- Project 18:15
- Posts
- Russell Brand Preaches, and Elohim Is Plural
Russell Brand Preaches, and Elohim Is Plural
A recent sermon by Russell Brand, other news of Christian concern, and why the plural “Elohim” is translated as the singular “God.”
Anthony Langer
January 18, 2025
It’s Saturday, January 18, 2025.
Today’s edition covers a recent sermon(?) by Russell Brand, other news of Christian concern, and why the plural “Elohim” is translated as the singular “God.”
Quick update: Project 18:15 now has a Facebook page! Please give it a follow to see content throughout the week.
Wisdom says: “‘Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!’ To him who lacks sense she says, ‘Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.’” (Proverbs 9:4-5)
Of Christian Concern
RUSSELL BRAND PREACHES: THE GOOD AND THE BAD
Screenshot from the message. (Oceans Church / YouTube)
Eight months after his baptism in the River Thames on April 28, famed comedian and podcaster Russell Brand took to the stage at Oceans Church in Destin, Florida, to deliver the Sunday message.
The 45-minute address could be described as part testimony and part sermon, as Brand told stories about his coming to faith and shared his perspective on Bible verses that impacted him. For thoughtful Christians listening in, no doubt some moments were edifying while others raised eyebrows. Here are a few of each.
Edifying
1. Brand expressed an understanding of depravity:
What I know is that you're broken like me. I know this about you. I know that the only real variation is how well people can pretend to have…got it together. Some people can put on a good show of having got it together. But, thanks to the continuing awakening and ongoing revelation, I know that we are all broken…
2. Discussing Isaiah 43:1 (“Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine”), he observed that redemption is “not general” but “by name.” In other words, God redeems specific individuals. Here, Brand outlined the plan of salvation simply:
All we have to do is recognize Him as our Lord and Savior. Repent and turn away from sin, turn away from the old life, and we belong to Him. The price of living free from fear is to belong to Him.
3. He expressed—albeit seemingly with some uncertainty—an awareness of the problem of his past(?) connection to New Ageism:
I don’t know enough about anything to tell anyone anything, and I like that principle of non-judgment, I like to have that right at the forefront, but what I will say is I guess you will say—I’d have to say—that I was kind of a New Age person. Like, you know, I’m interested in Buddhism and meditation and yoga and breath work and maybe even crystals and dreamcatchers, and you should have a look at some of my tattoos.
4. He explained the meaning of “peace…which surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:7):
The peace that passeth all understanding is the peace that you will receive when you believe, when you accept that a human being has a limited capacity for knowledge, and knowledge—the knowledge of the Lord—is without bounds, is without limits. …Understanding will take you this far—it might make you rich, it might make you famous, it might get you spasms of unworthy pleasure—but there is a peace beyond all understanding that can be yours when you surrender to Him.
5. In true Russell Brand fashion, he touched on the dangers of government and other institutions. At one point, he said,
John, Paul, and our Lord and Savior…they all say the world is run by the devil. So, we shouldn’t be surprised when worldly institutions let us down, when governments lie, when media can’t be trusted, when institutions that are set up for health don’t look after our health—because they are not God. In fact, they are something else entirely.
He then offered some perspective by applying the words ascribed to Christ in Luke 23:34 (“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”) to these institutions:
It ain’t even deliberate. It’s not even deliberate by the hands that are carrying it out. They don’t know whose work they’re doing. So, all we can do is connect people to Jesus so that they will be awakened in His name, in His name, for He has conquered this world.
Eyebrow-Raising
1. Brand sometimes (here and here) referred to God as “the Ultimate Reality,” which is one of those terms that could sneak in New Age ideas if not carefully defined. The same is true regarding his use of the terms “self” (e.g., here and here) and “energy” (here, here, and here). In each case, it’s difficult to discern whether Brand’s New Age background is merely coloring his language or distorting his Christian theology.
2. Similarly, in his description of addiction, he said, “But one of my teachers from another tradition, as a matter of fact, said, ‘All desire is the inappropriate substitute for the desire to be at one with Him, to be at one with God.’” This negative view of “all desire” sounds suspiciously like an Eastern mystical view rather than a Christian one, leading one to wonder whether by “another tradition” Brand meant another religion like Hinduism or Buddhism.
3. On two occasions (here and here), Brand referred to “transubstantiation” as a legitimate doctrine. Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic belief that the communion bread and wine actually (though undetectably) transform into the body and blood of Christ. Brand’s use of the word may betray a misunderstanding of its definition or an ignorance that it’s not an accepted view in Protestantism.
