The Shema of Deuteronomy 6 verse 4

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD". The Shema relates to the original Judeo-Christian worship of the one true God. The basic principle of the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:28-34 is reflected in the singular aspect of God. This text has been used by Trinitarians and Binitarians to attempt to assert a unity to the elohim such that God and Christ are one elohim. However, this is false. The singularity of Eloah is absolute and does not include the son selected as Messiah as Proverbs 30:4-5 shows. Indeed it includes none of the sons of God, of which there are, and always have been, many (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7).

The base text in the Hebrew is: Shema Yishrael Yahovah Elohenu Yahovah Ehad

The basic assumption by Trinitarians (and confused by self-professed Binitarians) is that the term Elohenu is related to elohim. Elohenu is a derivation of Eloah and is singular, as Eloah is singular. Elohim is a plural word and is not the root of this word. Eloah is the basis of both terms.

Deuteronomy 6:5 follows the Shema: And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

Christ himself cites Deuteronomy 6:5, which is integral to the Shema as the First and Great Commandment (Mat. 22:37; Mk. 12:28-34; Lk. 10:25-28) and the essential and basic principle of the Law. The Shema is then commanded (vv. 6-8) to be taught to the children and discussed diligently when in the house and in the way or streets. It is in verse 8 that they are identified as the sign upon your hand and as frontlets between your eyes. Thus the law cannot be divorced from the Shema as the identifier of the people of God.

The concept of the elohim being one is as under the rule and will of Eloah who is the One True God (Jn. 17:3; 1Jn 5:20). Jesus Christ is not the One True God and as such this text cannot refer to Messiah, but to the Father only. Trinitarians and, to another extent, Binitarians and Ditheists (cf. No. 076; No. 076B) are thus in breach of the First Commandment.

The object of worship is Yahovah of Hosts as Eloah. This being is Yahovih (SHD 3069) referred to as Elohim by Jews when they read Yahovih. All spiritual beings acting for Him carried that name of Yahovah (SHD 3068) which is a third person form of the verb meaning he causes to be and is read by Jews as Adonai (cf. Ann. Oxford RSV n. to Ex. 3:14). However, Eloah and no other is the one central object of worship. The beings, both spiritual and physical, who acted for Him, were all elohim as an extension of the One True God, Eloah, The Elohim; hence the generic reference to the creator. No one was to rebel against the elohim or revile them.

Exodus 22:28-31 "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people. ²⁹"You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. "The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. ³⁰You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. ³¹"You shall be men consecrated to me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs (RSV).

Cosmology

Overview: How God is One

The Hebrew concept of God as a plural structure (termed Elohim in the Hebrew, or Theoi in the Greek), is derived from the logical necessity of the exclusion of polytheist forms. God is one because the Host of Heaven is united by the spirit as one within the will of the central entity that was the causal origin of the structure. This plurality is derived entirely from the central singular being, upon whom it is dependent for existence (cf. Cox; How God Became a Family (No. 187)) .

This entity is called in the Hebrew, Eloah or ha Elohim (i.e. the God). In the (Koine) Greek NT He is Ho Theos, THE God. In John chapter 1 for example the accusative case Theon or ton Theon is used for this being. He is singular and eternal. He is understood in English as God the Father. He existed before time began, in his abiding perpetuity, as a singular entity in complete form, with all necessary attributes instantiated. That is, He did not create any of the attributes necessary to His deity, such as omniscience or omnipotence; they existed as part of His being.

The New Testament uses Greek Philosophical terms, in addition to the system devised by the LXX in the Septuagint, to explain the structure and allegedly to avoid confusion. Those terms will be used and explained. It should be remembered that the Hebrew apostles were explaining to a Greek educated multi-god or polytheist world, a Hebrew concept using Greek words, which had meanings quite different, in some cases, from that ascribed to the same words today.

By the power of His spirit (which emanates as a force, which is equated with a divine utterance and which may be termed in the Greek, Logon, in a general sense) God created according to His will (Rev 4:11). The primary creation was the central order of the host termed the Elohim. The Elohim were initiated from an emanation of the spirit that must have been simultaneous. The Elohim were of degree and rank as an order of spirit beings, who achieved their unity with Eloah from the emanation of the Logon; individual manifestations of which being referred to as the Logos or Logoi in plural form. The Logoi of God is the plural form used in both the LXX and the NT for the Oracles of God translating the Hebrew Dabar Yahovah or word of God as it applied to the Holy of Holies. (See Oracle of God and Oracles of God comparing the MT with the LXX: cf. Cox, The Oracles of God (No. 184), CCG.) When used in reference to humans, the animist term pneuma was used which has proved to be slightly misleading in discussion of the structure.

The creation and movement of the Elohim commenced the concept of time. The subsequent acts of creation were left to subordinate entities. In the OT, the actions on behalf of the One True God, who is Father of all, were undertaken by subordinate entities. This view is consistent with ancient theology generally. The being which appeared to man in the OT was the Angel of YHVH, who was understood by the early Church as being Christ. In his pre-existent form, he gave the law to Moses (cf. Cox: The Elect as Elohim (No. 1); The Angel of YHVH (No. 024); Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127) and The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ (No. 243), CCG, 1994-2000). We know from the Bible texts, and from above that Christ was a creator. He therefore created in accordance with the will of God the Father and with knowledge proportional to his revelation of the plan. The Elohim created in accordance with the will of Eloah, but in fact had some autonomy in material structures within their commands. The Elohim are replicated beings as emanations of the force of Eloah. He was the central Elohim and the only entity who could be both Eloah and Elohim. Eloah anointed Elohim to their commands. The Elohim of Israel was anointed by his Elohim (who was Eloah) (cf. Deut. 32:8; Psalm 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-9).

The Elohim were called YHVH in the Hebrew (pronounced Yahovah (SHD 3068 above), which is the name of the central entity termed Yahovah of Hosts as an honorific, showing that they acted for Him. They were messengers of YHVH and so were referred to by the term 'Messenger' in both the Hebrew form 'malak', and the Greek form 'aggelos', from which the term angel is derived. The Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the Angel of YHVH (Gen. 48:15-16). The central entity we call God the Father was called 'YHVH of Hosts' (cf. Zechariah 2:5-13). He was the God of all Elohim (cf. also, Psalm 8 (No. 014), CCG, 2000) and God of the entity known as the Messiah (John 20:17). The term Messiah means anointed one. There is more than one anointed one within the Bible. The term Christ is a Greek form for anointed one. The Hebrews held at the time of Christ that the Messiah would be of two forms, the Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of Israel. From the Dead Sea Scrolls it seems that they understood from this that the Messiah would first appear as the Messiah of Aaron. He would return as the King Messiah of Israel. There seems little doubt (from the Damascus Rule VII and the fragment from Cave IV) that they are one being and the King Messiah of Israel is preceded by a prophet according to the Community Rule IX (Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English Penguin, 2nd ed. 1985, pp. 48-49).

The Name YHVH

YHVH is used for both God and Messenger for God. It is use in two forms Yahovah (SHD 3068) and Yahovih (SHD 3069). It is derived from the Hebrew ‘eyeh ‘asher ‘eyeh” in Ex. 3:14 as “I will be what I will become.”

