Wednesday, October 14, 2015

The Godhead Theology of Ignatius of Antioch


(Excerpted from the author's book, "Godhead Theology." The book may be purchased from Amazon.)

Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch. He died the death of a martyr under the reign of Trajan (A.D. 107). Papias, himself a disciple of John and pastor at Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor, informs us that Ignatius sat under the teachings of Peter, Paul and Barnabas (Quasten and Plumpe, page 109).

Because many in the oneness camp, during the 20th and 21st centuries have been too quick to paint Bishop Ignatius with the brush of trinitarianism, we will take some time and space to set the record straight here. We feel that those of Pentecostal evangelicalism have flenched from Ignatius because of his highly developed ecclesiastical theology. This has been a serious mistake in our view. The Bishop of Antioch was a champion of the apostolic Faith; to surrender him to the camp of the Pluralists has been done to our hurt. Virginia Corwin (Virginia Corwin was born in Orange, New Jersey, on August 17, 1901, She graduated from Wellesley College in 1923 and received the B.D. from Union Theological Seminary in New York City in 1929; at Union she was a Kent Fellow. In 1930 she came to Smith College as an Instructor of Religion and Biblical Literature. Prof. Corwin entered Yale University in 1932 and received her Ph.D. from it in 1937. Her dissertation was on St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch; Yale University Press published a revision of the text in 1960. Prof. Corwin taught at Smith until 1939 when she went to Western Reserve University as Harkness Professor of Biblical Literature and acting head of the Department of Religion. In 1942 Miss Corwin returned to Smith College as an Associate Professor of Religion and was made Professor of Religion in 1953. She retired from Smith College in 1966. After Prof. Corwin’s retirement she was visiting professor at Claremont College in California and at Wells College in New York.), who did her Ph.D. dissertation at Yale on Ignatius, stated: “If one term must be chosen to indicate the tendency of his thought, Ignatius must be said to be Monarchian” (“St Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch” New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960, page 126.).

The Modalistic views of Ignatius are seen in Magnesians 7:2,
"Everyone hasten to come together to one temple of God, to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, abiding in the one, and returning to the one.” His Modalism is especially evident in his letter to Polycarp (Bishop Of Smyrna, with whom he shared the same faith), where he expounded on the modal aspect of the existence of God: Polycarp 1:15, “... and expect Him, who is above all time, eternal, invisible, though for our sakes made visible; impalpable, and impassable, yet for us subject to sufferings; enduring all manner of ways for our salvation.” For this statement, Ignatius would have been branded as a Patripassian (one who teaches that the Father suffered) by Tertullian, and anathematized by those of the logos-christology.

Ignatius’ Godhead Theology
In the writings of Ignatius, Christ is the central figure; He is the Bishop’s all and all. No less than fourteen times Ignatius calls Jesus God (Eph. inscr. 1.1, 7.2, 15.3, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3; Trall. 7.1; Rom. inscr. 3.3, 6.3; Smyrn. 1.1; Polyc. 8.3).

The bishop lets us know that there is but one God, whom he identifies as the Father (Magnesians 8:2). This one God-the-Father has made Himself known to the world through, and by, Jesus Christ, His Son. Ignatius identifies the Son as the “Word” of the Father that proceeded forth from silence. He writes it this way: “... there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence,...” (Magnesians 8:2). This is but an echo of 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul writes, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” Ignatius agrees with John (John 1:1, 14) that the preexistent Christ was the Word of God. Ignatius calls Jesus the “thought” of God (Ephesians 3:2). J. N. D. Kelly observes, as does this author, that, for Ignatius, the divine Son of God dates only from God’s Incarnation into Mary’s baby. The bishop writes of it this way: “... and firmly grounded in love in the blood of Christ, fully persuaded as touching our Lord that He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, ...” The preexistent Christ, then, dwelt with the Father as the mind or thought of the Father, and not as a separate individual from Him, in Ignatius’ thinking. This is what Ignatius meant when he wrote: “... Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time” (Magnesians 6:1). When Ignatius wrote that the “Word ... proceeded from silence” he was stating what the Apologists after him would confirm. Athenagoras would write in A.D. 177 that the Son was God’s “Word” proceeding from God’s “thought.”

According to this concept God is God, alone, without any companions, and when God had a thought it was His “Word” or “Son,” because it was His offspring. He “birthed” a thought, a word. There is no separate ‘person’ here; only the thought or word of the One eternal person of God. This Word/Son of God that is His mind/thought can be said to be eternal and “with” God in the beginning, because God is a sentient-being who does not exist without thought or mind. Therefore, Ignatius writes that Jesus is God’s Word from silence. Kelly writes: “Christ is the Father’s ‘thought’ (gnōmē), the unlying mouth by which the Father spoke truly” (Ephesians 3:2; Romans 8:2). Ignatius even declares that Jesus is “our God” (Ephesians inscr. 18:2; Trallians 7:1; Romans inscr.), describing Him as “God incarnate” ( Ephesians 7:2; 19:3) (en sari genomenos theos) and “God made manifest as man” (theou anthrōpinōs phaneroumenou). He was “in spirit (penumatikōs) united with the Father” (Smyrna 3:3). “... He was the timeless, invisible, impalpable, impassable one who for our sakes entered time and became visible, palpable and passable” (Ephesians 7:2; Polycarp 3:2). Further, according to F. Loofs (Friedrich Loofs, (1858-1928) Professor of Church History at the University of Halle-Wittenberg in Germany,), Ignatius regarded God “as an undifferentiated monad in His essential being, the Son and the Spirit being merely forms or MODES of the Father’s self- revelation” (Kelly; emphasis on “MODES” mine).

There is nothing in Ignatius even coming close to a Trinitarian dogma. The monotheism of the prophets and apostles is adhered to at every turn. If any label is to be placed on the Bishop of Syria it must be that of Modalistic Monarchianism. The Modalism of Ignatius can easily be demonstrated in the following way:
1. Ignatius acknowledges that the one God is the Father:
(Magnesians 8:2 cf 1 Corinthians 8:6): Magnesians 8:2 “...there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, ..” 

 2. Jesus is the one God incarnated in human form (Ephesians 7:2; 19:3 cf Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:23; John 1:1-3, 14): Ephesians 7:2 “There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

 3. The Holy Spirit is, in fact, Jesus Christ (Magnesians 15:1 cf Matthew 3:11; John 14:17-18; Ephesians (NT) 4:5; John 7:29; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 2 Corinthians 3:17): Magnesians 15:1 “... The rest of the Churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you. Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.”

 4. The Holy Spirit is, in fact, the Father of the Son (Ephesians 18:2 cf Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18): Ephesians 18:2 “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and from the Holy Spirit. ...” 

 5. Ignatius teaches the dual nature of Christ by drawing a sharp distinction between His deity and His humanity (Ephesians 7:2; 18:2; 20:2; Smyræans 1:1; 3:3; Polycarp 3:2 cf Isaiah 9:6; Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3-4; 9:5): Ephesians 7:2 “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.” 18:2 “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and from the Holy Spirit. ...” 20:2 “... in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, ...” Smyræans 1:1 “...established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God;...” 3:3 “And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.” Polycarp 3:2 “Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.”

 6. When a distinction is made between Jesus and the Father the Bishop qualifies it by emphasizing the humanity of Christ (Magnesians 13:2 cf 1 Timothy 2:5): Mag. 13:2 “Be obedient to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father [according to the flesh], ...”

 7. The Modalistic views of Ignatius are seen in Magnesians 7:2, ”Everyone hasten to come together to one temple of God, to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, abiding in the one, and returning to the one.” His Modalism is especially evident in his letter to Polycarp (Bishop Of Smyrna, with whom he shared the same faith), where he expounded on the modal aspect of the existence of God: Polycarp 1:15, “... and expect Him, who is above all time, eternal, invisible, though for our sakes made visible; impalpable, and impassable, yet for us subject to sufferings; enduring all manner of ways for our salvation.” For this statement, Ignatius would have been branded as a Patripassian (one who teaches that the Father suffered) by Tertullian and anathematized by the those of the logos-christology.

