Christians, in venerating the crucifix, the antitypical ‘brass serpent,’ commit the same error as the polytheists and heretics of ancient Judah. (John 3:14; 2 Kings 18:4) When asked why they are worshiping a Jewish carpenter who was crucified 1,969 years ago, the most sense they can make of it is that "He died for us."

The Christian doctrine of the nature of G-d is much more complex than the beliefs of monotheists such as Jews or Muslims. However, Christians insist that their standpoint is directly implied by the teachings of the Jewish (Hebrew) Bible. Although they do retain the Hebrew Bible (a.k.a. ‘Old Testament’) within their canon, they believe that the ‘New Testament’ is the key to its correct interpretation.

Is this attitude substantially different from the assertions of modern sectarians, who peddle ‘Watchtowers’ and Mormon testaments as infallible supplements to Scripture? There’s only one way to find out: the Hebrew Bible needs to be allowed to speak for itself---especially on the subject of G-d’s nature. Christian doctrine, like any responsible interpretation, must rise or fall based on its harmony with G-d’s words.

We’ve got to start somewhere, so might as well start with the basics. According to the Hebrew Bible, what is a ‘god?’

Obviously, ‘God’ is an English word. The source we’re going to be working with here, the Jewish Bible, was mostly written in the Semitic language known as ‘Hebrew.’ With out doubt, accurate understanding of ancient Hebrew nuances will be out of the average reader’s comfort zone. At first blush, knowledge of Hebrew may seem a daunting tedium but the unexpected result can open floodgates of understanding into Yah’s divine truth.

There is so much to discover! Really, there are no infallible translations of the Bible. The only truly God-breathed Bible is the one that came from the first writers’ pens---in Hebrew.

With that in mind, key words to consider include g-d, YHWH, worship, one (echad), temple and the word angel (mal’ak) which literally means ‘messenger.’ This definition will be helpful in your understanding of what follows.

Also see Genesis 31:29 & Deuteronomy 28:32.

Also see Psalm 80:10.

Given these words’ full range of meaning, it would be a great mistake to assume that whenever an elohim or ‘god’ is mentioned, it must necessarily refer to the Supreme Being. In the context of the Hebrew Bible, the word ‘God’ means simply ‘Mighty One.’

Having established that the Hebrew Scriptures allow for the existence of many mighty ones, or ‘gods,’ the question that naturally follows is, which of them are to be worshiped? All of them? Some of them? Or only One...?

We must first determine what the Hebrew Bible means by the word ‘worship.’ John Nelson Darby, one of the fathers of modern Fundamentalism, states in the revised preface to the second edition of his Bible translation:

As Mr. Darby’s comment illustrates, even the English word ‘worship’ has not always referred to the dedication belonging exclusively to G-d. Lest Darby should be suspected of some unorthodox motive, let it be known that his good faith as a Christian is beyond reproach.

With one exception (Jeremiah 44:19) ‘shachah’ underlies every occurrence of the word ‘worship’ in the King James Version of the Hebrew Scriptures. It does not refer to the reverence, which is G-d’s alone. Here are two other examples:

The basic word underlying "bowed himself" in these verses is ‘shachah.’ Would prophets like Abraham or Nathan be so foolish as to actually deify another mere mortal? Of course not! They were only being respectful, humble, yes even polite, as were those in the Gospel narrative who bowed before Yahshua` (Jesus). Those who bowed to Yahshua` recognized him not as a ‘God-Man’ but as a man of G-d. And in one instance, Yahshua` (like the angel of Revelation---Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9) refused even that token of respect! It seems that Yahshua` himself had no idea that he was ‘God.’ -Mark 10:18.

l

The Scriptures are emphatic that there are no mighty ones apart from, equal to, or independent of the Creator. In fact, the canon of Scripture contains dozens of explicit declarations to this effect, such as, Deut. 4:35; 6:4; 32:39; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kings 8:60; 2 Kings 19:15, 19; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 18:31; 86:10; Isa. 37:16, 20; 43:10-11; 45:21; 46:9; Hos. 13:4; Joel 2:27; & Zek. 14:9. Also see James 2:19; 4:12.

