The Shema and the Trinity

What you'll learn

Explain the Shema and the meaning of 'echad' without overstating the argument
Identify the plurality within the one God in the Tanakh, including the Angel of the LORD, Psalm 110 and Daniel 7
Summarise the 'Two Powers in Heaven' discussion accurately and show from the New Testament that Jesus is identified with Yahweh

Hear, O Israel

Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, is the heart of Jewish faith: 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD' (or 'the LORD is our God, the LORD is one'). Observant Jews recite it morning and evening, and many martyrs died with it on their lips. Jesus himself called it the first commandment (Mark 12:29). Christians are not trying to escape the Shema; we confess it.

The question is what kind of oneness it means. The Hebrew word echad means 'one'. It can describe a simple unit (one day), but it also describes compound unities: man and wife become 'one flesh' (Genesis 2:24), and the spies cut 'one cluster' of grapes (Numbers 13:23). This does not prove the Trinity; echad simply means one, and a sharp debater will say so. The fair point is narrower: echad does not rule out complexity within God's unity. Whether such complexity exists must be decided from the rest of Scripture.

What is the fair point Christians can make about the Hebrew word echad in the Shema, and why should you not overstate it?Show answer

Echad simply means 'one'. It can describe a simple unit, but it is also used of compound unities, such as husband and wife becoming 'one flesh' and the spies' 'one cluster' of grapes. That does not prove the Trinity, and a sharp debater will say so; the fair point is only that echad does not rule out complexity within God's unity, which must be decided from the rest of Scripture.

echad means one
used of compound unities
does not prove the Trinity
does not rule out complexity

Plurality within the Tanakh

Several features of the Hebrew Bible show that the one God is not a bare, undifferentiated unit.

Genesis 1:26, 'Let us make man in our image'. Rabbinic commentators (e.g. Rashi) say God consulted the angels; but man is made in God's image alone (1:27), not the angels'. Some also cite the plural 'Elohim' with singular verbs, but this is usually a 'plural of majesty' and is weak evidence on its own.
The Angel of the LORD appears to Hagar, who says she has seen God (Genesis 16:7-13); speaks as God to Abraham (22:11-18); appears in the burning bush, where 'God called unto him' (Exodus 3:2-6); and has a 'secret' (wonderful) name, after which Manoah says 'we have seen God' (Judges 13:18-22). He is both sent by the LORD and identified as the LORD.
Genesis 18-19: the LORD appears to Abraham as a man and eats with him; then 'the LORD rained upon Sodom... brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven' (19:24).
Isaiah 48:16: the speaker who has been present 'from the beginning' says 'the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me'.
Psalm 110:1: 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand'. Jesus used it to ask how David's son can be David's Lord (Matthew 22:41-46).
Daniel 7:13-14: 'one like the Son of man' comes 'with the clouds of heaven' (an image the Tanakh elsewhere uses of God himself, e.g. Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1) and receives everlasting dominion and service from all peoples.

Explain how the Angel of the LORD shows plurality within the one God of the Tanakh.Show answer

The Angel of the LORD appears to Hagar, who says she has seen God; speaks as God to Abraham; appears in the burning bush, where God calls to Moses; and after his appearance Manoah says 'we have seen God'. He is both sent by the LORD and identified as the LORD. That is hard to explain if God is a bare, undifferentiated unit.

Hagar, Abraham, Moses, Manoah
speaks and acts as God
both sent by and identified as the LORD

How would you answer the rabbinic view that God consulted the angels in Genesis 1:26, and which other text did Jesus use to raise the question of plurality?Show answer

Man is made in God's image alone (Genesis 1:27), not in the angels', so 'let us make man in our image' points to plurality within God rather than a council of angels. The plural 'Elohim' with singular verbs, by contrast, is usually a plural of majesty and weak evidence on its own. Jesus used Psalm 110:1 ('The LORD said unto my Lord') to ask how David's son could also be David's Lord (Matthew 22:41-46).

man made in God's image, not angels'
'Elohim' plural is weak evidence
Psalm 110:1
David's son is David's Lord

Two Powers in Heaven

In 1977, Jewish scholar Alan Segal published Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. He studied rabbinic texts that condemn as heresy the claim that there are 'two powers in heaven'. These discussions often centre on Daniel 7, where 'thrones' are set and both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man appear. The Talmud records Rabbi Akiva suggesting one throne was for God and one for David (the Messiah), and being rebuked by a colleague (Sanhedrin 38b; Hagigah 14a). Another story tells of a rabbi who saw the angel Metatron seated in heaven and concluded there were two powers (Hagigah 15a).

Segal argued that the early 'two powers' views the rabbis opposed were older than the rabbis' condemnation, and that some of them had roots in Jewish interpretation of texts like Daniel 7. The Christian scholar Michael Heiser (The Unseen Realm) built on this, arguing that Second Temple Jewish readers could recognise a 'second Yahweh figure', visible and embodied, alongside the invisible Yahweh, and that this was later ruled out partly in reaction to Christianity. First-century Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria could even call God's Logos a 'second God' (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.62).

