In modern discussions about the proper biblical view of God, the burden of proof is typically placed on those espousing Complex Monotheism to demonstrate that their view is authentic to Judaism rather than a novel invention of Christianity. Throughout this study we have become familiar with the large quantity of evidence documenting Complex Monotheism within Biblical Judaism and post-biblical Judaism through the second century AD. The existence of this evidence may be unexpected given our conventional, modern perceptions. However, the evidence shows that the burden of proof has sufficiently been met and has certainly exceeded expectations. Complex Monotheism is indeed a genuinely Jewish and biblical teaching. With the weight of the biblical and historical documentation of Complex Monotheism within Judaism now accounted for the burden now falls to those advocating Simple Monotheism to document their beliefs during pre-rabbinic Judaism.

If we are to be historically responsible, we cannot merely assume that Judaism has always been committed to Simple Monotheism. We must find historical evidence to support the claim that Judaism believes in Simple Monotheism and rejects Complex Monotheism. And, to be fair, we must ask that such historical evidence at least meet the same level of documentation that was demanded and has been exhibited by the Complex Monotheistic position. It is certainly true that rabbinic literature can attest to the rejection of Complex Monotheism in Jewish communities after the second century AD. But, we are interested in understanding Judaism’s position prior to the second century AD. And we have already seen that rejections of Complex Monotheism are not readily available in non-canonical Jewish literature of the pre-rabbinic periods. With the non-canonical Jewish literature prior to the second century AD supporting the Complex Monotheist position, we must turn to the Hebrew Bible itself to see if we can find any indications of a rejection of Complex Monotheism. Of course, the fact that we have already seen significant portions of the Hebrew bible advocating Complex Monotheism casts a shadow on the likelihood that the Hebrew bible will simultaneously condemn that same point of view. Consequently, the identification of passages in the Hebrew bible which reject Complex Monotheism in favor of Simple Monotheism would at most lead to a different question altogether: How can the Hebrew bible advocate contradictory positions? But the discovery of such passages would not overturn or allow for ignoring other passages which favor Complex Monotheism.

There are biblical passages that are often cited to support the idea that the Hebrew bible reflects the viewpoint of Simple Monotheism. However, while it is certainly true that not all verses or chapters of the Hebrew Bible explicitly articulate Complex Monotheism, merely pointing out biblical passages that do not explicitly express Complex Monotheism is not tantamount to a denial or rejection of Complex Monotheism. Nor is it tantamount to an articulation or insistence on Simple Monotheism.

For instance, Sommer documented passages in the Hebrew Bible that depict God as simultaneously present on his throne in heaven and in the Temple or Tabernacle on earth.

Multiplicity of Divine Embodiment in Ancient Israel – I need not pause to demonstrate that Israelites believed Yhwh dwelt in heaven. Many biblical verses confirm that this notion typifies ancient Israelite theologies. However, I hope to show that some Israelites believed that Yhwh, like the deities of Mesopotamia and Canaan, could also be present in more than one specific location on earth – as well as on a throne in heaven – at any given time. Thus a biblical text can speak in a single breath of God being present both on earth and in heaven. Psalm 20 asks God to send help from the sanctuary at Zion (verse 3), where the supplicant offers a gift (verse 4), but this text goes on to describe God as responding to the plea from a palace in heaven (verse 7). This psalm is not sloppy or vague in the way it imagines God; rather, the psalmist, following a pattern of thought found elsewhere in the ancient Near East, believes that God could be physically present in an earthly location and a heavenly one as well. If a deity can be present in many particular locations on earth at once, of course the deity can also be present in a heavenly body at the same time as well. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 44

Texts that display the Zion Sabaoth theology often refer to God as (“Yhwh of hosts [ = Sabaoth, seba’ot], who sits on the cherubim”). Sometimes they use the abbreviated title (“Yhwh of hosts” [ = Sabaoth, seba’ot]), and more rarely, we find just the words “the one who sits enthroned on the cherubim.” These phrases appear especially in texts that emphasize God’s protecting presence in the temple on Mount Zion (e.g., Psalm 27.2-6, 46.8, 48.9 [note the references to the temple or house of God and its courtyards]; Isaiah 8.18, 18.7). Some of these texts associate Yhwh’s presence with the ark, which serves as a footstool or perhaps in some instances a container for God. A good example bringing together many of these themes is found in Psalm 99…Third, at least some of the Zion-Sabaoth texts acknowledge that God can be literally present in more than one place. Some of them openly assert that God is located both in a heavenly palace and in the Jerusalem temple. Thus Psalm 76 begins by telling us that Yhwh “is in His sheltered spot, Shalem [a poetic form of the name Jerusalem], and His dwelling place is in Zion” (verse 3). But it goes on to locate Yhwh in heaven, when God promulgates justice (verse 9). Similarly, God is found both in the temple and in heaven in Psalm 14.2,7 and 20.3,7. These texts exemplify the fluidity model discussed in Chapters 1-2. There is no reason to see a contradiction in these texts or to view their language as metaphorical. For them, God is unbounded by the law of the conservation of matter, so that the bodies of Yhwh can reside in both heaven and Zion. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 85-86…98

While some biblical verses affirm God’s simultaneous presence in locations in heaven and on earth, other biblical verses may only speak of God’s presence in heaven without mentioning God’s presence on earth or vice versa. However, we would not and should not take a verse that only mentions God’s presence in heaven (or only mention God’s presence on earth) as a contradiction of verses that depict God in both heaven and on earth simultaneously. This would be a logical and hermeneutic error.

The same is true regarding Complex Monotheism in the Hebrew Bible. Just because some passages in the Hebrew Bible may not explicitly display Complex Monotheism does not in any way imply a denial or rejection of Complex Monotheism.

On the contrary, we have seen that Complex Monotheism is repeatedly and explicitly displayed in the Hebrew Bible beginning in the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy) and continuing through the prophets and post-exilic books. It is not necessary for every passage to declare this well-established teaching. What we would need is to identify passages that explicitly reject or deny Complex Monotheism, not passages that simply do not articulate Complex Monotheism explicitly.

After all, the New Testament, which clearly teaches a Complex Monotheistic view of God doesn’t always explicitly refer to God in terms of separate, hypostatic persons. Sometimes the New Testament speaks of God simply using the Greek word “theos” without necessarily informing us whether it has one person of YHWH in particular in mind or the compound unity of YHWH inclusive of all three hypostatic persons. At other times, the New Testament only discusses one of the persons of YHWH in a particular verse or chapter. And yet there are times when two or even all three persons are specifically mentioned together alongside one another. But verses which do not mention all three persons separately, only speak of one of them, or which speak generally about God without a specific designation of persons don’t constitute a denial of facts presented in the very same books, chapters, and verses affirming that God exists as more than one, hypostatic, simultaneously-present person.

Since the New Testament, which clearly teaches Complex Monotheism, can speak this way, then we should not be surprised to find the same patterns present in the Hebrew Bible from which these New Testament ideas spring. Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain passages which explicitly declare God’s plurality of personhood. They also both contain places where that plurality is not specifically declared. However, in neither case can we take passages that simple don’t explicitly declare a multiplicity of divine persons of YHWH as a denial of statements plainly stated elsewhere affirming the existence of more than one, hypostasis (person) of YHWH. This is especially true given that verses which do not mention YHWH’s multiplicity of personhood occur in the same books and chapters and are written by the same authors that elsewhere clearly affirm YHWH’s multiplicity of personhood. In many cases, the affirmation of multiplicity of personhood is available in verses immediately adjacent to statements which simply don’t mention this specifically.

For comparison, suppose that you were reading a biography of a famous person that you admired. Suppose that in the first chapter the author provided details about the subject’s family life and upbringing. In that early chapter, the author noted that the subject had two brothers and three sisters. Now suppose that several chapters later, the author included an account about events later in the subject’s life involving one of the subject’s brothers. Would you draw the conclusion that the author was now contradicting his earlier statement that the subject had several siblings simply because in the later chapter he only mentioned one of them? Of course not. Absence of mention is obviously not the presence of inconsistency or negation.

On the other hand, if a later chapter included a specific statement that the subject always had only one sibling, then that would legitimately conflict with earlier statements in the book that the subject had more than one sibling. But, of course, then all you’d have is a contradiction within a book articulating two mutually exclusive and contrary facts. You would not have proven whether the subject had one sibling or many. And you would not have proven which statement the author himself understood to be correct.

For those of us who regard the bible as God’s authoritative revelation of himself to mankind, there is no option for contradiction within the text of scripture. A contradiction would indicate that the bible was simply the product of human contrivances and beliefs about God with no apparent or necessary connection to reality. While it is important to ask such foundational questions about the Hebrew bible or any scripture, the competing views in such a debate entail whether the bible is or is not authoritative when it comes to theology. Whether resulting from objective scrutiny or inherited tradition or blind faith, for those who already hold that the Hebrew bible is authoritative and reliable as a description of the unchanging nature of the one true God, the suggestion of contradictory ideas within the Hebrew bible is not possible without reducing at least some portions of the Hebrew bible to mere, erroneous human opinion.

We have already seen that Complex Monotheism appears very early in the Hebrew bible, even as Sommer has documented. Consequently, one alternative would be to abandon accounts associating certain ideas with the patriarchal figures of Israel on the grounds that these accounts are not reliably factual. Under this scenario, later views expressed in the Hebrew bible might be seen as historical or, in other words, a factual reflection of actual beliefs held by real persons during those later periods. The earlier passages containing contradicting ideas could then be explained away as essentially fictional. However, by discarding the series of revelations entailing how the Jewish people originally came to possess a unique knowledge of the true God, we again remove the basis for concluding that the views expressed in the Hebrew bible are anything more than the conjecture of one of earth’s many ethnic cultures. If God’s revelations of himself to the Jewish patriarchs cannot be accepted as historical, then Jewish perspectives about God are no more “true” or “accurate” than alternative views offered by Greek or Mesopotamian polytheism or Hindu pantheism or even modern atheism. It would be impossible to disqualify Complex Monotheism, Trinitarianism, or Christianity as false and any value ascribed to qualifying phrases like “authentically Jewish” or “heretical” would entirely lose meaning since Jewish concepts change and vary over time and there is effectively no “original” belief system to use as a standard.

There is only one alternative. If later writings contradict earlier revelation then the later contradictions should be discarded as mistaken or deviations originating from false beliefs, outside influence, or human conventions. Under such circumstances, we would be obligated to discard these later impositions in order to faithfully uphold what God had originally revealed about himself to the patriarchal figures with whom the Jewish belief system is first associated. This is, after all, the nature of the arguments that are typically leveled against Complex Monotheistic views like the Trinity. It is frequently argued that the Trinitarian concept is not found in God’s revelation of himself in the Hebrew bible and therefore it must be discarded as a false and foreign concept. If it turns out that rejections of Complex Monotheism only occur in later texts while earlier revelation contains Complex Monotheism, then, to be fair, we would have to reject the later impositions as false innovations.

The clear, documentable display of Complex Monotheism in the Hebrew Bible leaves us with only two hypothetical outcomes as we approach the Hebrew Bible itself in search of a rejection of Complex Monotheism. Either, we will find no rejection of Complex Monotheism expressed anywhere. Or, we will find a rejection of Complex Monotheism thereby constituting a theological contradiction in the Hebrew Bible. If the rejection of Complex Monotheism comes in later texts, then (as the argument against the Trinitarian concept typically goes) we must reject the later addition as false and heretical deviations from original, authentic Judaism.

At this point, it might be benefiticial to provide a summary review of specific facts we have established from our examination of the Hebrew bible.

First, the Hebrew Bible makes explicit statements about multiple, simultaneously-existing, hypostatic, personal manifestations of YHWH God. Therefore, we cannot conclude that passages only mentioning one person of God constitute a contradiction of Complex Monotheism. Only statements which specifically refute, deny, or negatively depict the idea of God existing as more than one simultaneously-present person would constitute a rejection of Complex Monotheism. Since Complex Monotheism exhibits a well-established precedent in the Hebrew bible, anything less than a direct rebuke of this idea cannot be taken as evidence in favor of Simple Monotheism.

Second, we have already become familiar with the very real and historically-substantiated concept of Complex Monotheism and how it differs from polytheism. It is true that the bible rejects polytheism and the worship of any god except YHWH. However, categorically and conceptually speaking the question of whether the one, true God YHWH exists as more than one, hypostatic, person is different from the question of whether other gods who are not YHWH exist or can be worshipped. Since Complex Monotheism is not synonymous with polytheism, biblical statements prohibiting the worship of gods besides YHWH do not constitute prohibitions against YHWH himself existing as more than one, hypostasis (person) simultaneously.

Since passages that simply do not explicitly display Complex Monotheism do not constitute a rejection of Complex Monotheistic beliefs, we are left only with passages that potentially contain an explicit denial of Complex Monotheism. An examination of the particular passages that are often appealed to as explicit, biblical rejections of Complex Monotheism shows that such passages do not actually address the critical issue. The Hebrew Bible does not contain any negative statements directed specifically at the idea of multiplicity of YHWH’s selfhood or any prohibition against beliefs ascribing a multiplicity of personhood to YHWH. On the contrary, passages which are appealed to on this matter are only prohibitions against worshipping persons who are not YHWH. They do not provide any prohibition against the recognition or worship of any or all hypostases or persons who are YHWH.

Deuteronomy 6:4 is the chief example of passages that are often cited as a biblical prohibition against Complex Monotheism and as proof of Simple Monotheism in Judaism prior to the second century AD. Below is the text of Deuteronomy 6:4, which is commonly called the “shema.”

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

The word translated as “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is “echad.” This Hebrew word simply means “one.” But it has a range of usage in the Hebrew Bible which we will discuss momentarily.

0259 echad
a numeral from 0258; adj; {See TWOT on 61}
AV-one 687, first 36, another 35, other 30, any 18, once 13, eleven + 06240 13, every 10, certain 9, an 7, some 7, misc. 87; 952
1) one (number)
1a) one (number)
1b) each, every
1c) a certain
1d) an (indefinite article)
1e) only, once, once for all
1f) one … another, the one … the other, one after another, one by one
1g) first
1h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)

Deuteronomy 6:4’s attestation of God’s oneness has been offered as a rejection of Complex Monotheism and as support for the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible teaches that YHWH is an absolute simple unity, a singular person. It is worth recalling that our examination of early rabbinic attempts to refute Complex Monotheism have so far revealed no appeals to Deuteronomy 6:4 at least as late as Rabbi Idi in the middle of the third century AD. On this point, please note Sommer’s inclusions of Rashbam and ibn Ezra as even later rabbinic writers who specifically rejected the simple unity interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4. However, we have seen that simple unity is the Platonic and Maimonidean conception of God. It is contrasted with the concept of God offered by Complex Monotheistic religions which understand God as a compound or complex unity: one God who exists as more than one person.

There are several sound and well-attested to reasons to conclude that the “shema” doesn’t articulate a prohibition against YHWH being understood as a compound unity of more than one person. The first two are mentioned by Sommer in the quote below. They relate to the language and context of this important verse.

Endnote 52: The translation and theological meaning of Deuteronomy 6.4, the opening verse of the Shema, are famously difficult. The multitudinous secondary literature treating this verse is often confusing and at times confused. For a clear and well thought-out summary of the question at hand, see McBride, “Yoke,” 292:… “On the theological level the question is whether we have a declaration of Yhwh’s “oneness,” the indivisibility of his person into semi-autonomous attributes, local manifestations and the like, or a declaration that Israel is to serve Yhwh exclusively, however many ‘gods’ there may be vying for the nation’s attention.”…Various scholars have argued on behalf of the “Yhwh alone” reading and against the “one Yhwh” reading, which they regard as an incorrect reading (e.g., Rashbam, ibn Ezra; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, 89-90; Braulike, “Das Deuteronomium and Die Geburt,” 119-22)….All this is not to claim that it is impossible that Deuteronomy 6.4 could be understood to mean “Yhwh is our God, Yhwh alone.” Both readings are grammatically legitimate, and context lends support to both readings. More specifically, the local context in Deuteronomy 4-6 supports the “Yhwh alone” reading, and the wider context in Deuteronomy supports the “Yhwh is one” reading. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 220-221

In the final line of the quote Sommer states that the local context of Deuteronomy 6:4 supports the interpretation of the “shema” as a prohibition against the worship of any gods other than YHWH. (This is the “YHWH alone” interpretation.) He then adds his assessment that the wider context of Deuteronomy supports the interpretation that the “shema” declares the unity and singularity of YHWH’s personhood. (This is the “YHWH is one” reading.) We will divide our examination of the “shema” into two sections. The first will address the implications of the local context of Deuteronomy 6:4. The second will address the wider context.

The local context of Deuteronomy 6:4 relates to anything in verse 4 itself as well as the surrounding verses and chapters. The allowances and range of meaning of the Hebrew words that appear in verse 4 are part of both the local and wider biblical context. In order to know a how important words should be interpreted we need to survey their use in the nearby passages whenever possible. This constitutes local, linguistic context. But we should also have in mind how the same words are used in the same book, in other books by the same author, and in biblical passages discussing the same or similar subjects. This constitutes wider linguistic context.

In the quote above, Sommer explains that both ideas (exclusivity of worship and singularity of personhood) are possible linguistically. However, he concludes that in their immediate context, the words of Deuteronomy 6:4 support the exclusivity of worship interpretation. This means that, when taken in its surrounding context Deuteronomy 6:4 does not address the plurality or singularity of YHWH’s personhood and makes no prohibitions or assertions about this issue.

Sommer also relates this issue to a proper definition of such central terms as “monotheism.”  For Simple Monotheism, a plurality or personhood within the Being of YHWH is regarded as polytheism on the basis of the plurality, despite the relegation of those hypostases to YHWH’s own Being, rather than other beings or separate gods. Thus, for the Simple Monotheist, the distinction between whether the “shema” means “YHWH is one” or “YHWH alone” is blurred. Any plurality is viewed as polytheism, regardless of whether the multiple figures are understood to be internal or external to YHWH’s own Being.

To accurately understand the intended meaning of the “shema,” it is helpful to examine Sommer’s analysis of a proper definition of the term “monotheism” itself. In the quote below, Sommer cautions about making basic assumptions about the nature of exclusive worship of YHWH in the Hebrew bible, including the Ten Commandments.

“You shall have no other gods besides Me,” Yhwh tells the Israelites at the opening of the Ten Comandments (Exodus 20:3). Is this because other gods have no power, or is it simply because Yhwh, having liberated the Israelites from Egypt, has first claim on the Israelites’ religious affections? The text gives absolutely no information that would allow us to answer this question one way or the other.59 – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 160

The Ten Commandments’ declaration that “You shall have no other gods besides Me,” is of course directly related to the meaning of the similar declaration in the “shema” itself. But for now, let’s continue with Sommer’s train of thought as expressed in footnote 59 from the quote above.

Endnote 59: Consequently, by the narrow definition of monotheism favored by most scholars, this commandment on its own cannot be termed monotheistic, though it is clearly monolatrous – as has often been noted; see, e.g., Muller, “Gott,” 136-7. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 266

Monolatry is defined as the worship of only one god to the exclusion of all others.

Henotheism – Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities…Variations on the term have been "inclusive monotheism" and "monarchical polytheism", designed to differentiate differing forms of the phenomenon. Related terms are monolatrism and kathenotheism, which are typically understood as sub-types of henotheism. The latter term is an extension of "henotheism", from καθ' ἕνα θεόν (kath' hena theon) —"one god at a time". [2] Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god (denying that other gods are worthy of worship), while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances, although he usually will worship only one throughout his life (barring some sort of conversion). In some belief systems, the choice of the supreme deity within a henotheistic framework may be determined by cultural, geographical, historical or political reasons. – wikipedia.org

Polytheism – The term monolatry has a connected but different sense; it refers to the worship of one god as supreme and sole object of the worship of a group while not denying the existence of deities belonging to other groups. – Encyclopedia Britannica

Monolatrism – Monolatrism or monolatry (Greek: μόνος (monos) = single, and λατρεία (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity….Monolatry is distinguished from monotheism, which acknowledges the existence of only one god, and henotheism, which consistently worships one god without denying that other persons can with equal validity worship different gods. [2] – wikipedia.org

Monolatry – Restriction of worship to one god, when other gods may be held to exist. – The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, encyclopedia.com

As we have seen, Sommer concludes that “the local context in Deuteronomy 4-6 supports the ‘Yhwh alone’ reading, and the wider context in Deuteronomy supports the ‘Yhwh is one’ reading.” According to Sommer’s summary, the immediate context of Deuteronomy 6:4 clearly demonstrates that these chapters are concerned with monolatry (the worship of YHWH alone.) And there is no discussion whatsoever about internal issues of YHWH’s personhood in the surrounding verses or chapters. Consequently, in its local context, the “shema” merely prohibits the worship of persons who are not YHWH without denying the existence of multiple, hypostases (persons) who are YHWH and without prohibiting the worship of any person identified as YHWH, whether one or many.

Below we will take a look at the local contextual factors which demonstrate that Deuteronomy 6:4 concerns worshipping persons who are not YHWH without directly commenting on the number of persons that YHWH exists as. As we look at Deuteronomy 5 below note that, like Deuteronomy 6:4, chapter 5 begins with the phrase “Hear, O Israel.” Of greater significance are verses 6-9, which demonstrate that YHWH’s exclusive claim to Israelite worship is the immediate theme and issue of concern in the local context leading up to Deuteronomy 6:4.

