The
Triune God
By
Stephen Terry
Sabbath
School Lesson Commentary for December 31, 2011 – January 6, 2012
“אֶחָֽד׃
׀ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ
יְהוָ֥ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
שְׁמַ֖ע” Deuteronomy 6:4, Westminster
Leningrad Codex
The above Bible passage is known as the Shema Yisrael. It is the Hebrew for
Deuteronomy 6:4. The reason we have taken the unusual step of sharing the verse
in Hebrew is to highlight the fact that while words may literally be translated
from one language to another, the concepts may suffer. We can see this with the
German word Zeitgeist. This is often
translated as “Spirit of the age” in English, but this does not do justice to
the full meaning of the word. I’m not sure any English translation can.
In the same way, this verse is often touted as a paean
to a strictly literal monotheism. Yet, when dealing with God who is Himself by
definition beyond definition can we succinctly limit the expression of His
being to a single verse of scripture? Even if we were to encompass the fullest
expansion possible in the meanings of the words, would it be adequate to
contain a complete understanding of the nature of God? Of course, we do not let
this prevent us from trying.
Man’s nature is such that we are at our happiest when we
can categorize and catalogue our universe into crisply defined, neat little packages
of understanding. We lose sight of the fact that no matter how much we can ever
know or understand, the universe contains infinitely more knowledge than we can
ever attain to. That being understood, if we acknowledge God as Creator of that
universe, we begin to see the problem of defining His being in six, short
Hebrew words.
Perhaps the most profound word to describe God in
Deuteronomy 6:4 is not אֶחָֽד׃
(one) but יְהוָ֥ה
(often pronounced Yahweh). This word
is a form of the verb “to be” in Hebrew. It carries with it the connotation
that God is the very essence of existence. In the early 19th century
this concept was deemed so important it spawned an entire school of theology
founded in part in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard. This understanding believed that since God
was the basis of all existence, we could most effectively relate to Him through
the very core of our own existence – the ground of our being. This
understanding saw organized religion as an impediment to that relationship and
therefore encouraged a one-on-one relationship between humanity and Divinity.
“So where are we going with all this?” you might ask.
Simply this: as the one word is capable of meaning beyond a simple literal
translation from יְהוָ֥ה to “Yahweh,” so אֶחָֽד׃ is capable of so
much more as well. We can see this even in our understanding of the English
word “one.”
It can mean uniqueness as in never seeing or
experiencing another thing like it. This is similar to the sense of μονογενη
in the Greek for John 3:16. In the King James Version this is translated as
“only begotten” but in more recent translations it is rendered as “unique.”
“One” can also mean a remainder from the many in the
sense that there is only one cookie left. In this sense it might mean, you had
many gods before but now you have the one remaining God. To some degree the
context of Deuteronomy 6 supports this nuance.
For those who have ever stood in line and then been
counted off as teams for sports, they know that “one” can also mean an
identity, as in being one of the “ones” and not one of the “twos, threes or
fours.” In this sense, it could mean that the identity known as יְהוָ֥ה
is discreet and separate from all
the other gods and their “teams.” This understanding also finds support in the
context of Deuteronomy 6. It is also perhaps important that effective teams are
characterized as having a unity of purpose.
What is becoming apparent here is that the word אֶחָֽד׃
may carry far more meaning than a simple endorsement of monotheism. Within
that expanded understanding can come also the ability to accommodate the
possibility that one can be three as in the personalities of God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. (See Matthew 28:19) The third definition
of “one” above can accommodate this in that all can be seen as a discreet “One”
in the sense they are “Team One.” Also, like a team, their unity of purpose is
evident throughout scripture. (i.e. see John 10:30 and John 14:26)
Some might want to ascribe a lesser role to Jesus or the
Holy Spirit than to God the Father but in doing so they may inadvertently be
creating demi-gods and defeating the understanding of “oneness.” They cannot be
less than gods for they were all active in our creation and thereby have right
of ownership of mankind as our creators.
Concerning Jesus, we can read “For by him were all
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and
by him all things consist.” Colossians 1:16-17, KJV
In Genesis 1:2, we read that the Spirit was there at
creation as well. In fact in the Hebrew the word translated “God” in verse 1
and throughout the chapter is אֱלֹהִ֑ים
(Elohim). That is significant because it is a plural, not a singular form
of the word for God. That is why later the text reads “let us make man in our image.” There is a case to be made
on the basis of this word alone for a plurality where God is concerned. God in
the entirety of what He has revealed to us through the three persons Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit appears to have been involved in creation.
We perhaps could acknowledge that life underived is an
attribute of deity. This allows the propagation of new life based on that
underived Source. There is little problem attributing that to יְהוָ֥ה
since the name itself implies “being” or more simply “life.” While some would
associate this name with the Father, Jesus also applied the name to Himself.
(See John 8:58) The Jews tried to stone Him as he had used the form of the verb
“to be” that was applied only to God the Father. (See Exodus 3:14) In more
recent translations of Colossians 1:17, we read, “…in him all things hold
together.” NASB, NIV “All things” would seem to leave nothing out. He then would
seem to be the foundational matrix of all things living and inanimate. Rather
than differentiate Him from the Father this would seem to more closely unify
the two.
If we can agree that the Father and the Son are one as
Jesus said in John 10:30, then we have eliminated the major argument against
the concept of trinity. If we feel that Deuteronomy 6:4 eliminates the
personhood of Jesus in the Godhead, then either Jesus was not correct in saying
what He did in John 10:30 and John 8:58 or our understanding of what “one”
means in Deuteronomy 6:4 needs to be re-examined. Since Jesus referred to
Himself as “the Truth” (See John 14:6), to discount His words regarding His
deity could undermine the very foundation of our faith for our faith rests
solidly on the rock of Jesus and the truth of what He proclaimed.
This point can be important in regards to each person of
the Godhead. It logically validates the Holy Spirit as deity, also. You see, to
use Deuteronomy 6:4 as a means to invalidate the Holy Spirit as part of the
trinity would mean that it would also invalidate Jesus as God. If we hold that the
“One” of Deuteronomy cannot accommodate the personhood of either of them because
of a too literal interpretation of “one,” then it cannot accommodate the
personhood of the other. Therefore a broadened understanding of what “one”
means may be called for, especially in this context.
Some might attempt to solve this problem by making Jesus
a created being: an angel or a demi-god. However, since Jesus urged us to pray
in His name (See John 14:14), this would certainly seem to defeat the purpose
of insisting that God is one as it would create a pantheon of beings to
worship. But if Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father are three personal
expressions of the Godhead then praying to any one of them would be praying to
the God who is One.
I like to think of the Godhead as three candles. Each
flame is unique and discreet but the light is one and inseparable. This is a
facile illustration but perhaps it is the best we can do when dealing with such
a subject. No matter how hard we may try to consistently and adequately explain
God we fall short. When asked about God, John Wesley once said that if someone
could show him a worm that could explain a man, then he would gladly produce a
man who could explain God. Perhaps on that note we should simply humbly admit,
“The LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him.”
Habakkuk 2:20, NIV
This Commentary is a Service of Still
Waters Ministry
Scripture quotations marked (NASB) taken from the New American Standard Bible®,
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)
If you
want a paperback copy of the current Bible
Study Quarterly, you may purchase one by clicking here and typing the word
"quarterly" into the search box. 