Abstract
Hebrew: dx'(a, hw”ïhy> WnyheÞl{a/ hw”ïhy>
Transliteration: YHWH ´élöhênû YHWH ´eHäd
Word-for-word translation: Yahweh God of us, Yahweh one
King James’ Version: The LORD our God is one LORD
Aim: Is ´eHäd in this text about ‘unity’ or numerical ‘one’? I argue that ´eHäd, an adjective qualifying ‘Yahweh’, is performing its normal quantitative role as the cardinal numeral ‘one’, and thus (the) ‘unity’ (of Yahweh) is not its intended sense. This presentation should also affirm that Scriptural revelation insists Yahweh is one, not a unity. That He, (with singular pronouns), is indivisible, the sole occupant of the category ‘God’.
Introduction
Deut 6:4’s ´eHäd, Trinitarians claim, is ‘one’ of ‘unity’, specifically “compound unity”. However, they also cite Jesus’ usage to insist that the numerical sense of ‘one’ applies:
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he… Mark 12:32 (KJV)
For Trinitarians, Deut 6:4 is a gift proof text. It features, for example, in ‘Article I: “I Believe in One God’” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1999), where “God is unique; there is only one God.”[1] Maintaining this sense of ‘one’, having “faith in God, the only one”,[2] aligns with Scriptural (unitarian) language about God, and thus the Shema text can be cited as if their creed were totally faithful to it.[3]
Yet, mention of ‘one’ facilitates talk of ‘[tri]-unity’. Presupposing a ‘tri-une’ God, ´eHäd is read as more-than-one-as-one; whence, “compound unity”. A Hebrew abstract noun for ‘unity’, different in form from ´eHäd, but a cognate of ‘one’, does not occur in the Hebrew Bible.[4] Had a term like ´aHdût been used in Deut 6:4, then not only would ‘unity’ be the statement’s sense, ‘one’ singular would not have been possible.
Conceptual clarification is necessary, here. Whilst ‘one’ can be transposed in sense (in the relevant usage and context) as the metaphoric ‘one’ = unity (‘oneness’); the term ‘unity’ cannot be deconstructed (back) to ‘one’; the composition of ‘unity’ requires more than one. So, on these terms, if ‘unity’ were the sense of ´eHäd (though it is not the Hebrew for ‘unity’), then numerical ‘one’ which Trinitarians rightly insist on, and Scripture’s own commentary confirms, would not be a possible feature of this Deuteronomy text.
So, Deut 6:4, used in the Trinitarian’s dual way, serves their purposes. But it should not be overlooked that the text is used by them to insist that ´eHäd numbers a singular ‘one (thing)’ lest they should be charged with ‘tri-theism’ (that they believe in three Gods); thus God as one being means (their) monotheism is upheld. However, ‘one’ is being subtly used in two different ways, as is also the case with respect to (what it is to be) ‘God’.
It is clear from the New Testament (NT) and Jesus’ usage, that talk about ‘Yahweh’ qualified by ´eHäd in Deut 6:4, is about the same referent as either ‘God’ or ‘the Lord’. (Not for subordinationist reasons, but to avoid confounding the “three divine persons”, Trinitarians distinguish Jesus as Lord from his Father as Lord). In the NT it is ‘Lord’ in the place of Old Testament (OT) ‘Yahweh’ that is qualified by ‘one’:
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. Mark 12:29 (KJV)
Jesus maintained that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), so these next two (eschatological) texts will share the same theological viewpoint about Yahweh/Lord as Jesus’ use of Deut 6:4. None of the cited statements suggests ‘unity’ but rather ‘one (thing)’, as also intended in the limiting sense of ‘alone’[5]:
And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one. Zech 14:9
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth. Ps 83:18. [My bold text.]
