One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Three)

Part Three: The Shema

In Mark 12:28-34 (ESV), we find recorded an insightful exchange between Jesus and a certain scribe:

²⁸ And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” ²⁹ Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.³⁰ And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ ³¹ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” ³² And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. ³³ And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”³⁴ And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

In verses 29-30, Christ was quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one!”). These verses form part of what is commonly referred to as the “Shema” (called such after the word translated “Hear” or “Listen” in Deut. 6:4). A common Trinitarian strategy when the subject of the Shema is being considered is to argue that the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “one” in Deut. 6:4 and Mark 12:29 (echad and heis, respectively) denote a unity of two or more persons or things. However, as will be argued below, the oneness being affirmed in the Shema is the oneness of the Father alone, and the term “one” in Mark 12:29 denotes the same thing that the term “one” denotes in Matthew 23:9 (where we read, “…for one is your Father, the heavenly.”).

Obviously, the oneness of the Father referred to in Matt. 23:9 is not a unity of two or more persons. It should also be noted that this meaning of the term “one” is the standard meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “one.”[1] The terms echad and heis are used just as consistently in Scripture to express the idea of numerical oneness as is our English word “one,” and those claiming that the primary meaning of either of these terms is something other than that which is expressed by our English word “one” are simply mistaken. Regardless of any other secondary meanings the terms translated “one” can be understood as having in certain contexts, the primary meaning of both terms is that of mathematical, numerical oneness.

Some Trinitarians have claimed that echad and heis can be understood to mean something like “compound unity.” However, the idea of plurality belongs to the collective noun that these terms modify. The concept of plurality doesn’t reside in the word “one” itself (whether in the Hebrew or in the Greek). Even in English when we use the word “one” in reference to collective nouns like “team,” “group” or “herd,” the word still means “one.” “One” means the exact same thing whether we’re talking about “one grape,” or “one cluster of grapes” (Num 13:23) – i.e., absolute, mathematical oneness. In order for echad or heis to be understood as modifying that which is collective or compound, it must first be understood that whatever the terms are modifying is, in fact, collective or compound.

Moreover, as with the English word “one,” the only way that the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “one” can be understood to express the idea of a unity of two or more persons or things is when two or more persons or things are actually in view.[2] For example, in John 17:11, Christ declared, “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one…” Notice how multiple persons are clearly in view in this verse (e.g., Jesus’ disciples, as well as Jesus and the Father); it is these distinct persons who are said to be “one.” It is the mention of at least two distinct personal entities that is conspicuously absent from the Shema. The Shema does not say, “The Lord our God, although three, is yet one,” or “The Lord our God, they are one.” There is no hint of anything numerically more than one “coming together” or existing in union here. No non-identical things (whether personal or otherwise) are spoken of or implied which, together, comprise “one” something, or exist in unity. Rather, implicit in the Shema is that there is one “he” (“the Lord our God”) who is numerically and unequivocally “one.”

John 10:30 is often appealed to by Trinitarians in an attempt to prove that the oneness of God affirmed in the Shema is a oneness of essence between three persons. However, as with what we read in John 17:11 (and in contrast with what we read in Deut. 6:4 or Mark 12:29), there is clearly more than one person in view in this verse. The immediate and larger context of John 10:30 also makes it clear as to what sort of “oneness” Christ had in view in John 10:30. The sense in which Jesus and the Father (his God) are “one” is that they share the same purpose, and are in complete agreement with each other.

Consider, for example, John 5:19: Jesus, then, answers and said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, The Son cannot be doing anything of Himself if it is not what He should be observing the Father doing, for whatever He may be doing, this the Son also is doing likewise” (compare with John 14:10 and 17:8). And in the immediate context of John 10:30, we read the following: Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you are not believing. The works which I am doing in the name of My Father, these are testifying concerning Me. But you are not believing, seeing that you are not of My sheep, according as I said to you. My sheep are hearing My voice, and I know them, and they are following Me. And I am giving them life eonian, and they should by no means be perishing for the eon, and no one shall be snatching them out of My hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to be snatching them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father, We are one.”

In this passage, Jesus is emphasizing the fact that he and the Father have the same, shared purpose concerning those whom Christ referred to as his “sheep.” Both Jesus and the Father were united in their desire and purpose to ensure that the “sheep” in view receive “life eonian,” and were both exercising their power to prevent the sheep from “perishing for the eon” (as is expressed in the words, “no one shall be snatching them out of My hand” and “no one is able to be snatching them out of My Father's hand”). It is in this sense that Jesus declared that he and the Father were “one.”