Use this carefully. Segal was not arguing that Christianity is true or that early Judaism was Trinitarian, and rabbinic Judaism firmly rejected two-powers teaching. The modest, accurate claim is this: belief in a divine figure alongside God was not alien to Jewish thought before and around the time of Jesus. So the first Christians, all Jews, were not simply importing pagan ideas when they worshipped Jesus.

What did Alan Segal study in Two Powers in Heaven, and what did he argue?Show answer

Segal studied rabbinic texts that condemn as heresy the claim that there are 'two powers in heaven', discussions that often centre on Daniel 7, where both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man appear. Examples include Rabbi Akiva being rebuked for suggesting one throne was for David, the Messiah. Segal argued the early 'two powers' views were older than the rabbis' condemnation and some had roots in Jewish interpretation of texts like Daniel 7.

rabbis condemned 'two powers'
centred on Daniel 7
Akiva's two thrones
views older than the condemnation

What is the modest, accurate claim Christians can make from the 'two powers' research, and what should they not claim?Show answer

You should not claim that Segal argued Christianity is true or that early Judaism was Trinitarian, and you must acknowledge that rabbinic Judaism firmly rejected two-powers teaching. The accurate claim is that belief in a divine figure alongside God was not alien to Jewish thought before and around the time of Jesus, as Philo calling the Logos a 'second God' illustrates. So the first Christians, all Jews, were not simply importing pagan ideas when they worshipped Jesus.

Segal not arguing for Christianity
rabbis rejected two powers
divine second figure not alien
early Jewish Christians not pagan borrowers

Jesus identified as Yahweh

The New Testament writers, steeped in the Shema, repeatedly apply texts about Yahweh to Jesus:

Isaiah 40:3 ('prepare ye the way of the LORD') is used of John preparing the way for Jesus (Mark 1:2-3).
Isaiah 45:23 (every knee shall bow to Yahweh, the only God) is applied to Jesus in Philippians 2:10-11.
Joel 2:32 ('whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD') is applied to calling on Jesus in Romans 10:9-13.
Psalm 102:25-27 (Yahweh laid the foundations of the earth) is addressed to the Son in Hebrews 1:10-12.
Isaiah 6 (Isaiah saw the LORD's glory) is said in John 12:41 to be Christ's glory.
Paul even expands the Shema itself in 1 Corinthians 8:6: 'one God, the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ'.

Which text shows the New Testament writers identifying Jesus with Yahweh, and how does it do so?Show answer

Philippians 2:10-11 takes Isaiah 45:23, where every knee bows to Yahweh as the only God, and applies it to Jesus. Similarly, Romans 10:9-13 applies Joel 2:32's 'call on the name of the LORD' to calling on Jesus. Most strikingly, Paul expands the Shema itself in 1 Corinthians 8:6: 'one God, the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ'.

Yahweh texts applied to Jesus
Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2
Joel 2:32 in Romans 10
Shema expanded in 1 Corinthians 8:6

Presenting the Trinity to a Jewish friend

Avoid language that sounds like three gods. (You met the Trinity in Know Your Faith, Lesson 3, and the person of Christ in Lesson 4.) Begin with the Shema: there is one God, and Christians believe that as strongly as any Jew. Then explain that this one God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Tanakh already shows God sending his Word (Psalm 107:20), his Spirit (Isaiah 63:10-11) and his Angel who bears his name (Exodus 23:21). The incarnation is not a man becoming God, which would be idolatry, but the eternal God taking on a true human nature (John 1:14). The term hypostatic union describes this: one person, the Son, with two natures, fully divine and fully human.

How would you explain the Trinity and the incarnation to a Jewish friend without sounding as if you believe in three gods?Show answer

Begin with the Shema: there is one God, and Christians believe that as strongly as any Jew. Explain that this one God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Tanakh already shows God sending his Word, his Spirit and his Angel who bears his name. The incarnation is not a man becoming God, which would be idolatry, but the eternal God taking on a true human nature: one person, the Son, with two natures.

start with the Shema
Word, Spirit and Angel in the Tanakh
not a man becoming God
one person, two natures

In their own words

“Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one: God is absolutely one, not three.” (Deuteronomy 6:4; Maimonides' 2nd Principle)

“God has no body and no likeness; to worship a man is idolatry.” (Deuteronomy 4:15-16; Maimonides' 3rd Principle)

“'Let us make man' means God consulted his heavenly court of angels, teaching humility.” (Rashi on Genesis 1:26; Genesis Rabbah 8)

“'I am the LORD... beside me there is no saviour.' No man can be the saviour.” (Isaiah 43:11)

