Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Deuteronomy 6:4 - The Meaning of Echad

Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. - (Deuteronomy 6:4, Green's Literal Translation)
Hebrew and Greek words are transliterated throughout.
The claim is often made that the Hebrew word translated "one" [echad] means "composite unity", and therefore this shows that Jehovah consists of more than one person, and thus it is claimed that the usage of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 offers proof of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is true that "one" can mean "composite unity", or "compound unity", whether in Hebrew or English. There is no evidence, however, that the Hebrew word echad means anything different from the English word "one". There is nothing mystical about the Hebrew word "one" as used in Deuteronomy 6:4 that would mean that Jehovah is more than one person.
Echad [Strong's #259 "united, i.e., one; or (as an ordinal) first"] simply means one [whether composite or absolute] just the same as our English word means one. Look at its usage in a Hebrew concordance: "one door" Ezekiel 41:11); "one reed" (Ezekiel 40:5-8); "one gate" (Ezekiel 48:31); "one saint" (Daniel 8:13) -- just a few examples. (See also Numbers 7:11,13,14,26,32,38,44; 9:14; 16:22, for a start) It is used exactly the same as our English word "one". Being a single individual, object, or unit. noun: A single unit, a single person or thing.

The English word "unit" is defined as:
a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole
b : a part of a military establishment that has a prescribed organization (as of personnel and materiel)
c : a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function
d : a part of a school course focusing on a central theme
e : a local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
-- Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
The word composite means "made up of distinct parts." A composite unity, therefore, consists of various parts, each in itself making up a part of one total. The separate parts do not equal the total, and do not necessarily equal each other, as is claimed for the trinity. One part is not the other part. One grape on a cluster is a part of the cluster, but it would not be proper to say that the one grape is the cluster. This is true in both Hebrew and English. The scripture referred to says that there is only one Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 6:4) It is this one Jehovah who speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110:1 -- two separate beings. Jehovah is not presented as being more than one person, nor is Jesus presented as being Jehovah.

Sometimes we read of some who say that echad means "compound unity". The word "compound" means to put parts together to form a whole; to form by combining parts, etc. Thus this word means practically the same as "composite."

Jehovah is different from the false deities of the heathen, which were often worshiped as triads consisting of three parts. Jehovah is one Jehovah -- not two, not three.

Jay Green's interlinear says: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (is) Jehovah one." His translation reads: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." Echad is used here as an adjective modifying Jehovah. It really shows that there is but one Jehovah, not two - not three. However, in the context, Jehovah is warning about Israel's worship of the idol-gods of the nations. (Deuteronomy 6:12-15)He certatinly foreknew that Israel would get involved in such idolatry and would even use His Holy Name in worship of those idols. Thus, it was important to note that Jehovah is not more than one Jehovah; there are not a multiplicity of Jehovahs being represented as is found in the heathen lands around Israel. Also, some of the heathen have used forms of the name Jehovah (Yahweh) in their worship; without a covenant, however, Jehovah is not their God, except in the broad sense that Jehovah is the God of all his creation, in which case He is still but that one Jehovah, but he is not represented by any idol even if the heathen may have used a form of His name as applied to an idol.

While it is true that the word "one", whether in English or "echad" in Hebrew, can mean a composite/compound unity, and "one" can have more than one part, as in one cluster of grapes (Numbers 13:23), each grape is a part of the cluster, not the whole. Grape one does not equal the cluster, grape two does not equal the cluster, etc., each grape is only a part of the whole. One people (Genesis 34:16) does not mean one person is wholly the people as is claimed in the trinitarian dogma, that each of the alleged persons are "wholly" God -- not a part of God.

Likewise, your body is made up many parts, all of which go to make up the composite whole. Your arm is not your whole body, nor is your leg, etc., but only a part.

If this idea of composite unity is applied to the idea that God is more than one person, then you would have the Father as a part of God, but not all of God; you would have the Son as a part of God, but not all of God; and the Holy Spirit as a part of God, but not all of God. Thus allowing that all three persons are equal, we would have 1/3 of God as the Father, 1/3 of God as the Son and 1/3 of God as the Holy Spirit. Yet the trinitarian dogma does not define the trinitarian godhead as such, for they claim that Jesus is "fully God." They do not claim that the Father is part of God, they claim that he is fully God, etc. Therefore, their usage of "composite unity" or "compound unity" as a means to see the trinity in the word "echad" does not, in reality, exist, except that they should create their own definitions to suit their trinitarian dogma.

