stands

If the plural verb is forced into semantic plurality, it grammatically pushes toward “gods,” not “one God (Trinity).”

14)

Final Reflections: Does Genesis 20:13 Prove Plurality Within God?

It is true that some Trinitarian interpreters have appealed to Genesis 20:13 as one example of plural language associated with God. The plural verb הִתְעוּ (they caused to wander) paired with Elohim can appear, at first glance, to support the idea of plurality within God.

However, after examining the evidence carefully, several important conclusions emerge.

1️⃣ The Grammar Does Not Demand Plurality Within God

The mere presence of a plural verb does not automatically establish ontological plurality within Elohim.

As we have seen, there are at least two viable grammatical possibilities:

• Formal agreement (plural verb matching the plural morphology of Elohim)

• Semantic plurality (which would yield “gods,” not “Trinity”)

If the verb is taken as truly plural in meaning, then grammatical consistency requires that Elohim also be plural in meaning — which would result in:

“The gods caused me to wander.”

That reading would imply multiple deities acting, not one God with internal personal distinctions.

Biblical Hebrew does not use plural verbs to communicate “one being with multiple persons.” It uses plural verbs to communicate plural agents.

So if pressed grammatically, the verse moves toward polytheism, not Trinitarianism.

2️⃣ There Are Multiple Viable Explanations

Throughout Jewish and Christian history, interpreters have offered several coherent explanations for the plural form:

• Grammatical agreement with a plural-form noun (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Gesenius)

• Rhetorical accommodation to a pagan audience (Luzzatto, NET note)

• Angels as secondary agents (Calvin)

• Idolaters leading astray (Targumic and midrashic traditions)

• Secular (non-divine) reference (Tractate Soferim)

These are not fringe explanations. They span:

• Rabbinic literature

• Medieval Jewish exegesis

• Reformation Christian commentary

• Modern scholarship

The existence of this wide range of historically grounded explanations shows that the grammar does not compel a Trinitarian conclusion.

3️⃣ Ancient Versions Do Not Preserve a Plural Meaning

The Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Samaritan textual tradition all reflect a singular understanding of the action.

This is highly significant.

If the plural verb naturally conveyed theological plurality, we would expect ancient translators to preserve or reflect that plurality.

Instead, they smooth the verb into singular divine action.

That strongly suggests that early interpreters did not see plurality within God being expressed here.

4️⃣ Even Trinitarian Theologians Do Not Rely on This Verse

Notably, John Calvin explicitly rejected using Genesis 20:13 to argue for the Trinity.

He recognized that if the plural is pressed too hard, the result sounds like “gods,” not “one God in three persons.”

That observation alone should caution against overreading the grammar.

Conclusion

Genesis 20:13 presents an interesting grammatical feature — a plural verb associated with Elohim. But when examined in full:

• The grammar does not require plurality within God.

• The broader biblical context does not suggest multiple divine persons here.

• Ancient translations render the action as singular.

• Jewish interpretive tradition consistently preserves monotheism.

• Even careful Trinitarian theologians do not treat this as proof of divine plurality.

While some may see this verse as suggestive, it cannot bear the theological weight sometimes placed upon it.

• If you liked this study please subscribe here
• You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here Help me keep this site free for all.
• Join our Patreon membershiphere

These latter plurals, however may probably be more simply explained as indicating an indefinite individual, cf. 0 below. — For ^”liolf’ ^t’ 121^ (textus receptus) and ”J”‘Nli3 Ec 12I (textus receptus) the singular should be read, with Baer. 1 Even in Gn 31**, notwithstanding the plural suffix in DlDK’ril and DHvy, since the construction of these abstracts as numerical plurals is one of the peculiarities of the E-document of the Hexateuch ; cf. Gn 201^, 35”, and

The construction of אֱלֹהִים God with the plural of the predicate may be explained (apart of course from such passages as 1 K 19:2, 20:10, where the speakers are heathen, and אֱלֹהִים may, therefore, be a numerical plural) partly as an acquiescence in a polytheistic form of expression, partly from the peculiar usage of one of the early documents of the Hexateuch, called E by Wellhausen, &c., B by Dillmann; cf. his commentary on Numbers—Joshua, p. 618, and above, § 124 g, note 2. So Gn 20:13 (but in conversation with a heathen); 31:53, 35:7, cf. also Jos 24:19. That this construction was afterwards studiously avoided from fear of misconception, is shown by such passages as Neh 9:18 compared with Ex 32:4, 8, and 1 Ch 17:21 compared with 2 S 7:23. Cf. Strack’s excursus on Gen 20:13 in Die Genesis, Munich, 1905, p. 77.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/gesenius/145.html