Shituf: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 223539106 by Teclontz (talk) Reverted vandalism.
Back to square 1 -- STOP THE EDIT WARRING
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Shituf''' or ''shittuf'' is a [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] term which describes the worship or belief of other gods or divine aspects in addition to the God of Israel.
'''Shituf''' or ''shittuf'' is a [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] term which describes the worship or belief of other gods in addition to the God of Israel. It originated in reference to Christianity.


==Jewish views==
==Source of the concept==
The Jewish view, codified in [[halakha|Jewish law]], is that Christians worship the same God that Jews worship, along with "extra" gods like the other two persons of the [[Trinity]]. This theology is referred to in [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] as ''shituf'', or an association or inclusion of other gods with God.
Deuteronomy 4:19 reads:


The Works of [[Philo]] contain some of the best known Jewish examples of shituf:
<blockquote>And lest you lift your eyes towards the heavens, and you will see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the heavenly hosts, and you will stray, and you will bow to them, and worship those [sun, moon, etc.] that God apportioned to the nations below the heavens.</blockquote>


<blockquote>
The rabbis inferred from this verse and others that non-monotheistic worship might be permissible for non-Jews, provided that they worship God as well. This "association" of other powers with God was termed ''shituf'', or "association".
God being one being, has two supreme powers of the greatest importance. By means of these powers the incorporeal world, appreciable only by the intellect, was put together, which is the archetypal model of this world which is visible to us, being formed in such a manner as to be perceptible to our invisible conceptions just as the other is to our eyes. (Appendices A Treatise Concerning the World (1) - The Works of Philo Judaeus - The contemporary of Josephus, Charles Duke Yonge, trans.; H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890)
</blockquote>


<blockquote>
This exemption from the absolute [[monotheism]] espoused in [[Judaism]] was made only for non-Jews. For Jews, any deviation, however small, from absolute monotheism is considered ''avodah zarah'', or [[Idolatry]]. The view that it is permissible even for non-Jews is a minority one.
For when the wise man entreats those persons who are in the guise of three travelers to come and lodge in his house, he speaks to them not as three persons, but as one, and says, "My lord, if I have found favor with thee, do not thou pass by thy Servant." (On Abraham (132) - The Works of Philo Judaeus - The contemporary of Josephus, Charles Duke Yonge, trans.; H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
On this account, I imagine it is, that when Moses was speaking philosophically of the creation of the world, while he described everything else as having been created by God alone, he mentions man alone as having been made by him in conjunction with other assistants; for, says Moses, "God said, Let us make man in our Image." The expression, "let us make," indicating a plurality of makers. Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the mortal part of our soul, acting in imitation of his own skill while he was fashioning the rational part within us, thinking it right that the dominant part within the soul should be the work of the Ruler of all things, but that the part which is to be kept in subjection should be made by those who are subject to him. And he made us of the powers which were subordinate to him, not only for the reason which has been mentioned, but also because the soul of man alone was destined to receive notions of good and evil, and to choose one of the two, since it could not adopt both. Therefore, he thought it necessary to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself, --but to retain the generation of good for himself alone. (On Flight And Finding (68-70) - The Works of Philo Judaeus - The contemporary of Josephus, Charles Duke Yonge, trans.; H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890)
</blockquote>

Although this theology is considered to be no different than any other form of idolatry for Jews, there is a minority Rabbinic view that considers it a permissible belief for non-Jews.


==Talmudic sources==
The Talmud warns against causing an idolater to take oaths. The commentators living in Christian Germany in the 12th century, called [[Tosafists]], permitted Jews to engage in business practices with Christians, even though this could result in the Christian partner taking an oath in the name of Jesus or Christian saints, by saying that the Christian concept of God is not considered by Jews to be idolatry but only an association. In a terse comment, they wrote:
The Talmud warns against causing an idolater to take oaths. The commentators living in Christian Germany in the 12th century, called [[Tosafists]], permitted Jews to engage in business practices with Christians, even though this could result in the Christian partner taking an oath in the name of Jesus or Christian saints, by saying that the Christian concept of God is not considered by Jews to be idolatry but only an association. In a terse comment, they wrote:


Line 16: Line 25:
(Tosafot Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 63b).</blockquote>
(Tosafot Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 63b).</blockquote>
There is no direct discussion of the Trinity in the passage or discussion of Christianity, other than use of the vague term "something else."

In the 16th Century, the terse comment is explained as follows:
In the 16th Century, the terse comment is explained as follows:


<blockquote>"Today, it is permitted [to form a partnership with Christians], because when they swear on their holy scriptures called the Evangelion, they do not hold it to be divine. Even though when they mention God they mean Jesus, they do not mention idolatry since they really mean the Creator of heaven and earth.
<blockquote>"Today, it is permitted [to form a partnership with Christians ], because when they swear on their holy scriptures called the Evangelion, they do not hold it to be divine. Even though when they mention God they mean Jesus, they do not mention idolatry since they really mean the Creator of heaven and earth.
Even though they mention jointly (''shituf'') God's name and another name, there is no prohibition to cause someone to jointly mention [or associate] (''shituf)'' God with another... since this association is not forbidden to gentiles" [[Moses Isserles]] Darkhei Moshe YD 156.</blockquote>
Even though they mention jointly (''shituf'') God's name and another name, there is no prohibition to cause someone to jointly mention [or associate] (''shituf)'' God with another... since this association is not forbidden to gentiles" [[Moses Isserles]] Darkhei Moshe YD 156.</blockquote>


The idea of ''shituf'' is only found in the Northern European school of Jewish law of Tosafot. In other countries it is unknown.
The idea of ''shituf'' is only found in the Northern European school of Jewish law of Tosafot. In other countries it is unknown.
⚫
Maimonides in several places considers Christianity and the trinity as idolatry (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 and Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 9:4; Commentary on Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 1:3), (Note: these texts are censored from the standard editions of these works).

⚫
Maimonides in several places considers Christianity to be idolatry (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 and Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 9:4; Commentary on Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 1:3), (Note: these texts are censored from the standard editions of these works).


The ruling of the Tosafist Rabbeinu Tam remains ambiguous enough to allow dispute on whether he deemed Christianity not to fall under the category of idolatry (for Gentiles) or merely permitted Christians to take an oath in the name of the Trinity, but generally his dictum is interpreted as stating that Christianity is monotheistic enough for Gentiles. <ref>J. David Bleich, "Divine Unity in Maimonides, the Tosafists and Me'iri" (in "Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought," ed. by L. Goodman, State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 239-242.</ref>
The ruling of the Tosafist Rabbeinu Tam remains ambiguous enough to allow dispute on whether he deemed Christianity not to fall under the category of idolatry (for Gentiles) or merely permitted Christians to take an oath in the name of the Trinity, but generally his dictum is interpreted as stating that Christianity is monotheistic enough for Gentiles. <ref>J. David Bleich, "Divine Unity in Maimonides, the Tosafists and Me'iri" (in "Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought," ed. by L. Goodman, State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 239-242.</ref>


==Eighteenth Century==
==Eighteenth Century==

[[Moses Mendelssohn]], the Jewish enlightenment thinker used the concept of ''shituf'' as cited in Tosafot to justify any form of association of God with another entity.
[[Moses Mendelssohn]], the Jewish enlightenment thinker used the concept of ''shituf'' as cited in Tosafot to justify any form of association of God with another entity.


Line 35: Line 46:


==Twentieth Century==
==Twentieth Century==

One twentieth century explanation of the above passage is as follows: In Judaism there is allowance for Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbidding actual worship of them:
One twentieth century explanation of the above passage is as follows: In Judaism there is allowance for Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbidding actual worship of them:


Line 47: Line 59:
According to [[Louis Jacobs]]:
According to [[Louis Jacobs]]:
:''Christian thinkers frequently assert that Jewish polemics against trinitarianism are based on an inadequate understanding of what the doctrine really means. It is no doubt true that crude attacks on Christianity as tritheism are unfounded (tritheism is, in fact, heresy from the Christian point of view) and there are subtleties in the doctrine which Christians have tried to uncover. But the fact remains that all Jewish thinkers have rejected trinitarianism as Judaism understands it.''<ref>L. Jacobs 1973 ''A Jewish Theology'' p. 26 N.Y.: Berman House; see also Saadia ha-Goen ''Beliefs and Opinions II 5-8; Bahya Ibn-Pakudah, ''Duties of the Heart, Shaar ha Yachud chapter seven</ref>
:''Christian thinkers frequently assert that Jewish polemics against trinitarianism are based on an inadequate understanding of what the doctrine really means. It is no doubt true that crude attacks on Christianity as tritheism are unfounded (tritheism is, in fact, heresy from the Christian point of view) and there are subtleties in the doctrine which Christians have tried to uncover. But the fact remains that all Jewish thinkers have rejected trinitarianism as Judaism understands it.''<ref>L. Jacobs 1973 ''A Jewish Theology'' p. 26 N.Y.: Berman House; see also Saadia ha-Goen ''Beliefs and Opinions II 5-8; Bahya Ibn-Pakudah, ''Duties of the Heart, Shaar ha Yachud chapter seven</ref>

==Christian views==
Christianity, which is considered a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] religion by Christians,<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia, Monotheism]</ref> academics,<ref>Fowler, Jeaneane D. ''World Religions:An Introduction for Students''. Pp 56-57,59. Sussex Academic Press (1997). ISBN 1898723486.</ref> interfaith writers,<ref>Corrigan, Denny, Fire, and Jafee; Jews, Christians, Muslims -- a Comparative Introduction to Monotheistic Religions</ref> and secular reference books,<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109475/monotheism Encyclopedia Britannica, Monotheism]</ref> as well as some Jews<ref>David Novak, Jewish-Christian Dialogue, page 13</ref> and Muslims,<ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm Monotheistic Religions comparisons]</ref> teaches that there is only one God<ref>[http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk2c2.html#sec1 Dagg, John L, Manual of Theology, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 1 “Unity”]</ref> who does not share power with any other beings<ref>Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pages 61-62; D. Unity of God, 1. The Unitas Singularitatis: "there is but one Divine Being."</ref> and whose simplex unity cannot be divided or segregated into parts.<ref>Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pages 62-63; D. Unity of God, 2. The Unitas Simplicitatis: "God... is not susceptible to division in any sense of the word."</ref>

Christianity does refer to the Trinity as being composed of "three persons".<ref>[http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp God in Three Persons]</ref> This language, however, is not considered by Christian theologians as implying division of the Unity of God in either being, nature, or essence.<ref>[http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch14.html James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapter 14, section 8:] "When it is affirmed, therefore, that there is no "division of nature, essence, or being," all that is meant is simply that there is but one God; that such is the divine nature that it cannot be multiplied, or divided, or distributed, any more than God can be thus divided in his omnipresence with all things. The divine nature is so possessed, by each of the persons in the Trinity, that neither has his own separate divine nature, but each subsists in one divine nature, common to the three. Otherwise the three persons would be three Gods. So also, in that divine nature, its essential quality is not divided in its relation through the nature to the persons. Were this so, there would be three separate parts of the divine nature. But that this cannot be, is manifest from the identity in God of nature and essence. That it is not so, is declared by the Scriptures, when they teach that there is but one God. In God there is also but one divine being, because there is but one divine essence and nature. There is but one that can have actuality of existence. The being of person, not being identical with that of nature, a fact which is true of all natures, created or uncreated, the unity of the nature, and of the essence does not forbid plurality of persons. The threeness of the persons, therefore, does not destroy the unity of the nature or essence, and consequently, not that of the being of God.</ref>

Christianity rejects Judaism's understanding of [[Trinity]]<ref>"the word was God, of divine nature; not 'a God,' which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable" Westcott, Bible Commentary, as quoted in A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, page 306</ref> and deems such a divine partnership to be polytheistic,<ref>Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pages 87-89</ref> whether in the form of three equal deities ([[Tritheism]]),<ref>[http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch4.html James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapter 4 "The Unity of God":] "The doctrine of the Trinity is not opposed to the unity of God, but only enables us to form just conceptions as to that unity. It presents to us three Persons who are not three gods, but one God, and, as will hereafter be seen, shows us that the unity of God is to be found in his nature or essence and not in the personal relations in that essence, so that there is but one divine nature or essence, one being, one god, although there are three persons subsisting therein, who, by virtue of that subsistence, are each God." See Gill, vol. 1, pp. 183, 184 from which this is condensed.</ref> or in an heirarchical structure of God with subordinate deities ([[Arianism]]).<ref>[http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch4.html James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapter 4 "The Unity of God":] "We are not led by this doctrine of the unity of God, therefore, to adopt the Arian notion that the Father is Supreme God and the Son only a divine being in a subordinate sense. Nor is it proper to accept the Sabellian notion, that God is one person, manifesting himself sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Ghost. "Neither does it at all teach tritheistic unity by which these are really three gods, but considered one because they have the same nature, just as three men may be said to be one because of the same human nature." See Gill, vol. 1, pp. 183, 184 from which this is condensed.</ref> Groups holding a belief in partnership, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, are strongly opposed by orthodox Christian writers.<ref>Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, pages 61-71</ref>

==See also==
* [[Christianity and Judaism]]
* [[Arianism]]
* [[Tritheism]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Idolatry in Christianity]]


==External links==
==External links==

Revision as of 14:53, 4 July 2008

Shituf or shittuf is a Hebrew term which describes the worship or belief of other gods in addition to the God of Israel. It originated in reference to Christianity.

Jewish views

The Jewish view, codified in Jewish law, is that Christians worship the same God that Jews worship, along with "extra" gods like the other two persons of the Trinity. This theology is referred to in Hebrew as shituf, or an association or inclusion of other gods with God.

The Works of Philo contain some of the best known Jewish examples of shituf:

God being one being, has two supreme powers of the greatest importance. By means of these powers the incorporeal world, appreciable only by the intellect, was put together, which is the archetypal model of this world which is visible to us, being formed in such a manner as to be perceptible to our invisible conceptions just as the other is to our eyes. (Appendices A Treatise Concerning the World (1) - The Works of Philo Judaeus - The contemporary of Josephus, Charles Duke Yonge, trans.; H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890)

For when the wise man entreats those persons who are in the guise of three travelers to come and lodge in his house, he speaks to them not as three persons, but as one, and says, "My lord, if I have found favor with thee, do not thou pass by thy Servant." (On Abraham (132) - The Works of Philo Judaeus - The contemporary of Josephus, Charles Duke Yonge, trans.; H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890)

On this account, I imagine it is, that when Moses was speaking philosophically of the creation of the world, while he described everything else as having been created by God alone, he mentions man alone as having been made by him in conjunction with other assistants; for, says Moses, "God said, Let us make man in our Image." The expression, "let us make," indicating a plurality of makers. Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the mortal part of our soul, acting in imitation of his own skill while he was fashioning the rational part within us, thinking it right that the dominant part within the soul should be the work of the Ruler of all things, but that the part which is to be kept in subjection should be made by those who are subject to him. And he made us of the powers which were subordinate to him, not only for the reason which has been mentioned, but also because the soul of man alone was destined to receive notions of good and evil, and to choose one of the two, since it could not adopt both. Therefore, he thought it necessary to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself, --but to retain the generation of good for himself alone. (On Flight And Finding (68-70) - The Works of Philo Judaeus - The contemporary of Josephus, Charles Duke Yonge, trans.; H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890)

Although this theology is considered to be no different than any other form of idolatry for Jews, there is a minority Rabbinic view that considers it a permissible belief for non-Jews.

The Talmud warns against causing an idolater to take oaths. The commentators living in Christian Germany in the 12th century, called Tosafists, permitted Jews to engage in business practices with Christians, even though this could result in the Christian partner taking an oath in the name of Jesus or Christian saints, by saying that the Christian concept of God is not considered by Jews to be idolatry but only an association. In a terse comment, they wrote:

It is permissible to [cause a gentile's oath through litigation with one's non-Jewish partner because] today all swear in the name of the saints to whom no divinity is ascribed. Even though they also mention God's name and have in mind, in any event no idolatrous name is actually said, and they also have the Creator of the world in mind. Even though they associate (shituf) God's name with "something else", we do not find that it is forbidden to cause others to associate (shituf), and there is no issue of placing a stumbling block before the blind [by entering into litigation with the non-Jewish business partner, thereby causing him to take an oath] because the Sons of Noah were not warned about it (Tosafot Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 63b).

There is no direct discussion of the Trinity in the passage or discussion of Christianity, other than use of the vague term "something else."

In the 16th Century, the terse comment is explained as follows:

"Today, it is permitted [to form a partnership with Christians ], because when they swear on their holy scriptures called the Evangelion, they do not hold it to be divine. Even though when they mention God they mean Jesus, they do not mention idolatry since they really mean the Creator of heaven and earth. Even though they mention jointly (shituf) God's name and another name, there is no prohibition to cause someone to jointly mention [or associate] (shituf) God with another... since this association is not forbidden to gentiles" Moses Isserles Darkhei Moshe YD 156.

The idea of shituf is only found in the Northern European school of Jewish law of Tosafot. In other countries it is unknown. Maimonides in several places considers Christianity and the trinity as idolatry (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 and Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 9:4; Commentary on Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 1:3), (Note: these texts are censored from the standard editions of these works).

The ruling of the Tosafist Rabbeinu Tam remains ambiguous enough to allow dispute on whether he deemed Christianity not to fall under the category of idolatry (for Gentiles) or merely permitted Christians to take an oath in the name of the Trinity, but generally his dictum is interpreted as stating that Christianity is monotheistic enough for Gentiles. [1]

Eighteenth Century

Moses Mendelssohn, the Jewish enlightenment thinker used the concept of shituf as cited in Tosafot to justify any form of association of God with another entity.

[However,] the nations of the world though they recognize the entity of God … they nevertheless worship another entity besides Him. A few worship the angels above believing that God apportioned to each one of them a nation or country … to rule, and they have the power to do good or bad as they please. And these are called "other gods" in the Torah.… And a few [of the nations of the world] worship the stars in the sky … or people … and bow down to them, as is known. And the judgment of the intellect does not require to forbid such worship to a Son of Noah if he does not intend to remove himself from the realm of God because by what [obligation] must he offer service and prayer to God alone? And if he hopes for good and fears bad from an entity besides Him and acknowledges that also that entity is subject to God, it is not beyond the intellect for him to offer sacrifices, incense, and libation and to pray to this entity be it an angel, demon, or person.… And who would say to us [Jews] that such offerings are appropriate for God only had He not warned us against [offering to other gods] in His Torah. [2]

Twentieth Century

One twentieth century explanation of the above passage is as follows: In Judaism there is allowance for Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbidding actual worship of them:

So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry.[3]

Rabbi Walter Wurzburger wrote "with all our appreciation of Christianity as an avenue to God available to the non-Jewish world, we must not gloss over the fact that the Trinitarian faith still falls short of our universal religious ideals. While the belief in the Trinity - classified by the Halakhah as Shituph - may not be regarded as downright prohibited to the non-Jew, we still cannot recommend it as the ideal way in which the non-Jew should relate himself to God."[4]

However, other twentieth century explanations differ with the irenic 20th century position. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz and David Berger hold that Jewish law considers Christianity idolatry and that the entire concept of shituf in Jewish law was only an ad-hoc permission applying solely to oaths in court.

In variations of Jewish views and rulings of some Rabbinic authorities, codified in Jewish law, Christians worship the same God as taught in Judaism, along with what Jews consider to be "extra" gods like the other two persons of the Trinity in a partnership of other gods and God working together. Although this theology is considered to be no different than any other form of idolatry and unacceptable for Jews under any circumstances, it may be an acceptable belief for non-Jews. Accordingly, some Messianic congregations uphold a similar view with the description of God as a "compound unity."[citation needed]

According to Louis Jacobs:

Christian thinkers frequently assert that Jewish polemics against trinitarianism are based on an inadequate understanding of what the doctrine really means. It is no doubt true that crude attacks on Christianity as tritheism are unfounded (tritheism is, in fact, heresy from the Christian point of view) and there are subtleties in the doctrine which Christians have tried to uncover. But the fact remains that all Jewish thinkers have rejected trinitarianism as Judaism understands it.[5]

Christian views

Christianity, which is considered a monotheistic religion by Christians,[6] academics,[7] interfaith writers,[8] and secular reference books,[9] as well as some Jews[10] and Muslims,[11] teaches that there is only one God[12] who does not share power with any other beings[13] and whose simplex unity cannot be divided or segregated into parts.[14]

Christianity does refer to the Trinity as being composed of "three persons".[15] This language, however, is not considered by Christian theologians as implying division of the Unity of God in either being, nature, or essence.[16]

Christianity rejects Judaism's understanding of Trinity[17] and deems such a divine partnership to be polytheistic,[18] whether in the form of three equal deities (Tritheism),[19] or in an heirarchical structure of God with subordinate deities (Arianism).[20] Groups holding a belief in partnership, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, are strongly opposed by orthodox Christian writers.[21]

See also

External links

References

  1. ^ J. David Bleich, "Divine Unity in Maimonides, the Tosafists and Me'iri" (in "Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought," ed. by L. Goodman, State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 239-242.
  2. ^ MENDELSSOHN'S RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE OF NON-JEWS. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Summer/Fall2004, Vol. 41, Issue 3/4
  3. ^ Idolatry
  4. ^ Justification and Limitations of Interfaith Dialogue
  5. ^ L. Jacobs 1973 A Jewish Theology p. 26 N.Y.: Berman House; see also Saadia ha-Goen Beliefs and Opinions II 5-8; Bahya Ibn-Pakudah, Duties of the Heart, Shaar ha Yachud chapter seven
  6. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia, Monotheism
  7. ^ Fowler, Jeaneane D. World Religions:An Introduction for Students. Pp 56-57,59. Sussex Academic Press (1997). ISBN 1898723486.
  8. ^ Corrigan, Denny, Fire, and Jafee; Jews, Christians, Muslims -- a Comparative Introduction to Monotheistic Religions
  9. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, Monotheism
  10. ^ David Novak, Jewish-Christian Dialogue, page 13
  11. ^ Monotheistic Religions comparisons
  12. ^ Dagg, John L, Manual of Theology, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 1 “Unity”
  13. ^ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pages 61-62; D. Unity of God, 1. The Unitas Singularitatis: "there is but one Divine Being."
  14. ^ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pages 62-63; D. Unity of God, 2. The Unitas Simplicitatis: "God... is not susceptible to division in any sense of the word."
  15. ^ God in Three Persons
  16. ^ James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapter 14, section 8: "When it is affirmed, therefore, that there is no "division of nature, essence, or being," all that is meant is simply that there is but one God; that such is the divine nature that it cannot be multiplied, or divided, or distributed, any more than God can be thus divided in his omnipresence with all things. The divine nature is so possessed, by each of the persons in the Trinity, that neither has his own separate divine nature, but each subsists in one divine nature, common to the three. Otherwise the three persons would be three Gods. So also, in that divine nature, its essential quality is not divided in its relation through the nature to the persons. Were this so, there would be three separate parts of the divine nature. But that this cannot be, is manifest from the identity in God of nature and essence. That it is not so, is declared by the Scriptures, when they teach that there is but one God. In God there is also but one divine being, because there is but one divine essence and nature. There is but one that can have actuality of existence. The being of person, not being identical with that of nature, a fact which is true of all natures, created or uncreated, the unity of the nature, and of the essence does not forbid plurality of persons. The threeness of the persons, therefore, does not destroy the unity of the nature or essence, and consequently, not that of the being of God.
  17. ^ "the word was God, of divine nature; not 'a God,' which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable" Westcott, Bible Commentary, as quoted in A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, page 306
  18. ^ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pages 87-89
  19. ^ James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapter 4 "The Unity of God": "The doctrine of the Trinity is not opposed to the unity of God, but only enables us to form just conceptions as to that unity. It presents to us three Persons who are not three gods, but one God, and, as will hereafter be seen, shows us that the unity of God is to be found in his nature or essence and not in the personal relations in that essence, so that there is but one divine nature or essence, one being, one god, although there are three persons subsisting therein, who, by virtue of that subsistence, are each God." See Gill, vol. 1, pp. 183, 184 from which this is condensed.
  20. ^ James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapter 4 "The Unity of God": "We are not led by this doctrine of the unity of God, therefore, to adopt the Arian notion that the Father is Supreme God and the Son only a divine being in a subordinate sense. Nor is it proper to accept the Sabellian notion, that God is one person, manifesting himself sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Ghost. "Neither does it at all teach tritheistic unity by which these are really three gods, but considered one because they have the same nature, just as three men may be said to be one because of the same human nature." See Gill, vol. 1, pp. 183, 184 from which this is condensed.
  21. ^ Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, pages 61-71
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shituf&oldid=223539958"