cob’s uncle) possessed idols. In Genesis 35, Jacob ordered his family and servants to put away their idols.
Scriptures Reveal Duality
In order to better grasp the big picture, we must consider a number of other references in the Scriptures concerning God. We discovered that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament endorses the concept of a trinity, as many have assumed. Certain scriptures that we will examine have been mentioned before, but it is important to revisit them when asking the question, “Is God One?” Recognize that this is necessary repetition in order to bring out other points in the passage related to this question.
First, in John 10:30, recall that Christ stated, “I and My Father are one.” Trinitarians insist this statement confi rms the belief that the Father and Son (with the Holy Spirit) constitute a common person or hypostasis. But the question must be asked: How does Christ explain that He and the Father are one? Does He indicate precisely how they are one by an understandable analogy or does he use philosophical jargon to portray some mystical, abstract concept?
We fi nd that Christ does portray how He and the Father are one in a clear and understandable way. The answer is found in John 17:22: “And the glory which You gave Me I have given them; that they [His followers] may be one, even as we are one.” In this scripture, Christ is seen to be one with God in the same way that the disciples (and the Church of God through the ages) were one—were UNIFIED! A few
verses earlier in John 17:11, we found a similar expression pertaining to those called of God “…that they may be one as we are.”
Consider again. Are these brethren bonded—welded—together into a common person or hypostasis? Obviously not! They are bond- ed together in the same mindset under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, they are “one” just as the Father and Christ are “one.” Confusion and mystery enter the picture when the defi nitions are supplied by philosophy—human reasoning—rather than what is clearly written in Scripture.
Two Separate Beings
Earlier, we referred to the conversation between two God Beings who comprise Elohim as recorded in Genesis 1:26. In Genesis 3:22, exiled or declared a heretic, which could result in death. Modalism
and Aryanism eventually disappeared as viable alternatives, since both beliefs were offi cially viewed as heresy.
Certain theologians have been stuck in the error of Jewish theol- ogy, not allowing them to properly understand how God is one. This created a problem. Unwilling to accept classic trinitarianism as com- patible with monotheism, these had to come up with an alternative theory that would be compatible. Modalism was their creation.
According to the teaching of modalism, there can be separate
modes of a single being. This means that there is only one personage
in the Godhead, but this personage can manifest himself as the Fa- ther, the Son or the Holy Spirit. In theory, this one being can only be perceived in one mode at a time. (In effect, this idea makes God into a kind of divine schizophrenic.) This approach is an acceptance of a modifi ed version of the trinity and is at best a theoretical abstraction much like the trinity itself. All previous passages that we have ex- plored show that modalism is simply not based on the Bible! This theory only mentions the perceived mode of the three beings that God is supposedly representing Himself to be at any one time, with- out relating to the actual substance or composition of God. This posi- tion is advocated by most Pentecostals and Unitarians today.
Trinitarians try to identify everyone who rejects their philosophy as advocates of some form of modalism. However, it is possible for one to legitimately reject both the trinity and modalism as being equally unscriptural and unfounded. While it is not our purpose to address all the issues of the theory or teaching of modalism, it does set up the question of whether God is one.
Monotheism
Monotheism has long been considered by anthropologists and ar- chaeologists as the mark of an advanced culture. This is based on the assumption that ancient man worshipped numerous gods and slowly evolved into monotheism. The few cultures that adhered to monothe- ism were considered to be more developed.
However, recent research of ancient history confi rms what is re- corded in Scripture—that monotheism actually preceded polytheism, the worship of many gods. We know that the patriarch Noah was a worshipper of the true God. Only later, after the time of Nimrod, did polytheism begin to fl ourish. We fi nd in Genesis 31 that Laban (Ja-
clare that God cannot be limited or confi ned to any space, no mat- ter how big—meaning that His boundaries must be the universe and beyond, in other words, wherever space exists. Otherwise, the thought is that He would be seen to have “shape” and would there- fore be “composed,” and thus made of something—impossible for spirit.
According to this thinking, there could, therefore, be no more than one infi nite being! To have two or more infi nite Beings would have them passing through each other—something that is also deemed to be impossible. In reality, all of this is nothing more than pure Greek philosophy set to theology. Somewhere in here the sim- plicity in Christ disappeared. Again, if you are confused, that is good.
First, remember that such ideas do not originate from Scripture. Second, these ideas derive solely from human reasoning, specifi cally, again, from the mind of philosophers who are trying to understand the spirit world when it has not been revealed to them.
The truth is that the Godhead is not constrained by, or subject to, such abstract human reasoning.
(For all those who cleave to the idea that God is a kind of amor- phous blob permeating all space in and out of the universe, Chapter Nine will PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt from Scripture that God
is not without explicit shape and form.)
Equality Within the Godhead?
Trinitarians often cite Philippians 2:5-6 to prove Christ’s equality with the Father. This verse states, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Yet, we fi nd elsewhere that Christ expressed that “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
How are these two verses reconciled? If the Father is greater than Christ, how could they be equal—how could they be one?
The statement of Christ being equal to God is understood by looking at an analogy. Consider. A small child has equal rights under the law, as an adult. The baby is on the human level and equal in this respect, but as far as ability and experience the baby is not compa- rable to a responsible adult. Thus, Philippians 2:5-6 shows that Christ was on the same level as the Father (“in the form of God”) in the sense of existing as a God Being, but certainly not on the same level we fi nd these two members of the God Family conversing again:
“…Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil…” Also notice Genesis 11:6-7: “And the LORD said, Behold,
the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they be- gin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let Us go down, and there con- found their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” Again, we could ask: Is God schizophrenic?—Is He talk- ing to Himself?
We fi nd the Logos (the Word – John 1:1) and the Father—two separate God Beings—conversing throughout the Scriptures. How- ever, other than these recorded conversations, the existence of the other God Being (the Father) was not revealed to Israel, or to man- kind in general, until Christ revealed Him during His ministry. Even in this case, the essential revelation only applied to those called of God (see Luke 10:22 “…and he to whom the Son will re- veal Him”). We will discuss this in greater detail at the end of this chapter.
Also note Psalm 110:1: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit You at
My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.” Here, David refers to a greater Being (the Father—“The LORD”) speaking
to David’s Lord (the God of the Old Testament—“my Lord”). In al- most every case in the Old Testament, “LORD” referred to Christ, who
was the God of the Old Testament (I Cor. 10:1-4). But in this case, it referred to someone of greater supremacy.
Further notice Daniel 7:13: “I saw in the night visions, and, be- hold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.” We fi nd here that the “Son of Man” (Christ) approached the “Ancient of Days” (the Father). Christ was not approaching Himself. What is described here is Jesus Christ being “coronated” and given dominion and power over the nations of earth. This is a prophecy that is to be fulfi lled in the near future.
It should be noted here that advocates of the trinity often pres- ent conditions, constraints and theoretical parameters established by philosophy. Esoteric arguments exist that a dual Godhead would be severely limited because one deity would have to yield His space and power to another, thus resulting in both becoming sup- posedly fi nite, as the argument concludes, whereas a single being would be infi nite in space and power. This theory goes on to de-
The Hebrew terms from which this verse is translated are written below with the English translation below each Hebrew term. This literal translation will be helpful to bear in mind as we carefully ex- amine each word:
Shama, yisrial Yahweh Elohim Yahweh echad.
Hear, O Israel [The] LORD God [is] LORD alone.
We will briefl y discuss two of these Hebrew terms and how they are translated elsewhere in the Bible. The reader will be surprised at what this phrase really means and how it does, in the end, actually refer to the trinity—but not in a way that any trinitarian would expect or want to accept.
“Shama”
Shama means “to hearken; pay attention in order to be instructed; to
listen up with a ready mind.” One example of Shama is found in Deuteronomy 4:1: “Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the stat- utes and unto the judgments, which I teach you…” Another example is Genesis 27:8: “Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command you.” In this second case, Shama is trans- lated “obey.” One fi nal example is found in Deuteronomy 5:1: “And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the stat- utes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day…” In this verse, Shama is translated as “hear.”
The Hebrew word in the phrase that is most subject to controversy is echad. This word is not always translated to represent the concept of “oneness.” Notice how it is translated in Genesis 1:5: “…and the evening and the morning were the fi rst day.” Here, echad is translated as “fi rst.” Genesis 2:24 is an ideal example of where echad is trans- lated to mean “one”: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one fl esh.” Take careful note. In this case, the man and the woman are two sepa- rate and distinct individuals, even though they are bound by the mar- riage covenant, and the “one fl esh” is referring to the sex act within marriage. Though they are at times “one fl esh,” they do not constitute the same person or hypostasis. Hence, in Deuteronomy 6:4, the use of “one” for echad would similarly imply that the Godhead consisted of distinct Beings—not constituting the same person or hypostasis. as being the All-Supreme Father whom Christ acknowledged as be-
ing greater than Himself. Christ further acknowledged that “My Fa- ther…is greater than all…” (John 10:29)—of course, then, including Himself.