That the “oneness” in view in John 10:30 is not a oneness of “shared divine essence” (as is affirmed by Trinitarians and required by their doctrinal position) is further evident from what Christ later declared in his prayer to the Father concerning his disciples: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one…The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,  I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” Since Christ was obviously not praying that his disciples would become “one in essence” - or that they would become “one being” - we can conclude that the oneness in view in John 10:30 was not a “oneness of essence.”

Now, the two most common ways in which Mark 12:29 has been translated into English are as follows: (1) “The Lord our God is one Lord”; (2) The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” It should be kept in mind that what we find recorded in Mark 12:29 is itself a translation of the Hebrew of Deut. 6:4, and may be understood as expressing the same truth found there. Thus, if the first option is the correct way of translating Mark 12:29, then Deut. 6:4 should be translated, “Yahweh our God is one Yahweh.” On the other hand, if the second option is correct, the Hebrew of Deut. 6:4 should be translated, “Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.” But how do we determine which translation is most likely correct?

I submit that when we let the scribe’s response to what Jesus said inform our understanding of how Mark 12:29 should be translated, the second option will be shown to be more plausible than the first. Notice how the scribe echoed what he heard Jesus say by responding as follows: “You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.” Since it’s reasonable to understand the scribe as having repeated what he heard Jesus declare when he said “he is one” (replacing the words “the Lord God” with the personal pronoun “he”), the second option (”The Lord our God, the Lord is one”) can, I believe, be considered the most likely option for how the Greek of Mark 12:29 should be translated into English.

Moreover, a common idiom found in the Hebrew Scriptures involves the repetition of a word (e.g., a person’s name or title) for emphasis instead of using a corresponding pronoun. While this idiom can be used with impersonal things as well, the following are just a few examples where persons are in view: Gen 4:23-24; 16:16; 18:17-19; Ex 34:35; 1 Kings 2:19; 10:13; 12:21; Esther 8:8; Ezekiel 11:24; Dan 3:2-3; 9:17; Ex 16:6-7; 1 Sam 3:21; 12:7; 2 Chron. 7:2. As with these examples, Deut. 6:4 can also be understood as an example of this idiomatic way of speaking, with the divine name “Yahweh” being repeated for emphasis instead of the use of a pronoun. But if we were to replace the second use of the name Yahweh with an appropriate pronoun, what would we use?

Based on the kind of pronouns consistently used in reference to Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (see part five of this study), we would use the singular personal pronoun “he” (rather than “they”). Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh is referred to with singular personal pronouns such as “I,” “he,” “him,” “me,” “myself,” etc. He is referred to, and refers to himself, as a single person. So if we were to replace the second, emphatic use of the divine name with an appropriate pronoun, Deut. 6:4 would thus read, “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, HE is one.” “He” is the personal pronoun that is implied here, and with which the second use of the name “Yahweh” could be appropriately substituted.

But what is the identity of the Lord God whose “oneness” is being affirmed in the Shema? Based on a number of verses in scripture, I think it’s clear that the Jews in Christ’s day believed that their God was a single divine person – i.e., the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Consider, for example, Jesus’ words to the unbelieving Jews in John 8:54: “It is My Father Who is glorifying Me, of Whom you are saying that He is your God.” And based on his response to what Christ said, it’s also evident that the scribe with whom Christ was speaking believed the Lord God whose oneness is affirmed in the Shema to be a single person: Then the scribe said to Him, “You are right, Teacher! You have correctly said that He is One, and there is no one else except Him. And to love Him with all your heart, with all your understanding, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, is far more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

In addition to noting what the scribe did say, it’s equally important to consider what he didn't say. He didn't say, “...They are one,” or that “there are no others besides Them.” No; the scribe referred to the God whose oneness Christ affirmed by using the singular personal pronouns “He” and “Him” (which, of course, refer to a single person or self). Clearly, the scribe to whom Christ spoke (and who, we may reasonably conclude, accurately expressed the shared doctrinal understanding of God that was affirmed by the Jews in Christ’s day) believed that God was a single individual (rather than two or more individuals). It was, therefore, the Father alone whose “oneness” the scribe understood Christ to be affirming in Mark 12:29.

