To the Jew First: The Shema and the Trinity

As part of their prescribed daily prayers, observant Jews recite Deuteronomy 6:4, which as it appears in Hebrew text reads, שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד. Transliterated into English it is pronounced, "Shema Yisra'el YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Echad" (though out of reverence for God's name, YHWH or "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" is typically replaced with adonai, meaning "Lord"). English translations render it something like, "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" This verse is often called the Shema, named after its first word Shema meaning, "to hear."

Christians and Jews alike point to this verse as summarizing the Bible's teaching of monotheism, "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." Christians, however, believe that the Bible teaches that the one and only true God exists nonetheless as a plurality, that within the one being God there exist distinct interpersonal relationships between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As it is often summarized, "three persons" but "one being." Christians are unwavering in their affirmation of monotheism, but because the doctrine of the Trinity transcends human understanding, as well as human ability to communicate it effectively, Jews and non-Christians often confuse Christians as teaching some form of polytheism.

Therefore, Jews often object to Christianity based on either the misunderstanding that it teaches polytheism, or on the belief that the Bible does not allow for a plural understanding of the one God. Does the Shema really militate against any idea of a plural, or Triune, God?

"ONE" OR "ONE"?

The Hebrew word rendered "one" in the Shema is the word echad. Now, at this point, Jews familiar with Christian evangelistic efforts are likely thinking, "Oh no, not this again." This is because some Christians have argued that the word echad intrinsically refers to a compound oneness or unity, such as "one" cluster of grapes. In fact, there are several places in Scripture where it is used in this fashion.

For example, in Genesis 1:5 we read, "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day." This "one day" is explicitly described as being comprised of multiple parts, evening and morning. Agan in Genesis 2:24 we are told, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." This "flesh", despite being "one", is nonetheless composed of a man and a woman. And in Ezra 2:64, "the whole assembly" is called "one" but is comprised of many people.

However, skeptical Jews are right to point out that this is not the only way in which this word is used. In Genesis 2:11, "one" river is called "the Pishon", and probably is not used with the knowledge that a river is a collective of numerous water molecules. In Genesis 2:21, God takes "one" of Adam's ribs, referring to a singe rib, not a collection of bones. And in Nehemiah 5:18, an ox is not likely called "one" because it is comprised of millions of replicating cells.

Thus, it does not appear as though the word echad intrinsically carries the meaning of "one in unity," but rather may just as often, if not more often, mean "one in number." However, it is nonetheless relevant that the word can refer to a oneness in unity, a compound unity. If the word has several meanings, we must look to the context to see which of those meanings are valid, and which are not.

"ONE" OR "ALONE"?

In context, the Shema does not appear to be emphasizing the "oneness" of God. Instead, the text is emphasizing the unique nature of God, that He and He alone is God, and that there is no other. Moses is conveying God's commandments to Israel, the first of which was reiterated in the previous chapter:

[God] said, "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." (Deuteronomy 5:5-9)

It is interesting that the first of the "Ten Commandments," which sets the stage for the Shema, is to have no gods before the Lord. The reason, in fact, that we are to obey the rest of God's commandments is precisely because He alone is God. He is above all, His authority supercedes all, His nature transcends all. He deserves our obedience because He is God and there is no other. So whenever Moses is communicating God's laws to His people, it is based on the foundation laid with the very first commandment: God is justified in demanding obedience because He is God alone.

This sets the stage for the next chapter containing the Shema. Starting from the beginning of chapter 6,

Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the LORD your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do it, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. (Deuteronomy 6:1-6)

We see, then, a similar pattern as when the commandments were first given, and then reiterated in the previous chapter. The first command in the list emphasizes God's authority, which comes from His uniqueness, and the following commands are authoritative because God, by virtue of being God alone, deserves obedience. Hence, several translations render the verse slightly differently:

Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord [the only Lord]. (Amplified Bible)

Listen, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. (New Living Translation)

Listen, Israel! The LORD our God is the only true God! (Contemporary English Version)

Listen, people of Israel! The Lord our God is the only Lord. (New Century Version)

Israel, listen to me. The Lord is our God. The Lord is the one and only God. (New International Reader's Version)

These translations recognize the emphasis on God's uniqueness, and render the verse accordingly. And, sure enough, the definition of echad includes "only". So the Shema does not cast doubt on the doctrine of a Triune (plural) God. It merely militates against polytheism, and as already pointed out, Christians throughout history who've affirmed belief in the Trinity are unwaveringly monotheistic.

Does the Shema, however, hint at all to God's nature? Is there anything in the text of the Shema that can point us in one direction or another?

ELOHIM, THE PLURAL NOUN

The phrase "our God" in the Shema is the translation of a peculiar word, elohim. In Hebrew, words are either masculine or feminine, and singular nouns are conjugated to make them plural. The word behema, for example, is a feminine noun meaning "beast", and is conjugated as behemoth to make a plural, feminine noun. Similarly, kohen is a singular masculine noun meaning "priest", and is conjugated kohannim to make a plural, masculine noun. Thus, generally speaking (like any language, Hebrew is more complicated than this simplification), a singular, masculine noun is made plural by modifying the ending syllable and adding "im".

