The concept and belief that God is one was an essential feature of Old Testament theology. In reviewing a number of passages the primary focus of this book to a large extent has been on Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema). Understanding what this meant in ancient Israel provides the clues to a deeper understanding in this present era. A number of materials, studies, documents and references have provided a body of knowledge that will grealy aide and assist any believer to better define, clarify and defend the long held belief, custom and practice that God is one. Other essential factors in this book discuss and to some extent contrast and compare the concept of monotheism and oneness to better explain conceptually how these build the structure and framework that supports the position that God is numerically one.

Oneness and Monotheism

Book 2By Kulwant Singh Boora

AuthorHouse

Copyright © 2009 Kulwant Singh Boora
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4490-1338-7

Contents

Preface....................................................viiAcknowledgments............................................ix1. The Purpose of this Study...............................12. Introduction............................................73. Biblical Monotheism.....................................154. The Shema...............................................225. Monotheism Debated......................................416. Hebrew Word Echad Numerical One (1).....................607. New Testament Monotheism................................75Conclusion.................................................91Footnotes..................................................95Bibliography...............................................110

Chapter One

The Purpose of this Study

The highly revered and renowned scholar Professor I Howard Marshall stated that: "We cannot avoid interpretation, and perhaps I should add that we cannot avoid misinterpretation. Hence our need is to find the right interpretation." Of course this is a true statement worthy of all respect. Professor Marshall simply encourages any student of theology to understand that whatever text type one is reviewing it needs to be interpreted in order to be understood, and in so doing one conducts proper exegesis in the process.

The author adopted such a process in order to present his findings on the subject at hand, and through some length of study and research; it became evident that such a subject would require considerable devotion. The results of such findings are to an extent self-explanatory, in that, God is spiritually and numerically one; therefore, this book will explore what is meant by monotheism and oneness throughout.

Notably, monotheism is the concept of one God and is undoubtedly one of the greatest principles and commandments taught in the Old Testament, which is carried into the New. One passage of Scripture that is cited in support of this concept of monotheism is Deuteronomy 6:4, which in Hebrew is referred to as the Shema.

This passage of Scripture has been the subject of continual debate. Debaters question whether it is a reference to one God in the numerical sense or a declaration of allegiance to one God within a covenantal setting or some other form of rendering. The marksmanship of monotheism must be judged and weighed in light of the criterion upon which it is based to address an adequate interpretation.

To that end, it is needful to accurately explain what is meant by monotheism, since such a term was nonexistent in ancient civilizations. One then must turn to the conduct of human nature in response to the call of monotheism as the basis. Equally, one must also conceptually ascertain the exact meaning of oneness, and its criteria in order to adequately and sufficiently explain its relationship to the belief in one God.

If one suggests that they have a belief in monotheism, what criterion is used in order to assess its viability? If on the other hand, one believes in the concept of oneness as the basis of articulating their belief in one God then how do you reconcile the two e.g. monotheism and oneness? Are these two terms interchangeably used or are these terms subject to different criterions, monotheism against polytheism and oneness in light of divinity and personality; where does one bridge the gap within the contemplation of the Bible?

If monotheism entails a criterion that is different in form and substance to oneness, then one assumption would imply that monotheism is only evident upon a showing of polytheism, and that oneness is only evident upon a direct inquiry into the nature, character, personality and divinity of God. Such inquiries then, would invariably suggest two separate analyses that require a connection between the two.

Similarly, ones investigation may lead them to conclude that monotheism is the framework within which oneness resides e.g. Deuteronomy 6:4 stems largely out of Exodus 20:3. It could however provide a different scenario in which the reserve method is employed; Exodus 20:3 provided the foundation that Deuteronomy 6:4 is built upon.

Importantly, did the structure of monotheism in the ancient civilization provide the components to arguably construct the biblical view that God is numerically one? Or did the concept of oneness provide the components to construct the theological view, which by human conduct illuminated and shaped a monotheistic belief?

Notwithstanding this, the need to construe true biblical monotheism then becomes paramount for the believer whose position argues for divine singularity and personality. With that in mind, this book seeks to explore a variety of interpretations of this monotheistic and oneness viewpoint in order to ascertain its framework.

While the answers provided may demonstrate a degree of opinions, its overall theme will undoubtedly lead to a reasonable conclusion, that the belief in one eternal God was a prevalent view that overshadowed Israelite theology since its inception. In that, it would appear that recognition of God's oneness was the underlying and fundamental principle upon which God entered into a covenantal relationship with his people.

Equally, the study will also look at the definition of the Hebrew word echad, and its underlying interpretation. For example, is the Hebrew word echad to be treated as a reference to the numeric one or is it to be interpreted as a compound unit? Assuming it is compound unit, does this reveal the characteristics of God's nature and personality by suggesting that His oneness comprises of various components that interact with each other?