 Conclusion
Ignatius writes of the triad of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Godhead often. It is clear that he sees this triad as the economy of the deity, and not as a trinity of individuals. This is presented as colorfully as words can paint a picture, in his letter to the Ephesians,
“...ye are stones of a temple, which were prepared beforehand for a building of God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and using for a rope the Holy Spirit; while your faith is your windlass, and love is the way that leadeth up to God” —Ephesians 9:1.

With this allegory, Bishop Ignatius portrays the economy of God working to facilitate the salvation of fallen man, and restore him to relationship with God. This is accomplished through the cross of the Son of God and the strength and power of the Holy Spirit of God, both of which are self-revelations of the Father necessary to build His building—the Church. The apostle Paul writes of God’s economy this way: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen” (2 Cor 13:14) 


Apostolically Speaking
☩ David Ignatius
If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:



The above is an excerpt from the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology" which may be purchased from Amazon.com at the following link: http://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444861346&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ABishop+Jerry+Hayes





Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other epistles from Bishop Hayes on Ignatius of Antioch

Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch

Church Structure: Ignatius of Antioch


Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)


Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4




THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY
PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY


Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

Posted by at No comments:

The Teaching of the Shield

The Teaching of the Shield (Outline)
Disciples of the Way (Apostolic)





  1. The Shield: Faith (Eph 6:16).;
    1. Salvation is through faith  (Eph 2:8-9);
    2. Christians are sustained by faith  (1 Jn 5:4);
    3. Faith as a system of belief (Eph 4:5).
  2. The Cross: The Doctrine of the Cross (1 Cor 1:18).
    1. Speaks of death;
    2. Speaks of Blood Covenant;
    3. Speaks of personal trail;
  3. Apostolic: Of, or Pertaining to the Apostles;
    1. Apostolic Succession in holy orders (2 Tim 2:2); 
    2. In Teaching: The Apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42);
    3. In Practice: Apostolic Example (1 Cor 11:1; Phil 3;17).
  4. Disciples of the Way (Acts 9:1; 18:25-26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22);
    1. What it means to be a Disciple: Faithful follower;
    2. Why we are called “The Way?” (Isa 40:3; Jn 14:6);
  5. The Sword: The Word of God;
    1. Belongs to the Spirit (Eph 6:17);
    2. Double Edged: both Old and New Testaments.
  6. The Alpha and the Omega: Introduction to the Deity of Christ.
  7. The Dove: The Holy Spirit,
    1. Power of the Highest (Lk 1:35); 
    2. The Spirit in the Life of the Believer (Acts 1:8);55
    3. The Spirit in the Life of the Church (Acts 15:28).
  8. The Triquetra: A Tri-folded Circle into equal parts;
    1. Metaphorically, God is a Circle, Whose center is everywhere, and Whose circumference is nowhere.
    2. The Triquetra represents the Economy of the Godhead (2 Cor 13:14);

Economy: the management of resources; the arrangement, or mode, of operation.
The Shield of the Apostolic Disciples of the Way and Modalism 

      The heart of the Shield of the Apostolic Disciples of the Way consists of a white dove descending from the Alpha-Omega, with the triquetra on its shoulders. The truth taught by this symbolism is powerful. The Alpha- Omega, being the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, speak of Jesus’ identity with the Father, in that both Jesus and Father God are called the First and the Last.

      It must be acknowledged that Father God claimed the title of the First and Last: Isaiah 44:6 “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” The exclusiveness of this cognomen is self-evident; however, doubling down on the unique application of the name, Yahweh states: “Beside me there is no God.” Having, as we do, Yahweh staking His claim to the title of the First and the Last, we then have a revelation as to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, when He says of Himself that He is, in fact, the Alpha and Omega and the First and the Last. One need only see the following texts: Revelation 1:8 “ I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Then in verse 11 Jesus tells John: “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” Moreover, in closing the Revelation, Jesus declares: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” So, unless there can be more than one Alpha and Omega, or more than one First and Last, it must be acknowledged that the Yahweh of the Old Testament prophets, is one and the same as the Jesus of the New Testament writers.

     The descending white dove is the biblical symbol of the Holy Spirit, as seen in the Holy Spirit’s descent upon Jesus at His baptism, in the form of a dove (Matt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:). In the Alpha-Omega-Dove symbol the dove is descending from (out of) the Alpha-Omega, thus, representing the biblical truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the person of the Father (John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:) as He is incarnated in Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:19, To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.): demonstrating the teaching of John the Baptist that Jesus is, indeed, the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:).

The triquetra on the shoulders of the dove speaks to the fact that the administrations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are manifested in the life of believers through the Holy Spirit abiding and working in the Church; and that all the economy of the Godhead proceeds forth from Jesus—the Alpha-Omega, the First and the Last, the incarnate Father God. 


Apostolically Speaking
Bishop David Ignatius


If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, October 9, 2015

Then and Now

Then and Now
or
The Victorious Christian

... So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Romans 7:25 - 8:1

That was then, but this is now. O Glory to the Lamb!

In Romans chapters 7 and 8 Paul contrasts the life of one under the Law and the believer whose life is in Christ Jesus. For the one under the Law, before the New Life of the Holy Spirit is manifested there is no victory and much condemnation. Such a one knows the Law and has a mental ambition to keep it. but is unable because there has been no nature change in the soul/spirit. The study of the “Law” has engraved it into the mind, but the heart is powerless to actually desire it. The Apostle remembers his life in such a state and writes of it in the "the historical present."
 (though he is speaking of his past life, he is writing in the present tense) in this manner:


Romans 7:14-24
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (NKJV)

Paul, disappointed with the failure of his life as lived under the Law asks a desperate question (continuing to write in the “historical present”): “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” He now has the answer that none before Calvary could have known: “I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

In the second part of v25 the Apostle sums up his past life as it was lived under the Law by writing: “So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” Dear disciple, notice that Paul writes of “then;” he is reflecting on a time in his past. The very next strokes of his quill scratches onto his parchment: “There is therefore now no condemnation ...” He writes of “Then” and “Now.” “Then” there was much condemnation. Notice how he wrote of his condemnation: “... but I am carnal, sold under sin. ... For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. ... For I know that in me ... nothing good dwells; ..., but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. ..., that evil is present with me, ... But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” But as to Paul’s condition “Now” he has this to say: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

The Apostle goes on in what is our chapter 8 to describe the victorious overcoming life of a Christian. We fail, at times, to remember that the New Testament books were not divided into chapters and verses originally. The Epistles, like Romans, were letters written by godly men to give instruction and encouragement to persons or church groups. So our ch 7 and ch8 must not be divided into separate subjects. It is all one topic for the writer. In ch 8 he contrasts the life of the Spirit filled believer to the life of the one attempting to live according to the Law of Moses while in the Old Testament economy. He has shown, in ch 7, the impossibility of a victorious moral life.

One can never hope to understand Paul’s teaching from chapter 7 unless chapter 8 is studied in tandem with it.  Many Bible teachers in the evangelical camp like to teach ch 7 without considering ch 8. In doing this an entirely false doctrine is fostered upon Christianity. The teaching that Paul is speaking of the life of the Christian in ch 7 is patently false.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.



The "I" pictured here is the quintessential unregenerate person, who has knowledge of the law of God, senses true guilt for sinfulness, longs for deliverance, but is without the grace of Christ to overcome sin. In contrast, the Christian "under grace," infused with the love of God, is victorious over sin and "ceases to sin."

Apostolically Speaking
☩ David Ignatius

If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, September 21, 2015

ECHAD vs YACHID (Answering Objections to Modalism)


 Hear, O Israel: The LORD  (YHWH) our God is one LORD (YHWH): —Deuteronomy 6:4

This article is an excerpt from my book entitled "Godhead Theology."

 The Objection
The Hebrew word for “one” employed in the Shema (Deut 6:4) is the word echad; and according to the Pluralists, especially Trinitarians, echad has one in a compound sense as its primary meaning. Texts such as Genesis 2:24 (Adam and Eve become “one [echad] flesh”), Genesis 34:16 (the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children, in order to become “one [echad] people”),  Ezekiel  37:17 (two sticks, representing Judah and Ephraim become one [echad] stick), are held up to demonstrate how more than one can be one. Therefore, according to them, the Shema is announcing the Trinity with the word echad. It is, further, pointed out by the Trinitarians that there was a perfectly good word in the Hebrew for an absolute one, and that if the Holy Spirit wanted to convey the idea of God being a solitary one this particular Hebrew word would have been used; the word they refer to is yachid. Since, they postulate, that the Holy Spirit did not use the word yachid, it was the Holy Spirit’s intent to introduce the God of Israel as a compound one.

Modalism’s Response
This chapter is a companion to our previous chapter in Section Three, Chapter XXV, page 275, entitled How Is God One? There, we worked with the Greek masculine and neuter words for one,  “heis” and “hen” respectively. The reader is encouraged to review that chapter before proceeding further here.
To began with, this argument from the Pluralists’ camp is bogus, and totally without merit. In fact it is so much so that it is loathsome for this writer to spend time and energy on a rebuttal.  But since so many of the unlearned are lead captive by theological midgets that would present such arguments for the Trinity, space must be allotted to this exercise. As we examine this particular objection to the Monarchian faith, the truth of the Hebrew echad and yachid will dispel any and all confusion on the matter. Remember: Nothing suffers from examine except error.
We first take up the Hebrew word echad (Strong’s #H259). 
The Hebrew echad is used in the same manner as the English word one. It may show a compound one, or an absolute one. Like our English word, echad commands the domain of both the absolute and the compound. The meaning of any word, in any language, is not determined by its semantical domain, but by its context (this is a point to remember when considering how echad is used in the Shema). Echad stresses singleness, while at times (very few) recognizing diversity within that oneness.  A window into its uses is the book of Ezra: out of 15 occurrences (my count) 11 address an absolute one, while 4 reference a compound or metaphorical one. This ratio, however, is not representative of the usage of the word throughout the Hebrew Scripture. The word is used close to 1000 times, and only rarely is used as a compound. Echad addresses an absolute one in its vast majority of occurrences. According to my count, and I am being generous, echad addresses a compound or metaphorical one only 28 times out of 952 occurrences—if Strong is correct, or out of 962 occurrences—if Gesenius is correct. Due to the different forms of this word, there exists a slight discrepancy between scholars as to the number of occurrences. That being said, the reader is encouraged to look in a Strong’s Concordance at the word “one;” there, the reader will see what I speak of here. After seeing this evidence one time, one will forever scorn the charge that echad has as its primary meaning a compound one.
According to Strong’s Concordance, the use of echad breaks down thusly: one, 687x; first, 36x; another, 35x; other, 30x;  any [one], 15x; once, 13x; eleven, 13x; every [one], 10x; certain [one], 9x; an, a [one], 7x; some [one], 7x; misc. 87x. Echad is used as a noun, adjective, or adverb, as a cardinal or ordinal number, and is often used in a distributive sense: each or other. It is closely identified with yachad “to be united” (but so is yachid) and with ro'sh “first, head,” especially in connection with the “first day” of the month (Gen 8:13). 
A few of the most difficult texts are examined in this paragraph. The phrase “as one man” can mean “all at once” (Num 14:15); and, when Gideon was told he would defeat Midian “as one man” it meant “as easily as if the Midianites were a single man” (Jud 6:16)—there is no compound one here.  Adam and Eve are described as becoming “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), which references future conception, and birth in particular—there is no compound one here.  Plus, there is the sense that Eve was taken out of Adam and was his counterpart, and as such completed him when they two came together in sexual union (Gen 5:1-2)—again, even in this understanding, it is not a compound one that is in view, but a reuniting of two halves that make one whole.  Later, Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks (37:17); the two sticks became one, such as the divided Israelites becoming the Israel of God in the Messianic Kingdom. Once again Judah and Ephraim would be one nation with one king (37:22)—there is no compound one indicated in this prophecy: a literal and absolute one kingdom is in view.  Abraham was viewed as “the one” (echad) from whom all the people descended (Isa 51:2; Mal 2:15), the one father of the nation. Malachi 2:10 asks the questions: “Have we not all one (echad) Father? Has not one (echad) God created us?” In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4, “Hear, O Israel....the LORD is one” (echad), the verse concentrates on the fact that there is but one God and that Israel owes its exclusive loyalty to Him alone (Deut 5:9; 6:5).
For over 1500 years the Hebrew scholars read and taught the Shema and never one time considered echad as referencing a unity of entities in their Godhead. Not until the development of the Trinity was the unthinkable thought. And the Shema received a new reading.
There is convincing evidence (of the meaning, and scholarly understanding, of the Hebrew echad) presented by discovering how the word was translated by the Greek translators, who wrote the Septuagint. The Septuagint (LXX) is the Old Testament translated into the Greek language (third century B.C.). The Greek language also has very different words for our English word “one.” We will consider two of those words; heis, the masculine, and hen the neuter. Heis is used when an absolute one man is referenced. Hen is the neuter word for one, and is used when two men are said to be one in unity—one in a compound sense. The neuter hen is demonstrated by 1 Corinthians 3:8 that presents he that plants and he that waters as being one (hen). If the Trinitarians are correct and echad of Deuteronomy 6:4 is the primary Hebrew word for a compound one, we would expect that when it was translated into Greek the translators would have rendered echad as hen. They did not. The Greek translators translated echad as heis. Heis is the Greek word for an absolute one. What is more, when Mark wrote the Jesus-saying “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:” (Mark 12:29), he, too,  employed heis for the word one. (Please see Chapter XXV for further treatment on the words heis and hen.)

Secondly, we consider the Hebrew word yachid.
Strong’s #H3173
Brown-Driver-Briggs have the following to say about the word “Yachid:”

1 only one, especially of an only son, Genesis 22:2,12,16 את בנך את יְחִידְךָ thy son, thine only one, אֵבֶל יָחִיד Amos 8:10; Jeremiah 6:26 mourning for an only son, כמספד על היחיד Zechariah 12:10; Proverbs 4:3 רַךְ וְיָחִיד לפני אמי; so feminine יְחִידָה Judges 11:34.
2 feminine יְחִידָה as substantive Psalm 22:21; Psalm 35:17 יְחִידָתִי my only one, poetic for my life, as the one unique and priceless possession which can never be replaced (in each "" נַפְשִׁי).
3 solitary, Psalm 25:16 כי יחיד ועני אני; Psalm 68:6 מוֺשִׁיב יְחִידִים בַּיְתָה causing solitary, isolated ones (i.e. friendless wanderers or exiles;  אֲסִירִים) to dwell at home (Lag Ch and others מֵשִׁיב bringing back home). 

 Yachid is found in only 12 places throughout the Hebrew Scriptures:  Gen 22:2, 12, 16; Judges 11:34; Ps 22:21; 25:16; 35:17; 68:6; Prov 4:3; Jer 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech 12:10.
12 Occurrences: 
  1. Genesis 22:2, “... thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, ...”
  2. Genesis 22:12, “ ... thy son, thine only [son] from me.”
  3. Genesis 22:16, “... and with dances: and she [was his] only child; ...”
  4. Psalm 22:20, “... from the sword; my darling from the power ...”
  5. Psalm 15:16, “... thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I [am] desolate and afflicted.”
  6. Psalm 25:16, “... I am desolate and afflicted.”
  7. Psalm 35:17, “... from their destructions, my darling from the lions.”
  8. Psalm 68:6, “... setteth the solitary in families: ...”
  9. Proverbs 4:3, “... tender and only [beloved] in the sight ...”
  10. Jeremiah 6:26, “... thee mourning, [as for] an only son, most bitter ...”
  11. Amos 8:10, “... it as the mourning of an only [son], and the end ...”
  12. Zechariah 12:10, “... for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness ...”

The suggestion, by the Pluralists, that yachid should have been the word used by Moses if he intended to say that God is one person/entity/individual is rejected for the following reasons:
  • First, in Genesis 22:2,12 Isaac is called Abraham’s “only” (yachid) son. There is no word for “son” in the texts. The important thing to acknowledge is that Abraham had another son; yet Isaac is called yachid. Obviously, the meaning here is uniqueness and or preciousness, i.e. the type of son.
  • Secondly, yachid is used in Psalms 25:16 and 68:6 to describe the emotion of loneliness.
  • Thirdly, yachid, from Psalm 35:17, means: “my only one, poetic for my life, as the one unique and priceless possession which can never be replaced” (Brown-Driver-Briggs).
  • Fourthly, and perhaps, most importantly, yachid is never translated “one” in the Scripture. Above we give every place where yachid is used. It has the meaning of “only,” “only child,” “desolate,” “darling,” “solitary,” and “only son,” but is never rendered as one. It is true the word has a meaning of only or alone, but not just that; yachid’s meaning includes uniqueness, and preciousness. We maintain that yachid was not used to describe the unity of the Deity because it would not have been appropriate.  If yachid would be used to describe God, it would not necessarily tell us how many Gods there were (Isaac was called yachid, though he was not Abraham’s only son), but what kind of God. The sense of singularity or plurality is derived from the singularity or the plurality of the noun, not the word “one.”
There is, however, a Hebrew word for one that could have been used to say that God was a plurality of persons united together as one—that word is yachad (Strong’s #H3161; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, page 402). Yachad is the source of both of our words, echad and yachid. This word does indeed mean to “unite together into one.” That this word was available and the Holy Spirit did not inspire Moses to employ it, in describing Yahweh’s oneness, is all telling.

 Addressing The Lie That The Jews Changed Echad To Yachid
There is a false narrative making its rounds, that after the development of Christianity the Jewish scholars edited the Shema to read yachid instead of echad. To call this story a lie is proper and correct. 
The origin of the Lie may come from confusing the Bible text with the Thirteen Principles of Faith composed by Maimonides. Maimonides (aka Rambam; 1135-1204) was physician to the Sultan Saladin and communal leader of Egyptian Jewry, as well as an important figure in the codification of Jewish law. As such, he was acquainted with Roman Catholic apologetics and interpre-tations of the Old Testament. It's possible he may have encountered Catholic use of the word echad to prove that Moses himself hinted at the Triunity of the Godhead, as mentioned in Deuteronomy 6:4. To counter this idea, Maimonides opted to employ the noun yachid in his "Second Principle of Faith."
“I believe with perfect faith that the Creator,
blessed be his name,
is a Unity [yachid],
and that there is no Unity [yachid] in any manner like unto his,
and that he alone is our God, 
who was, is, and will be.”

The truth is: Echad has never been edited out of the Shema, because it is the proper word to describe Yahweh’s absolute solitary Oneness. In every form of the Shema, both ancient and modern, echad stands in each one.

 Apostolically Speaking
☩ David Ignatius
If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:





The above is an excerpt rom the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology" which may be purchased from amazon at the following link: 
http://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444861346&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ABishop+Jerry+Hayes

Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)


Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)


Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4





 THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY
PURCHASING OUR BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)