God the One vs. God the Many

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I noticed the strange syntax of Exodus 20:3 the other day.


You will have no other gods before Me.

In the (original!) Hebrew, this is:

Lo yihyeh elokim aherim al panai.

What's strange about this is that the verb yihyeh ("will have") is singular while the subject elokim ("gods") is plural. Grammatically, both verb and subject should be both either singular or plural, but this is not the case here. This is no mere semantics. We believe that every word and every letter of the Torah are full of meaning & are there to teach us something. Although this verb-and-subject-don't-jibe phenomenon recurs in the scripture, our Sages have endeavored to learn why it is used here. The phrase goes from the singular to the plural. In my Jewish way of thinking, I cannot help but think that this is a refutation of the Christian concept of a triune God, i.e. that in this verse, which links the singular & the many, the Torah is telling us that we cannot claim that He who is singular & utterly unique is, in fact, many. The reflexive connotation of the seemingly redundant al panai, which literally means "in/on my face" but is an expression meaning "in my place/in my stead," only adds to this. In effect, God is using Exodus 20:3 to tell us (inter alia): Do not claim that I, the One, am I, the Many.

Just some (kosher) food for thought!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Solly]

SMV, nice to see you grasping the nettle!!

There are others here who are more adept at arguing for the doctrine of the Trinity, so I will leave it to them to tackle the nitty gritty of textual issues. But for the nonce i would just say that:


It would take more than one text to make or break the doctrine.
A text in Exodus, early in salvation history, when God was currently revealing himself as the One True God amongst heathen polytheism, and as the covenant God of Israel, is hardly the place to look for an overthrowing of the doctrine of the Trinity, since that is not what God was seeking to reveal at that time.
You might like to address the fact of how a group of hard and fast monotheistic Jews came to realise that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet God is one.


Blessings to you too.
Solly

[Thomas2003]

If you do not hold that God the one is God the many, both being equally ultimate, then you cannot possibly obey Exodus 20:3

Unity and particularity are equally important and equally derivative in the Godhead. Once you deny this then only one aspect becomes important in the Godhead and the other works to become equal with God. This is evidenced repeatedly in history - beginning in Babel especially.

Time and time again this is manifested in the divine-human order of statism, as it was in Egypt under the divine status of Pharoah all the way to our own day, but especially again in Rome. God prohibited Molech worship and established the death penalty for it.....Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

In trinitarianism the ultimate one and the many cannot be located in creation but only in the Godhead. When unity and particularity are in their ultimate source transcendental and grounded in God man's attempt to seek unity and individuality are freed from the oppression of the state, or as God states in Exodus 20 - I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

In the Christian view man's life is not in terms of the state, but in terms of the Triune God. Man's unity is thus only realized in communion with God and His Kingdom, his individuality is only realizable in and through God as well. Or as the preacher declares: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiastes 12:13

Man's life and destiny in predestinated by God and bound to His grace of the ultimate One and Many, the Holy Trinity. And in this, man has liberty being freed from the predestination of the state.

From the very beginning of the work with the Apostles they were battling the state and pushing its claim of divinity and order of mans life as being predestinated by it back. The Church destroyed the claim that the state was the divine order on earth and that its leader was the "Son of God" and using the same language expressed by Virgil toward Augustus Peter proclaimed concerning Jesus Christ - there is no other name under heaven in which man can be saved. Acts 4:12 And this is that same principle whereby Moses...when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Hebrews 11:24

The options are Pharoah or God, Caesar or Christ, slavery or liberty, respectively. This is founded and only available in the Triune God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Mitbulls]

My Hebrew is still very elementary, so please correct me if I'm wrong on something here...

{QUOTE]Lo yihyeh elokim aherim al panai[/QUOTE]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this could just mean "not have a God ahead of me (in my place)," using the respectful plural of the term "elohim." The term elohim (elokim, elokhim, or however else you might see it) is used in other places to denote respect, even when it is used to refer to false Gods. I didn't know this until recently in a discussion with Eplis in the "trinity, a precept of man" thread in the "Christology" forum. You can see that thread for more information on it.

If this is true, it does not really make a case against trinitarianism. It should also be noted that not all Christians believe in the trinity. I personally do (you can see the aforementioned thread for my take on some specific passages in its favor, some from the Torah and some from the "New Testament"). However, even if it were shown in the Torah that the doctrine of the trinity was a theological contradiction, it would still not be a case against Christianity in general.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

First, I offer an apology. The Hebrew transliteration that I gave is incomplete. The full & correct transliteration is:

Lo yihyeh lecha elokim aherim al panai.