Yet, if it were to be interpreted as the numeric one, then it would presumably support the theme that God is mathematically and uniquely one. Another view may seem to suggest that the oneness of God is the channel through which His interacting components are made visible i.e. His wisdom and knowledge; His glory and power.

While monotheism and oneness remains a dominant feature in the Old and New Testament, some have even questioned whether holding a belief in monotheism is appropriate at all. Ironic as it may seem, and in light of the doctrine of Christ, one scholar questioned whether it is durable to hold a belief in monotheism and the doctrine of Christ given the incompatibility. Dr. N.M.L. Nathan, Honorary Senior Fellow at the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool, England raises grave doubts regarding this.

His article, Jewish Monotheism and the Christian God, while trying to reconcile the two is forced to conclude in his opinion that: "To preserve consistency, a Christian must reject either the threefold doctrine about Christ or the doctrine that Jewish monotheism was divinely revealed." Yet when looking at New Testament monotheism later in this book, we see a different conception materializing.

This conception reveals rather than rejects Jesus through monotheism and oneness. Dr. Nathan's conclusion simply suggests that to reject the former is very costly, while rejecting the latter may be less costly. The Bible of course does not reject monotheism and oneness, but rather embraces it and uses it as a means to reveal Jesus.

Wherefore, Dr. Nathan's proposition may well seem to fail to take account of a number of studies that see Jesus secured in the identity of God. On contrast, Professor James D. G. Dunn, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, England in his essay appearing in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Scripture and Hermeneutics Series V.5) provides a different and more compelling position.

Professor Dunn's study embraces the well-accepted view, that New Testament Christology is clearly defined within the scope and structure of Jewish monotheism and not simply abandoned on the basis of incompatibility. Not surprisingly then, Dunn states that: "In fact it can be strongly argued that New Testament Christology stays within the bounds of the monotheism expressed in the Jewish Scriptures."

Therefore, the first part of the study will examine what is meant by monotheism. After which, it will then proceed to address the various interpretations of the Shema as a mechanism and vehicle to express and presumably explain monotheism and oneness.

Such interpretations will result in an understanding of whether the Shema is a reference to one supreme God or a declaration of allegiance to the one God within a covenantal setting, or something else that will be expounded as the book progresses. Needless to say, the inescapable overall theme of this book is that God is one.

Another matter of extreme importance that this book intends to briefly touch is how New Testament monotheism addresses the entrance of Jesus into Second Temple Judaism and its strict monotheistic belief, while trying to incorporate Jesus into the divinity and identity of the one God. Similarly, how do the New Testament apostles, especially Paul, view Jesus' identity as it relates to the Shema?

While this book does not intend to provide an exhaustive study, it does intend to introduce some important features and concepts that underline monotheism and oneness. The study therefore will arguably conclude that God is numerically and spiritually one and that Jesus is the express image of the one true God, as stated in the Epistle to the Colossians 1:15.

Chapter Two

Introduction

The beginning of beginnings must be the Old Testament, since this was the foundation of the early Church long before the doctrine of Trinity and as the renowned Professor Marvin N. Wilson has stated: "Thus knowledge of beginnings is central to biblical thought." Maintaining a clear understanding of Old Testament teachings will demonstrate how it has survived in the New Testament, even up until the death of the Apostles who were pioneers and practitioners of the sacred written text.

What is about to follow will ultimately challenge, as well as reinforce a monotheistic and oneness understanding. There has been a tendency in the charismatic and Apostolic Pentecostal churches to use the terms monotheism and oneness interchangeably in support of defining and presumably arguing for a God that is absolutely and numerically one; yet upon closer examination such terms are clearly separable, but very closely related.

Sadly beneath the once held belief of a single unique God, a trend is emerging that falls foul to misguided theological interpretations. Only those who desire to bridge the gap of faith-based teaching with the scholarship arena will see a gradual departure in this post-modern era of what Judaism sought to protect and religiously embraced as practiced and taught by the Apostles.

It is not surprising then that Western scholars have sought little dialogue in embracing Jewish exegesis with devastating consequences, which have distanced themselves from religious practices of Jewish roots. To the extent, that some modern Western scholars are forced to recognize that expertise of Old Testament beliefs, customs and practices are a field to which Jewish scholars presumably dominate. Professor Richard N. Longenecker's study, Biblical Exegesis In The Apostolic Period, clearly alludes to this point.

Professor Longenecker explains that: "Jewish scholars usually evidence a greater expertise than Christians in dealing with data of Early Judaism." Western civilization, it must be confessed, is plagued with so much dogma about the Trinity that even Jewish literature of Middle Eastern origin is generally viewed through the spectacles of Western presuppositions of Trinitarian philosophies and ideologies, thereby avoiding impartial explanation(s) of the text.

