Introduction, the Scope of the “Shema”

In this article we explore how the Trinitarian deity is prefigured in the Old Testament as in fact, is the Incarnation of Christ. Anthony Rodgers makes an apt comment in opening statement of one of his debates in this regard:

“Oneness or unity was never construed as a barren unity but a unity of persons. Israel’s God was the only God in contrast to the many Gods and many Lords of the Egyptians and other pagans, but he was not “unipersonal”, he was not a monad like one finds in various philosophical systems or unitarian religions, even those that try to ape the Bible. The God of the Bible, the one God from the beginning and throughout the Biblical record clearly explicated that unity along trinitarian lines. The true God is not a “blank” a “unity of nothing” but three Persons who share the one Name, the one Essence, all the attributes and prerogatives of deity”

There is no doubt, as we will see in the following, that God in the OT is presented as a plurality of Persons distinct from each other, and yet with no overarching explanatory scheme, this multiplicity remains as an unexplained mystery in plain sight. Jewish philosophers are forced to wrestle with the clues and construct theories around them, which we shall see in the section on Talmudic Judaism. l also include a section with shows how this same multi-personal language is also present in the Qur’an of the Islamic religion. We don’t make any inferences here as to how this latter fact came to be, merely to demonstrate that it is there.

The Shema Israel, which is Genesis 6:4, states that there is only one God. That is the extent of what the Shema implies. Whether that one God has personal distinctions within itself or not is beyond the scope of the Shema. This is why I consider discussions of whether or not the Hebrew term echad can be taken to have different implications than a pure unity, like a “coming together as one” (which we do see in verses like Gen.2:4 and Ex.26:11) are unnecessary- Christians are not challenging the meaning of “one”, rather fully embracing it in every sense. This is the precise intent of the Shema and it should not be taken to mean any more than that which it intended for. If there is any doubt about my assertion here, it is reinforced by the observation that no one was making any multi-personal unity type claims in the text that required refutation in any case.

Plural Verbs, Participles and Pronouns used in relation to God

There are various passages in the Hebrew text of Scripture where we find plural pronouns, verbs and participles used in relation to God. We observe that the generic word for God Elohim has a plural “-im” ending rather than El or Elohe (which are also used). It is possible that this word might not be a true plural but rather cultural appropriation from a Pre-Semitic usage, similar to “Yerushalayim (Jerusalem)”. With regards to the use of “we” when God is speaking, one might question why it God might think it majestic to speak in the plural. Could it be that a so-called “royal plural” is being used? The Hebrew text the kings of Judah and Israel never used a “plural of majesty” as the scholar Grudem has noted. Let us consider other examples of the use of plural terms in relation to the one God in the Hebrew Bible:

“and he said “my Presence will go, and I will give you rest” (Gen.33:14) The words here for “Presence” is literally “faces” in the plural. I would strongly argue that “Face” is a strong analogue for person and the best substitute for the lack of the term in the Hebrew language. The term that comes closest is “naps”, though this is used more in terms of “self” and “soul” in the context of subjective descriptions rather than an objective personhood. Corroborating this is that “face” is used is precisely this manner in the LXX and Koine Greek New Testament “prosopon”. The Latins seem to use this as the word for a mask, eg. that actors use in plays (apparently actors always used masks, eg. happy face, sad face etc.), and this word finally passed into the usage as “Person” for the Persons of the Holy Trinity. So the argument here is that when God states that his “faces” will go with the Israelites, this seems to be analogous to asserting that all three Persons of the Holy Trinity will be there. The obvious objection is that panim, like Elohim does not necessarily denote plurality (although it can, there is no other word for “faces”), although that comes to the other point of corroboration: the verb yeleku יֵלֵ֖כוּ too is also in the plural.

“For the Lord your God is Gods (Eloheh) of gods and Lord of lords” (Deut.10:17).

“Ascribe to the Lord O sons of Gods (Elim)” (Psalm 29:1)

“But none says “where is God my makers” (Job35:10).

עֹשָׂ֑י osay– this would be osiy in the singular, hireq yod rather than pathak yod. As an example, “my eye” ayin becomes ayiniy whereas in the plural ayinayim becomes ayinay. Same for “my hand” yadayim, even Elohim. This is a Type II [1cs] pronomial suffix which is (with a few exceptions) associated with plural nouns.

“Let Israel rejoice in their Maker; let the people of Zion be glad in their King” (Psalm149:2)

בְּעֹשָׂ֑יו – osaw, this would be osiw in the singular. Again the Type-II [3ms] pronomial suffix.

Again:
“For your Maker is your husband—the Lord Almighty is his name—” (Isaiah 54:5)

In this verse, בֹעֲלַ֙יִךְ֙ ḇō-‘ă-la-yiḵ is a plural masculine construct (mpc) form with the singular possessive pronoun which is literally your husbands, and עֹשַׂ֔יִךְ – ‘ō-śa-yiḵ, is exactly the same mpc form. The literal translation is “your husbands are your makers; Yahweh is his name”. English translations do not translate the Syntax directly as given because it perhaps understandably sounds clunky. However the question of why the original reception of the text bears these marks cannot be answered by smoothed-over translations in other languages than the original.

The following is a well known verse, but also one of the strongest indications of plurality within the Godhead. It has God as saying that man has “become like one of us” is used rather than “become like us” which would have been the case if all that had been intended were majestic plural.

“…then Yahweh Elohim said, “the man is now become like one of us knowing good and evil” (Gen.3:22)

Here “Creator” is sometimes said to be in fact plural in some renditions (like the Young’s literal). I’m unable to tell for certain myself. This word for “Creator” is used on only a four other occasions (Isaiah 40:28, 43:1,15), most instances being from the root of verb “asah” (to make/do), rather than “bara” as here. Of these only Isaiah 43;1 uses the personal pronoun and it is בֹּרַאֲךָ֣, same as the usage as below but slightly different vowels. In summary, I cannot tell for sure.

“Remember your Creator (בּ֣וֹרְאֶ֔יךָ) in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years approach when you will say, “I find no pleasure in them”—” (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

Here rather than “by me”, “by the Lord their God” is used. Christians believe that God saved the world through Jesus his Son, so the syntax matches that.

“But I (the Lord) will have pity on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Lord their God” (Gen.19:24)

Let’s examine this text from Proverbs:

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One (קְדֹשִׁ֣ים- “Holy Ones”) is insight.” (Proverbs 9:30)

It’s worth comparing this to the use of the same phraseology and context of a famous passage in Proverbs 30, with striking similarity to John 3:13:
“I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the holy ones. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person’s name? And what is the name of the person’s child? Surely you know!“ (Prov.30:4)

When the Hebrew Elohim takes plural verbs, it can be seen as implying that Elohim is being used as a plural noun, like “the Persons”. It is not usually translated in the manner because it would sound odd to say “the Gods…”, and “The Divine Persons” could not possibly be used as it would be anachrnonistic, since the Hebrews had not developed this terminology at the time:

“When God (Elohim) caused me to wander (הִתְע֣וּ– hit’u, hifil perf. 3cp) from my father’s house.” (Genesis 20:13)

“There he built an altar, and he called the place El Bethel, because it was there that God revealed (נִגְל֤וּ- niglu, nifal perf. 3cp) himself to him when he was fleeing from his brother” (Genesis 35:7).

“Who is like your people, like Israel? Is there another nation on earth whose God went (הָלְכֽוּ־ haleku, 3cp) to redeem it as a people, and to make a name for himself, doing great and awesome things for them, by driving out before his people nations and their gods?” (2Sam.7:23)

“Then people will say, “Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges (שֹׁפְטִ֥ים- shoftim, plu. prtcpl.) the earth” (Ps.58:11).

The straight interpretation of this is that God has taken his place in the council of God. This could be seen as his own council, however it does not explain why the subject is Elohim while the object is El, rather this suggests a distinction. Further the next sentence states that he is “in the midst of Elohim”. So even if we avoid the plural connotation of “Elohim“, to keep it really simple, we get the notion that an entity “God” is in the midst/among or the inner part of (qerev can mean both these, for example my heart is within my body) inner part of another entity which is also God. The fact that this entity “God” is “in the council of” God only strengthens the notion of plurality in God:

“God (Elohim) has taken his place in the divine council (council of God- be’adat El); in the midst of the gods (be’qerev Elohim) he holds judgment.” (Ps.82:1)

THE HOLY SPIRIT

Distinct from, and yet performing the Role of God, predicated of Him

The term “Holy Spirit” is already seen in the Old Testament contrary to what some might think (Ps.51, Is.63).

In Isaiah 63 we see the terms “Spirit of the Lord” and “Holy Spirit” used interchangeably (vv.10,14). The Holy Spirit is said to be “grieved” by people’ sins (v.10). None other than God can be the subject of such grief, since sins are an offence against God alone. Finally, there is no doubt as to who it was that “gave the Israelites rest” in their desert wanderings, that’s the whole point of Exodus (v.14); it was God, while here the “Spirit of the Lord” does this (v.14). Lastly, we see the necessary distinction between the Persons when it says “Where is the one who put within them his holy spirit” (v.11). Clearly the implied answer to the question “where is the one” could not be “also within them”- the two are distinct.

“but they rebelled and grieved his (the Lord’s) holy spirit…” (Is.63:10)

Where is the one who put within them his holy spirit…” (Is.63:12)

the spirit of the Lord gave them rest” (Is.63:14)

The Holy Spirit enabling us to obey God:

I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances” (Ezekiel 36:27)

Here God’s Spirit is enforcing God’s Will, as set out in his Word:

“Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without its mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his spirit has gathered them.” (Is. 34:16).

In contrast the following are weaker arguments, because it could be argued that this is merely God using human poetic idiom. If anything they are a useful contrast to the strength of the reference in the preceding verses:

“your new moons and you appointed festivals my soul (נַפְשִׁ֔י- nafs-i) hates”- (Isaiah1:14)

“Oh, rebellious children, says the LORD, who carry out a plan, but not mine, who make an alliance, but against my spirit (רוּחִ֑י- ruhi)” (Isaiah 30:1)

One final example, not perhaps as pertinent as the others, here the Spirit of God gathers all things together in ultimate reality in response to the command of God:

“For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of vindication by Zion’s cause (footnote- or of recompense by Zion’s defender)…seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without its mate. For his mouth, it has commanded, and his spirit, it has gathered them.¹⁷ He has cast the lot for them; his hand has portioned it out to them with the line. They shall possess it; from generation to generation they shall live in it.” (Isaiah 34:8,16,17)

Spirit as Distinct, and in the Role of Creating

“The Spirit God hovered over the surface of the waters” (Gen.1:2).

The Hebrew word for “hovered” is only used elsewhere in the Torah in reference to God maintaining and sustaining the work of his hands, so the Spirit is presented as the one who sustains Creation. At the very dawn of creation, when nothing is yet differentiated, there is the Spirit of God presiding over matters. It is pertinent to note that the Hebrew creation narrative is not necessarily cognizant of Creation from nothing, since these concepts are not developed at the time, nor even necessarily a concern. Creation in the Ancient Near East is related to giving function to things that has none before: “when God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was a formless void…”

Here things are created “when” God sends forth his Spirit. Something distinct from God is sent forth from God, giving a very strong implication of deity with distinctness:

“you send forth your Spirit and they are created and you renew the face of the earth” (Psalm 104:30)

“If he should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and all mortals return to dust.” (Job 34:14,15)

Clearly Job is saying here that it is the Spirit God who gives him life “God’s spirit in my nostrils”, and created him “made me”:

(Job 27:3,4) “…as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit.”

“The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4)

Spirit of God as Omniscient and Omnipresent

The Spirit is referred to as the very Presence of God, hence omnipresent. This therefore is a divine predication:

“Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there…” (Psalm 139:7,8).

The Spirit is omniscient, as none one can instruct nor counsel him. Divine predication again:

“Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or informed Him as His counselor/ …his enlightenment/…his justice/…his understanding?”(Is.40:13,14)

“Living Water” is an image of the Holy Spirit that will not reappear again until Jesus’ famous quotes and those of St. John in the Book of Revelations. While not a conclusive reference, what could such a life-giving entity be if not divine, and yet it is seemingly not the LORD specifically:

Zech 14:8 “On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter.“

Spirit speaks through the Prophets

“Then the spirit of the Lord fell upon me, and he said to me, “Say, Thus says the Lord…” (Eze.11:5)

Also 1Sam.10:10, Ex.31:3, Num.24:2, Judg.3:10, 1Sam.19:20. Further, it was the Holy Spirit who was poured out upon Moses, upon Israel’s leaders and individuals like Ex.28, Num.11,r Neh.9.

“And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find such a man as this (Joseph), in whom is the Spirit of God?”” (Gen.41:38)

“and I have filled him (Bezalel) with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship”(Exod:31:3)

“and he has filled him (Bezalel) with the Spirit of God, with ability, with intelligence, with knowledge, and with all craftsmanship” (Exod.35:31)

“And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and saw Israel encamping tribe by tribe. And the Spirit of God came upon him, and he uttered the oracle saying…” (Num.24:2)

Gideon as he is about to make battle against the Midianites and Amalekites as he camped in the valley of Jezreel: “But the Spirit of the LORD (ruach Yahweh) took possession of Gideon; and he sounded the trumpet…” (Judges 6:34)

“When they came to Gib’e-ah, behold, a band of prophets met him (Saul); and the spirit of God came mightily upon him, and he prophesied among them.” (1Sam.10:10)

“And the spirit of God came mightily upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled.” (1Sam.11:6)

“…the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied...And he went from there to Nai’oth in Ramah; and the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied, until he came to Nai’oth in Ramah.” (1Sam.19:20,23)

Firstly, here King David says that “the Spirit spoke”, not “I spoke through the power of the Spirit”, though this might also be taken as metaphorically meaning that he was the Spirit’s spokesperson. However also consider that the Spirit speaking is equated with God speaking “the spirit speaks…the God of Israel has spoken…has said to me…”. If it is objected that this means the spirit is merely conveying God’s message, then one would counter that when David says “his word is upon my tongue”, this is referencing the spirit directly, and further “the God of Israel has said to me” does not carry the implication of any intermediary, because this act of “God…said” seems to be directly referencing the same act as “spirit…speaks” earlier in the passage:
“The spirit of the Lord speaks through me, his word is upon my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel has said to me…..” (2Sam.23:2,3)

“The Spirit of God came upon Azari’ah the son of Oded”(2Chr.15:1)

“Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechari’ah the son of Jehoi’ada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God…'” (2Chr.24:20)

“And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me in the vision by the Spirit of God into Chalde’a, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen went up from me.” (Ezek.11:24)

“Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me.” (Ps.51:11)

The Angel of the Lord (Malakh Adonai)

The Angel of the Lord is referred to by the divine Name, given divine attributes, ascribed divine prerogatives, and described as being worthy of worship.

”The angel of the Lord also said to her, “I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude”(Gen 16:10). In the same Passage Hagar says that YHWH spoke to her, still referring to the Angel of the Lord: “So she named the Lord who spoke to her, “You are El-roi” (God-who-sees/sees me) for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” (Gen 16:13). Judges 6 refers to the same passage “Now the angel of the Lord came and sat under the oak at Ophrah…Then the Lord turned to him and said…” (Judges.6:11)

“In that dream the angel of God said to me, ‘Jacob!’ And I replied, ‘Here I am.’…I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and made a solemn vow to Me…”(Gen. 31:11,13)

Identifying with the Divine Name

Hosea 12:4 explicitly refers to God as the “angel” with reference to the incident where God wrestles with Jacob in Genesis 2. It was the Angel of the Lord who slew the first born of the Egyptians on Passover night in Exodus 12. It was the angel of the Lord who parted the waters so Israel could cross over and who went before and behind Israel into the wilderness in a Pillar of Fire and Cloud Ex 13 and 14. We have also see Jacob (Israel’s) blessing to Joseph (Gen.48:14-16) in the Trinity section earlier. So over and over again the Angel of the Lord is identified as a divine Person.

^“There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up.” When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush (2-4) … Go and assemble the elders of Israel, and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me”, it is the Angel of the Lord who goes on to say “I am who I am (Exodus 3:2-14)”

Both Distinct from Yahweh, and Yahweh

“But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

...The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son…”

We can see here (v11) the Angel of the Lord calls “from Heaven”. God never tells angels to shout out “from Heaven”, that is not how God’s messenger represent him! This is Jesus himself, Malakh Adonai. Its quite obvious, he says “you have not withheld your son your only son “from me”…” Between v 15 and 16 the Angel of the Lord clearly identifies himself as God.

Himself speaking as God

There is no reason why in Heaven, God should act through an intermediary in forgiving sin, and therefore when we see the Angel of God doing so, we can conclude that it is God himself:

“Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” And to him he said, “See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. Then the angel of the Lord assured Joshua, saying “Thus says the Lord of hosts (…) I am sending my servant the branch…” (Zech. 3:1-10 excerpts)

“Now the angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bochim and said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I had promised to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you. For your part, do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land; tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed my command. See what you have done! So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become adversaries to you, and their gods shall be a snare to you.” When the angel of the Lord spoke these words to all the Israelites, the people lifted up their voices and wept”..” (Judges.2:1-4)

The narrative of the passage Judges 6:11-24 begins with the angel of the Lord appearing to and speaking to Gideon(vv.11,12), even wishing him “the Lord is with you”. However when Gideon questions him it is the Lord himself who replies (v.14,16). The angel vanishes in the fire of the offerings, thus indicating that they are offered to him, as God (v.21). Gideon is concerned for his life because of “seeing the angel of the Lord face to face” (v.22) even though the Lord himself is still before him and speaking words of comfort to him (v.23).

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions” (Psalm 45:6,7)

““I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.” (Mal.3:1)

Here we have the clear assertion from Manoah on seeing the Angel of the Lord (Malakh Yahweh) that have seen God (Elohim). When the Angel initially asks Manoah to sacrifice his offering “to the Lord”, as though pointing away from himself, the Hebrew actually adds parenthetically in the way of clarification that this was only because the true identity of the Angel had not been revealed to Manoah. When the Angel ascends in the flame of the offering, Manoah then realizes that the Angel has accepted the offering to himself. A creature would not interject their body into a sacrifice to the Lord. He and his wife then assume the appropriate attitude of worship, falling down on their faces and express their fear and awe.

“Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “We would like you to stay until we prepare a young goat for you.” The angel of the Lord replied, “Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the Lord.” (Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the Lord.) Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the Lord, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?” He replied, “Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding/wonderful (פִלְאִי).” Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the Lord. And the Lord did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord. “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”” (Judges 13:15-22)

God’s Name is “in Him”

Where God says “my Name” is in a place, this always refers to God himself, this occurs particularly during the consecration of Solomon’s Temple, but there are numerous examples of this, a good listing is here: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/A-Place-For-God~s-Name. When the children of Israel were still on the other side of the Jordan, the Lord told them that when they entered the promised land there should be a place where the Lord their God would cause his name to dwell (Deut12:11,14:23-24,16:6). Time after time in succeeding revelations, the Lord and His servants referred to the future temple as a house for the name of the Lord God of Israel (1Kings3:2; 5:5;8:16-20,29,44,48;1Chron. 22:8-10,19;29:16; 2Chron.2:4;6:5-10,20,34,38). After the temple was dedicated, the Lord appeared to Solomon and told him that He had hallowed the temple `to put my name there for ever’ (1Kings 9:3,2Chron. 7:16).

“Behold, I am sending an angel before you to protect you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to his voice; do not defy him, for he will not forgive rebellion, since my Name is in him” (Ex23:20,21). However following the golden calf incident God is angered and only says that he will send “an angel” as in: “But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you; see, my angel shall go in front of you…” (Ex32:34a) and again “I will send an angel before you…but I will not go up among you, or I would consume you on the way…”(Ex33:2,3). Here Moses know that “an angel” is no longer God himself when he intercedes “He said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” ¹⁵ And he said to him, “If your presence will not go, do not bring us up from here. ¹⁶ For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us? In this way, we shall be distinct, I and your people, from every people on the face of the earth.” ⁷ The Lord said to Moses, “I will also do this thing that you have asked, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.” (Ex33:14-17). This also ties in with Isaiah 63, which tell how the Angel of the Lord who delivers Israel.

In Isaiah 63:9 (a chapter which comes up a lot in this article) we see “The Angel of his Presence saved them” וּמַלְאַ֤ךְ פָּנָיו֙ הוֹשִׁיעָ֔ם u-malakh panay hoshiyam which is used in NIV, NKJV. There seems to be a variant reading for this supported by the LXX. NIV adds helpfully in a footnote “Or Savior ⁹ in their distress. / It was no envoy or angel / but his own presence that saved them”. NRSV uses the variant “it was no angel”. However this seems to be based upon a variant reading. Interestingly though the main Jewish online translations Sefaria and Chabad use “Angel of his Presence”. This is the LXX (off academic-bible.com): “ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως. οὐ πρέσβυς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς κύριος ἔσωσεν αὐτοὺς…”, which seems to have influenced the NRSV’s take. Part of the problem is the “lo” negative particle which seems somewhat out of place in the previous phrase “in all their afflictions he was afflicted”, unless it is taken as “was he not?” which may or may not be possible here. Yet the MSS places it in that phrase, while the LXX possibly in the subsequent “it was no angel…”. All said and done, since the Jewish readings support it, we could take this as another example of the divinity of the Angel of the Lord.

Michael Heiser states that in fact the references to the angel are epiphanies of God in human form, as can be seen in numerous examples as at the Oaks of Mamre, the Burning Bush, the vision where the 70 elders “see God” and “eat with him”, and see “his feet”.

Objections to the Deity of the Angel of the Lord

The main objection from those who oppose the view we have been discussing is to assert “agency” by which one entity can represent another. This is why it doesn’t work: consider that a man’s wife sends her girlfriend as her representative to take a message to her husband who is stationed in a different place from her for whatever reasons, say for work, for example. The man can certainly treat the lady with respect, but he cannot have sex with her. Agency has very definite boundaries. So also the agent of the king cannot sleep with the king’s concubines. Properties which are essential can never be shared with the agent, since agency must retain the separation of individuality. For the agent of God to be called God or to be worshipped as God is the blurring and loss of that same individuality.

Another objection I have heard is from Zechariah 1 where the angel is seen to be mediating with the Lord on behalf of the people (vv.12,13). However this can be taken to be foreshadowing the intermediary role Christ. Further the passage rolls straight into chapter 2 which we have discussed above.

The Wisdom Literature

Even before we get into the Wisdom literature, it is worth mentioning two verses here:

“The Lord continued to appear at Shiloh, for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord.” (1Sam.3:21)

In Isaiah 5:1-7 “beloved” of God has a vineyard (v.1), which is the the Lord’s vineyard (v.3,4,5,7), which he tends meticulously. Wisdom is typically also similarly referred to as teh beloved of God.

Proverbs 8

Other verses wherein the Word of God is personified in the Wisdom literature:

In Proverbs 8:22-31 we see Wisdom (חָכְמָ֥ה hakmah) speaking in the first person and stating:

“the LORD created me at the beginning of his works, the first of his acts of long ago (22)”

Although its easy to ger sidetracked by the word “created”, a moments consideration shows that Wisdom is that which is created before anything else is created which is impossible, since there needs be things with Wisdom, rather than Wisdom without things like Platonic form. The only manner in which this is coherent is to admit of the eternal Generation of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. It continues in this fashion:
“…when there were no depths I was brought forth (24)...before the hills I was brought forth (25)… when he established the Heavens I was there (17)…then I was beside him like a master worker (אָ֫מ֥וֹן- amon– artificer, architect, master workman, only one occurrence in the Bible; ἁρμόζουσα in LXX; another reading for this is “little child”), and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race… (30,31)”

Sirach 24

Wisdom praises herself
    and tells of her glory in the midst of her people.
In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth,
    and in the presence of his hosts she tells of her glory:
“I came forth from the mouth of the Most High
    and covered the earth like a mist.
I encamped in the heights,
    and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
Alone I compassed the vault of heaven
    and traversed the depths of the abyss.
Over waves of the sea, over all the earth,
    and over every people and nation I have held sway.
Among all these I sought a resting place;
    in whose inheritance should I abide?

Then the Creator of all things gave me a command,
    and my Creator pitched my tent.
He said, ‘Encamp in Jacob,
    and in Israel receive your inheritance.’
Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me,
    and for all the ages I shall not cease to be.
In the holy tent I ministered before him,
    and so I was established in Zion.
Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place,
    and in Jerusalem was my domain.
I took root in an honored people;
    in the portion of the Lord is my inheritance.

“I grew tall like a cedar in Lebanon
    and like a cypress on the heights of Hermon…”

Baruch 3

“who has gone up into heaven and taken her (wisdom), and brought her down from the clouds? No one knows the ways to her, or is concerned about the path to her. But the one who knows all things knows her, he found her by his understanding. the one who prepared the earth for all time, filled it with four-footed creatures;( 29-32))…he found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to his servant Jacob and to Israel, whom he loved. Afterward she appeared on Earth and lived with humankind.(36,37)”

Wisdom of Solomon 7

The Jerome gives a useful syopsis of the workings of Wisdom:

“The author of Wisdom interprets the two creation accounts in Gen.1-3. Because human beings are made in the image of God (Wis 2:23), they can participate in God’s immortality. God’s own incorruptible Spirit (wis 12:1) maintains life and is God’s gift to the righteous (Wis 8:21) allowing them to enjoy life forever “in the hand of God” (Wis 3:1). Life, properly understaood is more than just existence; it is communion with God enjoyed by the just (Wis 4:10-14) and physical death neither interrupts nor destroys this. In fact for the righteous physical demise is not really death, for they one “seem to die” (Wis 3:2)…” (p.1370)

7:22-27, 8:6,10:1

I learned both what is secret and what is manifest,
²² for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.

There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy,
unique, manifold, subtle,
agile, clear, unpolluted,
distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen,
²³ irresistible, beneficent, humane,
steadfast, sure, free from anxiety,
all-powerful, overseeing all,
and penetrating through all spirits
that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle.
²⁴ For wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.
²⁵ For she is a breath of the power of God
and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
²⁶ For she is a reflection of eternal light,
a spotless mirror of the working of God,
and an image of his goodness.
²⁷ Although she is but one, she can do all things,
and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
in every generation she passes into holy souls
and makes them friends of God and prophets,

And if understanding is effective,
who more than she is fashioner of what exists? (8:6)

Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world,
when he alone had been created;
she delivered him from his transgression
² and gave him strength to rule all things. (10:1)

The Incarnation and In-Dwelling Relationship Prefigured

We will see in this section several powerful instances of the prefiguring of the Incarnation in the very first book of the Bible. In all these verses as we shall see, the infinite God manifests in a finite and anthropomorphic manner. In my article on the “Memra” of God, if have discussed how even the very fact that it is possible that the Word of God, or his Shekinah-Glory be perceived by men is a once again a finite-ization of the infinite, and this is what the Talmudic Jews considered as well, as we see in the last section.

This is not only a powerful reflection of the manner in which God can say that we are “in his own image and likeness”, but a powerful pre-figuration of the Incarnation of Christ. It does not mean that God in his eternal substance has literally a human shaped outline, which would be absurd, because it is a boundary (what’s between his fingers?!). Rather it shows that even in these most glorious visions, God does not recoil from presenting himself to us, in the form of us. The divine condescension here is incredibly awesome, where God could merely have presented himself to these persons as something dazzlingly awesome and left it there. However God chooses, in his great love, to present himself to us in a manner that we can identify with, which is a human form. These visions are the great divine condescensions that will pre-figure the biggest of them all that is to come, the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Seeing the form of God as a “Man”

Adam

God “walked” in the Garden of Eden at the time of Adam:

“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Gen.3:8)

In Genesis 32 (v.24) God is simply described as “a man” Ha-ish who wrestles with Jacob. Jacob can even say “I have seen God face to face” and calls the place at which this occurred “Pani-el”– Literally “Face of God”. This would be unthinkable for any Jew, but its right in there. Later we shall also hear this in Moses’ story, of course, as in the case of Samson’s parents before his birth.

Abraham and Jacob

Yahweh is one of the three “men” that appear to Abraham in Genesis 18, as we already saw, who ate and drank with Jacob, for three portions of meal are prepared and eaten. The passage begins with these incredible lines. It is the first time since Adam that anyone has seen God (v.1,2):
“The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and saw three men standing near him.”

A little further on from here the text states: “The Lord asks Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh?”, announces the birth of a son to Her (v.14) , and says to Sarah as a direct response to her denial “Oh yes, you did laugh” (v.15). Following this the “men” set out from there along with Abraham accompanying them (v.16).

The LORD speaks of his plans for Abraham(v.16-21) and his concerns about Sodom and Gomorrah (v.20,21). The “men” then go down to Sodom and Gomorrah while Abraham remained standing before the LORD (v.22) and has a dialogue with Him, pleading mercy for those cities in which he identifies Him also as “the Judge of all the Earth (v.25). Following this the text narrates that the LORD “went his way, and Abraham “returned to his place” (v.33), while the “TWO ANGELS” carry on forward toward Lots house (Gen.19:1).

Lot addresses the them as “lords” (plural) (v.2). The rest of famous events of these verses unfold (vv.3-23) until “the LORD rained down sulfur and fire from the LORD out of Heaven” (vv.24,25) and Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt (v.26).

Early the next morning, Abraham went “to the place where he had stood before the Lord the next morning”, to look upon the destruction the Lord had wrought upon the cities (v.27), and finally, keeping his word, it is the LORD who “dealt with Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as he had promised” (Gen.21;1)

Lastly, we have covered the episode of Jacob wrestling with the man who is God already.

Moses

Once again as above, we see that the infinite God can make himself manifest to us in finite form, as a prefiguring of the Incarnation:

“With him I speak face to face— clearly, not in riddles;
    and he beholds the form of the Lord.” (Num.12:8)

The word for “form” in Hebrew is וּתְמֻנַ֥ת, from תִּמוּנָה temunah, translated as “likeness, form” in Strong’s Dictionary. It is used similarly in other familiar passages like Exodus 20:4 “you shall not make any graven image of likeness..” in which particular prohibitory sense there are 4 other usages (Deut.4:16, 23, 25, 5:8) with a total of only 10 occurences in the Bible.

In the beautiful Ps.17:5 King David says again:

“As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness;
    when I awake I shall be satisfied, beholding your likeness (temunah)”

The people will look upon God who is pierced:

“And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one [or ““will look upon me” – Hebrew (e’lay אֵלַ֖י = to/ on me), Septuagint (ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με)] whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn” (Zech.12:10).

Ezekiel and Isaiah

Ezekiel saw “above the throne…something that seemed like a human form” (v.26), and goes on to affirm: “this was the likeness of the glory of God” (v.28)

Isaiah (6:1) “saw the Lord sitting upon the throne…”

Yahweh is a “Man of War”

Yahweh is called a “man of war” in the book of Exodus. This might seem like reading far too much into what is meant only as a metaphorical use. However if you think of the reverence in which the LORD is held among the Jews, it would be quite aberrant to use such a metaphor with the two words “man” and “YHWH” directly apposed, and indeed this has been pondered also by the Rabbis (I don’t immediately have rabbinic quotes):

“Yahweh is a man of war: יְהוָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ “הַמַּלְאָךְ֩, Yahweh is his nameיְהוָ֖ה שְׁמֽוֹ׃ “ (YHWH ish milchamah, YHWH shemow) (Exodus 15:3)

The Lord Stands in front of the Rock at Horeb

In Genesis 17:6, God says to Moses “I will be standing there in front of you on the rock at Horeb“, literally I will stand before your face (Omed lepanekha- עֹמֵד֩ לְפָנֶ֨יךָ). The God who sustains all of Creation in existence, who encompasses all the Universe, is now encompassed himself at the same time in this “standing”.

This prefigures the Incarnation. This is not of course, itself an Incarnation, but it is a step towards accepting the possibility of Incarnation and the in-dwelling relationship that God is to have with us in the New Testament. God can make it possible that his Infinity is not just “present to” a place as is the case with omnipresence which many would not have a problem accepting, but also that somehow, his infinity is circumscribed in a place- a special and real Presence of God at a particular location which could also then be the case with God being Present to the Human Soul in this manner in an “in-dwelling” relationship.

But there is a strong prefiguring of the Crucifixion here. The people in their indignance have become hostile and are likely to stone Moses to death. The LORD says “I will be standing in front of you on the rock…strike the rock, and water will come out of it”. It seems that there is no way to strike the rock without striking God himself. Here is God “standing”, i.e. in a human form, “in front of” Moses, i.e. ready to to take on the attacks upon Moses on his own Person. And when indeed the Rock is struck, water flows out of it and we are immediately reminded of the Blood and Water that flowed from the Rock of our Salvation Jesus when he was struck in his side upon the Cross.

The Father as God

There’s probably too many examples of this, but just to give a few: are Deut32. Mal1 Mal2:10 Je3:4 – Father as God (eg. Deut 32, Mal2:10, Jer2:4, Mal 1:6), and even Jewish names have the Fatherhood of God in them, like Joab (The Lord is my Father) Abihu (he is my Father) and Abijah (my Father is the Lord)

Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? (Deut 32:6)

“For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name (Isaiah 63:16)

“Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?” (Malachi 2:10)

I’ve also discussed here the The Trinitarian Verses in the New Testament

The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity

In some verses it is possible to discern a mention of all three persons, although these are not, in my opinion, definitive. The reader can discern for themselves, I present my arguments both for and against trinitarian interpretation of these verses.

In this first example, one might object that “the Lord God has sent me to you” is the prophet shifting the subject to himself, and in a manner of prefacing the subsequent oracle he is about to deliver (in the two intervening verses, “the Lord loves him” (v.14) and “I, even I, have spoken and called him, I have brought him and he will prosper in this way” (v.15) is probably addressed to whichever king of Babylon defeated the Persians).

“Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called: I am He; I am the first, and I am the last (…) Draw near to me, hear this! From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there. And now the Lord God has sent me and his spirit. Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy one of Israel…” (Isaiah 48:12,16).

In the following verse from Zechariah it seems God sends God to dwell with his people. Again, one might object that it is the prophet who is being sent, not God, and there is a change in subject: “I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me…” (v.12). In support of this, it is the prophet speaking in the earlier verses “says the Lord” (v.6) and again “thus said the Lord” (v.8). God does not usually speak in this sort of prophetic language himself. How would the prophet’s listeners “know the Lord had sent him” if the Lord never came in the prophet’s lifetime? Perhaps this refers to future generations realizing the Zechariah’s authenticity. Prior to this there is mention of the one “sent”, “to the nations that plundered (Israel)” prior to the destruction of those nations by God himself (v.8). Again we get the refrain “then you will know the Lord of hosts has sent me” (v.9). This also seems to be the intention in other places like v.4:8,9 and v.9:1 and has some similarity to when Moses performs his signs before Pharaoh: “so that they believe that the Lord…has appeared to you” (Ex4:5). If indeed “sent me and his spirit” is truly referring to the Son and the Holy Spirit, this could be a powerful trinitarian verse. But it is not easy to make a definitive call on it, IMO:

“Up, up! Flee from the land of the north, says the Lord, for I have spread you abroad like the four winds of heaven, says the Lord. Up! Escape to Zion, you who live with daughter Babylon. For thus said the Lord of hosts after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you: Truly, one who touches you touches the apple of my eye. For I am going to raise my hand against them, and they shall become plunder for their own slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me. Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion! For I will come and dwell in your midst, says the Lord. Many nations shall join themselves to the Lord on that day and shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. The Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem.” (Zech.2:6-11)

Dr. Michael Heiser identified this next passage as his favorite example of the Angel of the Lord being God. Heiser uses “may he” which AFAIK is only in the NIV (the rest omit it). I think it is the right way to translate, since this is a prayer, even though the word is not in the subjunctive, rather the piel form. Yevarku is in the third person singular, so the “he” is correct. Thus the Angel of God and God are mentioned as performing the same act of blessing yet as a singular entity, rather than “may they bless you”. Again, consider whether it is no more than a coincidence that Isaac uses a triple repetition.

^“14 But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands, for Manasseh was the firstborn. ¹⁵ He blessed Joseph and said, “The God before whom my ancestors Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, ¹⁶ the angel who has redeemed me from all harm, May he bless the boys, and in them let my name be perpetuated and the name of my ancestors Abraham and Isaac, and let them grow into a multitude on the earth.” (Gen.48:14-16)

Here we see that although the mountains are splitting before Lord, yet the Lord is not yet there. There is a similar usage in the first phrase “stand before the Lord…for the Lord is about to pass by”. One might object that “before the Lord” in both cases signifies God in his universal presence rather than local presence:

“He said, “Go out and stand on the mountain before the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.” Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind, and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake” (1Kings 19:11)

Here we see can envisage all three, Father, the Word his Son, and Holy Spirit, his “breath”. Again the objection is that this might be poetic usage:

“By the word (בִּדְבַ֣ר –bidvar Yahweh) of the Lord the heavens were made and all their host by the breath of his mouth (וּבְר֥וּחַ פִּ֝֗יו ooberuach piw)” (Psalm 33:6)

The Holy Trinity in Talmudic/ Rabbinic Judaism

Introduction- Rabbinic Judaism, the Targums, the Talmud

Rabbinic Judaism is the term used for the form of Judaism that arose following the utter destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70AD. The Pharisees of Jesus’ tim emerged as the only group to survive the Roman annihilation of the Judaic nation, through some fortunate political manouevring and the relationship of aquiescence that they had alredy been known to practise toward their roman overlords in the past. These Jews would eventually close the canon of Jewish Scripture and also set tdown in writing the oral traditions as the Talmud.

We look at two sets of Jewish writings in this section, the Targums and the Talmud, and Dan Boyarin breaks down the different writings. Roughly, we have two Targum traditions corresponding to the two Talmudic traditions: the Western (or Jerusalem/Palestinian) and the Babyloninan. In the latter we have the Targum Jonathan (on the Nevi’im, prophetic writings) and the Targum Onkelos (on the Torah, Pentateuch) which are more or less canonical. In the former we have Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti as the main corpuses:

“…The Talmud is central to the Jewish religious life, the so-called “Oral Torah” over and above the written one. As for the Targums are “an originally spoken translation of the Hebrew Bible in Aramaic which had become necessary near the end of the first century BCE (BC), as the common language was Aramaic and Hebrew was used for little more than schooling and worship. The translator frequently expanded his translation with paraphrases, explanations and examples, so it became a kind of sermon…  As translations, the targumim largely reflect midrashic interpretation of the Tanakh from the time they were written.

The two most important targumim for liturgical purposes are: Targum Onkelos on the Torah (Written Law) and Targum Jonathan on the Nevi’im (Prophets) These two targumim are mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as targum dilan (“our Targum”), giving them official status. In the synagogues of talmudic times, Targum Onkelos was read alternately with the Torah, verse by verse, and Targum Jonathan was read alternately with the selection from Nevi’im (i.e., the Haftarah). This custom continues today in Yemenite Jewish synagogues. The Talmud explicitly states that no official targumim were composed besides these two on Torah and Nevi’im alone, and that there is no official targum to Ketuvim (“The Writings”) (…) Nevertheless, most books of Ketuvim have targumim…

…There are also a variety of western targumim on the Torah, each of which was traditionally called Targum Yerushalmi (“Jerusalem Targum”), and written in Western Aramaic. An important one of these was mistakenly labelled “Targum Jonathan” in later printed versions… Scholars refer to this targum as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The Western (or “Palestinian”) Targumim on the Torah, consist of three manuscript groups: Targum Neofiti I, Fragment Targums, and Cairo Geniza Fragment Targums. Of these Targum Neofiti I is by far the largest. It consist of 450 folios covering all books of the Pentateuch, with only a few damaged verses.

Thomas Tobin: “The dating of the targums, including the recently discovered Targum Neofiti I, is very much in dispute. While Diez Macho places Targum Neofiti I in the late 1st or 2nd century C.E. other scholars … place it in the 3rd century or later…. One should use the targums, including Targum Neofiti I, for interpreting 1st century C.E. literature such as the Prologue only with great caution and only when the parallels are clear and consistent (Boyarin, Borderlines 118)

Describing Memra (Targums), Logos (of Philo), their Biblical bearings

“Were we to find such notions in Philo alone among non-Christian Jews, we could regard him, as he often is regarded, as a sport, a mutant (…) However (…) Notions of the second god as the personified Word or Wisdom of God were present among Semitic-speaking Jews, as well. This point is important because it further disturbs the dichotomies that have been promulgated between Hellenistic Judaism and rabbinic Judaism (…) the Targums, as products of the synagogues, in contrast to the House of Study, were not rabbinic in their religious ethos. The synagogues, themselves, as has been often pointed out in recent scholarship were not under the control of the Rabbis probably until the Middle Ages. The leading candidate for the Semitic Logos is, of course, the Memra of God, as it appears in these synagogal, para-rabbinic Aramaic translations of the Bible, in textual contexts that are frequently identical to ones where the Logos hermeneutic has its home (…) nonrabbinic forms of Judaism were extant and vital within the rabbinic period alongside (and even within) the rabbinic religion itself. Although (…) official rabbinic theology sought to suppress all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the heresy of Two Powers in Heaven…” (Boyarin Borderlines p.116,7)

“The Jewish scholars had indeed begun to think about issues arising from the problem of a God interacting with the world: a God who does not change, interacting with a changing world. The Jewish Encyclopedia entry states that “memra” is “The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to “dwell” among men…the term was used by the Rabbis in place of “God” where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper…The term “Shekinah,” is Hebrew, whereas “Memra” and “Yeḳara” are Aramaic (…) One of the greatest and best known Jewish scholars, Moses Maimonides (A.D. 1138-1204) regarded the Shekinah, like the Memra… as a distinct entity, and as a light created to be an intermediary between God and the world; while Naḥmanides, on the other hand, considered it the essence of God as manifested in a distinct form”  

“An important biblical text about the Most High that has played a prominent part in discussion of Jewish monotheism is Deut. 32:8–9. There are important differences between the Masoretic Hebrew, the Septuagint Greek and Hebrew. The MT says: “When the Most High apportioned the nations when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons (LXX angels) of Israel (of God -Qumran) (MT- בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ bene yisrael); for YHWH’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted share…” Thus the author points out the presence of a “relationship of the two divine names (Most High, YHWH)”. The scholar Margaret Barker makes this verse the foundation of her argument that, in the pre- exilic temple cult, YHWH was worshipped as the son of the high God and that this belief survived to become the source of early Christology, in which Jesus was identified with YHWH and God his Father with the Most High.

The doctrine of the Logos, the linchpin of Philo’s religious thought … is “something his readers will immediately recognize without any further explanation.”… Philo was clearly writing for an audience of Jews devoted to the Bible. If for these, the Logos theology was a virtual commonplace (which is not to say that there were not enormous variations in detail, of course), the implication is that this way of thinking about God was a vital inheritance of (at least) Alexandrian Jewish thought. It be-comes apparent, therefore, that for one branch of pre-Christian Judaism, at least, there was nothing strange about a doctrine of a deuteros theos, and nothing in that doctrine that precluded monotheism. Moreover, Darrell Hannah has emphasized that “neither in Platonism, Stoicism nor Aristotelian thought do we find the kind of significance that the concept has for Philo, nor the range of meanings that he gives to the term Logos,” and, therefore, that “he appears to be dependent upon a tradition in Alexandrian Judaism which was attributing a certain independence to his God’s word.” (Boyarin, Memra 249,50, Borderlines 113)

“Further, it can hardly be doubted that for Philo (born 25 BC Alexandria) the Logos is both a part of God and also a separate being, the Word that God created in the beginning in order to create everything else: the Word that both is God, therefore, and is with God. We find in Philo a passage that could just as easily have fit into Justin’s Apologies: “To His Word, His chief messenger, highest in age and honour, the Father of all has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Word both pleads with the immortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subject. He glories in this prerogative and proudly describes it in these words “and I stood between the Lord and you” (Deut. v. 5), that is neither uncreated by God, nor created as you, but midway between the two extremes, a surety to both sides. (Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 205-206)…”  Philo oscillates on the point of the ambiguity between separate existence of the Logos, God’s Son, and its total incorporation within the godhead … Philo’s Logos seems, therefore, a close congener of the Logos theology that we find among almost all ante-Nicene Christian writers, and which would appear, therefore, to have a “Jewish” Beginning. (Daniel Boyarin Borderlines p.114,116)

“…after his discovery of the first complete manuscript of the Palestinian Targum… Alejandro Diez Macho had argued for the close connection of the Memra so widely occurring in this text with the Logos of the Fourth Gospel. In all of the Palestinian Aramaic translations of the Bible, the term Memra (as a translation of various terms which in the Hebrew either simply mean God or are names of God) is legion and theologically highly significant, because these usages parallel nearly exactly the functions of the Logos, the deuteros theos in Logos theology. (Alejandro Diez Macho, Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana) (Borderlines 118,9)

Use of Memra in the Texts

I’ll repeat again what we saw earlier, there are roughly two Targum traditions corresponding to the two Talmudic traditions: the Western (or Jerusalem/Palestinian) and the Babyloninan. In the latter we have the Targum Jonathan (on the Nevi’im, prophetic writings) and the Targum Onkelos (on the Torah, Pentateuch) which are more or less canonical. In the former we have Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Neofiti, Fragment Targum and Cairo Geniza Fragment Targums as the main corpuses, though there are others too which we will see in the following.

Boyarin gives a great summarization of the ways in which Memra is used in the Targums (he does not present the references here):

We find the Memra working as the Logos works in the following ways:

1. Creating: Gen 1:3: “And the Memra of H’ (Hashem- the Holy Name of God) said Let there be light and there was Light by his Memra.” In all of the following verses, it is the Memra that performs all of the creative actions.
2. Speaking to humans: Gen 3:8 ff: “And they heard the voice of the Memra of H’…. And the Memra of H’ called out to the Man.”?
3. Revealing himself Gen 18:1: “And was revealed to him the Memra of H’.”
4. Punishing the wicked: Gen 19:24 “And the Memra of H’ rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah.”‘
5. Saving: Exod 17:21: “And the Memra of H’ was leading them during the day in a pillar of cloud.”
6. Redeeming: Deut 32:39: “When the Memra of H’ shall be revealed to redeem his people.”…”

(Borderlines 119)

We use a few abbreviations here: Targum Neofiti– TN, TO- Targum Onkelos, TPsJ- Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, FT- fragment Targum.

“…When man was created he was made in the image of the Memra of Yahweh (TN, Gen.1.27) whereas TO has him created in the image of Yahweh. The Memra of Yahweh shut the door of the Ark (TPsJ, Gen.7:16). The Memra of Yahweh killed the firstborn of Egypt (TPsJ, Exod. 12.29). The Memra opposed the works of Balaam (TPsJ, Num:23.8). The Memra was the offered worship and prayer and was the warrior leader of Israel: The Memra of Yahweh sitteth upon his throne high and lifted up and heareth our prayer what time we pray before him and make our petitions. (TPsJ, Deut.4.7) Hear, O Memra, the voice of the prayer of Judah and bring him back safely from the battle lines to his people in peace. (T.N. to Deut. 33.7) Arise now, O Memra of Yahweh, in the power of thy might… (FT,Num.10.35) Let the Memra of Yahweh now be revealed … Return now, thou Memra of Yahweh, in the goodness of thy mercy and lead thy people Israel… (T.PsJ, Num10.35-6).

If the various Targums differ in their use of Memra, the question then arises: What is the nature of this difference and how did it come about? The most obvious difference is that the Babylonian tradition in T.O. uses Memra far less often that does the Palestinian tradition in T.Ps-J., T.N. and FT (Barker, Angel 141)

“Chilton listed several examples for each of the distinctive motifs associated with this usage (of Memra) in the Targum to Isaiah (hereafter T. Isa.) 1 8 : Israel rebelled against the Memra: … if you refuse and do not obey my Memra … (T.Isa. 1.20) Israel would be punished by the Memra: … his Memra will be among you for punishment… (T.Isa. 8.14) … my Memra, as whirlwind the chaff, will destroy you… (T.Isa. 33.11) Cf. T. Hosea 13.14 … now my Memra will be among them for death. Israel was to obey the Memra: If you are willing and obey my Memra (T.Isa. 1.19) Memra represented the edict of Yahweh: … by the Memra of Yahweh of Hosts will this be done (T.Isa. 9.6) Have I come up without the Memra of Yahweh against this land to destroy it? (T.Isa. 36.10) Memra has a voice: And I heard the voice of the Memra of Yahweh (T.Isa. 6.8) And Yahweh shall cause the glorious voice of his Memra to be heard (T.Isa. 30.30) … a voice from the temple, the voice of the Memra of Yahweh who rendereth recompense to his enemies. (T.Isa. 66.6) Draw near unto my Memra, hear ye this… And now Yahweh Elohim has sent me and his Memra (T.Isa. 48.16) Memra was a guardian: … when ye passed through the Red Sea my Memra was your support. (T.Isa. 43.2) … and his Memra was their saviour… (T.Isa. 63.8) … the Memra of Yahweh led them … (T.Isa. 63.14) My Memra shall go before thee and I shall trample down walls… (T.Isa. 43.2) Memra is an assurance: By my Memra have I sworn … (T.Isa. 45.23) The Great Angel for my Name’s sake , for my Memra’s sake , will I d o it.. . (T.Isa. 48.11) Memra was an intermediary: I let myself be entreated through m y Memra … (T.Isa. 65.1).

Then there is the evidence of the Job Targums. The Second Targum, a 4th- or 5th-century Palestinian text, avoids all anthropomorphism and uses Memra frequently, whereas the fragments of the Qumran Targum of Job (1 lQtgJob), a pre-Christian text, does not avoid anthropomorphism and offers two examples of Memra. One is particularly interesting. The Targum renders Job 39.26-7 thus: Is it by your Wisdom that the falcon is stirred… It is by your Memra that the eagle lifts itself aloft… The Hebrew has respectively ‘your discernment’ and ‘your command’ (lit. ‘mouth’).

Why this particular change in parallel lines? Presumably because Memra and Wisdom were equivalents. The relevance of the Memra to any enquiry into the nature of second God, as this was understood in the First century AD, must depend largely on the age of the Targums in question.” (Barker, p.143)

Barker explains why the use of Memra is not seen as much in the Targum of Onkelos, of the Babylonian tradition:

““All the examples offered by Moore to prove that Memra as simply a buffer idea, come from the Targum of Onkelos which is thought to represent the Babylonian tradition. The other tradition, the Palestinian, is found in several Targums, all of which use Memra far more often and they make it clear that Memra was more than a mere buffer word or a stylistic device (p.141)…The first point to establish is the relative age of the two major traditions. T.O. has fewer instances of Memra than the Palestinian Targums and, since it is usually assumed that monotheism is the most desirable reading of the Old Testament and it would be hard to maintain that none of the references in the Palestinian Targums is personal, we have to ask if the Memra was something added to the tradition as it degenerated, or removed from the tradition as it was sanitized. Memra does not occur in any later rabbinic writings and so the first indication would be that Memra fell out of the tradition and that the Palestinian Targums represent something older than T.O. or the Mishnah. In the light of second-century hostility to other interpretations of the Pentateuch known to have been pre-Christian, interpretations which included heavenly beings, and in view of the fact that Christian writers used the Memra as a designation for Jesus, it is more likely that Memra dropped from the tradition at this time than that it was added to it at a later date.

Much modern dating of Targums derives from the work of Paul Kahle who argued that T.O. was compiled wholly in Babylon and was unknown in Palestine until as late as AD 1000. Of the other Targums, he said, T.N. and the F.T. represented an ancient tradition, far older than T.O., current in Palestine before the compilation of the Mishnah The Evidence of the Jewish Writers because it included traditions contrary to those of the Mishnah. It could even have been pre-Christian. T.Ps-J. represented a different Palestinian tradition. Unfortunately, the earliest actual evidence for these Targums is fragments from the Cairo Geniza dated between AD 700 and 900 and it is not easy to argue convincingly for a first century date from eight-century evidence. Earlier generations of Targum scholars had argued that Onkelos was produced in Palestine, and that it was the earliest of the Targums to the Pentateuch”

(Barker Angel 143-45)

“The Targums were made to help uneducated people understand the Scriptures and therefore any term which is found in them must have been one in common use, one which would have been immediately helpful to the hearers. Memra was such a term, and the tact that we have such difficulty in placing it in our reconstruction of Judaism at this time is a sure indication that we know less about that Judaism than we commonly suppose. A comparison of the Logos of Philo and the Memra of the Targums, especially the Palestinian Targums, shows that, whatever the date of the latter, they reproduce faithfully what Philo knew. The translators of the Targums could assume that the ordinary Jews of the synagogues had more or less the same beliefs as Philo and used the same imagery to express them.

This can be shown by comparing some of the descriptions of Philo’s Logos with Memra passages in the Targums; (i) The Logos was the Name (On the Confusion of Tongues 146): And I will separate you to my Name as a people of holy ones and my Word will be to you a redeemer God (T.N.to Exod . 6.7); (ii) Man was made in the image of the Logos (Questions on Genesis 11.62): And the Memra of Yahweh created man in his likeness (F.T. to Gen. 1.27); (iii) The Logos was the viceroy of a great King (On Dreams 1.241; On Agriculture 51): … the Memra of Yahweh hath sworn by the throne of his Glory (T.Ps-J. to Exod. 17.15); … the Memra of Yahweh sitteth upon his throne high and lifted up and heareth our prayer what time we pray before him and make our petitions (T.Ps-J. to Deut. 4.7); (iv) The Logos was the angel of Yahweh who guided Israel in the desert (On the Migration of Abraham 174): And the Shekinah of the Memra of Yahweh will go before thee (T.Ps-J. to Deut. 31.6). 146 The Evidence of the Jewish Writers; (v) The Logos was the heavenly judge (Questions on Exodus II. 13): Woe to them that are alive at the time when the Memra of Yahweh shall be revealed to give the good reward to the righteous and to take vengeance on the wicked … (T.Ps-J. to Num. 24.23); His Memra will be among you for vengeance (T.Isa. 8.14); (vi) The Logos was the mediator (Questions on Exodus 11.13): I let myself be entreated through my Memra by them that enquired not from before me (T.Isa. 65.1); (vii) The Logos was the high priest (On Dreams 1.215): By his Memra he will make atonement for his land and for his people (T.Ps-J. to Deut. 32.43); (viii) The Logos was the agent of the creation (On the Special Laws 1.81): The Memra of Yahweh said: Let there be light (T.N. to Gen. 1.3 and passim); They forgot the Memra of Yahweh who had created them (T.N. to Deut. 32.15); I have made the earth by my Memra (T.Isa. 45.12); The world was made by his Memra (T.O. to Deut. 33.27); (ix) The Logos was the Covenant (On Dreams 11.237): The covenant between my Memra and the earth (T.Ps-J. to Gen. 9.12); I will set my Covenant between my Memra and thee (T.PsJ. to Gen. 17.2); [cf the angel of the Covenant is the Memra, T. Malachi 3]; (x) The Logos spoke from above the cherubim (On Flight 101; Who is the Heir? 166): And I will appoint my Memra with thee there, and will speak with thee from above the mercy seat, between the two cherubim (T.N. to Exod. 25.22)…” (Barker, Angel, 146,7)

The Jerome (p.1369) calls the Targums “the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures used in liturgy” and quotes Targum Neofiti (Gen.1:1) “From the beginning with widom, the Memra of God created and perfected the heavens and the Earth”…commenting: “these additions reflect later wisdom theology already found in the books of Proverbs (8:22-30) and Sirach (22:1-12). In Neofiti, it is the Memra/Word, not God who gives the command “Let there be light” (Gen.1:3). In the Targum to Exodus 12:42 we read “The world was without form and void, and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss, and the Memra/ord of the Lord was the Light, and it shone” (Tg. Neof.Exod 12:42). The term Memra is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q541 Frag. 7:5, Frag. 9 i:3, 11Q10 Col.xxviii:9) proving that the term was known in Jewish circles in thep first century.

Logos, Wisdom Literature and John

“The divinized or hypostasized Logos … is collaboratively invented in antiquity by writers who are (with a few minor exceptions) readers of Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8…. From the Gospel of John to the Gospel of Truth, from the Tripartite Tractate to Clement’s Alexandrian trilogy of the Word, from Justin to Philo to Origen, Logos emerges in the dialogical play of scriptural interpretation. With this observation Virginia Burrus firmly locates the beginnings of Logos theology in the complex, intertextual scriptural world of all the multiplex communities of post-Israelite religion, those that we today refer to as Jews as well as those that we today call Christians, or “Gnostics.” (…) Burrus’s observation challenges this topos that the Fourth Gospel is essentially and fundamentally not Jewish in its Christology” (Borderlines, 93)

“Eldon J. Epp, who specifies an actual historical connection to explain the evident parallels between the Prologue and the Wisdom hymns: “The clear answer (developed by J. Rendell Harris in 1917) is that a model [for the Prologue] was provided by the Wisdom hymns of the OT and the Apocrypha. That is, the Johannine hymn to the Logos was inspired, in content, and in form, generally at least, by the hymns about or by personified Wisdom, such as those in Prov 8:1-36; Job 28:12-28; Sir 24:1-34; Bar 3:9-4:4; and Wis 7:22-10:21.” (Boyarin Boderlines 93)

Boyarin describes the process of Midrashic writing:

“One of the most characteristic forms of midrash is a homily on a pericope, or extract from the Pentateuch that invokes, explicitly or implicitly, texts from either the Prophets or the Hagiographa (specifically, very frequently Psalms, Song of Songs, or Wisdom literature) as the intertextual framework of ideas and language that is used to interpret and expand the Pentateuchal text being preached.”

This hermeneutical practice is founded on a theological notion of the oneness of Scripture as a self-interpreting text, especially on the notion that the latter books are a form of interpretation of the Five Books of Moses. That is, it is a scriptural, indeed, an inter-scriptural practice. Gaps are not filled with philosophical ideas but with allusions to or citations of other texts. The first five verses of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel fit this form nearly perfectly.

The verses being preached are the opening verses of Genesis, and the text that lies in the background as hermeneutic intertext is Proverbs 8:22-31. The primacy of Genesis as exegeted text explains why we have here “Logos” and not “Sophia; (…) The preacher of the Prologue to John had to speak of Logos here, because his homiletical effort is directed at the opening verses of Genesis, with their majestic utterance, ”And God said: Let there be light, and there was light.”

It is the “saying” of God that produces the light, and indeed through this saying everything was made that was made (…) The assertion that the Word was with God is easily related to Proverbs 8:30, “Then I was beside him;’ and even to Wisdom in Solomon 9:9, “With thee is wisdom.” (…) . Although, paradoxically, John 1:1-5 is our earliest example of this, the form is so abundant in late antique Jewish hermeneutics that, unless we are prepared to assume evidence here for direct Johannine influence on the midrash, I think it can best be read as the product of a common tradition shared by (some) Jesus Jews and (some) non-Jesus Jews (…)

Thus the operation of John 1:1 can be compared with the (to be sure, quite a bit later) Palestinian Targum to this very Intertextual Birth of the Logos verse, which translates “In the beginning” by “With Wisdom God created,” clearly also alluding to the Proverbs passage. “Beginning” is read in the Targums sometimes as Wisdom, hukmsta, and sometimes as the Logos, memra: By a Beginning-Wisdom-God created.” (Boyarin Borderlines, 95)

“these narrate the second of Wisdom’s attempts to enter the world, although I take verse 13 to refer back to both of these “failed” attempts. In both the first and the second attempts, in the midst of the general failure, some few received the Logos and thus became born of God. The second attempt of Wisdom to enter the world comprised the giving of the Torah to Israel and the failure of that instrument as a means of bringing the Logos into the world, because Israel did not understand, as will be recapitulated in verse 17

(…) The three sections of the Prologue are thus a general narrative of the activity of the Logos based on a midrash on Genesis 1, an expansion of that narrative via the myth of Wisdom’s misfortune in the world, narrating as well the failure of Torah to bring the Logos to the People, and then the new denouement to that myth in the incarnation of the Logos as Jesus.”(Boyarin Borderlines 101,2)

J. Rendell Harris…noted the close connections of the Prologue with certain themes of early and later Jewish Wisdom literature (comparing it to) such biblical and apocryphal texts as Prov 8:22-31, Sirach 24, Wisdom of Solomon, and Bar 3:37-4:1, and argued that it belonged to the same genre (…) Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell; but a place was found (for her) in the heavens. Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling place. So Wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels. (1 Enoch 42:1-2)1 (Boyarin Borderlines 108, 102)

Boyarin is contending that Justin is writing so early that he is actually drawing independently from Jewish tradition rather than from John the evangelist:

“This historiographical movement from common “Jewish” Logos theology to Christology was made by other Christian writers such as Justin, apparently independently of John 1.'” A remarkable theological statement by Justin shows how vivid his notion of the Logos was, and how similar in some ways to that of the Fourth Gospel, yet how different. It thus can serve as an independent witness to the hermeneutical origins of Logos theology. Justin writes:

God has begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures a kind of Reasonable Power from Himself, which is also called by the Holy Spirit the Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, and sometimes Wisdom, and sometimes Angel, and sometimes God, and sometimes Lord and Word.” (Dialogue 61:1)

Clearly, presumably without reference to the Fourth Gospel, Justin also knows of a midrash that reads the word “Beginning” (apXll) of Genesis 1:1 as a reference to the Logos, which, I would strongly argue, can only have been known via the sort of midrash that we find incorporated in the Targum and the Fourth Gospel. Like the midrash, these take that “Beginning” to be Sophia, Wisdom, vias a detour through the verses: “God created me at the Beginning of his way (Proverbs 8:22) and “The Beginning of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord” (Psalms 111:10).

Thus we have in Justin precious evidence corroborating such an interpretation and such a theology among Jews, from which the traditions animating both the Evangelist and the apologist have drawn. In the beginning, God got from himself the being with the names Son, Wisdom, angel.'” God, Lord, and Logos. As an independent witness, Justin’s evocative language suggests as well the long vita of these hermeneutical associations, necessarily among Jews (…)

As an independent witness, Justin’s evocative language suggests as well the long vita of these hermeneutical associations, necessarily among Jews. As M. J. Edwards has argued, “the womb of [Justin’s] Logos-doctrine was the Dialogue, where the term is used to confer on Christ the powers that were already attributed in Jewish literature to the spoken and written utterance of God.” His final statement is even clearer: “Our conclusion, therefore, is that in the two Apologies, no less than in the Dialogue with Trypho, Christ is the Logos who personifies the Torah.” (Boyarin Borderlines, 105,6)

Highest Angel as Divine- Metatron Tradition

“A large number of scholars have identified and discussed the various manifestations of Jewish binitarianism (and even ditheism”)…As Wolfson has put it with respect to certain early medieval Jewish mystics: “It may be said that the Jewish mystics recovered the mythical dimension of a biblical motif regarding the appearance of God in guise of the highest of angels, called ‘angel of the Lord’ (mal’akh Adonai),’angel of God’ … ,or angel of the Presence’ (mal’akh ha-panim) which sometimes appeared in the form of a man. Evidence for the continuity of the exegetical tradition of an exalted angel that is in effect the manifestation of God is to be found in a wide variety of later sources.” Wolfson lists Christians as only one of many such Jewish groups and sources and cites compelling evidence for the blurring or even erasing of boundaries between that angel and God” (Boyarin Borderlines p120).

Metatron (מֶטָטְרוֹן‎‎) is an angel in Judaism mentioned three times in the Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) and in a few brief passages in the Aggadah and in mystical Kabbalistic texts within Rabbinic literature. The name Metatron is not mentioned in the Torah nor the Bible and how the name originated is a matter of debate. (…) the name may have originated from either Mattara (מטרא) “keeper of the watch” or the verb Memater (ממטר) “to guard” or “to protect”. The Babylonian Talmud mentions Metatron by name in three places: Hagigah 15a, Sanhedrin 38b and Avodah Zarah 3b, and Yevamot 16b is related to the Chief Angel as detailed below, while in In Jewish apocrypha and early Kabbalah, “Metatron” is the name that Enoch received after his transformation into an angel, as we shall see in the next section.

Avodah Zarah 3

the Talmud hypothesizes as to how God spends His day. It is suggested that in the fourth quarter of the day God sits and instructs the school children, while in the preceding three quarters Metatron may take God’s place or God may do this among other tasks:

“The Gemara asks: If God no longer makes sport, what does He now do during the fourth three-hour period of the day? The Gemara answers: He sits and teaches Torah to schoolchildren, as it is stated: “Whom shall one teach knowledge? And whom shall one make to understand the message? Them that are weaned from the milk, them that are drawn from the breasts” (Is.28:9). The verse is interpreted in the following manner: To whom does God teach knowledge, and to whom does He make to understand the message? To those who are just weaned from the milk and to those who are drawn from the breasts, i.e., children only recently weaned from nursing. The Gemara asks: And initially, before the destruction of the Temple, who would teach the schoolchildren? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the angel Metatron would teach them, and if you wish, say instead that He would do both this, sport with the leviathan, and that, teach the schoolchildren; whereas after the destruction of the Temple in the fourth period of the day He only teaches the schoolchildren. The Gemara asks: And during the twelve hours of the night, what does God do? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the night is similar to the day, i.e., God performs the same activities as in the day. And if you wish, say instead that He rides on his light cherub and flies in eighteen thousand worlds, as it is stated: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even [shinan] thousands”(Ps.68:18).” (Avodah Zarah 3b from sefaria.com)

Sanhedrin 38b

Here one of the minim tells Rabbi Idith that Metatron should be worshiped because he has a name like his master. Rabbi Idith uses…Exodus 23:21 to show that Metatron was an angel and not a deity and thus should not be worshiped. Furthermore, as an angel Metatron has no power to pardon transgressions nor was he to be received even as a messenger of forgiveness:

“Ray Nahman said: A person who knows how to answer the minim as Ray Idit, let him answer, and if not, let him not answer. A certain min said to Ray Idit: “It is written, ‘And to Moses he said, come up unto the H’ (LORD- Hashem) [Exod. 24:1].’ It should have said, ‘Come up to me’!” He [Rav Idit] said to him: “This was Metatron, whose name is like the name of his master, as it is written, ‘for My name is in him’ [Exod. 23:21]:’ “But if so, we should worship him!” “It is written, ‘Do not rebel against him’ [Exod. 23:21]-Do not confuse him with me.” “If so, then why does it say ‘He will not forgive your sins’?” “We have sworn that we would not even receive him as a guide, for it is written ‘If Your face goes not [do not bring us up from here]’ [Exod. 33:15]” (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 38b) (Boyarin, Borderlines 120,121)

“Son of Man” as Divine

Sanhedrin 98a

“Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: “There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey.“ (this is #423)

Hagiga 14a

Rabbi Akiva who was a leading rabbi at the end of the 1^st century AD and the beginning of the second century. Here he seems to suggest that there are “two powers” in Heaven- one being God, and the other the Messiah, represented by David. Boyarin states of this passage: “The heresiological energy being expended within rabbinic circles to produce the heresy of Two Powers in Heaven-that is, to externalize or Christianize the in ternal theologoumena of a second or assistant God-helps us understand some rabbinic texts that are otherwise mysterious. One of the most evocative and revealing of these texts involves the heresy of Rabbi Akiva in a discussion of the “Son of Man” passage from Daniel: (…) As we see from this passage, the second-century Rabbi Akiva is portrayed as interpreting these verses in a way that certainly would seem consistent with Two Powers in Heaven. The crux is his identification of David, the Messiah, as the “Son of Man” who sits at God’s right hand,” thus suggesting not only a divine figure but one who is incarnate in a human being as well (…) His contemporary Rabbi Yose the Galilean (perhaps a more assiduous reader of the Gospels) strenuously objects to Rabbi Akiva’s “dangerous” interpretation and gives the verse a “Modalist” interpretation. Of course, the Talmud itself must record that Rabbi Akiva changed his mind in order for him to remain “orthodox.” Two Powers in Heaven is thus not foreign even at the very heart of the rabbinic enterprise. Even a figure like Rabbi Akiva has to be educated as to the heretical nature of his position.” It is not too much to suggest, I think, that the pressure against Rabbi Akiva’s position was generated by the hardening of Logos theology and its variants into Christology as that was beginning to take place in the second century” (Boyarin Borderlines 139,140)

This is the passage: “until thrones were set up and the Ancient of Days sat” [Dan. 7:9]. This is no difficulty: One was for him and one was for David. As we learn in a baraita [non-Mishnaic tannaitic tradition]: One for him and one for David; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yose the Galilean said to him: Akiva! Until when will you make the Shekhina profane?! Rather. One was for judging and one was for mercy. Did he accept it from him, or did he not? Come and hear! One for judging and one for mercy, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.” (BT Hagiga 14a)

Hagiga 15a

Boyarin states in relation to this passage: “I would read the famous narrative of Elisha ben Abuya’s apostasy, in the sequel to the story of Rabbi Akiva, where upon seeing a vision of the glorious being named Metatron sitting at the right hand of God, he concludes that there are Two Powers in Heaven and becomes a heretic, as a further oblique recognition and allegorical representation of the fact that this heresy was once comfortably within “Judaism” and has only lately become Aher, “Other”-Aher being, of course, the pejorative nickname for this once “kosher” Rabbi after his turn to “heresy.” A brief look at this text will help make this point…. This is a remarkable story, which, as can well be imagined, has excited much scholarly attention. Yehuda Liebes emphasizes correctly that it is impossible to see this as a narrative of a real Elisha who joined a heretical sect. Segal nicely observes that “in its present context [the story] is an etiology of heresy. It explains how certain people, who had special Metatron traditions, risk the heretical designation of ‘two powers in heaven.’ (Boyarin Borderlines 140.141)

This is the passage: “Our Rabbis have taught: Four went into the Pardes, and who are they? Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma, Aher, and Rabbi Akiva…. He saw that Metatron had been given permission to sit and write the good deeds of Israel He said, but it is taught that on high there will be no sitting, no competition, no … , and no tiredness! Perhaps, God forbid, there are two powers! They took Metatron out and whipped him with sixty whips of fire. They said to him: “What is the reason that when you saw him, you did not get up before him?” He was given permission to erase the good deeds of Aher, A voice came out from heaven and said: Return 0 backsliding ones [Jer. 3:14, 22]-except for Aher,

He said, “Since that man has been driven out of that world, let him go out and enjoy himself in this world!” He went out to evil culture. He went and found a prostitute and solicited her. She said, “But aren’t you Elisha ben Abuya!?” He went and uprooted a radish on the Sabbath and gave it to her. She said, “He is an other [Aher]…” (BT Hagiga 15a see on sefaria.com Chagiga 15a, Elisha  ben Avuya)

Enoch Traditions

Let’s read about the Enoch traditions straight from Larry Hurtado’s book: “Among the patriarchal figures to whom great attention was given in ancient Judaism is Enoch. Mentioned only briefly in Gen. 5:18-24, he became a figure of great importance in postexilic literature, and from the brief biblical reference there grew an elaborate tradition concerning him. For example, in Jubilees (2d century B.C.E.), Enoch is described as the first man “to learn to write and to acquire knowledge and wisdom” (4:17) and he is credited with a book about “the signs of heaven” (…) Further, according to Jubilees, Enoch was given a vision in his sleep” in which he saw everything that is to happen “till the day of judgement,” and wrote all this too (4:18-19). While spending “six jubilees of years” with the angels of God, he learned “everything on earth and in the heavens” (4:21). He was finally taken away and conducted into the Garden of Eden ‘ ‘in majesty and honour,” where he records all human deeds until the day of judgment (4:23-24) and where “he burned the incense of the sanctuary” (4:25), apparently indicating that he was seen as having a priestly role in his glorified state. Jubilees 4:17-26 also indicates that a significant body of Enoch lore was already established at the time the book was written (…) The tradition that Enoch wrote books is reflected also in Jub. 21:10. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs there are many references to writings bearing his name (….) Indeed in 2 Enoch 10:1-7, we are told of 360 books (or 366) written by Enoch! (…) There is the well-known 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch), which appears to be a composite of material ranging from the early second century B.C.E. to any time from the first to the third century C.E. There is also 2 Enoch (or Slavonic Enoch), another apparently composite work dating from the first or second century C.E. These sizable writings are composites of the work of various persons writing in Enoch’s name over several centuries, a further indication of the significance of Enoch, especially for those wishing to disclose information about the heavenly world or about the last days (…)

My main concern is with the ways in which Enoch came to be described as God’s chief agent. There are two variations: (1) the apparent identification of Enoch as the “Son of man” of 1 Enoch 37—71, a figure who carries out messianic tasks in connection with the manifestation of eschatological redemption and judgment; and (2) the tradition that Enoch was transformed into a glorious heavenly being like an angel, which reached its zenith in the identification of Enoch with Metatron, the heavenly prince, in 3 Enoch.

Enoch as Son of Man The “Son of man” figure appears in several passages in the section of 1 Enoch often called the Parables or Similitudes (chaps. 37—71). He is clearly a figure of great importance (…) In all these references, this figure is clearly messianic in function and stature, and passages from the Old Testament are alluded to in portraying his significance as the fulfilment of redemptive hopes (e.g., note 48:4 with its allusion to Isa. 42:6; 49:6, describing the “Son of man” in terms like the “Servant of the Lord” of Isaiah). This figure seems to act as judge on God’s behalf (“in the name of the Lord of Spirits,” e.g., 1 Enoch 55:4) and in this capacity sits upon a throne that is closely linked with God: “On that day the Chosen One will sit on the throne of Glory” (45:3; see also 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2, 3, 5-6; 70:27). The meaning of this is not that the figure rivals God or becomes a second god but rather that he is seen as performing the eschatological functions associated with God and is therefore God’s chief agent, (…) The effects of the heavenly divine agent concept may be seen especially in 1 Enoch 46:1-3, where, employing imagery from Dan. 7:9-14, the writer pictures the “Son of man”/”Chosen One” in a heavenly scene, prominently associated with God…” (…) This indicates clearly a tradition that the Enoch of Gen. 5:18-24 had been exalted by God to the position of chief agent for the salvation and preservation of the elect. Even if this tradition is no earlier than the late first century C.E. (the probable period for the composition of chaps. 37—71)…

The other variation on Enoch as God’s chief agent is the idea that at his ascent he was transformed into an angelic being and made head over all the heavenly court. This is unambiguously attested only in 3 Enoch (about the fifth century C.E.), which identifies Enoch as “Metatron” (4:2-3), a powerful heavenly being referred to in other ancient Jewish texts as well. (…) In 3 Enoch 9, we are told of Enoch’s transformation into a gigantic being from whom’ ‘no sort of splendor, brilliance, brightness, or beauty” was missing, and in 3 Enoch 10—12 we read of Metatron/Enoch’s throne “like the throne of glory” (10:1), his majestic robe (12:1-2) and crown (12:3-4), and we are told that God orders Metatron/Enoch to be called “the lesser YHWH” with a clear allusion made to Exod. 23:20-21 (“my name is in him,” 12:5)…” (Hurtado, One Lord and one God p52-55)

Other passages that interpret the Son of Man figure as Messiah are Aggadat B r ēšît 14:3; 23:1; and Midr. Haggadol Gen. 49.10.

Num. Rab. 13.14, for instance, states:

“How do we know that he [the Messiah] will hold sway on land? Because it is written … Behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man … and there was given unto him dominion … that all the peoples should serve him”

and other passages as:

“…the fragmentary Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246) (…) published by É. Puech in 1992, has been dated to the first century BC.20 There, a “son of man” figure has been given the title “Son of God” and becomes a great king over the whole earth.

In the 4 Ezra 13.4, the vision begins with “something like the figure of a man” (13.3) arising from the sea. Later, God calls him “my son” (13.32), and in the latter days he takes his stand on Mt. Zion, destroying an army that attacks it, and regathering the ten tribes of Israel (…) For a description and analysis of 4 Ezra 13 (probably to be dated to the end of the first century AD), see J. J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 459–66; and D. Burkett, “Son of Man in Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Texts,” 102–8″.

