“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”
Deuteronomy 6:4
There’s a lot of history surrounding this verse. There’s a very beautiful history behind the Jewish treatment of this verse and how they used it during adversities. One of the most distinctive aspects of the Abrahamic religions is our monotheism. This passage is called “the Shema,” shema (שָׁמַע/shama) being the Hebrew word for “listen,” the very first word of this passage. Taken from Deuteronomy, we must remember what this book is about. Exodus is the chronicling of the Israelites’ “exodus” out of Egypt. This includes the narrative of Moses and how he came to be raised, when God commissioned him to be leader over his nation of Israel, the exodus itself, and once Israel left Egypt, the laws they were given as a new people. 1 Corinthians 10:1-3 makes reference to Israel having been typologically baptized and renewed by passing through the Red Sea, and when they came out on the other side, God gave this new separated nation a set of laws by which they were to live. Because of Israel’s rebellious attitude towards God, a trip to the promised land, which should have taken about a week, ended up taking them 40 years, wandering quite literally in circles in the wilderness. This was an act of mercy by God. If Israel had gone back to Egypt as they wished for, they surely would have been put to death. No surrounding nations would have accepted them, and they were not deserving to enter the land of Canaan, and in their spiritual condition, would have been swallowed up along with their children to the cultural influence. God provided for them for 40 years, both as mercy for sparing their lives and their children, while also punishing them by not allowing them to enter the land due to their disobedience and forked tongues. By the end of the 40 years, the generation that spoke against God and forfeited their rights to the promised land were mostly dying off, and now, the younger generation were to be given a chance to enter. This is why preserving the nation was such an act of mercy. Their children could inhabit the promised land. Deuteronomy comes from the Greek word “deutero,” meaning “second,” as it is essentially a second Exodus story. The same laws that Israel was given when they left Egypt were now being retold to the new generation, preparing them for how they were to live their lives in the coming promised land. While giving these commands, Moses includes this exhortation to “listen,” shema, hear O Israel. What’s about to be said is of considerable importance. In Mark 12:28 ff, Jesus is asked by a Jewish scribe, “which law is the first” or “greatest.” This is far from the first commandment given to Israel, but it was recognized by both Jesus and the scribe to be the greatest. “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”
This scripture has been unfortunately mistreated by many Jewish apologists, Unitarian Christians, and Trinitarian Christians. Incorrect assumptions and emphasis to generate ad hoc arguments or convolutions and equivocation fallacies to avoid the obvious. We will discuss the problems that Unitarian Christians make first, then we will analyze the Trinitarian errors, and finally, we will explain what we can honestly take from this passage without twisting the argument for our own theological purposes.
The Unitarian Argument
Many Unitarians have openly stated in public debates and even in published works that the Shema should end all debates on the Trinity full stop because it tells us that God is only one person and not three. They have argued that Trinitarians claim “God is three” while the Bible claims “God is one.” This is the magnum opus of Unitarian/Trinitarian debates and should be the end of discussion. Also, some Unitarians have pointed out that “the LORD” here is where the original text used the divine name, “YHWH” (יְהוָֹה), and the text is telling us that Yahweh is one, Yahweh is a personal name, and therefore, Yahweh is one person.
Unitarians are generally reading far more out of this passage than is truly fair. They are also making many of the presuppositional, question begging fallacies that they argue against Trinitarians for making. For the above argument to be correct, we have to assume that when the passage says, “the Lord is One,” we are justified in including: “The Lord is One person.” However, when the Trinitarian includes: “The Lord is One being,” the Unitarian will argue that the inclusion is unjustified. Without a method of justifying that the inclusion of “person” is justified, the Unitarian is being hypocritical.