But what did Christ believe? Did he agree with the scribe? I submit that he did. Consider the following argument:

1. The “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 is the God before whom all Israel - including Christ himself - was commanded to have no other gods.

2. The God before whom Jesus Christ had no other gods was, and is, the Father alone.

3. The “Lord our God” whose oneness both Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 was, and is, the Father alone.

I’ll now defend each of the premises of the above argument.

1. The “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 is the God before whom all Israel - including Christ himself - was commanded to have no other gods.

As a Jew, Christ undoubtedly grew up believing and confessing the doctrinal truth being affirmed in Mark 12:29, and would’ve understood himself as being included among the covenant people who are being referred to by the word “our.” And as a member of this community of people, Jesus would’ve not only grown up believing and reciting the truth being expressed in Deut. 4:6, but would’ve considered himself as having had a covenant-based obligation to affirm it. And this means that the God whose oneness Jesus was obligated to affirm must be his God, individually, as well as the God of all Israel, collectively.

Moreover, being under the law given to Israel from birth (Gal. 4:4), Christ would’ve understood the first of the Ten Commandments (“You shall have no other gods before me”) - as well as the command that he considered to be the greatest command (Mark 12:30) - to be commands that he, too, was obligated to keep in order to remain obedient to God. And, of course, since Christ believed there to be an “only true God” (John 17:3), then he would’ve believed that this only true God was necessarily in view in Deut. 6:4 and Mark 12:29. Surely, Christ would not have believed that the God whose oneness he affirmed in Mark 12:29 could be any God other than the only true God, or that this God was the God before whom Israel was commanded to have no other gods.

2. The God before whom Jesus Christ had no other gods, and who was the exclusive object of his worship, was the Father alone.

It’s already been demonstrated that the Jewish people in Christ’s day understood the oneness of God being affirmed in the Shema to be the oneness of a single divine individual (i.e., the Father). But were the Jews in Christ’s day correct in believing that the oneness of God being affirmed in the Shema was the oneness of the Father alone? Or, was their doctrinal understanding on this point deficient, and in need of modification? To answer this question, we need only determine who Jesus considered to be his God. For, as previously argued, the Lord God of Jesus is necessarily the “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29.

In John 4:22-24 (HCSB) we read that Christ declared the following to a certain woman of Samaria:

²¹ “Believe Me, woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans worship what you do not know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews. ²³ But an hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Yes, the Father wants such people to worship Him. ²⁴ God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Based on Christ’s repeated use of the word “we” in v. 22, it’s evident that Christ included himself among those who, in contrast with the Samaritans, worshipped what they knew. It’s also evident that the God whom Christ believed that he and his fellow Jews worshipped was the Father (whom Christ understood to be a single person, as is evident from his use of the singular pronoun “him” in verses 23-24). Since Jesus’ God is the Father alone, it follows that the God whom Christ understood both himself and his fellow Israelites to be obligated to worship and obey was the Father alone.

3. The “Lord our God” whose oneness both Christ and the scribe affirmed in Mark 12:29 was, and is, the Father alone.

Having determined who, exactly, Christ considered to be the Lord his God, we are able to identify the “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ affirmed in Mark 12:29. For, as previously argued, the “Lord our God” whose oneness Christ affirmed in Mark 12:29 is necessarily the Lord God of Jesus. And since the Lord God of Jesus is the Father alone, it follows that it is the oneness of the Father of which both Christ and the scribe understood the words Mark 12:29 to be an affirmation.

Part Four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_82.html

---

[1] See, for example, Gen. 2:21; 42:11; Ex. 9:7; Lev. 16:5; Num. 10:4; 2 Sam. 17:22; Eccl 4:9; Isa 4:1; Jer. 52:20; Mal. 2:10.

[2] For example, in Genesis 2:24, we read that a man becomes “one flesh” with his wife. Of course, this is figurative language; the man and woman do not literally become “one flesh.” This is a powerful image that speaks of the intimate physical and emotional union existing between husband and wife. At the same time, the word echad here still means “numerically one” and not numerically more than one. And in this and other similar passages, not only does echad maintain its meaning of “numerically one” (as it must in order for the figurative expression to convey its intended sense), but two or more “parts” are mentioned, such that the reader can immediately discern that there is some kind of “coming together” and union of the people or things mentioned. This is not the case in the Shema.