Qumran- Holy Spirit in Essene Belief

(from “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Revealing the Jewish Roots of Christianity” by John Bergsma)

“The Essenes also recognized that one could live a holy life only by the power of God’s Spirit: For only through the Spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to His truth by His Holy Spirit, purified from all iniquity…“For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to His truth by His holy spirit, purified from all iniquity. Through an upright and humble attitude his sin may be covered, and by humbling himself before all God’s laws his flesh can be made clean. Only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow. (1QS 3:6–9)”

I know that no one can be righteous apart from You. And I entreat Your favor by that Spirit which You have given me, to fulfill Your mercy with Your servant forever, to cleanse me by Your Holy Spirit, and to bring me near by Your grace according to Your great mercy. (1QHa 8:29–30)” (from “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Revealing the Jewish Roots of Christianity” by John Bergsma)

“the wicked would be judged by fire (1QS 4:13), while the righteous would be cleansed by the Holy Spirit (1QS 4:21).”

“By His truth God shall then purify all human deeds….Like purifying waters, He shall sprinkle each with a Spirit of Truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the angels, making wise those following the perfect way. (1QS 4:21–23)” 

Modern Day Judaism- Kaballah and Hasidism

Modern day Judaism is heavily influenced with schools of kaballah and Hasidism. The central belief revolves around the “Tree of emanations” which shows the relations of the 10 sefirot.

“The Ein Sof (lit: without end) is an important concept in Jewish Kabbalah. Generally translated as “infinity” and “endless”, the Ein Sof represents the formless state of the universe before the self-materialization of God. In other words, the Ein Sof is God before he decided to become God as we now know him. The sefirot are divine emanations that come from the Ein Sof in a manner often described as a flame. The sefirot emanate from above to below. As the first Sefira is closest to Ein Sof, it is the least comprehensible to the human mind, while in turn the last is the best understood because it is closest to the material world that humanity dwells on. The sefirot are ten emanations, or illuminations of God’s infinite light as it manifests in creation. The way that the tsefirot are thought of is that the infinite light of God, which would be otherwise inaccessible to humans and could not be accommodated in Creation, enters Creation as finite energies.

I have discussed the Trinitarian verses in the Old Testament itself here The Holy Trinity in Judaism

Both Qur’an, Tanakh use “Distinction with common Predication”

I argue here that all three of the great Abrahamic faiths use scriptural language that implies necessary distinctions inherent in the deity all of which are also predicated of the deity, quite like Trinitarianism. An important feature of the Christian NT is that it takes the additional step of giving these names- divine Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From here, the progress to incorporating these into a Trinitarian formulation becomes seemingly inevitable, while the other two faiths are left to explain these metaphorically, or remaining in them as inscrutable mysteries.

Examples of these are the obscure words of Muhammed himself, which he offers in reply to questioning on the issue: “‘The Spirit is of the bidding of my Lord. You have been given of knowledge nothing except a little.’ (Q 17:85). Equally we have covered the Jewish Talmudic interpretations of this multiplicity associated with the deity in the earlier section. Why would it be that these qualifications are not explicit in Judaism? The obvious answer that seems to present itself is that it is not a finished religion in many other senses as well, for example, Jews are not really told explicitly whether they are going to rise when they die, nor what they are meant to do about the destroyed Temple, missing Messiah and so on.

In this section we examine how the manifest distinctions in the deity parallel each other as preserved in the great three Abrahamic faiths of the present day. It might be asked why I am bringing up the Qur’an here as part of the comparison since the Quran does not bear on how the Bible is interpreted, and this is true, but it provides an interesting study in contrast and commonality.

Christianity confirms the monotheism of the previous Scriptures

How could it be that Christianity is anything but monotheistic if all we are doing is admitting that which is already present in the previous Scriptures in shadowy and mysterious form really is divine, on the contrary Christianity is a celebration and final affirmation of monotheism.

Thus when the Holy Spirit speaks and acts as God it is only the Christian religion that will affirm that this is really God speaking, and we have no further need for the obscurity of the Jewish religion, nor of Islam with regards to this. And when “the Son” speaks and the “Word” acts, we again confirm that this is really God, not the Isa of the Qur’an, a miraculous being that is not created by a human action, and yet can himself give life (see below), nor the similarly creative eternal “Wisdom” of the Jewish literature, nor the “Memra” of the Talmud, as we have previously seen.

The very kinds of discussions that have raged for centuries in Islam and Judaism as to the nature and attributes of God find their answers in the Trinitarian faith.

Divine Agency of the Spirit in strengthening persons

The Holy Spirit is expressed distinctly from God, yet as performing the very roles of God in his actions upon persons- these are in-dwelling, strengthening from within and giving prophecy directly into the soul. It should not be in dispute that only God is capable of such acts.

• Hebrew Tanakh: innumerable times the “Holy Spirit”, “comes upon” persons to enable them to prophesy, or to strengthen them. We’ve already detailed the section on the Holy Spirit in the OT.
• Qur’an: “we strengthened him with the holy spirit (biruhi l-qudusi)” (Q 4:171).
• New Testament: “filled with the holy spirit” (eg. Jesus in Lk.4:1, 10:21 and Acts 10:8; Stephen in Acts 7:55)

Divine Agency of the Word

Next we see that there are verses in which God’s Word is distinct from him and itself functions as an agent in the world in general. The argument here is that God’s Word, if it is to represent God’s very Wisdom, must be inherent to God, and yet it is expressed as distinct from him:

• Hebrew Bible: We’ve related an entire section on the divine agency of the Word of God in the preceding.
• Qur’an: In Surah 4:171 (also see 3:39, 3:45) Jesus is said to be “Allah’s messenger and his Word” and “a spirit from him”. Significantly, Jesus is the only Qur’anic figure to be given these titles of “word” and “spirit” of Allah (the definite article could be implied if there is exclusivity- “my car” is “the car of me”, if I only have one car). Thus Allah’s word and spirit are depicted as distinct from Allah, “personalized” and with agency, as Jesus. This terminology in relation to Jesus is also confirmed in reliable traditions preserved in “hadith” wherein we even see the use of the definite article “the spirit of Allah” (Muslim 193a, Bukhari 7410). Having been given these titles, Jesus also then goes on to display divine attributes as:
  • Jesus is seemingly omniscient “he knows what you eat and that which is stored in your houses” (Q 3:49), creates life (the verse about the bird) and raises the dead. That he does this “with the permission of Allah”, does not necessarily separate it from the Trinitarian paradigm since the Biblical Jesus submits to the Father’s authority at all times anyway.
  • Further, not only does Jesus seem to create and bestow life, but he is himself not created through human action- the virgin birth is attested to in the Qur’an just as it is in the Bible.
  • If that were not enough, Jesus’ own mother is “purified” and chosen over all the other women of the world (Q 3:42), and of all human beings, only Jesus and his mother are untouched by Satan in the womb (Bukhari 3431, 3286), as also is he called a “pure son” (Q 19:19). Even Muhammed, the greatest of all Muslims is said to have sinned. It seems significant that of all human beings, only one arrives into the world miraculously (apart from Adam, in whose case there is no other option, being the first) and is sinless.
• Christian NT: Divine agency is ascribed to the Word of God typically in the writings of John (Jn.1:1-4,14, 1Jn.1:1, Rev.19:3). There are innumerable verses of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels acting in a divine capacity as I detail here The Trinitarian Verses in the New Testament.

Holy Spirit predicated of God per se

• Hebrew Bible: We’ve discussed how the Holy Spirit is predicated of the Divinity itself in the section of that name, when we saw how it enables prophecy, in-dwells persons, enforces God’s Will, enables obedience, creates. We analysed Isaiah 63:10-14 which is a great example of this divine predication of the Spirit.
• Qur’an: “Allah blew of his spirit”. One cannot blow of/from anything that is not inherent to one, thus “spirit” is necessarily predicated of Allah. This terminology is used not once, but four times in key verses- Q 15:29, 32:9, 21:91 and 66:12. You can read a full analysis of the implied divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Qur’an here: https://respondislam.net/2022/01/05/ruh-is-allah-or-in-allah/
• Christian NT: “the Spirit of Truth to be with you forever” (Jn.14:17, Acts 1:4, 2:33). A “Spirit” of whom both truth and eternal agency are predicated can only be God.
  • “the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God” (1Cor.2:10),
  • the Holy Spirit is equated to the Love of God (Rom.5:5).
  • Numerous trinitarian verses which display the divinity of the Holy Spirit here The Trinitarian Verses in the New Testament. For example Jesus breathing upon the apostles and stating “receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn.20:22)- this is God infusing persons with his own Divine Substance, in this case, the Holy Spirit.

Thus we can see that all the religions teach the Holy Spirit as an entity both at once the Deity as well as possessing its own distinction which forces the interpretation that it is a distinction which is inherent within the Godhead. This irrespective of whether the deity is named Yahweh or Elohe, or Elohim or Allah, the Holy Spirit maintains a distinct presence in all cases in every religion.

Appendix

I need to check these

Kaballlah references:

The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden ‘Wisdom’; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man ‘Non-Existing’ [Ayin]'” (Zohar, iii. 288b) And this also It’s not in sefaria It’s in the printed editions

Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three names be one? Only through the perception of faith: in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the holding of the hidden eye alone.The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is one yet it consists of three elements – fire, air and water, which have, however, become one in the mystery of the voice. Even so, it is with the mystery of the three-fold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai – three modes which yet form one unity. This is the significance of the voice which man produces in the act of unification, when his intent is to unify all, from the Infinite (Ein-Sof) to the end of creation. This is the daily unification, the secret of which has been revealed in the holy spirit. – Zohar Piqqudin, 2:43b

And this is the secret of the audible sound. Sound is one, and has three aspects – fire, air, and water – which are all one in the secret of the sound. [They are three aspects [chesed, gevura, and rachamim –the three lower sefirot of Kindness, Severity and Mercy – like the three main colors of the rainbow] but are united as one. Also here, “G‑d is our L-rd; G‑d” are all one for they are the three [higher] colors [on the tree of the sefirot – chochma) and Imma (bina) and da’at] that are really one [consciousness]. And this is [represented by] the sound that a person emits when professing the unity, placing his will to unite all by means of the unification affected by this sound he produces through these three [fire, wind, and water] which are one [sound]. Thus he intends to unite all from the Endless Infinity to the completely finite. This is the daily profession of unity that has been revealed by means of Divine Inspiration.

Likutei Moharan 159:1 Know! there is an intermediary. This is the Shekhinah (the Divine Presence), which is a mediator between man and God, so to speak.

Kuzari 4:25 “In the nature of God, therefore, S’fār, Sippūr, and Sēfer are a unity, whilst they are three in human reckoning. For man wills with his reason, speaks with his mouth, and writes such speech with his hand. These three factors characterize one of God’s creatures. Man’s will, writing, and word are marks of the thing, but not the nature of the same. “

Book References

-Alan Segal’s “Two Powers in Heaven, early Rabbinic reports about Christianity and Gnosticism”, Brill Acadaemic Publishers, Boston, Leiden 2002.

-“One God, One Lord Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism”, Larry Hurtado T&T Clark Edinburgh 1998.

-Daniel Boyarin “Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity”, University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia 2004  (p.134-144).

– “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John”, Daniel Boyarin, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 94, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 243-284.

– Margaret Barker, the Great Angel- a study of Israel’s Second God, 1992 Westminister/ John Knox Press.