Another assumption the Unitarian must make is entirely question begging as well. When they read “God” or “Lord,” they assume that we are speaking about a person. This is precisely what Trinitarians will deny (even if Trinitarians are inconsistent about it). Unless there is a way to prove that the “God” of this passage is specifically about a person, rather than a general nature, we can’t honestly make this argument. Take, for example, this statement: “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath made for man.” The word “man” here refers to a general kind of being. This is not speaking of a specific man, but rather, mankind. However, when Jesus heals someone in the gospels, and they say: “This is the man who made me well,” we understand that “man” refers to a specific person in this context. Just as the term “man” can be used for either a kind of being or a specific person, human being or human person, (some) Trinitarians take this to also be the case with the term “God.” Unless the Unitarian is prepared to prove this assumption wrong in this passage, or has already dealt with this assumption prior to making this argument, the argument can not be made honestly. We can not assume that “the LORD” is a person and expect Trinitarians to agree with this assertion when their own Athanasian Creed, which they find authoritative says, “the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Spirit is Lord, yet not three Lord’s but one Lord.” This is the lense through which a Trinitarian will read the Shema, and we can not ignore this to try and force an argument against them without dealing with that framework.
Finally, the same is the case for the name “YHWH.” Though the Unitarian sees this as a proper name for one person, a Trinitarian will not. Again, with an appeal to the Athansian Creed, which says the same, “not three Yahweh’s but one Yahweh,” the Trinitarian will not accept this as a proper name given to only one person. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh in John 8:58 (see this argument refuted in This article). They will often see verses like Philippians 2:9, Ephesians 1:21, Matthew 28:19, Romans 10:13, and variously, John 1:12, 8:24, and 8:28, all as being references to Jesus possessing the name “Yahweh.” They do not ever contend that “Yahweh” is also a name properly belonging to the Father, so, they don’t see this name as a personal name given to one person, but a name given to 2 or 3 persons, or a title. For the Unitarian to argue that the tetragrammaton was originally used here will not prove to a Trinitarian that we are speaking about one person either.
I find these claims by Unitarians to not be very helpful in proving the point, but rather, it shows the disagreements we have with Trinitarians and amplifies them. With that being the case, I generally do not use this as an argument when debating Trinitarians, as is evident from my past debates with them.
The Trinitarian Arguments
Trinitarians often see this passage as a statement that God is “a compound unity.” This is usually their biggest argument when it comes to this passage. When the text says that the Lord is “One,” the Hebrew word “echad” has been argued to mean a compound unity. Often, they will contrast this to the hebrew word “yachid,” which means numerically one. They read the Shema, not as a statement stating that God is one numerically but as stating that God is a unity. This would be to state that in God, there’s some sort of composition in God, which they assume to be three persons composing one God.
Another argument has been made most famously by Richard Bauckham, but it has also been used by other apologists, such as James White, which is that “Paul splits the shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6.” While the shema states, “the Lord is our God, the Lord is One,” 1 Corinthians 8:6 states that, “for us there is One God, the Father… and One Lord, Jesus…” Dr. Bauckham has argued that Paul is explaining that “the identity of Jesus is included in the shema.” Some Trinitarians have accepted this argument and read it anachronistically into the shema, assuming that it must have originally included at least the Father and the Son.
The Hebrew word “Echad” (אֶחָד) has been rumoured to refer to a compound unity. This is not a common argument among academia and scholars (in fact, I know of none who have made this argument), but more of a common argument among apologists and lay Christians. Strong’s Concordance at one time had under the definitions of Echad (Hebrew, 259) as “compound unity.” In recent revisions, this has been removed. The only definition for echad in Strong’s is now, “one.” Though Strong’s should never be used as in if it is a lexicon (if you want a Hebrew Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs BDB is a common source and the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament HALOT is one of the common scholarly standards), many apologists have taken this definition or usage of “echad” as if it is a primary definition. The Lexical definition of echad is “one.”
Where have people gotten the idea of “compound unity” from in the Bible? There are two verses that are commonly appealed to by Trinitarian apologists, and their argument looks something like this:
The shema statement that “The Lord our God is one” and “one” is the Hebrew word “echad,” which means a compound unity. It is not numerically one thing in a strict sense, but an amalgamation of many things into one unit. In the shema, “the Lord our God is one,” is a reference to the three persons in a compound unity as one God. In Numbers 13:23, we read: “Then they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and there cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs.” The word “one” in this verse is “echad.” Even though there are many grapes, it calls them “one.” There is a compound unity of many grapes that make “one” cluster. Also, Genesis 2:24 says: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The two persons shall become one (echad) flesh. This demonstrates that echad refers to a plurality in unity. Two persons become one flesh, just as the three persons of the Godhead become “one God.”
There’s a strong equivocation that these types of arguments are relying upon. Numbers 13:23 does not say “there was one grape,” and by the use of “one,” echad, we know that there’s a “compound unity of many grapes.” We know there are many grapes from the word “cluster.” The Hebrew text quite literally says: “a branch with a cluster of grapes, one.” The word echad is qualifying how many clusters, not how many grapes are creating a “compound unity.” If the passage said: “a branch with a grape, one,” we would not know that there are many grapes even though “echad” is still used. It is the word “cluster” that tells us that we are referring to many individual grapes. Yet, “echad” tells us numerically how many clusters there are. There’s not a compoundity of clusters or many clusters in one cluster.
Genesis 2:24 says that the two persons become one flesh. If the compound unity argument is correct, then what we should understand is that the two persons are actually one person. If “echad” means a compound unity of many persons making up one thing, then we must either admit that “flesh” refers to one person or a separate category. If the flesh refers to a person, then by saying the two persons have become one person, by extension, the shema is saying that the three persons of the godhead are one person. My argument is in whether these are the same or distinct categories. Trinitarians are attempting to pull a bait and switch. They want you to think that “one flesh” is a way of referring to “two persons becoming one compound unity of persons.” However, if they say this about the Shema, they fall into modalism. The Trinitarians do not wish to say that the one God is “three persons becoming one person.” They want to say that these are separate categories. The three persons become one God. If this is the case, then we must admit that the two persons becoming one flesh must refer to a different category. In other words, two persons become one marriage. We do not understand that there is a “compound unity of persons” by the word “echad.” We understand it by the word “flesh,” which, in this case, refers to marriage.
The argument above may be a bit confusing, so I will restate it again in another way. If we say “one grape” is actually “many grapes,” because echad means compound unity, then we must also say that “one God” is actually “many Gods.”
But this is precisely what the Trinitarian is not wishing to convey, and even though it logically follows from their argument, they will deny it and accuse you of not understanding the Trinity, even though we know exactly what it is. The Trinitarian is trying to argue that there are many X’s in one Y, and that “echad” is the word by which we know that there’s a plurality in one. The X’s are the persons, and the Y is God.
Following this argument, they say that the two persons are 2 X’s, and they make up one flesh, which is the Y. This is what I mean by separate categories. However, we can see that the argument they are using from Numbers 13 contradicts the argument they are using from Genesis 2. In Numbers, they argue for the same categories. One grape = many grapes. In Genesis, they argue for separate categories. One flesh = many persons. If they word their argument: “one flesh = two flesh,” then again, we have “one God = many God’s” when carrying this argument over to the Shema.
Same category arguments will not work. What about distinct categories? One flesh is made up of two persons. Therefore, one God is made up of many persons? The thrust of their argument relies on the word “echad” to make this implication. However, this can be demonstrated easily to not be the case.
If I say: “One dining room set,” we know that I am talking about multiple tables and chairs based on the word “set,” not the word “one.” If I remove the word “set,” the sentence becomes: “one dining room.” There is nothing which indicates many things in a compound unity. We simply have one room. Not one room made up of anything, but simply, one.
If I say: “one sheep,” it is understood that there is one animal. However, if I say “one flock of sheep,” we now know that there are many animals due to the word “flock,” not the word “one.” How many flocks of sheep are there? One. The word “one” or “echad” is qualifying how many flocks there are, not the unity of what’s in the flock.
The word “one” always means numerically “one.” In Genesis 2:24, we have one flesh, one body, one marriage, one family. Numerically, there’s only one thing here. We know that there are multiple persons in this body because of the phrase “two flesh will become.” In the shema, we do not have anything in the verse which can be used to tell us that there are multiple of anything included in the one God. We are told that Yahweh is our God, and Yahweh is one. We are not told anything about a set, a unit, a group, a social order, or many persons. We are told merely that there is “one God.” The compound unity argument faces many problems.
Echad vs. Yachid
When Trinitarians say that Moses would have used “yachid” instead of “echad,” if he meant “numerically one God,” they are making an argument from absence. What Moses did not say is not an argument against what he did say. Also, if we are arguing that Moses did not mean numerically one God, then how many gods is the Trinitarian advocating Moses meant? The Trinitarian must start to argue against monotheism, one of their core tenants, to generate an argument against the Unitarian. This is one reason why you will not see this argument come up from many educated Trinitarians.
Further, most lexicons will actually state that echad and yachid are synonymous (HALOT). However, there is a slight difference. “Yachid” seems to be more clearly translated as “only,” not “one.” Just as our English words “only” and “one” are similar, but have slight differences, these two words do seem to have very slight distinctions between them as well.
“Yachid” is used 3 times in Genesis 22 (verses 2, 12, and 16) to refer to Isaac as “Abraham’s only son” (for a discussion on why Isaac is called Abraham’s only son though he has 8 sons in total, see the article on John 1:18, Monogenés). While it is true to say Isaac was Abraham’s “one” son, there’s special emphasis on the fact that it was his only son in the context (compare also Judges 11:34). “Echad” is more often used to refer to numerically how many of a thing there is. One blessing, one fruit, one wife, one nation. “Yachid” refers to the only blessing, the only wife of a man, the only child of a parent. Noting this, it is actually backward for the Trinitarian to say that yachid should have been used instead of echad to denote numerical amounts. There is an argument I have heard several times that some Jewish manuscripts have changed “echad” to “yachid,” and Trinitarians have argued it was for this reason. However, I have never been able to source this claim. I do not know where this argument has come from, but it is lacking evidence.
1 Corinthians 8:6, Splitting the Shema
Richard Bauckham, James White, Larry Hurtado, and James Dunn (though, he seems to have changed his mind on this later in his career), have all argued that in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul is “splitting the shema” between the Father and Jesus. Essentially, the argument is that the shema originally noted “one Lord God.” Now, Paul is expanding this to argue that this “one Lord God” is actually “One God, the Father… and One Lord, Jesus Christ.”
First, it does not seem reasonable to imagine that Paul would be altering or changing the first and greatest commandment, even when Jesus himself did not (Mark 12:28 ff). Yes, the NT writers and the apostles did expand prophecies into dual fulfillments and use typology (see my article on typology if unfamiliar with this topic), however, they never alter the original meaning of any passages.
Second, it should also seem rather strange that Paul should use the term “Jesus Christ” to refer to the God of Israel. “Jesus” is the name of the child born to Mary (Matthew 1:21) and “Christ” means “anointed one,” which is when Jesus was anointed at his baptism by the Spirit (John 1:32), and when he was anointed again at his resurrection by the Spirit (Acts 2:36). Note that in that verse, it says not only that Jesus was made Christ, but also, “it is this Jesus whom you crucified that God has made both Lord and Christ.” In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul does not refer to this Lord as “the Son,” or “the Logos,” or any of his supposed prehuman titles, but rather as “Jesus Christ,” which refers specifically to a glorified man, who was glorified to be Lord (see Hebrews 2:7 KJV variant).
Third, it is an unreasonable assertion to assume that Paul must be quoting the shema specifically because 3 similar words are found in the context, namely: God, Lord, and One. If this is the case, then should we not also assume that 1 Corinthians 8:4-5 is also splitting the shema, as all three of these words appear here as well. Why, also, do Trinitarians not use this argument in Ephesians 4:5-6, which mention “One Lord,” and “One God?”
To say that Paul is “splitting the shema” seems to be a rather baseless assertion as well as a special pleading argument, as there are many passages in the NT which use these three words in close proximity to each other and are not held to be a splitting of the shema. Some Christians do not notice this because they are not in the same verse, but remember that chapter and verse divisions did not come until centuries after the Bible was written.
Trinitarians argue that this “one God and one Lord” is the same as the “the Lord our God, the Lord is one” of the shema. 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not give us “one Lord God,” it gives us two. One God and one Lord. This is not to split the shema, but to completely break it if this is the case. Because now, “the Lord our God” is not one, but two. And more absurdly, the Trinitarian insists that there are 3, even though the third is not mentioned in addition to this shema for no apparent reason. The one God of us is not the same as the one Lord of us. The Father is not the same as the Son. Even Trinitarians will admit this. But they argue that they are the same God and the same Lord. If Jesus is the same God and Lord as the Father, Paul could have easily stated this. He does not state that there is “One Lord God, the Father and the Son.” He states who the one God is, and then he states who the one Lord is. There is the Father, and then there is Jesus.
The NT says that the Father is “the God of our Lord Jesus” (1 Peter 1:3, for example). If the Father is the God of the Lord, then the Lord and God can not be the same thing in Paul’s context. Note 1 Corinthains 11:3, which says that “the head of Christ is God.” Would Paul say that Jesus is Lord and God, and then turn around and say that our Lord’s head is God?
What does the Shema really mean?
The Shema should not be overused by either Unitarians or Trinitarians to make an argument for either side. The shema is a statement of monotheism as a reminder to the Israelites before they entered the promised land. This reminder would be an important one because Israel’s greatest problem was in polytheism and worshiping other gods, even in replacement or addition to their one God, Yahweh. The shema is a statement to Israel that “Yahweh is our God,” no one else, and “Yahweh is one.” He is a monotheistic God. Not many, but one. Both Unitarians and Trinitarians believe in one monotheistic God. Even though Unitarians sometimes argue that Trinitarians are tritheists, and Trinitarians argue that Unitarians have two God’s if they worship both the Father and Jesus, we all ascribe to monotheism, which is what the shema is a confession of for all of us. None of us are at liberty to add to the shema what is not stated. Even if it may be true, it is not an inclusion into the shema.
A Possible Argument
While Deuteronomy 6:4 should not be used as an argument against Trinitarians, I do see a problem in their interpretation of it in Jesus’ quotation of it in Mark 12.
Mark 12:28-34: And one of the scribes having come up, having heard them reasoning together, having seen that He answered them well, questioned Him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear this O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is not another commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher. You have spoken according to truth that He is One, and there is not another besides Him, and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love the neighbor as oneself is more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And Jesus, having seen him that he answered wisely, said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And no one dared to question Him any longer.
The point is this, when Jesus and this scribe quoted and agreed on the shema, they agreed that it was of someone other than Jesus. “He is one, and there is none but him” (quoting Deuteronomy 4:35). If Jesus did not include himself in this “Lord God” of Israel, and the scribe also did not, and Jesus said that the scribe was correct and orthodox in his statement, why should we add Jesus to this shema? Why should we accuse Paul of such? If Jesus is a Jew under the law and was the perfect sacrificial lamb, having kept all of the mosaic commandments, he himself must follow the shema. How did Jesus do this? By worshiping a tripersonal God? No. By worshiping the Father, and loving him with his being. Jesus encouraged this scribe to follow the shema by doing the same. Love him, the Lord God of the the shema. Someone may ask why Jesus said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” Some read this as if Jesus was stating that the man was almost correct, but slightly off. They assume this means that the man recognized the Father as God, but not the Son. However, this is not why Jesus says this or what this means. Before Jesus says this, we are told: “Having seen that He answered him wisely.” Jesus thought the man’s answer was correct before saying this. When Jesus said he isn’t far from the kingdom of God, this parallels Jesus’ statement, “the kingdom of God is near.” The admonition is to be received into the kingdom of God when it comes. Be ready. And they were to do this by being baptized and made holy, so they could be included in the kingdom when the Spirit is poured out. This man was not far from the kingdom, not because he was missing something in his statement, but because the kingdom was not yet here for him yet.
Jesus says that the Father is his God, and the only God, without including himself into the equation. The scribe does likewise, and Jesus agrees with him. We should not assume or insert Jesus into the shema when he did not do so himself.