'God is One': The Function of Eis ho Theos as a Ground for Gentile Inclusion in Paul's Letters 9781472550477, 9780567153135, 9780567155368

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Chapter 1 -- INTRODUCTION
1. ‘Monotheism’ in the Ancient World
2. ‘One God’ and Hellenistic Monotheism
3. Research Method
4. Research Progression
Chapter 2 -- ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. Introduction
2. Deuteronomy 6
3. The Shema
4. Allusions to Deuteronomy 6.4 in the Old Testament
Excursus: Christian Interpretation of Zechariah 14
5. Summary and Conclusion
Chapter 3 -- ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE
1. Introduction
2. Jews, Gentiles, Particularism, and Universalism
3. Pseudepigrapha
4. Philo
5. Josephus
6. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
7. Rabbinic Literature
8. Conclusion: ‘God is One’ as a Monotheistic Boundary Marker
Chapter 4 -- ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN ROMANS 3.30
1. Introduction
2. Gentile Inclusion, Revelation, and Salvation History in Romans
3. The Shema in Romans 3.30
4. Abraham and the Promise
5. Conclusion
Chapter 5 -- ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN GALATIANS 3.20
1. Introduction
2. Salvation-Historical Contrasts in Galatians 3–4
3. The Single Seed in Galatians 3.15-18
4. The Law and the Shema in Galatians 3.19-20
5. Supporting Arguments in Galatians 3–4
6. Conclusion
Chapter 6 -- CONCLUSION
1. Summary
2. ‘God is One’ in its Monotheistic Context
3. Implications and Avenues for Further Research
4. Concluding Remarks
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

497 Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Mark Goodacre

Editorial Board John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

ii

‘GOD IS ONE’

The Function of Eis ho Theos as a Ground for Gentile Inclusion in Paul’s Letters

Christopher R. Bruno

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing plc First published 2013 © Christopher R. Bruno, 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Christopher R. Bruno has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi¿ed as Author of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-56715-313-5 978-0-56715-536-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bruno, Christopher R. “God is One” / Christopher R. Bruno p.cm Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 978-0-5671-5313-5 (hardcover) Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)

To Katie, whose love, support, patience, and prayer have brought great joy to her husband and great honor to her Lord

vi

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations

xi xiii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1. ‘Monotheism’ in the Ancient World 2. ‘One God’ and Hellenistic Monotheism a. Erik Peterson b. ‘Pagan Monotheism’ (1) ‘The Most High God’ (2) Philosophical Monotheism 3. Research Method a. Identifying References to the Shema b. Identifying Further Intertextual Connections (1) Volume (2) Recurrence/Clustering (3) Thematic Coherence (4) Historical Plausibility (5) History of Interpretation (6) Satisfaction c. Methodological Limits 4. Research Progression

1 5 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 19

Chapter 2 ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. Introduction 2. Deuteronomy 6 a. Notable Themes in Deuteronomy 4–6 (1) Covenant Emphases in Deuteronomy 4–6 (2) Monotheism (3) The Nations b. Summary of Deuteronomy 4–6 3. The Shema a. Translation of the Shema (1) ‘YHWH Our God’ (2) ‘YHWH is One’

24 24 24 25 25 28 30 31 31 31 33 34

viii

Contents b. Interpretation of the Shema c. Conclusion to the Shema in Deuteronomy 4. Allusions to Deuteronomy 6.4 in the Old Testament a. Zechariah 14 (1) Genre (2) Analysis of Zechariah 14 b. Zechariah 14.9 (1) Enthronement Psalms (2) Deuteronomy 6.4 (3) Summary of Zechariah 14.9

38 41 42 42 45 47 52 52 55 59

Excursus: Christian Interpretation of Zechariah 14

60

c. Malachi 2 (1) Structure of Malachi (2) Allusion to Deuteronomy 6.4 (3) Conclusion to Malachi 2 5. Summary and Conclusion

61 61 62 64 64

Chapter 3 ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE 1. Introduction 2. Jews, Gentiles, Particularism, and Universalism 3. Pseudepigrapha a. Aristobulus b. The Letter of Aristeas c. Pseudo-Phocylides d. The Sibylline Oracles (1) Book 3 (2) Book 2 (3) Book 5 (4) Summary of Sibylline Oracles 4. Philo a. Volume b. Historical Plausibility c. The Exposition of the Law (1) De Opi¿cio Mundi (2) De Specialibus Legibus (3) De Virtutibus d. Summary of Philo 5. Josephus a. Antiquitates judaicae b. Contra Apionem c. Summary of Josephus

66 66 68 71 71 73 74 75 76 82 83 84 84 84 85 87 87 89 94 95 97 97 102 104

Contents 6. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 7. Rabbinic Literature 8. Conclusion: ‘God is One’ as a Monotheistic Boundary Marker a. The Function of Monotheistic Confessions

Chapter 4 ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN ROMANS 3.30 1. Introduction 2. Gentile Inclusion, Revelation, and Salvation History in Romans a. Gentile Inclusion b. God’s Revealed Righteousness 3. The Shema in Romans 3.30 a. Overview of Paul’s Argument in Verses 28-30 (1) Paul’s Argument in Verses 28-30 (2) Paul’s Argument in Verses 29-30 (3) Is God the God of the Jews Only? (4) ‘God is One’ (5) Summary of the Old Testament Background of Romans 3.30 b. Summary of Paul’s Argument in Romans 3.27-30 4. Abraham and the Promise 5. Conclusion Chapter 5 ‘GOD IS ONE’ IN GALATIANS 3.20 1. Introduction 2. Salvation-Historical Contrasts in Galatians 3–4 a. Contrast 1: The Blessing of Abraham and Those Under a Curse (Galatians 3.1-14) b. Contrast 2: The Era of the Law and the Era of Ful¿lled Promise (Galatians 3.21–4.20) c. Contrast 3: Hagar and Sarah (Galatians 4.21-31) 3. The Single Seed in Galatians 3.15-18 4. The Law and the Shema in Galatians 3.19-20 a. ‘A Mediator is Not of One’ (1) ‘Put in Place through Angels’ (2) ‘By the Hand of a Mediator’ b. ‘God is One’ 5. Supporting Arguments in Galatians 3–4 6. Conclusion 1

ix 105 106 108 109

114 114 115 116 120 124 126 127 130 133 138 150 151 154 161

162 162 163 164 167 169 171 175 178 178 180 190 194 196

x

Contents

Chapter 6 CONCLUSION 1. Summary 2. ‘God is One’ in its Monotheistic Context 3. Implications and Avenues for Further Research 4. Concluding Remarks

199 199 203 204 206

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

207 229 239

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is a slight revision of my doctoral dissertation, completed at Wheaton College in 2010 under the supervision of Dr. Douglas J. Moo. I thank Mark Goodacre for accepting the book in the LNTS series, and offer special thanks to Dominic Mattos, Caitlin Flynn, and especially Duncan Burns for their editorial support. Additionally, I wish to thank those who have given ¿nancially to make the doctoral program at Wheaton possible. Mr. Gene and Mrs. Margaret Logan gave a generous amount that has provided a fellowship that made it possible for me, and several others, to study at Wheaton. Thanks are also due to many others. In particular, my parents, Jerry and Kim Bruno, have supported us in every way. My in-laws, Harold and Joan Patz, have been no less supportive and have given to us beyond measure. I must express my thanks to the Bethesda Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI. Through their generous giving, I was able to spend time at Tyndale House in Cambridge researching this project. Jim and Mary Scullion in particular have been a great encouragement to my wife and me. My friends and colleagues David Grif¿ths, Jared Compton, Kevin McFadden, and Mike Sherf have been instrumental in the development of my thinking before and during this project. Chris Lent sparked the idea for writing on Paul’s use of the Shema. Prior to my time at Wheaton, I had the privilege of sitting in the classroom with Patrick Grif¿ths, Tim Porter, Tom Steller, Tom Schreiner, Peter Gentry, and a host of others who have given me the tools to sit where I do today. I am eternally grateful to them. My time at the Bethlehem Institute in Minneapolis was crucial for providing me with key tools for biblical exegesis. Also, the preaching of David Doran, John Piper, Tom Schreiner, and Dan Chittock has both fed my soul and provided me with important models for careful and passionate biblical exegesis. Finally, thanks are due to Harbor Church in Honolulu and the Antioch School Hawai‘i for their continued support of my biblical research. Throughout my work on this project, Douglas Moo was a model supervisor, always giving the right blend of encouragement and correction to keep me moving forward. He has been a great model of biblical

xii

Acknowledgments

scholar with a heart for the church. Thanks also to those on my examining committee: Andrew Das, Hassell Bullock, and Daniel Treier. Their comments sharpened my argument in many ways. It is only ¿tting that this project is dedicated to my ever-loving and supportive wife, Katie. Reaching this point would have been impossible without her constant love, prayer, and encouragement. Also, her keen eye helped in the proofreading of several chapters. She is a great gift and treasure from God. My three boys, Luke, Simon, and Elliot, have also been a source of great joy while working on this book. Many times they have kept me from losing sight of what is most important. Finally, to the only wise God be honor and glory through his Son Jesus Christ. May this project advance his kingdom in ways that I cannot now conceive. Christopher Bruno Honolulu, HI April 17, 2013

1

ABBREVIATIONS AB AGJU ANTC AOTC ArBib ASV ATD AV BBR BDAG BDB BECNT BFCT BHT BHS Bib BIOSCS BNTC BR BST BT BWANT BZAW BZNW CBC CBQ CSCO CTJ DCH

Anchor Bible Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries The Aramaic Bible American Standard Version Das Alte Testament Deutsch Authorized Version Bulletin for Biblical Research Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d edn. Chicago, 2000 Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Corrected edn. Oxford, 1952 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger W. Rudolph. 5th edn. Stuttgart, 1997 Biblica Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Research Bible Speaks Today The Bible Translator Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Edited by I. B. Chabot et al. Paris, 1903– Calvin Theological Journal The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Shef¿eld, 1993–2011

xiv EDNT EKK ERT ESV ETL EvT FAT FB FRLANT GCS HALOT HAT HNT HTKNT HTR ICC Int JB JBL JBLMS JETS JJS JNES JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JTS KEK LCL LD LNTS LSJ LSTS 1

Abbreviations Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, 1990–93 Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Evangelical Review of Theology English Standard Version Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by L. Köhler, W. Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and J. J. Stamm. 5 vols. 1st English edn. Leiden, 1994–2000 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary Interpretation Jerusalem Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th edn with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Library of Second Temple Studies

Abbreviations LXX MNTC MT NASB NAC NCB Neot NICNT NICOT NIDOTTE NIGTC NIV NIVAC NJPS NJKV NovT NovTSup NRSV NTD NTG NTL NTOA NTS OTE OTL OTP OtSt PNTC PVTG PEQ QD RB RevScRel RevQ RNT RSP RSV

SB SBJT SBLDS SBLSP SBLTT SBS SJT 1

xv

Septuagint Moffatt New Testament Commentary Masoretic Text New American Standard Bible New American Commentary New Century Bible Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997 New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version NIV Application Commentary Tanakh , produced by the Jewish Publication Society New King James Version Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version Das Neue Testament Deutsch Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by E. Nestle, E. Nestle, K. Aland, and B. Aland. 27th edn. Stuttgart, 1993 New Testament Library Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, 1983 Oudtestamentische Studiën Pillar New Testament Commentary Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quaestiones disputatae Revue Biblique Revue des sciences religieuses Revue de Qumran Regensburger Neues Testament Ras Shamra Parallels Revised Standard Version Sources bibliques Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scottish Journal of Theology

xvi SNTSMS SP ST SVTP SVTQ TBC TDNT TDOT

TLOT TNIV TNTC TOTC TPINTC TynBul TZ VT WBC WMANT WTJ WUNT ZAW ZNW

1

Abbreviations Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra pagina Studia theologica Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Torch Bible Commentaries Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–67 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Translated by J. T. Willis, D. W. Stott, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Rev. edn. Grand Rapids, 1974–2006 Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA, 1997 Today’s New International Version Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

For over two thousand years, the practice of devout Jews has been to begin and end each day with the confession, ‘the Lord is one’. This confession is part of the daily prayer known as the Shema. For generations, to recite it has been to assume ‘the yoke of the kingdom’.1 It is a pledge of devotion to the one God, the covenant God of Israel.2 References to the phrase ‘the Lord is one’, which, as we will see below, are often represented in Greek texts with the words FJ )J>3 clari¿es the sense in which YHWH is God to the exclusion of any other. This phrase seems to eliminate MacDonald’s suggestion that YHWH’s uniqueness here is only in relationship to Israel.20 The phrase does not simply refer to the fact that YHWH is present both in heaven and on earth (speci¿cally Horeb), as MacDonald suggests.21 Rather, it seems to be a merism that indicates YHWH alone is God over the whole universe.22 While MacDonald and Heiser are certainly correct in pointing out the presence of other spiritual beings called ‘gods’ in the OT, it is crucial to distinguish those other beings from the God of Israel. Therefore, while there may be other beings that can be called ‘gods’, the claim in Deuteronomy 4 is that YHWH is utterly different from these other beings.

19 MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, p.84; followed by Heiser, ‘Monotheism’, pp.6–7. 20 Richard Bauckham makes a similar point, observing that MacDonald does not explain in any detail what exactly Deuteronomy is claiming to be unique about YHWH, especially in contradistinction from other gods (‘Biblical Theology and the Problem of Monotheism’, p.193). Bauckham points out that, according to MacDonald’s theory, there is nothing about YHWH’s claim to be the God of Israel substantially different than the claims of other national deities to be the gods of other nations (ibid.). The same criticism could be applied to Heiser’s argument, for he suggests that YHWH’s uniqueness vis-à-vis other gods is that he saves Israel (‘Monotheism’, p.11). However, could not the devotees of any other ancient Near Eastern god claim the same with respect to their own nations? 21 MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, p.197. 22 For further af¿rmations of the uniqueness of YHWH as the only true God, see Deut. 7.9; 10.17.

1

30

‘God is One’

MacDonald is right to note that YHWH is known as the unique God only because of his revelation to Israel and covenant with them. There is a difference, however, between saying that YHWH has revealed that he alone is the true God and saying that YHWH is the only god that Israel may worship. In the latter case, the possibilities for the existences of other deities of the same class remains open. In the former, it does not. Therefore, while MacDonald has perhaps overstated his case, he has nevertheless made a valuable contribution by emphasizing the necessary relationship between the revelation of the one God and his relationship with his people. In both vv. 35 and 39, one of the goals of Israel’s redemption is that the people would recognize the uniqueness of YHWH. Thus, apart from the covenant, Israel would not have known that YHWH is the only unique God. (3) The Nations. Another theme worthy of note is the role of the nations in Deuteronomy 4–6. Admittedly, the role of the nations in this context is minor. However, given the increasing signi¿cance of the nations in later allusions to the Shema, it is important for us to note their presence in Deuteronomy 4–6. The nations ()J>) appear in several places in ch. 4. In this chapter, they play two roles: they observe YHWH’s salvation of Israel, and they stand as negative foils representing the worship of other gods. The former role is seen in Israel’s obedience to the covenant, which results in the nations recognizing the special status of Israel (Deut. 4.6). Speci¿cally, they were to recognize that Israel is a wise and understanding people because of YHWH’s revelation to them. The role of the nations as a negative foil in this section is seen primarily in the commands to worship YHWH alone and not the gods of the nations (Deut. 4.19;23 6.14); this can also be seen in the threat to expel Israel from the land to live among the nations (Deut. 4.27). Although there is certainly no clear indication of a positive role for the nations, they are to observe the works of YHWH. As noted above, by observing these works, Israel was to know that YHWH alone is the true God.

23 Block calls the last part of v. 19 ‘arguably the most dif¿cult in the entire book of Deuteronomy’ (The Gospel According to Moses, p.144). The common interpretation of the verse is that God gave the celestial bodies to the nations as objects of worship (see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, p.206; Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.435). Whether the verse refers to the heavenly bodies or other spiritual/demonic beings does not affect my argument in any signi¿cant way, for the uniqueness of YHWH over and against these beings is still af¿rmed. 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

31

b. Summary of Deuteronomy 4–6 It seems that the central theme of Deuteronomy 4–6, the hinge between Moses’ ¿rst and second addresses, is covenant loyalty to YHWH. Two purposes of this covenant loyalty explicit in ch. 4 are that Israel might know that YHWH alone is the only God and that the nations would see that Israel is unique from all the nations. 3. The Shema By the time we reach Deuteronomy 6, some of the main themes of the book have already emerged. YHWH, the only true God, was to be recognized as such by his covenant people, Israel. It is no surprise, therefore, to ¿nd ch. 6 open with a reference to the commands and the importance of keeping them in order to enjoy long life in the land (6.1-3). It is in this context, where YHWH, his people, and the importance of keeping the covenant are emphasized, that we ¿nd the Shema. a. Translation of the Shema There is little reason to doubt the wording of Deut. 6.4 as it stands in the MT.24 Nevertheless, determining how best to translate the verse is dif¿cult. Translating the ¿rst clause, however, is rather straightforward. = C J > is a command for Israel to hear what follows.25 The formula

24 The earliest textual evidence supports the MT reading. In all Qumran phylacteries where Deut. 6.4 is preserved, the reading matches the MT (see 4Q130, 135, 140; 8Q3). 4QDeutP probably reads 5I 9H9J H?J9= …, but nothing more is recoverable; therefore, it is not conclusive. The Nash Papyrus, however, adds a pleonastic pronoun ( H9) at the end of the verse. This reading, however, is almost certainly an interpretive addition, as we will discuss below. Virtually all other extant variations of the Shema incorporate interpretive additions. For example, Graham Davies discusses a ¿fth- or sixth-century CE inscription from Nablus that reads ‘YHWH/ (is) our God/ YHWH (is) one/ he alone’. Davies argues that the inscription stresses ‘the monotheistic doctrine of the uniqueness of God’ (‘A Samaritan Inscription with an Expanded Text of the Shema!’, PEQ 131 [1999], p.14). 25 Rabbinic traditions such as Sifre Deuteronomy 31.1 and Targum PseudoJonathan to Deut. 6.4 interpreted ‘Israel’ here as a reference to the patriarch Jacob (see Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy [Reuven Hammer, trans.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986], pp.57–8; Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Deuteronomy: Translated, with Notes [ArBib 5B; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998], p.25). In the context of Deuteronomy, however, this is entirely unlikely. 1

32

‘God is One’

= C J > occurs six times in Deuteronomy,26 and, as noted above, often marks a new section in Moses’ second address. The call itself is more than a simple command to listen to what follows. Rather, both here and throughout the book, = C J > implies a call for hearing with an intent to obey, for the call is usually followed with speci¿c instruction. Furthermore, the word > itself, both in this context and throughout the OT, often implies careful hearing.27 Therefore, the words = C J > could possibly be translated with the force, ‘Hear attentively, O Israel’.28 The second (or second and third) clause(s) are/are more dif¿cult. Before we begin our discussion, it should be noted that all of the translations listed below are both grammatically and contextually possible within the book of Deuteronomy; therefore, any conclusions reached here must be somewhat tentative. Although this verse can be translated in a number of ways,29 we will limit our discussion to four major suggestions:30 1. YHWH is our God, YHWH is one.31 2. YHWH our God, YHWH is one.32 26 Deut. 5.1; 6.3, 4; 9.1; 20.3; 27.9. 27 BDB, p.1033; HALOT, vol. 4, pp.1570–72; NIDOTTE, pp.1217–18. See also Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.76. 28 Edwin G. Perona argues, ‘If the nuance “obey” is present, then Deut. 6.4 should read… Obey, Israel, Yahweh’ (‘The Presence and Function of Deuteronomy in the Paraenesis of Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.1–11.1’ [PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2005], p.179). See also RSP, vol. 1, p.361. 29 Other possible translations include ‘Our one God is YHWH, YHWH’ (Francis I. Anderson, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch [SBLMS 14; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970], p.47); ‘YHWH is our God, YHWH is One’, with ‘One’ understood as a proper name (Cyrus H. Gordon, ‘His Name Is “One” ’, JNES 29 [1970], pp.198– 9); ‘YHWH our God is the Unique’ (RSP, vol. 1, p.361). Vladimir Orel suggests the translation ‘Our God is one YHWH’, but bases it on an argument for understanding the ¿rst instance of 9H9J as a verb (‘The Words on the Doorpost’, ZAW 109 [1997], pp.614–17). 30 By limiting our discussion to four major English possibilities, we will be able to discuss the major problems in translating these verses without becoming bogged down in endless discussion of this phrase, which is worthy of a book-length study of its own. 31 NASB; NIV; RSV; TNIV; Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC 4; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), pp.162–3; J. Gerald Janzen, ‘On the Most Important Word in the Shema (Deuteronomy VI 4-5)’, VT 37 (1987), p.290. 32 J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), pp.137, 141; R. W. L. Moberly, ‘Yahweh Is One: The Translation of the Shema’, in Studies in the Pentateuch (J. A. Emerton, ed.: VTSup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp.209–15; idem, ‘Toward an Interpretation of the Shema’, in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (Christopher Seitz and Kathryn 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

33

3. YHWH our God is one YHWH.33 4. YHWH is our God, YHWH alone.34 In what follows, we will divide the last half of Deut. 6.4 into two parts: H?J9= 9H9J and 5I 9H9J. In our discussion of each part, we will brieÀy discuss each suggested translation. (1) ‘YHWH Our God’. The construction 9H9J followed by )J9= occurs over 300 times in Deuteronomy.35 In every other case apart from 6.4, the words are in simple apposition, resulting in the translation ‘YHWH God’. Deuteronomy 6.4 could be a single exception to the rule.36 However, it would require extraordinary contextual evidence to make such an argument. Further, Greene-McCreight, eds.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p.125; MacDonald, Monotheism, p.70; P. P. Jenson, ‘5I7 ’6 , NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p.350. N. Loh¿nk, ‘5I7 ’6 , TDOT, vol. 1, p.196, suggests, ‘Yahweh our God, Yahweh is Unique’. Grammatically, Loh¿nk follows this translation but suggests a different translation of 5I . 33 AV; ASV; RSV footnote; NIV footnote; JB; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, pp.337–8; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp.168–9; G. Sauer, ‘5I7 ’6 TLOT 1.79; Herbert Donner, ‘ “Höre, Israel: Unser Gott Jahwe ist ein Jahwe!” ’, Leqach 2 (2002), pp.12–21. 34 NRSV, NJPS; Ibn Ezra; Rashi; Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), p.83; Daniel I. Block, ‘How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6.4-5’, JETS 47 (2004), pp.193– 212; idem, The Gospel According to Moses, pp.250–8; D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1–11 (WBC 6a; Dallas: Word, 1991), p.137; Lucien-Jean Bord and David Hamidoviü, ‘Écoute Israël (Deut. VI 4)’, VT 52 (2002), pp.13–29; R. E. Clements, ‘Deuteronomy’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible (L. E. Keck et al., eds.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), vol. 2, p.343; Oswald Loretz, ‘Die Einzigkeit Jahwes (Dtn 6,4) im Licht des ugaritischen Baal-Mythos. Das Argumentationsmodell des altsyrischkanaanäischen und biblischen “Monotheismus”,’ in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift fur Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993 (Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, eds.; AOAT 240; Darmstadt: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1995), p.247; Thomas W. Mann, Deuteronomy (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), p.56; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), p.176; McBride, ‘The Yoke of the Kingdom’, p.293; Tigay, Deuteronomy, p.76; Timo Veijola, ‘Höre Israel! Der Sinn und Hintergrund von Deuteronomium VI 4-9’, VT 42 (1992), pp.528–41; idem, Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus, und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), pp.82–7. 35 While Moberly claims there are 313 occurrences of 9H9J followed by )J9= in Deuteronomy (‘Yahweh Is One’, p.213), I found 316. Regardless of the exact number, the point stands. 36 Block, ‘How Many?’, p.197. 1

34

‘God is One’

regardless of any possible previous existence of this expression outside of Deuteronomy,37 we must interpret the verse as it stands in its present context; therefore, it is most likely that the phrase follows the overwhelming pattern in the rest of the book. The ¿rst phrase, H?J9= 9H9J, then, is to be translated as simple apposition: ‘YHWH, our God’. Therefore, it seems that this phrase is not an independent clause, but rather is dependent on the rest of the verse. Although it is dif¿cult to know for certain, the structure of the verse and its subsequent translation implies that H?J9= 9H9J 5I 9H9J is in fact a single clause. (2) ‘YHWH is One’. Although nearly all scholars who adopt the appositional translation of 9H9J H?J9= also translate 5I 9H9J as ‘YHWH is one’, the appositional translation does not necessarily determine the translation of 5I 9H9J.38 Other factors must be considered. There are three possibilities for understanding 5I 9H9J: (1) It is an elliptical phrase. Within the phrase itself, 5I functions as an adverb modifying the elliptical sentence H?J9= 9H9J; thus, the translation: ‘YHWH our God, YHWH alone’. (2) 9H9J 5I is a predicate to the subject H?J9= 9H9J. In this case, 5I functions as an adjective modifying 9H9J. Here, the usual understanding of 5I as a cardinal number is retained, producing the translation, ‘YHWH our God is one YHWH’. (3) 5I 9H9J is a clause in which 9H9J is the subject and 5I is the predicate. The translation of 5I as a cardinal number is also followed, so the translation is: ‘YHWH our God; YHWH is one’. When determining which of these is best, the ¿rst question to address is how 5I is to be translated. On simple lexical grounds, the translation is rather obvious: ‘one’. The unique syntax of the Shema, however, requires more careful investigation into the word. Advocates of the ‘YHWH alone’ translation often appeal to both the literary context of the 37 MacDonald observes that Veijola and Loretz, the two most recent advocates of the translation ‘YHWH is our God’, both argue on the basis of a previous context of the Shema (Monotheism, pp.64–5). MacDonald rightly comments that the phrase must be treated in its current form in Deuteronomy. 38 Moberly considers the translation of H?J9= 9H9J ‘the decisive issue’ here (‘Yahweh Is One’, p.213). But it is not clear why the translation ‘YHWH our God’ demands that ‘the verse must be a statement about the oneness of Yahweh and not about the exclusive relationship between Yahweh and Israel’ (ibid.). Block, however, notes that it is possible to translate H?J9= 9H9J appositionally and 5I 9H9J as a statement of the exclusive relationship between YHWH and Israel (‘How Many?’, p.201). 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

35

Shema in Deuteronomy and the unique lexical/grammatical features of the passage. We will deal with each in turn. First, when examining the literary context of the Shema, it is important to consider the present form of the passage in the book of Deuteronomy, regardless of any possible textual pre-history. Many advocates of the ‘YHWH alone’ translation see the present literary context of the Shema as a con¿rmation of their view. For example, drawing a parallel between Deut. 6.4 and 6.14-15, Finsterbusch concludes that the prohibition against worshipping other gods in the latter makes the meaning of the former transparent.39 I see no reason to dispute the parallels Finsterbusch suggests between the ¿rst and second parts of ch. 6. Such parallels, however, do not necessitate a precise overlap in meaning. It seems entirely plausible that the explanation of v. 4 found in vv. 14-15 could af¿rm the covenant relationship between Israel and YHWH implicit in the words H?J9= 9H9J while not denying another meaning to 5I 9H9J. The same could be said for the proper response to the Shema found in v. 5. That the response to the Shema must be wholehearted love for YHWH as covenant God does not demand that v. 4 is only speaking of the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel. Although there is certainly a consistent emphasis on this covenant relationship throughout Deuteronomy,40 there is also a clear assertion of YHWH’s uniqueness as the only true God in the book.41 The wider literary context of the Shema certainly permits us to consider the possibility that 5I 9H9J points to this reality. The most signi¿cant grammatical argument in favor of the ‘YHWH alone’ reading is the suggestion that 5I can indeed be translated ‘alone’.42 Block and Mayes, among others, list a number of passages in 39 ‘Mit dieser Warnung wird auf die existentielle Bedeutung der Aussage “Jhwh ist einzig” (V. 4bC) aufmerksam gemacht’ (Karin Finsterbusch, ‘Bezüge zwischen Aussagen von Dtn 6,4-9 und 6,10-25’, ZAW 114 [2002], p.434). 40 For examples, see Deut. 5.6-11; 6.13-15; 10.20; 13.4; 29.17-18. 41 Most explicitly, Deut. 4.35-39; see the discussion above. 42 Other grammatical issues are also relevant here. For example, a common objection to the ‘YHWH alone’ translation is that if such a meaning were intended, 9H9J H53= would appear in v. 6c as the more likely construction. However, several scholars answer this objection with the claim that 53= is an adverb and therefore not suitable in this nominal construction. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, p.338, citing A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel (7 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908–1914), vol. 2, p.270; see also Block, ‘How Many?’, p.199; McBride, ‘The Yoke of the Kingdom’, p.293 n.45. McBride, while arguing that 53= appears in verbal clauses, concedes that there may be exceptions. He fails to consider that the exceptions closely parallel the way the word would be used in Deut. 6.4. I have elsewhere argued, however, that 53= does occur in nominal constructions in the OT 1

36

‘God is One’

which such a translation is contextually plausible.43 However, none of the instances cited by either Block or Mayes is an indisputable case. Moberly has demonstrated that even in the passage most likely to ¿t this pattern, 1 Chron. 29.1, 5I is best translated in its usual sense of ‘one’. In brief, he argues that the translation of ‘Solomon is one man’ for 9>= 5I J?3 ¿ts the context well, for this chapter compares the one man Solomon with the vast number of his subjects. Thus, ‘the point is that because Solomon is but one man [and not many] (and young and inexperienced), he needs all the help he can get from the many people of Israel, who should therefore contribute generously to the project’.44 Therefore, to argue that 5I is often to be translated ‘alone’ seems to be pressing the evidence beyond what it is able to bear. Most likely, therefore, 5I should simply be translated ‘one’. In such a case, then, the second part of this phrase should be translated: ‘YHWH is one’.45 It seems that both the contextual and grammatical/lexical arguments in favor of the ‘YHWH alone’ translation are ultimately insuf¿cient. Based on the evidence we have thus far examined, the best translation for the Shema is either ‘YHWH our God is one YHWH’ or ‘YHWH our God, YHWH is one’. Neither translation is without problems. In the former, 9H9J is modi¿ed by a numeral; the dif¿culty with this is that no plural form of the word exists. Therefore, it is dif¿cult to see how the concept of one versus many ‘YHWHs’ could be expressed. Moreover, this translation would probably be directed against a monoYahwism.46 However, when carefully considered, the arguments for the (see Christopher R. Bruno, ‘A Note Pertaining to the Translation of Deut. 6.4’, VT 59 [2009], pp.320–2). Therefore, this objection to the ‘YHWH alone’ translation has more signi¿cance than some have granted. 43 Block mentions Josh. 22.20; 2 Sam. 7.23; 1 Chron. 29.1; Job 23.13; 31.15; Song 6.9; Zech. 14.9, arguing that in these texts, 5I ‘functions as the semantic equivalent to lébaddô’ (‘How Many?’, p.199). Mayes adds Isa. 51.2; Ezek. 33.24; 37.22 as other instances in which 5I may be translated ‘alone’ (Deuteronomy, p.176). 44 Moberly, ‘Yahweh Is One’, p.212. 45 This is most likely a verbless clause of classi¿cation. YHWH belongs to the class of ‘one’. I recognize that I am not following Anderson’s third rule in making this statement; however, Anderson himself admits several cases where ‘the sequence S-P for a clause of classi¿cation is inexplicable’ (Anderson, Verbless Clause, pp.42– 4). The unique syntax of the Shema may allow for just one of these exceptions. 46 For arguments in favor of Deut. 6.4 as a response to poly-Yahwism, see Peter Höffken, ‘Eine Bemerkung zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Dtn 6,4’, BZ 28 (1984), pp.88–93; Donner, ‘Höre, Israel’, pp.20–1. Although he seems to favor the translation ‘YHWH is our God, YHWH alone’, Clements argues this verse ‘amounts to the denial that the LORD can have more than one manifestation’ 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

37

mono-Yahwist view are inadequate. Advocates of the mono-Yahwism view often argue that the Shema was part of a larger centralization project, the reforms of Josiah, with the slogan(s): one Yahweh, one temple, one people, one cult. Moberly, however, notes two major problems with this view: (1) nowhere in Deuteronomy or Kings is there an emphasis on ‘one’ (5I ) as a slogan;47 (2) it does not necessarily follow that one God should have one temple – the proliferation of synagogues during the Second Temple era testi¿es to the willingness of Jewish monotheists to worship their one God in many places.48 Also, while the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions may hint at some form of poly-Yahwism in ancient Israel, there is little evidence that such a phenomenon was ever dominant or even signi¿cant enough to require a response in Deuteronomy.49 Therefore, it is unlikely that ‘YHWH our God is one YHWH’ is the best translation. The alternative translation, ‘YHWH is one’, however, is also somewhat awkward, for the second occurrence of 9H9J seems unnecessary.50 But this dif¿culty is to some degree overcome by understanding the ¿rst clause as a suspended subject that is resumed in the second clause.51 Therefore, the best translation for Deut. 6.4 is probably: ‘Hear, Israel. As for YHWH our God, YHWH is one’.52 (‘Deuteronomy’, pp.343–4); Block lists this as a possible interpretation (‘How Many?’, p.198). Mayes considers this option but ultimately rejects it (Deuteronomy, p.176). In recent years, interpreters have pointed to the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud which refer to ‘YHWH of Teman’ and ‘YHWH of Samaria’ as evidence of this interpretation. 47 See Gerhard von Rad for a brief argument in favor of cult centralization as a key theme in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966], pp.16–17; trans. of Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium [Das Alte Testament Deutsch 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964]). 48 Moberly, ‘Toward an Interpretation’, pp.129–30. 49 Block provides three reasons why the evidence of poly-Yahwism in the OT has been overstated: (1) References to YHWH as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as a single entity all relate to the connection between the promises to the patriarchs and the exodus generation; they are not combating poly-Yahwism. (2) Examples of (idolatrous) images of YHWH, such as Aaron’s and Jeroboam’s calves, were not intended to represent distinct YHWHs. (3) To compare YHWH of Teman/Paran with Baal-Peor is ‘unwarranted literalism’ (‘How Many?’, p.208 n.49). 50 Tigay seems to consider this redundancy suf¿cient ground for dismissing this translation (Deuteronomy, p.439). 51 See MacDonald, Monotheism, p.70. 52 Judah Kraut has recently argued the Shema is an example of staircase parallelism, resulting in the translation, ‘YHWH our God is one’ (‘Deciphering the Shema: Staircase Parallelism and the Syntax of Deuteronomy 6.4’, VT 61 [2011], 1

38

‘God is One’

This translation is consistent with at least three signi¿cant ancient witnesses.53 First, the LXX translates this verse as: BLPVF *TSBIM LV SJPK P

RFP@K I NX_O LV SJPK FJ2 (MaĞĞƗ) as a Type of Prophetic Book’, JBL 121 (2002), pp.401–22. For discussions of Zechariah’s place in the Twelve with special reference to chs. 9–14, see Paul L. Redditt, ‘Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve’, in Bringing out Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, eds.; JSOTSup 370; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2003), pp.305–23. 75 Some scholars continue to af¿rm the unity of Zechariah. Andrew E. Hill makes the case that the syntax and grammar of Zech. 9–14 is comparable to that of Haggai, Zech. 1–8, and Malachi (‘Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Examination’, HAR 6 [1982], pp.105–34). Konrad Schaefer speaks of the ‘complex integrity’ of the book (‘Zechariah 14 and the Composition of the Book of Zechariah’, RB 100 [1993], p.369). 76 These visions are marked with the word 9 C (often as part of the phrase C H J?JE  H). The visions are divided as follows: the ¿rst is in 1.7-17, the 1

44

‘God is One’

also seem to be a de¿ned unit.77 Although scholars differ about how chs. 9–14 should be understood,78 it is clear enough that in the book’s ¿nal form, this section is to be understood as two oracles, each introduced with the heading @>.79 Therefore, we will treat 9.1–11.17 and 12.1– 14.21 as the ¿rst and second oracles in this ¿nal unit. The section of most interest to this study is Zech. 12.1–14.21. This section contains two subunits: 12.1–13.9 and 14.1-21. The former recounts YHWH’s restoration of the house of David and the covenant with Israel.80 The latter, ch. 14, looks forward to the day of YHWH’s ¿nal victory, when Jerusalem will be the capital of the world and the nations will worship YHWH. Before moving to a more detailed discussion of Zechariah 14, we can note that few places in the OT include as many allusions to earlier biblical material as Zechariah 9–14.81 According to Meyers and Meyers, there are seventy ‘prominent examples’ of intertextual references in chs. 9–14.82 Although there is no need to discuss all of the possible references

second in 2.1-4, the third in 2.5-9, an interlude appears in 2.10-17, the fourth vision is in 3.1-10, the ¿fth in 4.1-14, the sixth in 5.1-4, the seventh in 5.5-11, and the eighth in 6.1-8. The section ends with a concluding oracle in 6.9-15. These are the divisions suggested in Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (JSOTSup 130; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1992), pp.63–70. 77 So Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah, pp.71–2. Most commentaries also note that chs. 7–8 are a unit. For representative discussions, see Théophane Chary, Aggée Zacharie Malachie (SB; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969), pp.117–18; Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, TX: Word, 1984), pp.219–20. 78 Most scholars concede some sort of relationship between Zech. 1–8 and 9– 14, although most assume that Zech. 9–14 is dependent on chs. 1–8. 79 Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah, p.72. 80 Milo£ Biþ notes that chs. 12–13 focus on the restoration of Israel as a whole: ‘Der Unterschied Juda – Ephraim…in diesem Teil des Buches keine Rolle mehr spielt’ (Das Buch Sacharja [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962], pp.141–2). Also, the restoration of the Davidic line appears in Zech. 12.7, 8, 10; 13.1. 81 The best study of OT references in Zech. 9–14 remains Rex Mason’s 1973 University of London PhD thesis (reproduced as ‘The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9–14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis’, in Boda and Floyd, eds., Bringing out Treasure, pp.2–208). In addition to the commentaries, for more on intertextuality in Zech. 9–14, see Heiko F. Wenzel, ‘Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1.1-6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book’ (PhD diss., Wheaton College, 2008), especially pp.196–259. 82 Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp.41–3. 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

45

to earlier biblical material in this section, we will note several of these examples when they are especially relevant to this study. (1) Genre. The entire book of Zechariah may be broadly classi¿ed as apocalyptic literature.83 In recent years, scholars have devoted much attention to this type of literature.84 The limits of our study preclude a full discussion of apocalyptic literature. However, some of the key features of the genre are especially relevant to our investigation.85 With speci¿c reference to Zechariah 14,86 Paul Tarazi describes87 apocalyptic as ‘a literary genre that was especially devised to express the direct intervention of God in order to realize fully his reign of justice within the con¿nes of his people; and since this intervention is also the ultimate one, God is spoken of as implementing his kingship over the

83 Where the book of Zechariah, and Zech. 14 in particular, ¿ts on the spectrum of apocalyptic literature is dif¿cult to determine. Certainly Daniel and other works such as the books of 1 Enoch or 4 Ezra display more traditionally apocalyptic features. Katrina Larkin, however, is right to note that, at the least, Zech. 14 contains features ‘very close to apocalyptic eschatology’ (The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology [Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 6; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994], p.182). Mark C. Black calls Zech. 14 ‘full-blown apocalyptic’ (‘The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who Is Coming with his Angels: The Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9– 14 in the Passion Narratives’ [PhD diss., Emory University, 1990], p.88). This may be a bit of an overstatement. 84 For an overview of modern study of apocalyptic, see Lester L. Grabbe, ‘Introduction and Overview’, in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and their Relationships [Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak, eds.; JSPSup 46; London: T&T Clark International, 2003], pp.3–7. In general, in the late 1970s through early 1990s, scholars worked to come to a general (although by no means universal) consensus on terms for describing apocalyptic. 85 In this discussion, I am referring only to Jewish ‘apocalyptic literature’ or ‘genre apocalypse’ as opposed to apocalypticism or apocalyptic modes of thought. 86 As with the rest of the book, I am also treating Zech. 14 as a unit, for it is intended to be read thus and was likely read as a unit by Paul. Magne Saebø, who calls Zech. 14 ‘ein überaus complexes Kapitel, das aus Reihe von theologischen Motiven und Einzeltraditionen besteht’, recognizes that it can be treated as a whole in its present form (Sacharja 9–14: Untersuchungen von Text und Form [WMANT 34; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969], p.282). 87 James Charlesworth notes, ‘An apocalypse cannot be de¿ned; it can only be described’ (The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excurses on Apocalypses [ATLA Bibliography Series 17; Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1987], p.53; emphasis original). 1

46

‘God is One’

entire creation’.88 The implementation of the eschatological kingship of Israel’s God over his entire creation is a central theme in Zechariah 14, as we will see below. The presence of this feature indicates that Zechariah 14 may be considered apocalyptic literature.89 Furthermore, although scholars have listed many other themes that are present in apocalyptic literature, three features that are often found in these lists are the disclosure of divine revelation, often through a heavenly messenger,90 cosmic transformation,91 and frequent use of poetic and often symbolic language.92 These features are also present in the general context of Zech. 14.9. The revelation through a heavenly messenger motif is absent from Zechariah 14. It is noteworthy, however, that Zechariah 1–8, which is not generally considered apocalyptic, contains this feature throughout.93 Since we are examining Zechariah as a uni¿ed piece, this feature is certainly relevant, for it creates an expectation for further apocalyptic themes in the book. Further, although subsequent revelation is not disclosed through a heavenly messenger, the visions of chs. 9–14 may certainly be understood as new divine revelation. The transformation of the cosmos is the clearest apocalyptic feature in Zechariah 14. As we will note below, this chapter paints a picture of substantial changes to both the topography and climate concomitant with YHWH’s worldwide rule. Symbolic language is a third theme frequent in apocalyptic literature. If it is accepted that the whole book of Zechariah, and ch. 14 in particular, 88 Paul Nadim Tarazi, ‘Israel and the Nations (according to Zechariah 14)’, SVTQ 38 (1994), p.183. 89 R. Barry Matlock points out what is implicit in Tarazi’s de¿nition: the indispensable eschatological component of apocalyptic literature (Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism [JSNTSup 127; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1996], pp.271–2). 90 The heavenly messenger either comes down to earth or brings the recipient of the message up to heaven. See also Jean Carmignac, ‘Qu’est-ce que L’Apocalyptic? Son emploi a Qumrân’, RevQ 37 (1979), pp.9, 13; Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p.80. 91 Carmignac, ‘Qu’est-ce que L’Apocalyptic?’, pp.12–13. 92 John J. Collins, ‘The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic’, BR 19 (1974), pp.5–22. Carmignac includes symbolism as a key component of apocalyptic literature, describing it as ‘genre littéraire qui présente, à travers des symboles typiques, des révélations soit sur Dieu, soit sur les anges ou les démons, soit sur leurs partisans, soit sur les instruments de leur action’ (‘Qu’est-ce que L’Apocalyptic?’, p.20). 93 Zech. 1.8, 11; 2.3; 4.1. 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

47

is broadly apocalyptic, then we should expect many features of the prophecies in it to be symbolic.94 We will also note the application of this feature in our discussion of Zechariah 14 below. Finally, it is important to note the close relationship between prophetic and apocalyptic literature. It is likely that the latter is an outgrowth of and often a speci¿c type of the former.95 Therefore, when we speak of apocalyptic literature, especially in its early stages, such as Zechariah 14, a prophetic aspect is often present. (2) Analysis of Zechariah 14. Zechariah 14 is a vision of what becomes of Jerusalem on the Day of YHWH.96 In Zech. 14.1-5, YHWH himself appears and gathers the nations 94 We can speak of at least two types of symbols in apocalyptic literature. The ¿rst is one in which a symbol stands for a concrete entity, such as a monarch or kingdom. A well-known example of this type of symbolism is Dan. 7, in which the beasts represent kingdoms. A second type of symbolism is more general. In it, a symbol stands for a state of affairs, such as judgment or safety. An example of this type of symbolism may be found in Rev. 6, in which the seals symbolize great judgment on earth. The details of these judgments are likely symbolic for the general condition of ‘the wrath of the Lamb’. Similarly, the transformed land in Zech. 14 is likely symbolic of the general condition of the safety and security of Jerusalem. 95 Grabbe notes the following features shared by prophetic and apocalyptic literature: (1) a divine communication; (2) a prospect of hope for improvement over the present situation; (3) divine involvement in the events of human history; (4) the prospect of a coming idyllic era; (5) considerable paraenesis; (6) production by either a community or an individual; (7) pseudepigraphic elements (‘Introduction and Overview’, p.23). Regardless of whether one agrees with all of these points, Grabbe is correct to note the signi¿cant overlap between the two genres. John J. Collins suggests that the key difference between the eschatology of the two genres is ‘the expectation of the judgment of the individual dead’ (‘Prophecy, Apocalypse and Eschatology: ReÀections on the Proposals of Lester Grabbe’, in Grabbe and Haak, eds., Knowing the End from the Beginning, p.47). 96 The phrase 9H9J )HJ, or some variation of this phrase, appears in Isa. 2.12; 13.6, 9; 22.5; 34.8; Jer. 46.10; Ezek. 7.10; 13.5; 30.3; Joel 1.15; 2.1, 11, 31 (ET 3.4); 3.14 (ET 4.14); Amos 5.18-20; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1.7, 8, 14-18; Zech. 14.1. Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar rightly notes, ‘The day of Yahweh becomes, in a very broad sense, a day of reversal, of divine intervention in the course of history’ (Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic [OTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996], p.222). In Zechariah, references to the 9H9J )HJ are often abbreviated with the phrase H99 )HJ3 (2.15; 3.10; 9.16; 11.11; 12.3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11; 13.1, 2, 4; 14.4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21). I am indebted to Chris Lent for an overview of general features of the Day of YHWH (‘An Examination of the “Day of Yahweh” in the Old Testament’, unpublished paper presented to the Old Testament Theology Seminar of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (2004). 1

48

‘God is One’

against Jerusalem,97 and then turns back to make war with these same nations.98 He then appears on the Mount of Olives99 with his ‘holy ones’, opening up an east–west chasm that provides a way of escape from Jerusalem.100 The result of YHWH’s victory in vv. 1-5 is outlined in vv. 611.101 It is here that we ¿nd a likely allusion to Deut. 6.4; therefore, we will give close attention to this section. In Zechariah’s vision, the Day of YHWH will usher in dramatic changes in both the topography and climate of Jerusalem. These changes represent a total transformation of the land that will make it ideal for an agrarian society.102 Meyers and Meyers suggest that the four changes in vv. 6-10 describe this transformation. We will use their summary as a means of summarizing this section.103 97 One of the key features of this day is the personal appearance of YHWH (Larkin, Eschatology of Second Zechariah, p.194). The return of YHWH here may be a mirror image of his exit from the temple in Ezek. 11. Konrad Schaefer notes, ‘Not by chance will Yhwh exit and take a stand ¿rst on the Mount of Olives. This is the route by which he abandoned the temple (Ezek. 11.23) and from the east he was to return (Ezek. 43.2-3)’ (‘The Ending of the Book of Zechariah: A Commentary’, RB 100 [1993], p.181). 98 The preposition 3 can either mean ‘among’ or ‘against’ in v. 3. In the former, YHWH is ¿ghting with the nations against Israel; in the latter, YHWH is ¿ghting for Israel against the nations. Joyce G. Baldwin notes that Cyril, Theodoret, and Eusebius followed the former interpretation (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi [TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972], p.200). The latter interpretation, however, is to be preferred, for in the OT, the verb )I= coupled with 3 typically refers to an adversary. Mark J. Boda cites Exod. 1.10; 14.25; 17.9; Num. 21.1, 23, 26; Judg. 1.3, 5, 8, 9 as examples of this phenomenon (Haggai, Zechariah [NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], p.523 n.17). 99 Saebø argues that the location of YHWH’s return on the Mount of Olives is part of a polemic against idolatry in general and the Molech cult in particular (Sacharja 9–14, pp.294–5). Regardless of whether this is present in vv. 4-5, the obliteration of idolatry becomes clear in Zech. 14.9, 16-21. See also Mason, who argues that the exclusive worship of YHWH in v. 9 ‘suggests a cleansing from idolatry among the redeemed community’ (‘The Use of Earlier Biblical Material’, p.188). 100 The ‘holy ones’ ()J5B) accompanying YHWH are either angels/heavenly beings or the saints. In favor of the former, see David L. Petersen, who cites Ps. 89.5, 7 and Deut. 33.2 (Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995], p.143). For the latter, see Rex Mason, The Books of Haggai Zechariah and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p.126. 101 Mason, ‘The Use of Earlier Biblical Material’, p.184. 102 Meyers and Meyers suggest just such a literal reading, remarking ‘The expression here introduces a depiction of the eschatological age in which the natural order of the cosmos itself will be turned upside down’ (Zechariah 9–14, p.431). 103 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, pp.432–42. 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

49

The ¿rst transformation that the prophet envisions, in v. 6, is an alteration of the normal patterns of light along with the elimination of frost and cold.104 The second change is seen in v. 7, which looks forward to a complete absence of night – a never-ending day.105 The third new condition in the land is introduced in v. 8. Living waters go out from Jerusalem and water the whole land. This Àow of water will be a yearround condition. No longer would the cycle of dry and rainy season cause uncertainty, for the always-Àowing water would produce an everfertile soil.106 We will bypass v. 9 for the moment and note the ¿nal new condition in this section. Verse 10 speaks of the entire land being Àattened into a plain.107 Furthermore, the city itself will be ‘lifted up’ (I3=) as a secure dwelling place for the people. The result of all these transformations is encapsulated in Zech. 14.11. The land will be freely inhabited by YHWH-worshippers, who have no reason to fear for their safety. The conclusion to v. 11 con¿rms the interpretation suggested here: ‘Jerusalem will dwell in security (I3=)’.108

104 The text in v. 6b is quite dif¿cult and displays some signs of corruption. The kethiv is *H ABJ EHCBJ (‘precious things will congeal’). The qere is *H A!BH EHCBJ (‘precious things and congelation’). Both readings are problematic. Many ancient versions read ‘cold’ and ‘frost’ (LXX: V_YPK LBJ= QB HPK; Syriac: dYLgw )Yr(; Vulgate: frigus et gelu). These readings may be explained by amending EHCBJ to a form of CCB + H and positing ‘ice’ as a proper translation for *H A!B (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, p.432; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p.136). Smith argues for the reading ‘cold’ for EHCBJ based on these arguments, but in his actual translation he omits *H A!B (Micah–Malachi, p.287). Schaefer concludes that this phrase ‘stands like an ominous premonition to any who would propose to de¿nitively solve the riddle’ (‘The Ending of the Book of Zechariah’, pp.193–4). Baldwin’s conclusion is ¿tting: ‘Whatever the true reading should be, cosmic changes are implied’ (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p.203). 105 Many scholars note a possible reversal of Gen. 8.22 in v. 7. See Henning Graf Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD 25/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), p.126; Andre Lacocque, ‘Zacharie 9– 14’, in Commentaire de L’ancien Testament. Volume 11C (2nd edn; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988), p.201. 106 So Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, p.435. 107 Geba and Rimmon mark the northern and southern edges of Judah. Schaefer argues that these locations were the ‘ideal dimensions’ of the kingdom during Josiah’s reform movement (‘The Ending of the Book of Zechariah’, p.206). Redditt notes that the locations in the city mentioned in v. 10 (Gate of Benjamin, Corner Gate, Tower of Hananel, king’s wine presses) mark the boundaries of the city during the eighth or seventh century BCE (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p.142). 108 Risto Nurmela argues that I3= here probably alludes to several passages from Ezekiel that speak of Jerusalem’s restoration – Ezek. 28.26; 34.25, 27, 28; 1

50

‘God is One’

To summarize the vision in vv. 6-11, the following changes are described: (1) the patterns of light change and there is no longer cold nor frost – therefore the growing season never ends; (2) it will always be daytime – therefore, crops will grow faster and larger; (3) running waters always go throughout the land – therefore, the land will remain fertile; and (4) the rugged terrain surrounding Jerusalem will be Àattened into level plains and the city will be lifted high – therefore, the amount of land suitable for growing crops will increase and the city itself will become both a landmark for the nations and an impregnable fortress for its inhabitants. All of these changes result in a situation of unparalleled stability and security for the people of God.109 We noted above that a common property of apocalyptic literature is its frequent use of symbolism. Therefore, we need not press too hard in our interpretation of how this vision was expected to be ful¿lled. It seems best to speak of these four symbols as indicators that in the Day of YHWH the people of God will experience stability and safety to a greater degree than they ever have before. The transformation of the land, although possibly representing an expectation that topography of Israel would physically change, points to the greater reality that when YHWH reigns over all of the earth, his people will dwell securely. At least two of the transformations described here recall images from elsewhere in the OT. First, the ‘living waters’ ()JJI)J>) Àowing from Jerusalem in Zech. 14.8 are probably related to Ezekiel 47.110 In Ezekiel, the living waters only Àow east from the temple into the city, representing blessing and salvation of Jerusalem and the surrounding area.111 39.26 (Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 [Åbo, Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1996], p.155). 109 See Rex Mason’s summary of these verses: ‘A series of four oracles describing the transformation of the land, its seasons (verses 6-7), its fertility (verse 8), the universal kingship of God (verse 9) from which all these consequences Àow, and the elevation of Jerusalem (verses 10–11)’ (The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, p.127).  110 )JJI)J> also appears in Gen. 26.19; Lev. 14.5; 15.13; Num. 19.17; Jer. 2.13; 17.13; Song 4.15. The river imagery in Ezek. 47 may be rooted in Gen. 2.8-14. For a detailed summary of the relationship between Zech. 14.8 and Ezek. 47, see M. D. Terblanche, ‘An Abundance of Living Waters: The Intertextual Relationship between Zechariah 14.8 and Ezekiel 47.1-12’, OTE 17 (2004), pp.125–9. 111 Ibid., p.126. See also Daniel Block, who notes that the bene¿t of the living waters in Ezekiel is for Israel. Block, however, suggests that Zechariah’s use of this theme is also ‘narrowly nationalistic’ (The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], p.697). Although Zechariah’s emphasis is certainly on the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem, calling Zech. 14 ‘narrowly nationalistic’ may be an overstatement. 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

51

In Zechariah 14, living waters Àow both east and west out of Jerusalem into the surrounding areas, possibly indicating blessing and salvation for both Israel and the nations.112 Second, the exaltation and transformation of Jerusalem found in v. 10 is a theme that appears in several places in the OT. Isaiah 2.2-4 is especially noteworthy, for it shares several themes with Zechariah 14.113 Isaiah 2.1-4 is a poetic description of what the world will be like when YHWH restores Israel. The mountain of YHWH – that is, Zion – will become the centerpiece of the earth.114 The nations will stream to Zion because they will ¿nally know that YHWH is the Lord over all the earth (v. 2). Verse 3 provides the reason that the nations will stream to YHWH in that day: the Torah will go out from Zion.115 The prophet looked forward to an era when the teaching of the Torah would extend from Zion to the world and an ingathering from the nations would stream from the world to Zion. This worldwide extension of YHWH’s word would accompany the era of peace and prosperity for which Israel longed – and which YHWH promised someday to provide.116 112 Mason notes, ‘The cosmic sweep of #C 9=< may have had its counterpart in v. 8 where the thought of the land being watered by the rivers which Àow through it seem to echo the Paradise motif. That is, by virtue of the divine deliverance of Jerusalem all the earth will return to the conditions of Paradise before the fall’ (‘The Use of Earlier Biblical Material’, pp.188–9). See also Schaefer’s comment: ‘The point is that Yhwh from his holy city provides water in abundance, symbolizing that ingredient (God’s law) which affords universal salvation’ (‘The Ending of the Book of Zechariah’, p.197); see also Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p.147; Douglas R. Jones, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (TBC; London: SCM, 1962), p.175. 113 Barry G. Webb calls the comparison with Isa. 2.1-4 ‘obvious and striking’ (The Message of Zechariah [BST; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004], p.180). 114 This text is repeated verbatim in Mic. 4.1-3. For more on the parallel, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39 (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp.190–1; John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), pp.115–16. 115 Oswalt argues that Zion here has become ‘a symbol of God’s self-revelation through history’ and the source of true salvation for human beings (Isaiah, p.118). 116 Allusions to Jer. 31 are also possible in v. 10. Schaefer comments, ‘Zech. 14.10 echoes Jer. 31.38, which describes the rebuilding and consecration of the city… The echo is ampli¿ed as Zechariah (14.11) describes a safe city, with no more threat of Üerem, a promise which is explicit in Jer. 31.40’ (‘Ending of the Book of Zechariah’, p.183). This allusion, although certainly possible, is not quite as explicit as Schaefer implies. The phrase 9H9J= 5B appears in both Jer. 31.40 and Zech. 14.20; however his claim that there shall be no more Üerem is not explicit in the text. Jer. 31.40 says 5H DC9J =H )=H=. The verb here is DC9, which may be related to the verb )CI in Deut. 7; however to say the promise of no more Üerem is explicit in Jer. 31.40 seems to be an overstatement. 1

52

‘God is One’

b. Zechariah 14.9 In Zech. 14.8 and 10, therefore, we ¿nd hints that the nations will share in the salvation and stability described in this section. Con¿rmation of this theme is seen in v. 9.117 Here, two things are predicated of YHWH: (1) he becomes king over all the earth; and (2) he will be ‘one’ and his name ‘one’ (5I ).118 The meaning of the former is rather straightforward: YHWH will reign as the recognized king of the world.119 The latter is more obscure, but seems to involve universal recognition of the ‘oneness’ of YHWH. Both of these themes are most likely rooted in earlier biblical material. Speci¿cally, the kingship of YHWH is related to the Enthronement Psalms, and the recognition of YHWH as one is derived from Deut. 6.4. We will treat each of these features in turn. (1) Enthronement Psalms. The kingship of YHWH, although present in much of the OT, is especially prominent in Enthronement Psalms. While there are differing 117 The inclusion of the Gentiles is not new at this point in Zechariah. Throughout the book, and chs. 9–14 in particular, there are pointers toward a role for the nations. See Mason, ‘The Use of Earlier Biblical Material’, pp.2–208. 118 Verse 9 says, 9H9J 9J9J H99 )HJ3 #C 9== 9H9J 9J9H 5I H>H 95I . Although Petersen argues that an early copyist inadvertently transposed the ¿rst ((=>= 9H9J 9J9H) and third ( H99 )HJ3) colons, there is no textual evidence for this claim (Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p.136). Since this verse is likely alluding to Deut. 6.4, we need not repeat the translation issues discussed above. It is suf¿cient to note that ‘alone’ is an inadequate translation of 5I . Although some scholars or translations render both instances of 5I as ‘alone’, most English versions either translate the ¿rst 5I as an adjective or predicate nominative ‘one’, referring to the Lord and the second 5I as the adjective or predicative nominative ‘only’, referring to his name (TNIV, NIV) or consistently translate 5I as ‘one’ (ESV, AV, NRSV, ASV, NKJV). In favor of ‘alone’ see the Holman Christian Standard Bible, Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p.134. In addition to the lexical arguments in favor of translating 5I as ‘one’ outlined above, the syntax of the verse seems to indicate that both instances of 5I are parallel and should be translated the same. This seems to be the understanding of Zech. 14.9 LXX: FTUBJ LV SJPK FJ 9H9J, see J. D. W. Watts, ‘Yahweh Malak Psalms’, ThZ 21 (1965), pp.341–8; Jarl H. Ulrichsen, ‘JHWH MALAK: Einige Sprachliche Beobachtungen’, VT 28 (1977), pp.361–74. Ulrichsen argues that the context is ultimately determinative for how the verb functions. 125 Sigmund Mowinckel’s argument in favor of this setting for the Enthronement Psalms popularized this theory. Mowinckel’s proposal is found in The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), vol. 1, pp.106–35. 1

54

‘God is One’

falsi¿ed from the text of the Psalms alone; therefore, any theories about their use in early Israelite festivals must remain speculative.126 Furthermore, Botha correctly argues that a comparison to the enthronement of Israel’s kings demonstrates that the so-called Enthronement Psalms are not as concerned about YHWH’s ascension to the throne as they are about the fact of his reign.127 Therefore, it is likely that the label ‘Enthronement’ is slightly misleading when applied to these Psalms, for it seems that YHWH is already assumed to be king and the Psalms are simply declarations of this fact. These Psalms perceive and proclaim YHWH’s reign in the present tense.128 The latter two features of the Enthronement Psalms, YHWH’s judgment on and victory over his enemies and his reign over the nations, may be discussed in tandem. In short, the reign of YHWH over the nations seems to follow his victory over his enemies. Therefore, YHWH’s victory seems to be a present reality in the Psalms as well. Whether this victory was realized in the creation of the world or in Israel’s salvation through the exodus from Egypt or later victories,129 the Psalmist saw YHWH as already having won the victory and therefore reigning as king.130

126 Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End, p.239. 127 Botha points to Solomon’s coronation in 1 Kgs 1.32-48 (‘The “Enthronement Psalms”,’ p.28). In that text, there are clear markers indicating a transition of monarchs: the anointing of Solomon, the declaration JIJ 9>= (=>9 (vv. 34, 39), and the blowing of trumpets. These features are absent in the Enthronement Psalms. 128 Daniel Block may be right, however, to suggest that the New Year festival ‘actualized’ YHWH’s saving acts for each generation (‘New Year’, in ISBE, vol. 3, p.530). 129 J. J. M. Roberts argues that the Psalms ‘root Yahweh’s kingship in creation, that is, in Yahweh’s victory over the powers of chaos and in his establishment of a stable world order based on that mastery over chaos’ (‘The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Signi¿cance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms’, CBQ 64 [2002], p.679). He goes on to note the close relationship between David’s victories with YHWH’s victory over chaos and the link between Israel’s enemies and the ‘primeval waters of chaos’ (ibid.). 130 It is not uncommon for Psalms scholars to read the kingship of YHWH in these Psalms eschatologically. Hermann Gunkel was among the ¿rst to suggest this view (Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels [Göttinger Handkommentar zum alten Testament 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993], pp.140–71). Gunkel built on Mowinckel’s theory that the Enthronement Psalms celebrated the victory and enthronement of YHWH, but suggested that these Psalms look forward to the eschatological kingship of YHWH. Although there is certainly the expectation of future action and greater recognition of YHWH’s kingship in these Psalms, the declaration ‘YHWH is king’ seems to be a present reality. 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

55

Moving back to Zechariah 14, these three key themes are also present in the near context of v. 9. The kingship of YHWH is obvious in v. 9. We have noted above the account of YHWH’s victory over his enemies in vv. 1-5. Hints at YHWH’s reign over the nations are also present in vv. 8 and 10, but this theme is explicit in v. 9 and vv. 16-21. Therefore, based on the criterion of thematic coherence, it is likely that these Psalms are related to Zech. 14.9.131 In the Enthronement Psalms, the themes of YHWH’s kingship, victory over his enemies, and reign over the nations seem to be a present reality. Zechariah 14, however, postpones the same themes to the indeterminate future. The declaration that YHWH will be king over all the earth seems to assume that from the perspective of the prophet, there is some sense in which YHWH is not yet king.132 That is not to say that the perspective of the Psalms is being denied. Rather, it is likely that YHWH’s kingship refers to the full realization of this role.133 In that day, YHWH will ¿nally be known to all the inhabitants of the world as the true king. Therefore, it seems that Zech. 14.9 looks forward to an ‘eschatological ful¿llment’ of the Enthronement Psalms. The reality that is described in those Psalms will be fully and ¿nally realized in the ful¿llment of Zechariah’s vision.134 (2) Deuteronomy 6.4. In conjunction with the eschatological ful¿llment of the Enthronement Psalms, Zech. 14.9 also alludes to the ¿rst part of the Shema, Deut. 6.4. Applying the methodology introduced in Chapter 1, at least four criteria allow us to classify Zech. 14.9 as an allusion to Deut. 6.4. 131 We could also add the criterion of the history of interpretation here by noting that many commentators note a link to the Enthronement Psalms. See Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1976), p.236. 132 Petersen notes that the Enthronement Psalms ‘attest to the reality that Zech. 14.9 predicts, namely, that Yahweh will become king’ (Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p.147). Unlike his discussion of 5I and Deut. 6.4, however, he does not speculate any further about the tension between the present-tense declaration of the Psalms and Zechariah’s yet-to-be-ful¿lled prophecy. 133 Larkin, Eschatology of Second Zechariah, p.208. 134 Although not referring to the Psalms, Bic notes the connection between the Exodus and the Zech. 14.9: ‘Alles was in dieser Hinsicht bei und nach dem Auzug aus Ägypten geschehen ist, wird verblassen vor der Herrlichkeit des neuen, königlichen Einzugs YHWH, mit dem der neue Äon anbrechen wird’ (Das Buch Sacharja, p.165). Therefore, the = here is a lamed revaluationis/lamed of transformation: ‘YHWH will become king over all the earth’. We also have a metaphorical use of = marking YHWH’s rank as king (IBHS 11.2.13c). 1

56

‘God is One’

First, the allusion has substantial volume. With respect to actual verbal overlap, the correspondence between Deut. 6.4 and Zech. 14.9 is admittedly minimal. Only two words are repeated in both verses: 9H9J and 5I . These two words, however, have signi¿cant rhetorical stress in both texts. In Deut. 6.4, the words are part of the essential confession of Israel in relation to YHWH. In Zech. 14.9, the recognition of YHWH as ‘one’ is the rhetorical climax of Zech. 14.6-11.135 Furthermore, these two texts are the only ones in the OT in which 9H9J is immediately followed by 5I . Given the later importance of the Shema, this alone is suf¿cient ground to assume an allusion to Deut. 6.4. However, the criteria of recurrence, thematic coherence, and the history of interpretation also strengthen the likelihood of an allusion to the Shema. The criterion of recurrence applies to Zechariah 14 in that the author of this chapter displays obvious awareness of other themes from Deuteronomy. An allusion to Deuteronomy may occur in Zech. 14.11, where it is said that the things devoted to destruction ()CI) will be no more. Deuteronomy 7 provides the fullest explanation of )CI in the OT,136 and it is likely that the reference in Zech. 14.11 indicates that holy war will no longer be necessary, for all the earth will worship YHWH. That is, the whole world will be properly under the principle of the Shema – they will recognize that YHWH is one and be in covenant with him. The correlation between the Shema and )CI also leads to the criterion of thematic coherence. Although the genres of Deuteronomy 6 and Zechariah 14 are very different, both recognize that )CI is enacted only on those who are not in covenant with YHWH. If, as v. 9 indicates, the whole world is in covenant with YHWH, then we have no need for the )CI measures to be in place. Therefore, at least at this one point, there is thematic coherence between the Shema and Zech. 14.9.137 Furthermore, I am hardly the ¿rst to note the links between the Shema and Zech. 14.9. As early as the third century CE, interpreters linked these texts. In Sifre Deuteronomy 31.4, the rabbi says, ‘The Lord, our God, over us (the children of Israel); the Lord is one, over all the creatures of the world. The Lord, our God, in this world; the Lord is one, in the world to come, as it is said, The Lord shall be king over all the earth. In that 135 Chary calls v. 9 ‘le sommet théologique de tout ce chapitre 14’ (Aggée Zacharie Malachie, p.216). 136 For more on this passage, including an overview of research, see MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, pp.108–23. 137 Meyers and Meyers list several other possible links between the book of Deuteronomy and Zech. 14: Zech. 14.2/Deut. 13.12-16; Zech. 14.13/Deut. 7.23; Zech. 14.16/Deut. 16.13-15 (Zechariah 9–14, p.43). 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

57

day shall the Lord be one and His name One (Zech. 14.9)’.138 Many modern interpreters note the link between these texts as well.139 In sum, therefore, it seems that a link between Deut. 6.4 and Zech. 14.9 is rather clear. Zechariah 14 views both Deut. 6.4 and the Enthronement Psalms in a similar way. Just as the Enthronement Psalms seem to view YHWH’s kingship as a present reality, so also Deut. 6.4 also views the oneness of YHWH as a present reality. As noted in our discussion above, Israel was called to recognize that their covenant God was the only true God in the world. There is no hint in Deuteronomy 6 that the reality of God as one has any contingencies attached to it. Israel’s task was to recognize and confess that YHWH is one. In Zech. 14.9, however, it seems that the recognition that YHWH is one remains in some sense a future reality.140 Like the kingship of YHWH, the prophet implies there is a way in which YHWH is not yet the ‘one’. Also like the kingship of YHWH, it is unlikely that the prophet is saying God is not yet the one true God; rather the issue seems to be universal recognition of that role.141 In Deuteronomy, only those who are in covenant with YHWH recognize that he is the one and only God. In Zech. 14.9, it seems that this 138 Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, p.59. 139 See, among others, Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, p.439; Block, ‘How Many?’, p.209; Mason, ‘The Use of Earlier Biblical Material’, p.188; Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi, p.236; Bic, Das Buch Sacharja, p.165. 140 Petersen, while translating v. 9b as ‘Yahweh alone and his name alone’, claims that Zech. 14 stresses the ‘singularity of the deity’ in a way that is not present in Deut. 6 (Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p.148). Based on our argument above, however, it is more likely that the worldwide recognition of the singularity, not the fact of it, is stressed in Zech. 14. 141 In Jewish liturgy, the declaration of YHWH as king is included in the benedictions before and after the Shema (m. Ber. 2.2). For more on the relationship between YHWH as king and the Shema, see Thomas Lehnardt, ‘Der Gott der Welt ist König. Zur Vorstellung von der Königsherrschaft Gottes im Shema und seinen Benedictionen’, in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt (Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, eds.; WUNT 55; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), pp.285–308. Martin Beck notes that the kingship of YHWH and the requirement of exclusive worship are also combined in Isa. 44.6; Jer. 8.19; Pss. 22.28-29; 47.3; 95.3; 96.4-5, 10; 97.1, 7-9 (Der “Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditionsund Redaktionsgeschichte [BZAW 356; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005], p.250). Although he is right to note the conceptual parallels, especially in the Enthronement Psalms, he failed to mention the allusion to Deut. 6.4. Therefore, it seems that he ignores a fundamental aspect of what exclusive worship of YHWH entails: being in covenant with him and therefore recognizing that he alone is the one true God. 1

58

‘God is One’

recognition of YHWH as the one true God includes the whole earth. Therefore, it is likely that Zechariah 14 envisions a day when YHWH will be in covenant with the whole earth.142 The whole world will recognize the bedrocks of Israel’s faith:143 YHWH’s universal sovereignty and his uniqueness. YHWH will no longer have any competitors for exclusive allegiance. This is the most likely meaning for Zechariah’s prediction that ‘YHWH will be one’.144 In the wider stream of OT theology, the inclusion of the nations as covenant partners with YHWH cannot be understood apart from the Abrahamic promises in Gen. 12.3. The vision in Zechariah 14 likely points toward the ful¿llment of these promises. From the beginning of Israel’s history, there was an expectation that all the nations would be blessed through her.145 In Zechariah 14, although the nations initially encounter defeat at the hands of Israel and her God, the end result is the worldwide reign of YHWH, which includes covenant blessings going to the nations. The remainder of Zechariah 14 supports this interpretation. After recounting the horrors that await YHWH’s enemies on ‘that day’ in Zech. 14.12-15,146 vv. 16-21 speak of the worldwide worship of YHWH and the future pilgrimage of the nations to Zion.147 Again, although it is possible 142 Petersen’s claim that the link between YHWH as ‘our God’ and YHWH as king is a new innovation seems strange, given the ‘kingly themes’ of Deuteronomy itself (Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, p.149). 143 Block rightly notes that the main point is ‘expanding the boundaries of those who claim only Yahweh as their God to the ends of the earth’ (‘How Many?’, p.209). Gordon suggests that Zech. 14.9 predicts that ‘One’ (5I ) will be the ‘of¿cial name of God’ (‘His Name Is “One” ’, p.198). This seems to be an overly literal understanding of the ‘plain sense of the passage’, to use Gordon’s phrase. 144 Tg. Zech. reÀects this interpretation. The latter part of v. 9 is paraphrased, ‘his name is established in the world; there is none apart from him’ (Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes [ArBib 14; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989], p.224). 145 For an overview of the issues surrounding this verse, see Keith N. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12.3 in its Narrative Context (BZAW 332; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2003). 146 Boda argues that vv. 12-15 describe YHWH’s battle with the nations introduced in v. 3 (Haggai, Zechariah, p.527). 147 Schaefer argues that Sukkot has eschatological themes attached to it (‘The Ending of the Book of Zechariah’, pp.225–32). J. L. Rubenstein counters that the festival had a ‘thisworldly [sic] focus… The role of Sukkot in the eschatological vision devolves from the fact that Sukkot was the leading temple festival during the second temple period’ (‘Sukkot, Eschatology and Zechariah 14’, RB 103 [1996], 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

59

to understand these details literally, the apocalyptic tone of Zechariah 14 leads to the conclusion that the main point of these two sections points to YHWH’s future victory over any opposition to his universal kingship, so that all nations will be united in covenant with him and thus recognize him as their only God and the one true God. (3) Summary of Zechariah 14.9. Rex Mason summarizes Zechariah 14 as follows: The next great stage of renewal, the next decisive step forward in the life of the people of God, will be when Gentile nations also come to acknowledge the kingship of Yahweh and to worship him, and this too will be marked by the observance of the Feast of Tabernacles… It is the realization of Isa. 2.2-4 (= Mic. 4.1-4), the ful¿llment of the purpose of the elevation of Zion.148

Zechariah 14.9 encapsulates these themes. Drawing on the Enthronement Psalms and the ¿rst part of the Shema, the verse projects the present tense declarations about YHWH from earlier verses into the eschatological future. The Psalms material is ful¿lled in YHWH assuming his rightful place as the recognized king of the world. Deuteronomy 6.4 is ful¿lled as YHWH is recognized as the only true God in the world. This recognition seems to belong only to those who are in covenant with him. ‘In that day’, the nations will recognize and be in covenant with YHWH, the king, the one true God of the world.149 Therefore, as will become signi¿cant in our discussion of Paul’s letters, we have in this chapter a prophecy, perhaps in ful¿llment of the Abrahamic promises, of YHWH’s covenant extending to the nations. Henning Graf Reventlow’s summary is ¿tting: ‘Mit der Aussage, daß Jahwe einer sei und sein Name allein gottesdienstlich angerufen wird, wird das Grundbekenntnis Israels Dtn 6,4 aufgenommen…jetzt aber mit universalem Bezug’.150

p.161). Regardless of whether Schaefer or Rubenstein is correct, Friedrich Horst is correct to note that v. 9 can be understood as the acknowledgment of the worldwide reign of YHWH because of the universal participation in the Sukkot (‘Sacharja’, in Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Vol. 14, Die Zwolf kleinen Propheten [HAT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954], p.259). 148 Mason, ‘The Use of Earlier Biblical Material’, p.194. 149 Note Redditt’s comment: ‘The oneness of God would stand at the heart of Israel’s faith and the faith of any others under his reign’ (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p.141). 150 Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi, p.126. 1

60

‘God is One’

Excursus: Christian Interpretation of Zechariah 14 Before discussing Mal. 2.10, we will brieÀy summarize the history of interpretation of Zechariah 14. Many interpreters of Zechariah 14 consider the details described in it as features of the reign of God at the end of history. The reasons behind this are obvious. Regardless of whether the details are understood literally or symbolically, the expectation in Zechariah 14 is of a worldwide transformation, in which Israel will be forever secure. This assumes a transformation so extraordinary that it can take place in the eschatological kingdom of God. The history of interpretation of this chapter, however, is by no means unanimous. Al Wolters has recently summarized Christians interpretations of Zechariah 14.151 Wolters concludes that the error of most of these interpretations is a tendency to restrict the ful¿llment of Zechariah 14 to one era.152 This analysis coincides with the NT writers’ interpretation of Zechariah 14. The writers of the NT did not have a simple view of this chapter in which all of the details would only be ful¿lled at the end of recorded history. Rather, they seem to understand the prophecies of Zechariah 14 to be ful¿lled in the Messianic era, broadly speaking. This era includes the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Parousia, and the time between these events. We will address Paul’s view on Zechariah 14 below; however, we can observe that other NT writers claimed that several events from Zechariah 9–14 were ful¿lled in the life, and especially the death, of Jesus. First, the Evangelists particularly emphasized that Zechariah 9–14 was in some measure ful¿lled in the events surrounding the death of Christ.153 However, the Gospels also relate some events from Zechariah 9–14 to Christ’s Parousia.154 Furthermore, other NT writers also relate events from Zechariah 9–14 to both the life/death/resurrection of Jesus and his Parousia.155 Outside the Gospels, the most frequent references to Zechariah 9–14, and the book of Zechariah as a whole, are found in Revelation. Marko Jauhiainen has recently argued that the writer avoids texts from Zechariah 9–14 that the Gospel writers

151 Al Wolters, ‘Zechariah 14: A Dialogue with the History of Interpretation’, Mid-America Journal of Theology 13 (2002), pp.39–56. The interpretations Wolters presents are not mutually exclusive but rather represent broad perspectives on Zech. 14. 152 Ibid., p.56. 153 In his 1990 dissertation, Mark Black demonstrates that the sequence of the Gospel passion narratives roughly follows the outline of Zech. 9–14 (‘The Rejected and Slain Messiah’). 154 Although the reference of Mt. 24–25 is debated, it is likely that Mt. 24.30 refers to Zech. 12.10, 14 and Mt. 25.31 refers to Zech. 14.5. 155 There are probably three allusions to Zech. 9–14 in the General Epistles. The ¿rst, in Heb. 13.20, likely relates the ‘blood of the covenant’ ful¿lled in Jesus’ death to Zech. 9.11. The second and third relate to Christ’s Parousia. First Peter 1.7 probably relates the re¿nement of Israel in Zech. 13.9 to the re¿nement of Christians at the Parousia. Jude 14 may link the coming of Christ with his saints to Zech. 14.9. This reference, however, is refracted through 1 En. 1.9. 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

61

associated with the Passion of Christ.156 Rather, the focus of the Apocalypse is on both the NT era and the Parousia of Christ. The expectation is that Zechariah 9–14 is being ful¿lled in the messianic era, which includes both the NT era and the Parousia of Christ. Therefore, as Black has argued, the early Christians seemed to regard at least parts of Zechariah 14 as ‘descriptive of the messianic age inaugurated by Jesus’.157 The interpretation of this chapter by the NT writers saw portions of Zechariah 14 being ful¿lled in the coming of Christ and the subsequent era. Boda summarizes the NT perspective on Zechariah 14 well: Although rejected by the leaders of Jerusalem in his day, the divine warrior Jesus will still accomplish the mission described in the apocalyptic imagery of Zechariah 14. Through his death and resurrection he will ¿ght against the enemies of God and his people, inaugurating a new creation over which he rules as King. The nations of the earth will submit to his rule, drawn to his throne to worship him. The story of the early church describes the initial phase of the submission of the nations to Christ’s rule as the church carried the message of salvation to the ends of the earth. 158

c. Malachi 2 The second place where a possible allusion to Deut. 6.4 appears in the OT is Mal. 2.10. Here, the language is more ambiguous, for rather than referring to YHWH as ‘one’, the text speaks of Israel’s ‘one God’ (5I = ). Therefore, while it is clear that Zech. 14.9 alludes to Deut. 6.4, it is dif¿cult to determine whether the same can be said for 5I = in Mal. 2.10. (1) Structure of Malachi. The structure of Malachi is straightforward.159 Excluding its introductory and concluding statements, the book consists of six allegations made by YHWH against Israel.160 Malachi 2.10 introduces the third of these 156 Marko Jauhiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation (WUNT 199; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), p.131. 157 Black, ‘The Rejected and Slain Messiah’, p.232. 158 Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, p.530. See also Schaefer’s comment: ‘The author, rather than drawing a linear chronology of events, paints a theological tableau on which the rami¿cations of Yhwh’s ultimate triumph is featured synchronically’ (‘Ending of the Book of Zechariah’, p.190). 159 As with Zechariah, ‘Malachi’ refers to the book, and not the prophet. 160 These six sections are: (1) 1.2-5; (2) 1.6–2.9; (3) 2.10-16; (4) 2.17–3.5; (5) 3.6-12; (6) 3.13-21 (ET 4.3). The introduction is found in 1.1 and the conclusion in 3.22-24 (ET 4.4-6). These divisions were suggested by Egon Pfeiffer, ‘Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi (Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Stuktur)’, EvT 19 (1959), pp.546–68.

1

62

‘God is One’

allegations. The charge made is that Israel has violated the covenant in two ways. First, Jewish men have been guilty of intermarrying with the surrounding nations (vv. 11-12).161 Second, these same men have abandoned the ‘wives of their youth’ for their own pleasure (vv. 13-16).162 Verse 10 introduces this section by stating that these sins are contrary to two fundamental principles of Israel’s faith: (1) they have ‘one father’ (5I 3 ),163 and (2) they were created by ‘one God’ (5I = ). It seems, therefore, that these covenant violations are destroying the unity of the covenant people. It is here that we ¿nd a possible allusion to Deut. 6.4. (2) Allusion to Deuteronomy 6.4. Using our criteria for identifying allusions described in Chapter 1, we will ¿nd that, although it is more dif¿cult to argue for an allusion to Deut. 6.4 in Mal. 2.10, such an allusion may be present. Although the text of Deut. 6.4 would have likely been available to the writer of Malachi, it is dif¿cult, but not impossible, to af¿rm an allusion based on the criteria of volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, and the history of interpretation. Since it is dif¿cult to af¿rm an allusion to Deut. 6.4 on the basis of these more quanti¿able criteria, it is doubly dif¿cult to speak of the criteria of historical plausibility and satisfaction. Therefore, I will omit these criteria from our discussion. The volume of this allusion is somewhat muted. The grammar here differs signi¿cantly from both Deut. 6.4 and Zech. 14.9. Although the word 5I is present as an adjective modifying = , the words are not in predicate position and God is identi¿ed as = , not 9H9J. However, later Greek texts may refer to the Shema with FJ9E H )JBI9E (The Shema and the First Commandment, p.110 n.319). He is correct that the verses do share the third phrase. However, 3CI3 appears in Deut. 5.2, not v. 1, and the second phrase appears in Mal. 3 with the preposition =, rather than = . In spite of these corrections, the two texts seem to share a common stock of phrases. 169 Jones, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, p.194; Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p.237. Hill notes an allusion to Deut. 6.4, but adds that the phrase is also derived from other texts, such as Job 31.15 (Malachi, p.225). Paul Redditt argues that Zech. 9–14 was the last addition to the Twelve. Therefore, Zech. 14.9 is dependent on Mal. 2.10 (‘Themes in Haggai—Zechariah—Malachi’, Interpretation 61 [2007], p.193). 170 Hill, Malachi, p.255. 1

64

‘God is One’

chapter. The one God is understood as such primarily in terms of the covenant relationship with his people. When his people violate the covenant, as in Malachi 2, part of YHWH’s call to bring them back to faithfulness is an emphasis on the relationship between the one true God and his covenant people. We can tentatively conclude, therefore, that Mal. 2.10 may be alluding to Deut. 6.4. If this is the case, then the connections between God as one and his covenant people are once again emphasized. Part of Israel’s identity as the covenant people of YHWH is the knowledge of and relationship with the one true God. (3) Conclusion to Malachi 2. If Mal. 2.10 is alluding to Deut. 6.4, then it is signi¿cant that the reference to God as one seems to have a different emphasis than Zech. 14.9. As noted above, Zech. 14.9 looks forward to a day when the nations will be in covenant with YHWH and therefore acknowledge that he is one. Malachi 2, however, assumes no such thing. In fact, the emphasis is that, because Israel has one father and one God, they must not associate with the surrounding Gentiles through marriage. It is therefore clear that in Malachi, the conception of God as one did not lead to any kind of inclusion of the nations in the covenant people; rather, the very opposite is true. The logic is that since Israel has one father and one God, she must keep herself pure from the surrounding nations who, presumably, are not and should not be in covenant relationship with Israel’s God. This logic seems to be quite different from what we will ¿nd in our discussion of the Pauline epistles below. 5. Summary and Conclusion We began this chapter with a discussion of the Shema, focusing especially on the phrase 5I 9H9J H?J9= 9H9J in Deut. 6.4. We found the best translation of this phrase is probably ‘As for YHWH our God, YHWH is one’. This translation af¿rms that YHWH, Israel’s God, is unique with respect to all other deities. However, this verse also appears in a context in which YHWH’s salvation of and covenant with Israel is central. Along with this covenant, YHWH also revealed himself to Israel and, secondarily, to the nations. To Israel, he revealed that he alone is the true God; to the nations, he revealed that Israel had a special status. It is in this context that we ¿nd the Shema. YHWH is Israel’s God; YHWH is the one true God; therefore, Israel was to respond to him with wholehearted covenant love (Deut. 6.5). 1

2. ‘God is One’ in the Old Testament

65

In Zechariah 14, some of these same themes appear; however, there is also signi¿cant development. Whereas in Deut. 6.4, only Israel was in covenant with YHWH and therefore recognized him as the one true God, in Zech. 14.9, when YHWH restores and secures Israel, all the nations of the earth also become covenant partners with YHWH and therefore recognize him as the one God. Therefore, although Zechariah 14 continues to focus on Israel, the nations, rather than being mere spectators of Israel’s salvation and covenant as in Deuteronomy 4–6, become fellowpartakers of the covenant. According to Zechariah 14, on the Day of YHWH, the nations will know and be in covenant with YHWH, the king, the one true God of the world. Malachi 2.10 may also allude to Deut. 6.4. If this is the case, then we again have a situation in which the recognition of YHWH as the ‘one God’ is primarily within the context of a covenant relationship. In Malachi, however, the signi¿cance of Israel’s relationship with her ‘one God’ seems to lead to the exclusion, rather than the inclusion, of the nations. Several other prophetic texts af¿rm monotheism. In particular, Isa. 43.11 and 44.6, 24 af¿rms that there is no other God besides YHWH. These texts, however, do not refer to God as ‘one’ (5I ). Therefore, we will not devote signi¿cant attention to them. However, we can note that in both Isaiah 43 and 44, Israel is called to be a witness of YHWH and his work.171 Although the phrase ‘YHWH is one’ is not present in these texts, the one true God is only known and, in this case, testi¿ed to, by his covenant people. Thus it seems that the phrase ‘YHWH is one’ in Deut. 6.4 and subsequent texts that allude to Deut. 6.4 point both to an ontological and covenant reality. It is assumed that YHWH is the one true God. However, only those who are in covenant with YHWH are able to perceive and bene¿t from this reality. In Deuteronomy, this covenant relationship belongs only to Israel. In a statement more like Paul’s in Romans and Galatians, in Zechariah, however, the covenant is extending beyond the borders of Israel to the nations. In our next chapter, therefore, we will turn to early Jewish literature and examine how the near contemporaries of Paul connected to the confession of God as one to the nations.

171 Israel is called to be a witness in Isa. 43.12; 44.8. Presumably, the call for YHWH’s covenant people to be witnesses of the fact that YHWH alone is God implies that only those who are in covenant with YHWH will perceive that he alone is God. 1

Chapter 3

‘GOD IS ONE’ IN EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE

1. Introduction With the tumultuous political events in Palestine during the last centuries BCE and the ¿rst centuries CE, culminating in the revolts of 70 and 135 CE,1 many adherents of the Jewish faith increasingly emphasized the distinctiveness of their beliefs about God over against their non-Jewish neighbors. Consequently, the belief in and confession of the one God rose to greater prominence in the life and thought of the Jewish people.2 While we cannot discuss all of the causes and implications of the events from this era, it is noteworthy that, in concert with the growing signi¿cance of their devotion to the one God of Israel, the Shema naturally rose in prominence as the confession of the Jewish community.3 Therefore, the phrase ‘God is one’ and its variants are plentiful in the literature of this era. 1 The history of this era is well known. For a general overview, see, among the many ¿ne introductions, Lester L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000), pp.37–126. For a discussion of the theology of the era among Jews, see, among others, Mark Adam Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). 2 James D. G. Dunn calls monotheism, along with election, the Torah, and the temple, one of the ‘four pillars of Second Temple Judaism’ (The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Signi¿cance for the Character of Christianity [London: SCM, 1991], pp.19–21). Similarly, N. T. Wright argues that during the Second Temple era, monotheism, election, and eschatology became the foundational beliefs of the Jewish worldview; beliefs ‘which explicate the entire worldview theologically’ (The New Testament and the People of God, p.279). 3 For discussions of the meaning and role of monotheism in this era, see, among others, ibid., pp.248–59; Horbury, ‘Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age’, pp.16–44; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pp.29–50; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel. See also the discussion in Chapter 1 above.

3. ‘God is One’ in Early Jewish Literature

67

Moreover, while there may be a distinction between the English phrases ‘there is one God’ and ‘God is one’, in most Jewish literature from the Second Temple period, the Greek phrases FJ