Deuteronomy 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, 5 (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying, 6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, 10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. 13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: 14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. 16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 17 Thou shalt not kill. 18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery. 19 Neither shalt thou steal. 20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. 21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s. 22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

As we continue into Deuteronomy 6:1, it is apparent that chapter 6 is merely reiterating the commandments that God had previously issued to the Israelites. The conclusion that Deuteronomy 6:4 concerns the single-mindedness of Israel’s devotion rather than the singularity of God’s personhood is demonstrated by the fact that Deuteronomy 5 was concerned with Israelite worship being exclusive to YHWH and by Deuteronomy 6:5 which expresses God’s desire that Israel love him with all their heart, soul, and might.

Deuteronomy 6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it: 2 That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. 3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey. 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The ongoing interest in YHWH’s exclusive claim to Israelite worship continues to be emphasized through Deuteronomy 6. Verses 12-14 again stress this same theme as YHWH commands Israel not to go after other gods.

Deuteronomy 6:6  And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. 10 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, 11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full; 12 Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. 14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; 15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Verses 12-14 are very explicit. We can see that both chapter 5 and chapter 6 remain focused on worshipping YHWH alone and prohibiting the worship of things that are not YHWH. As Sommer has explained, the local context of Deuteronomy 6:4 reveals that the “shema” (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”) has to do with Israel worshipping YHWH only or alone.

Deuteronomy 6:4 is about the Israelites worshipping things beside YHWH or apart from YHWH. It is identical in meaning to Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 44, and Isaiah 45, all of which are about other gods “besides” YHWH, not about the number of hypostases (persons) within YHWH himself. A comparison to these other verses involves the wider context of Deuteronomy 6:4. Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 32 were both written by Moses. Both contain clear conceptual parallels to statements in Deuteronomy 5:6-9 and 6:4, 12-14. And both explicitly are concerned with the worship of beings that are not YHWH God. Neither addresses the issue of hypostatic persons who are YHWH God.

Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges…36 For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left. 37 And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, 38 Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection. 39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.

The passages from Isaiah (below) are among those commonly used alongside the “shema” to support the idea of Simple Monotheism and the prohibition of Complex Monotheism. However, we can see that like the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy, these passages in Isaiah also demonstrate the recurrence of YHWH’s concern that the Israelites worship only him. These verses testify that the wider concern of the Hebrew Bible was against worshipping beings who were not YHWH rather than a concern about multiple hypostases of YHWH. They are about other gods, not about the complex personhood of the one, true God.

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:16 They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. 17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. 18 For thus saith the LORD 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 the LORD; and there is none else. 19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. 20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

As we can see from these passages in the books of Moses and Isaiah, no discussion or concern is presented regarding whether or not YHWH exists as more than one hypostasis or person. To the contrary all of these passages compare YHWH to beings who are not YHWH. They make no comments in relation to the potential number of hypostases of YHWH Himself. To suppose that these passages deal with the issue of Simple or Complex Monotheism is an imposition on the language of the verses themselves and an imposition on the local and wider biblical context of the verses.

One additional point concerning the specific language of the “shema” surrounds the use of “echad” as a potential indicator of simple unity. We will examine the usage of this critical Hebrew word in the books of Moses as well as the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

A survey of the usage of “echad” shows that it is at times used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the concept of uniqueness. In other words, various passages in the Hebrew Bible support the conclusion of the local context of Deuteronomy 6:4 that “echad” is meant to single YHWH out as the unique object of Israelite worship.

In the Song of Solomon “echad” is used to describe a woman who was the only daughter of her mother. Thus, the context tells us that in this instance, “echad” means “unique.” In the same way, the surrounding context of Deuteronomy reveals that, just as this woman is the only (“echad”) daughter of her mother, the “shema” is stating that YHWH is the only God that Israel is to worship.

Song of Solomon 6:9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one 0259 of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

Likewise, “echad” is also used in Ezekiel 7 to refers to “an only evil.”  The Hebrew word for “evil” can also be used to refer to a “calamity” or “disastrous event.”

Ezekiel 7:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; An evil, an only 0259 evil, behold, is come. 6 An end is come, the end is come: it watcheth for thee; behold, it is come.

The text of Ezekiel 7 is not declaring that only one calamity has ever occurred. Rather it is speaking of a particular, unique calamity that has special importance for Israel. This suggest that the use of “echad” in Deuteronomy 6 speaks of YHWH’s special relationship to Israel. Though the nations worshipped other gods (Deuteronomy 5:7-9, 6:13-14,) only (“echad”) YHWH was to be worshipped by Israel.

Likewise, Zechariah 14 speaks of a particularly unique day which will neither be clearly light nor clearly dark and which will have neither day nor night time. When God created the days in Genesis 1, he established that they would follow the pattern of darkness and then light (Genesis 1:5). The dark was called evening (Strong’s No. 06153.) And the light was called day. But Zechariah 14 speaks of a day in which it will be light at evening (Strong’s No. 06153). Of all the days since the beginning of time, this day is one (“echad”) of a kind and of particular importance for Israel. This special day is is “unique” among all days. Similarly, YHWH is unique and without peers as the subject of Israel’s worship and devotion. Though the nations worshipped other gods, YHWH alone (“echad”) is Israel’s God.

Zechariah 14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one 0259 day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

The understanding that Deuteronomy 6:4 uses “echad” to mean “unique” is not merely a Christian concept. We have already seen Sommer explaining that exclusivity of worship (“the uniqueness of YHWH” regarding Israelite worship) is the interpretation supported by the linguistic evidence and required by the immediate biblical context. Likewise, Jewish scholar Dr. Michael Brown points out that the “YHWH alone” interpretation of “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the interpretation used by the Jewish Publication Society Version of the Hebrew Bible.

“For this reason, the NJPSV [New Jewish Publication Society Version] translates Deuteronomy 6:4 as, ‘Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.’ In fact, the footnote in the NJPSV reminds us that this is also the understanding of the revered, medieval commentators Abraham Ibn Ezra and Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir). Therefore, it is not just a ‘later Christian’ argument that Deuteronomy 6:4 does not specifically teach that God is an absolute unity.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 6

Earlier, we saw Sommer also confirming that Rashbam and ibn Ezra favored the “YHWH alone” reading.

Various scholars have argued on behalf of the “Yhwh alone” reading and against the “one Yhwh” reading, which they regard as an incorrect reading (e.g., Rashbam, ibn Ezra; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, 89-90; Braulike, “Das Deuteronomium and Die Geburt,” 119-22)– Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 220-221

We must keep in mind that not only are Rashbam and Abraham Ibn Ezra accepted, orthodox, medieval Rabbis, but they lived in the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD, over a thousand years after the birth of Christianity. Yet at this late date, there was apparently no concensus in the rabbinic community that the “shema” meant “one YHWH” as evidenced by the fact prominent rabbis argued specifically that the “one YHWH” interpretation was incorrect.

IBN EZRA, ABRAHAM BEN MEÏR (ABEN EZRA) – Scholar and writer; born 1092-1093; died Jan. 28 (according to Rosin, Reime und Gedichte, p. 82, n. 6, 1167 (see his application of Gen.xii. 4 to himself). – www.jewishencyclopedia.com, by Richard Gottheil, Wilhelm Bacher 

SAMUEL B. MEÏR (RaSHBaM) – French exegete of Ramerupt, near Troyes; born about 1085; died about 1174; grandson of Rashi on his mother's side, and eldest son of the family. He was a pupil of his grandfather… – www.jewishencyclopedia.com, by Wilhelm Bacher, Schulim Ochser 

At this point, we have three lines of evidence making it impossible to demand that the “shema” is meant in reference to YHWH’s internal nature and the number of hypostasis of YHWH. First, the wider linguistic usage of “echad” in the Hebrew Bible shows that this important Hebrew word does not automatically refer to the issue of YHWH’s plurality or singularity of personhood. Other meanings are readily available and in better sync with the immediate context. Second, the local context, language, and parallel passages all indicate that “echad” and the “shema” as a whole are meant to convey that YHWH alone (“echad”) was to be the object of Israelite worship. Beings who were not YHWH were not to be worshipped. Of course, this would mean that the question of multiple hypostases of YHWH Himself and whether they could be worshipped was not in view in the “shema.” Third, orthodox medieval rabbis still argued against the “one YHWH” interpretation of the “shema” more than one thousand years after the birth of Christ and at least seven or eight hundred years after the rabbinic sect began to officially exclude Complex Monotheists from the Jewish community.

It is for reasons such as these that Sommer concludes that even the Ten Commandments, which is clearly parallel to and references adjacent to Deuteronomy 6:4, is a command for monolatry (the worship of one god to the exclusion of all others.) Strictly speaking, the passage does not even deny the existence of the gods worshipped by the nations. It merely restricts Israelite worship to YHWH. And if the verse doesn’t even deny the existence of gods worshipped by other nations, it certainly does not include a denial of multiple hypostases (persons) of YHWH.

Endnote 59: Consequently, by the narrow definition of monotheism favored by most scholars, this commandment on its own cannot be termed monotheistic, though it is clearly monolatrous – as has often been noted; see, e.g., Muller, “Gott,” 136-7. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 266

Furthermore, even if we leave out these considerations of the local context and linguistic usage of “echad,” which argue in favor of “uniqueness,” the usage of “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4 still could not be used to deny that YHWH exists as a compound unity consisting of more than one hypostasis (or person). In order for Deuteronomy 6:4 to prohibit the idea of Complex Monotheism, “echad” would have to contain an inherent limitation against the idea of a complex or compound unity of multiple component parts. If the definition of “echad” includes no inherent exclusion of compound unity or if “echad” is actually used in passages to convey compound unity, then it is all the more impossible for the “shema” to be interpreted as a prohibition against Complex Monotheism.

A survey of the use of “echad” in the Hebrew Bible shows that from its earliest occurrence, “echad” is in fact used to refer to compound (or complex) unity rather than simple unity. Again, a few examples will establish this linguistic fact.

The first use of “echad” in the Hebrew Bible is Genesis 1:5 where it is used to refer to a single day. According to Genesis 1:5, the first (“echad”) day is composed of two constituent parts, day and night. The “echad” day is a compound unity comprised of two component aspects, day and night. It is significant to note that in its first usage in the Hebrew bible, “echad” refers to a compound (complex) unity, not the type of simple unity expressed in the Platonic or Maimonidean conception of God.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first (259) day.

Though day and night are distinct from one another, they are, nonetheless considered to be parts of one day. A whole day is composed of both components. Neither component on its own constitutes the first (“echad”) day. And yet these distinct aspects are still regarded as a unit. This same meaning of “echad” is repeated in Genesis 1:5, 2:24, 11:6, 34:16, and 41:25-26. Among these examples, Genesis 2:24 is particularly relevant and informative. It speaks of the unity of a man and his wife when they become one (“echad”) flesh.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (259, “echad”) flesh.

Here we have two persons who, when joined together in marital union, are considered to be one substance, in this case flesh. As we have seen, when the word “hypostasis” is used in theological discussions, it refers to a union and sharing of a singular substance and sharing the same essential nature.

Genesis 2:24 teaches that when a husband and wife are joined in marital union, the two hypostases become or act as one flesh, one unit. This early and significant passage shows the use of “echad” to describe the union of more than one person in both essential nature and substance. While it is true that a man and a woman are regarded as separate beings, not a single being, this only strengthens the point. If “echad” can be used to describe even separate beings as a unit, then certainly the use of “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4 does not rule out the idea of a single being having multiple hypostases.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 also sheds light on the plurality of personhood or hypostases within YHWH’s own Being. In Genesis 1:26 God states “Let us (plural) create man in our (plural) image. Genesis 1:27 then declares that “in the image of God he created him” indicating this creation was carried out by God. This is immediately followed by and coupled with the statement “male and female created he them,” reinforcing that only YHWH God created man.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It is significant to note that Jewish rabbis and biblical scholars alike note that Genesis 1:26 includes the use of plural nouns when God announces his intentions to create man.

…Genesis 1.26-27, 5.1, and 9.6. In the first of these passages we read, “God said, Let us make humanity 62 in our form, after our shape, so that they may rule…Then God created humanity in his form; in the form of God He created him; male and female He created them.” These verses assert that human beings have the same form as God and other heavenly beings. That the shape in question appears not only in God’s body but also in the bodies of other heavenly beings is clear from the first-person plurals of 1.26, in which God speaks to members of the divine court: “Let us make the human in our form and shape.” 64 (Here we should point out that there is no “we” of divine majesty in the Hebrew verbs.) As Randall Garr points out, angels or divine beings in the Hebrew Bible are generally conceived as being humanoid in form. Consequently, the use of the first-person plural in Genesis 1.26 shows that humans, angels, and God all have the same basic shape. (Incidentally, God’s decision to reach out to other divine beings in this verse was purely rhetorical, nothing more than a polite gesture; in the next verse, God creates humanity by Godself, before the other beings can even respond.) – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 69

Endnote 64: On members of the divine court (sometimes called “angels”) as the addressees here, see…For the idea that Genesis 1.26 refers to the ministering angels, see also traditional commentaries (Rashi, Seforno) and midrashic texts and Targum (e.g., Genesis Rabbah 8:3, 8:5, Targum Jonathan ad. loc., etc). – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 223-224

Such tales are gathered in Sanhedrin 38 f., the amoraic discussion of Sanhedrin 4:5, after the traditions we have just discussed….R. Judah quote Rab’s story that God consumed various companies of angels because they questioned the importance of creating man, knowing his proclivity to sin. 11 Footnote 11: Interestingly enough, the angels share in the creation of man in this story, explaining the plural “Let us make man” etc. (Gen. 1:26) as due to God’s conversation with angels. This tradition is, hence, properly dated together with the amoraic traditions which resemble it. See p. 143 f. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 113

Endnote 92: On the existence of a heavenly council in the background of the P creation account, see the references in n.64 in Chapter 3. Some scholars object to the idea that a divine council was present at the creation because the idea that God would consult with other divine beings at the creation conflicts with the major thrust of the creation account in Genesis 1, which is that God created the world by Himself (so Cassuto, Genesis, 55-6). In fact, God is not described as consulting them but simply as informing them of his decision. Indeed the next verse pointedly states that God created humanity – and whatever beings God addressed in 1.26 have no role. These verses do not portray any group efforts or deliberation. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 269

In the quotes above Sommer concludes that God is speaking to angelic beings in verse 26, but he points out that only God is credited with the creation of man. Other rabbis and scholars agree that the plurals indicate that God is speaking to a plurality of persons and that God alone created man.

The plurals used in these verses have been explained as God speaking to angels and even the involvement of angels in man’s creation. However, both explanations are unwarranted given the particular phrasing of the text of these verses.

Verse 26 records that God is speaking in the plural of who would create man (“Let us create man in our image.”) According to God himself in verse 26, more than one person would be involved in the creation of man. The clear implication of the textual information requires that some plurality was involved in the creation of man (and woman.) However, verse 27 credits only YHWH God with the act of creating man. Therefore, either YHWH is speaking to angels and angels were involved in man’s creation (an idea which Sommer and other scholars are right to reject) or only YHWH creates man but YHWH is comprised of a plurality of persons. In other words, YHWH God is a plurality of persons who together create man. To summarize verses 26-27, God speaks in the plural not only to himself but also about himself thereby indicating that more than one hypostasis of YHWH was present and involved in the creation of man.

There is no need to posit the involvement of angels. In fact, the suggestion that YHWH was speaking to angels or that angels were involved in man’s creation is prohibited by the text itself as these other scholars have accurately noted. The text is clear that only YHWH is involved in man’s creation. Likewise, Sommer’s explanation that God speaks to persons in verse 26 who are not involved in the action of creating in verse 27 is also ruled out by God’s declaration in verse 26 that a plurality would be involved in the creation of man.

Given that Sommer recognizes the presence of Complex Monotheism in the Hebrew Bible and even in these passages of Genesis it is difficult to understand why he does not arrive at this conclusion himself. Certainly, given his understanding of Complex Monotheism within Biblical Judaism, there seems no reason to avoid the conclusion that more than one hypostasis (or personal manifestation) of YHWH was involved in the creation of man.

We should also note that Genesis 1:26 records God speaking in the first person. This means that the perception of a plurality of persons is attributed to God’s own understanding. Therefore, according to verse 26, the persons of YHWH are themselves aware of their distinction from one another and that they are all YHWH God. On this point it is worth recalling that Jews of the pre-rabbinic period commonly believed that a hypostasis known as the Word of YHWH as involved in YHWH’s creation of man.

It is also worth noting that Genesis 1:26-27 extends the idea of being “made in God’s image,” not just to the creation of the male, but to the creation of the male and female. According to Genesis 1:26-27, man and woman were created in a way that reflected YHWH.  

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Immediately after this, chapter 2 states that when man and woman come together in marital union they are “one” (“echad.”) It is not an unreasonable deduction then to consider that the “oneness” of a husband and wife may somehow be intended to reflect the oneness (“echad”) of God as articulated by Dueteronomy 6:4. After all, the same author (Moses) revealed and recorded both of these truths. Likewise, the same word that Moses used to describe the oneness of two persons (man and wife) is used in Deuteronomy 6:4 to declare the unity of YHWH God. In the case of man and wife the unity (“echad”) is a compound unity comprised of two persons. In the case of God, in whose image man and woman were created, the unity is a compound unity (“echad”) of more than one, hypostasis. Moreover, although it is not spelled out until chapter 4 with the birth of Cain, the man and the woman are one in the act of procreation. If any reader of Genesis 1:26 asked, “How can a plurality create and yet only a singular creates?” the reader of Genesis 2 would simply respond, “keep reading into chapter 2.” The close proximity of these statements in chapters 1 and 2 reveal the authors intention to explain how the one Creator God can identify himself as a plurality of persons involved in creation by means of a natural comparison to God making two human persons who become one when they procreate.

Of course, there are obvious differences and the parallels are limited. As Sommer argues, the limitation in the parallel is derived from the contrast between God’s unlimited self and the limited self of men (and angels).

A normal body – that is, a single body, constrained in space – is limited. But in the fluidity traditions, God differs from humans not in that God has no body, but in that God’s bodies are unlimited…Now, any physical God, whether a God with one body or with many, is a God who can change…But only the God with many bodies can rise above God’s own physicality. The God with many bodies remains woundable and alterable, but this deity can nevertheless be omnipotent. In short, the fluidity model manages, to a greater extent than the traditions that posit a single divine body, to preserve God’s freedom and transcendence even as it maintains the divine personhood and vulnerability so central to biblical and rabbinic literature…The essence of the fluidity model, however, lies precisely in the recognition that God’s divisible bodies are not in fact like any other bodies. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 141-142

Yet despite the fact that created things are limited and can never fully emcompass God’s own nature, the way the text of Genesis 1 and 2 are connected is clearly intended to show how God made even the limited things of creation to inform us about the surpassing nature of His own Being.

Correspondent to Genesis’ presentation of YHWH as one God who is a plurality of persons, later biblical texts speak of more than one, distinct figure as YHWH in a single text. The first of these examples occurs just 18 chapters after Genesis 1. Earlier in this study we read through Genesis 18 and 19. In this passages YHWH visits Abraham along with two angels. The two angels later depart for Sodom and Gomorrah leaving YHWH alone with Abraham. The text never identifies these two angelic figures as YHWH. YHWH remains with Abraham.

Genesis 18:20 And the LORD (3068) said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD (3068).

Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels (4397) to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords (113), turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

Genesis 18:20-21 informs us that YHWH’s intention is to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah. After a discussion with Abraham, YHWH does depart towards the two cities.

Genesis 18:33 And the LORD (3068) went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

After the two angels (that had visited Abraham with YHWH) escort Lot and his family to safety, Genesis 19:24 describes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by YHWH. The important factor is that Genesis 19:24 identifies two figures as YHWH. One of these figures is on earth, having visited Abraham and subsequently heading to Sodom and Gomorrah. The other figure is in heaven.

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD (3068) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD (3068) out of heaven;

Here we have Genesis, which was written by Moses, identifying two simultaneous persons in two different locations as YHWH. Genesis 19:24’s reference to two figures of YHWH, one in heaven and one on earth, is no different than the passages Sommer mentions in which YHWH is also presented both in heaven and on earth at the same time.

Multiplicity of Divine Embodiment in Ancient Israel – I need not pause to demonstrate that Israelites believed Yhwh dwelt in heaven. Many biblical verses confirm that this notion typifies ancient Israelite theologies. However, I hope to show that some Israelites believed that Yhwh, like the deities of Mesopotamia and Canaan, could also be present in more than one specific location on earth – as well as on a throne in heaven – at any given time. Thus a biblical text can speak in a single breath of God being present both on earth and in heaven. Psalm 20 asks God to send help from the sanctuary at Zion (verse 3), where the supplicant offers a gift (verse 4), but this text goes on to describe God as responding to the plea from a palace in heaven (verse 7). This psalm is not sloppy or vague in the way it imagines God; rather, the psalmist, following a pattern of thought found elsewhere in the ancient Near East, believes that God could be physically present in an earthly location and a heavenly one as well. If a deity can be present in many particular locations on earth at once, of course the deity can also be present in a heavenly body at the same time as well. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 44

Texts that display the Zion Sabaoth theology often refer to God as (“Yhwh of hosts [ = Sabaoth, seba’ot], who sits on the cherubim”). Sometimes they use the abbreviated title (“Yhwh of hosts” [ = Sabaoth, seba’ot]), and more rarely, we find just the words “the one who sits enthroned on the cherubim.” These phrases appear especially in texts that emphasize God’s protecting presence in the temple on Mount Zion (e.g., Psalm 27.2-6, 46.8, 48.9 [note the references to the temple or hosue of God and its courtyards]; Isaiah 8.18, 18.7). Some of these texts associate Yhwh’s presence with the ark, which serves as a footstool or perhaps in some instances a container for God. A good example bringing together many of these themes is found in Psalm 99…Third, at least some of the Zion-Sabaoth texts acknowledge that God can be literally present in more than one place. Some of them openly assert that God is located both in a heavenly palace and in the Jerusalem temple. Thus Psalm 76 begins by telling us that Yhwh “is in His sheltered spot, Shalem [a poetic form of the name Jerusalem], and His dwelling place is in Zion” (verse 3). But it goes on to locate Yhwh in heaven, when God promulgates justice (verse 9). Similarly, God is found both in the temple and in heaven in Psalm 14.2,7 and 20.3,7. These texts exemplify the fluidity model discussed in Chapters 1-2. There is no reason to see a contradiction in these texts or to view their language as metaphorical. For them, God is unbounded by the law of the conservation of matter, so that the bodies of Yhwh can reside in both heaven and Zion. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 85-86…98

Zechariah 3:2 is similar to Genesis 19:24. Again, two distinct figures are presented and both are identified as YHWH. In this case, it is one of the figures of YHWH himself who refers to the other person of YHWH and identifies him with the divine name. There is the YHWH that speaks to Satan and there is also the YHWH who has chosen Jerusalem.

Zechariah 3:2 And the LORD (3068) said unto Satan, The LORD (3068) rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD (3068) that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

Zechariah 3:2 text describes YHWH himself as aware of and attesting to the existence of more than one personal, simultaneously-existing, hypostatic manifestation of YHWH. As with Genesis 1:26, the plurality of persons who are YHWH express an awareness of their distinction from one another and yet also of their shared unity as YHWH God, a single Being. Both are good examples of the Semitic conception of God that Sommer explains in his book. In both Genesis 1:26 and Zechariah 3:2 we have two distinct, hypostases or persons of YHWH who are consciously aware of their distinction from one another and which are, at the same time, both identified as the God YHWH.

Religious thinkers of the ancient Near East viewed gods and goddesses as radically unlike human beings in ways that may seem baffling to people in the contemporary Western world. In the eyes of Babylonians, Assyrians, Canaanites, Arameans, and Egyptians, a single deity could exist simultaneously in several bodies. Further, a deity could have a fragmented or ill-defined self, for gods were not fully distinct from each other, at least not all of the time. (By “a self,” I mean a discrete conscious entity that is conscious of its discrete nature.) … For ancient Near Eastern religions, gods could have multiple bodies and fluid selves. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 12

We should also note that verses 1 and 6 of Zechariah 3 identify the speaker as the angel of YHWH figure we discussed earlier, while verse 2 identifies him simply as YHWH. Therefore, Zechariah 3 is another passage in which the angel of YHWH and YHWH are spoken of interchangeably in the Hebrew Bible. 

Likewise, Isaiah 48 presents another example of one person of YHWH expressing an awareness of the other hypostases (persons) of YHWH. It is also important to notice that verse 12 records God speaking in the first person and identifying himself as the first and the last. These are titles for YHWH God. Verse 14 continues the declarations of the speaker from verses 12 and 13. However, verse 14 speaks of YHWH in the third person declaring what he will do for those that he loves. In other words, in verse 14 there is a distinction between YHWH and the speaker even though the speaker has already been clearly identified as YHWH. Either this is YHWH speaking of another person also as YHWH or the text has switched from YHWH speaking in verses 12-13 to someone else speaking in verse 14 with no explanation. However, verse 15 switches back to using the first person paralleling verse 13 wherein YHWH makes proclamations about his actions (I have spoken, I have called, I have brought).

In verse 16, the speaker calls his audience to come near to him and declares that he has not spoken in secret from the beginning. This is YHWH speaking in the first person. And yet, as verse 16 continues uninterrupted still using the first person, the speaker again speaks of YHWH God and his Spirit as distinct from himself (“YHWH God and his spirit have sent me”). Again, verse 16 exhibits a clear distinction between YHWH God and the speaker. And yet, the speaker claims things that YHWH alone can claim, which implies that YHWH is the speaker just as verse 12 does. Verse 17 again confirms plainly that YHWH is the speaker in the passage.

The language of Isaiah plainly seems to be another example in which one person identifies themselves as YHWH, is identified by the author (Isaiah) as YHWH, and is also aware of other persons who are YHWH. Verse 16 even provides some additional indication of a distinction between YHWH who is the speaker, the Spirit of YHWH, and another person identified simply as YHWH. Thus, three distinct persons of YHWH are presented here: YHWH the speaker, another YHWH, and YHWH’s Spirit.

Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. 13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. 14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Interestingly, the text of verse 16 identifies not only YHWH, but YHW and YHWH’s Spirit as responsible for the action of sending the speaker. This not only presents the Spirit of YHWH as himself a personal agent, but it confirms the Spirit’s own supreme status as YHWH God. It is important to remember two facts. First, the one who is being sent is YHWH God, the speaker throughout the passage. Second, the Spirit is not alone in sending forth the speaker. YHWH and the Spirit send forth the speaker. The fact that the Spirit is sending forth YHWH suggests that the Spirit is not YHWH’s inferior but at least his equal. Likewise, the fact that the Spirit’s own authority to send is equated with YHWH’s authority to send affirms that the Spirit’s authority is tantamount to YHWH. These two facets of the text confirm that the Spirit and the speaker are both distinguishable hypostases of YHWH, sharing YHWH’s authority, and (in the case of the speaker) being identified directly as YHWH by name (as well as certain divine titles).

Finally, we must note that the Hebrew word “God” that is used throughout Genesis 1 and 2 (including Genesis 1:26-27) as well as Genesis 19:24-29 and Isaiah 48:17 is a plural form of the Hebrew word for “god,” “elohim.” This is the same word for God that is used in the “shema.” Deuteronomy 6:4, Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:26-27 as well as 2,346 other places in the Old Testament that use the plural noun “elohim” to refer to the one, true God, YHWH. “Elohim” is used over 100 times in the first 22 chapters of Genesis alone and over 100 times in the first 32 chapters of Exodus including Genesis 1:26-27 where the Hebrew verbs do not employ a “we” of divine majesty.

…Genesis 1.26-27, 5.1, and 9.6. In the first of these passages we read, “God said, Let us make humanity 62 in our form, after our shape, so that they may rule…Then God created humanity in his form; in the form of God He created him; male and female He created them.”…“Let us make the human in our form and shape.” 64 (Here we should point out that there is no “we” of divine majesty in the Hebrew verbs.) – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 69

As we near the end of this section, we can take the information we have learned and return to the issue of the “shema” and the issue of God’s oneness.

A literal translation of Genesis 1:26-27 and Deuteronomy 6:4 is provided below. In both passages as well as in other places “elohim” is conjoined to the Hebrew name for God, YHWH, in the phrase “YHWH elohim” (commonly translated as “the LORD God.”) The phrase “YHWH (3068) Elohim (430),” is used 532 times in the Old Testament. It is used 52 times in the first five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear O Israel, YHWH (3068) your God (plural) is one (“echad”) YHWH (3068).

Genesis 1:26 And God (plural) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: 27 So God (plural) created man in his own image, in the image of God (plural) created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:21 And YHWH God (plural) caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;  22 And the rib, which YHWH God (plural) had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (“echad”) flesh.

Just after Genesis 2, Genesis 3 continues to record YHWH speaking among himself using plurals just as Genesis 1:26 indicates. These are clear examples of Complex Monotheism, one God who exists as more than one person.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD  (3068) God (430) said, Behold, the man is become as one (259) of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Other examples of “echad” being used to refer to a complex unity rather than a simple unity include the following verses all of which appear in the first book of Moses (Genesis.)

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one (259), and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Genesis 34:16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one (259) people.

Genesis 41:25 And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26 The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one (259).

In all of the above verses, the Hebrew word “echad” is used to refer to the unity of several distinct components. This usage of “echad” in early, significant, texts demonstrates that “echad” cannot exclude complex unity. To the contrary, “echad” is a Hebrew word that is commonly used in the books of Moses and throughout the Hebrew Bible to convey complex unity. Likewise, Hebrew also has a singular form of the word for “God” (“Elowahh.”) Yet the authors repeatedly and frequently chose to use the plural “elohim” to describe YHWH. This is exactly what we would expect if YHWH was a single Being that could manifest simultaneously in separate bodies or persons.

In fact, another potential interpretation emerges in light of the historical usage of the plural “elohim” and the application of “echad” to compound unity prior to Deuteronomy 6 and particularly in light of passages like Genesis 19, which clearly presents more than one hypostasis of YHWH. In addition to interpreting “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4 in reference to YHWH’s uniqueness, it is possible that the “shema” is meant to explain and reinforce to the Israelites that the multiple hypostases of YHWH, which they and their patriarchs had experienced, were in fact one and the same Being. Yes, there were multiple hypostases, but there were not multiple gods. Therefore, the experience of multiple hypostases of YHWH could not be confused or used to justify worship of other beings as gods. This alternate interpretation is also compatible with Complex Monotheism and well-suited to the local context of Deuteronomy 5-6, which is repeatedly focused on prohibiting the Israelites from being led astray to worship false gods.

Along with the passages that we have examined in the local and wider context of Deuteronomy 6, we must also take into account the numerous examples cited by both Segal and Sommer (as well as our own Trinity Study) which display a Complex Monotheistic view of YHWH. Passages in the Hebrew Bible that attest to Complex Monotheistic conceptions of God include: Genesis 16, Genesis 19, Genesis 21, Genesis 22, Exodus 3, Exodus 14, Numbers 22, Judges 5, Judges 6, Judges 13, Zechariah 1, Zechariah 3, Zechariah 12, 2 Samuel 24/1 Chronicles 21, 2 Kings 19/2 Chronicles 32/Isaiah 37, and Isaiah 48 to name only a few. As we can see, the wider context of the books of Moses clearly includes explicit and repeated displays of YHWH existing as more than one hypostasis (person) at one time. This wider context establishes Complex Monotheism within the very books and chapters written by the same authors where we find the passage that are commonly used in attempt to reject Complex Monotheism. And yet, no explicit statements are found in the texts that would overturn or contradict the clear attestation of Complex Monotheistic teachings in the Hebrew Bible.

Further proof that these Hebrew words and these important biblical texts do not refute belief in the plurality of YHWH’s personhood is found in the way that Jews of the pre-rabbinic periods conceived of God. As Segal and Sommer have documented, many Jewish groups from apocalyptists to Christians to Hellenistic philosophers like Philo to rabbinic figures like Akiba and Yosi all articulate conceptions of YHWH as one God in more than one hypostatic, simultaneously-present, personal manifestation. These Jews from all over the spectrum of pre-rabbinic and early-rabbinic Judaism apparently did not think that passages like Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:8, or Isaiah 45:5-6, 16-22 addressed the issue of YHWH’s plurality or singularity of personhood. They had these texts in their bible and yet the exegetical argument against Complex Monotheism using these texts was not developed by the rabbis until after the second century AD. The evidence shows that prior to the second century AD, Jews did not think Deuteronomy 6:4 or any other passage in the Hebrew Bible argued against a Complex Monotheistic understanding of YHWH.

Only after Greek philosophy began to emphasize the utter simplicity of God’s unity and Israelite religion came into contact with these Greek ideas do we find expressions of Simple Monotheism within Judaism and attempts to biblically support them. These expressions are found in the rabbinic literature after the second century AD and are later strengthened by medieval Jewish philosophers with high regard for Platonic thought. In contrast to this, Complex Monotheism is easily documentable in the Semitic culture of the ancient Jews, throughout the Hebrew Bible itself from the earliest times, through post-biblical Jewish literature, and in various inter-testamental and first-century Jewish sects including, but not limited to Christians and even prominent rabbinic figures like Rabbi Akiba.

The conventional, modern perspective tends to think of Judaism on one side of these issues and Christianity on the other. More commonly it may be generally assumed that Christianity is alone on the Complex Monotheistic side of the debate with all other forms of Judaism on the other. As we have seen, a study of the available historical evidence reveals a different picture with a host of sects of ancient Judaism articulating Complex Monotheistic beliefs (Jewish apocalyptists, Jewish Christians, Philo, mystics, and even Pharisaic and rabbinic figures). On the other hand, post-second century AD Rabbinic Judaism stands alone in favor of Simple Monotheism.

A review of the biblical and post-biblical texts of Judaism, in fact, contains clear articulations of Complex Monotheism and no clear denunciation of it. In contrast to Complex Monotheism, a survey of the available historical documentation yields no identifiable proclamations of Simple Monotheism. When the biblical passages that are often used to prohibit Complex Monotheism are examined using language, local context, and wider biblical context the analysis shows that these passages either don’t address the issue of plurality of persons at all or, they actually seem to support a Complex Monotheistic conception of God. Likewise, post-biblical Jewish literature doesn’t begin to articulate a Simple Monotheist position against Complex Monotheism until well after the Biblical Period (2000 BC through 400 BC.) Examples of the repudiation of Complex Monotheism within Jewish literature appear after the second century AD at the same time when exegetical arguments attempting to prohibit Complex Monotheism are first developed. This suggests that the exegetical arguments were developed ad hoc to justify the solidification of the growing, more recent trend against Complex Monotheism.

These biblical and historical factors demonstrate that a rejection of Complex Monotheistic beliefs is not apparent in Judaism prior to the second century AD. Given the historical evidence, we must wonder what substantive issues do justify separating Judaism from Christianity. We will turn to this important question in our next section.