All beings, by nature, are indebted to YHWH for their existence. Though there are many ‘gods,’ YHWH Elohim is the greater (Exodus 18:11), and has consistently expressed Himself as One Personality of limitless greatness.

Even the celestial beings worship YHWH---He is the G-d of the gods themselves. He is Ael-aelim, (Daniel 11:36) Ael-elohim, (Joshua 22:22; Psalm 50:1) Elohaey-ha’elohim, (Deut. 10:17; Psalm 136:2) and in the words of Nebuchadnezzar, Alaahh-alaahin. (Daniel 2:47) The ancient Yahwists always revered Him as predominant over the other mighty ones. (Ps. 86:8-10; 89:6-8; 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9; 135:5; 138:1) He alone is the Supreme and Almighty G-d. -Genesis 14:18, 19, 20, 22; 17:1.

Our ultimate loyalty, which is what ‘worship’ means in modern English, belongs exclusively to the Supreme One, our Creator. Although it was permissible, during the time of the Hebrew Scriptures, to bow down to (i.e. ‘worship’) G-d’s representatives, this only happened when they were actually serving as His representatives. In no meaningful sense is an angel up in heaven serving as G-d’s representative, and thus it would be idolatry to worship it. This would amount to venerating the angel for its own sake---taking the angel as a mighty one beside YHWH. The same is true whether such an angel or ‘mighty one’ is viewed just as a saint, or as ‘G-d’s Son’ himself.

l

Seeing that the title ‘God’ or ‘mighty one’ does not specifically apply to YHWH, we might wonder if there is any term which does. The Hebrew title `elyon (meaning ‘Supreme’ or ‘Most High’) refers exclusively to YHWH, and is one of His regular Scriptural designations. (Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 9:2; 18:13; 21:7; 50:14; 92:1; Lam. 3:38; Hos. 7:16; 11:7) No texts describe the Messiah (or anyone else) as most high, except within a limited category. For example,

Only YHWH is Most High in the absolute sense. Because of His supreme position and authority, the word ‘G-d’ (mighty one) applies to Him in a unique way. Along similar lines, He describes Himself as the "Rock" (tsur), although literally there are many rocks---Num. 23:9. He says,

His words are echoed by David’s challenge:

When YHWH says that there is no god (mighty one) beside Him, the meaning of the Hebrew is that none can exist without Him. According to the Langenscheidt Pocket Hebrew Dictionary by Dr. Karl Feyerabend, the word translated as "besides" in the original Hebrew of Isaiah 44:8 primarily means:

YHWH is saying that there is no mighty one independent from Him. He is the Source of all strength. A little later in Isaiah we read,

The Hebrew word here translated as ‘other’ is defined by Langenscheidt as,

YHWH is saying that He has no double, that no one is like Him or beyond Him. However, He has never denied that there are mighty ones other than (achaer, literally ‘behind’) Him; He has just commanded us not to serve them. -Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 5:7; 8:19.

In every way the Supreme One stands in a class by Himself. His very name, YHWH, sets Him immeasurably above and beyond all ‘gods.’ The precise meaning of the Tetragrammaton is in some dispute, but the Apocalypse of John summarizes the ‘gist’ of it:

No other god has right or claim to His name, since He only has existed before all things, and He alone has caused the universe to exist. The things He will yet become to His creatures (even as He has already become Creator, Father, Lawgiver, and Savior) cannot even be imagined. The total extent of His elohut will never be fully revealed within space and time. Throughout the endless aeons, there shall always remain room for yet greater revelations of His transcendent qualities. Master YHWH will never cease to amaze us.

Who else but Him could rightfully be regarded as the object of our spiritual devotion?

Few Christians nominally dissent from the doctrine of the Oneness of God. They consider God, the Creator Himself, to subsist in a society of several co-equal personalities, "One God in Three Persons," as they put it. Christians argue from the Hebrew Bible to support their contention.

They often interpret the word elohim, used by the Scriptures as a title for G-d, to imply a multi-personal ‘god-head.’ As stated above, ‘elohim’ is a plural word meaning ‘mighty ones’ or ‘powers.’ But nowhere in the Bible does this word signify a multi-personal being. At most, it refers to a single individual with numerous ‘powers,’ or acting through several agencies.