We have seen that Scripture does not present the Father and Christ as being equal. But what about the Holy Spirit? The trinity doctrine places the Holy Spirit on an equal level with the Father and Christ. Again, is this what the Bible teaches?
The following scriptures reveal a giant discrepancy with the false idea that the Holy Spirit is an equal member of the Godhead. First, consider John 13:16: “Truly, truly, I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord; neither He that is sent greater than He
that sent Him.” This means that Christ is not greater than the Father.
But now, consider Psalm 104:30: “You send forth Your spirit, they are created: and You renew the face of the earth.” Christ, by the in- struction of the Father, sent forth the Spirit to renew the Earth. Com- bining this with John 13:16, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is not equal to God! The next chapter will cover this in much greater de- tail.
Why Judaism Maintained Monotheism
It is signifi cant to note that “orthodox” Christianity rejected nearly every aspect of Judaism except the premise concerning monotheism. It served the purpose of established Christianity to adopt monothe- ism, since the concept of one God molded perfectly into their theory of the trinity. Why did Judaism and Trinitarianism adopt monothe- ism?
Advocates of the trinity turn to Deuteronomy 6:4, referenced earlier, where you fi nd what is generally referred to as the “Shama.” They insist that this verse refers to the nature of God, claiming that it is emphatic about God being one personage or being. Traditionally and historically, this verse has been the defi nitive statement of the Hebrew concept of monotheism. Therefore, it is vital that we exam- ine it in detail for what it does and does not say. Let’s see if assump- tions have been made.
This crucial verse reads, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is
one LORD.” A casual reading of this passage appears to emphasize
that the Godhead consists of only one Being. However, is this really what it says?
All-important Context
It is crucial to understand that the context of Deuteronomy 6:4 was
not the nature of God. Rather, just as in chapter 5, the focus of chapter
6 was obedience to God by living, submitting to, loving and cleaving to Him, and teaching one’s children the Ten Commandments.
Given the true meaning of the Hebrew words in Deuteronomy 6:4 and the overall context in which it is found, it is now possible to understand its real intent. This passage should read as follows:
“HEAR AND OBEY, O ISRAEL, THE ETERNAL GOD AND [HIM] ALONE.”
The meaning as seen here is very different than what most have supposed—or been willing to carefully examine.
The overall intent and purpose of the passage is that God did not want His people, Israel, to listen to other gods. He wanted them sole- ly focused on hearing and obeying HIM! Recall from earlier in the book that Israel went on to have a long, checkered history of involve- ment with, and worship of, other gods. They continually deviated from the fi rst four commandments and rollercoastered in and out of idolatry and worship of the gods of surrounding nations in place of the true God.
Let’s state plainly for emphasis one more time the purpose of the Shama: The true God of the Bible wanted His followers to hear Him and Him alone, and to obey Him and Him alone. As “a jealous God,” He did not want them listening to or obeying the customs and tradi- tions of other gods under any circumstances.
Final Irony
Something else emerges from what we have just learned, and we must make this point most clear before continuing. It has a direct bearing on the doctrine of the trinity and the thinking of trinitarians.
The trinity has been shown to be an entirely different god than the God of the Bible. The very Shama itself condemns the adherence to and worship of the false god of the trinity by, in effect, reinforcing the First Commandment—“You shall have no other gods before Me”—in the strongest possible way.
“Echad”
In Genesis 34:22, echad is translated “one people,” consisting of nu- merous distinct individuals. Finally, in Isaiah 51:2, echad is trans- lated in the following way: “Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.” Here, echad was translated as “alone.” The context in this verse was that of uniqueness.
But in order to further understand Deuteronomy 6:4, we must also examine the context of the verse. In Deuteronomy 5, the re- statement of the Ten Commandments is the sole context. Verse 29 states, “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” Verse 33 continues, “You shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God has com-
manded you, that you may live, and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall pos- sess.”
The context of chapter 5, which sets up the Shama, is the all- important issue of obedience to God, through the Ten Command-
ments, listed there again by Moses. Now, in chapter 6, we should
closely examine the three preceding verses and the three following verses. First, we consider Deuteronomy 6:1-3: “Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD
your God commanded to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you go to possess it: that you might fear the LORD your
God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I com- mand you, you, and your son, and your son’s son, all the days of your life; and that your days may be prolonged. Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with you, and that you may increase mightily, as the LORD God of your fathers has promised you,
in the land that fl ows with milk and honey.”