Now that we are tethered, potentially, to continual self, we are going to have to, I believe, learn new ways of understanding Scripture and new ways of receiving Him, because as the Word was written in the language of its time—anticipating all time, for surely He exists beyond time and beyond space and outside of the senses (the Ultimate Reality is beyond the conditions of our reality as we appreciate and receive it)—we, as inhabitants of this realm, are going to have to learn how to operate within technology. Otherwise, that technology, I reckon it can become Luciferian. It can become a kind of false light.
The call to “learn new ways of understanding Scripture” could be interpreted as a call to abandon traditional understandings of biblical truths. However, in context, he was discussing the dangers of technology. So, one might interpret his statement as a call to leverage technology to promote Christian teaching. His meaning is not entirely clear.
5. At one point, Brand described the Trinity as it has been described to him: “The same that water can be mist or ice or liquid water, you can have three gods in one person.” Two points here: First, the mist-ice-water analogy, though common, lends itself to the heresy of modalism. Second, the traditional historical expression of the Trinity is “one God in three Persons,” not “three gods in one person” (which would be polytheism). Charitably, Brand may have misspoken here.
Questions Arise
Other moments good and bad could be included, but the above examples give a sense of the mix.
If his conversion is genuine, Brand is a new Christian. That fact will lead some to think of 1 Timothy 3:6, which forbids recent converts from becoming overseers. Brand did not become an overseer, but he did preach/teach, which is part of an overseer’s role. Some questions arise:
Should he have been allowed to teach or preach at a church while still a young Christian?
Should his theology or his message have been better vetted?
How soon can a new Christian—who may still have misunderstandings and be developing their theology—share his or her testimony with a church, and what should be the limits?
How should a pastor handle a situation in which someone in a teaching role expresses an erroneous theological view before the church?
Also Noteworthy
Cover of Global Christian Relief’s 2025 Red List.
→ OnlyFans-porn-star-turned-Christian Nala Rey, in a video, explains her refusal to give away the money she earned doing porn, citing her faith as sufficient for salvation. Reactions to the video included unbelievers being scandalized and Christians coming to her defense.
→ Christians online are bemoaning and explaining hyper-masculine internet personality Andrew Tate’s popularity among young men and boys from a Christian background. The conversation may have been sparked by conservative commentator Benny Johnson’s announcement that he would be having Tate as a guest on his show, to which Babylon Bee founder Seth Dillon replied, “Dude, don’t you have daughters?” Many clips online show Tate admitting and promoting pimping, violence toward women, and other immoral behaviors.
→ Global Christian Relief released its 2025 “Red List,” a report revealing “the 25 worst nations for Christian persecution across five categories of concern.”
→ A recent Defending Education survey found that:
80% of American parents disagree “that schools should help a child change their gender identity”
74% oppose “teachers providing instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary school,” and
78% oppose “biological males, who identify as females, being allowed to participate on girls’ sports teams,” according to .
→ A Sudanese Christian convert’s wife and home were take from him after he came to faith, Morning Star News reports.
Content Catch-Up
Recent, notable content of Christian interest.*
→ A Huge Problem For the Church?: The hosts of Christian hip hop radio show Trackstarz react to an alleged prophecy by entrepreneur Tiphani Montgomery, who predicts church leaders will be exposed for immorality. (Video)
*Not necessarily an endorsement
The Bible, Briefly
Is “Elohim” Plural?
“Elohim” in Hebrew script.
The Hebrew word for God is Elohim (אֱלֹהִים). This is a plural word. It is translated as “God” or “gods,” depending on the context. But if it’s plural, why would it ever be translated as singular, “God”?
Biblical text scholar Wesley Huff explains:
The ending “im” normally indicates a masculine plural in Hebrew. So, “Elohim,” at face value, looks like a plural version of the word “El,” meaning “God,” and the “im” plural ending. And so, therefore, you could mistake it for then being the plural of “gods.”
Now, in some cases, Elohim does refer to plural “gods.” The problem with this is that the word Elohim is what’s known as a concretized abstract plural, and this is a function within the Hebrew language where a plural word is used in a singular sense.
And a concretized abstract plural operates in a similar way to, say, the English word “sheep.” So, we can have one sheep or 50 sheep. It’s the verbs around the word [that tell us which it is].”
So, though the form is plural, the word can indeed refer to one God, and it’s the context that indicates which way the word should be understood. One interesting verse where both cases are seen at once is Psalm 82:1, where God (elohim) speaks to other “gods” (elohim, same word).
What did you think of today’s briefing?
Reply