YHWH did not say He was making Moses like an elohim. He actually did make Moses into an elohim! This proves that the term ‘elohim’ of itself has no multi-personal significance. As a further example, Joseph ben-Jacob, who became ruler of Egypt, is described in Scripture as,

True, the word ‘elohim’ sometimes does refer to multiple gods. However, it receives a singular verb when applied to just one person. This happens not only when applied to YHWH, but also in the case of pagan deities who were not viewed as trinities.

There is no evidence that the god of the Philistines, Dagon, was viewed as a multi-personal being. However, the Philistines probably did consider their supreme deity to possess many ‘powers,’ or degrees of excellence!

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch and revised in its second English edition by A. E. Cowley, in section 124 under the heading "The Various Uses of the Plural-form," makes the following comment:

Thus, when the Bible refers to YHWH as ‘Elohim,’ it is because He has multiple powers, not multiple personalities! Christian misunderstanding of the Hebrew word for ‘god’ lies at the root of the problem. In its broadest sense, the Hebrew word for ‘god’ does not mean ‘divine person,’ but ‘divine power.’

l

There are a few places in Scripture where YHWH Himself speaks in the first person plural form. As we might expect, the Church insists upon these as proof for a plural ‘god-head.’ However, as human beings, we speak in the first person plural all the time, and yet very few of us have multiple personalities! G-d does the same thing:

Here G-d is speaking on behalf of His celestial retinue. The same can be shown to apply in all cases, including Genesis 1:26, 27 (the churchmen’s favorite passage):

This text does not teach that G-d Himself consists of many beings. Instead, G-d was just speaking to His angels. The Hebrew word specifically applying to the Almighty’s creative activity is bara. This term is used starting in Genesis 1:1, and on through the rest of the creation account. However, it is not used in verse 26. Elohim did not say, "Let us create," but rather "Let us make," since His partners in this activity were themselves creatures---the celestial retinue. Thereafter, verse 27, describing Elohim’s individual activity, does use the word ‘bara’ of the creation of man. Thus, Elohim created man, but was assisted by ‘makers.’ Man is in the image of YHWH as well as the creatures who worked with YHWH in making humanity.

If a plural term such as ‘us’ must always refer to multiple persons, then it is safe to assume that a singular pronoun, until proven otherwise, must always refer to a single person. In light of this, what are Christians to make of YHWH’s statement in Deuteronomy 32:39:

Which ‘personality’ of the god-head is speaking here? None of them! The existence of this Person precludes a ‘god-head’ of co-equal supreme beings.

And here is a question, which no Christian in his right mind will answer:

The singleness of G-d’s Person over-arches whatever plurality there may be in His powers, His modes of activity, or His heavenly ‘staff.’ We must keep this in mind while studying the other texts where G-d speaks in the first person plural. -Genesis 3:22; 11:7.

l

There are certain texts that seem to speak of several separate individuals under the name of YHWH. These texts are frequently ventured as evidence for the Christian ‘god-head.’ One example:

Biblical Hebrew possesses nothing analogous to quotation marks, nor most other signs of punctuation. Especially in prophetic and poetic literature, the speakers often change with no warning. The distinctions must be determined contextually. We might punctuate Zekariah 2:11 like so:

Hmmm...but why would G-d refer to Himself by His name, rather than a pronoun? If He was really One Person, wouldn’t He say, ‘Many nations shall be joined to ME in that day...?’ Not necessarily. Sometimes it’s okay in Biblical Hebrew for a person to refer to himself by his name rather than a pronoun. For example, Solomon said,

Here is another instance:

Neither Solomon, nor Jeroboam (to our knowledge) had multiple personalities! Their statements were perfectly allowable within the framework of Hebrew usage.

Another popular text for the ‘two Yahwehs’ theory is Genesis 19:24:

Does this prove the existence of a bipartite G-d? No---unlike English, Hebrew is not so insistent upon the use of pronouns. Genesis 19:24 states nothing more than that YHWH rained fire and brimstone from Himself out of heaven. A further example of this usage:

The above text is not, by any stretch of the imagination, speaking of two "Rehoboams." It just says that he assembled the tribes in order to bring the kingdom back to himself.