I adduce these texts and others in this article to show what ‘one Yahweh’ conceptualises for ancient Israel, about their relation to God by His name, for their Godly observance (Deut 12:29-32), and to prevent polytheistic compromise or confusion. Moreover, modern Christadelphian unitarians are conditioned by the same ‘one’ that associates with the Father only being God: “To us there is but one God, the Father” (1 Cor 8:6, cf. Mal 3:10). How could ‘unity’ apply to the self-complete, perfect, one-person, unchangeable God of the Bible? How important ‘one’ is (instead) to the doctrine of God as Yahweh.
I do not deny that unity associates with God or His name; Jesus’ authority in John 17 teaches that. Indeed, ´élöhênû―‘our God’―in Deut 6:4 presents a relational God, one to whom the approved ‘us’ (Israel/saints) are united (cf. Exod 3:6, 12, 14-15; 6:7; Num 16:5; Rev 21:3, 7; 1 Cor 15:28). Even if ‘Yahweh’ is a class-name for the set of the redeemed (Rev 14:1), those kept in God’s name (John 17:11-12) are not Yahweh; He remains Himself.
However, I take it that ‘unity’ presupposes the uniting or harmonious relation of at the least two parts or parties. Eve made for Adam has been expressed thus: “Each for the other―a unity in two”.[6] In Biblical cases, as with our first parental pair, the sense of ‘one’ as unity is usually apparent. Man and woman are and typify “a communion of persons”[7]; “they two shall be one flesh” (Matt 19:5-6) cites what the original Divine joining facilitated (Gen 2:24; a type for Rev 21:2-10).[8] Divine joining is the presupposition in these cases, too: “I and my Father, we are one” (John 10:30),[9] or “that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11, 21-22; 1 Cor 15:28).
These instances use the number ‘one’ to present ‘one-ness’. This is not the concrete counting of objects as ‘one (thing)’ but a bonding measured by ‘one’ as a single qualitative property. ‘Oneness’, or the unity of a “multitude which no man can number” (Rev 7:9)[10], is transcendental, on a scale reckonable only by Yahweh who’s “understanding is infinite” (Ps 147:5).[11]
In what follows, as my treatment’s exposition is partly for apologetic purposes, I occasionally cite non-Biblical sources.
[1] Terms of Reference
On YHWH and ´élöhênû
My prime focus is how the use of the term ´eHäd in the Hebrew Bible (HB) can inform us of its meaning in the Shema of Deut 6:4. I develop this in section [2] and connect with the New Testament (NT) ‘one’ in relation to God. The KJV’s italicised ‘is’, in ‘is one’, notes the absence of a verb. YHWH ´eHäd can be ‘one Yahweh’ as in Zech 14:9 (KJV), which also has “and his name one” (ûšümô ´eHäd ).
On YHWH
- The two KJV English non-name renderings ‘The LORD’ and ‘LORD’ are not representing the original Hebrew which has two instances of God’s name ‘Yahweh’.
- There are ‘lord’ terms in the HB, but the Holy Spirit has not used them in Deut 6:4.
- So, ´eHäd is not qualifying a ‘Lord’ form in Deut 6:4 but the Divine name.[12]
- Of course, the capitalised ‘LORD’ device perpetuates the Jewish practice of avoiding reading or pronouncing the 6828 instances of the Divine name in the HB.[13]
- In Mark 12:29-34, compliant with the NT’s mode of presentation, the citation of this Deut 6:4 text is given with the Greek ‘Lord’ ku,rioj/kurios.
- It is anachronistic to treat the OT as if it were the NT, or to cite NT’s kurios quotational replacement for OT ‘Yahweh’ to justify ‘Lord’ (or other) replacements of ‘Yahweh’ back in the OT.[14]
- God speaks solely to His son in rare moments in the NT, but there is no use of ‘Yahweh’ or His ‘I’-speak as in the OT. This theological difference is marked by Jesus using His Father’s ‘I’ (e.g., John’s “I am” – egō eimi) and manifesting God’s name.[15]
- The prophetic focus on God’s name being again made known is presented in Ezek 38:23; 39:6-7 (cf. 48:35), as well as Zech 14:9 already cited (a text clearly linked to Deut 6:4), to be realised theophanically by Jesus’ as he intimated: “And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it” (John 17:26).
On ´élöhênû
I only draw attention, here, to the grammatical and semantic features of ´élöhênû. I do not expound its meaning from comparative usage, as ‘one Yahweh’ is my focus. However, the relational ‘God of us’ or ‘our God’ (cf. ´élöhîm) is about the kind of God ‘one Yahweh’ is.
- ‘Our God’, ´élöhênû, is the plural ´élöhîm shortened to (the genitive) ´élöhê: ‘God of’.
- This form has the suffix nû meaning ‘our(s)’ or ‘us’ (cf. nû in ‘Immanuel’).
- So, ´élöhênû stated in English is: ‘God of us’ or “our God”.
- The plural ´élöhîm, rather than the singular terms for ‘God’ ´él and ´élôªh, is used for the relating, through theophanic extending, of God to others.
- It is this functional differentiation (a ‘value-addedness’) between plural ´élöhîm and the singular ‘God’ terms, that in Deut 6:4 conditions, or reciprocally is conditioned by, “Yahweh is one”.
[2] Term for ‘One’
On ´eHäd and ‘one’
- a) Compound unity versus counting
Trinitarians claim that the Hebrew word ´eHäd translated ‘one’ in Deut 6:4, denotes a compound unity, not a simple unity. So, ‘unity’ is what ‘one’ means for them in this text. However, their idea of Divine ‘unity’ as “compound unity” is an interpretation regulated by preconception. It would help if there was a Biblical Hebrew term, a cognate of ‘one’ especially, which was the abstract noun ‘unity’.[16]
An example of ‘compound unity’ often given is where ‘one’ is applied to ‘day’ (lit. ‘day one’) in Gen 1:5 (yôm ´eHäd: KJV “first day”), because ‘day’ is made-up of parts: morning and evening, or day and night. However, in Zech 14:7, mention is made of a future ‘one day’ which does not have, or is denied (such day and night) parts; another is Joshua’s ‘day’. This makes clear, as in ‘day one of the first month’ (Ezra 10:17), that the role of ‘one’ qualifying ‘day’ is simply numbering, or time-marking in Gen 1:5. ‘Compound unity’ is not a relevant functional feature of ‘day one’. No explicit or implied consideration of the uniting of parts (two or more to make ‘one’) is taking place.
In Genesis 1, following use of the cardinal ‘one’ in v. 5, subsequent numbering of days use ordinal numbers (‘second’ 1:8, ‘third’ 13, etc.). In Gen 2:10-14, this same sequential pattern, starting with ‘one’ (KJV “the first” hä´eHäd), then continuing with ‘second . . . fourth’ is repeated in relation to the four rivers. Taking ´eHäd or ‘one’ to be about ‘unity’ is governed by the notion of a compound that is ‘three-in-one’: unity as tri-unity. There are three related or united persons in their one God(head). The Catholic Catechism affirms,
- The Trinity is One (para 253).
- We do not confess three Gods but one God in three persons, the ‘consubstantial Trinity’ (para 253).
- The Divine Unity is Triune (para 254).
- God is one but not solitary (para 254).[17] (My underlining.)
- b) ‘Unity’ is special pleading
The analysis that follows shows “for ‘one’ read ‘unity’”, of the kind stated in the Catechism, above, is special pleading. Biblical proof is needed to show that ´eHäd should become ‘unity’ as a different order of ‘one’. Of course, even if ´eHäd in Deut 6:4 were to do with ‘unity’, that does not of itself mean a unity comprised of three (‘Gods’). Indeed, two human persons, or an innumerable redeemed “many becoming ‘one’” (in Christ and in God, his Father) aligns with Biblical precedents. By contrast, 1 John 5:7’s ‘three are one’ is notorious as a spurious trinitarian interpolation.