Yahovah is actually a third person form of the verb meaning “He causes to be.” The structure is explained by the Oxford scholars in the Oxford Annotated RSV at the fn. to Ex. 3:14. They are also covered in the texts on the Names of God (No. 116); Dialogue on the Name and Nature of God (No. 116A); and Etymology of the Name of God (No. 220). Yahovah (SHD 3068) is used when referring to the elohim of the Sons of God and “He causes to be” is an honorific honouring their position as messenger for the One True God and refers back to the God they represent Yahovih (SHD 3069) who is the Ho Elohim or The God, who is Eloah, Elyon, God the Father whom no man has seen or ever can see.

The central YHVH, or YHVH of Hosts, is stated to be the God of the Messiah (from Micah 5:2-4). It is thus logically absurd to assert that the entity referred to as the Messiah is the same being as Eloah or Ho Theos, who is God the Father. They are one, in an extended sense, as are all the Elohim. To give the concept as a structure, the term Bene Elohim is used as 'Sons of God'. The angels and humans are both of the order of Sons of God, both real and elect. All entities are thus one as Elohim, but there are degrees and rank. The Elohim, Eloah, thus anointed the Elohim Host to command orders of the host subordinate to him as Bene Elohim or sons of God. Each in turn was subordinate to his Elohim or Theos. Elohim and Eloah (and Theos and Ho Theos) are translated as God so the English conveys no concept of the original structure.

The Elohim ordained the law in the hands of a mediator (Gal. 3:19). The Elohim termed messengers had a power of creation as the creation was subject to law and Eloah does not create disembodied laws. In other words law and the objects regulated by that law are not separate. Law does not exist independent of the created; therefore these entities created (cf. Cox et al, The Law of God (No. L1) series, CCG, 1998). Indeed, the entire structure of Genesis attests to creation by the Elohim. Some of the highest ranks of the Elohim rebelled under the covering Cherub called Azazel later known as Satan, from the verb to accuse. This being was termed the Light Bearer or Lucifer. He held the rank of ruler of this system. He was known by the rank of 'Morning Star' and he is mentioned in this context at Isaiah Chapter 14. Satan had access to the throne of God up until some period between the sequence in Job and the time of Christ. He was cast from heaven, according to Christ at Luke 10:18. Christ is to replace him as the new Morning Star, on his return as the Messiah of Israel to take over the Planet at the end of this age. Revelation deals with this event in sequence. It is specifically referred to from Revelation 20:4ff. (cf. Cox; The First Commandment: The Sin of Satan ( No. 153)).

The beings of the fallen host were referred to as elohim variously in the Old Testament. They seemed to have a concept attributed to them in the New Testament of a pseudologon or false logon as opposed to the logon or Spirit of God. The Covering Cherub who is Prince or Elohim of this world, was judged at the time of Christ, probably arising from his actions up to the temptation (John 16:11). The rest of the host have not been judged, but are reserved for judgement until the Day of the Lord, or the 'Great White Throne Judgment' of Revelation. From 1Corinthians 6:3 the elect or the saints will judge the fallen host (although some attempt to assert that the saints will, from this passage, have supremacy over the loyal host). Logically, it is difficult to see how they could come into judgment. Certainly the Bible holds that mankind is to be equal to angels as isaggelos (Luke 20:36) or, more correctly, as an order of angels, being their brethren (Rev. 12:10) and finally synonymous with them (at Rev. 21:17).

After the one thousand year reign of the Messiah, and the second resurrection and judgment, the entire host will go on to inherit the universe, which is referred to at Deuteronomy 4:19.

The host is to be one and God is to be all in all (1Cor. 15:28; Eph. 4:6). It is from the concept of the oneness and unity of God that each entity must exist among the Elohim or Theoi, as a single structure of being tied to his Elohim. Each Elohim is, in turn, then tied to their Central Elohim or Eloah. The members of the host are thus referred to as Bene Elohim or Sons of God. All are, however, part of the generic structure Elohim.

The entities which comprise the Godhead as Elohim are in fact thirty beings, consisting of Eloah and the four Seraphim, or living creatures, symbolised by the man, lion, bull and eagle headed creatures or cherubs. The Council of the Elders, the presbuteros, is the celestial council of the Elohim, numbering twenty-four, under the high priest, who is the Lamb or the Messiah. It was the Messiah that redeemed men to establish the heavenly rule on the earth (Rev. Ch.4).

The structure of the tabernacle was a deliberate reflection of the heavenly government of God. (cf. Cox, The Government of God (No. 174), CCG). The object of worship of the tabernacle was Eloah, or Elahh (cf. Chald. SHD 426). There was a high priest and twenty-four divisional high priests, making twenty-five in all. The tribes were divided into four groups of three tribes, always in the same locations in the north, south, east and west (see Numbers esp. Ch. 10). The distribution of the tribes seems to change after the return of the Messiah (from Ezekiel). The tabernacle showed two cherubs. It thus appears that the twenty-four cherubs were divided on the basis of two to a unit, making twelve units as a complete system. Thus, the twelve tribes may literally represent the twelve celestial systems of the host. Each system is then one of four groups of three. The payment of the thirty pieces of silver for the betrayal of Christ seems to be related to the concept of the matter being an offence against the entire Godhead. The concept of the third of the host rebelling would have made a serious division in the unity of the host, and may have involved the split of up to a dozen Elohim from the Council of the Elders. The appearance of Moses and Elijah being with Christ (Mark 9:4) may reflect the concept of their appointment as the new cherubs of this structure. Thus the reflection of the replacement of the host is apparent.

Each of the systems of the priesthood seems to reflect the heavenly structure. The destiny of man to achieve immortality within a structure can only be monotheist, if the entities derive their existence and status from a unity with God as Elohim. They are one in the same way that the current Elohim are one. Hence, Christ's statement at John 17:21-22 that shows that mankind will be one with God, as Christ was one with God. It is logically impossible to establish a unified structure (where God is one and all in all) when the host exists independently in will and being, not deriving their unity from the very nature and Spirit of God. The concept that Christ was one of three elements of the Godhead (even if the third element is reduced to a force as spirit and the Father and Son are asserted to be a Bi-deity) is a polytheist form, which rests on assertions of dualism in the deity and is logically Trinitarian within the current meaning of that term. It is philosophically absurd and completely unbiblical. Unfortunately, people are so indoctrinated that they think within this structure, and think it impious to reject its premises. Quite simply, Christ is not the only entity to exist as an Elohim as one with Eloah. All of the Host necessarily must derive their positions within this structure in this manner. In this way we are also co-heirs with Christ.

The Athanasian understanding of the Godhead as only two beings from which a spirit emanates is incorrect, and limits the potential of the human replacement of the fallen host. The Trinitarian position is reliant on the doctrine of an immortal soul to achieve immortality, and this structure is logically polytheist. God can only be one if the host derives its existence as nominal gods, from a unity of essence and will that derives from and accords with the will of Eloah. To assert that Christ is one God with Eloah is logically wrong, except where Christ derives his unity as an Elohim in the same way that other entities derive, or are to derive, their nature as part of the Elohim. The assertion that there are only three aspects to the Godhead precludes mankind from reaching his full potential. It is logically divisive and polytheist. It can only be a doctrine of demons (cf. Cox, Love and the Structure of the Law (No. 200); Cox, Creation: From Anthropomorphic Theology to Theomorphic Anthropology (No. B5), CCG, 2000).

The Godhead as Eloah, The Elohim, Morning Stars and the Sons of God

The Elohim

It is the concept of the ordination of the law as given by The God of the Hebrews and the comment of Paul at Galatians 3:19-20 that the law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator, which shows a basic conceptual difficulty. We have seen (Cox, B5) that God cannot create disembodied laws, so that the ordaining of law entails spiritual or material control and implies creativity. But the ordination or creation of the law was by angels, necessitating that they must have possessed a delegation of power consequent to the nature of God, which they possessed and which was directed to the material creation. This delegation being logically prior to the creation, the Mediator (or Intermediary) was thus also creator. The law was therefore placed in the hand of the Mediator, to enable the creation in accordance with the plan of the Eloah. This point was understood by ancient Judaism and is seemingly avoided by modern Judaism.

The RSV says at verse 20: now an intermediary implies more than one; but God is one. The plurality of the Sons of God is seen by Paul as a multiplicity united in one as God. This plurality and union has been the subject of confusion in the early Christian Church, because of the complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Godhead due to the Chaldean Triune System, which limited the Godhead to three elements. It attempted to inflict its conceptual limitations on the biblical schema, and succeeded (cf. Cox, God Revealed Chapter 1 Ancient Monotheism (No. G1), CCG).

The Elohim as a Plurality

The Angel of YHVH, or Yahovah, is part of that plurality of elohim. This is reflected in the statement at Psalm 82:1 (RSV):

“God (Elohim) has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the Gods (Elohim) he holds judgement,”

and at verse 6 it is written:

“I said: ‘You are Gods (Elohim), sons of the Most High all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men and fall like any prince.’”

Christ says at John10:34-36 of this passage:

“Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, You are Gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, you are blaspheming because I said I am the Son of God.”

The Elohim is thus not Father and Son, not a trinity, but a council of entities possessing the nature of God the Father and in total union with Him, and from which the law emanates through a mediator. The use of Greek here in the New Testament is interesting in that the word used is Theos or God, and is here obviously plural, from the Elohim of Psalm 82:1 and the usage. From John 1:18, Theos is distinctly subordinate; The God being (Ho Theos) whom no man has seen. The Elohim of this planet is anointed by God, as God, possessing the fullness of the Godhead. Psalm 45:6-7 (RSV) states:

Your divine throne [or your throne is a throne of God: see note h] endures for ever and ever,

Your royal sceptre is a sceptre of equity,

You love righteousness and hate wickedness,

Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.

This entity, or Elohim, was identified in Hebrews 1:8-9 where the word fellows is translated comrades. At Hebrews 1:10, the Son is identified as founder of the earth and the (its) heavens in the beginning. From Hebrews 1:11-12, this entity will roll them up and change them as they grow old, but the entity itself is eternal and changeless.

Hebrews seems to make a conceptual distinction between the ministering spirits and the concept of the Sons of God. The comment “Thou art my son, Today I have begotten thee” from Psalm 2:7, and that of Elohim to David concerning Solomon (at 2Samuel 7:14), “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son,” was to isolate the destiny of the elect as the Sons of God. Hebrews 1:6 says “But when he again brings the firstborn into the world, he says “Let all the Angels of God worship him;’” however, this is a translation error from Psalm 97:7 which says “worship him all you Gods” where Gods is translated from Elohim. The Elohim here are referred to as Angels of the Host, as in Psalm 8 (ibid, No. 14). The other reference to this quote is at Deuteronomy 32:43 where the word servant is used and the concept appears to have been developed in the Septuagint version. The Angels, at Hebrews 1:7, are those at Psalm 104:4 referred to by the common term Malak, which is the same as that used for the Angel of Redemption at Genesis 48:16, who is identified here as the Elohim, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. All of these words are translated as angels from the Greek word ‘aggelos, a messenger, hence an angel. The difficulty lies in the paucity of words in the Greek to carry a number of meanings. That there are degrees of messengers seems beyond dispute. That the Angel of Redemption, one of the Elohim, gained preeminence from the incarnation seems inescapable from the passage at Hebrews.

However, this does not obscure or lessen the earlier structure of the order of the creation and the powers of the Host. Hebrews 1:2 states that the incarnation is appointed heir of all things and was the mediator through whom God made the worlds, although the word here should be ages, not worlds. The passage is probably a reference to the Mithraic teaching of the Aion as the “sap of life”, hence a lifespan or epoch as the Greek word aion is used and in the Jewish sense means a messianic period (see Strong’s Concordance).

It appears that the concept of age may also be related to the periods and duration of transit of the sun. The current age perhaps involves the transit of east to west, and Psalm 82:5 says “all the foundations of the earth are unstable.” (KJV). Aion here is wrongly translated as worlds, but appears more correctly at other passages. A statue of the lion‑headed aion is in the Vatican museum. (A photo and notations occur in Francis Huxley’s The Dragon: Nature of Spirit, Spirit of Nature, Collier, New York, 1979, pp.90-91.) Isaiah 24:1-6 shows that the earth is turned upside down (KJV), which has been rendered in later works as “its surface twisted”. This change of the age by reversing the world and hence the transit of the sun, may be of great significance in the control of the planet. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, (M.A. Knibb, Oxford Clarendon, 1982) provides useful understanding of the view of the events leading up to the flood, as seen through the eyes of the ancients up to the beginning of the current era.

This concept of the mediator as creator is sometimes confused, because the illusion has been created that God the Father, or Eloah, was He who spoke to the prophets. The problem occurs because of the conceptual distinction of the Logos, not yet made flesh in unity with the Godhead, and the post‑incarnation references to the Son as distinct from that facet of the Elohim called the Logos (translated as the Word). This concept of the Elohim is the biggest single problem the Christian Church has faced, and it is not correctly understood even today.

Morning Stars

The concept of the Morning Star is found in a number of books of the Bible and elsewhere in ancient cosmology. From the book of Revelation, the concept of the Dawn or Morning Star from proinos or orthrinos (also relating to the dawn and as an epithet of Venus) is applied specifically at Revelation 22:16 to Jesus Christ. The Morning Star is obviously a rank of rulership over the nations of the planet as at Revelation 2:26-28. Christ promises those of the Thyatiran Church who overcome that he will give them the Morning Star. They will be given power over the nations, and they will rule with a rod of iron as Christ himself received power from his Father. Peter also referred to this aspect of Christ at 2Peter 1:16-19, where the Morning Star (RSV) or Day Star (Moffatt) rises in the hearts of the elect.

The concept of the Morning Star has created some confusion as, being a rank, it is applied to the spiritual and effective ruler of the planet. The rank has thus been held by Satan, as the Morning Star, or god of this planet (2Cor. 4:4), until the coming Messianic age. Satan is referred to at Isaiah 14:12-15 (RSV) thus:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star; Son of Dawn!

How you are cut to the ground, You who laid the nations low!

You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven;

Above the stars of God I will set my throne on high;

I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will make myself like the Most High!’

But you are brought down to sheol, to the depths of the pit.

The word for dawn here is schachar as early light or morning and is translated as such by NKJV, etc. The NKJV translates the light bearer, (the Day Star above) as the Lucifer or light bearer.

This section portrays the rebellion in the heavens and is referred to by Christ in this context at Luke 10:18 where he says: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” From Revelation, the rebellion involved one third of the host of heaven, here mentioned as stars. From Revelation 12:7-9 we see:

And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth and his angels were cast out with him.

It should be noted that the term Satan is derived from the Hebrew verb to accuse (the radical STN), hence accuser of the brethren.

The concept of the Morning Star being held in the mouth of the dragon is found in the Sanskrit. Huxley notes that the dragon was known, in its early undifferentiated state of both being and non‑being, as Tad Ekam or “That One.” The sun is thus the dragon child and subsequently the dragon slayer. Symbolised as the Garuda, it was the intermediary with the heavens (ibid., p66). Prior to this war and the fall from heaven, Satan was allowed access to the throne of God. The book of Job shows that the Bene Elohim, or the Sons of God, presented themselves before the Eternal and that Satan came with them (Job 1:6). From verse 7, we see that at that time he also had freedom or dominion over the earth, as he had at the time of Christ and, from Revelation, still does until the return of the Messiah, as the new Morning Star, or planetary ruler. There were however, more than two entities who carried this epithet. From Job 38:4, we know that at the creation of the planet the Morning Stars were gathered and sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for joy.

Now this situation has two very serious implications by logical extension.

Firstly: being the rank of a planetary ruler and from Isaiah 14, at that stage being allocated to Satan, it is obvious that there were other Morning Stars, entailing the existence of other planetary systems and the inclusion with, but distinction from the Sons of God, equally implies that the extended systems were of degree and rank.

Secondly: this assertion carries with it, the implication that the extension of the spirit of God was relative. We have seen the distinction of Eloah as the singular God or God the Father and the extended God or Elohim, which were a plurality as a Council of Gods. These appear to equate to the Morning Stars. The Bene Elohim or Sons of God are subordinate.

We may now raise some questions about the assertions of Monism from the very beginning, with that of Parmenides, where there cannot be more nor less of the one and it is, as James would have it, “of next to next nothingness.” Clearly the concept here embraced is of a multiplicity of spiritual entities, with trans‑material capacity in union by extension of the spirit as the Elohim. From the example of Christ, here it is a union with the Eloah as a unified body, and for whom the intermediary Elohim speaks. The Elohim have a metaphysical, or spiritual, union and communication which to date has been improperly understood. It is from this union that God is One. Temporarily God is not “all in all”. This situation occurred because of the rebellion and will be corrected with the advent of the new Morning Star, The Messiah.

Cherubim

The term “Sons of God” is, from the above, an order of beings, a rank, who are adherents of the Most High in some form of spiritual union. These Sons of the Most High God are all Elohim (from Psalm 82:1) in varying degrees. The Council of the Elohim is the council of judgment, and the Elohim, or new Morning Star of the planet Earth, has taken his place among the Elohim. The council appears, therefore, to be the council of planet or system commanders termed Morning Stars. The Morning Stars appear to be allotted duties as cherubs. Prior to his fall, the current Morning Star, Azazel or Lucifer was one of the covering cherubs. It appears from 2Samuel 22:11, Psalm 18:10 and Ezekiel chapters 1, 9 and 10 that the Eternal rides on four cherubs. The concept of having planetary commanders as space transporters is interesting to say the least. The concept is therefore probably allegorical, indicating vested authority. The Angel of Redemption carried also the name of the Eternal, as El and Elohim and was called Yahovah as distinct from Yahovah of Hosts or Eloah. This pre‑Cartesian concept is perhaps most confusing to non‑Hebrew thinkers. By carrying the names of God, the HaShem, the entity also carried the authority. This is the primary attribute of the Messiah (cf. Cox, How God Became a Family (No. 187), CCG).

After the concept of the fall of man, where men had attained knowledge of good and evil, the Elohim said “behold, man is become as one of us, knowing good from evil.” Here, the Elohim has been translated as the Lord God, and these forms are clearly wrong. The base problem is that the texts have been translated by scholars steeped in Athanasian and Chaldean theology, and they have consistently obscured the metaphysical structure by misconceptions and erroneous renderings. God, as a term is from the Anglo Saxon “good” and is singular only in the sense of the centrality of ultimate good. The Elohim placed cherubim east of the Garden from this time, to prevent man from eating of the tree of life and obtaining eternal life. Man therefore does not have eternal spiritual life. Man was created in the image of the Elohim by the Elohim from matter, and man is therefore not a spirit. Throughout the creation story, the creation is by the Elohim, speaking in the plural. Only at Genesis 6:5 is YHVH mentioned (conveying the singular) as observing the wickedness of man.

The cherubs (Heb. cherubim) were allotted tasks from the council around the throne of God and we know from the biblical representation that there were at least two covering cherubim, and probably four as we see from Ezekiel. These figures had composite symbolism and where this composite symbolism is differentiated, they are noted as seraphim with 6 wings (Isaiah 6:2,6). These creatures wait on the throne of God (the Eloah), or Ancient of Days who “created all things and by your will they exist and were created” (Rev. 4:11). The Ancient of Days is the creator, and the Elohim, from this, created at the will of the Eloah (or Eternal) and in accordance with His design. We will not speculate here on the role of the ministering seraphim, nor on the corporate nature of the symbolism of the cherubim.

The term in Revelation chapters 4 and 5 referring to the twenty‑four elders is presbuteros, which means senior or old, and according to Strong’s Concordance, is used for a figure of the celestial council (see Greek Dictionary, p.60). This is the divine council of the Elohim. Christ is praised by them because he has redeemed men from the nations to God by the sacrifice of the Lamb, to be made kings and priests to their God, Theos the Almighty, the Ho Theos or the accusative ton Theon of John 1:1, 18, to reign on the earth. Both here and above, the term for God is in a distributive sense and may be singular or plural. The definite article renders it singular and refers to The God i.e. The Father. If singular, with the additional term, the Almighty, it would again mean the Most High God, (i.e. The God.) The term Theos can be thus hierarchical as is Elohim with the Highest Elohim, or Theos as Eloah or Ho Theos (accus. ton Theon of John 1:1,18). Because of its implications, this verse is blatantly mistranslated in some Bibles, (e.g. Knox, KJV, NKJV). It is almost as correct as English will allow in the RSV, NIV, New English, Jerusalem and Moffatt versions. The American Standard Version Committee corrected the KJV translation error in its version of 1901. See also at Hort, On the Words: Monogenes Theos in Scripture and Tradition (No. B4), in Two Dissertations, UK, 1876, republished CCG, 2004.

From Revelation 21, the centre of government is to move to the earth (cf. Cox, The City of God (No. 180), CCG). When the cherubim appear, they carry the Glory of YHVH and His brightness, and the sound of their wings is as the voice of the El and the Glory of the Elohim is above them. From Ezekiel 10:20, they support the Elohim, and it was the Elohim that he saw by the river Chebar. The spirit speaks from them. Ezekiel states that the spirit of Yahovah spoke to him giving a message from Adonai, here used in the sense of “my Lord.” Yahovah is the spokesman or mediation of the Elohim, symbolically supported by the cherubim as part of the force of the Elohim. Yahovah (from Ezekiel 11) appoints himself as the Elohim of Israel, and at verse 7:21, curiously refers to Yahovah the Eternal in the deferential form of address used by subordinates; for example, by Abraham, when referring to him, i.e. as Yahovah. The use of Adonai and Yahovah here as a deferential, shows that we are being addressed by the Angel of Yahovah and not the Eternal or Eloah. In other words by the Elohim mediator, who bears his name as Yahovah. This concept is most important as the metaphysics depend on it, as does an understanding of the nature of the Godhead, the sequence of the creation and an adequate explanation of its purpose. This term Yahovah was applied to three different beings at the same time in the actions of Abraham and Lot at Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham addressed them as Yahovah. Lot also addressed the two lesser deities as Yahovah (Gen. 19:18), and they called down fire on Sodom from Yahovah in Heaven (Gen. 19:24; cf. No. 024 above).

The distinction between the entities, which bear the Tetragrammaton YHVH is made explicitly by Micah 5:2-4:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting (or from ancient of days). Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth: then the residue of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And he shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the strength of [Ya]hovah [YHVH], in the majesty of the name of [Ya]hovah his God: and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

Here, the Hebrew concept of the entity, which was held by Micah to have had pre‑existence from “ancient of days”: which, from above, logically was the beginning of time commencing with the creation of the Elohim. This entity carried the Tetragrammaton YHVH, yet Yahovah was also his God, reiterating the concept of “therefore Elohim your Elohim has anointed you.” Conceptually the name carried the authority, hence the practice of calling magistrates “Elohim”, which lingers today in the terminology “your worship.”

There is a clear conceptual distinction between the Elohim Yahovah and Yahovah of Hosts. Zechariah 2:5-13 makes this distinction where Yahovah says he is coming to dwell in Jerusalem and that when this happens, “ye shall know that Yahovah of hosts hath sent me.” This entity was clearly subordinate to Yahovah of Hosts, and the Yahovah here is that entity, at Psalm 18:28, who is “my rock.” From Psalm 18:31 he is “our Elohim,” and Eloah is the Yahovah, or YHVH of Hosts termed also Yahovih. Yahovah the Elohim of Israel is a separate and distinct entity to Yahovah of Hosts, the Eloah, or God the Father and Maker. The incarnation was held to be YHVH, and the Elohim of Israel, but subordinate to his Elohim, who was Eloah. Both entities were extant only from the creation of the Elohim, as separate entities: the Logos or the Divine Expression, an attribute of God, making or creating the replication of the Logos as an Elohim. The Elohim of this planet is the High Priest or Mediator between the host and The One True God, Ha Elohim.

From the Psalms, the Yahovah of Israel is a great king above all Elohim (Psalm 95:3), feared above all other Elohim (Psalm 95:4), and is the Elohim of Elohim (Psalm 136:2). The Elohim, therefore, have degrees of rank, some being subordinate to others and all subordinate to Eloah. The Elohim of Israel was that Rock who was Christ, but he was not and could not be Eloah or Yahovah of Hosts. All Elohim were once within the will of Eloah, but the rebel Elohim placed themselves outside of His will and the structure of the Elohim. They did, however, remain Elohim as fallen Elohim and are referred to as Elohim throughout the Old Testament. The fallen Elohim are differentiated from the graven images who “are no elohim” (2Kgs. 19:18, Jer. 2:11).

The correct pronunciation of Yahovah was deliberately obscured, and we have seen above that there was a deferential form used by the Angel of Yahovah, when referring to the highest Yahovah or Yahovah of Hosts. The deferential form was obtained by changing the last vowel from a to i. The reconstruction of the correct pronunciation of the term Yaho can be established from the forms used at the temple at Elephantine, where the form was shortened rather than altered. The translation of the Elephantine papyrus is contained in James B. Pritchard’s: The Ancient Near East, vol. 1, p.279. The name is rendered YAHO and the forms are thus Yahovah of Hosts or Yahovah (pronounced Yahowah as a quiescent w) or when using the deferential address it is Yahovih. The Jews pronounce SHD 3068 Yahovah as Adonai, and SHD 3069 Yahovih they render as elohim, to make clear distinction between the two entities as noted above.

Theologically the Elohim were a replication of the image of Eloah, as man was made in the image of the Elohim. Christ was “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” It is thus that the creation began with the Elohim in the Angel of Redemption and his colleagues, or comrades, from which time began. These concepts are dealt with below, and have affected the concepts and structure of causal explanation, as they were imperfectly understood.

Part 2

The Logos

“In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1‑3).

It should be noted that John 1:1 has a problem in the translation. There are two words for God involved and a reversal. It is argued that the text should read: “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with Theon and Theos was the Logos.” To justify the reversal to “and the Logos was God,” Alfred Marshall says in his RSV Interlinear (which accords with the Receptus) in the footnote, “But note that the subject has the article and the predicate has it not; hence translate ‘The Word was God’.” To do so is a contrivance to establish the Trinitarian system. John was clearly referring to two separate entities, The God and an elohim who was the logos. These are referred to using the accusative and nominative distinctions (in the Koine) as Theon and Theos, because at verse 18 he says:

God [Theon] no man has seen never; (the) only begotten [actually the only‑born] God [Theos] the (one) being in the bosom of the Father, that one declared [?him].

Hort (ibid.), in the work On Monogenese Theos in Scripture and Tradition (B4) (republished CCG 2004) shows the correct term in the ancient texts was indeed monogenese theos or only born God. This work, published in 1876, has been studiously avoided by Trinitarians because of the implications.

To assert that the difference is only grammatical renders the structure incoherent and contrary to the Hebrew structure being explained. The addition of “him” in this passage is inappropriate as John appears to be using the concept well known to the Greeks of the “Ho Legon.” He is identifying Christ as the “God who speaks.” John is also clearly utilising the Old Testament concepts of the One God, Eloah, as the Theon and the subordinate elohim as theos. The Athanasians had to contrive this passage to support the Trinitarian doctrine, and ultimately the European Athanasians (possibly Erasmus) were to insert the false text into 1John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus, in order to rearrange the Christology.

John and Paul attribute the creation to the Logos. The concept here is Divine Expression. Further, 2Corinthians 4:4 identifies Christ as the Image of God. Revelation 4:11, however, states of God that:

You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created.

The concept of Sabellianism, or Modalism, came into Christianity from the worship of the god Attis in the mystery cults. Attis was Father and Son as one God, being different aspects of the one being. This doctrine continued on, becoming the Binitarian structure, and finally the Trinity. By the Fourth Century, the priests of Attis were complaining that the Christian ministry at Rome had stolen all their doctrines.

The concept here has led the majority of Christian sects into error and precipitated the major dispute between the two factions, which were named for their spokesmen at the time of the outbreak of the controversy on a large scale in 318 CE. This dispute continued through the general disruption of Nicaea in 325, the further synod of Antioch in 341, and lastly at the Council of Constantinople in 381 where the Athanasians seized control assisted by the Spanish‑born Theodosius. Thereafter the dispute was settled by force of arms between nations, ending in Spain in 586 and Thuringia in 742 CE with the conversions of Boniface. The two sides were the Athanasian faction, later to emerge as the Orthodox or Catholic faction; and the Arian or Eusebian faction, named also for their leading spokesmen. The disputes are covered in the paper on The Unitarian/Trinitarian Wars (No. 268).

The Shema in the Qur’an

The Islamic faith refers to the One True God as Allah. The names Eloah and Allah’ are derived from the two variants of the same language structure. Eloah is Elahh in the Chaldee. Elohim is Elahhin. The Chaldean evolved into the Eastern Aramaic and the Hebrew became the Western Aramaic. The term Elahh became the basis of the Arabic term Allah’h. This is the fundamental issue at stake in the first confession of the faith in Islam: There is no Allah’h [Eloah] but Allah’h [Eloah] (La Elaaha Ella Allah (see also 37:35; 47:19)). The term Allah’h is used in Islam only because it admits of no plurality whatsoever, excluding Christ and the elohim Host from the position of one true God.

The meaning of the term Allah’h from its ancient origins really refers to God as “The Power.” The Lah (Allah) is the central cooperation in which the Father is creator and the guiding power of the creation. It begets not nor was it begotten. Unto it is the return.

Christ was not conceived as a result of natural union between a husband and wife. God just said the word and Christ was conceived in the womb of Mariam his mother. The sons of God were all created by God through Divine Fiat or declaration, and not by any act of procreation. The Hadith just misrepresents what the Koran is saying.

The Covenant, The Shema and the First Commandment

First Principle: There is One True God

Exodus 20:3 "‎You are to have no other gods but me." (BBE)

The Shema deals with this basic position. The most basic issue of the covenant between God and His people is understood even by those who themselves do not understand the nature of Satan’s breach of the First Commandment. An example is that of R. J. Rushdoony, who is a Trinitarian.

The restoration of that covenant relationship was the work of Christ, His grace to His elect people. The fulfilment of that covenant is their great commission: to subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His [God’s] law-word (R. J. Rushdoony The Institutes of Biblical Law, The Presbyterian Publishing Company, USA, 1973, p. 14).

Satan’s essential sin was to elevate himself and, through him, other sons of God to an equality of will and position with Eloah who is God the Father. Satan thus breached this rule and Christ and the loyal Host did not make this error. This was the essential distinction between them.

God is one and truth is one. Truth is one because, like the nature of goodness, it proceeds from the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Omniscience is understood as the knowledge of all true propositions; hence truth is a centrality of the power of God. Thus there is one truth.

Despite this understanding the incongruity of their position on the Godhead is not addressed by such Trinitarian or Binitarian thinkers.

Trinitarians, such as Rushdoony, see that the First Commandment is central to the Covenant and attempt to reconcile the contradiction in the elevation of Christ to a level and co-eternality with God by merging the entities, despite the clear evidence of the biblical texts. Co-eternality is overruled because 1Timothy 6:16 shows that only God is immortal. God confers eternal life on Christ (Jn. 5:26).

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (KJV)

Christ is thus dependent upon God for eternal life. Thus Christ cannot be co-eternal with God prior to the beginning of creation. Only God stood alone, eternally, before the beginning of time. Hence, Christ is not a true God in the same sense that God is the One True God. He was the glory as of an only born son (uios) and god (theos or elohim) (Jn. 17:3; 1Jn. 5:20; Jn. 1:14,18; see Marshall’s Greek-English Interlinear).

Trinitarians attempt to evade this intellectual dilemma by merging the beings and then avoiding the ontological problems by appeal to mystery. Essentially, this is the sin of Satan. Trinitarians and Binitarians seek to accuse Christ and Christians of the same sin of which Satan was guilty.

Binitarians are in fact in greater dilemma than Trinitarians. The sin of Satan is a clear breach of the First Commandment. A Binitarian asserts that Christ has eternally existed (Constitution of the United Church of God, an International Association, Revision of 21 November 1995).

This Satanic heresy strikes at the capacity of the elect to be co-heirs with Christ. Logically, the position implies that there are two true Gods, namely God and Christ, and that they have eternally existed. The assertion is implicit that Christ had existence independently of the power of God. This assertion is a damnable heresy because it breaches the logical requirements of the omnipotence of God and is directly contrary to Scripture. As Binitarians assert a complete logical and actual independence of the two separate beings they are logical dualists. Dualism attacks the very nature of the monotheist structure and the power of God. The doctrine leads to the blasphemous assertion that God and Christ could have had a discussion as to who would go down to be sacrificed. This assertion has actually been stated by an American evangelist at rallies, (e.g. in Canberra, Australia, during Tabernacles 1990), as a theological probability. This blasphemy strikes at the very heart of the First Commandment. Also see the comment at page 6 of the March-April 1989 edition of The Good News magazine.

The admission of a second true God eternally extant before the beginning of God’s activity, and hence creation, establishes another elohim as an object of worship beside Eloah. This is expressly forbidden. Such a teaching produces another God and is idolatry. Such teaching forfeits the adherents right to the First Resurrection (Rev. 20:1-6) and is idolatry.

Second Principle: The Unchanging Nature of God and the Law

Rushdoony isolates a number of significant subsidiary premises, which are fundamental to the first commandment, despite his problem with the Trinity. The other premises are:

2. An absolute unchanging God means one absolute unchanging law. The alternative to law is not grace it is lawlessness (ibid., p. 20). To speak of the law as being for Israel but not for Christians is not only to abandon the law but also to abandon the God of the law. Since there is only one true God, and His law is the expression of His unchanging nature and righteousness then to abandon the biblical law for another law system is to change gods. The moral collapse of Christendom is a product of this current process of changing gods (ibid., p. 20).

Principle 2 has a number of sub-elements.

2.1 is that the unchanging nature of God means that the law is unchanging. This is essential, as the law must proceed from a premise, other than the fact that God issued it from whim or fancy. The only basis for the issue of the law is that it proceeds from the nature of God and He could issue no other system.

2.2 is thus developed from this premise. Grace thus cannot be an alternative to the law. It must be an adjunct to that system and a means of perfection within the system. The alternative to law is lawlessness. This is termed anti-nomianism, from nomos or law. This is essentially a Gnostic doctrine which emanated from Alexandrian Gnosticism and which was developed by both the Romans and the Greeks in their theological exposition of Christianity. It first attacked Judaism and thence Christianity. Henry A. Green (The Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism, SBL, Dissertation Series 77, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1985) said in his work:

For the majority of the Gnostics who were indebted to the Jewish story of creation, anti-nomianism was in fact opposition to the Mosaic Law, the cosmic law. All law became identical to oppressive cosmic fate. Pneumatic morality, determined by hostility towards the cosmic world, concentrated on liberating the Gnostic from Mosaic Law and Jewish morality. ... Allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic Law or its rejection in part or whole could easily have led to heterodox movements characteristic of the rebel’s response. Expressing the viewpoint of the anomic, disenfranchised Jew, Greek ethics and attitudes could surface openly, stripped of the Jewish God and [H]is Laws.

There is a great deal of evidence from both the Church Fathers and the Nag Hammadi library that the Gnostics opposed the Mosaic Law (pp. 204-205).

The elevation of Christ served two purposes. It removed the Messiah ontologically from the elect and hence struck at the inheritance of the elect as co-heirs. However, it was necessary because only by the elevation of Christ to equality and co-eternality with God could it be asserted that Christ had eliminated the law of the God of the Jews and, in its place, a structure based on Greek ethics and theological understanding could be advanced. The Gnostic doctrines, which resulted in the Trinity, were essential to Hellenist thought within the new faith. Only through this process could Satan subvert the message and ensure non-compliance with the law of God. The entire law/grace argument of modern Christianity is a demonic inspired, Gnostic position (see also the papers The Relationship Between Salvation by Grace and the Law (No. 082), Works of the Law Text - or MMT (No. 104) and Heresy in the Apostolic Church (No. 089)). It is through the Holy Spirit (No. 117) that we become Consubstantial with the Father (No. 081) and in The Covenant of God (No. 152).

Third Principle: Obedience to God

The third principle of the first commandment is perhaps the most difficult but the most central to the activities of Christ. That principle is the principle of obedience. Christ learnt obedience from all that he suffered (Heb. 5:8). By the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous (Rom. 5:19). The purpose of the faith was to make the Gentiles, or nations, obedient (Rom. 16:19,26). Rushdoony says:

3. A third principle of the Shema of Israel is that one God, one law, requires one, unchanging, and unqualified obedience: “thou shall love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:5). The meaning is that man must obey God totally, in any and every condition, with all his being. Since man is totally the creature of God, and since there is not a fiber of his being which is not the handiwork of God and therefore subject to the total law of God, there is not an area of man’s life and being which can be held in reservation from God and His law. Therefore, as Deuteronomy 6:6 declares “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.” (ibid., p. 20-21).

The purpose of the Holy Spirit was to instill these processes of obedience to the law of God into the hearts of mankind. Monotheism is predicated entirely on this third principle of obedience to the will of God, which, as law, stems from His nature. Thus His will is law, being an expression of the divine omniscience and omnipotence as creative power. All beings are under the divine will as expressed by the law, or they are polytheist, having wills external to the will of God. In this sense Binitarianism is polytheist in that it seeks to establish two eternal wills.

The Soul Doctrine takes this polytheism a step further in that it seeks to assert multiple wills external to the power of God and independent of God for eternal life. The biblical position is that Christ is dependent upon God for eternal life as God has life in Himself. Christ is thus not a true God and the so-called Immortal Soul cannot exist, or monotheism is logically breached as is Scripture (Jn. 5:26; 14:28; 1Tim. 6:16).

To rebel against God’s will, and His will as law, is to assert an independence from God and impugn the logical necessity of monotheism. Hence, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (1Sam. 15:23).

Fourth Principle: Education in the Law

The principle of obedience to the law follows on to the fourth principle. This principle of education in the law is inseparable from both, obedience to the law, and from worship. These are the first elements. Worship is entirely centred on Eloah who is the object of worship and the focus of the Temple (Ezra. 4:24; 5:1-2,8,12-17; 6:3-12). Thus: There is no God but Eloah.

Rushdoony says of this principle:

4. A fourth principle which follows from the Shema Israel is stated in Deuteronomy 6:7-9, 20-25; education in the law is basic to and inseparable both from obedience to the law and from worship. The law requires education in terms of the law. Anything other than a Biblically grounded schooling is thus an act of apostasy for a believer: it involves having another god and bowing down before him to learn from him. There can be no true worship without true education, because the law prescribes and is absolute, and no man can approach God in contempt of God’s prescription.

From Deuteronomy 6:8 Israel derived the use of Tephillin, the portions of the law bound upon the head or arm at prayer. Of 6:8,9 it has been observed:

As these words are figurative, and denote an undeviating observance of the divine commands, so also the commandment which follows, viz. to write the words upon the door-posts of the house, and also upon the gates, are to be understood spiritually; and the literal fulfilment of such a command could only be a praiseworthy custom or well-pleasing to God when resorted to as the means of keeping the commandments of God constantly before the eye. The precept itself, however, presupposes the existence of this custom, which is not only met with in the Mahometan countries of the East at the present day, but was also a common custom in ancient Egypt. (Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol III, The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1949), p 324)

What is required, certainly, is that mind and action, family and home, man’s vision and man’s work, be all viewed in the perspective of God’s law-word.

But this is not all. The literal fulfilment of the command concerning the frontlets and the posts (Deut. 6:8,9) is clearly required, as Numbers 15:37-41 (cf. Deut. 11:18-20) makes clear. The blue thread required cannot be spiritualized away. God requires that He be worshiped according to His own word. (ibid., pp. 21-22)

Deuteronomy 6:8 is modified by Deuteronomy 6:6. The spiritual intent is reflected by the ribbons (Num. 15:37-41) (cf. also the paper Blue Ribbons (No. 273)). The elements of the law are thus central to the principle of education and mental preoccupation with service to God. The first commandment thus has predicated upon, or within it, a series of subsidiary ordinances, which develop and explain its intent and purpose (cf. the paper Law and the First Commandment (No. 253)).

Another aspect which Rushdoony develops in this principle is that worship in an unknown tongue (1Cor. 14) is a violation of this commandment, as is worship which lacks the faithful proclamation of God’s word, or is without the education of the people of the covenant in terms of the covenant law-word. (ibid. p.23)

Hence, speaking in tongues, either of men or of demons, either foreign and real, or garbled and unintelligible, or imaginary is a breach of the principles within the first commandment also. This point leads then into the fifth principle, which is that the response to grace is the keeping of the law (see Jas. 1:22-26).

Fifth Principle: Grace in the Law

This is perhaps the most misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued principle. The entire Grace/Law argument stems from the misapplication of the biblical texts. The errors are quite condemned by the entire structure of the Reformation system (see the paper Cox; Distinction in the Law (No. 096)).

Rushdoony says of the principle of grace:

A fifth principle which is also proclaimed in this same passage, in Deuteronomy 6:20-25, is that, in this required education, it must be stressed that the response to grace is the keeping of the law. Children are to be taught that the meaning of the law is that God redeemed Israel out of bondage, and “that he might preserve us alive,” “commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always” (6:24). There is no warrant for setting this aside in either the Old or New Testament. Where the churches of the Old or New Testament have set up a false meaning to the law, that false meaning is attacked by prophets and apostles, but never the law of God itself. Because God is one, His grace and law are one in their purpose and direction. This passage makes pointedly clear the priority of God’s electing grace in the call and redemption of His chosen people. The relationship of Israel was a relationship of grace, and the law was given in order to provide God’s people with the necessary and required response to grace, and manifestation of grace: the keeping of the law. (ibid., p. 23)

The law thus stands intact and is kept by Christians. It is defended by the prophets and apostles. If professing Christians speak not according to the Law and the Testimony, there is no light in them (Isa. 8:20).

Sixth Principle: The Fear of God and His Jealousy

In Deuteronomy 6:10-15, another central point is made with respect to the implications of the Shema Israel:

And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land which He swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee - great and goodly cities, which thou didst not build, and houses full of good things, which thou didst not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which thou didst not hew, vineyards and olive-trees, which thou didst not plant, thou shalt eat and be satisfied - then beware lest thou forget the LORD, who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; and Him only shalt thou serve, and by His name shalt thou swear. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples that are around about you; for a jealous God, even the LORD thy God, is in the midst of thee; lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee; and He destroy thee from off the face of the earth. (Masoretic Text of the Jewish Publication Society of America, hereinafter referred to as MTV).

Here, the sixth principle of the first commandment is the fear of God or the jealousy of God dependent upon the perspective from which the activity is viewed. The central point is that there is no other law-order than that established by God. Thus Christ could not do away with the law as he was an image of the invisible God and, hence, having the Holy Spirit he partook of the divine nature and could issue no instruction other than that which was conveyed to him from the nature of God through the Holy Spirit. Rushdoony says:

Thus the sixth principle is the jealousy of God. This is a fact of cardinal importance. The chosen people are warned, as they occupy and possess a rich land which they did not develop, lest they forget God, who delivered and prospered them. Seeing the wealth which came from a culture hostile to God, God’s covenant people will be tempted to see other means to success and prosperity than the Lord. The temptation will be to “go after other gods ... the gods of the people around about.” This is to believe that there is another law-order than God’s order; it is to forget that the success and the destruction of the Canaanites was alike the work of God. It is the provocation of God’s wrath and jealousy. The fact that jealousy is associated repeatedly with the law, and invoked by God in the giving of the law, is of cardinal importance in understanding the law. The law of God is not a blind, impersonal, and mechanically operative law. ... But the jealous God prevents the triumph either of Canaan or an apostate Israel or church. Without a jealous, personal God, no justice is possible. (ibid., pp. 24-25)

The assumption that is often made from this principle is that might and numbers constitute the Church of God. This assumption is incorrect. The triumph of the Church of God is at the resurrection at the return of Messiah for the millennial rule. It is for this reason that the Trinitarian system, and specifically the Catholic Church, must allocate to itself the function of true Church under the reign of Christ now, when clearly that is not so according to Scripture. Scripture advances a false church of great power under a world system ruled by Satan and the power of the beast. This church (represented by the term woman) is drunk on the blood of the saints and martyrs (Rev. 17:1-6). This system exists in and accommodates a world ruled by the god of this world (2Cor. 4:4) and the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2).

The blessing of the Covenant Israel proceeds to the nation by birthright and is kept by the individuals within the nation who adhere to the faith. It was evident from the fifteenth century that perhaps half of England was privately Unitarian over the Reformation and indeed the Godhead is identified by many within Trinitarian structures in Unitarian terms. For this reason God has protected Israel His chosen regardless of the suppression of theological truth in many areas.

Seventh Principle: God is Not to be Tempted

The seventh principle, which flows on from the Shema is that of tempting God. This is distinct from the concept of testing God which He says specifically to do in regard to tithing (Mal. 3:10). Tithing is specifically related to the first commandment and, although expounded separately as a doctrine, is determined by the worship of the One True God. Tithing to an apostate system is worshipping a false god and a breach of the first commandment (cf. the paper Tithing (No. 161)).

A seventh principle which follows from the Shema Israel is declared in Deuteronomy 6:16-19:

Ye shall not try the LORD your God, as ye tried Him in Massah. Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies, and His statutes, which He hath commanded thee. And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD; that it may be well with thee and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to thrust out all thine enemies from before thee, as the LORD hath spoken (MTV).

It was this that Satan tried to tempt Jesus to do: to try God, to put God to the test. Israel tempted God at Massah by raising the question, “Is the LORD among us or not?” (Ex. 17:7).

The worship of Jehovah not only precludes all idolatry, which the Lord as a jealous God, will not endure (see at Ex. xx.5), but will punish with destruction from the earth (“the face of the ground,” as in Ex. xxxii.12): but it also excludes tempting the Lord by an unbelieving murmuring against God, if He does not remove any kind of distress immediately, as the people had already sinned at Massah, ie., at Rephidim (Ex xvii. 1-7). (Keil and Delitzsch, op. cit., III, 325 f.)

This seventh principle thus forbids the unbelieving testing of God: God’s law is the testing of man; therefore, man cannot presume to be god and put God and His law-word on trial. Such a step is a supreme arrogance and blasphemy; it is the opposite of obedience, because it is the essence of disobedience to the law. Hence, it is contrasted to a diligent keeping of the law. This obedience is the condition of blessing: it is the ground of conquest and of possession, in terms of which the covenant people of God, His law-people, enter into their inheritance. (ibid., pp. 26-27)

The first commandment is thus central to the faith and upon this commandment hang the other commandments and the ordinances. James was able to carry the entire argument through to posit that the breach of one breaches them all. This was then extended to respect of persons being a direct attack on the law. The necessity for works in the faith under the law is a central thrust of the epistle of James. It is denigrated by theologians because of this message.

James 2:1-26 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. ²For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; ³And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: ⁴Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? ⁵Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? ⁶But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? ⁷Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? ⁸If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: ⁹But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. ¹⁰For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. ¹¹For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. ¹²So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. ¹³For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. ¹⁴What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ¹⁵If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, ¹⁶And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? ¹⁷Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. ¹⁸Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. ¹⁹Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. ²⁰But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? ²¹Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? ²²Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? ²³And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. ²⁴Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. ²⁵Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? ²⁶For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (KJV)

Summary

Having looked at the structure of the Godhead, it is evident that it is one of a unified hierarchy of beings, from a central singularity within whose will the structure acts. When entities act contrary to the will of Eloah, they are decreed to be in rebellion and hence polytheist. Such entities are therefore to be destroyed, having limited existence and purpose. The requirement for these entities to be spiritual is dictated by logical procedure and physical limitation. The substructure of matter appears to be immaterial, thus supporting the notion of an immaterial intelligence regulating the material structure.

What is of importance is that no serious scholar denies that, at the time of Christ, the Bible was understood to refer to a Council of the Elohim or Elim and that the term extended way beyond the concept of a duality or a Trinity. A significant work on the subject is The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning by Leopold Sabourin, S.J., (Alba House, NY; revised and updated version (post-1974)). Sabourin demonstrates the concept of the Council of the Elohim in his work. On pages 398f., Sabourin lists the usage of Eloah but avoids dealing with the significance. From pages 72-74, Sabourin addresses Psalm 86:8-10, 95:3, 96:4, and 135:5. The Bene Elim are identified as the Sons of God as are the Bene Elyon (Sons of the Most High). On pages 102-104, he mentions the saints or Holy Ones (qedosim) from Psalm 89:6-8 who are God’s celestial attendants and that the term is used also of the human faithful. These supra-terrestrial beings are of the Bene Elim or the Bene HaElohim. The Bene HaElohim are the Sons of the God(s). Sabourin, noting also Coppens comment (ETL, 1963, pp. 485-500) that the noun qedosim in the Masoretic Text designates the supra-terrestrial Court of YHVH, who are held to be elohim (pp. 102-103), says of this:

The concept of a heavenly assembly is not a purely literary form, but is an element of the living pattern of Israelite faith (p. 75).

The pattern of the usage of the terms for God is of an extended order. There is no doubt that the meaning was understood whether it was written in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or Chaldee. The pattern is undoubtedly of an extended order, which included humans, and involved a Council that Christ had established on Sinai. These elohim are referred to in Exodus 21:6, where the word is translated as judges.

The word is thus acknowledged as being plural here, and in Exodus 22:8-9, by its translation as judges, but the word used is elohim. There are, however, two perfectly sound and common words for judge(s) in Hebrew. These are paliyl (SHD 6414; Ex. 21:22; Deut. 32:31) and shaphat (SHD 8199; Num. 25:5; Deut. 1:16, et seq.). The words were in use at the time the word elohim was used. Thus, the distinction was meant to convey a concept other than judge. The concept the term was intended to convey was of the authority of God as it was extended to the congregation of Israel. The Governing Council of Israel was thus part of the Elohim. This extension was as a reflection of the heavenly system, as was noted from Hebrews 8:5. The pattern was understood in a consistent manner throughout the Old Testament, and was applied in like manner in the New Testament. It was God’s stated intention that, from this covenant, He would write the Law in the hearts and minds of men and they would not need teachers (Heb. 8:10).

The Old Testament demonstrates the subordinate relationships of the Elohim and indicates their extent. It also identifies the Angel of YHVH (reading the term as Yahovah from the ancient renderings of Yaho from the Elephantine texts; cf. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, Princeton 1958, pp. 278-282) and his relationship to the Law, which is fundamental to the issue of the position and authority of Christ. The progressive identification of the Angel of YHVH occurs from Genesis 16:7 (see NIV footnote). He is also identified by commentators as the Angel of the Presence (Isa. 63:9). There are also instances of multiple entities appearing and being referred to as YHVH. The instances of the alterations of YHVH to Adonai (by the Sopherim) in 134 places are at Appendix 32 of The Companion Bible (see also App. 31 for the fifteen extraordinary points and App. 33 for emendations and Ginsburg, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, pp. 318-334 for details).

The logic of the Bible is simple. There is one true God and He sent Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:3). The one true God alone is God. He dwells in unapproachable light. No man has seen Him or ever can see Him, or has even heard His voice at any time (Jn. 1:18; 5:37 1Tim. 6:16).

The only born god (monogenes theos or elohi (cf. Marshall’s Interlinear and the Aramaic text in the Peshitta)) declared (or spoke; the word Him has been added to the English text). It follows therefore that Christ and the apostles said that no man has seen or heard Eloah (or Ha Elohim) ever and that whatever appeared to the prophets could not have been the being referred to as Eloah or the one true God.

PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA

Fifth Principle: Grace in the Law