Isaiah 44:6 is often invoked in favor of a dual god-head:

However, this text does not say that there are two ‘G-ds.’ Keeping in mind that ancient Hebrew did not have punctuation marks, the verse might just as well be read,

l

A more involved argument for the Christian plural ‘god-head’ asserts that the "Angel of YHWH," a frequently appearing Biblical character, is the pre-incarnate Messiah and a member of the god-head. This standpoint is often argued from the following texts:

Not a mere human being speaking here! YHWH Himself is the One sending the former and latter rain. -Joel 2:23.

There are several Biblical examples of angels speaking, acting, or being referred to as "YHWH." One notable example is in Genesis, at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot addresses two angels as "YHWH." (Gen. 19:18) Since the attached pronoun is singular, we know that these angelic ‘men’ were not YHWH, but instead agents through whom YHWH acted, spoke, and heard. They were ‘possessed’ by Him. Angels not infrequently stand in this capacity in Scripture. -Genesis 31:11-13; Exodus 13:21; 14:19, 21, 24; Judges 6:11-17.

Are such angels therefore ‘lesser Yahwehs?’ Strictly, no. The name ‘YHWH’ does not appear in the plural form in Scripture. Nor is the line between YHWH’s angelic manifestations and His actual Person, ever blurred. He is YHWH `elyon. (Psalm 7:17; 47:2) No other being shares His supreme status. Someday, He Himself will reside on Earth with man, thus eliminating the need for prophets, middle-men, or angels to bear His name to others. In that day, not only will there be One YHWH, but His name shall also be one. -Zekariah 14:9.

l

One of the most misleading of the Christian ‘god-head’ arguments is built around a so-called ‘Bible contradiction.’ At Exodus 33:20, YHWH said to Moses,

Yet in Deuteronomy 34:10 we read:

The seeming contradiction is heightened with reference to one of several divine epiphanies recorded in the Torah. (i.e. Exodus 24:10; Numbers 12:5, 6, 8) Christians suggest John 1:18 as the only explanation for the dilemma: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed Him."

Actually, there is no need to resort to theories of a plural God-head here. The text never says that Moses saw YHWH’s face. At most, he saw His "similitude." Moshe didn’t need to see G-d’s face in order to receive a face-to-face communication from Him. For example, the Israelites never even saw YHWH’s similitude (Deuteronomy 4:15), and yet Moses said to them:

The Israelites encountered YHWH’s face through a mediator, Moses; and their encounter was not visual, but auditory. (Deut. 4:33) Moses’ encounter with YHWH’s face was likewise auditory (Exodus 33:11) rather than visual, and with one exception (Exodus 33:18-23) was probably mediated through an angel.

l

Some Christian proof-texts are based upon uncertain or anomalous readings in the Hebrew. Zekariah 12:10 is the foremost example that comes to mind:

So---was YHWH Himself the one pierced on the cross? Not necessarily. There are other translations of this verse. The Koren Jerusalem Bible reads:

The JPS Tanakh, another excellent Jewish translation, reads:

There is some suspicion that the Hebrew text itself has suffered corruption. The American Standard Version footnote mentions that some manuscripts read,

l

Christians often draw radical conclusions from the handful of texts appearing to describe a super-human prophet or divine Messiah. Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 are two classics of this genre.

When studying such texts, we should keep in mind that YHWH, as G-d, is not a man. (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9) Being the ultimate, He does not change. (Psalm 102:27; Malaki 3:6; compare James 1:17b, NT) Given these two conditions, it’s very hard to see how (or why) He would ever be born as a mortal.

When evaluated objectively, the proof-texts for Christian incarnationism do not even come close to saying what the Church would like them to say. Isaiah 7:14 is a particularly telling example:

The name `Immanu’ael, as it is claimed, means "G-d With Us." The New Testament applies this verse directly to Jesus’ conception (Matt. 1:22, 23), and Christians take this for proof of Jesus being the incarnate Creator.

However, the Church interpretation is unjustified on two levels. First, as we have clearly seen, the Hebrew word ael does not specifically refer to YHWH. It can refer to a ‘god’ of any sort. See Psalm 82:1, 6, 7. Second, the name `Immanu’ael appears again at Isaiah 8:8, and its correct meaning is given in verse 10:

The true purpose of the child’s name, it seems, is to memorialize the spiritual presence of the Mighty One (G-d) with His servants, rather than to identify the child himself as a god.

The strongest of all the incarnationist proof texts is Isaiah 9:6. Not only is it considered irrefutable evidence of the Messiah’s deity, but is also taken by Christian Modalists to identify Christ as ‘God the Father.’

In Hebrew usage, rulers and priests were sometimes referred to as ‘fathers’ and female rulers as ‘mothers.’ (Isaiah 22:21; Judges 5:7; 17:10) Since the Messiah will reign endlessly, he is quite appropriately called "everlasting father."

Some argue that the Mighty Chief of Isaiah 9:6 is shown to be YHWH by what is said in Isaiah 10:21...but let’s get real---just because the people "return" to him does not mean he is YHWH. Hosea 3:5 states that the children of Yisra’ael will return, and seek after YHWH and David their king: a clear parallel, in my opinion, to Isaiah 10:20, 21.

One of the most common incarnationist proof-texts is Malaki 3:1:

l

This discussion would not be complete without reviewing the peculiar Church interpretation of the Shema`, the most pivotal declaration of YHWH’s Oneness in the Torah.

The Church asserts that the Hebrew word echad, plainly translated as "one" in all Bibles, actually means ‘united.’ Thus, the Shema` is interpreted to mean ‘The Lord is the United One.’ This pseudo-etymology is exposed as soon as we scratch the surface. ‘Echad’ is the actual Hebrew word for the number one---numero uno. It is consistently used in this sense throughout the Hebrew Bible. It also has the meaning of ‘alone.’

The word ‘echad,’ standing by itself, does not mean ‘united’ or ‘together.’ It gains this meaning by receiving the prefix of ‘k-’ (kaf), or sometimes ‘b-’ (bet). The literal translation of k-echad is ‘like one,’ or ‘as one.’ The Shema` does not use this term. It describes YHWH as being literally, numerically One: Echad, without any loopholes, stray clauses, or room for linguistic gymnastics.

Some Christians, sounding eerily like ancient pagans and pantheists, object that such stringent monotheism places a limitation on G-d. But really, quite the opposite is true. By telling us that the Supreme One exists eternally static in the form of three personalities, Church doctrine itself places a limitation on G-d. Infinity cannot be sliced three ways, as though it were some kind of object within time and space.

The Bible consistently reveals YHWH as One Person of limitless greatness. His infinite understanding defines all things, even things which are immeasurable from our perspective. (Psalm 147:4, 5) What folly for us to try defining His G-dhood in terms of some sort of numerical plurality! YHWH is not just One---He is Unique.

Sadly, for lots of people, religion is just a way of spicing up the dreary round of ordinary every day reality. To them, reality is something to be evaded, avoided, and subverted at every opportunity. Their beliefs, when compared to reality, frequently just don’t add up. And they really do not care. The objective truth behind their creed only passingly concerns them. So long as these doctrines give them a sense of security and self-importance, all other concerns have no relevance.

I suspect you are not one of those people. You’ve just read through a paper which, despite my best efforts, was probably at times tedious, and potentially hostile to your convictions. Obviously, you know that such things matter. ‘Who’ and ‘what’ we worship does make a difference. But why?

If I would venture one last opinion before putting this paper to a finish, it would be this: When we are careful in choosing the object of our worship, we are not only showing respect for G-d, but also for ourselves. Do not people cheapen themselves by throwing away their spiritual devotion to golden gods, to animals, to religious and political demagogues, and to constructs of their own imaginations? In my opinion, even more so than prostitutes and junkies! Read Ezekiel 16:30-34 to find out why. Also see Jeremiah 3:1-9 and Ezekiel 23.

Many modern-minded people cannot tolerate the idea of a jealous G-d. But G-d’s jealousy does not stem from some kind of insecurity about His own Godhood. The Hebrew word for ‘jealous’ also means ‘zealous.’ G-d is zealous for us! We are created in His own image, and when we worship worthless gods, we are devaluing both ourselves and our great Creator.

Now there’s a lot to think about! Shalom.

q