One Means One, Or Does It?
I received some excerpts of a paper by Eliyahoo Silver and Isaac Even Zahav in which they intend to explain why Jews categorically don’t accept the New Testament or Christianity. Unfortunately, I have been unable to acquire the complete 20-page document and only have small excerpts.
Apparently, the authors are no longer circulating their polemical piece, if “they” ever were: I have reasons to doubt their existence as actual people. However, the arguments put forth in their paper are fairly common issues that surface in Jewish Christian dialogues.
I have been asked to respond to their points, and the following is my offering to that end.
According to Silver and Zahav, “The Jewish God is one, as it is written: ‘Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is one’ (Deut. 6:4). So according to the Bible there is one God, and that one God is one. One means one; not two, not three, not three in one, not two in one, not three divisions of one, but ONE WHOLE ONE ALONE…”
Deuteronomy 6:4 is a great starting point for this discussion because it is so familiar to Jewish people. In fact, it would be hard to underestimate its familiarity. Among Jews, it is commonly offered as the definitive statement on the oneness of God and is known as the “Shema.” Almost every Jewish doorpost is decorated with a small box containing this verse and frequently one can even see cars decorated with bumper stickers displaying the “Shema.” It’s everywhere. Don’t be fooled, though, the fact that this verse is so well known, shouldn’t suggest that everyone understands what it actually says. This is the case regarding Silver and Zahav: Their rendering of Deuteronomy 6:4 is accurate, but misleading because it leaves the reader with the wrong impression. (Their additional commentary is simply wrong.)
The reason I suggest their translation is accurate, yet misleading is because in Hebrew there exists two different words that are translated as the English word “one.” The word “yahid” means an absolute or single one. For example: a steel ball, a rock, or a son. The word “echad” means a composite one. For example: an egg (three parts: shell, white, yolk), an automobile (thousands of parts make one unit), or a cluster of grapes.
The following biblical examples of “yahid” and “echad” help clarify the distinction: Gen 22:2 – “Take now your son, your only (yahid) son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah. . . “Judges 11:34 – “Now she was his one and only (yahid) child; besides her he had no son or daughter.”Ps 22:20 – “Deliver my soul from the sword, my only (yahid) life from the power of the dog.”Ps 25:16 – “Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely [alone] (yahid) and afflicted.” Genesis 1:5 – “…there was evening and and there was morning, one (echad) day.”Genesis 2:24 – “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one (echad) flesh.” Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 -“… forty two thousand three hundred and threescore stood as one (echad).”
I will render Deuteronomy 6:4 so you can see what Moses actually wrote: “Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ECHAD.”
If God wanted to communicate that “one means one; not two, not three, not three in one, not two in one, not three divisions of one, but ONE WHOLE ONE ALONE…” then it seems that He would have used the word “yahid” and NOT “echad”.
God chose “echad” because He wanted to communicate that His oneness includes the unity of His composite. We learn from a survey of the Jewish Bible [Old Testament] that God presents Himself in three persons: God you can not see face to face and live, God you can see face to face and live, and the Spirit of God. Christians refer to this as the Trinity.
To be continued…
Broken Telephones
After some 41 hours of waiting for news regarding the status of their loved ones, word finally came that one body had been found and the status of the other 12 was yet undetermined. Obviously, emotions were all over the map as families prayed and hoped for positive news. About 3 hours after the news of the first discovery, news surfaced from the depths of the mine that the 12 remaining miners were alive. As one might imagine, euphoria broke out inside and outside the church and the good news spread rapidly. Unfortunately, somewhere between the location of the miners and the location of their families, the message of the miners’ status was garbled or misunderstood or misspoken: 11 of the remaining 12 were, in fact, dead.
In the midst of all the excitement and confusion, the mistake was realized and needed to be corrected. The company, in an effort to verify the miners’ status, waited another 3 hours before notifying the families who were still celebrating and waiting for their men to finally return alive from the depths of the earth. Jubilation was suddenly turned to disbelief, outrage, bewilderment, and brokenness when the correction was delivered.
In Israel this type of miscommunication is commonly referred to as a “broken telephone.” Many people are familiar with the children’s game where the first person whispers something into the ear of the second child. The second child whispers the message to the third and so on. The “fun” part of the game is to see how much the message has changed by the time it gets to the end. Of course, the change isn’t intentional it simply demonstrates the tenuous nature of point to point to point communication. Clearly, in the case of the coalmine, the message of the “broken telephone” was not a game, neither was it intentional nor fun.
As usual, the 24-hour news channels are offering all types of speculations on who is to blame for this miscommunication. Additionally, they are offering video blurbs of the angry, grieving families lashing out at the mining company management, which is probably unfair to the families because they are being tempted to say all sorts of things, primarily venting their anger. International television is not a good venue for that type of thing so close to the time of the tragedy. While the raw emotions are real, they are raw emotions, which generally need some time to be put into perspective. This being the case, I have committed myself to be very generous in my reaction toward these grieving people as they vent their anger and speculation on who is to blame, though it is too early to know what happened.
I am, however, going to be less generous toward the news outlets and the lawyers who invade this community in an effort to encourage these families to sue someone because of a “broken telephone.” People make mistakes, and this was just that, a mistake. Unfortunately, I just saw on the news a woman declaring her intentions to sue because she had been told her daddy was alive before she was told he was dead. It’s a tragedy to be put on an emotional roller coaster like these families were, no doubt. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it doesn’t merit financial compensation. Suing in this case, would suggest that the motivation is greed not justice.
Share this:
Like this: