4<\/strong>. Hear, O Israel<\/em> ] So Deu 9:1<\/span>; Deu 20:3<\/span>, and similarly Deu 4:1<\/span>, Deu 6:3<\/span>; and nowhere else in the Hexateuch. The Sg. is to be explained as in Deu 5:1<\/span>; but the continuance of the Sg. through the rest of this section is (especially if it is to follow immediately on Deu 6:1<\/em><\/span>, see above) analogous to the appearance of the Sg. of the Decalogue in a Pl. context. There, as here, Moses uses the Pl. address for his own words, but quotes what God gave him at oreb in the Sg.<\/p>\n the Lord our God is one Lord<\/em> ] As the R. V. marg. shows, this is one of four possible translations of the elliptic Hebrew: Jehovah our-God, Jehovah One<\/em>. The other three are: Jehovah our God, Jehovah is One; Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is One; Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone<\/em>. But the four are resolvable into these two: First, Jehovah our God is One<\/em>, an expression of His unity, appropriate at a time when we know from Jeremiah that by the multiplication of His shrines the people of Judah conceived Him, as Baal or Ashtoreth was conceived, not as One, but as many deities with different characteristics and powers over different localities, cp. Jer 2:28<\/span>. Second, Jehovah is our God alone<\/em>: i.e. Israel’s only<\/em> God, cp. Zec 14:9<\/span>; Son 6:9<\/span>; 1Ch 29:1<\/span>. These passages are all post-exilic, and in the first two one<\/em> may mean unique<\/em>, but that here it means only<\/em> (for Israel) is probable from the following verse. Some interpreters take the verse as ‘a great declaration of monotheism’ (so Driver). But had that been the intention of the writer the clause would have run ‘Jehovah is the<\/em> God, Jehovah alone.’ The use of the term our-God<\/em> shows that the meaning simply is Jehovah is Israel’s only God<\/em>. Nothing is said as to the existence or non-existence of other gods, and the verse is therefore on an equality with Deu 5:7<\/span>, the First Commandment, and with Deu 7:9<\/span>, which implies no more than that Jehovah is a<\/em> or the<\/em> God indeed; cp. the curious Deu 4:19<\/span> b<\/em> which seeks to reconcile His sovereignty with the fact that other gods are worshipped by other nations. Only in Deu 4:35<\/span>; Deu 4:39<\/span> does an explicit declaration of monotheism appear in Deut.; it is to be remembered, however, that on other grounds the post-exilic date of these verses is possible 1 [126] . At the same time the phrase used here lends itself readily to the expression of an absolute monotheism, which later ages of a wider faith read into it. It is interesting to compare with our verse St Paul’s statement 1Co 8:4-6<\/span>; we know that no idol is<\/em> anything in the world and that there is no God but one; for though there be that are called gods ; as there be gods many and lords many, yet to us there is One God, the Father, of whom are all things<\/em>. Note even here yet to us<\/em>!<\/p>\n [126] This is not meant to imply that some in Israel had not thrown off belief in the reality of other gods before the Exile. Jeremiah certainly had: e.g. Deu 2:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4 9<\/strong>. The Essential Creed and Duty of Israel, with enforcement of them. Known from its initial word as The Shma‘<\/em> (= Hear<\/em>), this section (along with Deu 11:13-21<\/span> and Num 15:37-41<\/span>) ‘has been for many ages the first bit of the Bible which Jewish children have learned to say and to read, just as it has for many ages formed the confession of faith among all members of the brotherhood of Judaism’ (C. G. Montefiore, The Bible for Home Reading<\/em>, Pt i. 127). The later law required its recital by a Jew twice daily; for particulars see Schrer, Gesrh. des jd. Volkes<\/em>, 27 and Appendix (3rd Germ. ed. ii. 459 f.; E.T. Div. ii. Vol. ii. pp. 77, 84). The LXX inserts before it a longish title 1 [125] , which shows how late this editorial practice of inserting titles to important sections of Deut. continued, and explains some similar headings in the Heb. text.<\/p>\n [125] ‘And these are the statutes and the judgements which the Lord commanded to the children of Israel, when they were coming out of the land of Egypt.’<\/p>\n These words form the beginning of what is termed the Shema (Hear) in the Jewish Services, and belong to the daily morning and evening office. They may be called the creed of the Jews.<\/P> This weighty text contains far more than a mere declaration of the unity of God as against polytheism; or of the sole authority of the revelation that He had made to Israel as against other pretended manifestations of His will and attributes. It asserts that the Lord God of Israel is absolutely God, and none other. He, and He alone, is Jehovah (Yahweh) the absolute, uncaused God; the One who had, by His election of them, made Himself known to Israel.<\/P><\/p>\n Deu 6:4<\/span><\/p>\n The Lord our God is one Lord.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Of the unity of God<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>In opposition to, and to distinguish Him from, dead idols (Psa 115:4-6<\/span>; 1Th 1:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Because God is the fountain of life, having all life in Himself (Joh 5:26<\/span>), and giving life to all things else. All life is in Him and from Him.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Natural life (Act 17:28<\/span>; 1Ti 6:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Spiritual life (Eph 2:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> Eternal life (Col 3:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Of fidelity or faithfulness. Thus God is true–that is, faithful But that is not the truth here meant.