Is Jehovah a Unity? We can say that Jehovah is love; but Jehovah is not "all" love and nothing else. "Love" is not equal to the whole of who Jehovah is. It is only one component of who Jehovah is. The many components of Jehovah's being, personality and character are discussed in Paul S. L. Johnson's Book entitled *GOD*, which can be ordered from the Bible Standard.

Additionally, did the Hebrew writers themselves consider the usage of echad to mean more than one person in one God? There is not one hint that they believed such. It is only by adding the trinitarian philosophy and then reading the trinitarian philosophy into the expressions used that one can find "trinity" in the verse.

Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh.

The argument is often put forth that Genesis 2:24 illustrates that echad means more than one person in unity. Of course, we allow that echad can mean more than one person in unity, but this does not mean that the persons involved are the same being, sharing the same sentiency as is claimed for the trinity dogma: three persons in one omniscient being. The unity involved in marriage, if divided equally, still would be 1/2 + 1/2 = the whole. The marriage still consists to two separate parts that equal the whole. The same holds true for the many other "illustrations" of composite unity that our trinitarians neighbors come up with. We do not deny that echad means composite unity when that term is used properly; the meaning of composite unity, however, does not describe the dogmatic definition given of the trinity.

A married couple do not literally become one fleshly being. The man, after marriage, still has his own sentiency, his own thoughts and his own self, and a woman after marriage still has her own sentiency, her own thoughts, and her own self. The marriage union does not make the two one sentiency as is claimed for each of the members of the alleged triune God, that is, they are all three claimed to be omniscient.

Some claim that they the expression "one flesh" means that the two are the same substance, as is claimed for the trinity. The problem is that a man and woman are both of the same substance before they get married, thus their becoming "one flesh" does not mean that they become of the same substance when they are joined together in marriage. Obviously, the expression "one flesh" in Genesis 2:24 does not mean the same thing that "one substance" is claimed for the trinity, for the trinity claims that all three persons of the alleged trinity are all omniscient, thus all one sentient being, since all three, being omniscient, would have all have the same sentiency. Nor does the idea of "one flesh" in the marriage union mean that they both, as a result to the marriage, then became the same flesh substance (or "nature" as trinitarians often express it), as some have argued, since the man and woman already are of the same fleshly substance before marriage. Thus all mankind is spoken of as "one flesh", in the sense of actual substance, but all mankind do not constitute one sentient being. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39.

Nor is it that the two who become married are one sentient being, and no longer two sentient beings, for then there would be no such thing as a married "couple". Nor do either one of the two equal the whole of the union, as is claimed for each person of the alleged trinity, in that is claimed that each person of the trinity is wholly God, not part of God. The man and woman who come together are still each only part of that union; neither is equal the whole union.

Strictly speaking, the "one flesh" that is being spoken of is in the marriage union, in which the two come together in marriage bed as though one body. That this is what is being spoken of can be seen by 1 Corinthians 15:39, where Paul refers to this scripture in describing fornication with a prostitute. In the case of such fornication, the man and woman usually do not remain together as in marriage, but they do become as one body during the act of fornication. For such a union to take place, however, there have to be the two who are already flesh before they unite with each, neither of which are equal the whole.

Of course, we can also see that the marriage union as a whole could also be included. But still, neither party is equal to and wholly the union, but each remain a "part" of the union. The trinitarian dogma claims that the Father is not "part" of God, but all of God, the Son is not "part" of God, but all of God, and that the holy spirit is not "part" of God, but all of God.
Furthermore, The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) states: "Adam and Eve are described as "one flesh"(Genesis 2:24), which includes more than sexual unity" but when we use 1 Corinthians 6:16 as a cross reference, it appears that it means exactly sexual unity causing them to be "one flesh."

Therefore, is the "one flesh" union of Genesis 2:24 a composite unity? Absolutely! Does it offer any illustration that would apply to the trinity? No.

Additionally, composite unity does not mean that the various parts of the unity are neccessarily equal to each other, for in the husband-wife relationship a man is not equal in all respects to the woman, nor is the woman equal in all respects to the man, etc. Additionally, in a cluster of grapes, one grape may be bigger than another, but then a cluster of grapes includes not only the grapes but the stems that link the whole the cluster together. The stem is not equal to the grape, nor the grape to the stem. So none of these provide any illustration of the trinity.

Echad corresponds with the Greek heis -- one. It is simply the common Hebrew word for "one".

"He is unique... He is not many, but one... Yahweh is a single unified person... one Lord is also opposite to diffuse... He is single... God's person and his will are single... Israel is called to concentrate it's undivided attention in Yahweh himself. He alone is worthy of full devotion and He is one-single and unique." -- The Broadman Bible Commentary

Another word related to echad is Yachiyd (Strong's #3173). This word corresponds with our English word "only". It is most commonly used in the expression "only son". (Genesis 22:2,12,16; Judges 11:34; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) Like Echad, it is also closely associated with Yachad, meaning "to join, unite" (Strong's 3161), thus carries a similar connotation of unity as does Echad. Strong gives its basic meaning as "united", "sole", and further as "beloved", "lonely". The *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon* adds also "only" and "unique". The KJV translates this word in Psalm 86:6 as "solitary", in the sense of "lonely".

The word (often transliterated as Yachiyd) is not used of Jehovah in the Bible, and it usually refers to an only son. It corresponds most closely with the English word "only", especially in the sense of only son, only beloved, or lonely, which is perhaps the reason it is not used of Jehovah, since Jehovah is not a son of anyone.

Another word that sometimes means "only" is the word often transliterated as "bad" (Strong's #905), meaning "alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone". It is used in Deuteronomy 8:3, which word is translated into Greek as *monos*. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) *Monos* is the word used to describe the Father in John 17:3 as the "only true God." *Bad* is also used of Jehovah in Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 83:18; 136:4; Isaiah 2:11,17; 37:16; 44:24.

The Triple Point of Water

It has been argued that water provides a good illustration of composite unity as applied to the trinity. It is claimed that water can be in three forms at once yet all forms are still one thing: water. The test-tube experiment is cited: in a single test tube, the water can be in all three states at the same time! Actually, this is deceptive to say the least, since not all of the molecules of water in the test tube are in all three states all at once. For this to be valid demonstration of the trinity, such would have to occur. What these trinitarians are referring to is called the triple point of water. We present below some quotes from the WEB on the triple state:
At the triple point, all three phases are in equilibrium with one another - vapor sublimates to ice and condenses to liquid at the same rate that the liquid evaporates to vapor and freezes to ice at the same rate that the ice melts to liquid and sublimates to vapor.
Triple point-the temperature and pressure in which all 3 states of matter co-exist in equilibrium.
Note that this does not say that all of the water molecules are in all three states at once; it says that they are in equilibrium. Thus, about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as ice; about 1/3 of the molecules would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as liquid; and about 1/3 would be in the state of, or changing to, the bonding as gas. (If applied to the trinity, then 1/3 of God would the Father; 1/3 of God would be the Son, and 1/3 of God would be the Holy Spirit.) Never are all the molecules in the given container in all three states at once! Never is one molecule in all three states at the same time. Putting the three phases in equilibrium at the triple point actually does nothing to change the fact that there are still three phases of a single substance, which coexist in different parts of the vessel that holds them. For this analogy to have any merit toward providing a demonstration of the trinity, you would have to produce a solid liquid gas, that is, the whole body of H2O under consideration would have to be liquid through all of its molecules, and at the same time solid throughout all of its molecules, and at the same time gas throughout all of its molecules.