In the same way, elohim is the plural conjugation of the singular word, eloha. In the Shema, the literal rendering of the word would be, "our Gods." This is not to suggest that the verse teaches polytheism; as explained above, the emphasis in this verse is God's uniqueness, that He is God and there is no other. And polytheism is militated against throughout the entirety of Scripture. However, the fact that one of the nouns most often used to refer to God is plural in its very nature may hint at something.

ELOHIM, WITH PLURAL VERBS AND PRONOUNS

Verbs in Hebrew are modified based on the subject of the sentence. They, like nouns, have singular and plural forms, and when a verb appears in its singular form then the noun, too, is singular. In many places throughout the Bible, elohim appears with the singular form of a verb, and thus the plural nature of the noun emphasizes God's superiority and transcendence.

However, in other places elohim appears with the plural form of verbs. In Genesis 20:13, the text is rendered "when God caused me to wander from my father's house," but the plural noun elohim is used with the plural verb "they caused me to wander." Again in 2 Samuel 7:23 we're told "God went", and again elohim is used with the plural verb "they went." And in Psalm 58:11 the psalmist sings that "there is a God who judges" combining elohim with the plural verb "they judge."

So the plural nature of the word elohim that appears in the Shema intrinsically suggests a plural nature to God since it often appears with plural verbs. But it doesn't end there. In the same way that the plural noun elohim appears often with plural verbs, it also sometimes appears with plural pronouns. In Genesis 1:26 we're told, "Then God [elohim] said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.'" Again in Genesis 3:22 "the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us." The text is rendered "let Us" and "in Our" and "one of Us" because plural pronouns are being used, rather than the singular pronouns that would be expected of a wholly singular God.

THE LORD IS ONE--IN TRIUNITY

Thus, though the text of the Shema is not in and of itself proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, it nonetheless does not cast doubt on it, either. Quite to the contrary, the plural noun elohim used there, often appearing in conjunction with plural verbs and plural pronouns, hints at the plural nature of God. Indeed, evidence of God's triune nature appears throughout the entirety of the Old Testament, as we will see in future posts in this series.

To the Jew First: An Introduction

Many Christians anticipate the opportunity to witness to their family, friends and others coming from a variety of backgrounds. They study competing world views--atheism, Islam, Buddhism--and Christian counterfeits--Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarianism--in an effort to be better prepared to "exhort in sound doctrine, and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). It sometimes seems, however, that few Christians make a comparable effort to be similarly prepared to evangelize to Jewish unbelievers (myself included).

My hope in starting this series is primarily to be better prepared myself to witness to, and defend Christianity from, unbelieving Jews. Secondarily, however, I hope to make it possible for other Christians to do the same, and to encourage us all to reach out to Jewish people, families and communities with the truth that Jesus is their Messiah. He is their hope, the fulfillment of their history.

But first, in introducing this series I wish to explain its name:

TO THE JEW FIRST

Paul, near the beginning of his letter to the Romans, repeats a peculiar phrase:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 2:9-10)

What does Paul mean when he writes that salvation and tribulation are "to the Jew first?" Some have viewed this phrase as being rather innocuous, as being merely a list in which "the Jew" happens to be mentioned first. According to this view, Paul is merely saying that salvation is to everyone, both Jews and Gentiles, and nothing more should be read into the text. This, however, seems unlikely since the Greek word Paul used, here rendered "first", is prōton and does not mean merely "first in a list in no particular order." Instead, it refers to chronological order, or to preeminence in rank or in honor. Paul's use of the word suggests something more.

Recognizing this, others view this as teaching simply that salvation was offered first to Israel, and upon being rejected was offered next to Gentiles (though without rescinding the offer to Jews). In his commentaries, Matthew Henry wrote in the early 18th century, "The lost sheep of the house of Israel had the first offer made them, both by Christ and his apostles.You first (Acts 3:26), but upon their refusal the apostles turned to the Gentiles, Acts 13:46." The implication is that the apostles began their ministry witnessing to Jews, but at a definite point in history, after continuous rejection from the Jewish people, the apostles moved on, shifting their focus to the Gentiles. David Guzik, director of Calvary Chapel Bible College, Germany, puts it this way in his Study Guide for Romans 1:

The message of the gospel came for the Jew first and also for the Greek (the non-Jew). This was demonstrated both by the ministry of Jesus (Matthew 15:24) and the initial ministry of the disciples (Matthew 10:5-6)...This means that the gospel was meant to go first to the ethnic and cultural Jew, and then to the cultural Greek.

That Jesus came to reach out to the lost sheep of Israel, rather than to Gentiles, is true. Also true is that the ministry of the apostles was at first virtually exclusively directed toward Jews, whereas later God revealed to Peter that he and the Church was to reach out to Gentiles, too. However, once this point was reached, once the Lord revealed to the Church that they were to evangelize to the Gentiles, what was the pattern of their evangelism?