- In Hebrew idiom, as in Gen 11:6, whether masculine ´eHäd [of ‘people’], or feminine ´aHat [of ‘language’], ‘one’ always follows the noun it quantifies, whereas subsequent cardinal numbers (two, three, four, etc.) precede the noun to which they apply.
- Whatever the semantic or conceptual role of ‘one’/´eHäd in this Deut 6:4 formulation, it is positioned in the normal way so any emphasis or nuance is not obvious.[18]
- Similarly, in Mal 2:10, both ‘father’ and ‘God’ (the singular form ´ēl) are qualified by ´eHäd: “Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?”
To sum up, what we have regarding Israel’s God and ´eHäd / ‘one’ in the OT is a pattern of usage as follows,
‘One Yahweh’ (‘Yahweh is one’) in Deut 6:4 and Zech 14:9.
‘One Father’ and ‘one God’ in Mal 2:10.[19]
‘One name’ (‘name one’) in Zech 14:9.
- c) Greek NT ‘one’ corresponding to HB/OT ´eHäd in statements about God
We have already seen that Jesus cites Deut 6:4 in reply to a question in Mark 12:29:
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. (KJV) (NIV: …the Lord our God, the Lord is one).
ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n ku,rioj ei-j evstin
Lord the God of us Lord one (he/there) is
‘One’ (thing), as in a numbering sense, is explicit in Mark 12:32:And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for one [STE God] there is; and not there is (an)other but he.
o[ti ei-j [STE Qeo.j[20]] vestin kai. ouvk e;stin a;lloj plh.n auvtou/.
There are other NT texts that qualify God, or the Father, by ‘one’ (Gk. ei-j):
John 8:41 We have one Father, God.
1 Cor 8:4 An idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
1 Cor 8:6 But to us, one God, the Father, out of whom are all things.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus.
Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God; you do well.
In 1 Tim 2:5, ‘men’ and ‘God’ are distinct contrasting categories. ‘Men’ (avnqrw,pwn) is the plural of ‘man’ (a;nqrwpoj) which is used of Christ Jesus. God is one, and Jesus, who was a mediator of God[21] and of men as the messenger of the covenant in his ministry, is also one individual. God and his son act in concert or complementarily, but ‘one’ used of the mediator Christ Jesus is not a ‘one’ of ‘unity’; this not the issue, here, although ‘making one’ was what his role achieved.[22] Likewise, ‘one’ is used of God because He is the sole occupant of the set ‘(Most High; Only Wise) God’.
It is of particular note that ‘idol’ in 1 Cor 8:4, a category-term for polytheism, is contrasted with there being only one (who is) God. In the Deuteronomy context, the ‘one’ qualifying ‘Yahweh’ would be a witness against any tendency to go after other named neighbouring gods. God’s name, the vehicle by which He made Himself known (Exod 6:3) to His people, is identified in His acts the one who alone is Yahweh, the ´ēl/God with(in) Israel.
Elsewhere Jesus confirms his words to the scribe about the exclusive singularity (utter uniqueness) of God:
Matt 19:17; cf. Mark 10:18
Why me callest thou good? there is none good but one, that is, God.[23]
BYZ: Ti, me le,geij avgaqo,nÈ Ouvdei.j avgaqo,j( eiv mh. ei-j( o` qeo,jÅ
UBS 3/4: Ti, me evrwta/|j peri. tou/ avgaqou/È ei-j evstin o` avgaqo,j [24]
This “one that is God”, who alone is good, is Jesus’ God, his Father, to whom he prayed (Matt 26:39, 42, 53; 27:46; Mark 15:34), and ascended after his passion (John 14:28; 20:17. Cf. Rev 3:21).
- d) NT quoting an OT text that connects with Jesus’ words about God and ‘good’
In Ps 14:2, Yahweh (God/´élöhîm in the Ps 53:2[3]-3[4] parallel) “looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.” In Ps 14:3, Yahweh/´élöhîm observes:
´ên `ö|SË-†ôb ´ên Gam-´eHäd
there is not one doing good, there is not one even one.
So, here is a case of ‘one’ (´eHäd ↔ e`no,j cf. ei-j), where that amount is denied. Not one of the children of men could be found doing good, or by implication not one sought God (´élöhîm). This is quoted in Rom 3:12:
not there is (the) doing good, not there is as far as/even/ much as one.
BYZ: ouvk e;stin poiw/n crhsto,thta( ouvk e;stin e[wj e`no,j
UBS 3/4: ouvk e;stin o` poiw/n crhsto,thta( Îouvk e;stinÐ e[wj e`no,j
The OT and NT read that a count of the number ‘doing good’ gets nowhere, as not even one can be found. Also, why there is “not one doing good” is explained in Ps 14:3 by use of ‘all’ in the contrast: “They are all gone aside, they are all together (yaHDäw)[25] become filthy.”
This use of Hebrew ´eHäd and its Greek counterpart ei-j or e`no,j is about God’s own numbering use of ‘one’, which cannot be ignored when we look at God’s usage of ´eHäd in Deut 6:4. Here, in this quoted Psalm text, God’s heavenly observation leads Him to (a quantitative) denial of ‘one’. ‘Not one (thing)’ is equal to zero; an empty set.
So, Jesus says there is ‘none good’, which agrees with his Father’s observation in the Ps 14:2-3 about the sons of Adam (Bünê-´ädäm), and adds by contrast that only one is good, his Father, that is God (see the NT texts cited in (c) above). Jesus’ understanding draws on Scripture; his followers do the same.
God’s being in the category of ‘one’ respecting ‘good’, or His own just use of ‘one’ to deny that ‘there is one’ on earth who is good, encourages us to relate this quantifying sense of ‘one’ to God’s revelation that ‘Yahweh is one’ in Deut 6:4.
(e) YHWH ´élöhênû YHWH lö´ ´eHäd: ‘Yahweh our God, Yahweh is not one’
Here is a test of whether ‘one’ can be ‘unity’. I have inserted lö´ the Hebrew for ‘not’[26] in the Shema, thus negating ´eHäd. What this does, as examples below show, is to make ‘unity’ irrelevant, and the only sense to be inferred for ‘one’ from ´eHäd is a restricting or quantitative marking.
A few examples of ‘not one’ using lö´ ´eHäd in the HB[27]:
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Exod 9:6 [but of the cattle of the children of Israel] died not one.
Exod 8:31 there remained not one.
Exod 10:19 there remained not one locust.
Exod 14:28 there remained not among them even one.
Observations
- The above texts show how ‘not one’ is expressed using ´eHäd negated by lö´.
- This negation of ´eHäd denies ‘one’ is there, or that that much can be counted.
- ‘Yahweh is not one’ or ‘not one Yahweh’ is the logical opposite (negation) of ‘Yahweh one’.
- This shows that dx'(a, /´eHäd is not about ‘unity’ but a marker of ‘one’ (thing).
- Therefore, ‘unity’, in this hypothetical formulation, is not denied but ‘one’ is.
- This case of binary opposition is important for establishing the actual semantics of the non-negative form, as in Deut 6:4.
[3] Conclusion
Deut 6:4 is a foundational formula for the Israel of God, in which ‘one’ is the measure by which to recognise and differentiate (the wholly otherness of) Yahweh.
Biblical terms like ‘alone’ and ‘solitary’, or ‘only’ going in the direction of ‘unique’, ‘without equal’, ‘incomparable’, ‘most high’, etc., are true of God as they are of no other being. They complement or share some semantic symmetry with ‘one’. The sense of ‘unity’ is not hidden within them.
When the Hebrew term ´eHäd comes into its NT equivalent ei-j it does so as ‘one’ and not as ‘unity’.
Ephesians 4:3 and 13 are the only places in the NT where the word ‘unity’ is used. Paul speaks of the need to strive for unity; it is the end of a perfecting process in Christ. This defines a context for talk of ‘unity’ and the relevance of employing a word with that meaning, e`no,thta, a developed form of ‘one’ (but not usable for the number or quantity ‘one’).
When Jesus cites Deut 6:4 in reply to a question in Mark 12:29, and the scribe attests to the truth of what Jesus said, the discussion of ‘one’ limits God to a single indivisible being, the Father only, as in 1 Cor 8:6 and elsewhere. Neither Jesus nor the scribe use ‘one’ to talk about (the) ‘unity’ of God as the Lord.
Deut 6:4’s ‘one Yahweh’ or ‘Yahweh one’ corresponds to “one Yahweh and His name one” in Zech 14:9.
‘One’ of Yahweh should serve as a check against ecumenical infidelity, to go after other gods which are not God, or to pluralise the Deity in any way. After all there is no other God but the one with the exclusive name, as identifyingly self-referenced in these texts:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else (Isa 45:6).
For thus saith Yahweh that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am Yahweh; and there is none else (Isa 45:18).
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church (London: Geoffrey Chapman 1999): 49, paras 199-202.
[2] Catechism, 54-55, paras 222-227.
[3] Indeed, Deut 6:4//Mk 12:29ff. is cited in the Catechism, 55, para 227, with Tertullian’s testimony: ‘The supreme being must be unique, without equal…If God is not one, he is not God’.
[4] The KJV of Ps 133:1 has the only instance of the English word ‘unity’ in the OT. However, they give a three-word paraphrase of the (´eHäd – related) single word dx;y“) / yäHad – ‘together’ as “together in unity”. ‘Together’ does not, of itself, require an intimate togetherness like ‘union’ or ideal ‘unity’ suggests. The use of yäHad can simply mark unity of purpose, or expedient collaboration, as in Ps 2:2, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his anointed.” The Greek of the Apostles’ citation of Ps 2:2 in Acts 4:26 uses the idiom evpi. to. auvto. ―lit. ‘upon the same’―which also features in how the ecclesia should “come together” (Acts 1:15; 2:1, 44, 47; 4:26; 1 Cor 7:5; 11:20; 14:23; the KJV wrongly renders this idiom ‘into one place’ in 1 Cor 11:20; 14:23).
[5] The use of ‘alone’ (Hebrew dB; bad) of Yahweh complements the restricting use of ‘one’ (cf. Deut 32:12; Neh 9:6; Isa 2:11, 17). ‘Alone’ marks the incomparable wholly other being that is Yahweh; He is in a set of one.
[6] Cf. ‘III. “Male and female Created He them”.’ Catechism, 84, paras 369-372.
[7] ‘III. “Male and female Created He them”.’ Catechism, 84, para 372.
[8] The NT reuse of Gen 2:24 inserts ‘the two’: kai. e;sontaioi` du,o eivj sa,rka mi,anÅ And (they) shall be the two into flesh one.
[9] Since “God was in Christ reconciling the world” (2 Cor 5:19), and He made His willing son strong for Himself (Ps 80:15 [HB 16]-17 [HB 18]), as previewed in Genesis 22, both ‘Father and son went together’ (used 3x in Gen 22:6, 8, 19) in this act of reconciliation. This (‘parabolic’: Heb 11:19) sacrificial context of Abraham and Isaac contains both the Hebrew adverb ‘together’ (wD”çx.y:[hb]yaHDäw) and the related adjective “only son” or ‘only one’ ([hb]dyxiy” yäHîD) also used three times (Gen 22:2, 12, 16). These two terms are related to both ‘one’ (´eHäd) and the verb ‘unite’ or ‘join’ (dx;y” yäHaD : Genesis 49:6; Ps 86:11; Isa 14:20). So, with 2 Cor 5:19, this OT background explains, or cannot be denied as relevant to, “I and my Father are one” in John 10:30.
[10] Cf. J. W. Adey, ‘Accounting for Abraham’ (1), The Testimony Vol. 72. No. 855, March 2002: 71-73; ‘Accounting for Abraham’ (2), Vol. 72. No. 856, April 2002: 108-112.
[11] ‘Infinite’ is from the Hebrew ´ên misPär, lit. ‘without number’.
[12] This mode of presentation matches Joshua’s conquest list in Jos 12. Each king and his place is given, followed by ‘one’: e.g., “king of Jericho one” ―melek yürîHô ´eHäd―dx’_a, AxßyrIy> %l,m,î (Jos 12:9). See n. 2 on p. 39.
[13] From October 2010, the new Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), a study Bible, will be available: http://www.hcsb.org/. Like the Jerusalem Bible (1966), and its updated version the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), the HCSB also drops the ‘LORD’ device and returns to God’s name ‘Yahweh’ of the Hebrew text. They support this with the fact that names crossover into other languages, as within the Bible, by transliteration.
[14] In the OT God never says: ‘I am the Lord’, where that would be solely to combine ‘I’ and ‘Lord’ (some form of ´adon) in Hebrew. So, to versions with “I am the LORD: that is my name” (Isa 42:8), or to those that have not yet realised that ‘LORD’ (or ‘Lord’) is not a name, a just challenge would be: “Yea, hath God said?” However, God utters ‘I am ___ [´ël, ´ël šaDDay and Yahweh]’ many times in the HB (mostly: ‘I am Yahweh’, His only name, with or without something added, 220 times). “I am the Lord GOD” uses ‘Lord’ but it is followed by God’s name: ´ny ´Dny yhwh (in Ezek 13:9; 23:49; 24:24; 28:24; 29:16).
[15] Jesus’ composite theophoric name (cf. ‘Joshua’), with a ‘Yah’ or ‘Yeho[shua`]’ prefix, is to the NT what God’s name ‘Yahweh’ is to the OT. Although there is no Graecised or transliterated ‘YHWH’/‘Yahweh’ in the NT, ‘Yah’ occurs in ‘Alleluia’ (Rev 19:1, 3-4), ready to be revealed in the last time.
[16] Ezek 37:17 repeats ‘one’ to describe a uniting of each one, but a Hebrew term for ‘unity’ is not used (which would be, e.g., ´aHdût): And join (Heb qrb) them one to one into one stick for yourself; and they shall become one (literally or grammatically: ‘ones’- ´áHädîm) in your hand. Cf. n. 4 on p. 34 above.
[17] Catechism, 60-63.
[18] If the point being made is ‘one of (something)’, like ~[‘h’ dx;Ûa; / ´aHad hä`äm : ‘one of the people’ (Gen 26:10), then ‘one’ precedes the noun (‘the people’). See n. 1 on p. 36 above.
[19] Mal 2:10 is reflected in 1 Cor 8:6.
[20] Stephanos’ Greek text, i.e. the same text as the Textus Receptus, includes Qeo.j. The Majority Text and UBS/GNT agree in excluding the word.
[21] I make the genitive (or relational semantics) explicit with ‘of God’ and ‘of men’, as in ‘of one’ of Gal 3:20.
[22] Cf. n. 4 on p. 34.
[23] “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” (ESV)
[24] It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the differences between the Majority Text (BYZ) and the critical text (UBS 3/4).
[25] Cf. nn. 1, p. 32 and 9, p. 34.
[26] In section 2(d) the negation ‘there is not’, used twice in Ps 14:3, was the Hebrew !yae /´ên, not lö´ as in my hypothetical insertion into Deut 6:4. The NT citation of Ps 14:3 has just ‘not’ (ouvk) with ‘there is’ (e;stin). The term lö´, as ‘not’, will be familiar from English versions that transliterate the names in Hos 1:6 ‘Loruhamah’ (lö´ ruHämâ), and in v. 9 ‘Loammi’ (lö´ `ammî). They deny, respectively, both God’s mercy and Israel as His people.
[27] ‘Not one’ lö´ ´eHäd / dx’a, al{ in Hebrew is close in sense to ‘there is not even one’ in Ps 14:3―dx'(a,-~G: !yae /´ên Gam-´eHäd.
The Solution