Importantly biblical monotheism, as will be explained later, whether it be, Old Testament or New Testament monotheism is equally viewed through Trinitarian agendas, which carry interpretations of a pure monotheistic nature that are turned into Trinitarian thinking. No doubt such an approach is dangerously critical to the author's intent and his inspired theological message as the Scripture was coined and penned by divine inspiration.

Regrettably, it is for this very reason that even scholars in this post-modern era echo warnings, which seek to safeguard students from absorbing erroneous theories and hidden agendas of interpretations that seek to read out of the Bible ideas that are in fact catapulted into it, whereby they subtly promote steady departure from biblical doctrines. This very issue underlines the importance that what was once accepted as a genuine practice and belief is now rejected on the basis of scientific knowledge and data.

The esteemed scholar, Professor Gerald Bray, Professor of Anglican Studies at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, Alabama points out that: "Recent publications also indicate that more and more scholars are bringing their own fairly well-defined agendas to the biblical text, seeking to read out of it the ideas which in fact they are importing into it." Putting this another way is what the late Rudolf Bultman (1884-1976) insisted. He insisted that, exegesis without presupposition is impossible, especially if you are presupposing the results of the exegesis inside defined agendas.

As will be seen in this study, what was once a fortified doctrine and belief is now labeled under the auspices of problematic and to some extent unreliable. It is for this very reason, that Jewish literature must take precedence in explaining Old Testament understanding of Israelite and Jewish theology. One thing that many Christian believers seem to forget with regards to Jewish data, material and literature is that the early Church was predominantly Jewish, which relied heavily on Old Testament texts.

It is not surprising that Professor Wilson is right to point out that the church has neglected its Jewish roots, which may provide the answer as to why there is also a departure from New Testament understanding, beliefs and practices regarding Jewish and Hebraic roots. He alludes to the belief that: "The roots of Christianity run deep into Hebrew soil. Though the Hebrew heritage of the Church is rich and extensive, many Christians are regrettably uninformed about it."

Another scholar, Professor Darrell L. Bock, Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary who equally supports Professor Wilson's comments by acknowledging that: "Evangelicals have often neglected the role of Jewish theology as the framework of theological discussion in the first century." Neglecting Jewish theology ultimately has adverse consequences that run over into the New Testament.

Again, this may be the reason as to why the widespread view of biblical scholarship has shown a gradual departure from Old Testament thinking. Yet, it must be borne in mind as the late renowned world British New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce put it:

Christianity was regarded as nothing more than a new sect of Judaism.

Professor Bruce recognizes one important factor that many overlook. If Christianity was regarded as nothing more than a new sect of Judaism, it is reasonable to assume that texts and passages, such as Deuteronomy 6:4, played a dominant feature in first century Christianity. Not surprisingly then, Professor L.W. Hurtado argues for the proposition: "How early Christians such as Paul were quite able to refer to their beliefs in monotheistic language."

Paul being a notable Jewish scholar is able to freely express his belief in monotheistic language, therefore this demonstrates the veracity of Professor Longenecker's study, that Jewish scholars demonstrate a greater expertise of Old Testament material; material that presumably engaged in the study of passages, such as Deuteronomy 6:4. If Paul being an early Christian sought to express his belief in monotheistic language, it would be correct to assume that Jesus was also expressed through and in a monotheistic fashion.

A more prominent position of this is presented by Professor Richard Bauckham, former Professor New Testament at University of St. Andrew's, Scotland, whose study, Paul's Christology of Divine Identity, argued and acknowledged for the "'strict'" form of Second Temple Judaism that maintained a regimental understanding of Old Testament monotheism. Such understanding fettered on the notion of how the uniqueness of the one God should be understood, thus, as Professor Bauckham remarks that:

'Strict'monotheism ... made it impossible to attribute real divinity to any figure other than the one God.

Yet aligning this type of divinity with Jesus within a Jewish monotheistic context would understandably arouse and trouble the position for which Professor Bauckham has originally argued. If Second Temple Judaism maintained a strict form of monotheism, how would Paul have sought to introduce in Second Temple monotheism a clothing of divinity for his Christological position?

The answer then to this question is provided by Professor Bauckham's study which propels and heralds the most prolific position by which Jesus is identified by his followers. Arguably, if Paul spoke in monotheistic language, he would have almost certainly alluded to the proposition that is evident in Professor Bauckham's study, and one that is further developed in his notable work. Importantly then, Professor Bauckham explains that:

In my view high Christology was possible within a Jewish monotheistic context, not by applying to Jesus a Jewish category of semi-divine intermediary status, but by identifying Jesus directly with the one God of Israel, including Jesus in the unique identity of this one God. I use the term 'unique identity' as the best way of speaking of the uniqueness of God as generally conceived in early Judaism.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Oneness and Monotheismby Kulwant Singh Boora Copyright © 2009 by Kulwant Singh Boora. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.