The LORD possessed me [Wisdom] at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was brought forth; while He had not yet made the earth and the fields, nor the first dust of the world. When He established the heavens, I was there, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, when He made firm the skies above, when the springs of the deep became fixed, when He set for the sea its boundary so that the water would not transgress His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth; then I was beside Him, as a master workman; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him, rejoicing in the world, His earth, and having my delight in the sons of men. Now therefore, O sons, listen to me, for blessed are they who keep my ways. Heed instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my doorposts. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD. But he who sins against me injures himself; all those who hate me love death. (Proverbs 8:22-36)

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath [lit. "Spirit"] of His mouth their host. (Psalm 33:6)

Until what he had said came to pass, the word of the Lord tested him. (Psalm 105:19)

He sent His word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. (Psalm 107:20)

Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)

He sends forth His command to the earth; His word runs very swiftly. (Psalm 147:15)

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)

And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden (ASV, Genesis 3:8)

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great.” Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.” Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them “ And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:1-6)

Divine Wisdom is the supreme good, the source of all truth, virtue and happiness... But while, like the author of the Book of Proverbs and Jesus Sirach, he [the author of the Book of Wisdom] starts from the assertion, that this Wisdom is first of all present with God, it becomes in his conception almost an independent person beside God. His utterances indeed do not seem to really exceed what we already read in Prov. viii.-ix. But what is there more a poetic personification becomes with him a philosophic theory. Wisdom is according to him a breath … of God’s power, a pure effluence … from the glory of the Almighty, the brightness … from the glory of the Almighty, the brightness … of the everlasting light. It is most intrinsically united with God …, is initiated into the knowledge of God …, and a chooser of His works, i.e. chooses among the works, of which God has conceived the idea, which shall be carried into execution (viii. 3, 4: comp. Grimm on the passage), is assessor on God’s throne (ix.4: …), understands the works of God, and was present when He created the world, knows what is well-pleasing in His eyes and right according to His commandments (ix. 9). Wisdom is thus not only represented as the special possession of God, but as an assistant of God, originating from His own nature. Together therewith “the almighty word of God” … is also personified in a manner which approaches hypostatic union (xviii. 15 sq.).¹

God of my ancestors, merciful Lord, by your Word you created everything. By your Wisdom you made us humans to rule all creation, to govern the world with holiness and righteousness, to administer justice with integrity. Give me the Wisdom that sits beside your throne; give me a place among your children. (TEV, Wisdom, 9:1-4; emphasis mine)

For when peaceful stillness compassed everything and the night [of Passover] in its swift course was half spent, your all-powerful Word from heaven's royal throne bounded, a fierce warrior, into the doomed land, bearing the sharp sword of your inexorable decree. And as he alighted, he filled every place with death; he still reached to heaven, while he stood upon the earth. (NAB, Wisdom, 18:14-16; emphasis mine)

Wisdom rescued [Lot] a righteous man while ungodly people were dying. He escaped the flames that destroyed the Five Cities. You can still see the evidence of their wickedness. The land there is barren and smoking. The plants bear fruit that never ripens, and a pillar of salt stands as a monument to one who did not believe. The people of those cities ignored Wisdom and could not tell right from wrong. (10:6-8)

And they heard the voice of the Memra of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden. (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 3)

And the Memra of the Lord God called to Adam, and said to him, Behold, the world which I have created is manifest before Me; and how thinkest thou that the place in the midst whereof thou art, is not revealed before Me? Where is the commandment which I taught thee? (Fragmentary Targum, Genesis 3)

And the Lord said, This is the sign of the covenant which I appoint (give) between My Word, and between you, and between every living soul that is with you unto perpetual generations. I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of the covenant between My Word and between the earth. And it shall be that when clouding I becloud the earth, the bow shall be seen in the cloud, and I will remember the covenant which is between My Word, and between You, and between every living soul of all flesh; and there shall not be again the waters of a deluge to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud, and I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between the Memra of the Lord and between every living soul of all flesh that is upon the earth. And the Lord said, This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between My Word and between all flesh which is upon the earth. (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 9)

After these things the word (pithgama) of the Lord came to Abram in prophecy, saying, Fear not, Abram: My Word shall be thy strength, and thy exceeding great reward … And he believed in the Memra of the Lord (Memra da Yeya), and He reckoned it to him unto justification. (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 15)

And the Word came from the presence of the Lord to Abimelek in a dream of the night, and said to him, … (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 20)

And Israel saw the power of the mighty hand by which the Lord had wrought the miracles in Mizraim; and the people feared before the Lord, and believed in the Name of the Memra of the Lord, and in the prophecies of Mosheh His servant. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Exodus 14)

And the Memra of the Lord spake all the excellency of these words saying: … (Fragmentary Targum, Exodus 20)

And I will appoint My Word with thee there, and will speak with thee from above the mercy‑seat, between the two kerubaia that are over the ark of the testament, concerning all that I may command thee for the sons of Israel. (Targum Pseudo Jonathan, Exodus 25:22 )

It was when the ark went forward. Mosheh stood, with hands (outstretched) in prayer, and said, Arise now, O Memra of the Lord, in the power of Thy might, and let the adversaries of Thy people be scattered, and make Thine enemies flee before Thee. But when the ark rested, Mosheh lifted his hands in prayer, and said, O Memra of the Lord, turn from the strength of Thy anger, and return unto us in the goodness of Thy mercy, and bless the myriads and multiply the thousands of the children of Israel. (Fragmentary Targum, Numbers 10:35)

Be strong and of good courage, fear not, nor be broken before them; for the Memra of the Lord thy God will be the leader before thee, He will not forsake thee, nor be far off from thee. And Mosheh called Jehoshua, and said to him before the eyes of all Israel, Be strong and of good courage; for thou art to go in with this people to the land which the Lord hath sworn to their fathers to give it to them, and thou shalt cause them to inherit. But the Lord, He is the leader before thee; His Word shall be thy helper, for He will not forsake thee, nor be far from thee; fear not, nor be dismayed. (Targum Onqelos, Deuteronomy 31)

And the Memra of the Lord will deliver them up before you, and you shall do to them according to all the commandment that I have commanded you. Be strong, then, and of good courage, fear not, nor be dismayed before them; for the Shekinah of the Lord your God will be the Leader of you, He will not forsake nor be far from you. And Mosheh called Jehoshua from among the people, and said to him: Be thou strong, and of good courage; for thou art appointed to go with this people to the land which the Memra of the Lord sware to your fathers to give them, and thou art to divide it among them. And the Shekinah of the Memra of the Lord will go before thee, and His Word will be thy helper; He will not forsake nor be far from thee; fear not, nor be dismayed. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Deuteronomy 31)

Who hath directed the Holy Spirit in the mouth of all the prophets? Is it not the Lord? He maketh known the words of His will to the righteous, the servants of His Word. (Targum Jonathan on the Prophets, Isaiah 40)

… thou shalt rejoice in the Memra of the Lord, thou shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel. (Targum Jonathan on the Prophets, Isaiah 41)

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, "If the Memra of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Memra of YHWH be my God. (Targum Neofiti, Genesis 28)

And the Memra of the Lord said to Mosheh, He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be. And he said, Thus shalt thou speak to the sons of Israel, EHEYEH hath sent me unto you. (Fragmentary Targum, Exodus 3)

And I will set the Shekinah of My Glory among you, and my Word shall not abhor you, but the Glory of My Shekinah shall dwell among you, and My Word shall be to you for a redeeming God, and you shall be unto My Name for a holy people. (Targum Pseudo Jonathan, Leviticus 26)

But the custom of (other) nations is to carry their gods upon their shoulders, that they may seem to be nigh them; but they cannot hear with their ears, (be they nigh or) be they afar off; but the Memra of the Lord sitteth upon His throne high and lifted up, and heareth our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Deuteronomy 4)

This day you have made the Memra of the LORD your God to be King over you so that he may be for you a savior God, [promising] to walk in ways that are right before him.” (Targum Neofiti, Deuteronomy 26)

There is no God like the God of Israel, whose Shekinah in the skies is thy help, and whose power is in the heaven of heavens. The habitation of Eloha is from eternity, and the world was made by His Word; and He will drive out thy enemies from before thee, and will say, Destroy. (Targum Onqelos, Deuteronomy 33)

“And the Lord rained upon Sedom and upon Amorah sulphur and fire from before the Lord from the heavens, and destroyed those cities and all the plain, and all the dwellers in the cities and the herbage of the earth.”

And the Memra of the Lord had caused showers of favour to descend upon Sedom and Amorah, to the intent that they might work repentance, but they did it not: so that they said, Wickedness is not manifest before the Lord. Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before the Word of the Lord from Heaven. And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and the herbage of the earth. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Genesis 19)

And the Memra of the Lord Himself had made to descend upon the people of Sedom and Amorah showers of favour, that they might work repentance from their wicked works. But when they saw showers of favour, they said, So, our wicked works are not manifest before Him. He [i.e. the Word] turned (then), and caused to descend upon them bitumen and fire from before the Lord from the heavens. (Fragmentary Targum, Genesis 19)

There is some dispute about whether the Targums have avoidance of anthropomorphisms as a goal, not only because the Targums do not consistently avoid anthropomorphisms, but also because some language that has been interpreted as anti-anthropomorphic is also used of kings or people in general, meaning we may be dealing with language of respect or idiomatic renderings.³

… Among Jewish scholars, as Hayward has put it, “since the time of Maimonides, it had been the custom to understand Memra, along with certain other Targumic terms like Shekhinta’ [sic] (presence) and Yeqara’ [sic] (Glory), as a means of avoiding anthropomorphisms in speaking of God, and thus defending a notion of his incorporeality. Nahmandies, however, disagreed with Maimonides on this issue, although he held that the words had a secret and mystical meaning which would be revealed only to those versed in the Kabbalah. Nonetheless, the idea that Memra was simply a means of speaking about God in a reverent manner befitting His omnipotence and otherness was not unknown from the time of the middle ages onward.” The consensus of scholarship since the 1920’s has been like Maimonides' view. Thus, “Die folgerung, die sich aus vorstehenden Darlegungen in Bezug aus den Johannischen Logos ergibt, kann nicht zweifelhaft sein: ist der Ausdruck ‘Memra Adonais’ ein inhaltsloser, rein formelhafter Ersatz fur das Tetragram gewesen…” Here is Raymond Brown representing the standard view: “Targum Onkelos speaks of the Memra of Yahweh. This is not a personification, but the use of Memra serves as a buffer for divine transcendence.”

It seems not to have occurred to any who hold this view that it is fundamentally incoherent and self-contradictory. Surely this position collapses logically upon itself, for if the Memra is just a name that simply enables avoiding asserting that God himself has created, appeared, supported, saved, and thus preserves his absolute transcendence, then who, after all, did the actual creating, appearing, supporting, saving? Either God himself, in which case, one has hardly “protected” him from contact with the material world, or there is some other divine entity, in which case, the Memra is not just a name. Indeed, as pointed out by Burton Mack, the very purpose for which Sophia/Logos developed within Judaism was precisely to enable “a theology of the transcendence of God.” The currently accepted and dominant view ascribes to the use of the Memra only the counterfeit coinage of a linguistic simulation of a theology of the transcendence of God, without the theology itself. Rather than assuming that the usage is meaningless, it seems superior on general hermeneutic grounds to assume that it means something. It follows then that the strongest use of Memra is that it is not a mere name, but an actual divine entity, or mediator.⁴

As therefore the city, when previously shadowed out in the mind of the man of architectural skill had no external place, but was stamped solely in the mind of the workman, so in the same manner neither can the world which existed in ideas have had any other local position except the divine reason [i.e. divine logos] which made them; for what other place could there be for his powers which should be able to receive and contain, I do not say all, but even any single one of them whatever, in its simple form?⁶

… the great Moses has not named the species of the rational soul by a title resembling that of any created being, but has pronounced it an image of the divine and invisible being, making it a coin as it were of sterling metal, stamped and impressed with the seal of God, the impression of which is the eternal Word. For, says Moses, “God breathed into man's face the breath of Life,” so that it follows of necessity, that he that received the breath must be fashioned after the model of him who sent it forth. On which account it is said too, that “Man was made after the image of God,” and not after the image of any created being. It follows, therefore, since the soul of man has been fashioned in accordance with the archetypal Word of the great cause of all things, ….⁷ (emphasis mine)

And it is the nature of unity not to be capable of either addition or subtraction, inasmuch as it is the image of the only complete God; for all other things are intrinsically and by their own nature loose; and if there is any where any thing consolidated, that has been bound by the Word of God, for this Word is glue and a chain, filling all things with its essence. And the Word, which connects together and fastens every thing, is peculiarly full itself of itself, having no need whatever of any thing beyond.⁸

And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, “And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;” neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace.⁹

… and with respect to which [i.e. the Logos/Word] it is said, "The sun went forth upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor, and the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire." For the Word of God, when it reaches to our earthly constitution, assists and protects those who are akin to virtue, or whose inclinations lead them to virtue; so that it provides them with a complete refuge and salvation, but upon their enemies it sends irremediable overthrow and destruction.¹³

What is immediately striking is that there is no real indication in the writings of Philo and Paul that they felt their beliefs, which resemble the ‘two powers’ belief in rabbinic literature, were controversial. In dealing with Philo, Segal persuasively argues that Philo and the rabbis drew upon common traditions regarding the powers, names, and attributes of God. However, in contrast to the rabbis [who produced the Talmud], Philo’s identification of the Logos as ‘a second God’ and even ‘God’, and his association of the Logos with the ‘two powers’ of God, is conspicuously positive. It is also surely significant that Philo nowhere seeks to defend these beliefs against a charge of heresy. The fact that Philo gives no indication that he was departing from an already-existing Jewish ‘orthodoxy,’ or that his teaching on the Logos was met with objections, suggests that his views were not objectionable to his contemporaries. Although this is admittedly a form of argument from silence, it is not without force, since research into the sociology of knowledge indicates that when objections are raised against one’s belief system, that belief system or worldview must be defended or legitimated.¹⁴

When Justin Martyr refers the OT theophanies and the names of the divine attributes to the Son, he shows influence from a type of Judaism like that of Philo, though less philosophical. The apologist repeatedly states that the Son in his capacity as the earthly manifestation of the deity and as carrying out the divine commandments upon earth is God’s ‘Angel’, the Messenger of God, and ‘it is apparent that Justin identifies the angel of the Lord (Malh’ak Yahve) with God – and finally with Christ. Now it was an old tradition that it was not God himself but the Angel of YHWH who led the people out of Egypt and through the desert to the Promised Land, and Justin actually expressly identifies the Angel of the Exodus with the Son.¹⁵ (Emphasis mine)

How did the creation of our Father Adam come to pass? The Angel of Yahweh formed him from the dust of the earth and made him in our image and likeness. The Name, that is to be praised, breathed into him the breath of life, and he became a soul, gifted with speech and perfect in form.¹⁸ (Emphasis mine)

Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, “He that hearteth Me, heareth Him that sent Me.” From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, “And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.” … so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, “And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, “Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me. And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.” The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death.¹⁹

Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the supercelestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: 'God appeared to him under the oak in Mamre, as he sat at his tent-door at noontide. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent; and he bowed himself toward the ground, and said ...' 'Abraham went up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrha, and toward the adjacent country, and beheld, and, lo, a flame went up from the earth, like the smoke of a furnace.'

And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrha the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrha sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.'²²

It must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham.²³

Now it is interesting that one of Trypho’s companions is in sympathy with the conviction of Justin that Gen ch. 19 knows an angelic Lord as the ruinator of the ungodly towns. Responding to Justin’s quotation of v. 24, the Jew says: ‘It must of necessity be admitted that one of the two angels who went down to Sodom and whom Moses in the Scripture calls “Lord” is different from Him who is also God and appeared to Abraham.’ That Justin is not simply attributing his own view to the other party is shown by the fact that the Jew’s resolution is not congruent with the opinion of Justin. The Jew actually maintains that the ‘Lord’ who spoke to Abraham was God himself and not the second Lord, while he is willing to discern the latter in one of the two angels. This is defensible on the ground that Lot is said to have addressed the angel who asked him to flee up into the mountains as ‘Lord’.

There can be no doubt, however, that the Jew’s statement, made in reply to a quotation of Gen 19:24, reveals a concern cognate to that of Justin. The angel bears the same name as God himself, for the Hebrew text reads ’dny, the consonants of the Qere of the Tetragrammaton, and the LXX has ‘Kyrios’, the same word as that used to translate the proper Name of God. Moreover, in response to Lot’s request of being allowed to take his refuge in a village near by, the ‘Lord’ concedes and says: ‘I am not going to destroy the town you mention […] I shall not be able to do anything before you have come thither.’ Thus the Jew agrees with Justin’s fundamental opinion that an angelic ‘Lord’ was the executioner of the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah.²⁴

There is definite evidence that Jews could hold this view. Abba Hilfi ben Samkai, a Palestinian Amora of the second generation, is reported to have spoken as follows in the name of R. Judah: ‘“And the Lord caused to rain, etc.” refers to Gabriel; “from the Lord out of heaven” to the Holy One, blessed be He.’ This interpretation is similar to that of Justin, though the name of the angelic ‘Lord’ is, if course, different. According to Abba Hilfi, the angelic YHWH who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was the archangel Gabriel.²⁵

… in the Talmudical writings, we find mention not only of the Shem, of ‘Name,’ but also of the ‘Shekhinah,’ God as manifest and present, which is sometimes also presented as the Ruach ha Qodesh, of Holy Spirit. But in the Targumim we meet yet another expression, which, strange to say, never occurs in the Talmud. It is that of the Memra, Logos, or ‘Word.’ Not that the term is exclusively applied to the Divine Logos. But it stands out as perhaps the most remarkable fact in this literature, that God-not as in His permanent manifestation, or manifest Presence-but as revealing Himself, is designated Memra.²⁸ (Italics of transliterated words, original; all other emphasis, mine)

… “Two powers” in heaven was a very early category of heresy, earlier than Jesus, if Philo is a trustworthy witness, and one of the basic categories by which the Rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity.²⁹

Although the official rabbinic theology suppressed all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the heresy of “Two Powers in heaven,” both before the Rabbis and contemporaneously with them there was A MULTITUDE OF JEWS, in both Palestine and the Diaspora, who held onto this version of monotheistic theology.³⁰ (Emphasis mine)

Rav Nahman said: A person who knows how to answer the minim as Rav Idi, let him answer, and if not, let him not answer.

A certain min said to Ravi Idi: “It is written, ‘And to Moses he said, come up unto the LORD [Exod. 24:1].’ It should have said, ‘Come up to me’!”

He [Rav Idi] 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, 38b)

God has been addressing the Jewish people as a whole (in Exodus chapter 23), informing them that he will send his angel before them and instructing them how to behave with respect to this angel. He then turns to Moses and tells him to come up to YKWK (the Tetragrammaton), implying quite strongly that “YKWK” of whom he speaks is not the same “YKWK” who is the speaker of the verse: Two YKWKs. This is, in fact, precisely the sort of argument that a Justin Martyr would have produce from Scripture to argue for a “second person” (the Logos). And so the minim conclude that there is a second power in heaven. Rav Idi, in refuting them, turns back to the previous chapter and remarks that verse 21 there explicitly says that “My name is in him [that is in the angel].” Metatron, that angel, therefore, could be called by the name “YKWK,” and it is to him that Moses is being instructed to ascend. What this amounts to is claiming that there are not two divine powers in heaven but only God and an angel whom he has named as God as well.

At this point, the min responds by saying that if Metatron is indeed called by the ineffable name, then we ought to worship him as well; in other words, that Rav Idi’s own answer can be turned against him. To this, Rav Idi retorts that the verse also says “Do not rebel against him,” which by a typical midrashic sleight of hand can be read as “Do not substitute him,” that is, even though Metatron is called by God’s name, do not pray to him. Al tamer bo [Do not rebel against him] has been read as Al tamireni bo: Don’t substitute him for me. The very verse in which Israel is enjoined to obey the second YKWK has been turned by a pun into its exact opposite. The min says if that is what is meant, then why does it continue in the verse and say that he, Metatron, will not forgive sins? The min is arguing that if the people are being warned not to rebel against Metatron, because he is as powerful as God, then it makes sense to tell them that he will not forgive their sins if they do rebel, but if he is not God at all, then it is otiose to tell them that he will not forgive sins. Only if he has the power to redeem sins does it make sense to declare that he will not rebel [sic; forgive?] their sins if they rebel against him. (Of course, the rabbinic reading is: Don’t confuse him with me for he cannot redeem sins but only I can. The “heretical” reading, I’m afraid, is much stronger and more adequate to the language) …

I would suggest, moreover, that, in typical midrashic fashion, another verse lies underneath this comment of the min. Joshua 24:19 reads: “It will be very difficult for you [lit. you will not be able to] worship YKWK, for He is a holy God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your sins and your iniquities.” In other words, the logic would run: if there it remarks of YKWK that he will not forgive sins and iniquities, then if the same language is being used here, ought it not indicate that the divine figure being spoken of has the same attributes as YKWK? Moreover, if there the context is one of worshipping YKWK, then here too worship of Metatron, the second Lord or lesser Yahu [as the Talmud calls him – AR], would seem to be implicated as well. The comparison is rendered even stronger when we notice that exactly the same context is involved in both the Exodus and the Joshua verse, namely the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land of Israel and the warnings to the people of Israel to be worthy of this benefit and to worship YKWK, or their sin will not be forgiven at all. It certainly seems as if this verse in Exodus can be read as equating Metatron to YKWK and therefore demanding worship for both figures.

To this answer comes that “we” the Jews, through our leader Moses, already have declared that we do not even want him, Metatron, to be our guide in the desert, as the cited verse says: “If your face goes before us not.” In other words, the angelic regent was of such non importance that, far from considering him worthy of being worshipped, Moses would not even accept him as a guide.

In this, as in many other cases of such hermeneutical encounters, the min certainly seems to have the upper hand to begin with, for there are many scriptural texts that plausibly can be read as supporting the notion of an angelic vice-regent with many of the powers of God, or even the notion of a virtual second God. Indeed, more than anything else, this very scriptural background may have given the greatest impetus to the various second-God theologies of Jews, including Logos, Memra, Sophia, Metatron, Son of Man, Son of God, and Christ. Rav Idi, the clever Midrashist, exploits all the tricks in his bag in order to discredit the min’s quite straightforward interpretation of the verses in question: “Behold I send before you an angel, to watch over you on the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Be careful before him and obedient to him. Do not disobey him, for he will not forgive your sins, for My name is in him.” Although, to be sure, the second of these two verses presents difficulties, at the very least it would seem that this — fairly straightforward — translation does imply that this angel has the power to command and to remit sins (which he will not employ), as God has delegated to him something of divine power. Just as in the Joshua verse, we are told that God … “is a jealous God; He will not forgive your sins and your iniquities,” so here, Metatron is such a divine being too. The min quite reasonably suggests that one ought to pray to such a divine being, Metatron, on Rav Idi’ showing.

In order to escape this seeming ineluctable conclusion, Rav Idi proposes to read the verse as if saying, “Be careful before him and obedient to him. Do not confuse him with me, for he will not forgive your sins, for my name is in him.” Aside from the fact that this translation renders the verse considerably less coherent in its logic, it also makes this angel seem absolutely insignificant, hardly worthy of mention, to which Rav Idi answers (and this is his brilliant move) that indeed that is so. The Israelites have already registered their rejection of any interest in this insignificant angel when they insisted that God Himself must go before them and no other, thus dramatizing the rejection of the Son of Man theology, a rejection that the Rabbis themselves perform.³³

A Min once said to R. Ishmael b. Jose: It is written, Then the Lord caused to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord: but from him should have been written! A certain fuller said, Leave him to me, I will answer him. [He then proceeded],' It is written, And Lamech said to his wives, Ada and Zillah, Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech; but he should have said, my wives! But such is the Scriptural idiom — so here too, it is the Scriptural idiom.³⁵

Abba Hilfi, the son of Samkai, said in the name of R. Judah: THEN THE LORD CAUSED TO RAIN, etc. refers to Gabriel; FROM THE LORD (OUT OF HEAVEN, to the Holy One, blessed be He). R. Leazar said: Wherever ‘And the Lord’ occurs, it means, He and His heavenly court. R. Isaac said: Both in the Torah [Pentateuch], in the Prophets, and in the writings we find a commoner mentioning his name twice in one verse. In the Torah: And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah hear my voice; this is not followed by ‘my wives’, but by Ye wives of Lamech (Gen. IV, 23). In the Prophets: And the King said unto them: Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon my own mule, etc. (Est. VIII, 8). Yet you wonder that the Holy one, blessed be He, mentions His name twice in one verse.³⁸ (Emphasis original)

“Due to the elevated status of the angelic Metatron in certain early traditions, Metatron was appropriated and his nature redefined in medieval texts in the articulation of a complex Godhead which contained multiple powers.”⁴⁰

“In a tradition from the Sar-Torah material of the Hekhalot texts … Metatron is described as ‘Metatron, Lord God of Israel, God of the heavens and the Earth.’ In the Book of Illumination written by the first known Kabbalist in Castile, R. Ya’acov ben Ya’acov ha-Kohen, Metatron is called … logos.”⁴¹

“This approach to the pardes account in general and the role of Metatron in particular can be found in the works of some kabbalists, beginning in the early thirteenth century. Although it may seem that we are reading a rabbinic text through the lenses of the kabbalistic worldview, the understanding of the continuous or organic being of the divine, which extends from the simple unity of the godhead to a hypostatic manifestation, predates much of the Talmud.”⁴²

“In the passage from Nahmanides’ Commentary to the Torah discussed by Pines, Nahmanides explicitly takes issue with Maimonides (and with the tenth-century sage Sa‘adia Ga’on by inference), and seeks to characterize the fundamental difference between his tradition and Maimonides’ Aristotelian worldview. The difference centers around the inclusion or exclusion of the divine manifestation within the godhead. Nahmanides posits an organic or continuous relationship between God’s being and that of the angel–that is, they are both immanent in the same divine substance.”⁴³

“There can be little doubt however that early Jewish theologoumena related to such a [hypostatic, supernal] son existed, as the books dealing with Enoch – in particular the Ethiopian one – and Philo’s views … concerning the Logos as Son or firstborn convincingly demonstrate, and likewise there can be little doubt that they informed the main developments in a great variety of the nascent Christologies. In the course of time, due to the ascent in Christianity of both the centrality and cruciality of son ship understood in diverse forms of incarnation, it seems that Jewish authors belonging to rabbinic circles attenuated and in some cases even obliterated the role of sons as cosmic mediators. Nevertheless, some of these earlier traditions apparently survived in traditional Jewish writings that were subsequently transmitted by rabbinic Judaism. Yet there is no reason to assume that only the literary corpora adopted by rabbinic Judaism mediated the late antiquity views of theophoric son ship to the more extensive corpora written in the Middle Ages, or that son ship survived only in the written documents …”⁴⁵

“An explanation of a verse from Exod. 23:21, and its adoption in the Talmudic passage … served as one of the anchors for the return of older material dealing with the Great Angel as son of God, into the Judaism of the Middle Ages.”⁴⁶

“It may be said that the Jewish mystics recovered the mythical dimension of a biblical motif regarding the appearance of God in the guise of the highest of angels, called ‘angel of the Lord’ (mal’akh YHWH), ‘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.”⁴⁸