BEHOLD, WE ARE TURNING TO THE GENTILES

Matthew Henry, as quoted above, pointed to the following passage in Acts as evidence that there came a point in time at which the apostles shifted focus, no longer witnessing to Jews with special emphasis:

But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles...When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. (Acts 13:45-51)

This passage is often used as evidence that the apostles "moved on" from the Jews, that they had been given a host of opportunities to accept their message, but finally the apostles "shook off the dust of their feet" and turned to the Gentiles. But is this really what happened? Were Paul and Barnabas finally shifting their focus to the Gentiles?

We find our answer a mere two verses later: "In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together" (Acts 14:1). Yes, in Pisidian Antioch, Paul and Barnabas first witnessed to the Jews (Acts 13:14), and upon being rejected turned to the Gentiles. But then, upon traveling to Iconium, they again first witnessed to the Jews. Later, "they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:1-2). Next, "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews" (Acts 17:10). While waiting for his escorts in Athens, Paul "was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles" (Acts 17:17). Then, upon arriving at Corinth, "he found a Jew" and "stayed with them" and "was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath" (Acts 18:1-4). Next he "came to Ephesus, and...he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews" (Acts 18:19).

Thus, after turning to the Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch, he arrives in Iconium and goes to the Jews first. He repeats this pattern in Thessalonica, and again in Berea, later in Athens, and in Corinth, and in Ephesus. Shaking the dust off his feet and "turning to the Gentiles," therefore, was not a distinct event in time, but rather was his pattern everywhere he went. "To the Jew first" appears to have been, not just a claim that salvation was intended for the Jews first but then was expanded to include the Gentiles, but was Paul's very mode of evangelism.

Does this have any relevance to Gentile Christians today? Should we, like Paul apparently did, make a special effort to evangelize to Jewish unbelievers, regardless of which other groups of people we feel called to reach?

GOD IS NOT ONE TO SHOW PARTIALITY

One might object at this point, quoting Paul himself who said, "God is not one to show partiality" (Acts 10:34). In fact, he said this in the very passage where he wrote "to the Jew first", saying, "glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God" (Romans 2:10-11). Peter said God "made no distinction between us [Jews] and them [Gentiles], cleansing their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). If God does not show partiality, and if there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, wouldn't an emphasis on Jewish evangelism be a showing of partiality where God shows none? The making of a distinction where no such distinction exists?

Paul gives us a clue in his letter to the Galatians where he wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Here Paul says that in the same way "there is neither Jew nor Greek...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," teaching this same concept of there being no distinctions between people when it comes to salvation. Yet, Paul also wrote to the Corinthians saying, "the man is the head of a woman" (1 Corinthians 11:3). He wrote the same to the Ephesians saying, "the husband is the head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23). Stranger still, perhaps, are these words from Paul:

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

If Paul's having said "there is neither male nor female" means that there is no distinction whatsoever between men and women, then why does he say "the husband is the head of the wife," and "let [women] ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church?" Paul himself is making a distinction between men and women. What does this mean?

The passages that speak of there being no distinction between peoples teach that there is no difference in salvation, no excluding one group in favor of the other. Both men and women find salvation in Christ. Both slave and free. And yes, both Jew and Gentile. However, that does not mean that they are completely without distinction. As men and women serve different roles in the household and in the Church, so, too, might Jews and Gentiles serve different roles in the Church as well.

What distinction might there be, then, between Jews and Gentiles? Why is it that Paul's pattern appears to have been to witness "to the Jew first" in every town to which he traveled? Why might we have a similar calling to place special emphasis on Jewish evangelism?

TO MAKE THEM JEALOUS

Paul, the very apostle who repeatedly wrote that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, wrote this in his epistle to the Romans: "What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened...by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous" (Romans 11:7,11). Certainly there are several noteworthy reasons God expanded the recipients of the gospel to include Gentiles, but here we see that at least one specific reason Gentiles were granted salvation is "to make [Jews] jealous."

However, it is not without purpose that God intends to use Gentiles to move Jews to jealousy. Paul also wrote, "I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them" (Romans 11:13-14). Christians, arguably Gentile Christians in particular, have a purpose, one major one (among several, perhaps) being moving Jews to return to their God. If we have a role to fill, one of moving Jews to repentance, to embracing their Messiah, then it stands to reason that preparedness to witness to Jewish unbelievers ought to be a priority. And this purpose would also explain Paul's pattern of evangelism.

It is for this reason that I begin this series. My analysis may be flawed, but it certainly seems to me that when Christians reach out with passion to atheists, to Muslims, to Buddhists, and to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and to Unitarians, if we're not making a comparable effort to witess to Jews, we're neglecting part of the very reason we Gentiles were saved to begin with. "Salvation is from the Jews," (John 4:22) Jesus said. As Gentiles, we've been "cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree," (Romans 11:24) which is Israel. And if we put forth the effort, we can have a huge impact, because "how much more will [Jews] who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?"

How great it is when Jewish people turn from their disbelief and embrace the Jewish Savior, "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:15)