The Sh’ma is perhaps the best known Jewish prayer: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord alone!” (6:4) Actually it is not a prayer but constitutes the central Jewish confession of faith whereby, just as in the Islam’s central confession of faith the unicity of God is declared, as revealed to Moses, as against the notion of Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) held by the Christians.
This verse, quoted over and over again, is followed in the book of Deuteronomy by the Bible’s greatest commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength!” (Deut. 6:5). The simplistic approach assumes that the Sh’ma taught the new people that there is but one God, thereby rejecting the polytheism of the surrounding peoples, but in fact it is a call to adore God and God alone, the one God who, in the midst of fire and thick smoke, had revealed Himself to the people (Deut. 5:22), the one God who is much more powerful than the gods of neighbouring peoples. Yes, happy is the people that has Yhwh as its God! (Ps. 33:10-12)
1 – God in plural form
It is a remarkable fact that in Deuteronomy 6:4 the Hebrew word for ‘God’ has the plural form derived from Elohim, which – in the Bible – is the most used form for ‘God’ (2500 times), also translated as Lord. ‘Elohim’ is used in Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods before me”. In 1 Kings 11:5 & 33 ‘Elohim’ is even translated as ‘Astarte’. The fact that a singular form of the verb is used in the verse from Deuteronomy is not an argument in favour of seeing this as a rejection of polytheism, since in Psalm 58:11 we read literally: “Surely, there is one God, ‘they’ judge the earth.” Incidentally, in Genesis 1:26 we read: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”, with as footnote in the Dutch Canisius translation (1955): “Many Church Fathers and later writers see in this an indication of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity”. The Jewish biblical scholars stumbled over the same interpretation – awkward for them – as witness their commentary in the Midrash Rabbah.
It is further remarkable that the Sh’ma mentions God three times as “Yhwh is our Elohim, Yhwh alone”. At the beginning of Psalm 50 this is erroneously rendered in some translations as “The God of gods, the Lord”, but it should be something like “The God, the Three-One, the Lord” (El, Elohim, Yhwh). This matches the Sh’ma and the logical follow-up in Psalm 50.
An alternative for ‘Elohim’ was available in the original Hebrew. There was no need to use ‘Elohim’ in this verse in Deuteronomy. The singular form for God, Eloah, still occurs 250 times in the Bible, as in Deut. 32:15: “Then he forsook God who made him, and scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation”.
2 – One is a combinative unit
Finally, I would point out that the word for ‘one’ (echad) allows of a combinative unit – something that is characteristic of the Trinity – as shown in the passages Genesis 1:5; 2:24; Ezra 2:64 and Ezekiel 37:17. In these places the unity is the consequence of combining evening and morning, man and woman, the individual members of an association and two sticks placed together. Hebrew has a separate word for undivided unity: ‘yachid’; but the saintly writer did not wish to use this for the Sh’ma. The great biblical scholar Maimonides, who lived in the 12th century AD, used ‘yachid’ for his thirteen articles of faith in contrast to the original text in order to indicate that God is ‘One’. He thus deviated from the biblical canon and from his own Jewish tradition such as found in the Zohar, where the notion of trinity is often and frankly expressed. It is interesting that these articles of faith speak of “God Who was and Who is and Who is to come”, a reference to Exodus 3:14 and, according to the Jewish interpretation, also to Isaiah 6:3: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts!” And yet Petrus Galatinus († ca.1539), who belonged to a Catholic religious order, the Friar Minors, in his time still had access to the (rare) Targum on the hagiographies of Rabbi Jonathan ben Uziel, a contemporary of Jesus, in which he could read next to that specific verse the following paraphrase: “Holy the Father, holy the Son, holy the Holy Ghost.” (1) If he had access to it, so did Maimonides.
The Zohar is the earliest known record of the oral tradition based on Moses. The book is of a much earlier date than is commonly pretended. Is this in order to discredit the notion of trinity? According to Le Chevalier Paul Drach (David), who converted to Roman Catholicism in 1823 and enjoyed a certain reputation among his Jewish contemporaries, there is no doubt that the text as written down originated in the early second century of our era, as evidenced by the archaic language used (not pure Hebrew).
3 – Love God!
The above makes it clear that the Sh’ma is not actually an appeal, as the Jews state, to believe in the One single God, but rather a call to serve the God of Abraham, and no other, exclusively. This approach cannot be seen as separate from the next verse (included in the Sh’ma) stating that we must love God with all our heart. Love God! That is what is most important, said Jesus, referring to this commandment (Mark. 12:28-30).
We may therefore conclude that the Sh’ma is more a monolatric than a monotheistic commandment. In the time of Moses monolatry was very common. Many cities and peoples had their own god. Thus it was not a new idea that exclusively one god, in this case the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, should be adored and no other. But the absolute and universal character of the call was indeed new, with the only limiting condition that in the beginning this applied only to the people of Israel, the people chosen by God from among all the peoples of the world. It should be pointed out that at the stage when Moses received his revelation it was probably too early for the common people to seize the notion of trinity, though it does lie concealed within the new idea.
4 – The Sh’ma, an image of the bond of marriage
Despite the fact that the Sh’ma was originally a monolatric commandment, it is not far from being monotheistic – at least as regards the people to whom God addressed. In contrast to the other peoples of the earth, Abraham and his descendants lived not for their own existence but for the foundation of their existence, for Him through whom their existence came into being. And, indeed, there can be only one cause, one principle, one point of departure. This constitutes the core of monotheism, a concept that matches up with the verse following the Sh’ma (verse 5): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” This addition removes from monotheism any reprehensible and purely intellectual approach.
As far as the meaning of the 4th verse of Deuterenomy 6 is concerned, we can draw a comparison with the monogamous marriage (one partner, no more) and, for the 5th verse, with the marriage vow of everlasting fidelity and devotion. In this sense marriage is an exercise in our relationship with God. It is not without reason that Jesus named the fifth-verse-commandment from this chapter as the most important in the Bible, the one on which the entire law and the prophets depend (Mtt. 22:34-40). It is the linking of the standing opposite one another in the duality of marriage, as mirror image of the divine (combinative) unity, from which the fruit reveals itself as divine sparks in many facets through time. And because true love is a mirror image of divine Love, in that which people experience between themselves – if indeed they strive for such love – there must also be a link made with the One from whom we all come and whose image-bearer we are meant to be, image-bearers of God in this hitherto broken world.
5 – The Holy Trinity is no new doctrine
By way of conclusion to this article, I would now like to quote from the writings of the aforementioned P.L.B. Drach, the man who had been destined to be Chief Rabbi of Paris (2): «« The doctrine of the divine Trinity, that is, of three distinct (though not distinguished) Persons of the Divinity and, at the same time, united in the most absolute union possible, in the single and indivisible eternal Essence, was always accepted in the ancient synagogue. When Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to his disciples, all chosen from among the Jews, the mission to go and preach his holy Gospel to the peoples of the earth, he commanded them to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mtt. 28:19). These words, the only words in the four Gospels whereby the three divine Persons are named together and in such deliberate terms, were clearly spoken not with the object of revealing the Holy Trinity. When the Saviour pronounced here the adorable names of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it was to prescribe the sacramental formula for baptism. The naming of the great mystery in this context, on the occasion of baptism, produces in the mind of whoever reads the Gospel the effect of an article of faith already known and completely accepted among the children of Israel. And so, in the four Gospels that we possess, we do not see any new revelation of the Holy Trinity, fundamental point and pivot of the whole of the Christian religion, but rather the statement of a doctrine like all others already taught in the synagogue during the time of Christ: such as, for instance, Original Sin, the creation of the world without pre-existing matter, the existence of God.
Where, in other places, Our Lord distinguishes between the Father and the Son, while teaching that they are but One (Jn. 10:30), it is only in order to proclaim that his sacred person is the Son. If it had been a question of teaching – as if it were a truth as yet unknown – that three Persons constitute the unity of God, the divine Teacher would certainly not have neglected to refer to the Holy Spirit, who necessarily proceeds from the Father and the Son. He would have said: “I and the Father and the Spirit are One”. The same is the case in the witness given in the Gospel of St. John, 14:16 & 15:26. Here, where the three divine persons are mentioned, it is on the occasion of the sending of the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. We can say the same of the Holy Spirit in particular. Several texts in the Gospels speak of this Person, but none constitute a revelation.
On the occasion of the baptism of Our Lord, he speaks of the Spirit and, at the same time, of the Father and the Son, but only to recount what has happened on that occasion. The Spirit is presented as already known and adored as God. Thirty years before the preaching of the Gospel, the Mosaic Law was still in full force when the angel said to St. Joseph: “That which is conceived in Mary your wife is of the Holy Spirit”, but Joseph did not ask: ‘What is the Holy Spirit?’ – unlike Pharaoh who asked Moses: “Who is Yahweh? I do not know this Yahweh” (Ex. 5:2).