At least one trinitarian has noted the fallacy of the triple state argument as applied to the trinity, and has written about it online. We will quote a part of what he states:
The three phases of water analogy of the Trinity, although often suggested, is, in fact, an inadequate explanation as understood by traditional orthodox Christianity.... In the water (three states or phases) analogy we see a similar problem. Water, in the aggregate (not individual molecules but in bulk) will be in a phase (solid, liquid, or gaseous) depending on the temperature and pressure. [Along a phase line (of temperature and pressure) it can exist in two phases and at the triple point in all three.] Water can transform from one phase to another, just as the "persons" can in a modalist Trinity. However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the "persons", while all God, do not change into each other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, etc. Nor do they change into/from one another. Water can change from one phase to another. Thus, the three phases of water are an inadequate, i.e. heretical, model for the Trinity even though it has some partial value. -- a post by Edward Pothier
The above statement was made by a trinitarian in the newsgroups, and can be found online at:
Tiny URL for the above:
We also received the following email on this concerning whether all the molecules were in all three states at once:
In really short answer, any one molecule can only be in one state at once. The Triple Point is the temperature and pressure at which all three phases can exist together, however each molecule will be in one phase. For more about triple point see this website:
(Site no longer exists)
Marcy M. Seavey
Education Director
Iowa Project WET and GLOBE Iowa
Iowa Academy of Science
Having shown that this does not give a adequate illustration of the trinity, we now ask: what if there should be a substance that could be in three states throughout all at once? Possibly God could create such. Would it be proof of the trinity? No. It would only prove that such a substance could be in all three states throughout all at once, nothing more. It would not offer a reason to add the idea of the trinity to the scriptures.

The "One Lord" Deception

Some trinitarians will quote Deuteronomy 6:4 from the King James Version (or similar translation) like this: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." Then they will turn to 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we read that to the church there is "one Lord Jesus Christ." There is "one Lord", they say, and that "one Lord" is Jesus. Most scholars should know that the two scriptures are not speaking of the same thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the KJV, as well as many other translations have substituted "LORD" for the divine name. This should not be done, and to those ignorant of the truth, the above reasoning seems logical. Some will claim that the Greek word "kurios", often rendered "the Lord" in the New Testament, means "Jehovah", since in the extant Greek NT manuscripts we find that kurios is often substituted for the divine name. Such is sophistry, however, for kurios is used of others than Jehovah in the NT, as well as in other Greek writings.* The word "kurios" does not mean "Jehovah", any more than the Hebrew words for "Lord", such as "adon" or "adonai"**, mean "Jehovah". 1 Corinthians 8:6 is not identifying Jesus as the one Jehovah of Deuteronomy 8:6.
*See our studies on the holy name:
Likewise, sometimes our trinitarian neighbors will compare Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:8 with Zechariah 14:9, using the King James Version, or a similar translation, to reach the conclusion that the "one Lord" of these scriptures is Jesus. Zechariah 14:9, reads, according to the King James Version, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." By use of the word "LORD" in all caps, the KJV shows that in the Hebrew, the divine name appears, and that "the LORD" has been substituted for the divine name. Thus the World English Bible translation renders this verse in this manner: "Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one." By this we can readily see that Zechariah 14:9 is not speaking about the Lord Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but rather of Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus.
Jesus is Not Jehovah

Others will say that Jehovah is referred to as "Lord" many times in the Hebrew scriptures, such as Genesis 15:2,8, Exodus 4:10; 5:22; 15:17; 23:17; 24:17; Deuteronomy 3:24; 9:26; 10:17; Joshua 3:13; 7:7; and many more. Thus, they ask, how can only Jesus be the "one Lord", as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, if Jehovah is also "Lord"? Actually, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not state that there is only "one Lord". Let us read 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 from Young's Literal Translation: "for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many -- yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him." What it says is that "to us [to the church] there is one Lord "through whom are all things, and we through him." Jehovah is "Lord", but he is not the "one Lord" through whom are the all (Greek transliteration: ta panta). Thus to the church, God has appointed one Lord through whom all things are provided from the God and Father of Jesus to the church (as well as the blessings of the age to come), including the existence of the believers as new creatures in Christ. -- John 1:17; Romans 3:22; 5:10,21; 2 Corinthians 1:20; 5:17,18; Galatians 4:7; 6:15; Ephesians 1:5; 2:10; Philippians 1:11; Titus 3:6.

