The Mishkan and Unity

March 3, 2023 - 27 Adar, 5783

At the risk of beleaguering the point that I’ve made in several posts in the past, over Shabbos I noticed an interesting thing in last week’s parsha. In my debates/discussions with Christians in the past many have made the point that the Torah’s use of the word echad, (meaning “one”) refers to a “complex unity”. For those unfamiliar with this concept, “complex unity” is a word some Christians use to explain the Trinity. The idea behind this word is that even a unified object, person, or entity can be composed of several concurrently harmonic elements, i.e., “complex unity.” The proof used to bolster this position is the Torah’s use of the word echad in the context of describing many elements coming together to form one unified object.

One such usage of this word is found in 36:13 of Parashas Vayakhel:

“And he made fifty golden clasps, and he fastened the curtains to one another with the clasps; so the Mishkan became one (אֶחָֽד).”

This verse clearly describes several disparate components coming together to make the Mishkan (tabernacle).

To strengthen this position, we see additional verses in that parsha projecting the same vision:

“And he made fifty copper clasps to fasten the tent together so that it became one (אֶחָֽד).” (Exodus 36:18)

However, that’s just about as good as this proof gets, for this parsha is full of uses of the word “one” as descriptions of simple unity, i.e., an item, person, or entity defined as possessing one indivisible and undivided nature. For example, Shemos 36:18 says the following:

“Ten cubits [was] the length of each plank, and a cubit and a half [was] the width of each (הָֽאֶחָֽד) plank.”

Notice that verses 13 and 18 use the same word (אֶחָֽד) in completely different ways; the first indicating the many components synchronizing to make a whole, and the second describing the unitary nature of the item being described in isolation from the rest. While we know today that even unitary objects are composed of many smaller components, nevertheless the difference between both uses is grammatical rather than scientific.

In the context of the argument that echad indicates complex unity, this parsha contains several instances of that word unmistakably conveying a simple unity, both in the masculine (אַחַ֖ת) and feminine (אֶחָֽד) forms.