In a word, the evangelists take the mystery of the Incarnation as their starting point. They reveal it and command us to believe it. As for the mystery of the Trinity, which preceded and which is its basis in the faith, they treat it as something already revealed, admitted into the belief of the old law. And that is why at no point do they say: know, believe that there are three Persons in God. In fact, anyone familiar with the teachings of the ancient Doctors of the synagogue, especially those who lived before the coming of the Lord, knows that the doctrine of the Trinity in one unique God was a truth accepted by them from the earliest times. »»
Drach states: “The naming of the great mystery in this context (…) produces the effect of an article of faith already known and completely accepted among the children of Israel.” I must assume that this was a familiar article of belief, but this in no way proves that it was completely accepted at all levels of the population. If this had been so the scriptural scholars would not have been able to negate it without reason. In “God’s witness to His Little Souls” J.N.S.R. (who only writes under these initials) wrote on 25th December 2008 that the divine Name was already known to the patriarchs but that from 270 BC this knowledge was steadily forced into the background and that the process was completed by the time of the death of Simeon the Just. The same author also writes that forcing the knowledge of the divine trinity into the background represented an attempt to please the people, who had become extremely monotheistic and were unable to accept that the Messiah should find himself in the almighty Father whose Name – the tetragram – is pronounced Jehoshua (or Jesus) if the letter Shin is placed in the middle. Therefore the conclusion is that in Jesus’ time the Holy Trinity was known within certain circles though not generally, by way of contrast to the later disciples of Christ.
(1) Reference: “De arcanis catholicoe veritatis”, Book 2 Ch. 1, taken from Paul Drach: “De l’harmonie entre l’église et la synagogue”, pp. 190-91.
(2) Reference Paul Drach: “De l’harmonie entre l’église et la synagogue”, pp. 277-80.
Sources: The article is partly taken from the website of “Jews for Jesus”. See their journal Issues, 1:8 / July 1981, with the article “Jewishness and the Trinity” written by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. See also under: theological issues: “Don’t Christians Believe in Three Gods?” / Jan. 2005, via “questions & answers”.
POSTSCRIPT
The Sh’ma became the central confession of faith for Islam
It is a known fact that Islam, that took root in Israel’s brother-people (both have Abraham as their father), adopted a number of important elements from the Jewish belief. It can hardly be a coincidence *) that in Islam, just as in the Jewish faith, the central confession of faith rests on the oneness of God, as expressed in Sura 112 (which is their Sh’ma): “In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Proclaim: He is the One (in Koranic Arabic: ahad) and only GOD. The Absolute GOD. Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten. None equals Him.”
Although the notion of trinity was, in Jesus’ time, not unfamiliar in the Jewish faith, once the High Priests had rejected Jesus as their Messiah any reference to it was banned, a development to be regretted and one of which, in fact, Islam was the victim. Although Islam shares with Christianity the belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (Sura 3:42) and believes that He will pass the final judgement and, in addition, in contrast to their prophet Mohammed, that Jesus is without sin, the notion of trinity remains a massive obstacle to peaceful coexistence between the Christian and Muslim peoples. Sura 112 states that God is neither begotten nor has begotten. The usual interpretation of this is that the idea of trinity is blasphemous!
But the Christians too state that God has never begotten children in the manner usual to humans, since according to Christian doctrine Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always existed and thus Christian belief speaks of the already existing Word that became flesh at a certain point in time, that same Word that was already with God and was God before revealing Himself in this way (Jn. 1). Mary’s son can, in human terms, have come into existence – but the way it happened was different. The Saviour of the human race was not begotten in the way usual to human beings. In Christ the divine and human natures together constitute a single person. During the ‘incarnation’ these two natures were united, made one, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In human conception there is, of course, no question of incarnation, which is why Psalm 85:11 speaks of “Truth shall spring out of the earth”. This fits Jesus who is sometimes called the Scion or Root of Jesse (Is. 11:10). This explanation cannot be seen separately from Psalm 67:6: “The earth shall yield her increase; God, our own God, shall bless us” See also Psalm 2:7: “The Lord has said to me: ‘You are my Son, today (thus, for all eternity) I have begotten You’ ”.
We can hardly continue to state that these references are only possible because – as Islam says – the Jews have falsified the Bible, because these texts also happen to be a stumbling block for the Jews since they clearly refer to the Saviour and Hope of Israel who has already come, He whom they have refused to recognise. The Islamic writings repeatedly say that both Jews and Christians have falsified the Bible in order to discredit Mohammed as prophet. The accusation does not appear to be baseless: thanks to the choices that the original Hebrew offers – at the time there were no vowels nor spaces between words – it was possible in the period following Jesus’ crucifixion to play around with the Sacred Texts in order to put His predicted coming in a bad light. This was sufficiently well known, and in this knowledge the Christian church has always preferred the Greek Septuagint (dating from the 3rd to the 2nd century BC) as also the Latin Vulgate translation of Holy Scripture, the latter having borrowed a great deal from the Septuagint and dating from the 5th century AD. Since then and until the Reformation the Vulgate has been regarded as the standard Bible translation (though Jewish scripture experts who had converted to Christianity have always shown a preference for the Septuagint). Since the Vulgate and the New Testament had long been fixed and were widely spread before the birth of Mohammed, around 570 AD, the accusation made by Islam is plucked out of thin air, but it does constitute an obstacle in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.
*) The majority opinion assumes that Sura 112 originated in the Meccan period, when Mohammed was still on friendly terms with the Jews and could therefore have become acquainted with the Sh’ma.
139 views
