In a (pathetic) defense of White/Durbin’s (equally pathetic) “response” to my article Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism,” we find the following on the Apologia Radio facebook page:
In reality, I demonstrated from Mark 12:28-35 (a text Durbin partially quoted from, but never once interacted with what I actually wrote), Jesus understands the singular person of the Father is exhausted by the Shema (cf. John 17:3; 1 Tim 2:5, etc); instead, He was the second lord of Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX). Here is what I actually wrote on the Shema, including interacting with Jesus' own interpretation of Deut 6:4 and Psa 110:1 in Mark 12:28-38:
Deut 6:4
שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד
Hear, o Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh alone [alt. "Yahweh is one"]
The Shema is often cited as evidence of strict monotheism. However, most modern biblical scholars agree that the Shema is not about the “number” of God, but instead, is about how Yahweh is the only God with whom Israel is to have a covenantal relationship with. A parallel would be Deut 5:7, a rendition of the Decalogue:
Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. (cf. Exo 20:3 [exegeted here])
According to biblical scholars such as Michael Coogan, this commandment, and the Shema implicitly recognises the ontological existence of other gods (cf. Gen 20:13). As in a marriage, one of the primary analogs for the covenant, Israel was to be faithful, like a wife to her husband. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for having worshiped other gods in violation of this commandment, the metaphors of marital and political fidelity are often invoked, sometimes graphically (e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12; Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Yahweh is a jealous husband (e.g., Exo 34:14) and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with foreign powers, provokes his rage (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures [New York: Oxford University press, 2006], 176, 116).
As one recent scholarly commentary states:
As one recent scholarly commentary states:
Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)
Additionally, there has been a lot of linguistic nonsense about the Hebrew numeral אֶחָדwhich simply means one (not “plural one” or some other nonsense one finds among some Trinitarians). This particular issue will be discussed below (cf. this article by a linguist on אֶחָד)
For those wishing to delve further into the issue of "monotheism" in the book of Deuteronomy, I would highly recommend Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism" (2d ed.: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).
Taking the absolutist hermeneutic of many Trinitarian apologists, one must conclude that the Shema is strictly uni-personal, not Tri-personal, in scope. Of course, both theologies are undermined by other factors, not the least is that the ontological existence of plural gods in the midst of the Most High are part-and-parcel of biblical theology, even in the book of Deuteronomy itself (e.g., the earliest textual reading of Deut 32:7-9 or the fact that even modern conservative Protestant commentators are acknowledging the elohim of Psa 82 and 89 to be [true] gods).
Does אֶחָֽד allow for "compound unity"?
Durbin, with reference to the Shema (notice how the Hebrew is going the wrong way in the screen . . .) argues that God is one, and yet, in the same breath, that God (who he calls a "he" [singular person!]) exists in three separate persons. However, try as they might, the Hebrew ordinal translated as "one" does not mean "compound one" or "complex unity."
Latter-day Saints assert that Yahweh is indeed "one"; Durbin can only do such by manipulating the Hebrew language and engaging in eisegesis. That speaks volumes of his lack of intellectual integrity and the nature of the "Gospel" he preaches.
There is a danger, however, of Trinitarians “absolutizing” Deut 6:4 as some are wont to do, not the least is that Mark 12:28f and its parallels refute any Trinitarian reading of the Shema. In this incident with a Jewish scribe, we read the following:
And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he [Jesus] had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is one other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is one other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:28-34)
In the above pericope, Jesus agrees with a Jew about the Shema. What is interesting is that the Jews were never Trinitarians, in spite of a lot of fudging of biblical grammar by the likes of Natan Yoel (The Jewish Trinity) and other eisegesis-laden texts. This is an undisputed fact of history and scholarship. Furthermore, singular personal pronouns are used to describe God. Furthermore, in the proceeding text, Jesus discusses Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX), where Yahweh speaks to “my Lord," and Christ identifies Himself as the second Lord, not the first:
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrines, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces. (Mark 12:35-38; cf. Acts 2:34; Heb 1:13)
Taking the absolutist hermeneutic of many Trinitarian apologists, one must conclude that the Shema is strictly uni-personal, not Tri-personal, in scope. Of course, both theologies are undermined by other factors, not the least is that the ontological existence of plural gods in the midst of the Most High are part-and-parcel of biblical theology, even in the book of Deuteronomy itself (e.g., the earliest textual reading of Deut 32:7-9 or the fact that even modern conservative Protestant commentators are acknowledging the elohim of Psa 82 and 89 to be [true] gods).
Does אֶחָֽד allow for "compound unity"?
Durbin, with reference to the Shema (notice how the Hebrew is going the wrong way in the screen . . .) argues that God is one, and yet, in the same breath, that God (who he calls a "he" [singular person!]) exists in three separate persons. However, try as they might, the Hebrew ordinal translated as "one" does not mean "compound one" or "complex unity."
It is common for Trinitarian apologists to argue that the Hebrew term translated as “one” in Deut 6:4 (אֶחָד) can mean “compound” or “plural” “one.” This is a rather silly argument to try to read Trinitarianism into the biblical texts; akin to asking “what computer software did Paul use to write Romans?” The Hebrew term אֶחָד is an ordinal numeral, and means exactly what the English term “one” means. There is no hint of “three-in-oneness” or anything of the like.
One linguistic “trick” used to support the concept of a “plurality” within the semantic form of the ordinal is that the phrase “one bunch of grapes” somehow “proves” the ordinal can have a plural sense. However, the ordinal refers to how many bunches in question, not how many grapes—the apologist for the Trinity or other theologies is bleeding the plurality of the noun back into the ordinal (here “grapes” back into one). To think how fallacious this is, it is akin to arguing that the meaning of “one” in the locution, “one zebra” means “black and white.” "One" in any language may be used to qualify a plural or compound noun, but the meaning of "one" remains the same (one singular), linguistic tricks of less-than-informed (or honest) apologists notwithstanding.
Funnily enough, this would require that divinity/deity, as envisaged in Deut 6:4, is plural, something that is very “Mormon.” Funnily enough, Sam Shamoun, a Trinitarian apologist, argues that the "literal translation" of Deut 6:4 is, "Hear O Israel, Yahweh [is] our Gods, Yahweh is a Unity." No informed Trinitarian would ever claim there exists "Gods" as anyone who has studied the doctrine in any depth will tell you. I am tempted to say to Shamoun that he is not far from the kingdom of God as such is very close to Joseph Smith's teachings in the Sermon in the Grove (AKA Discourse on the Plurality of the Gods) . . .
Some Trinitarians appeal to Gen 2:24 as “proof” of their contention:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (אֶחָד) flesh.
There are many problems with appealing to Gen 2:24. Firstly, the “oneness” in view in this passage is not “oneness of being," but oneness of “flesh” (with the unity in view here being Adam and Eve becoming "one kin" [not "one ontological being"]). As Frank Moore Cross noted, "Oath and covenant, in which the deity is witness, guarantor, or participant, is also a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinsip may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens." (Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon, p. 8)
Furthermore, Adam and Eve, even after these words are uttered, were consistently depicted as plural, both in grammar and concord; this is proved in Gen 3:7:
Furthermore, Adam and Eve, even after these words are uttered, were consistently depicted as plural, both in grammar and concord; this is proved in Gen 3:7:
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
The form of the verb “to make” (Heb: עשׂה) is plural, not singular (יַּעֲשׂ֥וּ), and the later LXX translators understood it as plural, too, rendering ποιεω as ἐποίησαν, the third person plural.
The "compound one" argument if a fallacious one that is found wanting at the bar of both exegesis and linguistics.
Here is the entry under אֶחָד from Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), perhaps the Hebrew lexicon on the market at the moment; notice how this scholarly source does not entertain the Trinitarian nonsense of "complex unity":
312 אֶחָד
) אֶחָד960 x(, Sam.M18 ÁaÒd: < *ÀahÌhÌaÒd < *ÀahÌad )Arb., BL 219g, Beer-M. §59:1(, ï יָחִיד; MHb., Ug. ahÌd, f. ahÌt, Ph. אחד, f. אחת, Arm. ) חַדï BArm. MdD 116a(, Eth. ÀahÌaduÒ, Akk. )w(eÒdu: abs. אֶחָד, and אַחַד Gn 4822 + 5 x )BL 622b(, cs. אַחַד, חַד Ezk 3330 )Aramaism or text error ? Nöldeke Syr. Gr. §242(, pl. אֲחָדִים; fem. ) אַחַת< *ÀahÌadt( abs. and cs., אֶחָֽת Gn 111, 2S 238 Q:
—1. numeral one a( מָקוֹם אֶ׳ one )single( place Gn 19, בְּשָׁנָה אֶחָת Ex 2329, בְּרָכָה אַ׳ Gn 2738, נֶפֶשׁ אַ׳ one soul = one single person Lv 427, אֶ׳ :: שְׁנֵי two :: one Lv 1410; מִשְׁפָּט אֶ׳ the same law Nu 1516, דָּתוֹ אַ׳ the same law is in force Est 411 מִדָּה אַ׳ the same measure Ex 262; אֶחָד י׳ Dt 64 Y is one )Sept., Pesh., Stade Theologie 1:84(; alt.: the one Y, Y alone, Y only; אֶ׳ one and only Zech 149 , the same )?( Jb 3115 alt. one; ï TWNT 3:1079f; vRad Theologie 2:226; Eichrodt Theologie 1:145, Labuschagne 137f; b( part. )VG 2:273aאַחַד הָעָם ( one of the people 1S 2615, הַנְּבָלִים אַ׳ 2S 1313, אַחַת הַנְּבָלוֹת Jb 210 אֲחִיכֶם אֶ׳ one of you brothers Gn 4219, מִכֶּם אִישׁ אֶ׳ a single one of you Jos 2310, מִמֶּנּוּ ) אַ׳GK §130a( one of us Gn 322; c( negative form: אֶ׳ … לֹא Ex 827 and לֹא אַחַד) עַד־אַ׳ abs., BL 622b( 2S 1722 not one, גַּם אֶ׳ ˆyae not even one Ps 143 עַד אֶ׳ … לֹא not even one Ex 1428; d( קוֹל אֶ׳ with one voice Ex 243, לֵב אֶ׳ 1C 1239 cj. Ps 836 )rd. וְ (אֶחָד unanimous, שְׁכֶם אֶ׳ shoulder to shoulder Zeph 39; לְיוֹם אֶ׳ for a single day, daily 1K 52, cj. Neh 515 for אַחַר; אֶ׳ יוֹם never-ending day Zech 147; ) אַחַתsc. (פַּעַם אַ׳ once: בַּשָּׁנָה אַ׳ Ex 3010 Lv 1634; אַ׳ :: שְׁתַּיִם once … twice 2K 610 Ps 6212 )?, ï שְׁתַּיִם( Jb 405; בְּאַחַת Jr 108 and כְּאֶחָד Qoh 116 in one and the same time; )ï BArm. כַּחֲדָה, Aramaism Arm.lw. Wagner 124; Akk. kiÒma isëteÒn(, אַחַת Ps 8936 and בְּאַחַת Jb 3314 once and for all; הוּא אֶ׳ only one Gn 4125, אֶחָד … וַיְהִי became one, a unit Ex 3613; וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד a single whole Ex 266; in statistical records repeated after each name Jos 129-24 cj. 1K 48-18 )Sept.(, Montgomery-G. 124; e( pl. אֲחָדִים: יָמִים אֲ׳ a few days Gn 2744 2920 Da 1120 אֲ׳ µyrIb;D“ the same )kind of( words Gn 111 Ezk 2917 ):: Gordon UTGl. 126: like Ug. ahÌdm du. “a pair”( וְהָיוּ לַאֲ׳ to become one Ezk 3717;
—2. אֶ׳ one another )VG 2:328f(: וּמִזֶּה אֶ׳ מִזֶּה אֶ׳ one here and one there Ex 1712, בְּאֶ׳ אֶ׳ one to another Jb 418, cj. אֶחָד אֶת־אֶחָד vs. Ezk 3330 one to another, with gloss אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו; וְאֶ׳ … וְאֶ׳ … אֶ׳ one … another … a third 1S 103 1317f, וְהָאֶ׳ … òa,h; one … and the other 1K 1229, הֵנָּה אַחַת הֵנָּה וְאַ׳ once here and once there = to and fro 2K 435 לְאַ׳ אַחַת one after the other Qoh 727, וְהַדּוּד אֶ׳ … dj;a, הַדּוּד Jr 242 the one basket … and the other )Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §60b, 1S 1317 (הָרֹאשׁ אֶ׳;
—3. אֶ׳ indefinite article )GK §125b( אִישׁ אֶ׳ 1S 11, נָבִיא אֶ׳ 1K 1311, אַיִל אֶ׳ Da 83, יוֹם אֶ׳ one day 1S 271, יִשְׂ׳ אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי anyone of the tribes 2S 152, ) מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּהGK §119w1( any one of them Lv 42; put in front קָדוֹשׁ אֶ׳ a holy one Da 813, אַחַת מְעַט הִיא for a little while Hg 26 מְעַט הִיא) > Sept.(;
—4. ordinal, first: אַחַת :: הַשֵּׁנִית 1S 12, יוֹם אֶ׳ the first day Gn 15 ):: יוֹם שֵׁנִי 18 etc.(; in dates לַחֹדֶשׁ בְּיוֹם אֶ׳ on the first day of the month Ezr 1016 > לַחֹדֶשׁ בְּאֶ׳ Gn 85, בִּשְׁנַת אַחַת לְ in the first year of Da 91, וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בְּאַחַת in the 601st year Gn 813;
—5. distributive: לַשֶּׁבֶט אֶ׳ one in each tribe Dt 123, לְאִישׁ אֶ׳ from each man 2K 1520, לְאַחַד אֶחָד one after the other Is 2712, לְאֶחָֽת each single one Ezk 16, הָאַחַת each 1C 271;
—Gn 329 rd. הָָאֶחָד; 2S 225b dl.; 723 and Ezk 177 ):: Zimmerli 374( rd. אַחֵר, Ezk 1119 rd. אַחֵר or חָָדָשׁ; Jb 2313 rd. בָּחַר for ) בְּאֶחָד:: Dahood Fschr. Gruenthauer 67(, Pr 2818 rd. בְּשָֽׁחַת; Qoh 1211 cj. ) אָחוֹרGalling BASOR 119:18(; Da 89 rd. אַחֶרֶת.
To see the impossibility of echad meaning "compound one" or other such nonsense, try to read such into the following passage where echad appears a number of times:
The lands included the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the wilderness and the Negev. These were the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. These were the kings:
The king of Jericho one (אֶחָד) the king of Ai (near Bethel) one (אֶחָד)
The king of Jerusalem one (אֶחָד) of the king of Hebron one (אֶחָד)
The king of Jarmuth one (אֶחָד) the king of Lachish one (אֶחָד)
The king of Eglon one (אֶחָד) the king of Gezer one (אֶחָד)
The king of Hormah one (אֶחָד) the king of Arad one (אֶחָד)
The king of Libnah one (אֶחָד) the king of Adullam one (אֶחָד)
The king of Makkedah one (אֶחָד) the king of Bethel one (אֶחָד)
The king of Tappuah one (אֶחָד) the king of Hepher one (אֶחָד)
The king of Aphek one (אֶחָד) the king of Lasharon one (אֶחָד)
The king of Madone one (אֶחָד) the king of Hazor one (אֶחָד)
The king of Shimron Meron one (אֶחָד) the king of Akshaph one (אֶחָד)
The king of Taanach one (אֶחָד) the king of Megiddo one (אֶחָד)
The king of Kadesh one (אֶחָד) the king of Jokneam in Carmel one (אֶחָד)
The king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one (אֶחָד) the king of Goyim in Gilgal one (אֶחָד)
The king of Tirzah one (אֶחָד) thirty-one kings in all. (Josh 12:8-24 NIV)
Latter-day Saints assert that Yahweh is indeed "one"; Durbin can only do such by manipulating the Hebrew language and engaging in eisegesis. That speaks volumes of his lack of intellectual integrity and the nature of the "Gospel" he preaches.
