echad and oneness doctrine
Sunday, July 20th, 2008
echad
Brown Driver Briggs Definition:
1) one (number)
1a) one (number)
1b) each, every
1c) a certain
1d) an (indefinite article)
1e) only, once, once for all
1f) one…another, the one…the other, one after another, one by one
1g) first
1h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)
Part of Speech: adjective
God is one. The Hebrews understood this.
echad is used elsewhere in the Tanakh:
1Kings 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one (echad) man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.
Joshua 12:9-24 The king of Jericho, one (echad); the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one (echad); The king of Jerusalem, one (echad); the king of Hebron, one (echad); The king of Jarmuth, one (echad); the king of Lachish, one (echad); The king of Eglon, one (echad); the king of Gezer, one (echad); The king of Debir, one (echad); the king of Geder, one (echad); The king of Hormah, one (echad); the king of Arad, one (echad); The king of Libnah, one (echad); the king of Adullam, one (echad); The king of Makkedah, one (echad); the king of Bethel, one (echad); The king of Tappuah, one (echad); the king of Hepher, one (echad); The king of Aphek, one (echad); the king of Lasharon, one (echad); The king of Madon (echad), one; the king of Hazor, one (echad); The king of Shimronmeron, one (echad); the king of Achshaph, one (echad); The king of Taanach, one (echad); the king of Megiddo, one (echad); The king of Kedesh, one (echad); the king of Jokneam of Carmel, one (echad); The king of Dor in the coast of Dor, one (echad); the king of the nations of Gilgal, one (echad); The king of Tirzah, one (echad): all the kings thirty and one.
Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one (echad) of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
Ezekiel 33:24 Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one (echad), and he inherited the land: but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance.
Ezekiel 48:31-34 And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one (echad) gate of Reuben, one (echad) gate of Judah, one (echad) gate of Levi. And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one (echad) gate of Joseph, one (echad) gate of Benjamin, one (echad) gate of Dan. And at the south side four thousand and five hundred measures: and three gates; one (echad) gate of Simeon, one (echad) gate of Issachar, one (echad) gate of Zebulun. At the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one (echad) gate of Gad, one (echad) gate of Asher, one (echad) gate of Naphtali.
Are we to assume that the gates were in unity? Or Michael the angel was in unity with himself? Or the kings listed? Or perhaps Abraham was not one man but a unity of man.
Although man will try to take the scripture out of context, God’s truth will always prevail. Trinitarianism is a man ordained doctrine to explain the nature of God in man’s limited thought. It was conceived by men for men.
The concept of three persons in one god is very ancient. The Hindu faith believes this concept of God. The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. ‘The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer’. The syllable we write as om, but which is in reality made up of three words, ‘a’, ‘u’, and ‘m’, (which) is the symbol of this trinity.
The Egyptian triad of the sun god was “one god expressed in three persons”. He was known as the “noonday sun” (Ra), “the evening sun” (Tum), and “the dawning sun” (Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, “Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum at eventide”. He was one god in three distinct persons.
Quote:
|
In AD 318 in Alexandria, Egypt, a conflict broke out between a certain presbyter named Arius, and the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Arius taught that the Logos was created out of nothing before the beginning of the world, and therefore was not of the same substance of the Father. In fact, He was the first creation of God. Jesus was a demigod of the Father. Both groups agreed that the Son preexisted the incarnation. The central issue was the eternality of the Son of God. Alexander claimed that the Son was coeternal with the Father, but the rallying cry of the Arians was that “there was a time when He was not.” In AD 321, Alexander held a local synod which condemned Arius’ teachings and excommunicated him and his friends. In turn Arius petitioned support from other bishops to help him in his cause. He gained the support of Eusebius of Nicomedia and a few others. Together they continued to spread the Arian doctrine, and continued to cause dissension among the churches. This dissension reached the ears of Constantine, who had just become the sole emperor of the Roman Empire in AD 324, after having defeated Licinius in the East. Constantine, who was the first emperor to embrace Christianity, was interested in settling this theological dispute, probably to ensure the unity of the empire. In response, he sent his advisor, Hosius of Cordova, to Alexandria to settle the dispute. When it was apparent that the issue could not be easily solved, Constantine called for a council of all the bishops to meet in Nicea (modern day Isnik, Turkey), twenty miles north of Nicomedia, in Bithynia. Alexander’s views won out, and Arius was defeated. |
During the 1st two centuries A.D. Christianity was strongly in favor of it’s Jewish roots of strict monotheism.
During the decades immediately following the death of the Apostles, gnosticism crept into the church via Simon Magus (Simon the sorcerer spoken of in the 8th chapter of Acts)and later by people such as Origen, Alexander (A Catholic Bishop), and other Greek apologists like Justin Martyr.
As far as the mis-interpretation of Genesis 1:26, this scripture has many possible explanations. Some claim it is a majestic plural such as when kings refer to themselves as ‘we’. Others claim it was God talking to the angels. I personally believe it was describing the many attributes of God. One thing we can be sure of, however is God was not referring to a third person in the trinity. context is an important part of hermeneutics. The very next verse disproves the possibility God was talking of a third ‘co-equal, co-eternal’ person in the God-head.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And finally, the New Testament confirms the Jewish belief in one God.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.