So...

Solly posted:


It would take more than one text to make or break the doctrine.

Correct.


A text in Exodus, early in salvation history, when God was currently revealing himself as the One True God amongst heathen polytheism, and as the covenant God of Israel, is hardly the place to look for an overthrowing of the doctrine of the Trinity, since that is not what God was seeking to reveal at that time.

This explanation is new to me. I would have to say that God revealed His Unity very early on & that it is part of the eternal & unalterable Torah that He gave to Moses our Teacher.


You might like to address the fact of how a group of hard and fast monotheistic Jews came to realise that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet God is one.

This argument holds no water. Merely because x-number of people believe that it is so does not make it so. The psychology of how & why certain ideas and concepts find widespread acceptance is certainly interesting in and of itself but it is separate from the issue regarding the inherent validity (or not) of the idea in question.

Rather ask, why is it that so many Jews have not only clung, and still cling, to our original view of God as a unity, but have resisted persecution, risked death and embraced death in so doing!

Thomas2003, I'm afraid that I do not follow your argument!

Mitbulls posted:


However, even if it were shown in the Torah that the doctrine of the trinity was a theological contradiction, it would still not be a case against Christianity in general.

You are correct. It was/is not my intention to make such a case. I was merely offering a Jewish view on this verse insofar as it bears on our absolute rejection of trinitarianism and any school of thought that views God as anything other than a Unity.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Mitbulls]

I would like (just out of curiousity) to get your input on the following verses. In the same way this commandment seems to you to be a refutation of the Christian doctrine of the trinity, these all seem to me to uphold the same doctrine.

There are several examples in the Torah of appearances of "The angel of the Lord." This angel is often granted either an attribute or a name of God. Some examples are the following:

Gen 16: The angel appears to Hagar who, in verse 13, "called the name of the LORD who spoke to her..."(NKJV) I do not have my Hebrew Bible with me now, but since my Bible translated the word LORD in all capital letters, I am working under the assumption that this word is the term for God.

Gen 22: The angel of the LORD stops Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac. The angel makes the following statement (v12, NKJV) -"now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your sun, your only son, from me." The personal object pronoun at the end of this statement is strange, since Isaac was not going to be sacrificed to the angel, but to God

Ex 3: The angel is the being in the burning bush that draws Moses aside to give the ten commandments. I have heard before that the angel appeared, but the voice that spoke to Moses was that of God. The difficulty in this is in verse 5 when God declares the place holy ground. Since when is the place where angels trod holy ground?

The main point of all of these is this: if this angel was merely another angel, why does it seem to be granted the name/attributes of God? Also (since I agree with you that every word of the Torah is important) why is this angel granted the definite article? The inclusion of the article where it is left off in other appearances of angels seems to indicate something special about this "angel."

Other verses:

Isaiah 9: The main verse of concern is verse 6. This is often seen (most likely correctly) as a prophetic vision of the Messiah. The stumbling block is that the child's name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mightly God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." How can the child's name be called everlasting father? And if he is not God, why would his name be mighty God? Also, there has been some debate of the meaning of the word translated "given," some suggesting that it might refer to the child's deity (though I do not know enough about the Hebrew language to make this case).

Gen 1:26; 11:6-9; Isaiah 6:1-8
These three times in the O.T. God refers to himself using the plural first person pronoun (I believe all three use the word 'anachnu(w), but the first may use a different Hebrew word). It is quite logical to understand the plural term 'Elo(k)him as a plural of respect, but it still seems quite interesting that God would use a plural personal pronoun for himself.

Thanks for your input on these!

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Mitbulls!

First, we see angels as created beings, separate from God but capable of bearing His messages & speaking in His Name (much the way the prophets do). In no way do we see angels as manifestations of God or "persons within the Godhead," etc.

We neither neither the translation nor the interpretation of Isaiah 9:5-6 as you have given them. See http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq070.html and http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq071.html for Jewish views on Isaiah 9:5-6.

Regarding Moses's removing his shoes, Joshua did the same in Joshua 5:13-6:5. The appearance of an angel bearing a message from God & speaking in His Name, renders the ground holy.

Be well!

ssv :hi: