The Yeshiva Institute (TYI)
Trinitarian Christians often employ creative theology in trying to make sense of their erroneous belief that "God" is three in one. One of the bizzare thing they invented was the hebrew word אֶחָד echad, in the Shema (D'varim/Deut 6:4) does not actually mean an absolute ONE. Rather, they argue, this word mean a “compound unity,” or many things as one group.
Well that is a stretch because the word אֶחָד ’echad’ is used approximately 900 times in the Tanach , and never, not one of those times is it ever used to describe two, three, four, or five, or anything else other than ‘one‘ – it always means “one."!
Any hebrew speaker will tell us how does one COUNT "one , two, three ...." in Hebrew?
א ,ב ,ג ...
echad, shnayim, shlosha ..(masc)
achat, shtayim, shalosh ..(fem)
Of course like in any other language the word ‘echad’ in a few of those cases could also means ‘ONE’ , In the Tanakh we also find 1 – flock, 1 – pride, 1 – herd, 1 – house, 1 – crowd, 1 – tribe, 1 – cluster, 1 – thousand, 1 – generation, 1 – portion and so on. Nevertheless אֶחָד echad always means the numeral “1.
Rashi himself use the word echad in his commentary on D'varim/Deut 6:4 , He explains: יְיָ אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ יְיָ אֶחָד Yhwh Eloh-einu Yhwh ecḥad: ה' שהוא אלהינו עתה ולא אלהי האומות, הוא עתיד להיות ה' אחד The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the other nations-He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,".
So it is ridiculuous to suggest that the word יָחִיד yachid should have been used in Deut 6:4 to describe the Almighty “ if ” He was actually absolute “ONE” instead then the 3 in 1 like in trinitrianism. Not one of prophets of God Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Jesus peace be upon them all .. ever told us God means "3 in 1", rather than absolute ‘One‘ that is being the Yhwh / Hashem alone.
On the contrary every prophets including Jesus the Messiah and his disciples, kept right on saying that the Yhwh alone is One God. Jesus the Messiah in quoting Deut 6:4 continues to use the word "echad" to mean just One, that God the Father, in Mark 12:29 Jesus said, “The foremost commandment is, ‘Hear, o Israel, Yahuweh (the LORD) our Elohim, Yahuweh (the LORD) is One.” Here notice Jesus the Messiah did not include himself, nor the Holy Spirit, in that ‘One’ – why? Because never does the word ‘echad’ mean a compound ‘one’ – never, not one time.
Now if trinitarian insists that echad always means compound unity, they must provide evidence from the Tanakh and we know that it means overwhelmingly as one as SINGLE entity not one as “unit”.
I challenge trinitarian to they explain into verses like in Genesis 21:15:
וַתַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶת־הַיֶּֽלֶד תַּֽחַת אַחַד הַשִּׂיחִם
“she cast the child under one (echad) of the bushes”
did Hagar put her dying child Ishmael under many different bushes all at the same time??
Of course not!
and Genesis 22:2;
(וְהַעֲלֵֽהוּ… עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶֽיךָ
“bring him up there for a burnt offering on one (echad) of the mountains, of which I will tell you”
did God tell Abraham to take his son up onto multiple different mountains ??
Of course not!
It is impossible to apply trinitarian non-sensical re-definition of the word אֶחָד echad as “one unit”for those verses.
Now what about יָחִיד yachid? etymologically it is either an adjective or a noun which means alone, single, individual. It is used only one instance in the Torah (D'varim/Deut 33:5)
וַיְהִי בִישֻׁרוּן, מֶלֶךְ, בְּהִתְאַסֵּף רָאשֵׁי עָם, יַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
"...the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were together (Yachid)."
Also let's just look at its use in Isaiah:
22:3 - "All of your rulers have fled yachid (together)" יַחַד
27:4 - "...I would burn them yachid (together)" יָּחַד
42:14 - "...I will gasp and pant yachid (together)"יָחַד
43:26 - "...let us plead yachid (together)" יָחַד
44:11 - "...and they shall be ashamed yachid (together)" יָחַד
45:8 - "... let them bring forth salvation and righteousness springing up yachid (together)..." יַחַד 50:8 - "...let us stand yachid (together)..." יָּחַד
From all those evidence we have presented, it is undeniable that trintarian claim that אֶחָד echad, in the Shema (D'varim/Deut 6:4) mean a “compound unity,” or many things as one group is certainly bogus. The Shema is always a monotheistic statement “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE”
Tanggapan JJ
The Yeshiva Institute (TYI) menyajikan argumentasi singkat tentang Echad dalam Shema (Ul 6:4, שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃). Argumen pihak TYI terlihat menggemakan kembali argumen yang diajukan pihak Judaism seperti Tovia Singer & Gerard Sigal. Bantahan mereka terhadap point Kristen mengenai "composite/compound unity" terhadap kata Echad memang terlihat cukup kuat, namun argumen bantahan itu tidak serta merta mendukung pengertian Echad sebagai "an absolute one/unity" dalam Shema. Kata Echad memang bisa dimaknai sebagai "an absolute one/unity" sebagaimana ditunjukan dalam ayat berikut ini: Ul 17:6, 19:15, Kel 9:6, Bil 13:2 etc. Namun kata Echad juga bisa digunakan dalam pengertian "composite/compound unity" seperti one nation (goy echad)-2 Sam 7:23, one people ('am echad)-Kej 11:6 dan ayat-ayat lainnya seperti Kej 2:24, Kel 24:3, Yos 9;:2 etc. Demikian pula dengan kata Yachid & Bad yang juga digunakan untuk merujuk pada angka numerik one.
Michael Brown dalam bukunya Answering Jewish Objection to Jesus, emberikan penjelasan terhadap kata Echad ini
"...Actually, ’echad simply means “one,” exactly like our English word “one.” While it can refer to compound unity (just as our English word can, as in one team, one couple, etc.), it does not specifically refer to compound unity. On the other hand, ’echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity,.. In fact, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity" Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objection to Jesus, Volume Two, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2000Bagaimana makna sebenarnya kata Echad dalam Shema (Ul 6:4)? jika kita mencermati konteks ayat ini, penggunaan kata Echad dalam Shema dimaksudkan untuk menegaskan hanya YHWH satu-satunya Allah yang benar diantara banyak allah lain di sekitar bangsa Israel. Bangsa Israel diingatkan untuk menyembah hanya kepada YHWH saja (Kel 20:2-3, 23:24 Yos 23:7). Sehingga tidak tepat kata Echad dalam Shema ini digunakan untuk menjelaskan esensi Allah sebagai absolute one atau compound unity, sebagaimana ditegaskan Michael Brown dalam bukunya tersebut "...The Shema was not addressing philosophical issues such as the absolute or compound unity of God... Rather, it was saying to our people Israel that the LORD alone was to be our God— he and no other..."
Penjelasan dari pihak Jewish Scholar sendiri dalam Jewish Publication Society's Commentary cukup fair terhadap hal ini.
"... the precise meaning of the Shema is uncertain and it permits several possible renderings. The present translation indicates that the verse is a description of the proper relationship between YHVH and Israel: He alone is Israel's God. This is not a declaration of monotheism, meaning that there is only one God. That point was made in 4:35 and 39, which state that 'YHVH alone is God.'…This understanding of the Shema as describing a relationship with God, rather than His nature". Jewish Publication Society's CommentaryHanya polemikus Judaism seperti Singer yang mem-blow up-nya sebagai pernyataan absolute monotheism untuk menyerang konsep Trinity. Bahkan The Jewish Study Bible menegaskan bahwa klaim tentang pernyataan monotheism dalam Shema sebagai anakronistik. "..Modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHVH as the sole LoRD of IsraeL". Sikap mem-blow up point tentang monotheism dalam Shema, digemakan kembali oleh The Yeshiva Institute, sebagai upaya mencounter konsep Trinity dalam Tanakh.
Jika kata Echad memang diartikan sebagai absolute one dalam Shema, lalu mengapa Rambam (Moses Maimonides) seorang rabi yang sangat dihormati pihak Judaism justru menggantikannya menjadi Yachid dalam tulisannya "The Second Principle of Faith". Hal ini menunjukan Rambam sendiri masih ragu dengan interpretasi Echad sebagai absolute one sehingga perlu menggantikannya menjadi Yachid. Salah satu contoh ayat untuk kata Yachid dalam pengertian absolute numeric one, Hak 11:34 “... Dialah anaknya yang tunggal (Yachid); selain dari dia tidak ada anaknya laki-laki atau perempuan”. So.. Shema (Ul 6:4) jelas tidak tepat digunakan untuk menolak konsep plurality oneness atau trinitarian monotheism. Tentu saja bagi pihak Kristen kata Echad dalam pengertian Composite/Compound Unity juga tidak tepat dimasukan pengertiannya ke dalam Shema.
Kekristenan tidak hanya terfokus pada kata Echad karena interpretasi trinitarian terhadap hakekat Allah masih bisa dijumpai dalam Tanakh, seperti penggunaan term Memra & Shekhinah serta perihal Intermediary figures dalam Tanakh. Richard Bauckham telah mengkaji dan menyimpulkannya
" Two categories of intermediary figures can be distinguished. One has been called principal angels and exalted patriarchs.²³ .. The second category of intermediary figures consists of personifications or hypostatizations of aspects of God himself, such as his Spirit, his Word and his Wisdom... In my view, the Jewish literature in question for the most part unequivocally excludes the figures in the first category from the unique identity of God, while equally unequivocally includes the figures in the second category within the unique identity of God. Richard Bauckham, God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity, Paternoster, London, 2008Daniel Boyarin, seorang Jewish Scholar telah mengkaji konsep kekristenan tentang hakekat Allah. Walaupun dia tidak percaya Yesus, namun dari hasil kajiannya dia menyatakan konsep kekristenan itu bukanlah konsep "un-jewish".
"..Jews will have to stop vilifying Christian ideas about God as simply a collection of “un-Jewish,” perhaps pagan, and in any case bizarre fantasies. GOD IN A HUMAN BODY indeed! Recognizing these ideas as deeply rooted in the ancient complex of Jewish religious ideas may not lead us Jews to accept them but should certainly help us realize that Christian ideas are not alien to us;". (kapitalisasi teks - by me).Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, New York: The New Press, 2012.So.. The Yeshiva Institute yang mempermasalahkan kata Echad terhadap point Kristen “composite/compound unity", tidak bisa membuktikan bahwa konsepnya yang benar. Karena Shema bukan menjelaskan tentang monotheism Allah baik dari perspektif unitarian monotheisme maupun trinitarian monotheism. Upaya TYI mem-blow up konsep absolute/unitarian monotheism untuk dimasukan kedalam Shema, justru sebagai eisegese bahkan anakronistik sebagaimana dijelaskan para jewish scholar sendiri. Tovia Singer sendiri lebih dikenal sebagai polemikus atau apologet dibanding sebagai scholar seperti Daniel Boyarin, Emamnuel Tov, Geza Vermes, Joseph Klausner etc.
Shallom
Lanjut ke Debat: Round 2 http://apologiakristen.blogspot.co.id/2016/11/debat-kata-echad-dalam-shema-ul-64_17.html
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar