I am happy indeed to appear for this second in our series of personal sharing sessions. As you know, in this and future meetings I am to address my remarks to questions that you have submitted. I should like for our meetings to be as informal as possible. If there arises a question in your mind that is so relevant it cannot be postponed, you must feel free to interject it.
I believe that all of us are sufficiently mature that we will not turn these gatherings into verbal exchanges over trivia. I am certain that you will pose questions of real value, and I promise you I will reply in a spirit of seriousness and respect. You realize, of course, that there are several preliminary matters to which I must devote attention.
Some of you heard the dialogue between an eminent university professor and myself, following our other meeting. My respected friend is a humanist. It is his opinion that the need for God grew out of the superstitions and fears of primitive peoples. They were confronted with circumstances for which they could not account, and in their ignorance they invented gods to explain what to them was unexplainable. His feeling is that science will unravel more and more of the mysteries of life. Thus the need for God will be felt less and less, until He will be retired and go out of business.
The great difference between us lies in the fact that I believe God created man in His image, while my friend holds that man created gods in his image. Between these two postulates there is a great gulf. It is upon the plateaus of life as it is lived on either side of the chasm that the greatest difference will be seen and felt. It is not my purpose, nor would it be my policy, to take advantage of a formal presentation in which to reply to my friend, and I mention our little encounter merely in passing and by way of introduction.
My position is that God existed as the living source of all life in the universe. From Him came all things, and to Him all will return. He is above all, through all, and in all who humbly seek His face. He is destined to be "all in all" when the last enemy is destroyed. It is with the divine nature that I must deal today, for you have lost no time in pinpointing one of the great questions.
Before answering, it will come as a surprise to you to know that I am doing something today that I have never done, and will not do, with fellow believers in Jesus as the Son of God. Formerly I have steadfastly refused to be drawn into controversy over the nature of Deity. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that, being possessed of a finite mind, I am far too limited in scope and breadth of knowledge to encompass the infinite. As Isaiah put it in the long ago, "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding" (Isaiah 40:28). I doubt that one ever explains God. One simply accepts Him on the basis of evidence and faith.
The kind of a deity whom I could get safely in my little mental box is not the God of the universe whom I revere and before whom I bow. I am not a Trinitarian, and neither am I a Unitarian. These are appellations used to designate formal schools of thought, often antagonistic and hostile to one another. They grew up in the ferment of contention, and too often it was a strife about words. By creating categories into which their respective defenders could be pushed or driven, it became easy to assault the party without especially examining the evidence submitted by individuals in both.
It will help you to keep in mind that any attack you may make upon Trinitarianism as a formal doctrine may not be touching my own position. It may actually constitute an evasion of it. I expect to receive you as individuals, to listen to what you say, and to weigh it as carefully as I can. No man must be charged with acceptance of what he disclaims. No one must be charged with a consequence of his personal position when he personally disavows that consequence. Only by such an attitude can we maintain the dignity and secure the freedom of each one of us.
Now, to answer the question, I do not believe there are three Gods. I can recite, and often have recited, without a twinge of conscience, the Shema: "Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). But I do not limit God to one expression or manifestation, for to do this is to seek to confine Him by my finite power of rationalization. I would do no honor to Him by such action; rather, I would make Him less than supreme.
It is my conviction that, in the Scriptures that we all hold sacred, God seeks to show us that He is a composite and united being. The account of the origin of our universe begins with the words, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). The word for God is Elohim, which is plural. It is a remarkable term, occurring for the most part in the plural, but usually connected with a singular verb. I do not think that this word affords a conclusive proof as some Trinitarians do. In view of the following context, I simply say that it affords ground for real study.
The record continues by informing us that, while creation was in a chaotic state, "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (v. 2). At the very beginning of the sacred writings we have Elohim, a plural word, and ruach, translated "spirit." I mention this to introduce what I believe is the general tenor of the revelation of God. I do not contend that one can positively affirm that it was the intention here to allude to a personal distinction in what I shall refer to as the Godhood, that is, Deity.
I must frankly tell you that, as I read the Scriptures, it seems to me that there is a constant intimation of a more singular nature of the God of the universe. You will immediately say that this is because I approach the Scriptures with a presupposition, and that I have been conditioned to read them thus. But that objection can be made of yourselves as well. For that reason, I am simply going to enunciate my views, with no dogmatism. I would not want you to accept anything solely upon the basis of my views.
Allow me to cite an example of what I mean. In Isaiah 63:7-10, the prophet begins a recitation of the lovingkindness of Yahweh, as demonstrated to the house of Israel. He attributes the blessings to the mercies of God. He portrays God as saying of Israel, "Surely they are my people, children that will not lie," adding, "So he was their Saviour" (v. 8). You will recognize that the Hebrew word for "Savior" is cognate with the word "Jesus." Actually, you can translate it with no linguistic injustice, "He became their Jesus." But the prophet continues, "In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them." As one studies all of the references to the "angel of God," he becomes convinced that here was a personal manifestation of God in another form. It was this "angel" with which Jacob wrestled, and he declared, "I have seen God face to face" (Genesis 32:30).
It is significant that when Jacob was nearing death, he summoned the sons of Joseph and blessed them. In doing so, he specifically mentioned God as "the God before whom his fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked." Jacob called Him the God who had shepherded him during his whole life until that day, and then he called upon the "angel" who had redeemed him from all evil to bless the sons. Thus there are two expressions of God as capable of bestowing a blessing upon mankind.
Further Scriptural research will reveal that the "angel of God's face" is identified with the "Rock" in which Israel was to trust. To those of you who do not believe there is a God, or to those who deny that the Bible contains a divine revelation, this will have no appeal. Those of us who do believe in God, and accept the Torah and haftarah as a communication from God, must reckon with the fact that Moses repeatedly spoke of the "Rock of salvation" as personal.
Some of you are familiar with the rabbinic tradition that, after Moses had provided water from the rock to quench the people's thirst, this rock followed the people and continued to provide them with water. I am sure that most of you were taught this tradition from your childhood. The rock became their savior, but this is affirmed of the "angel of his presence" in Isaiah 63:9. So God manifested himself and His saving power in more than one personality, according to both the Torah and the prophets.
Now, I am going to make an affirmation that may startle you when you hear it. I hold that the idea of a triune God, that is, the manifestation of Deity in three persons, is not contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures at all. It is in harmony with them, and represents their correct teaching. The problem lies, not with what God revealed, but with man's interpretation of it, or, in this case, with one man's translation or rendition of it.
By this time, Maimonides had established a reputation as a scholar, philosopher, and physician. He was made both the Rabbi of Cairo and personal physician to Saladin, the reigning sultan. He undertook the task of synthesizing revelation and human wisdom, of blending faith and reason into a harmonious whole, by reconciling the tenets of rabbinic Judaism with the rationalization of Aristotelian philosophy. If we had the time, I could tell you how this affected Thomas Aquinas, who undertook to do for Catholicism what Maimonides did for Judaism.
It is enough for me to say that, since the revolutionary impact of these men, neither Judaism nor Catholicism is an attempt to recapture primitive purity. They are now systematized. What passes now for Catholicism is actually Thomism. Modern Judaism is an attempt to establish the validity of the doctrinal deductions of Maimonides, as set forth in his thirteen articles of faith and in the monumental work, Guide to the Perplexed.
One of the thirteen articles of faith accepted and repeated in the Jewish liturgy is, "I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an absolute one." The Hebrew word used here for "absolute one" is yachid. It literally means "only one," or "absolute one" as the ultimate reality, indivisible and inseparable. For eight centuries your fathers, and your fathers' fathers, have repeated this creedal statement, and yet it is not what God revealed through Moses in the Torah. It is the very opposite.
In the Shema, as contained in Deuteronomy 6:4, God laid down a principle of faith to represent the divine revelation of the nature of Deity: "Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord," or better, "The Lord our God, the Lord is one." The word for "one" is achad. This means a "united one." The first Moses used achad (united one), while the "second Moses" used yachid (only one). The first Moses revealed the word of God, while the second was trying to produce a human synthesis of thought.
One need not be a profound scholar to see that if what I am saying is true, it makes a great deal of difference. The idea of God as a united one signifies a personality manifesting itself in more than one form, yet perfectly joined in a unity or oneness unique in our universe. This is of vital concern to our exploration, for it could mean that the Lord God, who is one, could manifest himself in the form of a Son without destroying the cardinal truth that He is one.
This is as important to the Jewish mind as it is to the non-Jewish mind. Rabbinical tradition always has had to wrestle with such passages as the prophecy of Isaiah: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (9:6). Was Isaiah, who condemned idolatry in such vitriolic terms, affirming that a child to be born was to be another God?
Certainly the import of the passage as the Messianic prophecy has been dulled by the suggestion that it is a reference to a kingly heir born in the lineage of David. Liberal theology, espoused by both Jews and non-Jews, has sought to explain it away as purely allegorical, or as a paean of praise for the coronation ceremony of a mere earthly monarch. Such explanations never can satisfy those who believe that Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord" (6:8). There was a child to be born who would be designated "The mighty God" and "everlasting Father." Who was that child? The rabbis declared it was to be the Messiah.
This word occurs in Genesis 22:12, where God forbids Abraham to proceed in offering Isaac. "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." Isaac was unique as the son of promise. In this respect he had no peer. He stood absolutely alone.
The same usage occurs in Amos 8:10, where the prophet predicts the calamity to befall the kingdom of Israel: "I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day."
Also in this connection consider Jeremiah 6:26, where the prophet said, "0 daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us."
These uses of yachid point up singularity, a oneness, that is not shared. In view of the need for sons to preserve the genealogy, to maintain the tribal distinctions, and to perpetrate the inheritance, the mourning for an only son was more intense. Those who lost an only son could not allay their grief by giving attention more fully to other children.
If God had used this word in the Shema, a point might be made linguistically for opposition to the deity of Jesus. It could not destroy it if it is a fact, for facts cannot be set aside merely by linguistic usage. Yet, it must be conceded that, if the Scriptures had used yachid, a more positive case could have been made for the opposite contention.
No one can deny that here achad signified a oneness that is achieved by the union of two persons. It was a union in which the parties were to deem themselves as entirely and indissolubly united. It was as if they were in reality one person, one soul, and one body. Yet the very word signifying such a union is that the Lord is one.
Let us examine another passage. When Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, went to visit some of her Hivite girl friends, she fell for Shechem, a son of the local sheik. Shechem seduced her and wanted to marry her, but her angry brothers decided to kill off all the men in the tribe. They devised a ruse to get the Hivite males to be circumcised, then they could kill them while they were still in pain and unable to fight. In proposing this they said, "Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people" (Genesis 34:16). Here again it is obvious that achad achieves oneness by uniting. It is not a oneness stemming from an absoluteness of personality. It is a oneness of unity.
When we say, "The Lord is one," the word conveys the same thought of a united one, a composite one. When Moses said, "Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord," he used achad. He did not mean to question the nature and sovereignty of God, which could express itself in any form or manner. His purpose was to uphold monotheism, as opposed to the polytheism of the heathen nations.
In the same direct context Moses writes, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you" (Deuteronomy 6:13, 14). There is a great difference between the one true and living God manifesting himself in various personalities, and other gods invented and created by man.
I believe with all my heart that there is one God. I am unalterably opposed to other gods. I make a great distinction, however, between the worship of other gods contrived and constructed by the ingenuity of men, and the worship of the one God in any form in which He reveals His grace, benevolence, and saviorhood.
My humble contention is that God was in Christ reconciling this world to himself. The God who was in Christ was the one God. He is the one Lord of the Shema, which you believers recite every day. I know there are differences between us, grave differences. I propose to explore them honestly and openly. I have no desire to smooth them over at the expense of truth. But there is no difference between us in our mutual affirmation that our Lord is one, and beside Him there is no other. On this matter I am in harmony with the best of Judaism.
The sacred book of Judaism, the Zohar, bears me out in its comments made on the Shema. It asks the question, "Why is there need of mentioning the name of God three times in this verse?" It then provides the answer: "The first Jehovah is the Father above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And the third one is the way which is below, and these three are one." I take it that "the way which is below" is the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, who reveals to us "the way." I am in agreement with the Zohar in its interpretation of the Shema.
I see we have a hand raised. May we have your question?
Do I understand you to say that a Jew can believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and also the Son of God, whatever that means, and still say the Shema without having his fingers crossed?
That is exactly what I mean. It is not a matter of keeping your fingers crossed, but getting your mind uncrossed. A Jew who accepts Jesus as the Messiah of the prophets is no less a Jew than he was before. He can read the same Scriptures that he always has read. He can revere them as much as he always has revered them. The only difference is that the Scriptures will have greater meaning to him, for he will see and know their fulfillment. As it is, my Jewish friends always are on the way to school and never meet the Teacher.
We must not forget that the message of Jesus as the Messiah was first taken to Jews, and that it was done in the very center of Judaism. It was here, where He was best known, that Jews first acknowledged Him. All who announced Him were Jews. All who believed in Him, or into Him, were Jews. They still recited the Shema, they still observed the Sabbath, they still observed the feasts. They circumcised their children on the eighth day. Having accepted Jesus as the one of whom the prophets spoke, having been baptized into His name, and having entered into a vital relationship with Him, they now constituted a synagogue of Messianists. The temple was still standing, and they went to it daily at the designated times of prayer.
These Jews did not love the rest of the Jewish community less because they loved the Messiah more. When they gathered on the first day of the week to eat and drink together in memory of Jesus, they did not do so as "Christians," for that designation had not been coined. They came together as Jews who trusted in Jesus because they firmly believed what the prophets had spoken concerning Him. They believed then what I believe now, that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, and gave meaning to them in His birth, His life, and His death.
I see we have another question.
On what ground do you assume that the Messiah was to be a person? Could not the principles set forth in the Torah accomplish all that was prophesied as to the cleansing of the earth and the unity of mankind?
Thank you! You really have asked two questions, and both are very important. I shall address myself to these at our next meeting, since our time is up. May God bless you all until that time.