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>A truth of essence, whereby a thing really is, and does not exist in opinion only. The meaning is, that there is a true God, and but one true God.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The Scripture is very express and pointed on this head (chap. 6:4; Isa 44:6<\/span>; Mar 12:32; 1Sa 2:2<\/span>; Psa 18:31<\/span>; Isa 46:9<\/span>; 1Co 8:4<\/span>; 1Co 8:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This truth is clear from reason.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> There can be but one First Cause, which hath its being of itself, and gave being to all other things, and on which all other things depend, and that is God; for one such is sufficient for the production, preservation, and government of all things; and therefore more are superfluous, for there is no need of them at all.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> There can be but one Infinite Being, and therefore there is but one God. Two infinites imply a contradiction.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> There can be but one independent Being, and therefore but one God.<\/p>\n (a) <\/strong>There can be but one independent in being; for if there were more gods, either one of them would be the cause and author of being to the rest, and then that one would be the only God; or none of them would be the cause and author of being to the rest, and so none of them would be God, because none of them would be independent, or the fountain of being to all.<\/p>\n (b) <\/strong>There can be but one independent in working. For if there were more independent beings, then in those things wherein they will and act freely they might will and act contrary things, and so oppose and hinder one another; so that, being equal in power, nothing would be done by either of them.<\/p>\n (4)<\/strong> There can be but one omnipotent.<\/p>\n (5)<\/strong> The supposition of a plurality of gods is destructive to all true religion. For if there were more than one God, we would be obliged to worship and serve more than one. But this it is impossible for us to do, as will appear if ye consider what Divine worship and service is. Religious worship and adoration must be performed with the whole man.<\/p>\n (6)<\/strong> If there might be more gods than one, nothing would hinder why there might not be one, or two, or three millions of them. No argument can be brought for a plurality of gods, suppose two or three, but what a man might, by parity of reason, make use of forever so many. Hence it is that when men have once begun to fancy a plurality of gods, they have been endless in such fancies and imaginations. (T. Boston D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Trinity and unity<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>To this question we answer, that the doctrine of the Trinity has heightened and enriched our conception of the nature of God.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This doctrine affords a basis for those gracious relations which it has pleased God to sustain towards us in the economy of our salvation. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n One God<\/strong><\/p>\n The Lord our God<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>As regards His existence. Alpha and Omega. Uncreated. Independent. From everlasting.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>As regards His decrees. Consummate wisdom.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>As regards His operations. Needs no assistance. Makes no mistakes.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>As regards His faithfulness. The one immutable God.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>As regards His love. Admits no rival. Has no equal.<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>As regards His claims. The only Being who has a right to our praise, service, love.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Has made a covenant with us (Exo 6:4-8<\/span>; Heb 8:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Has adopted us.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Has endowed us. With Himself. His power, wisdom, etc., are all at our service.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Has owned the relationship.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>To cheek presumption.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>To stimulate faith.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>To increase devotedness.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>To dissipate fears.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>To impart comfort.<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>To fire love. (R. A. Griffin.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The one Jehovah<\/strong><\/p>\n Knowledge as to the fact that there is one God is of high importance to its possessor. In connection with this statement, as to its importance, it may be predicated that evidence has never been adduced to prove that there is more than one God–the one Jehovah. Evidence upon evidence, however, can be adduced to prove that there is one God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, the Upholder and Proprietor of all things. In evidence of this, we have only to look around us upon the things that exist; for they all speak of God as the Great First Cause of their existence. For the sake of argument, however, let it be supposed that the proposition is submitted that there are more Gods than one, how could this proposition be supported? How could there be any being equally high with the Highest, or equally excellent with the Most Excellent–two super-superlatives? The idea is not tenable. Not so, however, is it with the idea that there is one God, one Supreme Ruler in the universe; and from whom the universe itself had its origin. This idea has manifold support; and, from among the many evidences that might be adduced in support of it, reference may be made to that unity of design which is manifest throughout all the works of God: as in these works, so far as they can be surveyed by the human mind in present circumstances, this unity, embracing simplicity, testifies to the infinite wisdom and power of a Designer. The extent to which this truth might illustratively be carried out can only be glanced at in present circumstances. New countries, for example, are constantly discovering themselves to the eye of the traveller; and yet, go where he may, he still finds that the old laws of nature, by the appointment of Heaven, come into view. Many new plants may be found on foreign shores; yet all of them indicate the necessity of their continuance to exist in the adhesion of the pollen of the stamens to the gummy stigma of the pistil. Yes; and new animals may be found in different parts of the globe. Whatever their variety, however, they are all maintained by the same earth, cheered by the same sun, invigorated by the same breath, and refreshed by the same moisture. Go where we will the elements act upon each other, the tides uniformly fluctuate; and true to its index is the instrument, when properly adjusted, by which the ship may be steered. Man, too, go where we may, has the same origin, the same general external construction, and the same characteristics by which he is distinguished from creatures of a lower grade. Now whence, or for what purpose, does this uniformity of design exist? The text replies–The Lord our God is one Lord, one self-existent, all-wise, and independent Jehovah, and of whose existence and attributes there is incontrovertible evidence, not only in things that exist, but in the unity, simplicity, and harmony of those principles which operate, with marvellous uniformity, throughout every department of the material world. In Him, as thus revealed, we have a God to adore, worthy of our worship, worthy of our confidence, and whose goodness may well captivate with thrilling emotions every affectionate impulse of the soul. But an awful question here comes into my mind. Is this one Jehovah, so plainly revealed, my God? How can I, without arrogant presumption, cherish the thought that I may find acceptance in the sight of Him, compared with whom I am as nothing; less than nothing, and vanity? His greatness, and my insignificance; His holiness, and my impurity, seem to repel every ground on which the hope of acceptance with Him would seek to rest. Through what medium, honouring to God, can His favour ever reach this poor heart of mine? How can condescension, in God, to take notice of me, ever accord with His own infinite purity, justice, and dignity? The case transcends my reason: it is too great for me. I am as one utterly out at sea in a frail bark, without a rudder or a hand to guide it. Here, in this labyrinth of perplexity, the great Jehovah might have left me to the guidance of my own mental wanderings till the long night of death had closed over my head. But in great goodness He has not left me thus! With a condescension upon which created intelligence, of itself, never could have reckoned, He has unfolded to me the mystery, that, while there is only one God, there are yet, in the essence of this one God, or Godhead, three distinct personalities–the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost–each of them fulfilling a separate department in the economy of human redemption; and that, while thus separate in their gracious manifestations, they are nevertheless one as to undivided essence. The day now begins to dawn somewhat upon my hitherto benighted soul; and though its light be dim amid the darkness through which it comes, there is in it an intimation that, like the dawn of morn, its light shall increase. Be it borne in mind, however, that the revelation indicated is only intended to suit the infancy of our existence in the life that now is; and that while it does not tell us all that in due time we shall be made to know, it tells us all that our present circumstances require. (Thos. Adam.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The unity of nature proclaims one intelligent Mind<\/strong><\/p>\n Owing to the imperfection and limitation of our powers, we are obliged to deal with fragments of the universe, and to exaggerate their differences. But the more profound and varied our study of the objects of Nature, the more remarkable do we find their resemblances. And we cannot occupy ourselves with the smallest province of science without speedily becoming sensible of its intercommunication with other provinces. The snowflake leads us to the sun. The study of a lichen or moss becomes a key that opens up the great temple of organic light. If we could understand, as Tennyson profoundly says, what a little flower growing in the crevice of a wayside wall is, root and all, and all in all, we should know what God and man are. And the same unbroken gradation or continuity which we trace throughout all the parts and objects of our own world pervades and embraces the whole physical universe–so far, at least, as our knowledge of it at present extends. By the wonderful discoveries of spectrum analysis, we find the same substances in sun, moon, and stars which compose our own earth. The imagination of the poet is conversant with the whole, and sees truth in universal relation. He attains by insight the goal to which all other knowledge is finding its way step by step. And the Christian poet and philosopher, whose eye has been opened, not partially, by the clay of Natures materials, worked upon by human thought so that he sees men as trees walking, but fully and perfectly, by washing in the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness, whose pure heart sees God in everything, and in Gods light sees light–he stands at the shining point where all things converge to one. Wherever he turns his inquiring gaze, he finds shade unperceived so softening into shade, and all so forming one harmonious whole, that not a link is wanting in the chain which unites and reproduces all, from atom to mountain, from microscopic mass to banyan tree, from monad up to man. And if the unity of the tabernacle proved it to be the work of one designing mind, surely the unity of this greater tabernacle, this vast cosmos, with its myriads of parts and complications, proves it to be no strange jumbling of chance, no incoherent freak of fortuity, but the work of one intelligent Mind having one glorious object in view. (Hugh Macmillan, LL. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The unity of God<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Here religion and philosophy are in accord. The saints and the scientists alike maintain the unity of God. Authority and reason go thus far together. God must be one; cannot be other than one.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The revelation of God is of necessity progressive. All education is progressive, because all knowledge is conditioned by the mind of him who knows. You may take a whole ocean of water, but you can get only two pints of it into a quart cup. The water is conditioned, limited, by the cup. Thus is knowledge conditioned by the mind.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The highest truth which the mind can touch is truth about God. The supreme knowledge is knowledge of God. But this, like all other knowledge, is conditioned by the mind of him who knows. God changes not; but year by year in the life of a man, and age by age in the life of the race, the conception of God changes. It is like the ascent of a hill which overhangs a plain. The plain does not change, does not get wider, mile by mile, as the beholder climbs. No, the beholder changes. The higher he gets, the more he sees.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Thus religion grew out of belief in God as many, into belief in God as one. Some see a trace of this old change out of the polytheistic into the monotheistic idea of God in the fact that in the beginning of the Bible the Hebrew name of God is plural, while the verb which is written with it is singular. Men began to see that the gods of their imperfect creed were but personifications of the attributes of the one God.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>It was a hard lesson to learn. It is evident in the Old Testament that faith in the unity of God won its way little by little. The best men held it, but the people in general were slow to believe it. Even in the Psalms, God is often spoken of as the greatest of the gods.<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>All religion, however imperfect and mistaken, is an endeavour after a better knowledge of God. And as men grows they are able to know more–to know more about everything, even about God. God is able to reveal Himself more and more. At first, every tree is a god. Then there is a god of the trees, and then of all the universe and of man included in it. God is known as one.<\/p>\n 7. <\/strong>We have not yet learned all the truth of God. We are not universally sure, e.g., <\/em>that God cares more for deeds than creeds. But we have learned that God is one; we have abandoned polytheism.<\/p>\n 8. <\/strong>We believe in God the Father, and we believe in God the Son, and we believe in God the Holy, Ghost. But there is one God, and there is none other. The word person, which the old creed-makers used to express these different ideas of God, has given rise to endless confusion. With us a person is an individual. But this word person comes into English out of Latin, and in Latin was a blundering translation of a wiser word in Greek. It means distinction. There is one God in threefold distinction. The Divine nature is complex as our human nature is. And there are three ways of thinking about God, corresponding to the being of God, ways which are not only true but essential, so that if we are to think of God aright we must think of Him in all these three ways.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> God is the source of life, the infinite, the eternal–the Father.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> God has manifested Himself to us–so that we may know Him and love Him, and know that He loves us–in the plainest and most universally understood of all possible manifestations, in a human personality; the Word become flesh–the Son.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> And God is ever present with us, speaking to all men everywhere, in the past and in the present, teaching, warning, inspiring–the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n 9. <\/strong>Thus the Christian doctrine, taking that old truth that God is one, and holding to it, draws new truth out of it. It is an advance upon monotheism, as that was upon polytheism. It meets the longings of the heart. It answers the eager questions of the race. (George Hodges, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. Hear, O Israel<\/B><\/I>] shemA<\/I> Yisrael, Yehovah Eloheinu, Yehovah achaD<\/I>. These words may be variously rendered into English; but almost all possible verbal<\/I> varieties in the translation (and there can be none other) amount to the same sense: “Israel, hear! Jehovah, our God, is one Jehovah;” or, “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one;” or, “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone;” or, “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah who is one;” or, “Jehovah, who is our God, is the one Being.” On this verse the Jews lay great stress; it is one of the four passages which they write on their phylacteries, and they write the last letter in the first and last words very large, for the purpose of exciting attention to the weighty truth it contains. It is perhaps in reference to this custom of the Jews that our blessed Lord alludes, Mt 22:38<\/span>; Mr 12:29-30<\/span>, where he says, This is the first and great commandment<\/I>; and this is nearly the comment that Maimonides<\/I> gives on this place: “Hear, O Israel; because in these words the property, the love, and the doctrine of God are contained.”<\/P> <\/P> Many think that Moses teaches in these words the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. It may be so; but if so, it is not more clearly done than in the first verse of Genesis, to which the reader is referred. When this passage occurs in the Sabbath readings in the synagogue, the whole congregation repeat the last word achad<\/I> for several minutes together with the loudest vociferations: this I suppose they do to vent a little of their spleen against the Christians, for they suppose the latter hold three Gods<\/I>, because of their doctrine of the Trinity<\/I>; but all their skill and cunning can never prove that there is not a plurality<\/I> expressed in the word Eloheinu<\/I>, which is translated our God<\/I>; and were the Christians, when reading this verse, to vociferate Eloheinu<\/I> for several minutes as the Jews do achad<\/I>, it would apply more forcibly in the way of conviction to the Jews of the plurality<\/I> of persons in the Godhead<\/I>, than the word achad<\/I>, of one<\/I>, against any pretended false tenet of Christianity, as every Christian receives the doctrine of the unity<\/I> of God in the most conscientious manner. It is because of their rejection of this doctrine that the wrath of God continues to rest on them; for the doctrine of the atonement cannot be received, unless the doctrine of the Godhead of Christ<\/I> is received too. Some Christians have joined the Jews against this doctrine, and some have even outdone them, and have put themselves to extraordinary pains to prove that Elohim<\/I> is a noun of the singular<\/I> number! This has not yet been proved. It would be as easy to prove that there is no plural<\/I> in language.<\/P> <\/p>\n One in essence, and the only object of our worship. <\/P> <\/p>\n Hear, O Israel<\/strong>,…. These are the words of Moses, stirring up the people to an attention to what he was about to say of this great and momentous article, the unity of God, to prevent their going into polytheism and idolatry. From one of the words here used, the Jews call this section Kiriathshema, which they oblige themselves to read twice a day, morning and evening n; the last letter of the first word in this verse, “Shema”, meaning “hear”, and the last letter of the last word in it, “Echad”, meaning “one”, are greater than ordinary; which seems designed to excite the attention to what is contained in this passage:<\/p>\n the Lord our God is one Lord<\/strong>; the doctrine of which is, that the Lord, who was the covenant God and Father of his people Israel, is but one Jehovah; he is Jehovah, the Being of beings, a self-existent Being, eternal and immutable; and he is but one in nature and essence; this appears from the perfection of his nature, his eternity, omnipotence, omnipresence, infinity, goodness, self-sufficiency, and perfection; for there can be but one eternal, one omnipotent, one omnipresent, one infinite, one that is originally and of himself good; one self, and all sufficient, and perfect Being; and which also may be concluded from his being the first cause of all things, which can be but one; and from his relations to his creatures, as their King, ruler, governor, and lawgiver. And for this purpose these words are cited in Mr 12:29<\/span> but then they no ways contradict the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence, the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, which three are one; the one God, the one Jehovah, as here expressed; see 1Jo 5:7<\/span> and so the ancient Jews understood this passage. In an ancient book of theirs it is said o Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah (i.e. Jehovah, our God, Jehovah); these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery; “in the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth”; and again p, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one; the three forms (modes or things) which are one; and elsewhere q it is observed, there are two, and one is joined to them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to (or of) them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu (our God) is joined unto them; and it is the seal of the ring of truth, and when they are joined they are one in one unity; which is illustrated by the three names the soul of man is called by, the soul, spirit, and breath; and elsewhere they say r the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah, are called one; see Joh 10:30<\/span>.