“Those who say there are two powers in heaven are heretics.” (Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 15a and Berakhot 33b ('two authorities'); compare Sanhedrin 38b on answering heretics)

Key texts

Deuteronomy 6:4: Confess it gladly with your Jewish friend. Explain that echad means one and does not exclude complexity within God's unity.
Genesis 19:24: 'The LORD rained... from the LORD out of heaven': two figures called Yahweh in one verse.
Exodus 3:2-6; 23:20-21: The Angel of the LORD speaks as God and bears God's name. A key Old Testament preparation for the Son.
Psalm 110:1: David calls the Messiah 'my Lord', seated at Yahweh's right hand. Often described as the Old Testament text most quoted or alluded to in the New.
Daniel 7:13-14: The Son of Man rides the clouds and receives everlasting dominion. Jesus claimed this at his trial (Mark 14:62).
1 Corinthians 8:6: Paul places Jesus within the Shema: one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Echad means one. Stop playing word games. Deuteronomy 6:4 refutes the Trinity.”Show a response

I agree that echad means one, and I'm not trying to turn it into 'three'. Christians affirm the Shema without reservation; Jesus called it the first commandment. My point is only that echad does not tell us whether God's oneness is simple or rich, since the same word is used for one flesh and one cluster of grapes. To know what God's oneness is like, we have to listen to the rest of Scripture. And there we find the Angel of the LORD who is both sent by God and called God, two figures called the LORD in Genesis 19:24, and David's Lord at God's right hand. The Trinity is how Christians hold together the Shema and those texts.

“Rabbinic Judaism condemned 'two powers' as heresy. That proves Judaism never accepted a second divine figure.”Show a response

It proves rabbinic Judaism eventually rejected it, which is true. But a heresy has to exist before it can be condemned. Alan Segal, a Jewish scholar, showed that the 'two powers' traditions the rabbis opposed were older and grew partly out of reading Daniel 7, where thrones are set and one like a son of man comes on the clouds. Rabbi Akiva himself suggested a throne for the Messiah beside God (Sanhedrin 38b). Philo spoke of the Logos as a second God. So the question is not whether rabbis later rejected the idea, but whether the Tanakh itself points to it. I think Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 show that it does.

“Genesis 1:26 is God speaking to angels. Christians read the Trinity into everything.”Show a response

That is a common Jewish interpretation, and I don't build the Trinity on Genesis 1:26 alone. But notice the next verse: 'God created man in his own image'. Man is made in God's image, not the angels' image, and angels are never said to create. So 'Let us make' is God speaking within himself, which at least fits plurality within God. I would rather start with clearer passages: the Angel of the LORD who is called God (Genesis 16:13; Exodus 3:2-6), Isaiah 48:16, and Daniel 7. Genesis 1:26 then fits a pattern rather than carrying the whole case.

“However you dress it up, three persons means three gods. You've given up the monotheism of Moses.”Show a response

I'd feel the same if that's what we believed, so let me be clear: Christians confess the Shema. 'The LORD our God is one LORD' (Deuteronomy 6:4); Jesus called it the first commandment (Mark 12:29). We don't believe in three gods or in a man who became God. We believe the one God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Spirit. The Tanakh itself hints at this complexity: the Angel of the LORD is sent by the LORD and yet speaks as the LORD (Exodus 3:2-6); 'the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me' (Isaiah 48:16); God sends his word to heal (Psalm 107:20). The New Testament writers were Jews steeped in the Shema, and they didn't abandon it. Paul even restated it: 'one God, the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Corinthians 8:6).

“The Angel of the LORD is just a messenger. An ambassador speaks in the king's name; that doesn't make him the king.”Show a response

That's a serious answer, and sometimes messengers do speak for the one who sent them. But the Angel of the LORD goes further than an ambassador would. He speaks in the first person as God, saying to Abraham 'thou hast not withheld thy son... from me' (Genesis 22:12). Hagar says she has seen God (Genesis 16:13). At the bush 'God called unto him', and Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look upon God (Exodus 3:4-6). Manoah fears death because 'we have seen God' (Judges 13:22). In Exodus 23:21 God says of his angel, 'my name is in him', and that he has authority over Israel's transgressions. So he is both sent by the LORD and identified as the LORD. Christians believe that pattern is fully revealed when the Father sends the Son.

Written task

Write a 300-400 word reply to a Jewish friend who says, 'The Shema says God is one. The Trinity is three gods, and worshipping a man is idolatry.' Affirm the Shema, explain echad fairly, give at least three Tanakh texts showing plurality in God, and explain what the incarnation does and does not mean.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Affirms the Shema sincerely and avoids tritheistic language
Handles echad honestly without overstating it
Uses at least three of: the Angel of the LORD texts, Genesis 19:24, Isaiah 48:16, Psalm 110:1, Daniel 7:13-14
Distinguishes the incarnation from 'a man becoming God'
If Two Powers is mentioned, represents Segal and Heiser accurately