Paul had just written concerning the idol-gods of the nations, and declares that the informed Christian knows that the idols are nothing. It is these that Paul refers to as those who are "called" gods. On earth, of course, the idols are something in that the carved images are made of wood or stone, and wood and stone is indeed "something", but as far as having the will and might to bring about or influence events in the world to a purposeful outcome, these gods are nothing. Thus, while they are "called" gods, they are not so by nature, which nature is special "might, strength", power, as based on the Hebraic meaning of the words that are translated as "God/god"*. (Galatians 4:8) They have no special might of themselves to perform any prophecy, any purpose, that might be attributed to them. In the heavens, the sun, the moon, stars and constellations, etc., have been called "gods". The sun, the moon, the stars, etc., are indeed something, as far as the substances that are combined in their make-up is concerned. But they are nothing as far as the claim that these are "gods", in that they do not have any will or might bring about any purposeful outcome amongst the intelligent creation, they are "nothing". Yet these have been called "gods" and "lords". The word Adonis comes from the Hebrew word "Adon", meaning "Lord". Thus these are "called" gods and lords, although they are not so by nature, as they, of themselves, cannot perform or accomplish any will, prophecy, or purpose that might be attributed to them. Most are familiar with the usage of the word "baal" (meaning "the Lord", "lord", or "the master") and its usage regarding false gods.
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

But Paul continues, "as there are gods many and lords many." The Westcott and Hort Interlinear has this as: "as even are gods many and lords many." Paul acknowledges that there are those who are "called" gods who have no might, no power, and yet he also goes on to acknowledge that there are indeed "many gods and many lords". Does the Bible speak of others than Jehovah as god or lord? Yes, it does. Moses was said to made a god -- a mighty one -- to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The judges of Israel were spoken of as the ELOHIM, the might (as a collective body), in Israel. (Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 -- see Acts 23:5) The angels are spoken of as "gods" (elohim) in Psalm 82:6,7. (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4.) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is called elohim, a god, a mighty one. (1 Samuel 28:13) Various kings are referred to as "gods" -- "the strong" (KJV) -- in Ezekiel 32:21. All of these are indeed "gods", and while they have might, strength, power, they do not have such of their own being, but only as they have received such from the Might of the universe, Jehovah. Likewise, many are indeed "lords" in various capacities. The Hebrew word "adon", means "lord" or "master". This word is used of a master over slaves (Genesis 24:14,27), rulers (Genesis 45:8), and husbands. (Genesis 18:12) The original Hebrew text contained only consonants, and adon appears is represented by the four consonants: "aleph-dalet-vav/waw-nun", corresponding somewhat to our A-D-W-N (). Some transliterate this as "'adown". Two other forms of adon are adoni (my Lord), and adonai, my Lords (plural), or a plural intensive -- the plural form used as a superlative -- of "my Lord") The form "adoni" ("my Lord") is represented by the Hebrew characters "aleph-dalet-nun-yod" (corresponding, roughly to the English characters ADNY. The Masoretes, in about the third century or later after Christ, added the vowel point roughly called "quamets" (sounds like the English "a" in the word "all") to form the word "adonai". They added this vowel point wherever they believed that the word referred to Jehovah, and not someone else. Where ADNY appeared to be referring to someone else than Jehovah, they added the vowel point roughly called "hireq", corresponding to the English letter "i" carrying the English short "i" sound, as in the word "machine". This is usually transliterated from the Masoretic text as "adoni".

Once in a while someone will claim that, while "lord" in the Old Testament may be used of others than Jehovah, in the New Testament the word "kurios" is only used of Jesus and his Father. Let us examine to see if this is true.

The Hebrew form adoni is used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1: "Jehovah says to my Lord [adoni], "Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet." This scripture is translated into the Greek as "kuriw [an inflection of kurios] mou" [literally, "lord of me"] in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; and Acts 2:34, where it is applied to Jesus as David's Lord. Thus we can say that Kurios of the New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew word adown (and its variations).

While there are several instances in the parables of Jesus that have the word "kurios" applied to master of a house, or the master of the workers, etc., some may claim that these instances actually apply the word indirectly to Jesus. It is interesting to note, however, that the King James Version renders kurios as "sir" in Matthew 21:30; John 4:11,15,19,49; 5:7; 12:21; as "master(s)" in Mark 12:35; Luke 14:21; 16:13; and as "owners" in Luke 19:33. In many of these instances, it is clear that the speaker is not addressing Jesus as "Jehovah", but simply as an address to a man. Nevertheless, in Matthew 27:63; Acts 17:16,19,30; Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 4:11, we have definite instances where the Greek word Kurios is used of others than God or Jesus. Thus it is indeed true that there are indeed "many lords", as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6. None of these "lords", however, is the "one Lord" "through whom" the church receives all things, nor are the members of the church "through" any of these other lords.

Paul further states: "yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him." Several words are usually added by translators to the Greek here, and Young's translation above shows two words added by the brackets []. However, it does not show that the word "things" is also added, although the word "things" is actually added by the translators. The Westcott & Hort Interlinear has "ta panta" as "the all (things)", with the word "things" in parentheses, denoting that it is added to the rendering. The Greek phrase "ta panta" literally means "the all", pertaining to the church. The all that the church has is "of" or "from" the one God, the God and Father of Jesus. "The all" is "from" any of the other who are indeed "gods", and certainly not from any of the idols that are "called" "gods". The believer has offered himself "to" the God and Father of Jesus, through Jesus. -- Acts 20:32; Romans 5:10; 6:10,11; 12:1; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 9:11; Galatians 2:19; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 7:19,25; 11:6; 12:28; 13:15; James 4:7,8; 1 Peter 2:5; 3:18; 4:6.

The scriptures identify the only true God -- the Supreme Being, the "might" or "MIGHTY ONE" of the universe -- as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. (Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by stating that his Father is "the only true God" signified that there is only one true Supreme Being, one true Might of the universe. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Jehovah, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Jehovah -- the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus -- who also sent Jesus. This same God is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. -- Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.

Jesus is appointed as the one Lord of the church by Jehovah, the God of Jesus. There is one God, the Father, Jehovah, the God of Israel, who sent Jesus (John 17:1,3), and this one God has appointed for the church (as well as for the world regarding the age to come) one Lord, Jesus. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Psalm 2:2,6,8; 45:7; Isaiah 9:7; 61:1; Matthew 28:18; Luke 1:32; John 3:35; 5:22,26,27,30; Acts 2:36; 5:31; 10:42; 17:31; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:17,20-22.

ELEINU in Deuteronomy 6:4

Some note that the Hebrew word for "God" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is ELEINU (a form of ELOHIM, Strong's #430), and that this word does not mean an absolute singularity, but that it allows for "God" to be more than one. Actually, if this word is used as a plural, it means would mean "our gods", and not "our god". Such would be stating that Jehovah is more than one god*, not more than one person. This would not at all fit in the context of Deuteronomy 6:4, which distinguishes Jehovah as being one as compared to the heathen around them who worshiped a multiplicity of gods. Nevertheless, in Hebrew, a plural form of a word can be used to represent a singular with an intensified meaning. This can be seen from Mark 12:29, where the Greek word for "God" is not at all plural, but singular. Thus, forms of ELOHIM are actually plural as to form does not mean "gods", but rather it takes on the intensified singular meaning of God, as Superior God ("Mighty One") or Supreme God (Mighty One). (See our study: Elohim – Does This Word Indicate a Plurality of Persons in a Godhead? Since it is a reference to Him who is the source of all might (1 Corinthians 8:6), it would mean Supreme God (Supreme Mighty One). Comparing scriptures, such as Numbers 20:15 (Abith'inu = our Fathers); and Isaiah 53:5 (Aunthi'inu = our iniquities) and 1 Samuel 12:9 (Chtath'inu = our sins) is irrelevant since in the latter scriptures the forms are not being used as a plural intensive. The plural intensive of forms of ELOHIM are used in such verses as: Genesis 1:26; 3:5; Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 24:19; 2 Samuel 7:23; Job 35:10; Psalm 29:1; 58:11; and many other scriptures; nevertheless, the use of the plural intensive in these verses gives no evidence at all that Jehovah is more than one person. Thus, there is nothing in the word, ELEINU, that gives any reason to think that Jehovah was saying that He is more than one person.
*Trinitarians usually object if one says that they believe that there are three gods.

No comments:

Post a Comment