<\/p>\n n Mist. Beracot, c. 1. sect. 1, 2. o Zohar in Gen. fol. 1, 3. p Ib. in Exod. fol. 18. 3, 4. q Ib. in Numb. fol. 67. 3. r Tikkune Zohar, Correct. 47. fol. 86. 2.<\/p>\n With Deu 6:4<\/span> the burden of the law commences, which is not a new law added to the ten commandments, but simply the development and unfolding of the covenant laws and rights enclosed as a germ in the decalogue, simply an exposition of the law, as had already been announced in Deu 1:5<\/span>. The exposition commences with an explanation and enforcing of the first commandment. There are two things contained in it: (1) that Jehovah is the one absolute God; (2) that He requires love with all the heart, all the soul, and all the strength. “ Jehovah our God is one Jehovah<\/em>.”<\/p>\n (Note: On the majuscula<\/em> and in and , R. Bochin<\/em> has this remark: “It is possible to confess one God with the mouth, although the heart is far from Him. For this reason and are majuscula<\/em>, from which the tsere<\/em> subscribed the word , ‘a witness,’ is formed, that every one may know, when he professes the unity of God, that his heart ought to be engaged, and free from every other thought, because God is a witness<\/em> and knows all things” ( J. H. Mich. Bibl. Hebr<\/em>.).)<\/p>\n This does not mean Jehovah is one God, Jehovah alone ( Abenezra<\/em>), for in that case would be used instead of ; still less Jehovah our God, namely, Jehovah is one (J. H. Michaelis). together form the predicate of the sentence. The idea is not, Jehovah our God is one (the only) God, but “ one<\/em> (or the only) Jehovah:<\/em> ” not in this sense, however, that “He has not adopted one mode of revelation or appearance here and another there, but one mode only, viz., the revelation which Israel had received” ( Schultz<\/em>); for Jehovah<\/em> never denotes merely a mode in which the true God is revealed or appears, but God as the absolute, unconditioned, or God according to the absolute independence and constancy of His actions. Hence what is predicated here of Jehovah ( Jehovah one<\/em>) does not relate to the unity of God, but simply states that it is to Him alone that the name Jehovah<\/em> rightfully belongs, that He is the one absolute God, to whom no other Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>Why God is called the living God.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Why God is called the true God. To distinguish Him from all false or fictitious gods (1Th 1:9<\/span>). There is a two-fold truth.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>That there is but one God.<\/p>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The Scriptural Trinity implies that God is One. So far from being against the cardinal truth of Gods unity, it actually assumes it. The Trinity of our faith means a distinction of persons within one common indivisible Divine nature. If we ask, What is the chief spiritual benefit which we derive from the knowledge of the unity of God? the answer is this: The unity of God is the only religious basis for a moral law of perfect and unwavering righteousness. It is a unity of moral character in the Ruler, and therefore of moral rule in the universe. It is such a unity as excludes all conflict within the Divine will, all inconsistency in the Divine law, all feebleness in the Divine administration.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>What religious advantages do we reap from the fresh Christian discovery of a Trinity within this unity of the Divine nature?<\/p>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The belief in one God gives rest to the active man; it satisfies his intellectual, his moral, his emotional, his spiritual being.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>In the field of scientific research this faith inspires us with a confident hope of reducing all phenomena to law, since all proceed from one hand, and express one creative will. This faith supplies that which physical science lacks and yet requires–namely, a prime mover and a sustaining power.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>In morals this faith acts most powerfully upon our will, and rouses us to exalt the higher nature and repress the lower. Polytheism deifies the human passions. But if there be only one God, then our highest aspirations must give us the truest image of Him.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>Faith in one God brings peace to the mourner and to the suffering, for we know that He who now sends the trouble is the same God whose kindness we have felt so often. Having learned to love and trust Him, we are able to accept suffering as the chastisement of a Fathers hand. If there were gods many, we could regard the troubles of life only as the spiteful acts of some malevolent deity; we must bribe his fellow gods to oppose him.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>Upon one God we are able to concentrate all the powers of the soul, our emotions are not dissipated, our religious efforts are not flittered away upon a pleasing variety of characters, but the image of God is steadily renewed in the soul, and communion with God grows ever closer. (F. R. Chapman.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The supremacy of the Lord. The one Being–incomparable, unrivalled.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The relationship of the Lord. Our God.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The command of the Lord. Hear, O Israel. God would have us think much on this two-fold theme–what He is, and what He is to us–<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n