Some argue that because Israel is sometimes described with “he/him” or “you” (singular), this supports the idea of a multi-personal God. But this completely misunderstands biblical Hebrew grammar and how prophetic language typically functions.

The ESV Study Bible itself notes (in its introduction to the Prophetic Books):

“The prophets can personify God’s people, viewed corporately, as if a single person [Isa 41:8-10; 49:14-16; 54:1-17; cf. Dan 7:27].”

So Israel, as a nation, is often spoken of as if it were one person.

That is personification, not ontology.

J. J. Schmitt explains the grammar in his article “The Gender of Ancient Israel” (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 [1983]: 115–125):

“In the tradition the word ‘Israel’ names a people. Names of peoples are masculine, while names of countries are feminine.”

In other words, “Israel” is grammatically masculine when it refers to a people, and that grammatical gender drives the pronouns. But grammatical gender is a feature of language, not a statement about literal personhood or multiple “persons.” This is also why translations sometimes differ:

• Psalm 130:8 – “their sins” (NIV) vs. “its iniquities” (HCSB, ISV);
• Jeremiah 31:10 – “them” (NIV, NLT, NET) referring to Israel

Translators are making a judgment call whether to emphasize the collective people (“them/their”) or the personified singular (“its”). Either way, everyone agrees the referent is the nation, not a literal single person—and certainly not a tri-personal God!

Bottom line:

– Grammatical gender does not make something a “person.”

– Prophetic personification (speaking of Israel as if one person) does not turn Israel into an actual single personal being.

If we don’t suddenly turn the nation of Israel into a “multi-personal being” (just because of singular pronouns and masculine gender), we certainly cannot do the same to prove the one God of Israel is in fact multi-personal!